Naw - More like trolling. Looking for someone to bite on the crap she says and then to beat them to a pulp with the facts.
And of course, she has, between speaking engagements, book sales, and donations to W.A.N.D,, made a fair amt of income from her chicken littleness. I'm sure she is quite sincere in her devotion to ridding the world of flying neutrons, electrons and larger particles, but------just sayin..
IP: Logged
09:56 PM
Apr 23rd, 2011
phonedawgz Member
Posts: 17091 From: Green Bay, WI USA Registered: Dec 2009
It's quite clear she is passionate about what she is saying. Clearly to the point that the actual facts just get in the way. It makes me wonder how much of what she says she actually knows is false.
IP: Logged
12:35 PM
Raydar Member
Posts: 40912 From: Carrollton GA. Out in the... country. Registered: Oct 1999
TOKYO -- The Japanese government is considering building an underground barrier near the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant to prevent radioactive material from spreading far from the plant via soil and groundwater, a senior government official said.
Sumio Mabuchi, a special adviser to the prime minister, revealed the plan Friday at the Japan National Press Club building in Tokyo. The plan is the first attempt to address the risk of contaminated water spreading far from the plant through soil.
According to Mabuchi, the barrier would extend so far underground that it would reach a layer that does not absorb water. The wall would entirely surround the land on which reactors No. 1, 2, 3 and 4 stand.
Mabuchi is a member of the unified command headquarters set up by the government and Tokyo Electric Power Co. to deal with the nuclear crisis. He serves as the head of government representatives on a team dealing with medium- and long-term issues, including how to contain the spread of radioactive materials from the plant.
The process of filling the containment vessel of the Fukushima power plant's No. 1 reactor with water is progressing steadily, according to Tepco.
Tepco plans to continue injecting water into the containment vessel until the fuel rods inside are fully submerged in what the power company has called a "water coffin."
At a press conference held Friday, Tepco said it believed pressure suppression pools at the bottom of the No. 1 reactor's containment vessel were full of water, and that the top section of the containment vessel was about half full. Under normal circumstances, the pressure suppression pools are about 50 percent full with water.
The pressure suppression pools help control the air pressure inside the reactor's pressure vessel. Operators can open valves to release steam from the vessel into the suppression pools, where it is cooled and condensed to water.
According to Tepco, it has poured about 7,000 tons of water into the No. 1 reactor's pressure vessel. The company said it believes almost all of that water is still inside the pressure vessel and the containment vessel. However, the firm said it has injected about 14,000 tons of water into the No. 2 reactor and 9,600 tons of water into the No. 3 reactor since cooling operations began. In both cases, the amount injected exceeds the about-7,000-ton capacity of the reactors' containment vessels.
Tepco believes considerable amounts of water leaked from those reactors' containment vessels into their turbine buildings through cracks in pressure suppression pools and other routes.
Meanwhile, at the No. 4 reactor, Tepco has attached cameras and other equipment to a concrete pump used to inject water into the pool containing spent nuclear fuel rods to monitor the water and radiation levels around the clock.
According to the company, water in the pool was 91 C (196 F) on Friday, and the water level was about 2 meters (about 6.5 feet) above the spent fuel rods. Those readings were about the same as those taken by the company on April 12, Tepco said.
(NewsCore) - TOKYO -- The operator of Japan's stricken nuclear plant let pressure in one reactor climb far beyond the level the facility was designed to withstand, a decision that may have worsened the world's most serious nuclear accident in a quarter century, The Wall Street Journal reported Saturday.
Japanese nuclear power companies are so leery of releasing radiation into the atmosphere that their rules call for waiting much longer and obtaining many more sign-offs than US counterparts before venting the potentially dangerous steam that builds up as reactors overheat.
Japan's venting policy got its first real world test in the chaotic hours after March 11's earthquake and tsunami knocked out cooling systems at the Fukushima nuclear power complex. By the first hours of March 12, an emergency was brewing inside the plant's No. 1 reactor.
By about 2:30am local time, the pressure inside the vessel that forms a protective bulb around the reactor's core reached twice the level it was designed to withstand. Amid delays and technical difficulties, it was another 12 hours before workers finished releasing radioactive steam from this containment vessel, via reinforced pipes, to the air beyond the reactor building.
About an hour later, the reactor building itself exploded -- a blast that Japanese and US regulators have since said spread highly radioactive debris beyond the plant. The explosion, along with others amid overheating at reactors No. 2, No. 3 and No. 4, contributed to radiation levels that led to mandatory evacuations around the plant and the government's admission that the Fukushima disaster ranks alongside Chernobyl at the top of the nuclear disaster scale.
Experts in the US and Japan believe the venting delay may have helped create conditions that led to the blast. In one possible scenario, pressure built so high that it damaged gaskets and other parts of the venting system, through which highly explosive hydrogen gas leaked from the core into the reactor building. It was Japan's cautious approach to venting, an outgrowth of its profound concern over nuclear contamination, that may well have made the accident worse, they say.
Hot debris hampers reactor repairs Radiation map shows hazards lurking around every corner Kyodo
A contamination map revealing radiation levels at about 150 places in the Fukushima No. 1 power plant was released Saturday by troubled Tokyo Electric Power Co.
The beleaguered utility, known as Tepco, updates the data periodically to help its workers navigate radiation hazards at the crippled nuclear plant in Fukushima Prefecture. The power plant lost its cooling systems when it was hit by the mega-quake and tsunami on March 11.
The updated maps and data on areas near the four crisis-hit reactors are also sent to the Economy, Trade and Industry Ministry and the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency and posted at its crisis center in the prefecture.
One finding acquired from the map's data as of Wednesday night is that a piece of concrete debris near the No. 3 reactor was emitting a nearly lethal 900 millisieverts per hour of radiation.
Many of the locations, including a pipe being used to remove highly radioactive water from a reactor and rubble scattered by several hydrogen explosions on the premises, gave off radiation readings of about 100 millisieverts per hour.
Another piece of debris next to the No. 3 reactor is giving off 300 millisieverts per hour, while the surface of a pipe sending highly toxic water to a nuclear waste disposal facility is radiating 75 to 86 millisieverts an hour, the map showed Another pipe near the facility was giving off radiation readings as high as 160 millisieverts, it said
The legal limit on the amount of radiation a worker can be exposed to has been raised to 250 millisieverts for the crisis. It takes less than 17 minutes to hit that limit when working in an environment being exposed to 900 millisieverts per hour.
Tepco has started using remotely controlled equipment to remove debris at some of the reactors and is expected to take six months to complete the task. At the same time, it is searching for secure facilities in which to store radioactive runoff from its emergency reactor-cooling operations. http://search.japantimes.co...in/nn20110425a1.html
TOKYO, April 27 (Reuters) - Japanese engineers are struggling to gain control of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, 240 km (150 miles) north of Tokyo, which was seriously damaged by the March 11 earthquake and tsunami.
Two of the six reactors at the plant, operated by Tokyo Electric Power Co (TEPCO), are considered stable but the other four are volatile.
Following are some questions and answers about efforts to end the world's worst nuclear crisis since the 1986 Chernobyl accident:
WHAT IS HAPPENING?
Workers are trying to fill the reactors with enough water to bring the nuclear fuel rods inside to a "cold shutdown", in which the water cooling them is below 100 degrees Celsius and the reactors are considered stable.
TEPCO has been pouring water into the reactor vessels containing the rods since the disaster to cool them as an emergency measure. [ID:nL3E7FI0C7]
In a further step towards a cold shutdown, TEPCO is filling the containment vessel -- an outer shell of steel and concrete that houses the reactor vessel -- with water in a procedure called water entombment. It has started by increasing the amount of water being poured into the No.1 reactor.
At the same time it will work to restore the reactors' cooling system, which functions like a radiator on an automobile. TEPCO said mounting a separate cooling system externally was also a possibility.
For reactors like No.2, which is suspected of having a damaged containment vessel, TEPCO said it hopes to seal the damaged sections with cement to prevent the water being pumped in from leaking out.
WHAT IS HAMPERING OPERATIONS?
The large amounts of runoff from the water TEPCO has been pumping in to prevent overheating of fuel rods and a nuclear meltdown. The operator estimates the amount of contaminated water at the Daiichi plant at around 87,500 tonnes.
TEPCO plans to start operating in June a system to treat this contaminated water. The system, developed by Toshiba , Hitachi-GE Nuclear Energy, Areva (CEPFi.PA) and U.S. firm Kurion, would adsorb and isolate radioactive elements, then the treated water would be re-used to cool down the reactors.
The isolated radioactive materials would remain in the nuclear plant for now.
For the time being, TEPCO has been transferring radioactive water that has accumulated at the reactor buildings into tanks and storage areas at the plant, but the process has been progressing very slowly.
Many storage tanks on site were damaged by the tsunami and authorities earlier in April made a decision to pump contaminated water with lower levels of radiation back into the ocean to secure storage space. That has since stopped but could resume if they run out of storage space again.
In the meantime, radiation continues to seep out of TEPCO's nuclear complex into the sea and into the air, although at far lower levels than at the peak of the crisis in mid-March.
To contain contamination, workers have tried pouring liquid glass to stop a leak and spraying the ground with sticky resin to capture radiated dust. They are also injecting nitrogen into
to prevent new hydrogen explosions which would spread highly radioactive material into the air.
HOW LONG MIGHT THIS TAKE?
On April 17 TEPCO announced a timetable for its operations. Within the first three months it plans to cool the reactors and the spent fuel stored in some of them to a stable level and reduce the leakage of radiation. [ID:nL3E7FH03J]
TEPCO then hopes to bring the reactors to a cold shutdown in another three to six months.
But some experts said the process could take longer. TEPCO itself said constant aftershocks, power outages, high levels of radiation and the threat of hydrogen explosions were factors that could hamper its work.
Weather conditions, such as the approaching rainy season and typhoons and lightning during the summer, could also pose problems.
WHAT ARE THE RISKS?
The main risk is radiation continuing to seep, or burst, out each time a pipe leaks or rising pressure forces workers to vent steam. Leaking water from within the nuclear pressure vessels could find its way into soil and the ocean, while spikes in radiation could contaminate crops over a wide area.
The risk that the spent fuel pools could go into a chain reaction is low, as long as temperature indicators are accurate. But some more of the contaminated runoff may have to be dumped into the sea, if workers run out of space to store the water.
There is also a small risk of a corium steam explosion, particularly in the No.1 reactor, which is the plant's oldest and which is believed to have a weak spot.
If workers are unable to continue hosing operations, and if the nuclear fuel manages to melt through the bottom of the reactor and fall into a water pool below, this would result in a burst of high temperature and a sudden release of a huge amount of hydrogen explosion that could breach the containment vessel.
Should either worst-case scenario happen, high levels of radiation up to 20 km (12 miles) around the site could be dispersed, making it impossible to bring the reactors to a cold shutdown without great sacrifice.
WILL THE SITE BECOME A NO-MAN'S LAND?
Most likely, yes. Even after a cold shutdown there are tonnes of nuclear waste sitting at the site of the nuclear reactors.
Entombing the reactors in concrete would make them safe to work and live a few kilometres away from the site, but is not a long-term solution for the disposal of spent fuel, which will decay and emit radiation over several thousand years.
The spent nuclear fuel in Fukushima has been damaged by sea water, so recycling it is probably not an option, while transporting it elsewhere is unlikely because of the opposition that proposal would bring.
Experts say the clean-up will take decades. (Additional reporting by Shinichi Saoshiro and Yoko Kubota; Editing by Alex Richardson)
[This message has been edited by JazzMan (edited 04-27-2011).]
IP: Logged
12:07 PM
dennis_6 Member
Posts: 7196 From: between here and there Registered: Aug 2001
A woman working at the crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant (FDI) was exposed to radiation three times higher than the legal limit, according to a statement today by the plant operators.
The woman worked at FDI for 11 days in March, according to the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), after the March 11th crisis began. TEPCO didn’t say why it waited a month to make the news public.
The woman was exposed to 17.55 millisieverts of radiation. The legal exposure limit for female nuclear plant workers in Japan is 5 millisieverts over 3 months.
Hidehiko Nishiyama, an official with the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency in Japan, said that TEPCO had received a verbal reprimand for the incident and will receive a written one.
TEPCO minimized the incident, saying that, “we have confirmed by a medical diagnosis that there is no impact on her health.”
Such a statement can be misleading. Only extremely high doses of radiation have an immediate impact on a person’s health. The primary threat to nuclear workers is the long-term prospect of developing cancer from lower levels of radiation.
“This exposure business is not terribly straight forward,” cautions Dr. Alan Lockwood, professor of Neurology and Nuclear Medicine Director at the University of Buffalo.
The woman’s prognosis depends on whether or not “deep organs” were affected, and that can’t be known without more information on how the radiation levels were obtained.
Lockwood, who is past-president of the group Physicians for Social Responsibility, and a current member of its national board, said, “In general, deep doses are more serious than skin doses because the skin is less radiosensitive than deep organs.”
Fukushima Radiation Readings Highest Since The Start Of The Crisis Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0) Jessika Walsten | April 27, 2011 Deputy Editor
(Creative Commons) (Creative Commons) Fukushima Daiichi radiation levels are the highest they've been since the earthquake and tsunami devastated the nuclear power plant more than a month ago, Tokyo Electric Power Co. (TEPCO) said Wednesday.
TEPCO has struggled to contain the damaged reactors since the crisis began, and these latest reading, which were done by robots in reactor No.1, pose a threat to future containment efforts.
“Tepco must figure out the source of high radiation,” said Hironobu Unesaki, a nuclear engineering professor at Kyoto University. “If it’s from contaminated water leaking from inside the reactor, Tepco’s so-called water tomb may be jeopardized because flooding the containment vessel will result in more radiation in the building.”
Radiation levels were as high as 1,120 millisierverts of radiation per hour, which is four times the allowed per year level for employees, TEPCO said Wednesday.
Four out of six of Fukushima's reactors were affected by the disaster, causing them to leak radiation into drinking and ocean water.
The utility company has received criticism for its handling of the disaster, which is the worst since the 1986 Chernobyl crisis. Critics have accused the company of being ill-prepared.
"The corporate nature of Tepco and its preparedness for the tsunami and loss of power should all be subject to investigation," said Goshi Hosono.
TEPCO has said that full containment of the reactors could take months. Reuters has more:
On April 17 TEPCO announced a timetable for its operations. Within the first three months it plans to cool the reactors and the spent fuel stored in some of them to a stable level and reduce the leakage of radiation.
TEPCO then hopes to bring the reactors to a cold shutdown in another three to six months.
But some experts said the process could take longer. TEPCO itself said constant aftershocks, power outages, high levels of radiation and the threat of hydrogen explosions were factors that could hamper its work.
In the meantime, radiation continues to contaminate ground and ocean water.
The woman was exposed to 17.55 millisieverts of radiation. The legal exposure limit for female nuclear plant workers in Japan is 5 millisieverts over 3 months.
Did you catch that?
250 mSv/year for men during the emergency. 5 mSv/quarter for women.
IP: Logged
05:18 PM
phonedawgz Member
Posts: 17091 From: Green Bay, WI USA Registered: Dec 2009
Sadly, the press has plenty to write about WRT Fukushima. Where the rest of the country is over a month into the cleanup and recovery process, this one facility and many square miles of land, homes, and farms surround it are stuck in a Dante-esque limbo while workers continue to struggle to regain control of the situation. For most people in Japan the disaster was 47 days ago, for the Fukushima victims the disaster is today, tomorrow, and some unknown number of years (decades? Centuries?) into the future.
Cooling the spent fuel is the least of the problems being faced by Japan today.
The article was clear about females having a 5 mSv/quarter, which would be 20 mSv/year if I did my math correctly.
In a perfect world with perfect technology the Fukushima story would have been over a long time ago. It would never have happened in the first place
One wonders about the rationality of depending on perfection...
IP: Logged
06:11 PM
phonedawgz Member
Posts: 17091 From: Green Bay, WI USA Registered: Dec 2009
In a perfect world Japan would not have any cities built on the coast. In a perfect world they woudl have walls built high enough to stop the waves.
In a better world than we live in, we would be a bit more concerned of the tens of thousands of lifes that were taken, instead of the limited story that Fukushima is.
But we will most likely base our energy future on fears and continue to mine and burn coal releasing the CO2 into the atmosphere.
IP: Logged
08:00 PM
phonedawgz Member
Posts: 17091 From: Green Bay, WI USA Registered: Dec 2009
In a perfect world Japan would not have any cities built on the coast. In a perfect world they woudl have walls built high enough to stop the waves.
In a better world than we live in, we would be a bit more concerned of the tens of thousands of lifes that were taken, instead of the limited story that Fukushima is.
But we will most likely base our energy future on fears and continue to mine and burn coal releasing the CO2 into the atmosphere.
Of course, you're still stuck on the idea that coal is the only alternative to nuclear. What's that phrase? Oh yeah, here it is: False Dichotomy
You're old enough that if you were going to learn anything different you would have by now. Maybe it'll take you being stuck in a never-ending nuclear disaster to learn something new, maybe not. Doesn't matter. I have the feeling that the 60,000+ victims of Fukushima are learning something new now.
And BTW, I am concerned with the lives affected by the earthquake and tsunami, please don't try and imply that by focusing on Fukushima that I and others who are concerned about the negative long-term problems with uranium fission power generation are some kind of monsters that don't care about the rest.
And if the engineers that designed the Fukushima complex has been competent they would have designed the cooling systems and backup generator systems to not fail under this scenario, a scenario that could have been anticipated given the millenniums of history Japan has with earthquakes and tsunamis. The reactors systems should have been designed for every possible contingency because the consequences of a failure are so dire, long-lasting, and most importantly, expensive. You can't cut a single corner with a reactor, not even a tiny little corner that seems so unlikely as designing everything to withstand a 30' tsunami and 9 scale earthquake.. So what if that means it costs 100 billion dollars to build a nuclear plant, if that's what it takes to prevent Chernobyl, prevent Fukushima, then that's what it takes. Period. That's what the people who think nuclear energy is the best thing since sliced bread just don't understand. Or won't understand. They're completely oblivious of this, and think they can design the perfect machine, completely fixated on nuclear fission as the only possible solution, blind to everything else.
Hubris.
Edit to add:
quote
Originally posted by phonedawgz: ...releasing the CO2 into the atmosphere.
According to many, this isn't a problem...
[This message has been edited by JazzMan (edited 04-28-2011).]
CARLTON – Dominion Resources intends to sell the Kewaunee Power Station nuclear plant, its chairman said this morning.
Thomas Farrell II, chairman, president and CEO of Dominion, said the Kewaunee purchase was intended to be one of several in the Midwest, but the Richmond-based company was unsuccessful in acquiring other nuclear plants.
“Without the other units, the strategic rationale for continuing to own Kewaunee is diminished and we believe it is time to pursue a sale of the plant,” he said during an earnings conference call.
The company also owns nuclear plants in Virginia and New England.
Dominion acquired Kewaunee in 2005 for $220 million from owners Wisconsin Public Service Corp. of Green Bay and Alliant Energy of Madison. They purchase electricity from the plant under a contract that expires in 2013, and have rights of first refusal on any sale of the plant.
Kewaunee recently received a 20-year renewal of its license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
IP: Logged
02:59 PM
PFF
System Bot
phonedawgz Member
Posts: 17091 From: Green Bay, WI USA Registered: Dec 2009
And if the engineers that designed the Fukushima complex has been competent they would have designed the cooling systems and backup generator systems to not fail under this scenario, a scenario that could have been anticipated given the millenniums of history Japan has with earthquakes and tsunamis. The reactors systems should have been designed for every possible contingency because the consequences of a failure are so dire, long-lasting, and most importantly, expensive. You can't cut a single corner with a reactor, not even a tiny little corner that seems so unlikely as designing everything to withstand a 30' tsunami and 9 scale earthquake.. So what if that means it costs 100 billion dollars to build a nuclear plant, if that's what it takes to prevent Chernobyl, prevent Fukushima, then that's what it takes. Period. That's what the people who think nuclear energy is the best thing since sliced bread just don't understand. Or won't understand. They're completely oblivious of this, and think they can design the perfect machine, completely fixated on nuclear fission as the only possible solution, blind to everything else.
No they didn't think/don't think they can design the perfect machine.
quote
Prior to the Fukushima I nuclear accidents, the core damage frequency of the reactor was estimated to be between 10−4 and 10−7 (i.e., one core damage accident per every 10,000 to 10,000,000 reactor years)
There is no perfect machine. However there is more risk in driving your car around the block than there is living a lifetime next to a containment equipped nuclear power plant.
IP: Logged
03:10 PM
dennis_6 Member
Posts: 7196 From: between here and there Registered: Aug 2001
"On two occasions radiation levels at Dai-Ichi reached 1 sievert an hour. Thirty minutes of exposure to that dose would trigger nausea. Contamination for four hours might lead to death within four months, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "
“That turned out to be the most terrifying event throughout the whole ordeal,” Morse said. “Now they have no containment structure whatsoever, they don’t even have a roof. I thought that could have been a game changer.” "Tepco now had three reactors without cooling systems and a fourth with a fire spewing radiation into the air. " http://www.bloomberg.com/ne...posed-fuel-rods.html
There is no perfect machine. However there is more risk in driving your car around the block than there is living a lifetime next to a containment equipped nuclear power plant.
Slight difference being that if I have a worst case scenario failure in my car the resulting damage doesn't render a hundred square miles uninhabitable for some length of time measured at least in years, or decades, or centuries. And, no matter how bad the accident it won't cost so much to deal with that only the taxpayers will have enough money to pay for it for decades, if not centuries.
So far, in my lifetime, there have been three major nuclear accidents that together will add up to close to half a trillion dollars to remediate by the time it's all said and done. Where's that money coming from? Not from the engineers and owner's pockets. My pocket. Where's the money going to come from for storing the billions of pounds of high-level nuclear waste currently existing and will be created by existing plants over the next decade? Not from the owners or the engineers, other than what they pay in taxes. Such a deal, create a trillion dollars of liability and make everyone else pay a share. Who's paying the 56 billion in subsidies the nuclear industry is getting now? Let me check my pockets for lint, I'm feeling kinda tapped out now...
A hundred billion here, a hundred billion there, pretty soon you're talking about real money.
Once you add in all the actual costs, subsidies, and liabilities across the industry, IMHO it would probably be cheaper to make electricity using hourly workers pedaling bicycle generators.
It's a free market in electricity now. Let's see what happens if ratepayers are required to pay the full end to end cost of nuclear. Remove the subsidies, make the owner/operators pay all their own fuel processing and disposal costs, pay for all their construction costs, pay for a large enough insurance pool to actually cover a worst-case scenario like Fukushima, TMI, Chernobyl, etc. Make them responsible for themselves for a change, fully.
Oh, and to head off your enevitable comment about how other sources get subsidies too, I'd be happy to leave the nuclear subsidies where they're at as long as the others such as solar, geothermal, thorium, wind, etc, get matching dollar for dollar subsidies as well.
Dollar for dollar, to equal the playing field, to make it a fair competition.
In the wake of the Fukushima disaster, nuclear experts have raised questions about the adequacy of emergency power supplies at U.S. facilities. They have taken particular issue with nuclear plants that rely on batteries because the batteries have limited lifespans.
An NRC task force, formed after the Fukushima disaster to assess the safety of U.S. facilities, is also reviewing the adequacy of station blackout procedures, Jaczko said.
Dozens of U.S. nuclear plants rely on batteries for emergency power. The NRC assumes those facilities will be able to access reliable power--either by reconnecting to the grid or jump-starting diesel generators--within four hours of losing power. ...
In the midst of storms and tornadoes that rocked the Southeast, transmission lines going into the Browns Ferry nuclear facility in Alabama were damaged. After power was lost at the site, back-up diesel generators and batteries helped the facility shut down properly.
"Everything worked as was designed," Barbara Martocci , a spokeswoman for TVA, said.
Whew, dodged a bullet there, for sure. I wonder what a mile-wide F5 tornado would have done to Browns Ferry? Is every aspect of that facility secure against sustained 300 mph winds? Is 300 an impossible number, or just a number as unlikely as a Richter-scale 9 earthquake or a 124' tall tsunami?
IP: Logged
03:48 PM
phonedawgz Member
Posts: 17091 From: Green Bay, WI USA Registered: Dec 2009
"On two occasions radiation levels at Dai-Ichi reached 1 sievert an hour. Thirty minutes of exposure to that dose would trigger nausea. Contamination for four hours might lead to death within four months, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "
“That turned out to be the most terrifying event throughout the whole ordeal,” Morse said. “Now they have no containment structure whatsoever, they don’t even have a roof. I thought that could have been a game changer.” "Tepco now had three reactors without cooling systems and a fourth with a fire spewing radiation into the air. " http://www.bloomberg.com/ne...posed-fuel-rods.html
Clearly Professor Morse at Berkeley doesn't have a clue about what he's talking about.
It's a free market in electricity now. Let's see what happens if ratepayers are required to pay the full end to end cost of nuclear. Remove the subsidies, make the owner/operators pay all their own fuel processing and disposal costs, pay for all their construction costs, pay for a large enough insurance pool to actually cover a worst-case scenario like Fukushima, TMI, Chernobyl, etc. Make them responsible for themselves for a change, fully.
Oh, and to head off your enevitable comment about how other sources get subsidies too, I'd be happy to leave the nuclear subsidies where they're at as long as the others such as solar, geothermal, thorium, wind, etc, get matching dollar for dollar subsidies as well.
Dollar for dollar, to equal the playing field, to make it a fair competition.
It's not a free market on electricity. I cannot legally start my own power plant, of any type, and sell what comes out of it, there are laws against that. I also have no choice on which electric company I use, because of "fair use laws".
What you are talking about is socialism, pure and simple. Now getting rid of all subsidies would be the only way to really make the system fair. Sink or swim, one way or another the best system would come out on top. I'd be all for that.
Brad
IP: Logged
05:05 PM
phonedawgz Member
Posts: 17091 From: Green Bay, WI USA Registered: Dec 2009
The problem with the entire nuclear situation is that people who don't understand what is going on make things up or look for the people who are spewing things that they don't know about and then repeat it like it's true.
Specifically, if it came to loss of human life vs rendering a patch of land uninhabitable, the common rational is that saving the human life is worth more. Of course that doesn't apply to this situation but even in your exaggerated argument human life prevails. Nothing is without risks. When you try to apply a no risk situation to nuclear power you would also have to apply a no risk situation to all other alternatives. That doesn't work unless your sole objective is to eliminate the thing that you have predetermined as evil.
Your money argument fails. Your numbers are made up. Your assumption of who pays for the clean up is false. And again if you don't remember it, let me inform you. Russia was a communist country. In a communist country things like insurance for the industrial plant, and taxes don't apply. Again that argument falls flat.
quote
In the wake of the Fukushima disaster, nuclear experts have raised questions about the adequacy of emergency power supplies at U.S. facilities. They have taken particular issue with nuclear plants that rely on batteries because the batteries have limited lifespans.
Seriously your author thinks that some US nuclear plants have only battery back up power? Get real. Are batteries part of the back up feed water systems out there? Yeah wouldn't you use batteries as part of a back up power generation system? Surely not the sole means of power back up.
quote
Oh, and to head off your enevitable comment about how other sources get subsidies too, I'd be happy to leave the nuclear subsidies where they're at as long as the others such as solar, geothermal, thorium, wind, etc, get matching dollar for dollar subsidies as well.
Dollar for dollar, to equal the playing field, to make it a fair competition
Let's see a non partisan link about actual nuclear subsidies. Knowing how much we are dumping into wind power vs power production I would be hard pressed to believe that wind isn't far more subsidized than any other energy source.
[This message has been edited by phonedawgz (edited 04-28-2011).]
The problem with the entire nuclear situation is that people who don't understand what is going on make things up or look for the people who are spewing things that they don't know about and then repeat it like it's true.
Specifically, if it came to loss of human life vs rendering a patch of land uninhabitable, the common rational is that saving the human life is worth more. Of course that doesn't apply to this situation but even in your exaggerated argument human life prevails. Nothing is without risks. When you try to apply a no risk situation to nuclear power you would also have to apply a no risk situation to all other alternatives. That doesn't work unless your sole objective is to eliminate the thing that you have predetermined as evil.
Your money argument fails. Your numbers are made up. Your assumption of who pays for the clean up is false. And again if you don't remember it, let me inform you. Russia was a communist country. In a communist country things like insurance for the industrial plant, and taxes don't apply. Again that argument falls flat.
Let's see a non partisan link about actual nuclear subsidies. Knowing how much we are dumping into wind power vs power production I would be hard pressed to believe that wind isn't far more subsidized than any other energy source.
If I invest the effort and time to produce data that disproved your contentions, would you change your mind? Honest question, you know yourself better than anyone on the planet and I only know you by what you write on this one forum. It may take me weeks to research this and I'm not going to bother investing the time if you have no intention or capability to change your mind.
IP: Logged
05:38 PM
phonedawgz Member
Posts: 17091 From: Green Bay, WI USA Registered: Dec 2009
If I invest the effort and time to produce data that disproved your contentions, would you change your mind? Honest question, you know yourself better than anyone on the planet and I only know you by what you write on this one forum. It may take me weeks to research this and I'm not going to bother investing the time if you have no intention or capability to change your mind.
Hey Jazz, I've said it before, and I'll say it again, if you can find a realistic article that is written in clear, honest language that shows me that Nuclear power is all the things you say it is, then I will gladly change my mind.
I agree with you that subsidies for nuclear is bad, but you thing there should be more money handed out, where I think that there should be none.
I also agree that having land that is destroyed for a very long time is a bad thing, but I don't think it has to be a risk with Nuclear power.
It's not a free market on electricity. I cannot legally start my own power plant, of any type, and sell what comes out of it, there are laws against that. I also have no choice on which electric company I use, because of "fair use laws".
What you are talking about is socialism, pure and simple. Now getting rid of all subsidies would be the only way to really make the system fair. Sink or swim, one way or another the best system would come out on top. I'd be all for that.
Brad
You pulled the world "socialism"out of a dark place on your body, you should put it back there because I never talked about it.
You're partially right on the free market. From an idealistic point of view having two sellers makes a "free"market. From a practical point of view the only way to have a true free market is to have a low enough barrier to entry that new players can enter the game relatively easily. Here in Texas I can choose who to buy power from, a small list that includes wind. Problem is that there are too few players to create a true marketplace. The wind guys, according to their reps, pin the price they charge to the price the natural gas guys charge, and that price isn't dropping despite all the new shale plays coming on market.
About the only new player here now is wind, but the other industries in this state are lobbying hard to block subsidies for power lines to the wind farms, though they don't turn down subsidies toward their own industries. Go figgur...
IP: Logged
05:54 PM
PFF
System Bot
phonedawgz Member
Posts: 17091 From: Green Bay, WI USA Registered: Dec 2009
Here are two Wikipedia articles. One is Nuclear Power. The other is Economics of new nuclear power plants. Maybe you can find your subsidies references in there. I however didn't find anything substantial.
There isn't a non-partisan link to the subsidies of nuclear power? Seriously?
My challenge will be finding links and data that you won't dismiss off-hand by saying something to the effect of "It's a partisan site". The real question is, is it possible to find a non-partisan site if the audience is partisan by default? A classic "can do no right" conundrum.
You pulled the world "socialism"out of a dark place on your body, you should put it back there because I never talked about it.
You're partially right on the free market. From an idealistic point of view having two sellers makes a "free"market. From a practical point of view the only way to have a true free market is to have a low enough barrier to entry that new players can enter the game relatively easily. Here in Texas I can choose who to buy power from, a small list that includes wind. Problem is that there are too few players to create a true marketplace. The wind guys, according to their reps, pin the price they charge to the price the natural gas guys charge, and that price isn't dropping despite all the new shale plays coming on market.
About the only new player here now is wind, but the other industries in this state are lobbying hard to block subsidies for power lines to the wind farms, though they don't turn down subsidies toward their own industries. Go figgur...
But I didn't just putt it out of nowhere, wanting everyone to have equal amounts of money is socialism.
quote
Main articles: Equality of opportunity and Equality of outcome http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_opportunity Proponents of equality of opportunity advocate a society in which there are equal opportunities and life chances for all individuals to maximise their potentials and attain positions in society. This would be made possible by equal access to the necessities of life. This position is held by technocratic socialists, Marxists and social democrats. Equality of outcome refers to a state where everyone receives equal amounts of rewards and an equal level of power in decision-making, with the belief that all roles in society are necessary and therefore none should be rewarded more than others. This view is shared by some communal utopian socialists and anarcho-communists.
Originally posted by JazzMan: About the only new player here now is wind, but the other industries in this state are lobbying hard to block subsidies for power lines to the wind farms, though they don't turn down subsidies toward their own industries. Go figgur...
Once again, you say that everyone should get the subsidies, and I say that nobody should, at all. Not a penny should flow from the Government (taxpayers) to a private business at all. Ever. For any reason.
I don't care if they will collapse and put 3/4 of the country out of work, and I don't care if half the country will be out of power if they don't get the subsidies. If the subsidies go away, and the Government steps out of the way (regulating businesses to death) then we will have a more free market place.
The biggest problem is that I've got to weed through the distortions and rhetoric (on both sides) to get to the truth and the facts. Following the seeds, or clues, back to their sources to see what info is correct and what's not will take work, and time. If your mental definition of "partisan" encompasses the phrase "anti-nuclear" then it stands to reason that any information that refutes your obvious support of the nuclear industry will be automatically rejected by you, rendering my efforts pointless from the beginning.
[This message has been edited by JazzMan (edited 04-28-2011).]
IP: Logged
06:17 PM
phonedawgz Member
Posts: 17091 From: Green Bay, WI USA Registered: Dec 2009
Link 1 says in 2007 renewables received 4 times the subsidies that nuclear did. I would imagine that number has increased quite a bit since 2009. That despite the fact that renewables account for a much much smaller fraction of our electricity use. That pretty much shoots down your claim
Here's what it says on link 2's home page
quote
Safe Energy The Safe Energy program focuses on protecting public health, taxpayer dollars, and national security by preventing the construction of expensive, dirty, and dangerous new nuclear reactors.
Yeah let's see if the site that hates dirty dangerous new reactors is biased. Hmmm. thinking here. hmmm.
Heres link 3
quote
About the GSI The Global Subsidies Initiative (GSI) is the next stage of the Van Lennep Program, named after Emile van Lennep, the distinguished Dutch economist and Minister, and former Secretary-General of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. A collaborative effort of International Institute for Sustainable Development and the Earth Council, the Van Lennep Program focused on four sectors in its initial phase: energy, road transport, water and agriculture. Following a detailed review of subsidies applied in these sectors, its report,Subsidizing Unsustainable Development: Undermining the Earth with Public Funds , offered a dramatic demonstration of how subsidies serve as disincentives to sustainable development. In December 2005 the GSI was launched to put a spotlight on subsidies - transfers of public money to private interests - and how they undermine efforts to put the world economy on a path toward sustainable development. Subsidies are powerful instruments. They can play a legitimate role in securing public goods that would otherwise remain beyond reach. But they can also be easily subverted. The interests of lobbyists and the electoral ambitions of office-holders can hijack public policy. Therefore, the GSI starts from the premise that full transparency and public accountability for the stated aims of public expenditure must be the cornerstones of any subsidy program.
And then a site that titles it's report "Subsidizing Unsustainable Development: Undermining the Earth with Public Funds"
You don't need to go any further. And actually at this point the data you would bring forth would be highly suspect.
Sorry don't bother trying to convince me with leftist propaganda.
IP: Logged
07:43 PM
carnut122 Member
Posts: 9122 From: Waleska, GA, USA Registered: Jan 2004
Experts in the US and Japan believe the venting delay may have helped create conditions that led to the blast. In one possible scenario, pressure built so high that it damaged gaskets and other parts of the venting system, through which highly explosive hydrogen gas leaked from the core into the reactor building. It was Japan's cautious approach to venting, an outgrowth of its profound concern over nuclear contamination, that may well have made the accident worse, they say.
Originally posted by twofatguys: I don't care if they will collapse and put 3/4 of the country out of work, and I don't care if half the country will be out of power if they don't get the subsidies. If the subsidies go away, and the Government steps out of the way (regulating businesses to death) then we will have a more free market place.
I suggest that you read a book by Jarod Diamond called Collapse.
Do you truly understand what putting 3/4 of the population out of work means? Seriously? Would you really want two hundred million Americans to starve to death, mothers, fathers, children? With that kind of societal collapse the line of people willing to put a bullet through your head to get your food to feed their children would be miles long. It would be an every man for himself economic and societal collapse on an unprecedented scale, comparable maybe only to the Roman or Egyptian civilization destruction.
It's pretty clear to me that you have never expended any effort to think through the real implications of the shallow memes you believe. What you advocate is exactly what Somalia has, today, right now. I don't question your passion, your patriotism, your desire to mean well for America, but your depth of real-world knowledge is horrifying.
