Re: [Vo]:Explosion at Fukushima nuclear power plant
On 05/14/2011 01:14 AM, Axil Axil wrote: A safer nuclear reactor should be meltdown proof, proliferation safe, passively air cooled, deployed underground with waste (stable in 1000 years) shipped off site for centralized underground storage.Such a reactor is possible to build. Of course. It will be costlier. In fact, the Chinese are developing this type of reactor today as their first homegrown reactor design. The US loves the light water reactor…and therein rests the problem with nuclear power worldwide. Probably because they are relatively simple, easier to build, and cheap. In the particular case of Fukushima, the reactors were designed to stand a maximum 7.5 M earthquake, and a tsunami of 5.7 meters. If all the issues mentioned above are considered, plus resistance to bigger earthquakes and tsunamis, the cost increases considerably. The risks were known. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_Nuclear_Power_Plant#Warnings_and_design_critique If the cost of conventional nuclear energy increases (and it will) as a consequence of all the security and safety considerations, that's good for renewables and alternative forms of energy, because they will be immediately more competitive. The same with oil. The end of cheap oil means that other forms of energy are immediately more attractive. Regards, Mauro
Re: [Vo]:Explosion at Fukushima nuclear power plant
About a month ago Mauro said that what had happened was thus far a proof of safety. Now that they admit there was a full meltdown in the reactor, do you now still think that Nuclear power is safe? (or will every meltdown be the exception?) After weeks of denials and downplaying the truth, TEPCO has now reluctantly admitted that *Fukushima suffered a core fuel nuclear meltdown*. This means the fuel rods in reactor No. 1 were not sufficiently cooled, so they physically melted, releasing vast amounts of radiation into the containment vessel. Even worse, this nuclear meltdown apparently resulted in a *containment vessel breach*, melting through the floor of the reactor. This is what caused radiation to escape into the environment (air and ocean water). Here's the latest: http://www.naturalnews.com/032378_nuclear_meltdown_TEPCO.html On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 6:24 AM, Mauro Lacy ma...@lacy.com.ar wrote: On 03/13/2011 08:37 AM, John Berry wrote: Might be fewer people stupidly insisting Nuclear power is safe now... I disagree. What happened to this point (always based on available news reports, of course) is a proof of safety, more than anything else. The fact that the containment vessel resisted the explosion of the reactor building and that no major radioactive leaking occurred, even when the reactor core seems to be in a partial meltdown, and after the most powerful recorded earthquake struck really close, says a lot about the level of precaution, planning and safety those plants have. I can be wrong, and the containment vessel will end up not being able to contain the meltdown(or partial meltdown, according to reports), but to this point, the available evidence is indicating that it will be able to do it. The fact they have decided to use sea water to cool down the reactors also seems to strengthen this, because the temperatures and pressures will decrease. Probably the level of contamination and consequent cancer increase produced by the burning of the oil and gas facilities will be much greater than the one produced by the radioactive leaking produced by venting. Not to talk about the diseases and deterioration of quality of life caused by the atmospheric pollution, which results from the burning of fossil fuels regularly. Nuclear reactors have the potential to cause great damage, but just due to that, their level of safety is greater. And that level seems to be adequate, at least in this case, and until this moment. Conventional nuclear power is certainly not a perfect solution, but I think nuclear power and their associated dangers are preferable to the burning of fossil fuels and their associated problems. Regards, Mauro
Re: [Vo]:Explosion at Fukushima nuclear power plant
Japanese Nuke Reactor Suffered a China Syndrome Meltdown Nuclear meltdown at Fukushima plant One of the reactors at the crippled Fukushima Daiichi power plant did suffer a nuclear meltdown, Japanese officials admitted for the first time today, describing a pool of molten fuel at the bottom of the reactor's containment vessel. By Julian Ryall in Tokyo 2:01PM BST 12 May 2011 Engineers from the Tokyo Electric Power company (Tepco) entered the No.1 reactor at the end of last week for the first time and saw the top five feet or so of the core's 13ft-long fuel rods had been exposed to the air and melted down. Previously, Tepco believed that the core of the reactor was submerged in enough water to keep it stable and that only 55 per cent of the core had been damaged. Now the company is worried that the molten pool of radioactive fuel may have burned a hole through the bottom of the containment vessel, causing water to leak. We will have to revise our plans, said Junichi Matsumoto, a spokesman for Tepco. We cannot deny the possibility that a hole in the pressure vessel caused water to leak. Tepco has not clarified what other barriers there are to stop radioactive fuel leaking if the steel containment vessel has been breached. Greenpeace said the situation could escalate rapidly if the lava melts through the vessel. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/8509502/Nuclear-meltdown-at-Fukushima-plant.html On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 4:18 AM, John Berry aethe...@gmail.com wrote: About a month ago Mauro said that what had happened was thus far a proof of safety. Now that they admit there was a full meltdown in the reactor, do you now still think that Nuclear power is safe? (or will every meltdown be the exception?) After weeks of denials and downplaying the truth, TEPCO has now reluctantly admitted that *Fukushima suffered a core fuel nuclear meltdown *. This means the fuel rods in reactor No. 1 were not sufficiently cooled, so they physically melted, releasing vast amounts of radiation into the containment vessel. Even worse, this nuclear meltdown apparently resulted in a *containment vessel breach*, melting through the floor of the reactor. This is what caused radiation to escape into the environment (air and ocean water). Here's the latest: http://www.naturalnews.com/032378_nuclear_meltdown_TEPCO.html On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 6:24 AM, Mauro Lacy ma...@lacy.com.ar wrote: On 03/13/2011 08:37 AM, John Berry wrote: Might be fewer people stupidly insisting Nuclear power is safe now... I disagree. What happened to this point (always based on available news reports, of course) is a proof of safety, more than anything else. The fact that the containment vessel resisted the explosion of the reactor building and that no major radioactive leaking occurred, even when the reactor core seems to be in a partial meltdown, and after the most powerful recorded earthquake struck really close, says a lot about the level of precaution, planning and safety those plants have. I can be wrong, and the containment vessel will end up not being able to contain the meltdown(or partial meltdown, according to reports), but to this point, the available evidence is indicating that it will be able to do it. The fact they have decided to use sea water to cool down the reactors also seems to strengthen this, because the temperatures and pressures will decrease. Probably the level of contamination and consequent cancer increase produced by the burning of the oil and gas facilities will be much greater than the one produced by the radioactive leaking produced by venting. Not to talk about the diseases and deterioration of quality of life caused by the atmospheric pollution, which results from the burning of fossil fuels regularly. Nuclear reactors have the potential to cause great damage, but just due to that, their level of safety is greater. And that level seems to be adequate, at least in this case, and until this moment. Conventional nuclear power is certainly not a perfect solution, but I think nuclear power and their associated dangers are preferable to the burning of fossil fuels and their associated problems. Regards, Mauro
Re: [Vo]:Explosion at Fukushima nuclear power plant
About a month ago Mauro said that what had happened was thus far a proof of safety. You're right, but thus far was just after the first explosion, and based on publicly available information. I changed my mind just one or two days later, after the explosion in number 3, and particularly, the internal explosion at the number 2 reactor. Now that they admit there was a full meltdown in the reactor, do you now still think that Nuclear power is safe? (or will every meltdown be the exception?) I still think that the risks of nuclear energy are preferable to the risks and consequences of other forms of energy. Like, by example, when countries are invaded and millions of people killed because of their oil reserves.
Re: [Vo]:Explosion at Fukushima nuclear power plant
On 05/13/2011 06:45 PM, John Berry wrote: other forms of energy Hmmm, funny you don't just say oil. Or perhaps there is something I don't know and I should take the term Light Brigade more literally? Was the war over all that Silicon in the sand to make Solar Cells? Of course oil can't be replaced by Nuclear, since we aren't about to drive nuclear powered cars. But we can switch to electric cars, but why of all the options is nuclear better than other forms of energy just as solar, wind, hydro, wave, tide, biofuel and true alternatives such as what this list is dedicated to? And what about the other issues around Nuclear power, the waste that is a huge problem that will be around forever on a human time scale and as long as Nuclear power is used the problem will grow. Then what about the fact that if Nuclear is the only supported option then many countries will take it up and that leads directly into Nuclear Weapon programs. (*Each year a typical 1000 mega-watt (MW) commercial power reactor will produce 300 to 500 pounds of plutonium -- enough to build between 25 - 40 Nagasaki-sized atomic bombs.*) And then if a natural or man made disaster occurs a meltdown can't be stopped and spews radioactive waste everywhere. Anyway the war in Iraq was not about oil, they were trying to help the Iraqi people or it was somehow connected to 9/11, Just ask Bush, he might recall. Oh, that's right, the reason for the war was the claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Clearly everyone having Nuclear power doesn't contribute to suspicions that people have access to WMD. Well, blaming nuclear power for Iraq's invasion. That's original, can't deny it. When I said other forms of energy I was referring to oil, yes. Nuclear power has its problems, but it's probably the only serious alternative to replace oil to generate electricity, in the short term. Electric cars are a great idea, but they come with the little detail that they need electricity to run. That electricity will have to be generated somehow. Tapping it from the Van Allen belt? I have my doubts. I think that alternative energy sources like solar, wind, wave, etc. are currently not energy dense enough to replace oil. That will only aggravate in the future, when the world energy demands increase. In fact, it's aggravating right now. Why do you think so many developing countries are building nuclear reactors? Because they want to produce weapons grade material? No, it's because they see their energy demand increasing, and that oil is becoming more and more costly and difficult to obtain. India is building Thorium reactors, by example, which cannot be used to produce weapons grade material. I may sound conventional here, but it's just a question of thinking in terms or real, already existing, options. I think that things like cold fusion are unfortunately still in the future. I would love to be proved wrong, and to see a power plant based on Rossi's energy catalyzer working at the end of the year, but I have serious doubts about it. Time will tell. Fortunately we don't need to wait much. Regards, Mauro
Re: [Vo]:Explosion at Fukushima nuclear power plant
I just don't believe that, first off we know that there is more than enough recoverable solar energy to take care of all energy demands many times over. And that's just solar, yes there would need to be a big project of installation and you would need to store the energy in the day time to use at night but it is totally doable. I wanted to see if I could find something that summed up how much energy could come from these renewables but I can't find any such info, what I can find is that renewables currently account for almost 20% of the electricity generated. So are you saying you think it would be extraordinarily difficult to have 5 times more wind farms? (I have never seen 1 in person) I don't think so, 5 time more solar, that would still not be much. 5 times more hydro may be a bigger challenge but it wouldn't be impossible. 5 times more Tidal power 5 times more wave power You get the point, it would be pretty straight forward. And many of these can be cheaper than Nuclear or easily competitive. Really where does your belief that these are insufficient come from? Do you really think that Nuclear makes so much more sense? Would your view be different in you lived in Japan? On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 10:35 AM, Mauro Lacy ma...@lacy.com.ar wrote: On 05/13/2011 06:45 PM, John Berry wrote: other forms of energy Hmmm, funny you don't just say oil. Or perhaps there is something I don't know and I should take the term Light Brigade more literally? Was the war over all that Silicon in the sand to make Solar Cells? Of course oil can't be replaced by Nuclear, since we aren't about to drive nuclear powered cars. But we can switch to electric cars, but why of all the options is nuclear better than other forms of energy just as solar, wind, hydro, wave, tide, biofuel and true alternatives such as what this list is dedicated to? And what about the other issues around Nuclear power, the waste that is a huge problem that will be around forever on a human time scale and as long as Nuclear power is used the problem will grow. Then what about the fact that if Nuclear is the only supported option then many countries will take it up and that leads directly into Nuclear Weapon programs. (*Each year a typical 1000 mega-watt (MW) commercial power reactor will produce 300 to 500 pounds of plutonium -- enough to build between 25 - 40 Nagasaki-sized atomic bombs.*) And then if a natural or man made disaster occurs a meltdown can't be stopped and spews radioactive waste everywhere. Anyway the war in Iraq was not about oil, they were trying to help the Iraqi people or it was somehow connected to 9/11, Just ask Bush, he might recall. Oh, that's right, the reason for the war was the claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Clearly everyone having Nuclear power doesn't contribute to suspicions that people have access to WMD. Well, blaming nuclear power for Iraq's invasion. That's original, can't deny it. When I said other forms of energy I was referring to oil, yes. Nuclear power has its problems, but it's probably the only serious alternative to replace oil to generate electricity, in the short term. Electric cars are a great idea, but they come with the little detail that they need electricity to run. That electricity will have to be generated somehow. Tapping it from the Van Allen belt? I have my doubts. I think that alternative energy sources like solar, wind, wave, etc. are currently not energy dense enough to replace oil. That will only aggravate in the future, when the world energy demands increase. In fact, it's aggravating right now. Why do you think so many developing countries are building nuclear reactors? Because they want to produce weapons grade material? No, it's because they see their energy demand increasing, and that oil is becoming more and more costly and difficult to obtain. India is building Thorium reactors, by example, which cannot be used to produce weapons grade material. I may sound conventional here, but it's just a question of thinking in terms or real, already existing, options. I think that things like cold fusion are unfortunately still in the future. I would love to be proved wrong, and to see a power plant based on Rossi's energy catalyzer working at the end of the year, but I have serious doubts about it. Time will tell. Fortunately we don't need to wait much. Regards, Mauro
Re: [Vo]:Explosion at Fukushima nuclear power plant
*Each year a typical 1000 mega-watt (MW) commercial power reactor will produce 300 to 500 pounds of plutonium -- enough to build between 25 - 40 Nagasaki-sized atomic bombs.)* * * A reactor that produces bomb grade plutonium (aka pu239) must be stopped frequently and reprocessed to avoid contamination by pu238 and pu240. A long running commercial plant with a high fuel burnup will produce plutonium that is not suitable for making a bomb since it will be loaded with pu238 and pu240 contamination. On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 6:35 PM, Mauro Lacy ma...@lacy.com.ar wrote: On 05/13/2011 06:45 PM, John Berry wrote: other forms of energy Hmmm, funny you don't just say oil. Or perhaps there is something I don't know and I should take the term Light Brigade more literally? Was the war over all that Silicon in the sand to make Solar Cells? Of course oil can't be replaced by Nuclear, since we aren't about to drive nuclear powered cars. But we can switch to electric cars, but why of all the options is nuclear better than other forms of energy just as solar, wind, hydro, wave, tide, biofuel and true alternatives such as what this list is dedicated to? And what about the other issues around Nuclear power, the waste that is a huge problem that will be around forever on a human time scale and as long as Nuclear power is used the problem will grow. Then what about the fact that if Nuclear is the only supported option then many countries will take it up and that leads directly into Nuclear Weapon programs. (*Each year a typical 1000 mega-watt (MW) commercial power reactor will produce 300 to 500 pounds of plutonium -- enough to build between 25 - 40 Nagasaki-sized atomic bombs.*) And then if a natural or man made disaster occurs a meltdown can't be stopped and spews radioactive waste everywhere. Anyway the war in Iraq was not about oil, they were trying to help the Iraqi people or it was somehow connected to 9/11, Just ask Bush, he might recall. Oh, that's right, the reason for the war was the claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Clearly everyone having Nuclear power doesn't contribute to suspicions that people have access to WMD. Well, blaming nuclear power for Iraq's invasion. That's original, can't deny it. When I said other forms of energy I was referring to oil, yes. Nuclear power has its problems, but it's probably the only serious alternative to replace oil to generate electricity, in the short term. Electric cars are a great idea, but they come with the little detail that they need electricity to run. That electricity will have to be generated somehow. Tapping it from the Van Allen belt? I have my doubts. I think that alternative energy sources like solar, wind, wave, etc. are currently not energy dense enough to replace oil. That will only aggravate in the future, when the world energy demands increase. In fact, it's aggravating right now. Why do you think so many developing countries are building nuclear reactors? Because they want to produce weapons grade material? No, it's because they see their energy demand increasing, and that oil is becoming more and more costly and difficult to obtain. India is building Thorium reactors, by example, which cannot be used to produce weapons grade material. I may sound conventional here, but it's just a question of thinking in terms or real, already existing, options. I think that things like cold fusion are unfortunately still in the future. I would love to be proved wrong, and to see a power plant based on Rossi's energy catalyzer working at the end of the year, but I have serious doubts about it. Time will tell. Fortunately we don't need to wait much. Regards, Mauro
Re: [Vo]:Explosion at Fukushima nuclear power plant
On 05/13/2011 08:20 PM, John Berry wrote: I just don't believe that, first off we know that there is more than enough recoverable solar energy to take care of all energy demands many times over. And that's just solar, yes there would need to be a big project of installation and you would need to store the energy in the day time to use at night but it is totally doable. I wanted to see if I could find something that summed up how much energy could come from these renewables but I can't find any such info, what I can find is that renewables currently account for almost 20% of the electricity generated. So are you saying you think it would be extraordinarily difficult to have 5 times more wind farms? (I have never seen 1 in person) I don't think so, 5 time more solar, that would still not be much. 5 times more hydro may be a bigger challenge but it wouldn't be impossible. 5 times more Tidal power 5 times more wave power You get the point, it would be pretty straight forward. And many of these can be cheaper than Nuclear or easily competitive. Really where does your belief that these are insufficient come from? Do you really think that Nuclear makes so much more sense? Cost-benefit reasons? I'm not an expert in renewable energies, but I tend to think that people who is in charge of designing and developing energy policies are not stupid. Solar, hydro, wind, tidal and wave power all have their problems. Solar is expensive and relatively inefficient. Some breakthroughs are needed. Nocera's artificial leaf looks promising, or recent advances in photovoltaics. Anyway, there seems to be a need for maturing the technology. This is probably the best of all renewable energy sources. Hydro is costly, environmentally damaging, and limited. Wind has availability and continuity problems. It seems it also has maintenance and cost-benefit issues. High altitude wind power can be an option, but is new, has some serious technical shortcomings, and needs to be carefully evaluated at the cost-benefit level. Tidal and wave power both look promising, but are relatively recent. Both will probably suffer too from maintenance and cost-benefit issues. It's sad to say this, but oil and nuclear energy seem to be the best options for energy generation. I clearly prefer to move to nuclear in the short term, instead of sticking with oil. One of the consequences of the nuclear accident in Japan will be that better and safer nuclear plants will be designed and built. They will also be costly, of course. On the other side, other consequence will be that more money and effort will be put into renewables, and that's very good. Would your view be different in you lived in Japan? Would yours if you lived in Iraq? Listen, I don't want to polemize, but faced with the alternative between oil and nuclear, I choose nuclear. Better and safer nuclear power, that looks like the best option for me at the moment. More research and investigation into renewables and into alternative or future sources like cold fusion is clearly a good idea, of course.
Re: [Vo]:Explosion at Fukushima nuclear power plant
In reply to Mauro Lacy's message of Fri, 13 May 2011 19:35:09 -0300: Hi, [snip] Tapping it from the Van Allen belt? I have my doubts. So do I for that matter! :) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Explosion at Fukushima nuclear power plant
On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 12:14 PM, Mauro Lacy ma...@lacy.com.ar wrote: On 05/13/2011 08:20 PM, John Berry wrote: I just don't believe that, first off we know that there is more than enough recoverable solar energy to take care of all energy demands many times over. And that's just solar, yes there would need to be a big project of installation and you would need to store the energy in the day time to use at night but it is totally doable. I wanted to see if I could find something that summed up how much energy could come from these renewables but I can't find any such info, what I can find is that renewables currently account for almost 20% of the electricity generated. So are you saying you think it would be extraordinarily difficult to have 5 times more wind farms? (I have never seen 1 in person) I don't think so, 5 time more solar, that would still not be much. 5 times more hydro may be a bigger challenge but it wouldn't be impossible. 5 times more Tidal power 5 times more wave power You get the point, it would be pretty straight forward. And many of these can be cheaper than Nuclear or easily competitive. Really where does your belief that these are insufficient come from? Do you really think that Nuclear makes so much more sense? Cost-benefit reasons? I'm not an expert in renewable energies, but I tend to think that people who is in charge of designing and developing energy policies are not stupid. Really? You see I differ. If they aren't stupid they are corrupt. Solar, hydro, wind, tidal and wave power all have their problems. EVERYTHING has it's problems. Solar is expensive and relatively inefficient. Inefficient compared to what? There is more than enough energy as sunlight so inefficiency is of no concern. As for cost, they are already quite plausible and if there were to be mass produced prices would go way down. There are a lot of advances in Solar that just need some interest to come through. Some breakthroughs are needed. Nocera's artificial leaf looks promising, or recent advances in photovoltaics. Anyway, there seems to be a need for maturing the technology. This is probably the best of all renewable energy sources. Hydro is costly, environmentally damaging, and limited. Environmental damage from hydro is is a different league to environmental damage from Nuclear, it's a minor issue that always come up when landscape is changed a little. Wind has availability and continuity problems. It seems it also has maintenance and cost-benefit issues. High altitude wind power can be an option, but is new, has some serious technical shortcomings, and needs to be carefully evaluated at the cost-benefit level. Wind is low cost (cheaper than Nuclear in the US according to one chart I found), and continuity is not an issue if you store energy. Tidal and wave power both look promising, but are relatively recent. Both will probably suffer too from maintenance and cost-benefit issues. Probably? Wow what an argument. And Nuclear doesn't? Wow, you sure make these renewable green options look mildly inconvenient, best to stick with Nuclear then where the inconvenience is nuclear melt-downs, an ecological disaster waiting to happen with storage of waste and inciting wars. How many Chernobyl's, 3 Mile Island's and Fukashima's would it take for how long before these elements made the earth uninhabitable, seriously it is only bad at Fukashama now, but this stuff doesn't go away, the half-life makes it almost eternal so it is only a matter of how many disasters the earth can contain before becoming polluted in the most dangerous way man has yet devised.. It's sad to say this, but oil and nuclear energy seem to be the best options for energy generation. Ah, because the others need storage to be ready on demand and some investment and improvement, the only down sides of oil and Nuclear is destroying the earth and wars. I clearly prefer to move to nuclear in the short term, instead of sticking with oil. One of the consequences of the nuclear accident in Japan will be that better and safer nuclear plants will be designed and built. They will also be costly, of course. On the other side, other consequence will be that more money and effort will be put into renewables, and that's very good. Would your view be different in you lived in Japan? Would yours if you lived in Iraq? Listen, I don't want to polemize, but faced with the alternative between oil and nuclear, I choose nuclear. Better and safer nuclear power, that looks like the best option for me at the moment. More research and investigation into renewables and into alternative or future sources like cold fusion is clearly a good idea, of course.
Re: [Vo]:Explosion at Fukushima nuclear power plant
A safer nuclear reactor should be meltdown proof, proliferation safe, passively air cooled, deployed underground with waste (stable in 1000 years) shipped off site for centralized underground storage.Such a reactor is possible to build. In fact, the Chinese are developing this type of reactor today as their first homegrown reactor design. The US loves the light water reactor…and therein rests the problem with nuclear power worldwide. On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 10:29 PM, John Berry aethe...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 12:14 PM, Mauro Lacy ma...@lacy.com.ar wrote: On 05/13/2011 08:20 PM, John Berry wrote: I just don't believe that, first off we know that there is more than enough recoverable solar energy to take care of all energy demands many times over. And that's just solar, yes there would need to be a big project of installation and you would need to store the energy in the day time to use at night but it is totally doable. I wanted to see if I could find something that summed up how much energy could come from these renewables but I can't find any such info, what I can find is that renewables currently account for almost 20% of the electricity generated. So are you saying you think it would be extraordinarily difficult to have 5 times more wind farms? (I have never seen 1 in person) I don't think so, 5 time more solar, that would still not be much. 5 times more hydro may be a bigger challenge but it wouldn't be impossible. 5 times more Tidal power 5 times more wave power You get the point, it would be pretty straight forward. And many of these can be cheaper than Nuclear or easily competitive. Really where does your belief that these are insufficient come from? Do you really think that Nuclear makes so much more sense? Cost-benefit reasons? I'm not an expert in renewable energies, but I tend to think that people who is in charge of designing and developing energy policies are not stupid. Really? You see I differ. If they aren't stupid they are corrupt. Solar, hydro, wind, tidal and wave power all have their problems. EVERYTHING has it's problems. Solar is expensive and relatively inefficient. Inefficient compared to what? There is more than enough energy as sunlight so inefficiency is of no concern. As for cost, they are already quite plausible and if there were to be mass produced prices would go way down. There are a lot of advances in Solar that just need some interest to come through. Some breakthroughs are needed. Nocera's artificial leaf looks promising, or recent advances in photovoltaics. Anyway, there seems to be a need for maturing the technology. This is probably the best of all renewable energy sources. Hydro is costly, environmentally damaging, and limited. Environmental damage from hydro is is a different league to environmental damage from Nuclear, it's a minor issue that always come up when landscape is changed a little. Wind has availability and continuity problems. It seems it also has maintenance and cost-benefit issues. High altitude wind power can be an option, but is new, has some serious technical shortcomings, and needs to be carefully evaluated at the cost-benefit level. Wind is low cost (cheaper than Nuclear in the US according to one chart I found), and continuity is not an issue if you store energy. Tidal and wave power both look promising, but are relatively recent. Both will probably suffer too from maintenance and cost-benefit issues. Probably? Wow what an argument. And Nuclear doesn't? Wow, you sure make these renewable green options look mildly inconvenient, best to stick with Nuclear then where the inconvenience is nuclear melt-downs, an ecological disaster waiting to happen with storage of waste and inciting wars. How many Chernobyl's, 3 Mile Island's and Fukashima's would it take for how long before these elements made the earth uninhabitable, seriously it is only bad at Fukashama now, but this stuff doesn't go away, the half-life makes it almost eternal so it is only a matter of how many disasters the earth can contain before becoming polluted in the most dangerous way man has yet devised.. It's sad to say this, but oil and nuclear energy seem to be the best options for energy generation. Ah, because the others need storage to be ready on demand and some investment and improvement, the only down sides of oil and Nuclear is destroying the earth and wars. I clearly prefer to move to nuclear in the short term, instead of sticking with oil. One of the consequences of the nuclear accident in Japan will be that better and safer nuclear plants will be designed and built. They will also be costly, of course. On the other side, other consequence will be that more money and effort will be put into renewables, and that's very good. Would your view be different in you lived in Japan? Would yours if you lived in Iraq?
Re: [Vo]:Explosion at Fukushima nuclear power plant
In reply to Dennis's message of Sun, 13 Mar 2011 10:14:07 -0600: Hi, [snip] Apparently the reactors were shut down automatically as soon as seismic activity registered on the instruments, so there are probably no neutrons to speak of. The heat is largely due to the decay of radioisotopes, and having boron in the water wouldn't make any difference, though it does surprise me that there is no gravity feed for the cooling water. However one has to wonder whether the pumps were electric, and shutting down the reactors resulted in no power for the pumps? Did the earthquake destroy the grid connection too? Can someone here explain why nuclear sites are not required to have a gravity feed tank filled with borated water ready to flood reactors? What am I missing here. Dennis Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:Explosion at Fukushima nuclear power plant
The following provides a good cutaway view of the type of reactors at Fukushima nuclear power plant. http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/ RS_Battle_to_stabilise_earthquake_reactors_1203111.html http://tinyurl.com/4f8y2we It also provides information as to the fate of some of the unfortunate workers. A seriously injured worker was trapped within Fukushima Daiichi unit 1 in the crane operating console of the exhaust stack and is now confirmed to have died. If you look at the cutaway view in the above, and the post explosion photo of the site: http://gakuranman.com/eng/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/fukushima-before- after-429x650.jpg http://tinyurl.com/4z6ccae it is clear the crane was located up in the the top of the building. It appears there was crane access to some kind of control rod storage located in the upper right side of the cutaway drawing. It is difficult to tell if anything remains of this storage area or the crane in the after photo. It looks like no siding remains, only steel beams. Many of the new reports talk of crumbled roof or walls. This appears to be a great distortion. The explosion shock wave, and large chunks of debris flying 100's of meters up and to the left and right can be seen in the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjx-JlwYtyE Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Explosion at Fukushima nuclear power plant
Might be fewer people stupidly insisting Nuclear power is safe now... On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 11:47 PM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.netwrote: The following provides a good cutaway view of the type of reactors at Fukushima nuclear power plant. http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS_Battle_to_stabilise_earthquake_reactors_1203111.html http://tinyurl.com/4f8y2we It also provides information as to the fate of some of the unfortunate workers. A seriously injured worker was trapped within Fukushima Daiichi unit 1 in the crane operating console of the exhaust stack and is now confirmed to have died. If you look at the cutaway view in the above, and the post explosion photo of the site: http://gakuranman.com/eng/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/fukushima-before-after-429x650.jpg http://tinyurl.com/4z6ccae it is clear the crane was located up in the the top of the building. It appears there was crane access to some kind of control rod storage located in the upper right side of the cutaway drawing. It is difficult to tell if anything remains of this storage area or the crane in the after photo. It looks like no siding remains, only steel beams. Many of the new reports talk of crumbled roof or walls. This appears to be a great distortion. The explosion shock wave, and large chunks of debris flying 100's of meters up and to the left and right can be seen in the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjx-JlwYtyE Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Explosion at Fukushima nuclear power plant
On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 3:37 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: This site is reporting a core meltdown: http://e.nikkei.com/e/fr/tnks/Nni20110312D12JFF03.htm Have all six failed? OMG. Rossi is probably getting a lot of enquiries from Japan.
Re: [Vo]:Explosion at Fukushima nuclear power plant
So, 5 and 6 were down for maintenance. THAT is a relief. T
Re: [Vo]:Explosion at Fukushima nuclear power plant
Can someone here explain why nuclear sites are not required to have a gravity feed tank filled with borated water ready to flood reactors? What am I missing here. Dennis
Re: [Vo]:Explosion at Fukushima nuclear power plant
On Mar 13, 2011, at 8:14 AM, Dennis wrote: Can someone here explain why nuclear sites are not required to have a gravity feed tank filled with borated water ready to flood reactors? What am I missing here. Dennis Some related posts in 2004 thread: China Syndrome Cure?: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg01162.html On Oct 22, 2004, at 3:50 AM, Horace Heffner wrote: If the bottom of the inside of a nuclear reactor containment building were a mesh of boron carbide, or possibly even just a bunch of boron carbide balls, then a hot glob melting out of the reactor core would flow down into narrow channels between what are effectively control rods and automatically go sub-critical. A passive cure to the China Syndrome? http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg01203.html On Oct 24, 2004, at 3:21 PM, Robin van Spaandonk wrote: In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Fri, 22 Oct 2004 03:50:24 -0800: Hi Horace, [snip] I had a similar idea a while back. I suggested suspending the fuel rods in a reactor with a plug of metal that has a very specific melting point, set to be several hundred degrees above the normal operating temperature of the reactor, but well below the danger point for the containment. Then if the whole thing got too hot, the plugs would melt, and the rods would fall into holes in a boron containing solid below the reactor. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Explosion at Fukushima nuclear power plant
On 03/13/2011 08:37 AM, John Berry wrote: Might be fewer people stupidly insisting Nuclear power is safe now... I disagree. What happened to this point (always based on available news reports, of course) is a proof of safety, more than anything else. The fact that the containment vessel resisted the explosion of the reactor building and that no major radioactive leaking occurred, even when the reactor core seems to be in a partial meltdown, and after the most powerful recorded earthquake struck really close, says a lot about the level of precaution, planning and safety those plants have. I can be wrong, and the containment vessel will end up not being able to contain the meltdown(or partial meltdown, according to reports), but to this point, the available evidence is indicating that it will be able to do it. The fact they have decided to use sea water to cool down the reactors also seems to strengthen this, because the temperatures and pressures will decrease. Probably the level of contamination and consequent cancer increase produced by the burning of the oil and gas facilities will be much greater than the one produced by the radioactive leaking produced by venting. Not to talk about the diseases and deterioration of quality of life caused by the atmospheric pollution, which results from the burning of fossil fuels regularly. Nuclear reactors have the potential to cause great damage, but just due to that, their level of safety is greater. And that level seems to be adequate, at least in this case, and until this moment. Conventional nuclear power is certainly not a perfect solution, but I think nuclear power and their associated dangers are preferable to the burning of fossil fuels and their associated problems. Regards, Mauro
Re: [Vo]:Explosion at Fukushima nuclear power plant
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjx-JlwYtyE Shows the actual blast shock wave. The building was concrete, so it appears likely the clearly visible blocks of flying concrete caused damage to peripheral buildings, like those on the left of the video. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Explosion at Fukushima nuclear power plant
If there should be a major contaminate release, this shows where the wind is currently blowing: http://www.intelliweather.net/imagery/intelliweather/ sat_goes10fd_580x580_img.htm http://tinyurl.com/46hc5ze Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Explosion at Fukushima nuclear power plant
Fukushima 1 first went critical in October of 1970. It was a 460 MW boiling water reactor supplied by GE. There are a total of 8 reactors at this installation. T
Re: [Vo]:Explosion at Fukushima nuclear power plant
On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 10:48 AM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: Fukushima 1 first went critical in October of 1970. It was a 460 MW boiling water reactor supplied by GE. There are a total of 8 reactors at this installation. Correction. Reactors 7 and 8 are 1.38 GW units planned for 2016 and 2017. I suspect those plans are now subject change. T
RE: [Vo]:Explosion at Fukushima nuclear power plant
Good Greif ! Charlie Brown, this ain't peanuts ... Here is a site to calculate your latitude. http://www.travelmath.com/ As fate would have it: Santa Rosa California, home of the late Charles Schulz, is almost due East of the Fukushima Reactors. I'm hoping for the winds to be southerly for the next few weeks... -Original Message- From: Horace Heffner If there should be a major contaminate release, this shows where the wind is currently blowing: http://tinyurl.com/46hc5ze
RE: [Vo]:Explosion at Fukushima nuclear power plant
... apropos to everything, really http://www.pennenergy.com/index/power/display/300908/articles/power-engineer ing/volume-111/issue-7/departments/nuclear-reactions/the-charlie-brown-syndr ome.html -Original Message- From: Jones Beene Good Greif ! Charlie Brown, this ain't peanuts ... Here is a site to calculate your latitude. http://www.travelmath.com/ As fate would have it: Santa Rosa California, home of the late Charles Schulz, is almost due East of the Fukushima Reactors. I'm hoping for the winds to be southerly for the next few weeks... -Original Message- From: Horace Heffner If there should be a major contaminate release, this shows where the wind is currently blowing: http://tinyurl.com/46hc5ze
Re: [Vo]:Explosion at Fukushima nuclear power plant
They are finally distributing iodine. It took the Japanese government 5 hours to admit the containment building exploded -- something the whole world saw on live TV. It was a recombination explosion. The government's behavior has been disgraceful. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Explosion at Fukushima nuclear power plant
What is the smoke plume all about? It appears to be near but not at the site of the explosion? Unrelated? http://gakuranman.com/eng/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/fukushima- nuclear-plant-explosion-550x347.jpg http://tinyurl.com/4hbqspt The above image from: http://gakuranman.com/great-tohoku-earthquake/ and was labeled: Explosion at 3.36pm, Fukushima nuclear power plant: This seems in conflict with the excellent before and after shots of the containment building on this site. In other news: http://articles.cnn.com/2011-03-11/world/japan.nuclear_1_nuclear- reactors-nuclear-plants-tokyo-electric-power?_s=PM:WORLD http://tinyurl.com/4dznkbj Atomic material has seeped out of one of the Fukushima Daiichi plant's five nuclear reactors, about 160 miles (260 kilometers) north of Tokyo, said Kazuo Kodama, a spokesman for Japan's nuclear regulatory agency. Temperatures of the coolant water in that plant's reactors soared to above 100 degrees Celsius (212 degrees Fahrenheit), Japan's Kyodo News Agency reported, an indication that the cooling system wasn't working. Question is - where did all that hydrogen come from to cause the explosion? Here is one possibility: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_meltdown The next stage of core damage, beginning at approximately 1500 K, is the rapid oxidation of the Zircaloy by steam. In the oxidation process, hydrogen is produced and a large amount of heat is released. Above 1500 K, the power from oxidation exceeds that from decay heat (4,5) unless the oxidation rate is limited by the supply of either zircaloy or steam.[6] and some now obviously flawed logic: Another speculative scenario sees a buildup of hydrogen within the containment. If hydrogen were allowed to build up within the containment, it could lead to a deflagration event. The numerous catalytic hydrogen recombiners located within the reactor core and containment will prevent this from occurring; however, prior to the installation of these recombiners in the 1980s, the Three Mile Island containment (in 1979) suffered a massive hydrogen explosion event in the accident there. The containment withstood this event and no radioactivity was released by the hydrogen explosion, clearly demonstrating the level of punishment that containments can take, and validating the industry's approach of defense in depth against all contingencies. Some, however, do not accept the Three Mile Island incident as sufficient proof that a hydrogen deflagration event will not result in containment breach. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Explosion at Fukushima nuclear power plant
On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 1:52 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: They are finally distributing iodine. It took the Japanese government 5 hours to admit the containment building exploded -- something the whole world saw on live TV. It was a recombination explosion. The government's behavior has been disgraceful. This site is reporting a core meltdown: http://e.nikkei.com/e/fr/tnks/Nni20110312D12JFF03.htm T
RE: [Vo]:Explosion at Fukushima nuclear power plant
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/03/12-3
Re: [Vo]:Explosion at Fukushima nuclear power plant
On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 3:56 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/03/12-3 This lends some credence that Rossi is using Zr, having lost 1000 ECats in development. T
Re: [Vo]:Explosion at Fukushima nuclear power plant
I wrote: It was a recombination explosion. So says NHK. As noted here they are now saying this is evidence of a meltdown. NHK broadcast a live press briefing with experts from the reactor at 8:20 pm Japan time. It was one of the most embarrassing technical presentations I have seen. Excuses, vague statements, hemming and hawing. Mumble, mumble, couldn't connect power cable to emergency generator . . . could not open relief valve static from microphone makes it hard to hear, which may be just as well It looked like a group junior engineers sent out to take the heat for a technical fiasco. Their medical liaison guy had no idea what had happened to the 2 patients in the local hospital who were irradiated. It seemed he had not even heard of the incident. The fuel rods are 4 m long. By 11:00 a.m. EST they were reporting that ~1 m of the fuel rods were probably sticking out of the cooling water. Here is an article in Japanese that Google might translate, with figures that it will not . . . Still may be useful: http://www.asahi.com/special/10005/TKY201103120612.html Figure 2, enlarged: http://www.asahi.com/special/10005/images/TKY201103120618.jpg Heading: Fukushima #1 nuclear reactor, reactor schematic [By the way Dai-ichi just means number 1 Dai-ni, dai-san is #2, #3] Numbered Captions: 1. Water level is reduced, exposing about half of the 4 m long fuel rods. 2. Heated to roughly 2800 deg ~ 1200 degrees? [I don't get why it says 2800 ~ 1200 instead of the other way around] 3. Is the core melting? The black label on the right says cesium detected in outside air - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Explosion at Fukushima nuclear power plant
On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 3:37 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: This site is reporting a core meltdown: http://e.nikkei.com/e/fr/tnks/Nni20110312D12JFF03.htm Have all six failed? OMG. T
