I think plenty of people knew the risks but politics and money likely overrode those people.
"A General Electric Co engineer said he resigned 35 years ago over concern about the safety of a nuclear reactor design used in the now crippled Fukushima Daiichi plant in Japan."
I thought one of the founders of Greenpeace made an about face on Nuclear power? I would imagine a lot of AGW types are pro nuclear power. It is the cleanest power going. As long as it works as designed. Basing bias today on 40 yer old nuclear technology does not make a lot of sense. If it was not such a nightmare to get through the regulations, we may have shut down some of the older nukes and replaced them with newer safer designs. Instead we let "Pie in the Sky" environmentalists convince those in power that somehow we can get the sun to shine 24/7 and the wind to do the same. Without storage Wind and Solar are just feel good niche players. As long as we require backup to the full need, how can wind and solar be cost effective.
Right, Peter something. Kernick's Dyson comment got off on a long net diversion and at one point I wound up on a page by Stewart Brand (another pro-nuke "green" - or maybe he's not), and he mentioned the Greenpeace guy and someone else who left Friends of the Earth for similar reasons. Amory Lovins, the big proponent of conservation, had a public falling out with a long-time friend when his friend decided to support nukes.
Going to be interesting to see how people spin or flop in the days and weeks ahead. I've seen a lot of the "it's 1965 tech" comments already. So why aren't we shutting the 30 year old plants down? Tough new regs? Nah, follow the money, as usual.
Don't see my link off-hand but I could probably dig it out of the history if you want it. Kernick cost me about 3 hours of my life.
Steve - as I said let's not go down the judging of nuclear design right now. Let's accept the plant is there. It operated safely for many years,. The same design plants are operating safely here in the U.S. including my neighbor the 40-year old Vermont Yankee. Again let's forget about whether it should be there or closed or whatever.
What I'm trying to say that the model - the design criteria of what Nature could do was incorrectly determined by man. Man did not understand, up to the day of the quake, what sort of earthquake was possible. If mankind did understand and knew how the fault worked, even the utility would agree to shut it down and move the fuel. Mankind was, and is ignorant of many aspects of Nature.
And I do agree with that the politics and $ did have a bias on determining the design criteria of that nuclear plant. The $ and politics used the data (of what Nature's earthquake could be) that they wanted. The IPCC did the same thing in including data they like, and editting out data that doesn't fit, or now trying to say that the reason the Earth isn't warming the last few years is because it is really the all-encompassing "climate CHANGE".
I heard an "expert" tonight on CNN talking about the most important thing an organization (referring to the Japanese government) can have is "Credibility". I think Al Gore, the $-grab of carbon-credit-trading, the high-price conferences and the climategate e-mails have definitely hurt the credibility of the GW- movement.
Sorry about the 3 hours Steve; but that's nothing compared to the SUV days.
So why aren't we shutting the 30 year old plants down? Tough new regs? Nah, follow the money, as usual.
Something has to take their place. And getting a new nuke through the red tape is a very long process. Just to keep this in perspective. This was one heck of a big earthquake and tsunami. Can you imagine what a car would look like if it was built to withstand any accident? I have faith they will get it cooled down without any horrible disaster. So far the radiation has not been much worse a few miles away than every time you go through a scanner in the airport. This is still the only site that gives you decent updates.
What I'm trying to say that the model - the design criteria of what Nature could do was incorrectly determined by man.
But some people did understand. I remember the debate back in 196x when TVA was proposing nukes near me. And I remember seeing the iodine pills in my brother's medicine cabinet after TVA opened Sequoia in Chattanooga (I got a tour of the reactor vessel while it was under construction).
The Edge was the jumping off point your Dyson comments led me too, and then it was off to the races. Interesting site.)
Yes, gagrice, houdini, and you're on the fence(?). We do understand that the model that MMGW proponents are using is probably no more accurate and unbiased then the model that was used to say that nuclear plant would be safe relative to a natural disaster.
Interesting that the MIT site amended the PhD's post, based apparently on an email to his family and friends in Toyota (have to wonder what he's telling them now). The original post that got all the "no worries" press was by a PhD who isn't trained in physics or nuclear engineering at all. His area of expertise is "supply chain risk management". (ritholtz.com).
Helicopters over the reactors sure reminds one of Chernobyl doesn't it?
This was one heck of a big earthquake and tsunami.
The earthquake was only 9.0 at the epicenter. That is why you see little damage from the earthquake on land 120 miles away. The earthquake ther might have been a 6.0 - 7.0? The main damage of course was from the tsunami. Now the tsunami wasn't super-huge - 30' max. If you're in an earthquake zone I would expect the nuclear plant should be located 100'+ in elevation. The plant would be fairly benign if that simple thought was acted on. But again - the model Man created was biased, to give the result they wanted - which was to build the plant where it is.
So far the radiation has not been much worse a few miles away than every time you go through a scanner in the airport.
You do know that the information is coming from the utility company that has a history of "misleading the public" - as I heard quoted on CNN. The Japanese government is not in charge and is simply relying on the utility for information. I think the other reason not much radiation is being reported is the wind is blowing towards the sea. If the wind shifts, watch out.
Every opinion I hear is this is just getting worse. The latest I've heard is that reactors 5 and 6 have been losing water also; they're being ignored, as the other reactors are taking all efforts. This sounds like it's going to dwarf Chernobyl in effect, as the population density in Japan is very high. Japan may have to permanently relocate millions of people when all is said and done. People may fear being in Tokyo when the wind blows south; at least until they encase these reactors in hundreds of tons of concrete.
I read somewhere that the quake measured 8.4 at Fukushima . Sorry, no link. I've read that Fukushima was built to withstand 7.9 quakes. Diablo Canyon plant was designed to withstand a 7.5 quake. (WSJ).
The government has been dysfunctional for years. And I've also read that Tepco has a history of lying (BBC). Lots of sketchy information out there.
The way this is shaking out, it's going to cause a global recession.
The way this is shaking out, it's going to cause a global recession.
The U.S. and Europe were headed that way before this Japan nuclear problem. No I don't need everyone to run off and post links that we had 2-3% growth. What I mean is that that growth was only due to temporary, excessive, unsustainable stimulus over the last few years. It never worked as a "jump-start" because a good-amount of what it stimulated was a foreign produced good!
So now that a couple of administrations, Greenspan, Bernanke, and some greedy Congresses that love to bring home the bacon and can't say "no" to handing out money, have put us: 1) deep into debt, 2) with high inflation on energy, food, and health care - just the basics! :mad: 3) a still absolutely awful housing market, 4) many millions less jobs, and 5) local and state governments that are broke partly due to federally mandated programs ... I have to agree.
The Mideast is in turmoil, the PIGS of Europe still can drag Europe down as that fire-has never been put completly out.
I'm not trying to being totally pessimistic in my posts; I'm kind of happy on my micro-scale except where the government is involved.
I guess my view is that we're really not that smart as a species, and we're still pretty selfish. I really don't trust 99% of our leaders to either get-it-right, or act for the greater-good.
Helicopters over the reactors sure reminds one of Chernobyl doesn't it? Big difference is they are dumping water not sand and concrete. If you keep refreshing the MIT link it gives you updated information. The only information right now I would trust. Most of the media is gloom and doom with no real facts, just typical MSM news. http://mitnse.com/
Last report on reactor 4 is the SNF pool is at 84 degrees Celsius. That is well below boiling. While not ideal it is still doing the job of cooling the Spent Fuel. That is something that will go on for a long time. It looks like they are trying to salvage some of the value in the complex. Burying it in concrete is not a good option. Also Chernobyl was in much worse condition and poorly designed. The design errors with this Nuclear plant was in the cooling backup generators. The plant itself did what it was supposed to do in an earthquake.
And I've also read that Tepco has a history of lying (BBC). Lots of sketchy information out there.
You mean like Toyota has. Is it a Japanese trait to lie rather than expose their weaknesses?
The way this is shaking out, it's going to cause a global recession.
I'm with Kernick on our own problems. We are on a down hill slide big time. And the TARP and Stimulus were are big waste of our grand children's future.
I agree with you mostly on nuclear energy's place in our world, and I agree with you that statistically nuclear energy and even plants of this design probably will never see a problem.
However from what I'm seeing/hearing, and not just the network experts and anchors, this is pretty bad. The best indications of how bad it is is that there are only 50 workers left, and the helicopters only made 1 trip each to try and dump water. If it was safe to flyover the reactors, those helicopters would have been making dump after dump of H20. They're not. I also heard that the truck water-cannons could not get close enough. As far as getting electricity back, I'm not sure what good that will do. There were explosions that blew the walls and roofs off, a couple of buildings. I can't imagine the piping that goes from outside, thru the building to the reactors would be intact.
I'd tend to believe Western experts over the Japanese culture, which is well known - to try and cover-over problems - "saving face and honor".
Those reactors are toast, regardless of how much radiaction gets out of the buildings. They might as well start planning to bury them.
Yes lying is a human trait. I think a recent study show that babies can start lying at less than 6 months.
I'm not convinced that the sand and concrete aren't coming.
I think the fuel is too valuable for the Japanese to do that, unless it is a last ditch effort. I don't think they are even close. They have 50 workers still in their risking their lives to save the place. I don't think the pundits and so called experts like our idiot Surgeon General are helping at all. I am more concerned about the radiation from Airport scanners than whatever comes across the Pacific to CA.
How ever many people are working to stabilize the reactors. They are like soldiers on the front lines of battle. A good chance they will die a premature death. That is the saddest part.
I would imagine there are a lot of anti nuke types that are hoping this becomes another Chernobyl. It will give them ammunition to fight the inevitable reality that nuclear is the only way to give the World as much electricity as they are going to demand. I am optimistic the Japanese will get this under control. I just cannot see any other alternatives that are practical and as clean.
As clean? You know that the big problem currently is with the spent rods (the waste). The reactors automatically shut down (supposedly) when the earthquake hit. Of course, they may be having meltdown issues in the reactors as well.
As I understand it, it's illegal in the US to reprocess the rods and NRC rules allow plants to wet store the spent rods on site for 60 years. Not very tidy.
Most of the first World countries reprocess spent fuel rods. Jimmy Carter pushed through as part of his non proliferation agenda, laws against it. Personally I think the positives outweigh the negatives on reprocessing. It would shrink the size of our nuclear waste management sites by a huge amount. And it has been used for decades by the French, Brits, Japan with China and India joining. Here is a brief look and both sides of the issue.
Edison Electric Institute Nuclear Energy Institute American Electric Power DTE Energy Duke Energy Entergy Corporation Exelon NextEra Energy, Inc. Southern Company Wisconsin Energy Foundation Xcel Energy NECA-IBEW
The site was pro nuke no doubt. However they linked to many sites with opposing view points. And the issue was reprocessing nuclear fuel. I think if you have nuclear reactors it would be wise to use the fuel to its maximum benefit. Rather that storing potential nuclear energy sources in a cave in Nevada or where ever.
Of course we can do away with nukes and use our plentiful coal resource.
Why people waste time making fun of CLEAN energy is beyond explanation.
Maybe because those that believe it is going to save US from fossil fuel dependence are a funny bunch of folks.
NO CURRENT ALTERNATIVE SOURCE OF ENERGY WILL EVER MEET OUR NEED FOR ELECTRICITY!!!! We are struggling now to keep up with demand. And you want US to add EVs and plug-in hybrids to the mix. You should think about it. Just to keep alternatives in perspective. I would imagine Hydro then GeoThermal to be the biggest sources of renewable energy.
Sources of electricity in the United States
* 49.8% of electricity in the US is generated by burning coal * 19.9% from nuclear power, 17.9% from natural gas * 6.5% from hydroelectric, * 3% from burning petroleum * a paltry 2.3% from other renewable energy sources such as wind power , solar energy , geothermal power, and biomass.
Current is an interesting word choice. Kennedy got us to the moon in ten years. When we get low on current, you will be surprised at what comes out of the woodwork (although simple conservation will probably gain us ten years).
Conservation will help a lot. I have cut way back on AC. I would rather suffer a little more in the heat than at the end of the month from my wallet. CA has implemented the tiered system to try and accomplish conservation. It looks like it will have a negative effect on EVs. At least for those buyers smart enough to do some calculations before they make the leap.
I read an interesting article on going to the moon. With what we know now, it would take US more than twice as many years to accomplish what we did back in the 1960s when we went to the moon. We worry too much about safety to ever attempt such a foolish feat again. Guys like Sagan set our manned space program back by decades.
The same kind of blinders have neutered our inventiveness & entrepreneurship. Government oversight on every aspect of our lives limits our risk taking. We are not what we were in the past. Thanks to our government.
Be careful not to get "are not NOW meeting the need" confused with "will not EVER meet the need" my Amigo.
Gary - they are that small right now only because they are NEW and IMPROVING all the time. We are learning the best ways to use those technologies, the best places to locate them, etc etc.
I already posted stats showing how Solar is booming. Here's another example from today's news:
The nuclear issue is certainly being way over hyped by the MS media. They would have you believe this is another Chernobyl. The real story in Japan is all the suffering going on because of the quake and tsunami.
It is too bad that we can't get any reliable information from anyone about GW or alternative energy. 80% politics and 20% lies and half truths from people trying to make a quick buck.
Gary - they are that small right now only because they are NEW and IMPROVING all the time.
Solar and Wind generation has been around for at least 30+ years on a commercial basis. And it is still less than 1% of the total energy needs of our nation. And what has it cost US in wasted tax dollars?
Hope you don't have a lot invested in FSLR. That was a promo for the company stock. Looks like it is half the price it went to in the last oil run-up. It also looks like the Walton Clan are dumping a lot of their shares over the last few days. You keep forgetting that wind and solar without huge infusions of your children's future are not going far.
Those numbers you quoted will be changing A LOT in the future years and decades. Bet on it. It's not debatable, so don't even bother to TRY.
Those that bet on wind in the early 1980s lost their shorts. Or should I say the tax payers lost out. Even very recent Wind Farms are being forced to shut down here in CA.
ALTAMONT, Calif. — When it comes to wind power, few places are more productive -- or more deadly to birds -- than this gusty stretch of rolling hills between California's San Francisco Bay area and the San Joaquin Valley
Audubon Pennsylvania recommends to avoid siting turbines on ridgetops that concentrate raptors during spring and fall migration, in particular Kittatinny Ridge (Blue Mountain), Tuscarora Mountain, Tussey Mountain, Bald Eagle Ridge, and Allegheny Front. Furthermore, other less well-monitored ridgetops in the Ridge and Valley Province, such as Stone and Jack's Mountain, serve as important migration routes during some periods.
Clean Wind Energy and Its Toll on Raptors Established in 1982, the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area (APWRA) in eastern Alameda and Contra Costa Counties has 5,400 windmills and is one of the largest in the country. While the wind farm is beneficial as a source of clean electric power, it has also proved to be deadly to birds of prey.
For every "sob story" you can post about the Wind Farms, There are tons of them running FINE, NOT making people sick, and providing clean wind energy to LOTS of people.
So it kills a few birds. Coal mining kills PEOPLE.
So it kills a few birds. Coal mining kills PEOPLE.
If wind was a viable alternative we would not need coal. It would have expanded into a larger part of our energy needs over the last 30+ years. It only gets used when the government subsidizes it. Wind generation CANNOT STAND ON ITS OWN MERITS. You still need an equal amount of fossil fueled generation for those times the wind don't blow.
You want to show how great wind generation is. Give me an example of a wind farm that is not there thanks to the tax payers. I can show you hundreds of fossil fuel generators that are carrying the load without government subsidies.
I never said it could completely REPLACE COAL - right NOW.
There is no incentive for the big power companies to invest in Wind right now, because fossil fuel is CHEAP and AFFORDABLE.
That will NOT always be the case.
No one thinks Wind can take the full place of coal.
YET.
And maybe never.
But it can be a great supplement.
Just do a hypothetical future scenario:
If we can get 60% of our needs from clean sources, during the sunny days, or the WINDIEST of days, that allows the fossil fuel production facilities to SCALE BACK and not use as much fossil fuel. SAVING THE ENERGY COMPANY COLD, HARD CASH.
It's a mystery to me why a smart guy like you seems to miss that point, EVERY time.
It's a mystery to me why a smart guy like you seems to miss that point, EVERY time.
Just as it is a mystery to me why a smart feller like you does not see the fallacy in Solar and Wind generation. If I still need fossil fuel backup what have I saved? You cannot turn on and off a coal or nuclear generation plant when the sun sets or the wind dies. Gas and diesel generation is much more expensive than coal generation. And to keep them ready to go at a moments notice is not cheap. You expect your power company to be there when your solar is not producing electricity. At some point they may say it is not worth it to maintain all this backup equipment. The scale of loss becomes greater with more of these UNRELIABLE alternatives on line.
Baseload power is supplied by low cost generating systems, most often nuclear and coal. Nuclear is generally operated at full power, shutting down only for maintenance, refueling and unscheduled outages. According to the government’s Energy Information Administration, nukes average 92% annual capacity load factor. More expensive electricity is brought on line as demand warrants.
Wind power isn’t a good match for baseload management, but regulatory requirements mandate it be given priority. Wind has a problem. It is an intermittent source of electricity. It isn’t necessarily there when you need it. Here’s an example of 660 kW wind generator located at the Massachusetts Maritime Academy at Bourne. It reports current, daily, weekly, monthly and annual output data online in real time. Click here for current data from this very interesting website. Because of its intermittency, wind power must be backed up by conventional thermal power. This means fossil fueled plants can’t be dismantled as wind power capacity is put in place.
If we wish to remain a competitive industrial nation, we must have reliable power at rates comparable to nations competing against us. An example is the aluminum industry. It takes 5 to 6 kWh of electricity to produce a pound of aluminum. Electricity is the most expensive component in the process of converting bauxite to alumina to metallic aluminum. The current market for aluminum is just under 60 cents a pound. To be competitive, US producers must have access to 5 cents/kWh or less electricity. And they must have it 24/7, not when the wind blows. Only nuclear and coal can do that. If we drive costs over that, production and jobs will move to China or Russia. The EU is facing the same problems and will delay cap and trade targets for their aluminum industry.
Costs and reliability of our electricity must considered if we allow Asian competitors to continue their carbon emissions. All we will do is transfer our industries to them and world carbon emissions will remain the same.
Read the comments. This one is quite thought provoking.
I fully agree with your point of view, for whatever this is worth. In Greece, I have come to the conclusion, that wind power is promoted by those who want to safeguard the dependence of electricity production on oil and gas, as only oil and gas can provide the backup power required for a stable system.
The domestic oil we produce today was set in place by plans made 5, 10, and even up to 20 years ago. What a joke for Obama to take credit for 2009 production being up some small fraction over 2008. That was Bush's doing
Absolutely true. If Congress were to open ANWR today, it would be at least 10 years from now before any oil makes it to the refinery. We will see the lack of energy policy of this administration in several years. Of course the populace will blame it on who ever occupies the WH at that time.
So far I have not heard any of the AGW Cult blaming GW for the massive infestation of Bed Bugs around the USA and Canada. Worst hit cities NYC, Toronto and Vancouver. I blame the knee jerk environmentalist. They banned DDT without thinking of the negatives, such as increased malaria across Africa and now we have bed bugs everywhere to contend with. If you plan to stay in a motel or rent an apartment you might want to check this site first. It is not just flea bag hotels, some 5 star hotels have infestations:
I have no theory. Just thinking about reality. I would like to take a road trip around the USA. Staying in motels is becoming less attractive with this Bed Bug Bubble. I looked at the hotel we stayed in Indiana last fall. The Hampton Inn across the street has bed bug infestation. A friend here is an exterminator. He has traveled to San Francisco to do Bed Bug jobs. They are very difficult to get rid of. Best bet is toss out your mattress. The chemicals we have today are nearly useless to get rid of pests. I relate it to EPA/CARB emissions. They have reached the point of diminishing returns. We have done the same with pesticides. The Ag people are all over San Diego finding Med Fly infestations. If we are going to continue to allow imports of products that carry pests, we need to get tougher chemicals such as DDT to protect US.
If we all stopped trying to be green and went about our everyday life, what would be different in 20 years? Unemployment would be lower Taxes would be lower Most people would have less stress The Government would be smaller The citizen would be larger The Alaska pipeline would not have to be shut down due to lack of use The temperature would be up by .2 degrees
My friend just had to pay $665 last month for electric, mostly to heat his house. The .2 degrees would not reduce that bill by much and 20 years from now, electric might be a lot more. Why not just plant some grass and a tree or two and work on some really important issue. Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. None of these three things is helped by the green movement. The nanny state is taking away our liberties. The pursuit of happiness is restricted down narrow paths. Our gov wastes so much money on this to no avail at all. How much happiness is in another 10 trillion dollars of debt for the war on GW? We just entered another war yesterday, not over oil.
I just did a few things to get my mpg's up in my old truck. It came with a leaky tire that I finally replaced. I changed the air filter and put in new spark plugs. Total spent just under $100. I have already seen an increase. These were activities to lower my gas bill and make the truck safer on wet roads. I didn't need Van Jones to tell me to do it.
I agree with everything you said except I'm not sure the temp would be up .02 degrees in 20 years. It could just as well be down .02 degrees. Diminishing returns indeed.
In China, the true cost of Britain's clean, green wind power experiment: Pollution on a disastrous scale
By SIMON PARRY in China and ED DOUGLAS in Scotland
Last updated at 10:01 PM on 29th January 2011
This toxic lake poisons Chinese farmers, their children and their land. It is what's left behind after making the magnets for Britain's latest wind turbines... and, as a special Live investigation reveals, is merely one of a multitude of environmental sins committed in the name of our new green Jerusalem
On the outskirts of one of China’s most polluted cities, an old farmer stares despairingly out across an immense lake of bubbling toxic waste covered in black dust. He remembers it as fields of wheat and corn.
Yan Man Jia Hong is a dedicated Communist. At 74, he still believes in his revolutionary heroes, but he despises the young local officials and entrepreneurs who have let this happen.
‘Chairman Mao was a hero and saved us,’ he says. ‘But these people only care about money. They have destroyed our lives.’
Vast fortunes are being amassed here in Inner Mongolia; the region has more than 90 per cent of the world’s legal reserves of rare earth metals, and specifically neodymium, the element needed to make the magnets in the most striking of green energy producers, wind turbines.
Live has uncovered the distinctly dirty truth about the process used to extract neodymium: it has an appalling environmental impact that raises serious questions over the credibility of so-called green technology.
The reality is that, as Britain flaunts its environmental credentials by speckling its coastlines and unspoiled moors and mountains with thousands of wind turbines, it is contributing to a vast man-made lake of poison in northern China. This is the deadly and sinister side of the massively profitable rare-earths industry that the ‘green’ companies profiting from the demand for wind turbines would prefer you knew nothing about.
When you drive your hybrids and EVs think about the devastation you have caused.
Neodymium is commonly used as part of a Neodymium-Iron-Boron alloy (Nd2Fe14B) which, thanks to its tetragonal crystal structure, is used to make the most powerful magnets in the world. Electric motors and generators rely on the basic principles of electromagnetism, and the stronger the magnets they use, the more efficient they can be. It’s been used in small quantities in common technologies for quite a long time – hi-fi speakers, hard drives and lasers, for example. But only with the rise of alternative energy solutions has neodymium really come to prominence, for use in hybrid cars and wind turbines. A direct-drive permanent-magnet generator for a top capacity wind turbine would use 4,400lb of neodymium-based permanent magnet material.
That is why the components for these Alternatives will never be built in the USA. We want to keep our Country pristine at any cost to other parts of the World.
The new facility will use just 10% of the water that was needed during the Mountain Pass operation's heyday. "We will be the cleanest rare-earth mine in the world," says Cogut. "This is going to be a combination of quantity and quality."
The big question in my mind will it be clean enough for the Eco nuts in California? Is the cleanest on earth, clean enough?
I think part of the Chinese plan is to use the materials in China and sell only finished products.
Comments
"A General Electric Co engineer said he resigned 35 years ago over concern about the safety of a nuclear reactor design used in the now crippled Fukushima Daiichi plant in Japan."
Japan reactor design caused GE engineer to quit (Reuters)
And guess who a big proponent of nuclear energy is? None other than our old friend, James Hansen.
Going to be interesting to see how people spin or flop in the days and weeks ahead. I've seen a lot of the "it's 1965 tech" comments already. So why aren't we shutting the 30 year old plants down? Tough new regs? Nah, follow the money, as usual.
Don't see my link off-hand but I could probably dig it out of the history if you want it. Kernick cost me about 3 hours of my life.
What I'm trying to say that the model - the design criteria of what Nature could do was incorrectly determined by man. Man did not understand, up to the day of the quake, what sort of earthquake was possible. If mankind did understand and knew how the fault worked, even the utility would agree to shut it down and move the fuel. Mankind was, and is ignorant of many aspects of Nature.
And I do agree with that the politics and $ did have a bias on determining the design criteria of that nuclear plant. The $ and politics used the data (of what Nature's earthquake could be) that they wanted. The IPCC did the same thing in including data they like, and editting out data that doesn't fit, or now trying to say that the reason the Earth isn't warming the last few years is because it is really the all-encompassing "climate CHANGE".
I heard an "expert" tonight on CNN talking about the most important thing an organization (referring to the Japanese government) can have is "Credibility". I think Al Gore, the $-grab of carbon-credit-trading, the high-price conferences and the climategate e-mails have definitely hurt the credibility of the GW- movement.
Sorry about the 3 hours Steve; but that's nothing compared to the SUV days.
Something has to take their place. And getting a new nuke through the red tape is a very long process. Just to keep this in perspective. This was one heck of a big earthquake and tsunami. Can you imagine what a car would look like if it was built to withstand any accident? I have faith they will get it cooled down without any horrible disaster. So far the radiation has not been much worse a few miles away than every time you go through a scanner in the airport. This is still the only site that gives you decent updates.
http://mitnse.com/
But some people did understand. I remember the debate back in 196x when TVA was proposing nukes near me. And I remember seeing the iodine pills in my brother's medicine cabinet after TVA opened Sequoia in Chattanooga (I got a tour of the reactor vessel while it was under construction).
The Edge was the jumping off point your Dyson comments led me too, and then it was off to the races. Interesting site.)
Yes, gagrice, houdini, and you're on the fence(?). We do understand that the model that MMGW proponents are using is probably no more accurate and unbiased then the model that was used to say that nuclear plant would be safe relative to a natural disaster.
Helicopters over the reactors sure reminds one of Chernobyl doesn't it?
The earthquake was only 9.0 at the epicenter. That is why you see little damage from the earthquake on land 120 miles away. The earthquake ther might have been a 6.0 - 7.0? The main damage of course was from the tsunami. Now the tsunami wasn't super-huge - 30' max. If you're in an earthquake zone I would expect the nuclear plant should be located 100'+ in elevation. The plant would be fairly benign if that simple thought was acted on. But again - the model Man created was biased, to give the result they wanted - which was to build the plant where it is.
So far the radiation has not been much worse a few miles away than every time you go through a scanner in the airport.
You do know that the information is coming from the utility company that has a history of "misleading the public" - as I heard quoted on CNN. The Japanese government is not in charge and is simply relying on the utility for information. I think the other reason not much radiation is being reported is the wind is blowing towards the sea. If the wind shifts, watch out.
Every opinion I hear is this is just getting worse. The latest I've heard is that reactors 5 and 6 have been losing water also; they're being ignored, as the other reactors are taking all efforts. This sounds like it's going to dwarf Chernobyl in effect, as the population density in Japan is very high. Japan may have to permanently relocate millions of people when all is said and done. People may fear being in Tokyo when the wind blows south; at least until they encase these reactors in hundreds of tons of concrete.
The government has been dysfunctional for years. And I've also read that Tepco has a history of lying (BBC). Lots of sketchy information out there.
The way this is shaking out, it's going to cause a global recession.
The U.S. and Europe were headed that way before this Japan nuclear problem. No I don't need everyone to run off and post links that we had 2-3% growth. What I mean is that that growth was only due to temporary, excessive, unsustainable stimulus over the last few years. It never worked as a "jump-start" because a good-amount of what it stimulated was a foreign produced good!
So now that a couple of administrations, Greenspan, Bernanke, and some greedy Congresses that love to bring home the bacon and can't say "no" to handing out money, have put us: 1) deep into debt, 2) with high inflation on energy, food, and health care - just the basics! :mad: 3) a still absolutely awful housing market, 4) many millions less jobs, and 5) local and state governments that are broke partly due to federally mandated programs ... I have to agree.
The Mideast is in turmoil, the PIGS of Europe still can drag Europe down as that fire-has never been put completly out.
I'm not trying to being totally pessimistic in my posts; I'm kind of happy on my micro-scale except where the government is involved.
I guess my view is that we're really not that smart as a species, and we're still pretty selfish. I really don't trust 99% of our leaders to either get-it-right, or act for the greater-good.
Big difference is they are dumping water not sand and concrete. If you keep refreshing the MIT link it gives you updated information. The only information right now I would trust. Most of the media is gloom and doom with no real facts, just typical MSM news. http://mitnse.com/
Last report on reactor 4 is the SNF pool is at 84 degrees Celsius. That is well below boiling. While not ideal it is still doing the job of cooling the Spent Fuel. That is something that will go on for a long time. It looks like they are trying to salvage some of the value in the complex. Burying it in concrete is not a good option. Also Chernobyl was in much worse condition and poorly designed. The design errors with this Nuclear plant was in the cooling backup generators. The plant itself did what it was supposed to do in an earthquake.
You mean like Toyota has. Is it a Japanese trait to lie rather than expose their weaknesses?
The way this is shaking out, it's going to cause a global recession.
I'm with Kernick on our own problems. We are on a down hill slide big time. And the TARP and Stimulus were are big waste of our grand children's future.
Heh, you think people (and corporations) in our melting pot don't lie? It might be human trait.
I'm not convinced that the sand and concrete aren't coming.
However from what I'm seeing/hearing, and not just the network experts and anchors, this is pretty bad. The best indications of how bad it is is that there are only 50 workers left, and the helicopters only made 1 trip each to try and dump water. If it was safe to flyover the reactors, those helicopters would have been making dump after dump of H20. They're not. I also heard that the truck water-cannons could not get close enough. As far as getting electricity back, I'm not sure what good that will do. There were explosions that blew the walls and roofs off, a couple of buildings. I can't imagine the piping that goes from outside, thru the building to the reactors would be intact.
I'd tend to believe Western experts over the Japanese culture, which is well known - to try and cover-over problems - "saving face and honor".
Those reactors are toast, regardless of how much radiaction gets out of the buildings. They might as well start planning to bury them.
I'm not convinced that the sand and concrete aren't coming.
I think the fuel is too valuable for the Japanese to do that, unless it is a last ditch effort. I don't think they are even close. They have 50 workers still in their risking their lives to save the place. I don't think the pundits and so called experts like our idiot Surgeon General are helping at all. I am more concerned about the radiation from Airport scanners than whatever comes across the Pacific to CA.
As I understand it, it's illegal in the US to reprocess the rods and NRC rules allow plants to wet store the spent rods on site for 60 years. Not very tidy.
http://www.beyondthelightswitch.com/blog/should-us-be-reprocessing-spent-nuclear- -fuel
Nuclear Energy Institute
American Electric Power
DTE Energy
Duke Energy
Entergy Corporation
Exelon
NextEra Energy, Inc.
Southern Company
Wisconsin Energy Foundation
Xcel Energy
NECA-IBEW
link
Nice balance, lol. Looks like a good list of companies - if you're looking for some stocks to short.
Why people waste time making fun of CLEAN energy is beyond explanation.
Since you posted a cartoon of a VERY UNLIKELY FANTASY scenario, here is a REALISTIC one showing some people NOT waiting for a breeze.
Of course we can do away with nukes and use our plentiful coal resource.
Paradise lost
We are on the verge of doubling our craving for electricity for cars. Solar and Wind are not going to make a big dent in that demand.
Maybe because those that believe it is going to save US from fossil fuel dependence are a funny bunch of folks.
NO CURRENT ALTERNATIVE SOURCE OF ENERGY WILL EVER MEET OUR NEED FOR ELECTRICITY!!!! We are struggling now to keep up with demand. And you want US to add EVs and plug-in hybrids to the mix. You should think about it. Just to keep alternatives in perspective. I would imagine Hydro then GeoThermal to be the biggest sources of renewable energy.
Sources of electricity in the United States
* 49.8% of electricity in the US is generated by burning coal
* 19.9% from nuclear power, 17.9% from natural gas
* 6.5% from hydroelectric,
* 3% from burning petroleum
* a paltry 2.3% from other renewable energy sources such as wind power , solar energy , geothermal power, and biomass.
I read an interesting article on going to the moon. With what we know now, it would take US more than twice as many years to accomplish what we did back in the 1960s when we went to the moon. We worry too much about safety to ever attempt such a foolish feat again. Guys like Sagan set our manned space program back by decades.
The same kind of blinders have neutered our inventiveness & entrepreneurship. Government oversight on every aspect of our lives limits our risk taking. We are not what we were in the past. Thanks to our government.
Be careful not to get "are not NOW meeting the need" confused with "will not EVER meet the need" my Amigo.
Gary - they are that small right now only because they are NEW and IMPROVING all the time. We are learning the best ways to use those technologies, the best places to locate them, etc etc.
I already posted stats showing how Solar is booming. Here's another example from today's news:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/first-solar-to-build-plant-to-double-us-capacit- y-2011-03-17-143100
Those numbers you quoted will be changing A LOT in the future years and decades.
Bet on it. It's not debatable, so don't even bother to TRY.
:shades: .
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Solar and Wind generation has been around for at least 30+ years on a commercial basis. And it is still less than 1% of the total energy needs of our nation. And what has it cost US in wasted tax dollars?
Hope you don't have a lot invested in FSLR. That was a promo for the company stock. Looks like it is half the price it went to in the last oil run-up. It also looks like the Walton Clan are dumping a lot of their shares over the last few days. You keep forgetting that wind and solar without huge infusions of your children's future are not going far.
http://xml.10kwizard.com/filing_raw.php?repo=tenk&ipage=7488974
Those numbers you quoted will be changing A LOT in the future years and decades. Bet on it. It's not debatable, so don't even bother to TRY.
Those that bet on wind in the early 1980s lost their shorts. Or should I say the tax payers lost out. Even very recent Wind Farms are being forced to shut down here in CA.
ALTAMONT, Calif. — When it comes to wind power, few places are more productive -- or more deadly to birds -- than this gusty stretch of rolling hills between California's San Francisco Bay area and the San Joaquin Valley
http://www.enn.com/top_stories/article/1985
Audubon Pennsylvania recommends to avoid siting turbines on ridgetops that concentrate raptors during spring and fall migration, in particular Kittatinny Ridge (Blue Mountain), Tuscarora Mountain, Tussey Mountain, Bald Eagle Ridge, and Allegheny Front. Furthermore, other less well-monitored ridgetops in the Ridge and Valley Province, such as Stone and Jack's Mountain, serve as important migration routes during some periods.
http://pa.audubon.org/news_20060119.html
Clean Wind Energy and Its Toll on Raptors
Established in 1982, the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area (APWRA) in eastern Alameda and Contra Costa Counties has 5,400 windmills and is one of the largest in the country. While the wind farm is beneficial as a source of clean electric power, it has also proved to be deadly to birds of prey.
http://theobligatescientist.blogspot.com/2010/05/raptors-and-wind-farms.html
It is a problem in Europe as well. Could be another reason T. Boone saw the light on Wind Farms.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20711780
So it kills a few birds. Coal mining kills PEOPLE.
If wind was a viable alternative we would not need coal. It would have expanded into a larger part of our energy needs over the last 30+ years. It only gets used when the government subsidizes it. Wind generation CANNOT STAND ON ITS OWN MERITS. You still need an equal amount of fossil fueled generation for those times the wind don't blow.
You want to show how great wind generation is. Give me an example of a wind farm that is not there thanks to the tax payers. I can show you hundreds of fossil fuel generators that are carrying the load without government subsidies.
There is no incentive for the big power companies to invest in Wind right now, because fossil fuel is CHEAP and AFFORDABLE.
That will NOT always be the case.
No one thinks Wind can take the full place of coal.
YET.
And maybe never.
But it can be a great supplement.
Just do a hypothetical future scenario:
If we can get 60% of our needs from clean sources, during the sunny days, or the WINDIEST of days, that allows the fossil fuel production facilities to SCALE BACK and not use as much fossil fuel. SAVING THE ENERGY COMPANY COLD, HARD CASH.
It's a mystery to me why a smart guy like you seems to miss that point, EVERY time.
Just as it is a mystery to me why a smart feller like you does not see the fallacy in Solar and Wind generation. If I still need fossil fuel backup what have I saved? You cannot turn on and off a coal or nuclear generation plant when the sun sets or the wind dies. Gas and diesel generation is much more expensive than coal generation. And to keep them ready to go at a moments notice is not cheap. You expect your power company to be there when your solar is not producing electricity. At some point they may say it is not worth it to maintain all this backup equipment. The scale of loss becomes greater with more of these UNRELIABLE alternatives on line.
Baseload power is supplied by low cost generating systems, most often nuclear and coal. Nuclear is generally operated at full power, shutting down only for maintenance, refueling and unscheduled outages. According to the government’s Energy Information Administration, nukes average 92% annual capacity load factor. More expensive electricity is brought on line as demand warrants.
Wind power isn’t a good match for baseload management, but regulatory requirements mandate it be given priority. Wind has a problem. It is an intermittent source of electricity. It isn’t necessarily there when you need it. Here’s an example of 660 kW wind generator located at the Massachusetts Maritime Academy at Bourne. It reports current, daily, weekly, monthly and annual output data online in real time. Click here for current data from this very interesting website. Because of its intermittency, wind power must be backed up by conventional thermal power. This means fossil fueled plants can’t be dismantled as wind power capacity is put in place.
If we wish to remain a competitive industrial nation, we must have reliable power at rates comparable to nations competing against us. An example is the aluminum industry. It takes 5 to 6 kWh of electricity to produce a pound of aluminum. Electricity is the most expensive component in the process of converting bauxite to alumina to metallic aluminum. The current market for aluminum is just under 60 cents a pound. To be competitive, US producers must have access to 5 cents/kWh or less electricity. And they must have it 24/7, not when the wind blows. Only nuclear and coal can do that. If we drive costs over that, production and jobs will move to China or Russia. The EU is facing the same problems and will delay cap and trade targets for their aluminum industry.
Costs and reliability of our electricity must considered if we allow Asian competitors to continue their carbon emissions. All we will do is transfer our industries to them and world carbon emissions will remain the same.
http://islandturtle.blogspot.com/2009/03/fallacy-of-wind-power.html
Read the comments. This one is quite thought provoking.
I fully agree with your point of view, for whatever this is worth. In Greece, I have come to the conclusion, that wind power is promoted by those who want to safeguard the dependence of electricity production on oil and gas, as only oil and gas can provide the backup power required for a stable system.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/03/the_warmist_cult.html
The domestic oil we produce today was set in place by plans made 5, 10, and even up to 20 years ago. What a joke for Obama to take credit for 2009 production being up some small fraction over 2008. That was Bush's doing
http://bedbugregistry.com/
How does your city fare?
Sounds like you need to go back to sleeping on the ground in a tent or at least get another RV or conversion van.
(btw, bed bugs are resistant to DDT - link).
Unemployment would be lower
Taxes would be lower
Most people would have less stress
The Government would be smaller
The citizen would be larger
The Alaska pipeline would not have to be shut down due to lack of use
The temperature would be up by .2 degrees
My friend just had to pay $665 last month for electric, mostly to heat his house. The .2 degrees would not reduce that bill by much and 20 years from now, electric might be a lot more.
Why not just plant some grass and a tree or two and work on some really important issue. Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. None of these three things is helped by the green movement. The nanny state is taking away our liberties. The pursuit of happiness is restricted down narrow paths. Our gov wastes so much money on this to no avail at all. How much happiness is in another 10 trillion dollars of debt for the war on GW? We just entered another war yesterday, not over oil.
I just did a few things to get my mpg's up in my old truck. It came with a leaky tire that I finally replaced. I changed the air filter and put in new spark plugs. Total spent just under $100. I have already seen an increase. These were activities to lower my gas bill and make the truck safer on wet roads. I didn't need Van Jones to tell me to do it.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
By SIMON PARRY in China and ED DOUGLAS in Scotland
Last updated at 10:01 PM on 29th January 2011
This toxic lake poisons Chinese farmers, their children and their land. It is what's left behind after making the magnets for Britain's latest wind turbines... and, as a special Live investigation reveals, is merely one of a multitude of environmental sins committed in the name of our new green Jerusalem
On the outskirts of one of China’s most polluted cities, an old farmer stares despairingly out across an immense lake of bubbling toxic waste covered in black dust. He remembers it as fields of wheat and corn.
Yan Man Jia Hong is a dedicated Communist. At 74, he still believes in his revolutionary heroes, but he despises the young local officials and entrepreneurs who have let this happen.
‘Chairman Mao was a hero and saved us,’ he says. ‘But these people only care about money. They have destroyed our lives.’
Vast fortunes are being amassed here in Inner Mongolia; the region has more than 90 per cent of the world’s legal reserves of rare earth metals, and specifically neodymium, the element needed to make the magnets in the most striking of green energy producers, wind turbines.
Live has uncovered the distinctly dirty truth about the process used to extract neodymium: it has an appalling environmental impact that raises serious questions over the credibility of so-called green technology.
The reality is that, as Britain flaunts its environmental credentials by speckling its coastlines and unspoiled moors and mountains with thousands of wind turbines, it is contributing to a vast man-made lake of poison in northern China. This is the deadly and sinister side of the massively profitable rare-earths industry that the ‘green’ companies profiting from the demand for wind turbines would prefer you knew nothing about.
The Filthy Truth of Wind generation
When you drive your hybrids and EVs think about the devastation you have caused.
Neodymium is commonly used as part of a Neodymium-Iron-Boron alloy (Nd2Fe14B) which, thanks to its tetragonal crystal structure, is used to make the most powerful magnets in the world. Electric motors and generators rely on the basic principles of electromagnetism, and the stronger the magnets they use, the more efficient they can be. It’s been used in small quantities in common technologies for quite a long time – hi-fi speakers, hard drives and lasers, for example. But only with the rise of alternative energy solutions has neodymium really come to prominence, for use in hybrid cars and wind turbines. A direct-drive permanent-magnet generator for a top capacity wind turbine would use 4,400lb of neodymium-based permanent magnet material.
That is why the components for these Alternatives will never be built in the USA. We want to keep our Country pristine at any cost to other parts of the World.
Got Yttrium? (Time)
The big question in my mind will it be clean enough for the Eco nuts in California? Is the cleanest on earth, clean enough?
I think part of the Chinese plan is to use the materials in China and sell only finished products.