and it starts: Lieberman wants to halt new nuclear plants

[Herr Kutz]

Cool! How many people died spewing blood from every pore while their skin peeled and fell off in scaley clumps when those windmills blew?

How many more previously healthy people suffered and died from various forms of cancer for decades after those pics were shot?

How many infants were poisoned with radioactive iodine in their mothers' milk and in the milk produced at dairy farms for decades? :'(

How many square miles were rendered absolutely uninhabitable and useless to humanity by radiation for the next pick your number of thousands of years?

How many people hundreds or thousands of miles away from those windmills suffered the same fates when radioactive material was carried all over shit's creek by prevailing weather patterns?

Go ahead, and try to blow smoke (preferably not radioactive) about the chances of such an event happening, and I'll ask you what part of the price of ONE (count 'em on one finger) meltdown don't you understand?

If you want to talk about calculated risk versus the benefit to be derived from a given activity, then please explain what benefit is worth the demonstrated risk of any number greater than ZERO when it comes to a nuclear catastrophy.

How many people dependent on electricity (think hospitals) will die when the wind decides to take a break?

 

[matt0611]

How many people dependent on electricity (think hospitals) will die when the wind decides to take a break?

How many people will just go without it because it costs too much?

How much economic stagnation of the world would switching over to all wind energy cost? How many people will not have access to cheap energy?

How much less food will be made, how many people will starve? how much less medicine, other technological developments that will help uncountable amounts of people not be made or delayed if we switched to more expensive wind power? etc

 

[Harvey]

How many people dependent on electricity (think hospitals) will die when the wind decides to take a break?

That's why we invented batteries, large storage supercapacitors and other systems. That's why we need more than wind power, but that's why other energy storage systems are also being developed, including tidal energy, which is the same as wind, except that the fluid is water, instead of air.

How many people will just go without it because it costs too much?

How much economic stagnation of the world would switching over to all wind energy cost? How many people will not have access to cheap energy?

How much less food will be made, how many people will starve? how much less medicine, other technological developments that will help uncountable amounts of people not be made or delayed if we switched to more expensive wind power? etc

Both of the above are dumb ass questions. None of the problems either of you cited would result in devastating an area the size of a medium size state for whatever amount of human history remains... if ANY... following a major nuclear disaster. It is altogether too possible, even probable, that the multi-facited illness, pain, suffering and destruction caused a major nuclear disaster could NEVER be fixed by any amount of money, any amount of resources, or any amount of lame ass apologies, after the fact, from the jackasses who promised it would never happen and the idiots who parrot them.

If you don't think it can happen, take your hands off the keyboard, step away from the computer, and turn the TV to any news outlet. It hasn't happened for at least a femtosecond. This disaster is already worse than Three Mile Island, and we have no idea how bad will get before it's over.

 

[matt0611]

That's why we invented batteries, large storage supercapacitors and other systems. That's why we need more than wind power, but that's why other energy storage systems are also being developed, including tidal energy, which is the same as wind, except that the fluid is water, instead of air.



Both of the above are dumb ass questions. None of the problems either of you cited would result in devastating an area the size of a medium size state for whatever amount of human history remains... if ANY... following a major nuclear disaster. It is altogether too possible, even probable, that the multi-facited illness, pain, suffering and destruction caused a major nuclear disaster could NEVER be fixed by any amount of money, any amount of resources, or any amount of lame ass apologies, after the fact, from the jackasses who promised it would never happen and the idiots who parrot them.

If you don't think it can happen, take your hands off the keyboard, step away from the computer, and turn the TV to any news outlet. It hasn't happened for at least a femtosecond. This disaster is already worse than Three Mile Island, and we have no idea how bad will get before it's over.

Any what is your answer for all the unaccounted for spread out suffering from all costs if we followed your plan and relied on windmills?
Nothing is perfect, if it was we'd be doing it already.

 

[Harvey]

Any what is your answer for all the unaccounted for spread out suffering from all costs if we followed your plan and relied on windmills?

Please document where any of your examples can cause the irreparable damage and incalculable suffering that can last longer than the remainder of human history or be the direct cause of significantly shortening or even ending it.

Did you ever take, let alone pass, any science classes in highschool?

 

[matt0611]

Please document where any of your examples can cause the irreparable damage and incalculable suffering that can last longer than the remainder of human history or be the direct cause of significantly shortening or even ending it.

Did you ever take, let alone pass, any science classes in highschool?

Easy, when people can't AFFORD things like food, medicine, etc
or when something never even existed because of all the economic stagnation that there would be if you had your way that causes incalculable suffering.

So I ask you again, whats your answer to that?

And don't worry, I have an MS in engineering. I know plenty of science thank you.

 

[Harvey]

Easy, when people can't AFFORD things like food, medicine, etc
or when something never even existed because of all the economic stagnation that there would be if you had your way that causes incalculable suffering.

So I ask you again, whats your answer to that?

My answer is that there is NO economy if there is no living country suitable for habitation, and food and hospitals and anything else doesn't matter if everyone is dead or dying of incurable illnesses caused by radiation.

My answer is that you haven't a clue about anything related to physics, chemistry, biology or reality.

 

[matt0611]

My answer is that there is NO economy if there is no living country suitable for habitation, and food and hospitals and anything else doesn't matter if everyone is dead or dying of incurable illnesses caused by radiation.

My answer is that you haven't a clue about anything related to physics, chemistry, biology or reality.

So do we have no livable country suitable for habitation?
Thats the current state of things?
No, we don't.

And yes, I have an MS in engineering, I know plenty of science thank you.

 

[ericlp]

Well, I normally agree with Harvey but this I can't.

Wind generation is only .8% at best.... Maybe 1% for 2011 stats? There is no way your gonna get enough windmills up to cover the 20%. You'd have fill the entire country with windmills ... I'd love to see wind / solar / renewable energy take the place of both coal / nuclear power plants. but sadly we are not even close to achieving this since coal alone is almost HALF our energy use.

That's 70% of our energy needs on coal/nukes alone! I agree I'd rather see windmills / solar panels then smoke stakes and spent rods filling our land fills. But..... The only way your gonna achieve this is to stop selling Air conditioners, super high efficiency tv, washers, refrigerators, computers and LED light bulbs. It would also require folks to RETHINK leaving that heater on or buying blow dryers or computers with 1000 watt power supplies.

Good Luck!

 

[Harvey]

So do we have no livable country suitable for habitation?
Thats the current state of things?
No, we don't.

No, for now, that's Chernobyl's problem, and it could soon be Japan's problem. If that's what you want, please go there. Just don't be so anxious to volunteer our nation for the same fate.

And yes, I have an MS in engineering, I know plenty of science thank you.

Then try applying what claim you learned instead of pimping the agenda of those who don't give a shit about humanity if it gets in the way of their immediate financial profits.

BREAKING NEWS!

Japan abandons stricken nuke plant over radiation

By ERIC TALMADGE and SHINO YUASA, Associated Press Eric Talmadge And Shino Yuasa, Associated Press – 25 mins ago

FUKUSHIMA, Japan – Japan suspended operations to prevent a stricken nuclear plant from melting down Wednesday after a surge in radiation made it too dangerous for workers to remain at the facility.

Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano said work on dousing reactors with water was disrupted by the need to withdraw.

Earlier officials said 70 percent of fuel rods at one of the six reactors at the plant were significantly damaged in the aftermath of Friday's calamitous earthquake and tsunami.

News reports said 33 percent of fuel rods were also damaged at another reactor. Officials said they would use helicopters and fire trucks to spray water in a desperate effort to prevent further radiation leaks and to cool down the reactors.
.
.
(continues)

 

[Jhhnn]

How many people dependent on electricity (think hospitals) will die when the wind decides to take a break?

Hospitals generally have backup generators. Wind power is obviously part of a long range energy solution, along with hydro, tidal and other sources.

Nuclear can be too, but the Japanese experience dictates that reactors need to be as close to walk away safe as possible, with redundant safety systems incorporated in the design, requiring no outside intervention for shutdown. Candu reactors, for example, claim to do that, and lead/ bismuth cooled reactors appear to have the same capabilities.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Hospitals generally have backup generators. Wind power is obviously part of a long range energy solution, along with hydro, tidal and other sources.

Nuclear can be too, but the Japanese experience dictates that reactors need to be as close to walk away safe as possible, with redundant safety systems incorporated in the design, requiring no outside intervention for shutdown. Candu reactors, for example, claim to do that, and lead/ bismuth cooled reactors appear to have the same capabilities.

Well have fun powering this country on 0.8% of its total electricity generation because someone on this board has some fascination over wind power.

I'm not saying Nuclear power is perfect. I've already said that Lieberman's words aren't that bad. WE definitely should re-evaluate and re-assess our disaster preparedness as well as for future plants. Nuclear safety will ALWAYS be an issue, but if we manage it properly, it shouldn't be that big of an issue.

Chernobyl and TMI were clear cases of operator error and systems failure. Chernobyl was also a product of safety unawareness and poor planning to begin with. So Harvey will use Chernobyl primarily to assess what a terrible idea nuclear power is.

It's like the same idea we should ban guns because idiots shoot themselves or ban cars because of all those ghost riding gone wrong videos on Youtube. Accidents happen, and everytime accidents happen you assess WTF happened and what can you do to fix things. Clearly, Japan was more than prepared, but the 6th largest quake and a tsunami can be blamed. I do agree we need to reassess the backup systems and to make them more robust, but to say nuclear power is idiotic because of this incident is just plan retarded.

I've already said that failure of backup systems is unacceptable because it is the safety net of the entire nuclear power plant. Maybe things went wrong this time, but it does not mean that we can't prevent it in the future or engineer a better solution.

Alternative energy has its downsides too. As anyone knows the semiconductor industry creates huge amounts of waste and also uses tons of water. Toxic gasses are frequently a problem from fabs. So solar panels are ok now? I worked in thin film solar and it's just as bad. Selenium isn't exactly crap you want in your system and yet I can bet you we were breathing that shit in our fab. Cadmium? Yeah there's a lot of that getting dumped everyday. Good luck waste processing all that.

With wind power, how many wind turbines do you need to produce to create a decent amount of power? How much energy goes in fabricating wind turbines and installing these? Labor? Infrastructure integration and crap? This isn't low cost.

I like how most environmentalists consider 1 positive outcome. Great, it's safe and clean. But what about the energy you need to deploy all this stuff? It's like everything just goes out the window except this whole no waste concept.

 

[chucky2]

It's just not the sunk costs, it's can the solution actually be the solution? It's clear that for the majority of locations, solar (as it is today), wind (as it is today), and energy storage (as it is today), isn't going to cut it. No one wants the entire US to have wind turbines up every 200 yards: Sorry, that's a rediculous "solution".

When the solar panels are burried under 2' of snow, how exactly will whole cities be getting their power? Answer: They either won't (unacceptable), or, they'll be going turbine power (gulp gulp gulp gulp on the gas) and in reality, using the "backup" (which really means primary) coal/nuke plant that will still have to be there.

Hydro? Super, lets destroy the earth upstream and downstream. What's that? You apply the same natural disaster logic to the Hydro and it fails too, except even harder to "harden" than nuke? Super....there goes another "solution"...

We need to start now (well really, a decade or so ago) on taking care of our energy needs for the next 50 years. Sorry to say, except in a few specific locales, it's nuke or coal. Pick one.

Chuck

 

[wuliheron]

We need to start now (well really, a decade or so ago) on taking care of our energy needs for the next 50 years. Sorry to say, except in a few specific locales, it's nuke or coal. Pick one.

Chuck

What a joke! We needed to start seriously looking for alternatives 50 years ago. Obama's proposed alternative energy research budget was just slashed, so that ain't happening (surprise!) As usual the politicians have found it easier to slash budgets and taxes then do what enhances our long term security. Welcome to reactionary politics.

 

[StrangerGuy]

Just mention nuclear anything and its automatically much more dangerous than anything else on the planet. Statistics be damned.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

No, for now, that's Chernobyl's problem, and it could soon be Japan's problem. If that's what you want, please go there. Just don't be so anxious to volunteer our nation for the same fate.



Then try applying what claim you learned instead of pimping the agenda of those who don't give a shit about humanity if it gets in the way of their immediate financial profits.

BREAKING NEWS!

Oh also it's a temporary evacuation. Of course you would make it sound like that's it. GG. ALT F4. Game over. They're pulling back in a full scale retreat.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/03/16/japan.nuclear.reactors/index.html?hpt=T1 (Updated 19 minutes before my post)

Tokyo (CNN) -- Officials asked workers at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant to evacuate temporarily Wednesday after a white cloud of smoke rose above the plant and radiation levels spiked.

Workers were "asked to withdraw to a safe area," Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano said. Authorities later allowed them to return after radiation levels dropped, the Tokyo Electric Power Company said.

 

[chucky2]

What a joke! We needed to start seriously looking for alternatives 50 years ago. Obama's proposed alternative energy research budget was just slashed, so that ain't happening (surprise!) As usual the politicians have found it easier to slash budgets and taxes then do what enhances our long term security. Welcome to reactionary politics.

We don't need alternatives at this point - the grace period was in the 70's when the nuke plants were new and we had a reasonable time to try and develope viable green energy - we simply need to pick the best nuke (or coal, if that's the locales cup of tea) designs and start going on them.

By the time those are EOL'd, maybe we'll finally have developed and implemented the green energies so the nuke/coal plants getting turned up in the next 10 years can be turned down in the next 50, with green taking over instead of yet another nuke/coal plant.

Chuck

 

[wuliheron]

We don't need alternatives at this point - the grace period was in the 70's when the nuke plants were new and we had a reasonable time to try and develope viable green energy - we simply need to pick the best nuke (or coal, if that's the locales cup of tea) designs and start going on them.

By the time those are EOL'd, maybe we'll finally have developed and implemented the green energies so the nuke/coal plants getting turned up in the next 10 years can be turned down in the next 50, with green taking over instead of yet another nuke/coal plant.

Chuck

The issue isn't merely supply America's energy needs, but the world's energy needs. We're running out of everything from cheap oil to drinking water and the economic impact alone will cripple the world economy unless we find cheap new energy sources. Building new coal plants in the US will be worthless if the world economy seriously contracts and few Americans have a job.

 

[zephyrprime]

This entire discussion is pretty much a moot point. Wall Street has not and will not finance or insure the construction of any nuclear power plant in the US. This has been true for the last 30 years. Wall Street simply will not tolerate the risk. After what has happened in Japan, this is even more true than ever.

 

[ericlp]

The issue isn't merely supply America's energy needs, but the world's energy needs. We're running out of everything from cheap oil to drinking water and the economic impact alone will cripple the world economy unless we find cheap new energy sources. Building new coal plants in the US will be worthless if the world economy seriously contracts and few Americans have a job.

Well, gee Einstein what do you expect us to do? We could kill half the population... That's the problem isn't it? Finding enough resources for all the humans that want 200 amp breaker boxes ... Be able to just flip a switch and leave all their toys plugged in, meanwhile they scream "NOT IN MY BACKYARD". hahaha

I think people should start compromising. Everyone wants a 1K-3K sqft home all to themselves then they want to HEAT it too! Computers were suppose to be Fast and more efficient yet the 600+ watt power supplies are the norm!

I dunno. Seems we got are priorities going the wrong way. Remember when a 600 watt hair dryer was the norm? Now it's 1200 watts +! That better be running on a 12 wire! Most people never think about consumption they just think the higher the better!

Green tech only works if everyone is on the SAME page. Led Bulbs... Unplug everything in your house. Only run the vacuum cleaner when the sun is the brightest because that 10-12Amps is the most power hungry item you have in your house. What hair dryer? you gotta be kidding me! Fucking let that shit dry out in the sun. AC? What the hell is that?

I would dare just 10% of american's to try and run off grid. I'd laugh my ass off at them. Fuck No you won't be plugging that into the battery tie's! And when you do take a shower it better be 3-4 minutes max!

I really don't think that 90% of americans could pull off running off grid. And I mean 'realistically' you know like just on a 10-15,000 dollar setup not some 50,000 dollar solar array not many americans I know got 50K laying around in the bank hell I doubt 10% even have 10K just chilling in the checking account. You get my point. If you think I'm joking try it for yourself. There are vacation cabins that are totally off gird! Bring the family and watch them fight over the on power socket. What do you mean we gotta watch tv on a 19" lcd? And only on for 2 hour a day? Oh we can't just leave all the lights on in the house? Mary used up all the hot water now the rest of us gotta take cold ones... It goes on and on!

And before you blow your a fuse... How many here are doing anything green? Passive Solar is really easy to install. Ya know for about 500 bucks you could run a few 30watt panels and a few 12 volt batteries and run 12 volt LED light bulbs for all your lighting needs. That's just a start!

How many actually bought hi efficient appliances? I got a one of the best fridges sears sold. Then I took out the 100 watt light bulb out of the fridge and replaced it with an LED bulb (that's a no brainer) ... 100watt bulbs heat up pretty fast. Why put a heater in the fridge? sigh...

I see all these people complaining about power usage but we wouldn't NEED them if we didn't WASTE so much electricity!

 

[wuliheron]

Well, gee Einstein what do you expect us to do? We could kill half the population... That's the problem isn't it? Finding enough resources for all the humans that want 200 amp breaker boxes ... Be able to just flip a switch and leave all their toys plugged in, meanwhile they scream "NOT IN MY BACKYARD". hahaha

I think people should start compromising. Everyone wants a 1K-3K sqft home all to themselves then they want to HEAT it too! Computers were suppose to be Fast and more efficient yet the 600+ watt power supplies are the norm!

No, population isn't the problem, again, its the world economy that is the problem.

The world economy is similar to a primitive slash and burn agricultural society complete with environmental damage, weeds, bugs, foraging animals, and neighboring tribes warring on each other. Right now about half the cargo ships out there are carrying counterfeit items and a quarter of the world's billionaires are drug cartels specializing in illegal trade. And that's not getting into all the other crap going on "legally".

Frankly its a mess and we're running out of forest to cut down. More environmentally sustainable practices is important, but not enough to prevent the system from collapsing under its own weight and all hell breaking loose. For that we require at the very least a new source of cheap sustainable energy. By itself it isn't a solution to all our problems, but it could be enough to buy us the time we need to get our shit together.

 

[extra]

Just mention nuclear anything and its automatically much more dangerous than anything else on the planet. Statistics be damned.

This. :\ The other thing is that these reactors were very old designs and were scheduled to be shut down. There are new designs which are inherently safe (ie, the coolant is lost and all that happens is the reaction *stops*). What is going on in Japan is tragic, but the nuclear portion of the disaster is tiny compared to the horrible devastation unleashed by the tsunami--you can't protect against everything mother nature can throw at you.

The equivalent would be if we gave up on jet air travel because the Comet had a design flaw and was unsafe...doesn't really make much sense...

The other thing that always gets repeated is "but the radiation lasts for thousands of years and" etc etc...Here's the truth:

The stuff that is dangerously radioactive decays very quickly--most in decades or less, some within less than a hundred years.

The material that is radioactive for tens of thousands of years is safe enough to hold in your hand...but we can't let facts get in the way of some good fear mongering.