HungryHobo wrote:unfortunatly " egregious offences" would tend to include anything which senior politicians took serious issue with and given the prefered humanities/political science approach to science where they view it as a tool to give the answers they want rather than a tool to give them the right answers whether they like them or not giving or supporting the wrong answer from their point of view becomes an offense.
BattleMoose wrote:Greenpeace is trying to ban chlorine, even in drinking water, they have been trying to do so for a long time. To be fair they do recommend other methods of water treatment, not sure how practical they are, or expensive. It just demonstrates how disconnected they are with reality to actually adopt such a position.
Zamfir wrote:BattleMoose wrote:Greenpeace is trying to ban chlorine, even in drinking water, they have been trying to do so for a long time. To be fair they do recommend other methods of water treatment, not sure how practical they are, or expensive. It just demonstrates how disconnected they are with reality to actually adopt such a position.
Chlorination has been phased out here as tapwater desinfectant. It doesn't seem to lead to significant problems, and the water tastes a bit better. It wouldn't be high on my list of things to campaign for, but how is it disconnected from reality?
Greenpeace magazine wrote:God created 91 chemical elements, man more than a thousand and the devil created one: chlorine.
Ozone and UV light, mostly.BattleMoose wrote:Seriously? How does your water get treated?
BattleMoose wrote: Further, in just about every argument they make against nuclear power, they do so while comparing it to renewable energy sources, ignoring many realities and difficulties associated with renewable power. On a very idealistic level, I am sure all of us here would prefer renewable energy sources over nuclear power, assuming cost wasn't an issue... Basically, if an organization is protesting anything, it has to offer up a better way of doing things, and well Greenpeace does do this,but its solutions are so detached from reality that it mightn't have bothered.
I offer up instead another environmental group, GreenSpirit, which incidentally was founded by one of the founding members of Greanpeace, who became disillusioned with the organization. http://www.greenspirit.com/home.cfm
Yakk wrote:Nuclear weapons development was during a time when they where facing an existential threat, and believed that it was worth cutting corners because of that threat.
If you are talking about why people don't trust the government, you don't need a step by step argument -- people simply do not trust large powerful organizations, regardless of what that large organization does. The "random" or other components to that mistrust are going to be much larger than the type of chain you are talking about.
If you want to talk about why that mistrust is rational, pointing out flaws in your chain of reasoning is a valid thing for others to do.
Do you want your cake, or are you going to eat it?
hawkinsssable wrote:On Patrick Moore.
hawkinsssable wrote:As for "ignoring many realities and difficulties associated with renewable power", Greenpeace's line (as far as I can tell it's always adequately referenced, usually using sources outside of Greenpeace) is that nuclear is MORE expensive, would take LONGER to phase in, and is just generally FURTHER removed from reality than renewables. And they're certainly not the only people saying so. If this is true, there's not really ANY reason to adopt nuclear power.
If there's a convincing counterpoint out there, that's fine. But I'd like to hear it - and preferably from somebody who isn't paid by Nuclear Power interests to cash in on his reputation as an 'environmentalist.'
morriswalters wrote:No, I am saying that at least a large plurality of people have neither the capacity of the desire to partake in a rational discussion of nuclear power. They will go where they are led, or where they are stampeded.
You can't plan for any possible event, but what you can do is say, as long as the reactor survives intact, it's associated systems should be able to safe it.
BattleMoose wrote:France generates most of its electricity by using nuclear power. They seem to be handling the costs and if we actually had plans for the future, the lead times could be managed, easily demonstrated by having a country that produces most of its electricity from nuclear power.
To produce a countries electricity needs using just hydro, wind and solar would not be an easy task at all. If there are many dams it could be functional but if a country is not so blessed, managing demand with supply, I don't even know how it could be managed. I would like to know how it could be managed because I just don't see it.
And the costs associated with renewable energy that I have seen, have always been performed by calculating value of electricity and comparing it to the cost of production and while this does seem sensible, it is decoupled from the imperative of always been able to meet demand, the costs associated with that, if not using baseload such as coal/gas/nuclear/hydro would be enormous, if not impossible.
I like the technology of using concentrated solar power, number of varieties exist and with additional costs, storage of heat to run generators at night can be done (and has been done). But the technology as I understand it is still far too young to be scaled up to meet a countries energy needs.
Zamfir wrote:This principle really doesn't work. A reactor vessel itself can withstand a truly enormous amount of abuse. Nearly any scenario to destroy a reactor requires the prior elimination of some outside components that are required for active cooling, followed by a destruction from within. It's simply infeasible to give all other components a higher survivability than the reactor itself.
Zamfir wrote:Yes? Your appear to say that systems like generators, pumps or pipelines should be made at least as resilient as the reactor itself. That would indeed be a noble goal, but the reactor of a light-water plant is a passive structure of thick, high-quality steel. Pretty much everything is less resilient than that. The weak spots are inevitably going to be other things.
If something happens (either internally or externally) that directly breaks the reactor, you're screwed anyway. Such an event would wipe out everything else as well, but we're talking way more than a tsunami here. More like sustained artillery fire, or perhaps a crashing jetliner if it hits everything just right, though opinion on the latter are divided.
The relevant risks for a light water reactor are pretty much all related to a disruption of water supply to the reactor, not damage to the reactor itself.
morriswalters wrote:The earthquake was followed by a 13–15 m (43–49 ft) maximum height tsunami arriving approximately 50 minutes later which topped the plant's 5.7 m (19 ft) seawall, flooding the basement of the Turbine Buildings and disabling the emergency diesel generators located there at approximately 15:41. At this point, TEPCO notified authorities, as required by law, of a "First level emergency". The Fukushima II plant, which was also struck by the tsunami, incorporated design changes which improved its resistance to flooding and it sustained less damage. Generators and related electrical distribution equipment were located in the watertight reactor building, so that power from the grid was being used by midnight. Seawater pumps for cooling were given protection from flooding, and although 3 of 4 failed in the tsunami, they were able to be restored to operation.
In the late 1990's, three additional backup generators for reactors Nos. 2 and 4 were placed in new buildings located higher on the hillside, in order to comply with new regulatory requirements. All six reactors were given access to these generators; however, the switching stations that sent power from these backup generators to the reactors' cooling systems for Units 1 through 5 were still in the poorly protected turbine buildings. All three of the generators added in the late 1990's were operational after the tsunami. If the switching stations had been moved to inside the reactor buildings or to other flood-proof locations, power would have been provided by these generators to the reactors' cooling systems.
This could definitely be true, iunno. In Australia, though, moving to 100% proven and commercialised renewable technologies (40% wind, 60% solar, hydropower and biomass used for contingencies) within the next 10 years is, at least according to this collection of experts, entirely feasible and not particularly expensive.
BattleMoose wrote:I actually just spent some time going through this report (I read the bits that seemed of interest).
BattleMoose wrote:Firstly, its a vision of how things could be, in the sense of both human behavior and how we manage demand. It goes a lot further than just supply. Consequently any direct comparisons made from conclusions from this report, between just supply options is non-nonsensical. But it is a vision of how things could be and should be treated as such. Its a complete work over of the entire energy infrastructure of the country.
BattleMoose wrote:Secondly, it basically wishes away spikes in demand on both diurnal and seasonal scales, arguing certain demand side technologies and strategies, its, grossly optimistic to say the least.
BattleMoose wrote:Thirdly, I really like the concept of Concentrated Solar Thermal power, I think it really could be the future of power generation, or at least a large part of it. It also needs to be said that the largest such plant is only 354MW in California, now that is a lot of power, but is nowhere supplying on a national scale. And while conceptually the technology is scalable, it first needs to be proven in much larger plants.
CST is a nascent, commercially available energy technology. At November 2010, there were 632.4 electrical megawatts (MWe) of CST operating in Spain, including 250 MWe with storage, and a further 422 MWe in the US. Another 2000 MWe are in advanced stages of construction and development in Spain. This project pipeline amounts to over a US$20 billion investment. Meanwhile, in the US, federal loan guarantees and cash grants have fostered the approval of over 4 000 MW of CST, many of which have begun construction.
The CST plants in the ZCA Plan are modelled on the Spanish Gemasolar plant, which is now dispatching electricity to the Spanish grid. Our cost projections are based on those from existing projects in the US and Spain, with provisions for significant cost reductions following the first 1000 MWe installed.
BattleMoose wrote:Fourthly, I am just going to put this here, as a demonstration of how awkward things can get if we depend on wind.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/02/ ... 2920080228
This event did appear in either Science or Nature, I forget which and cannot find it right now. Also, as a total of generation at this time in Texas, wind comprised only 3.6% and it is suggested that Australia relies on 40%.
BattleMoose wrote:Finally if any energy company actually contemplates operating a supply side in such a manner, then they will need to accept liability if they cannot meet demand and then we will really see how they view the risks.
mosc wrote:Build. More. Nukes. Seriously. Every day we don't, PEOPLE DIE. Every single day.
Mosc wrote:When you turn on your light switch, do you care if it's windy? Sunny? If it's high tide or low tide? No, you don't.
Mosc wrote:We cannot ask for more power from a solar panel or a windmill. It's important to understand this because it is impractical to rely on power, even if economical and clean, that you cannot control. Also, please note the "capacity factor" when looking at power technologies. Nuclear plants run around the clock at basically their maximum output. A solar panel clearly doesn't do much at night let alone when it's cloudy. Windmills are even more fickle, often needing to be shut down when it's TOO windy let alone not enough.
Mosc wrote:Electricity cannot be stored in bulk.
Mosc wrote:Nuclear plants can adjust their output (though they are so cheap to run, they generally don't in the US) and follow usage patterns. Wind and solar cannot.
Mosc wrote:Power consumption is already minimized by cost and availability.... Our birthrate continues to be exponential and even with improved efficiency, electric power is the fundamental divider between modern civilization and poverty. It is simply inhumane to ask the world to reduce power consumption.
Mosc wrote:Build. More. Nukes. Seriously. Every day we don't, PEOPLE DIE. Every single day.
Secondly, it basically wishes away spikes in demand on both diurnal and seasonal scales, arguing certain demand side technologies and strategies, its, grossly optimistic to say the least.
Since I had to google "diurnal scales", I'll bow down to your expertise here. Increased demand in winter is brought up quite a bit, but maybe it's done a bit crudely? Because, well, I don't really know very much about this, would you mind elaborating?
Road pollution is more than twice as deadly as traffic accidents, according to a study of UK air quality.
The analysis appears in Environmental Science and Technology, carried out by Steve Yim and Steven Barrett, pollution experts from MIT in Massachusetts.
They estimate that combustion exhausts across the UK cause nearly 5,000 premature deaths each year.
The pair also estimate that exhaust gases from aeroplanes cause a further 2,000 deaths annually.
By comparison, 2010 saw, 1,850 deaths due to road accidents recorded.
Overall, the study's findings are in line with an earlier report by the government's Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants (COMEAP), which found that air pollution in 2008 was responsible for about 29,000 deaths in the UK.
hawkinsssable wrote:re:elasto - Of course. The problem is when you go from "fossil fuels are bad" to "the best alternative is expanded use of nuclear power", especially considering that they take an inconvenient 15 years to get operational (during which time people will continue dying, just as before.) The logic seems to me the same as saying Build. More. Coal power plants that emit slightly less polution. Every day you don't, people die.
I agree that nuclear is better than coal, and would never support replacing nuclear WITH coal power, but it doesn't seem clear to me that it's the best solution (and unless expanded use of wind, solar and hydro is an impossibility, it's clearly not the best for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.)
hawkinsssable wrote:re:Battlemoose - I was actually trying to say that I trusted you re: diurnal cycles, not trying to be snide. But thanks for the clarification! I take it you're saying that the extent of the variation is greater than the Zero Carbon guys predicted, and that their figures for lowest possible energy supply weren't as conservative as they claimed?
As for poor implentation of supply and demand side strategies, I agree that it's a horrible, inconvenient problem. But as for things going very wrong as soon as you bring 'human behaviour' into it, nuclear power hardly seems immune. There were 14 easily preventable “near misses” in US Nuclear plants in 2010, according to one report, due largely to “unbelievably poor worker performance” and poor training. There were also errors in design and procurement of safety equipment, maintenance and operations – with the NRC basically failing to effectively enforce the regulations that ensured nuclear power remains safe. (citation.)
BattleMoose wrote:literally the worst case scenario that could happen to a nuclear reactor(s) did, fukushima,[i] and no one died.
Bertrand Russell wrote:Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in rationality.
Richard Feynman & many others wrote:Keep an open mind – but not so open that your brain falls out
BattleMoose wrote:Even something as accepted as air travel has had a far larger impact on human deaths. But we accept those incidents for what they are, learn from why they occurred and change designs and operations to make air travel safer. The same procedure applies to buildings, bridges, automobiles, dams, boilers and and and and and. But nuclear power is treated so differently, with a completely different set of standards than the rest of human engineering and for no apparent good reason, except ignorant fear. Its worthwhile to recognize that literally the worst case scenario that could happen to a nuclear reactor(s) did, fukushima, and no one died.
morriswalters wrote: Of course normally when an accident occurs you don't have to evacuate a large geographic area, say a hundred square miles
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest