Fukushima melting down?

The fingers said:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-newly-reopened-nuclear-reactor-10457830.html
Why locate nuclear power plants near volcanos, earthquake faults, and in tsunami zones? :twisted:
Click to expand...
Yeah so the volcano there killed 63 people which is a lot more than the Fukushima disaster which was 0 people died.
Another interesting thing about all this is amount of protester's I have noticed who show up around nuclear power plants in Japan they have like 2000 people show up to protest against nuclear is completely pathetic and crappy compared to 10,000+ people that might show up in the protest in Melbourne over something 10 times more insignificant and unimportant like closing down a tiny community in the middle of no where because they can't police the remote community properly and authorities are find STDs in the indigenous children there even under ten years old because of rapes authorities can't stop... But people in Melbourne still furiously protest to kept the remote community open because they feel its their right.

http://www.news.com.au/national/protesters-are-expected-to-blockade-parts-of-melbourne-over-remote-communities-closure/story-fncynjr2-1227330414164

My only theory as to why a country like Japan with such a large population could have such a crappy amount of protestors against nuclear and despite what's happened is that there properly educated.
 
Giovanni LiCalsi said:
http://www.naturalnews.com/049277_Fukushima_disaster_radiation_deaths_thyroid_cancer.html
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to find the stats!
Either stupidity or a total disregard for the facts!
Click to expand...
Please post news from reputable sites? We just had the last post of a cartoon saying facts about dying from a few micrograms of plutonium but we have a real video of nuclear physicists playing with plutonium with his bare hands and then igniting it with his bare hands.

Posting news from unreputable baloney sites is a waste of time.. People live on easily absorbable headline news and don't dig deep into any kind of truth..

That naturalnews.com is riddled with adz about curing cancer with vitamin C and other rubbish which is ultimately preying on and even killing people by giving false hopes and false information, I find it simply just a disgusting website to post on this forum.

Even wikipedia is a vastly more respected source of news and proper facts that doesn't create baloney news to grab web clicks to from advertising to completely gullible people.. They get their money from donations so have no alternative motive.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_by_death_toll#Fukushima_disaster

Wikipedia Quote.. "
Fukushima disaster
The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster has no confirmed casualties from radiation exposure, though six workers died due to various reasons, including cardiovascular disease, during the containment efforts or work to stabilize the Earthquake and Tsunami damage to the site.

The United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR), released a report on the Fukushima accident April 2, 2014. It stated that the scientists have found no evidence to support the idea that the nuclear meltdown in Japan in 2011 will lead to an increase in cancer rates or birth defects.

None of the workers at the plant have died from acute radiation poisoning. "

Even if I was silly and wanted to believe your rubbish website article then the reality is less then 3% of those people would actually even die of thyroid cancer because its the most easily treatable cancer known in medicine.
Proper reputable website again easily available to everyone!! Quote..."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cancer_mortality_rates_in_the_United_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cancer_mortality_rates_in_the_United_States
Thyroid cancer – 2.3%
"

Even our accountant who is about 30yo at my work got thyroid cancer and was gone for a very short time for treatment was back at work and never looked even the tiniest bit sick and of course she grew up in Australia where there are no nuclear power plants.

This is a stark contrast to the 4,000 people who die every day in China due to chronic air pollution from coal power plants etc.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/aug/14/air-pollution-in-china-is-killing-4000-people-every-day-a-new-study-finds

New York Times/ International Energy Agency, 6.5 Million deaths each year to air pollution from coal power plants etc.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/27/business/energy-environment/study-links-6-5-million-deaths-each-year-to-air-pollution.html?_r=1

You can find more radioactive polonium in cigarette smoke then a lot of other places.
http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2008/08/29/radioactive-polonium-in-cigarette-smoke/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polonium ctrl+f "cigarettes"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxsoLqAtC04
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8B4nSxQuM_I&feature=youtu.be&t=665

Patients in hospitals get injected everyday with radioactive material that's fragments of uranium that rivals radiation readings you get at Chernobyl for medical scans..

[youtube]3ItOIz5gJiQ[/youtube]
 
TheBeastie said:
Another interesting thing about all this is amount of protester's I have noticed who show up around nuclear power plants in Japan they have like 2000 people show up to protest against nuclear is completely pathetic and crappy compared to 10,000+ people that might show up in the protest in Melbourne over something 10 times more insignificant and unimportant like closing down a tiny community in the middle of no where because they can't police the remote community properly and authorities are find STDs in the indigenous children there even under ten years old because of rapes authorities can't stop... But people in Melbourne still furiously protest to kept the remote community open because they feel its their right.
Click to expand...
Unbelievable!! and 'off topic' How you can conflate two separate issues such as these for one and bring in the politics of the rights of Australia's 'First People's' indigenous population, being moved from their homes, how insulting, this has only been occurring when conservative governments, get power here, under Howard and Abbott regimes.
You want to do some proper research, the original report which caused this BS was found out to be fabricated;-
https://newmatilda.com/2015/06/21/bad-aunty-seven-years-how-abc-lateline-sparked-racist-nt-intervention#sthash.9nvl3LLb.dpuf
'Lateline described its chief witness in the story as a ‘former youth worker’ who was once based in Mutitjulu, working in a joint community development project for the NT and federal governments.
He was interviewed at his new home on the outskirts of Canberra. In order to protect his identity, the man’s face was filmed in shadow and his voice was digitized.
There was, however, one fairly major hole in the story: he was never a youth worker.
He was Gregory Andrews, an Assistant Secretary in the Office of Indigenous Policy Coordination, and the senior public servant who was advising Mal Brough specifically on violence and sexual abuse in remote Aboriginal communities, and in Mutitjulu in particular.
Lateline knew Andrews worked for the minister, and chose to deliberately lie about his real identity. The interview had originally been negotiated through the media unit of Office of Indigenous Policy Coordination, and he was to have appeared as ‘Gregory Andrews, government bureaucrat’ in the story.'

TheBeastie said:
My only theory as to why a country like Japan with such a large population could have such a crappy amount of protestors against nuclear and despite what's happened is that there properly educated.
Click to expand...
More than likely the Japanese are more controlled and don't protest as much.

As for nuclear incidents, radioactive iodine heads for your thyroid, to help create tumors, that's why residents are given tablets.
The Strontium and Caesium are water soluble and head for your bones, good reason to stay off the locally grown produce.
Levels of Strontium 90 can be detected in everybody's teeth, this isotope is man made and created by atomic testing, which distributed it around the planet.

And yes, I'm pro-nuclear done right, not by wasteful use of a few % of the fuel conventially, but by building fast breeders and rid the world of the thousands of tons of hazardous nuclear waste and weapon capable stock.
 
nutspecial said:
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell
Click to expand...

Good footnote on the Dunning Kruger effect.
 
There are a bunch of similar quotes going back to plato. Long before those guys and their 'effect'. Nothing new there imo? Thanks for mentioning them though, I hadn't even heard of them :D

I'm not the best at saying my thoughts but I actually think I have issue with an assumption that their study would supercede the actual (more) original thinkers that came before.
The problem I see with overemphasis of studies like that (and articles like that) is that people should learn how to think, especially before learning what to think. But yes, their study and the applicable quotes seemed pertinent- nice catch!
 
nutspecial said:
...people should learn how to think, especially before learning what to think.
Click to expand...

A good start would be to stop the trend of people thinking less and less. We're fast becoming a world of button pushers, whether real buttons or virtual ones on a flat smooth screen, with external stimuli keeping our brains busy enough that there's no time for critical thought to slip into the equation.
 
John in CR said:
A good start would be to stop the trend of people thinking less and less. We're fast becoming a world of button pushers, whether real buttons or virtual ones on a flat smooth screen, with external stimuli keeping our brains busy enough that there's no time for critical thought to slip into the equation.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is a brand new addiction that we've never faced before. Imagine what it is going to be like when VR goes mainstream. People will actually be living in the internet. It will be a high like no other.
 
Compared to Chernobyl, that sounds too optimistic: 41 people died from direct radiation sickness after chernobyl and a United Nations study estimates the final total of premature deaths associated with the disaster will be around 4000, mostly from an estimated 3% increase in cancers which are already common causes of death in the region.

if you devide the cancer deaths by 10 due to modern health practices, the fukushima death toll may eventually go beyond 300

We did a study of nuclear energies in japan in my geography course... One of the major points of contention was the silly risk prone placements of some reactors on fault lines and near the sea, altogether reckless.
 
zzoing said:
if you devide the cancer deaths by 10 due to modern health practices, the fukushima death toll may eventually go beyond 300

We did a study of nuclear energies in japan in my geography course... One of the major points of contention was the silly risk prone placements of some reactors on fault lines and near the sea, altogether reckless.
Click to expand...
300 deaths? But based on what? Just a gutshot view of the general summery of mass media hyperbole? Media is just there to make money and entertain their only as accurate as they think they can get away with..
I can't get over some of the silly Australian myth memes I see now and then when they have photos of spiders the size of dogs etc, its all rubbish but I understand the creators logic.. "its fun and all the way down there in Australia so whos gonna know..?"

I assume you didn't read in depth my recent post URLs/videos but how about another one from Wikipedia that's again not out there to make money off webclicks on advertisements etc and is just interested in having accurate factual information.. I think Bill Gates pushed the internet in the 90s so hard via its MS operating system encouraging everyone to get on the net was to help people get access to good information instead of being injected with complete crap, well his vision is really coming into effect with websites like Wikipedia etc that give so much rich accurate information so quickly and conveniently.

No one has died yet from Fukushima and they been hysterically scanning people and can't find anything out of the statistical normal..
We are bathing in radiation and its amazing how people can visually see the barbecuing like effects of the sun from putting themselves under UV radiation (which is non thermal by the way) yet still some how think its vastly different from anything else.

If you think your safely far away from nuclear radiation your incredibly wrong because your local coal power plant is spewing TONS of uranium and other radioactive particles into the atmosphere constantly.. And I quote from wikipedia instead of a gutshot view based on mass media. A 1,000mw coal power plant is a small sized power plant..

Again from Wikipedia, no stupid baloney websites from me...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil-fuel_power_station#Radioactive_trace_elements
Quote from Wikipedia -> "Coal is a sedimentary rock formed primarily from accumulated plant matter, and it includes many inorganic minerals and elements which were deposited along with organic material during its formation. As the rest of the Earth's crust, coal also contains low levels of uranium, thorium, and other naturally occurring radioactive isotopes whose release into the environment leads to radioactive contamination. While these substances are present as very small trace impurities, enough coal is burned that significant amounts of these substances are released. A 1,000 MW coal-burning power plant could have an uncontrolled release of as much as 5.2 metric tons per year of uranium (containing 74 pounds (34 kg) of uranium-235) and 12.8 metric tons per year of thorium."
 
Living things evolved in the presence of trace amounts of natural radioactive elements. That's not to say they don't kill people with cancer, or that coal plants don't emit those elements in unnatural concentrations; these things are probably unknowable.

However, transuranic elements that don't occur in nature, as emitted by reactor leaks, stand a good chance of being much more harmful to us, pound for pound and curie for curie. I sure don't want any in my air/water/breakfast.

Nuclear power rode in on the coattails of nuclear weapons. I don't think there's a strong case that nuke plants are even superficially more economical than solar, wind, and geothermal assuming all the players are on equal footing from a cost and subsidy standpoint. And the externalities of nuclear energy are just horrible and intractable compared to renewables. Otherwise, why would a reactor like Fukushima be all larded up with its own spent fuel waste? They don't really know what to do with the stuff, at least in any way that makes economic sense.
 
I you take the amount of surface area of land a nuclear power plant takes and cover it with solar you can produce more energy.
 
TheBeastie said:
...............No one has died yet from Fukushima and they been hysterically scanning people and can't find anything out of the statistical normal..
We are bathing in radiation and its amazing how people can visually see the barbecuing like effects of the sun from putting themselves under UV radiation (which is non thermal by the way) yet still some how think its vastly different from anything else.................
Click to expand...

Robots electronics getting fried from radiation. Large water tanks for storing a million tons of radioactive water (would you bathe in those tanks?) A large ice wall to stop radioactive water transfer into ground water. (how much does it cost to power that) and still they don't know where the melted fuel rods are.

And no one has died? I think enough has gone wrong to say even if no one dies nuclear power is still too dangerous to use.

http://www.newsweek.com/robots-sent-fukushima-have-died-435332

(Reuters) - The robots sent in to find highly radioactive fuel at Fukushima's nuclear reactors have “died”: a subterranean "ice wall" around the crippled plant meant to stop groundwater from becoming contaminated has yet to be finished. And authorities still don’t how to dispose of highly radioactive water stored in an ever mounting number of tanks around the site.

Five years ago, one of the worst earthquakes in history triggered a 10-meter high tsunami that crashed into the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power station causing multiple meltdowns. Nearly 19,000 people were killed or left missing and 160,000 lost their homes and livelihoods.

Today, the radiation at the Fukushima plant is still so powerful it has proven impossible to get into its bowels to find and remove the extremely dangerous blobs of melted fuel rods.

The plant's operator, Tokyo Electric Power Co (Tepco), has made some progress, such as removing hundreds of spent fuel rods in one damaged building. But the technology needed to establish the location of the melted fuel rods in the other three reactors at the plant has not been developed.

The robots sent into Fukushima nuclear plant have "died.
“It is extremely difficult to access the inside of the nuclear plant," Naohiro Masuda, Tepco's head of decommissioning said in an interview. "The biggest obstacle is the radiation.”

The fuel rods melted through their containment vessels in the reactors, and no one knows exactly where they are now. This part of the plant is so dangerous to humans, Tepco has been developing robots, which can swim under water and negotiate obstacles in damaged tunnels and piping to search for the melted fuel rods.

But as soon as they get close to the reactors, the radiation destroys their wiring and renders them useless, causing long delays, Masuda said.

Each robot has to be custom-built for each building. “It takes two years to develop a single-function robot,” Masuda said.

IRRADIATED WATER

Tepco, which was fiercely criticized for its handling of the disaster, says conditions at the Fukushima power station, site of the worst nuclear disaster since Chernobyl in Ukraine 30 years ago, have improved dramatically. Radiation levels in many places at the site are now as low as those in Tokyo.

More than 8,000 workers are at the plant at any one time, according to officials on a recent tour. Traffic is constant as they spread across the site, removing debris, building storage tanks, laying piping and preparing to dismantle parts of the plant.

Much of the work involves pumping a steady torrent of water into the wrecked and highly radiated reactors to cool them down. Afterward, the radiated water is then pumped out of the plant and stored in tanks that are proliferating around the site.

What to do with the nearly million tonnes of radioactive water is one of the biggest challenges, said Akiro Ono, the site manager. Ono said he is “deeply worried” the storage tanks will leak radioactive water in the sea - as they have done several times before - prompting strong criticism for the government.

The utility has so far failed to get the backing of local fishermen to release water it has treated into the ocean.

Ono estimates that Tepco has completed around 10 percent of the work to clear the site up - the decommissioning process could take 30 to 40 years. But until the company locates the fuel, it won’t be able to assess progress and final costs, experts say.

The much touted use of X-ray like muon rays has yielded little information about the location of the melted fuel and the last robot inserted into one of the reactors sent only grainy images before breaking down.

ICE WALL

Tepco is building the world’s biggest ice wall to keep groundwater from flowing into the basements of the damaged reactors and getting contaminated.

First suggested in 2013 and strongly backed by the government, the wall was completed in February, after months of delays and questions surrounding its effectiveness. Later this year, Tepco plans to pump water into the wall - which looks a bit like the piping behind a refrigerator - to start the freezing process.

Stopping the ground water intrusion into the plant is critical, said Artie Gunderson, a former nuclear engineer.

“The reactors continue to bleed radiation into the ground water and thence into the Pacific Ocean,” Gunderson said. "When Tepco finally stops the groundwater, that will be the end of the beginning.”

While he would not rule out the possibility that small amounts of radiation are reaching the ocean, Masuda, the head of decommissioning, said the leaks have ended after the company built a wall along the shoreline near the reactors whose depth goes to below the seabed.

“I am not about to say that it is absolutely zero, but because of this wall the amount of release has dramatically dropped,” he said.
Click to expand...
 
Arlo1 said:
I you take the amount of surface area of land a nuclear power plant takes and cover it with solar you can produce more energy.
Click to expand...

I hadn't heard this claim before and it sounded counter-intuitive. A quick google search suggests it is, indeed, wrong: https://carboncounter.wordpress.com/2015/07/13/a-book-recommendation-for-elon-musk/

One of the interesting things about nuclear power is the output of a plant is, apparently, almost unlimited: you pick a number out of the air and scale the reactor to suit.

e-beach said:
I think enough has gone wrong to say even if no one dies nuclear power is still too dangerous to use.
Click to expand...

While the safety of contemporary nuclear power is debatable, using Fukushima as a measure is a false-comparison: it's reactor design was obsolete and fundamentally flawed. My understanding is that any of the world's newer nuclear plants would have safely survived the same tsunami disaster.
 
Punx0r said:
Arlo1 said:
I you take the amount of surface area of land a nuclear power plant takes and cover it with solar you can produce more energy.
Click to expand...

I hadn't heard this claim before and it sounded counter-intuitive. A quick google search suggests it is, indeed, wrong: https://carboncounter.wordpress.com/2015/07/13/a-book-recommendation-for-elon-musk/
Click to expand...
Carbon counter is printing misleading info sorry any person can try to say what ever they want when they use 5% efficient panels to get their data
 
Arlo1 said:
Punx0r said:
Arlo1 said:
I you take the amount of surface area of land a nuclear power plant takes and cover it with solar you can produce more energy.
Click to expand...

I hadn't heard this claim before and it sounded counter-intuitive. A quick google search suggests it is, indeed, wrong: https://carboncounter.wordpress.com/2015/07/13/a-book-recommendation-for-elon-musk/

Carbon counter is printing misleading info sorry any person can try to say what ever they want when they use 5% efficient panels to get their data
Click to expand...


Carbon counter is printing misleading info sorry any person can try to say what ever they want when they use 5% efficient panels to get their data
Click to expand...
You don't need to theorize as truth of real world examples of comparable power are very easy to bring up again thanks to wikipedia.
Just look at one of the biggest modern solar panel farms in the USA its 25km2 and only creates 125 MW average power because the sun only shines so bright and for so many hours per day.. This will be the most common style of mega solar farm in the future.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topaz_Solar_Farm
Quote from Wikipedia "Site area 9.5 sq mi (25 km2)
Average generation 1,100 GWh(125 MW avg. power)"

Compare that massive 25km2 size that only creates 125MW of power to a nuclear power plant.. I chose this 5,448 MW one in France right on the boarder of Germany who buy a lot of its power so that Germany can claim its all green and at the same time help prove that those easily absorbable mass media facebook memes people like to share that are rubbish.
While wikipedia doesn't list its land size it takes you you can see the google maps scale line that the side of the plant is about a mere 500meters wide (on its shortest side).
This power plant can generate 5,448 MW at anytime it wants.. (nukepower_mw / solar_farm_power_mw) so 5448mw / 125mw = 43.584
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cattenom_Nuclear_Power_Plant
https://www.google.com.au/maps/place/Cattenom+Nuclear+Power+Plant/@49.4175028,6.217156,4473m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x47953b8f018a91b7:0x617cb301f428773a!8m2!3d49.4157857!4d6.2182709

So just comparing one of the most modern solar farms with an old nuclear power station blows the solar farm out of the water in terms of energy created by 43.5 times in a comparatively tiny foot print of land area, I guess by rough estimate its more like 100's of times more power if we accurately compare land area size? How could you possibly believe a solar farm of same size is producing more energy unless you want to believe complete utter rubbish.

On some of these wikipedia power stations they list construction costs and green power stations get murdered on these overall metrics as well.

If you look at future electric truck vehicles or Electric buses that exist today.. they have battery packs closer to the 1MWh on the horizon..
For example on the partially owned by Warren Buffet BYD ebuses they have a 547.5 kWh lithium battery pack.. http://www.byd.com/na/old/auto/60feet.html
Realistically they need to be 1,000kWh (1MWh) and that's probably only a few years or so away.. To compare to a diesel bus it needs 1MWh bus to completely crush range anxiety and that will happen eventually I am sure.
When you hit 1MW per bus its easy to see you don't get many electric buses out there charging it off a 25km2 sized solar farm before you have problems.. The Topaz Solar Farm cost $2.5 billion to build..

If you look at the list of major solar farms in the entire world about 90% don't list the actual amount of power they generate it instead has a notably empty "NA" instead, I can only assume because its embarrassingly small, way below what was originally spec'd on paper.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_photovoltaic_power_stations

You can pick any solar farm you want.. I am trying to picking the biggest most advanced ones to help give you the best argument possible.
How about the "Solar Star" farm ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_Star ) size quote from Wikipedia "Site area 13 square kilometres ", this is Rolls-Royce of a solar farm as it has 1.7 million of high efficiency arrays, mounted on axis trackers to track the sun and get as much energy possible.
2015 was its best year.. Total power generated for the entire year was 1,663,593MWh or 1,663Ghw.
So 1,663,593 / 8760 = 189.9 for average MW true generation capacity of its best year on record. Give it a bit extra help and just say 190MW
So 190MW for 13 square kilometers? Any nuclear power plant starts only in GW/gigawatt generation capacity or termed 1000's of MW.

When it comes to these silly energy claims I see such memes on facebook etc and the thing I don't get about people is where is their basic smell test? Solar panels and Wind are technologies anyone can have on the roof/house yet there so great they can't afford to go off grid without spending an impractically huge amount of money.. Some how folks want to believe if its handled by the government the cost some how goes away, well it doesn't.
If you can't scale it to be cheap on your own land with subsidies and cheap subcontract labor or full DIY then it doesn't magically some how get cheaper if you put it on some one elses land by the government, this is where peoples basic skull abilities fail to function correctly.. Its just the same old Chewbacca Defense strategy again. Video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clKi92j6eLE

The other basic smell test is if its all so easy why haven't private electricity companies/governments jumped all over it, in Victoria all power is delivered by multiple retail electricity providers and householders can choose to buy %100 green electricity at a premium if they want but the power companies still wont build wind mills etc without the government practically giving them the money.
We have the biggest wind farm in southern hemisphere cost $1 billion and only generates 111mw of power on average per year.. Quote "The actual wind speed varies year-to-year, and during FY2015 the farm produced 977.9 GWh."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macarthur_Wind_Farm
This site takes up 55km2 or 5,500 ha.
You can watch this ABC video report where farmers were happy to be next to the wind farm when it was proposed but then ended up moving out when it came operational because the noise they made drove them crazy.
I am just pointing this stuff out because for the sake that not everything is as simple or as rosy as it seems.
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/special_eds/20110725/wind/

Then you got countries like Germany quietly slowing down in their green energy goals as its getting too expensive and wasteful for them and like I said its all baloney if your just buying nuclear power from France just over the border.
http://www.dw.com/en/german-cabinet-puts-brakes-on-clean-energy-transition/a-19318942
Quote from article --->"Last year, grid operators had to pay a billion euros for wind power capacity that went unused," Gabriel said.
...This is meant to stabilize the retail price of electricity by allowing utilities to continue to burn large quantities of cheap coal.<---


Then you got the 100,000s of birds/bats that die each year on Germany windfarms.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/07/160708081912.htm
http://phys.org/news/2016-07-dangerous-flight-farm.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4931514/
Quote from article --->"According to expert estimates, about 250,000 of bats sailing through the night sky are currently dying at wind turbines every year<---

Some of the biggest green energy companies that build these huge solar farms have gone bust like SunEdison, these solar farms were built as cheap as possible and had as much help as possible.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-07-19/sunedison-solar-smorgasbord-lures-bidders-but-none-want-it-all
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SunEdison

I often think about people and companies who help start the more recent green revolution like Al Gore who has been up to his neck in investments in green energy companies and find that they have had a lot of solid grounds for their motivations for movies like The Inconvenient Truth is to create uneven alarm.
I couldn't help but think that the Copenhagen Summit was more about the Vestas group based in Copenhagen trying to sell more wind turbines then actually care about changing the environment.. It worked out great for them they sold wind turbines all over the world, it looks like all wind farms in Australia use Vestas turbines.
I can say good for them but it's not so pleasant to have to pay for such stuff in electricity bills for such tiny amounts of power produced.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-29/vestas-wind-profit-beats-estimate-as-orders-surge-to-record
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestas
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_United_Nations_Climate_Change_Conference
I have read the Vestas brochures and they make for interesting reading, they aren't really accurate for amount of real power you end up with.
http://nozebra.ipapercms.dk/Vestas/Communication/Productbrochure/3MWbrochure/3MWProductBrochure/

Bill Gates is designing/funding/building advanced modern nuclear power stations for no other reason but just for you, hes got all the money he ever needs.. with his 40 billion worth of philanthropy.. but your clearly too selfish and silly to understand that.
http://terrapower.com/ <- look and read please.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_%26_Melinda_Gates_Foundation
https://youtu.be/IsRlN1oDm60?t=30m37s
https://youtu.be/IsRlN1oDm60?t=34m43s
https://youtu.be/JaF-fq2Zn7I?t=12m5s

As I said before the off grid technology is there for anyone.. If you can afford to go off grid your self then that's great but I don't like seeing it being forced on people who can't afford it. The technology is here for anyone to put their money where their mouth is but mysteriously +99% don't and would rather share baloney facebook memes on energy or vote/put pressure on governments to mystically solve the problem for them which of course the fail to do.

Locally for me it's kind of sad for me to witness most folks who I visit sit inside in the cold with a hood or beanie on and be cranky and afraid about driving up their electricity bills by turning their heater on etc, when you see people sit in the cold you begin to see how less productive they are, they just kind of huddle down and don't do much, bit like how people probably live when they live in a cave.

And if your trying to produce products and compete with the rest of the world it's not going to help you this way either.. If %20 of your input costs is to produce white goods or say food produce like creating dairy milk powder, if its going to have a %20 extra energy input cost to compete then your final product prices are too expensive to compete on the global market because your competitors did it all on cheaper power.

If China has to buy 10 billion dollars worth of powered milk each year and its the exact same quality milk as a cheaper competitor I am pretty sure they going to pay just $8 billion to the cheapest producer and keep that extra $2billion for its self.. Just like anyone else there not going to care about good will that was put into the more expensive brand with green energy.

Another example was South Australia went big on Solar and Wind farms.. High priced electricity contributed to local major car manufacturers becoming unviable and their overseas owners General Motors and Mitsubishi ceased local car manufacture in South Australia after many decades of establishment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_South_Australia#Wind_farm_overview
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_South_Australia#Impacts
Quote from Wikipedia "SA 2012 report by The Energy Users Association of Australia claimed that retail electricity prices in South Australia were then the third highest in the developed world behind Germany and Denmark, with prices likely to rise to become the most expensive in the near future.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi_Motors_Australia#Cessation_of_local_production_and_corporate_restructure
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holden
Quote from Wikipedia "On 11 December 2013, Holden announced that it will cease vehicle and engine production by the end of 2017

That's why I like the wikipedia site as you don't have to dig through articles you can quickly bring up and compare real world data like a massive solar farm that puts out crap all power next to a nuclear plant and see the green claims are complete fantasy baloney.. You can quickly bring up and compare real world examples of energy technologies and see how many lies there are out there..

Topaz Solar Farm 125 MW avg 25km2 size
Topaz_Solar_Farm,_California_Valley.jpg
Cattenom Nuclear Power Plant 5,448 MW
nuclear power plant2.jpg
 
The numbers work once you include all the area around the nuclear power plant the needs to stay vacant. As well look at how spread out those solar panels are.
 
Arlo1 said:
The numbers work once you include all the area around the nuclear power plant the needs to stay vacant. As well look at how spread out those solar panels are.
Click to expand...

Let's not forget the size of nuclear waste disposal facilities and the exclusion zones around them.

The thing about nuclear is it costs a lot now, costs a lot later, and hides many of its costs by shifting them to others (for instance, rendering vast stretches of adjoining land unusable or undesirable). Securing high level nuclear waste has to be done for hundreds or even thousands of years. That alone could cost as much or more than today's renewables. It's not a bargain; it just transfers the trouble, hazard, and expense to the hands of others.
 
Very nice post Beastie! Well informed and objective of the most facts.

On the topic of fukishima, I'd love to see some documentation of what's been going on since. Real facts. There is surprisingly little, but that's not different with many of these claimed mass impact happenings.

When they supposedly used nuclear on nagasaki and hiroshima, it appears the cities were rebuilt almost immediately and there were no associated negative mass health effects. . . . Meanwhile of course there are people that claim the soviet disaster was much worse than reported for the people, while others claim to the contrary. And some illnesses are treated with super doses of the radation that is speculated to have caused them.

=)
 
Arlo1 said:
The numbers work once you include all the area around the nuclear power plant the needs to stay vacant. As well look at how spread out those solar panels are.
Click to expand...

Assuming this statement is true, it still seems logically flawed. You want to ignore the wasted space at a solar plant but count the wasted space at a nuclear one?

You're trying to argue against the energy density of nuclear fission here...

nutspecial said:
When they supposedly used nuclear on nagasaki and hiroshima, it appears the cities were rebuilt almost immediately and there were no associated negative mass health effects. . . .
Click to expand...

Be gone, troll.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top