Slog Comments
Japan's New Normal
1
Producing Hydrogen in 'Backyard' Could be Possible: Scientist
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/207079/2…
Scientists say producing hydrogen in the backyard could be possible in future by "tweaking" an inexpensive semiconductor material, which could be available in commercial store, for generating hydrogen from water by using sunlight.
"When the catalyst is properly manufactured, one could buy it in a commercial store for making hydrogen in his backyard," Professor Madhu Menon of the University of Kentucky told IBTimes.
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/207079/2…
2
Well, producing hydrogen is one thing--getting into a form that you can use for providing power for your house or a vehicle is a very different thing.
3
What people say they will accept in the immediate wake of a massive disaster isn't necessarily the same as what they are willing to put up with one, two or five years hence.
I find it highly unlikely that residents of any developed nation would be willing to put up with routine electrical blackouts for any extended period of time. As memory of Fukushima fades, there will be more and more pressure to return electricity delivery to normal.
There probably is room for a slight increase in rates as well. But raise rates too much and people will squawk. Those shut down plants will represent a huge temptation. I'd expect just about all of them, aside from the Fukushima plants themselves, to be up and running again within a year.
As evidence, I'd point to the fact that the three remaining nuclear reactors at Chernobyl continued to be run for years after the disaster, with the last one only being shut down in 2000.
I find it highly unlikely that residents of any developed nation would be willing to put up with routine electrical blackouts for any extended period of time. As memory of Fukushima fades, there will be more and more pressure to return electricity delivery to normal.
There probably is room for a slight increase in rates as well. But raise rates too much and people will squawk. Those shut down plants will represent a huge temptation. I'd expect just about all of them, aside from the Fukushima plants themselves, to be up and running again within a year.
As evidence, I'd point to the fact that the three remaining nuclear reactors at Chernobyl continued to be run for years after the disaster, with the last one only being shut down in 2000.
4
Nuclear Expert Says Fukushima Radiation Coming to USA, Massive Cover-Up Underway
"One thing is for certain. The Fukushima radioactive leaks will continue at high amounts longer than Chernobyl did. Fukushima's radioactive fallout will be affecting more people, crops, and of course sea life than Chernobyl's disaster caused."
http://www.naturalnews.com/033481_Fukush…
"One thing is for certain. The Fukushima radioactive leaks will continue at high amounts longer than Chernobyl did. Fukushima's radioactive fallout will be affecting more people, crops, and of course sea life than Chernobyl's disaster caused."
http://www.naturalnews.com/033481_Fukush…
5
@3 This. If we allowed this country to vote on it, we would probably outlaw every way of making electricity. Nuclear? Gone. Coal? Gone. Gas? Gone. And the 200MW of wind and solar would cover all of our electricity needs.
7
I'm with #3. People may be objecting to nuclear power now, but unless there is some kind of viable alternative, those protests are going to die pretty darned quick. People want to refrigerate their food, put their clothes in the washing machine, cook dinner on their stove, watch TV, mess around on their computers, turn on the lights, and so forth. People aren't going to give up things things, not even if that means another Fukushima.
8
#3 and 7 did their homework, the rest need to actually look at scientific research and real life statistics.
Nuclear power is not as dangerous as people make it out, you still get more radiation from the sun in the summer here than a well maintained nuclear plant leaking would expose you to even standing next to it. A nuclear rod isn't some massive hundred ton source, unlike coal it's a very small object, and only a few of these are needed for most nuclear plants, the others are stored (if done correctly) in almost impenetrable containers, they can survive train wrecks and this is proven. Now the real life statistics that are largely ignored: Chernobyl was poorly maintained, barely operating within normal parameters, at a time when poorly maintained technology blew up regularly and they were warned as much but still kept it active, sucks to wait until something blows up to fix a gadget. We have had many nuclear plants in operation since then with NO, yes that's no as in none, not one single incident in the US, and these plants are being maintained on very limiting budgets thanks to all the irrational fears. Anyone remember what happened after 9-11? People are still dying of poisons that they inhaled from those building collapsing, yes, even the houses you live in have dangerous chemicals in them and in the event of a major collapse will poison the air around it. We're not talking a danger only to those inside, but for whole blocks. This is why demolition crews are so specialized, the explosive setups they use are also intended to minimize air poisoning. But here's the catch, even if their power plants were coal, solar, or any others, they would have still cause as much problem in this disaster. Now the part that pisses me off, we have a country of people who suffered a LOT because mother nature decided to through another common tantrum yet everyone is turning it into political cannon fodder, degrading their suffering by making it nothing but a "left versus right" war slogan. Stop it, the nuclear fallout is the least of their worries, and the people there know it, because the reporters are so shallow, the rest of us should not be.
More...
Nuclear power is not as dangerous as people make it out, you still get more radiation from the sun in the summer here than a well maintained nuclear plant leaking would expose you to even standing next to it. A nuclear rod isn't some massive hundred ton source, unlike coal it's a very small object, and only a few of these are needed for most nuclear plants, the others are stored (if done correctly) in almost impenetrable containers, they can survive train wrecks and this is proven. Now the real life statistics that are largely ignored: Chernobyl was poorly maintained, barely operating within normal parameters, at a time when poorly maintained technology blew up regularly and they were warned as much but still kept it active, sucks to wait until something blows up to fix a gadget. We have had many nuclear plants in operation since then with NO, yes that's no as in none, not one single incident in the US, and these plants are being maintained on very limiting budgets thanks to all the irrational fears. Anyone remember what happened after 9-11? People are still dying of poisons that they inhaled from those building collapsing, yes, even the houses you live in have dangerous chemicals in them and in the event of a major collapse will poison the air around it. We're not talking a danger only to those inside, but for whole blocks. This is why demolition crews are so specialized, the explosive setups they use are also intended to minimize air poisoning. But here's the catch, even if their power plants were coal, solar, or any others, they would have still cause as much problem in this disaster. Now the part that pisses me off, we have a country of people who suffered a LOT because mother nature decided to through another common tantrum yet everyone is turning it into political cannon fodder, degrading their suffering by making it nothing but a "left versus right" war slogan. Stop it, the nuclear fallout is the least of their worries, and the people there know it, because the reporters are so shallow, the rest of us should not be.
9
@8: You are very much wrong about pretty much your entire post.
A nuclear rod isn't some massive hundred ton source, unlike coal it's a very small object, and only a few of these are needed for most nuclear plants,
Uh, it actually *IS* a massive 100 metric tons of fuel assembly that is meters tall and extremely heavy and difficult to move around, which is why there are massive gantry cranes above the reactor vessel to lift both the RPV lid and the fuel assemblies during refueling.
Each fuel assembly typically weighs more than 1,000 pounds, depending on reactor type and assumbly type.
the others are stored (if done correctly) in almost impenetrable containers, they can survive train wrecks and this is proven.
Only after they are cooled for several years in unprotected spent-fuel pools that lack containment structures. A worst-case scenario loss of water fire and melt in a full spent fuel pool would be orders of magnitude worse than a core meltdown inside containment, as modeled by the NRC.
And by the way, cask storage is not used in the United States, basically at all.
Now the real life statistics that are largely ignored: Chernobyl was poorly maintained, barely operating within normal parameters, at a time when poorly maintained technology blew up regularly and they were warned as much but still kept it active, sucks to wait until something blows up to fix a gadget.
This is a complete lie.
Chernobyl consisted of FOUR identical reactors, only ONE of which melted down due to operator error in 1986. You most obviously are thoroughly ignorant of the fact that the other three reactors continued to operate for years after that accident. Reactor 2 ceased operation in 1991 due to a turbine fire, not due to any reactor issues.
The remaining two reactors at Chernobyl were not shut down until the year 1996, and 2000.
Today, more than a dozen identical RBMK-1000 reactor models continue to operate in Russia
I don't see you or any other nuclear apologists screaming about all these other 100% identical reactors. I never saw any of you protesting the continued operation of the three other reactors at the Chernobyl site after Unit 4 exploded.
This is the same tired load of apologist crap that's been peddled for years: "Chernobyl was a stupid Russian design, the Russians were stupid and didn't know what they were doing, it was an inherently dangerous reactor design that inevitably was going to melt down, etc etc etc." Well, that's a load of utter bullshit.
We have had many nuclear plants in operation since then with NO, yes that's no as in none, not one single incident in the US,
That's a complete lie as well, there have been a number of incidents at US plants, including unintended releases of radioactive materials due to malfunctions and failures, and including area evacuations:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and…
Stop it, the nuclear fallout is the least of their worries, and the people there know it, because the reporters are so shallow, the rest of us should not be.
Perhaps I would feel better if you have ANY FUCKING CLUE what you are talking about, but unfortunately, you don't.
More...
A nuclear rod isn't some massive hundred ton source, unlike coal it's a very small object, and only a few of these are needed for most nuclear plants,
Uh, it actually *IS* a massive 100 metric tons of fuel assembly that is meters tall and extremely heavy and difficult to move around, which is why there are massive gantry cranes above the reactor vessel to lift both the RPV lid and the fuel assemblies during refueling.
Each fuel assembly typically weighs more than 1,000 pounds, depending on reactor type and assumbly type.
the others are stored (if done correctly) in almost impenetrable containers, they can survive train wrecks and this is proven.
Only after they are cooled for several years in unprotected spent-fuel pools that lack containment structures. A worst-case scenario loss of water fire and melt in a full spent fuel pool would be orders of magnitude worse than a core meltdown inside containment, as modeled by the NRC.
And by the way, cask storage is not used in the United States, basically at all.
Now the real life statistics that are largely ignored: Chernobyl was poorly maintained, barely operating within normal parameters, at a time when poorly maintained technology blew up regularly and they were warned as much but still kept it active, sucks to wait until something blows up to fix a gadget.
This is a complete lie.
Chernobyl consisted of FOUR identical reactors, only ONE of which melted down due to operator error in 1986. You most obviously are thoroughly ignorant of the fact that the other three reactors continued to operate for years after that accident. Reactor 2 ceased operation in 1991 due to a turbine fire, not due to any reactor issues.
The remaining two reactors at Chernobyl were not shut down until the year 1996, and 2000.
Today, more than a dozen identical RBMK-1000 reactor models continue to operate in Russia
I don't see you or any other nuclear apologists screaming about all these other 100% identical reactors. I never saw any of you protesting the continued operation of the three other reactors at the Chernobyl site after Unit 4 exploded.
This is the same tired load of apologist crap that's been peddled for years: "Chernobyl was a stupid Russian design, the Russians were stupid and didn't know what they were doing, it was an inherently dangerous reactor design that inevitably was going to melt down, etc etc etc." Well, that's a load of utter bullshit.
We have had many nuclear plants in operation since then with NO, yes that's no as in none, not one single incident in the US,
That's a complete lie as well, there have been a number of incidents at US plants, including unintended releases of radioactive materials due to malfunctions and failures, and including area evacuations:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and…
Stop it, the nuclear fallout is the least of their worries, and the people there know it, because the reporters are so shallow, the rest of us should not be.
Perhaps I would feel better if you have ANY FUCKING CLUE what you are talking about, but unfortunately, you don't.
Comments (9) RSS