If a thief wanted to steal wholesale the wealth of a community, he would
first disable the cop on the beat and make sure that this source of
property protection is disabled for as long as possible.
In like manner, if a competitor country wanted to steal the commercial base
of another country,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_M._Weinberg
I looked up the name of the guy who I referred to as the father of the
light water reactor.
Following in the tragedy and tradition of J. Robert Oppenheimer, a giant of
nuclear enegineering, Alvin M. Weinberg was crushed under the heal of
the
I believe that the design of the Fukushima reactors were Pre-Three Mile
Island.
I found this resent post on “The Nuclear Green Revolution” website. This
story provides eyewitness on the scene details about the politics involved
during the early days of Light Water Reactor development. This
Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:
I believe that the design of the Fukushima reactors were Pre-Three Mile
Island.
As far as I know, the design of the reactor itself is not at fault. The
accident was caused by the destruction of the backup power supplies.
As far as I know, none of the
Von: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com
An: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Gesendet: 21:20 Dienstag, 3.April 2012
Betreff: Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster -- 34 meter tsunamis?
I believe that the design of the Fukushima reactors were Pre-Three
Mile Island
It is a story
Any reactor larger than ca. 400 MWe needs active cooling system, because power
output is larger that can be cooled down passively. However, 300 MWe and less
can be cooled down after the shut down just submerging reactor into water,
hence they are inherently safe. And there won't be reactor
In engineering, the simplest design is usually the most elegant, prudent,
safest, and cost effective design.
The Light Water reactor design is a Rube Goldberg Machine design which
leads to high cost and over complication.
*The accident was caused by the destruction of the backup power
Axil Axil wrote:
In a reactor design that does not have a need for a power supply then
there is no chance for a problem with power supplies.
Yes. Right. We got it. However there are none available at present.
Right? So why blame this particular design? Any currently available
reactor
*Any reactor larger than ca. 400 MWe needs active cooling system, because
power output is larger that can be cooled down passively.*
A good nuclear reactor design should be air cooled. Such as design can be
upscaled to handle any cool down heat capacity.
*And there won't be reactor pressure
*Yes. Right. We got it. However there are none available at present.
Right? So why blame this particular design? Any currently available reactor
would have failed in this accident.*
**
**
**
The design of such a reactor was deminstated back in 1969.
FYI, the NRC will not license a reactor that
*Okay, so in 10 years a solution will be here. Japan presently has 50
reactors turned off, and they cannot afford to replace them with Chinese
reactors available in 10 years.*
* *
* *
* *
*Anyway, even if cold fusion does not succeed, I think there is no chance
people will building uranium
Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:
I think you are suffering from the same lack of desire to educate yourself
about nuclear power when you categorically reject nuclear power based on an
incomplete education.
I am not rejecting it so much as reporting that the Japanese public, mass
media,
*I am not rejecting it so much as reporting that the Japanese public, mass
media, and people living near reactors have rejected it. The people living
in towns near nuclear reactors insist that they remain shut down. The
central government must bow to their wishes.*
I am heartened to see that
You really think people know what they want? The vast majority of people don't
think cold fusion is possible, and an even larger amount don't care and focus
on issues that don't matter. Most people reject cold fusion, so we should
invest no money into it because it would be a waste of money?
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 7:28 PM, Jarold McWilliams oldja...@hotmail.comwrote:
A democracy is a horrible form of government.
Sad but true.
Dictatorships are much better, and you don't have people making decisions
based on irrational fear and emotions.
Dictatorships are better governments,
One of the characteristic of moder reactors like EPR (Areva) is that they
can self cool without external energy.
one thing missing were sand filters, that are installed in french
powerplant by the demand of a stubborn engineer that lobby for that
desperate mitigation system.
people were moaning
I am not saying that Fukushima was not a big and horrible disaster, but
things must be seen in perspective.
There is no greater tragedy in human history as coal.
Fukushima is a footnote in history of disasters compared to coal. And yet,
people go making much more fuss about nuclear powerplants
I meant there is no greater tragedy in human history, in pursuit of
energy, as coal.
Em 2 de abril de 2012 11:26, Bruno Santos besantos1...@gmail.com escreveu:
I am not saying that Fukushima was not a big and horrible disaster, but
things must be seen in perspective.
There is no greater
From: Bruno Santos
As if it is not enough, coal ash is radioactive. As a
matter of a fact, it pollutes the environment with much more radiation than
nuclear plants waste does.
Alain Sepeda wrote:
One of the characteristic of moder reactors like EPR (Areva) is that
they can self cool without external energy.
Sure. There are several designs that use passive cooling. The pebble bed
reactor is another example. But none have been commercialized yet. The
designs are
No one disputes that coal fired plants kill far more people than nuclear
power, even taking into account casualties from uranium mining pollution.
Anyone who believes that global warming is real will certainly agree that
nuclear power is safer even factoring the Chernobyl and Fukushima
accidents.
I wrote:
The replacement cost of the equipment would be ~$692 billion, which is
roughly how much the Fukushima disaster will cost.
As Greenpeace pointed out, by coincidence this is roughly the cost of the
2008 TARP bailout. Note however, that nearly all of the TARP money was
returned the
FYI:
The EPR is equipped with what Areva refers to as a “core catcher.” If the
fuel cladding and reactor vessel systems and associated piping become
molten, these first two safety mechanisms the molten core will fall into a
core catcher which holds the molten material and has the ability to cool
*Putting aside the long term perspective, nuclear power is uniquely
disastrous from an economic and business point of view. No other source of
energy could conceivably cause so much damage in a single accident, or cost
even a small fraction as much money. As I said, this accident bankrupted
the
Von:Jed Rothwell
jedrothw...@gmail.com
An: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Gesendet: 22:02 Montag, 2.April 2012
Betreff: Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster
No one disputes that coal fired plants kill far more people than
nuclear power, even taking into account casualties from uranium mining
pollution
It will be horrendously expensive, but I would like to think that as smart
as the Japanese are, they will come up with some creative solutions to
mitigate the cost - and maybe ultimately it won't be as expensive as
currently imagined. My parents told me that when they visited Nagasaki
and
Maybe the best long term answer for nuclear is to put reactors in large
barges or on platforms 10's-100's of miles off-shore. While they would be
more vulnerable to the elements they would not threaten any land.
Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:
*Putting aside the long term perspective, .. .*
You can’t dismiss the long term perspective.
No, you can't, but I just did. My sentence begins putting aside the long
term perspective meaning let's not talk about the future for a moment
here; let's look
Robert Lynn robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe the best long term answer for nuclear is to put reactors in large
barges or on platforms 10's-100's of miles off-shore.
That seems like a bad idea to me. A rogue wave or a storm at sea can
capsize or break apart any ship, including the
It is also important to notice that japanese government overlooked serious
issues with the Fukushima power plant. The plant cooling design was not
optimal and they knew it.
The japanese government must be held responsible for the disaster as much
as TEPCO.
Accidents happen, but this was no
Bruno Santos besantos1...@gmail.com wrote:
The japanese government must be held responsible for the disaster as much
as TEPCO.
It is a little difficult to know what you can do to a government. Vote them
out of office? The people who authorized this plant retired and died long
ago.
Where do you keep getting this $600 billion dollar number? Most of the sources
I've seen say it's around $50 billion. And Tepco is the 4th largest electric
utility in the world, not the 1st. Adding Chernobyl to nuclear's safety record
is unfair. Chernobyl just showed what can happen to a
Greenpeace is not a credible source.
On Apr 2, 2012, at 3:24 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
I wrote:
The replacement cost of the equipment would be ~$692 billion, which is
roughly how much the Fukushima disaster will cost.
As Greenpeace pointed out, by coincidence this is roughly the cost of
If we decide to get rid of nuclear and coal in favor of wind and solar, a
millions of people will die of starvation. Our GDP would decrease by half.
I'd rather take a risk that a nuclear reactor explodes or a coal mine
collapses than the alternative.
On Apr 2, 2012, at 4:16 PM, Jed
In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Sun, 1 Apr 2012 23:17:19 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
I think the problem can be addressed by putting emergency generators far
above the waterline, perhaps in the second story of the reactor building.
I suggest building the entire reactor on the sea floor off shore.
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 10:03 PM, Jarold McWilliams oldja...@hotmail.comwrote:
Where do you keep getting this $600 billion dollar number?
The Japanese mass media, NHK, and The Japan Center for Economic Research.
See:
http://www.jcer.or.jp/eng/research/pdf/pe(iwata20110425)e.pdf
This shows 20
Jarold McWilliams oldja...@hotmail.com wrote:
If we decide to get rid of nuclear and coal in favor of wind and solar, a
millions of people will die of starvation. Our GDP would decrease by half.
This is nonsense. Five states in the U.S. alone have more potential wind
energy than the energy
Jarold McWilliams oldja...@hotmail.com wrote:
Greenpeace is not a credible source.
That is true. Greenpeace gets most of the numbers in the report from
official source in the Japanese government and TEPCO. These are not
credible sources -- as you say -- but there are not many independent
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 1:55 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:
Without moral hazard, there is no way for a party to be motivated to
change his behavior, improve his design, or pay for any damage caused.
I think you have moral hazard exactly backwards. Moral hazard is a bad
thing -- it's
Both underwater and underground deployment of nuclear plants is ideal for
certain types of nuclear designs that are totally passively controlled.
This design is old and venerable. Being greatly concerned about nuclear
safety, the last paper that Dr. Edward Teller (designed the H bomb) wrote
just wish we could speed up the progress!
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sat, Mar 31, 2012 11:19 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster
Jarold McWilliams oldja...@hotmail.com wrote:
Nuclear is just
I believe dams are the safest and cheapest way to generate
electricity. (Safety is measured in accidents per kilowatt-hour.)
- Jed
You might look at the Hydro Quebec James Bay project(s).
Wiki is a start -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Bay_Project -- but it's
largely from a Quebecoi
A terrible dam disaster: Vajont 1963.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vajont_Damuseformat=desktop
mic
Il giorno 01/apr/2012 23:12, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com ha scritto:
I believe dams are the safest and cheapest way to generate
electricity. (Safety is measured in accidents per
Japanese experts warn of earthquakes that could produce 34-metre tsunamis
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/01/japan-earthquake-tsunami-wave-risk
Much of Japan's Pacific coast would be inundated by a tsunami more than 34
metres (112 feet) high if an offshore earthquake as powerful as last
be some material that
can be flooded into the reactor vessel that would behave in this manner, at
least I hope there is.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Alan Fletcher a...@well.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sun, Apr 1, 2012 10:06 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster
David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
This information does not build up my confidence in nuclear reactors
located on shorelines.
They are all on the shoreline in Japan. They use ocean water for cooling.
Perhaps a need exists for some form of absolute kill mechanism that can
be
After a reactor shuts down, 15% of the rated capacity of the reactor is
released as delayed heat due to the decay of short lived radioactive
byproducts. This delayed heat must be dissipated into the environment to
keep the structure of the reactor from damage.
The Indians have designed and are
Jarold McWilliams oldja...@hotmail.com wrote:
Fukishima disaster? How many people died in this disaster? 3 so far, 0
from radiation.
It was more an economic disaster, like Three Mile Island (TMI). TMI nearly
bankrupted the local Pennsylvania power company, and cost billions of
dollars.
Von: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
An: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Gesendet: 15:38 Samstag, 31.März 2012
Betreff: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster
About a trillion dollars, as I said.
Monetizing the issue makes it comparative.
But I doubt that.
No every issue
Regarding the scale of the ecological disaster, my impression is that is so
big that no one has a handle on it. No one knows how much radioactive
material escaped, where it ended up, or how widespread it is. It is much
worse than they originally thought.
Last week they inserted a camera into one
Here are some details about that rough estimate of $1 trillion damage over
the long term.
The immediate aftermath of the entire tsunami disaster was cost roughly
$250 billion, but it will cost a lot more in the future, especially if they
rebuild the towns. I doubt they will rebuild many of them.
Von:Jed Rothwell
jedrothw...@gmail.com
An: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Gesendet: 17:00 Samstag, 31.März 2012
Betreff: Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster
Jed,
the problem is:
Are there problems who should be adressed as NIL.
In software-speak this has been the thrash
@eskimo.com
Sent: Sat, Mar 31, 2012 9:38 am
Subject: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster
Jarold McWilliams oldja...@hotmail.com wrote:
Fukishima disaster? How many people died in this disaster? 3 so far, 0 from
radiation.
It was more an economic disaster, like Three Mile Island (TMI). TMI nearly
How many people died when a renewable energy dam broke?
That seldom happens nowadays. Retaining dams made from earth sometimes
break, but not power dams made from concrete.
About 1,000 and probably about the same economic damage with the homes
washed away.
When and where did that
Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Francis_Dam -- 1929 ?
... the current death toll is estimated to be more than 600 victims . . .
A concrete dam failure of this nature is extremely unlikely today.
I believe dams are the safest and cheapest way to
Nuclear is just as safe, if not more, than both of them.
On Mar 31, 2012, at 8:27 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Francis_Dam -- 1929 ?
... the current death toll is estimated to be more than 600 victims . . .
A concrete dam
Jarold McWilliams oldja...@hotmail.com wrote:
Nuclear is just as safe, if not more, than both of them.
Evidently not. The Fukushima accident proved it is not safe. Just because
it did not kill people right away that does not make it safe. It will
likely kill many workers in the years to come.
looking forward to a better future for my
children. I just wish we could speed up the progress!
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sat, Mar 31, 2012 11:19 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster
Jarold McWilliams
Other renewable energy sources will take trillions out of just the U.S. economy
every year because they cost about twice as much as other energy sources. And
your numbers for cost are way too high. It creates jobs by rebuilding lost
homes, etc., thus stimulating the economy according to a lot
LENR notwithstanding as influential in this rejoinder…
Everything is relative. The trillion dollar price tag is a drop in the
bucket for non-carbon based energy; a great bargain in life and treasure
lost. Nuclear disaster is a bargain. This unfortunate incident though
tragic and heart-rending
60 matches
Mail list logo
