Fukushima Spiking All of a Sudden (1 Viewer)

[Tapxe]

But those facts, unlike the misleading photo, don't fit into Expatriate's agenda. So we should just ignore them and assume what he is saying must be true.

How many near miss nuclear disasters are you willing to forgive? There have been more than enough for me. That 2 years after the disaster TEPCO is still fighting to keep this from becoming a widespread disaster scares the heck out of me. And I know there are at least 2 plants within range of ruining my life.

There are better ways.

 

[St. Widge]

How many near miss nuclear disasters are you willing to forgive? There have been more than enough for me. That 2 years after the disaster TEPCO is still fighting to keep this from becoming a widespread disaster scares the heck out of me. And I know there are at least 2 plants within range of ruining my life.

There are better ways.

Are there better ways? Like what? What technology is at a point that we can get rid of nuclear power plants and replace them with something other than power plants run off of fuel oil, gas or coal boilers?

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

We created it. So, it is natural in that sense. It is not "nature" in the sense that we generally mean the word. But, it is part of nature just like a beaver damn is part of nature. And, honestly, the constant references by fringe groups talking about "ravaging the planet", talking about the planet as if it is a living thing and talking about humans as some sort of invasive species on the hide of "mother Earth" are a major problems in the environmentalist movement.

The focus should be on keeping the think inhabitable for humans and keeping it in a condition for us to live on it. To quote Joe Strummer, "please save us not the whales." Alarmist articles like the one above don't really help move us to a society that responsibly uses resources and explores alternative energy.

here's a fun game - I find 6 GLARING inaccuracies - how many can you find?

 

[St. Widge]

here's a fun game - I find 6 GLARING inaccuracies - how many can you find?

Here is a fun game - why don't you name those inaccuracies instead of just being snarky?


Edit: Color me disappointed. You usually make intelligent and well thought out posts and don't do this kind of partisan drive by stuff.

 

[Cajun Mike]

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/...the-price-of-light-water-and-shipped-to-order


There are safer reactors!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[blackadder]

No form of energy is safe then. Also, the "damage" from this accident doesn't appear to be very widespread.

Effects from the Fukushima radiation disaster? - Imgur

 

[Tapxe]

Are there better ways? Like what? What technology is at a point that we can get rid of nuclear power plants and replace them with something other than power plants run off of fuel oil, gas or coal boilers?

Wind, solar, and water. And if we, were investing in those rather than subsidizing oil, gas, and coal, then that tech would grow and improve as well.

http://grist.org/climate-energy/for...e-gotten-halfway-to-a-renewable-power-system/

 

[BHM]

Wind, solar, and water. And if we, were investing in those rather than subsidizing oil, gas, and coal, then that tech would grow and improve as well.

For the price of the Iraq War, the U.S. could have gotten halfway to a renewable power system | Grist

Here is the kicker, nuclear, gas and coal plants can produce 24/7. Most people like to run their lights and air conditioning 24/7.

Here is a quick read on land use as well...

http://www.entergy-arkansas.com/content/news/docs/AR_Nuclear_One_Land_Use.pdf


We need to stop this fallacy that we can replace. Supplement is our best alternative at this stage.

 

[Tapxe]

Here is the kicker, nuclear, gas and coal plants can produce 24/7. Most people like to run their lights and air conditioning 24/7.

Here is a quick read on land use as well...

http://www.entergy-arkansas.com/content/news/docs/AR_Nuclear_One_Land_Use.pdf


We need to stop this fallacy that we can replace. Supplement is our best alternative at this stage.

The sun is always shining somewhere. The wind is always blowing as well. Waves are 24/7 too. Geothermal is another 24/7 option. New Mexico boasts 350 days of sun shine a year. Collection of that energy using solar power and mirrors to super heat storage vessels could easily become a 24/7 source. They tech is there, but not being developed properly as folks continue to defend our current systems for fear of change and corporate influence.

 

[St. Widge]

Wind, solar, and water. And if we, were investing in those rather than subsidizing oil, gas, and coal, then that tech would grow and improve as well.

For the price of the Iraq War, the U.S. could have gotten halfway to a renewable power system | Grist

Wind and solar will not produce enough energy for industry and major cities. They are great to get one person mostly off the grid or reduce energy use, they are not the total solution. And, when you say water, are you talking about hydroelectric plants? Those cause many environmental and socioeconomic issues of their own.

 

[St. Widge]

The sun is always shining somewhere. The wind is always blowing as well. Waves are 24/7 too. Geothermal is another 24/7 option. New Mexico boasts 350 days of sun shine a year. Collection of that energy using solar power and mirrors to super heat storage vessels could easily become a 24/7 source. They tech is there, but not being developed properly as folks continue to defend our current systems for fear of change and corporate influence.

I think you severely underestimate the amount of power that we need to run modern society and overestimate how much can be produced by those sources. Those sources should be developed but at this point, they are at best supplemental. The fact is that nuclear power can be done safely and has been for many years. Yes, accident have happened, but many less than have happened at at the oil refineries necessary to have steam turbine power plants or at the plants themselves. And, safer designs are being made all the time.

But, that does not mean that we should stop looking for safer and more efficient alternatives such as cold fusion and hydrogen.

 

[zeetes]

can we please start calling this something else? the word "fukushima" offends me.

 

[mister pc]

That is certainly the point that the biased source wants to make and clearly the point you wanted to make. And, the reason that they used a misleading photo. Certainly, a discussion needs to be made about the advantages and dangers of nuclear power, but your blanket rejection of it is frankly foolish.

And we are not insignificant compared to nature. We are nature. Humans are animals we are part of nature and whatever we do is by definition part of nature.

Now who is biased and misleading?

Caesium-137 in the environment is anthropogenic (human-made). Unlike most other radioisotopes, caesium-137 is not produced from the same element's nonradioactive isotopes but as a byproduct of the nuclear fission of much heavier elements,[10] meaning that until the building of the first artificial nuclear reactor, the Chicago Pile-1, in late 1942, it had not occurred on Earth for billions of years.

Caesium-137 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anthropogenic radioactive isotope not occurring on earth for billions of years = natural... way to redefine what words mean!

We created it. So, it is natural in that sense. It is not "nature" in the sense that we generally mean the word. But, it is part of nature just like a beaver damn is part of nature. And, honestly, the constant references by fringe groups talking about "ravaging the planet", talking about the planet as if it is a living thing and talking about humans as some sort of invasive species on the hide of "mother Earth" are a major problems in the environmentalist movement.

The focus should be on keeping the think inhabitable for humans and keeping it in a condition for us to live on it. To quote Joe Strummer, "please save us not the whales." Alarmist articles like the one above don't really help move us to a society that responsibly uses resources and explores alternative energy.

The full quote you referenced:

"This is radio clash please save us, not the whales
This is radio clash underneath a mushroom cloud."

Not really a pro nuclear statement is it?

but since you've used the quote to misrepresent joe strummer's commitment to environmentalism, here is another link

The CarbonNeutral Company is a global provider of carbon reduction solutions. Founded in 1997, the company has been one of the first providers of voluntary carbon offset credits in the world.

.......

First famous supporters were artists like Joe Strummer, who developed the idea for the business together with the founders of the company around a campfire in 1996.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Carbon_Neutral_Company

 

[krushing]

Wind and solar will not produce enough energy for industry and major cities. They are great to get one person mostly off the grid or reduce energy use, they are not the total solution. And, when you say water, are you talking about hydroelectric plants? Those cause many environmental and socioeconomic issues of their own.

Folks don't realize how much energy we have come to depend on. Thats why I keep asking posters what they are willing to give up but no one is willing to give up night football games, ighting cities at night , etc. and I dont blame them. With the demand we have for energy, it takes powerful and / or combustious reactions to produce it. In a hundreed years or so, we might be able to do it with solar, but thats a stretch unless we cut way back on our lifestyles and we are not going to do that. Producing energy is dangerous.

 

[Goatman Saint]

I think nuclear should be the backbone of our power grid. All these reactors now are basically running 1960-1970's technology as their backbone. I'm sure a new modern reactor would be much safer and more efficient. However, we keep hearing about how people need a/c and lights 24 hours a day, which is true. However the demand on the grid is much less at night and on cooler days, times when solar is less efficient.