Earthquake, tsunami hit Japan hard

Jul 2009
5,682
412
Opa Locka
#3
An American man was killed in CA by the tsunami, just washed out to sea.

Also it seems Japans nuke plants are melting down. :eek:
 
Mar 2009
2,751
6
Undisclosed
#4
An American man was killed in CA by the tsunami, just washed out to sea.

Also it seems Japans nuke plants are melting down. :eek:
I know a lot of people hate Kentucky coal. But coal powered power plants seem much easier to control if things go wrong. I know Japan has all the safety possible in their plants. No one knows better the danger of anything nuclear. I truly hope those people get a break.
 
Jul 2009
5,682
412
Opa Locka
#5
I know a lot of people hate Kentucky coal. But coal powered power plants seem much easier to control if things go wrong. I know Japan has all the safety possible in their plants. No one knows better the danger of anything nuclear. I truly hope those people get a break.
A coal plant in Japan would be a smoldering ruin right now, they're not built to the same standards.
 
Mar 2009
2,751
6
Undisclosed
#6
A coal plant in Japan would be a smoldering ruin right now, they're not built to the same standards.
I for one would rather have a "smoldering ruin" than a mess left by a nuclear reactor after something goes wrong. Those things can not only kill people, they can kill the land around them for years and years.
 
Jul 2009
5,682
412
Opa Locka
#7
I for one would rather have a "smoldering ruin" than a mess left by a nuclear reactor after something goes wrong. Those things can not only kill people, they can kill the land around them for years and years.
Try living in a burned out area covered in coal soot. Actually don't, you'll die.
 
Mar 2009
2,751
6
Undisclosed
#8
Try living in a burned out area covered in coal soot. Actually don't, you'll die.
I grew up burning coal. I am not afraid of coal. After all I live in Kentucky and Kentucky has lots of coal mines. I have had coal soot on me many times. We have coal powered electricity here. And it is not scary at all. I have lived 60 years with coal powered power plants and never had a problem with it. So I do know something about the subject.
 
#9
My brother is in Okinawa.. some of his comments

The Nuke plant here in Japan was hit with the largest earthquake in a millenia, follwed by a 13 foot tsunami traveling in excess of 300 MPH and still is leaking only minimal radiation. I think that's a pretty good testament to the safety of a plant. The Navy has been operating nuclear reactors since the 60's with 0 incidents (I've lived 3 years of my life within 100 yards of a reactor).

Take a geiger counter to a nuclear facility, take some readings anywhere you choose, then go to a coal fire plant with that same geiger coutner...you'll be amazed at the results.
 
Mar 2009
2,751
6
Undisclosed
#10
My brother is in Okinawa.. some of his comments

The Nuke plant here in Japan was hit with the largest earthquake in a millenia, follwed by a 13 foot tsunami traveling in excess of 300 MPH and still is leaking only minimal radiation. I think that's a pretty good testament to the safety of a plant. The Navy has been operating nuclear reactors since the 60's with 0 incidents (I've lived 3 years of my life within 100 yards of a reactor).

Take a geiger counter to a nuclear facility, take some readings anywhere you choose, then go to a coal fire plant with that same geiger coutner...you'll be amazed at the results.
All true enough., but we don't have to bury "spent fuel" in a salt mine for someone to deal with a thousand years from now.
 
#11
All true enough., but we don't have to bury "spent fuel" in a salt mine for someone to deal with a thousand years from now.
The larger problem is how we deal with the spent fuel. If we could recycle it we'd reduce the mass significantly as well as the danger from the spent fuel.

Coal produces some 10,000,000,000 tons of CO2 globally each year

from wiki on reprocessing spent rods

Nuclear reprocessing uses chemical procedures to separate the useful components (especially the remaining uranium and the newly-created plutonium ) from the fission products and other radioactive waste in spent nuclear fuel obtained from nuclear reactors . Reprocessing serves multiple purposes, whose relative importance has changed over time. Originally reprocessing was used solely to extract plutonium for producing nuclear weapons . With the commercialization of nuclear power , the reprocessed plutonium was recycled back into MOX nuclear fuel for thermal reactors .[1] The reprocessed uranium , which constitutes the bulk of the spent fuel material, can in principle also be re-used as fuel, but that is only economic when uranium prices are high. Finally, the breeder reactor can employ not only the recycled plutonium and uranium in spent fuel, but all the actinides , closing the nuclear fuel cycle and potentially multiplying the energy extracted from natural uranium by more than 60 times.[2] Nuclear reprocessing also reduces the volume of high-level nuclear waste and its radiotoxicity , allowing separate management (destruction or storage) of nuclear waste components.
Despite the energy and waste disposal benefits obtainable through nuclear reprocessing, reprocessing has been politically controversial because of the potential to contribute to nuclear proliferation , the potential vulnerability to nuclear terrorism , and because of its high cost compared to the once-through fuel cycle.
 
Mar 2009
2,751
6
Undisclosed
#12
The larger problem is how we deal with the spent fuel. If we could recycle it we'd reduce the mass significantly as well as the danger from the spent fuel.
As a Survivalist thinking kind of guy I don't see a need for a lot of this stuff. We make so much more garbage (dangerous and not) than we need. There is a reason my dogs don't crap in their crates. But in the name of "progress" we just have to have the latest little ditty available worldwide. We're spoiled. I know I am. And coal lets me have a high $30 low $40 electric bill per month.
 
Last edited:
Feb 2011
82
7
New Jersey, USA
#13
The larger problem is how we deal with the spent fuel. If we could recycle it we'd reduce the mass significantly as well as the danger from the spent fuel. . . .
Actually, radioactive atoms contribute very little to the total mass of spent fuel. But I know what you mean, and I agree that reprocessing, of one kind or another, is desirable.

Ludwik
.
 
Jul 2009
5,682
412
Opa Locka
#14
As a Survivalist thinking kind of guy I don't see a need for a lot of this stuff. We make so much more garbage (dangerous and not) than we need. There is a reason my dogs don't crap in their crates. But in the name of "progress" we just have to have the latest little ditty available worldwide. We're spoiled. I know I am. And coal lets me have a high $30 low $40 electric bill per month.
On this we're in agreement. Way to much junk, do we really need to pave over swamps to build roads to nowhere and build on forest lands homes that nobody even wants?
 
#15
As a Survivalist thinking kind of guy I don't see a need for a lot of this stuff. We make so much more garbage (dangerous and not) than we need. There is a reason my dogs don't crap in their crates. But in the name of "progress" we just have to have the latest little ditty available worldwide. We're spoiled. I know I am. And coal lets me have a high $30 low $40 electric bill per month.
I think the same way. I plan to retire to my farm and buy as little crap as possible and produce as much food and energy as I can on my own.

However, people live in big hot cities and love air-conditioning. That I might live in the woods in Wisconsin with a wood-burning stove doesn't matter to the people in San Antonio.

Nuclear would be cheaper (some argue). A paper I read years ago said the largest impediment to energy producers fighting regulators was the problem of reducing the value of a kilowatt hour so low that it created a disincentive for producers to enter the market.

It'll happen for a variety of reasons... 1) The ongoing and largely successful efforts in Russia to reassemble the empire and secure greater and greater energy assets. This already has Germany trending into their orbit 2) military needs - future units will rely more and more on technology which needs electricity. 3) echoing 1 - much of the world's oil resides in places hotstile to us

there is a wonderful idea proposed regarding solar to make it viable... giantic solar collectors in orbit (like the size of Vermont) collecting 24/7/365. The problem will be transmission. We are already developing the technology. As I understand it one proposal is to transform it into microwaves and beam it to terrestrial collectors. This may possibly even go so far as to personal collector service but a main goal is to use this method to keep our forces energy supplied however remote they may be
 
Mar 2009
2,751
6
Undisclosed
#16
I think the same way. I plan to retire to my farm and buy as little crap as possible and produce as much food and energy as I can on my own.

However, people live in big hot cities and love air-conditioning. That I might live in the woods in Wisconsin with a wood-burning stove doesn't matter to the people in San Antonio.

Nuclear would be cheaper (some argue). A paper I read years ago said the largest impediment to energy producers fighting regulators was the problem of reducing the value of a kilowatt hour so low that it created a disincentive for producers to enter the market.

It'll happen for a variety of reasons... 1) The ongoing and largely successful efforts in Russia to reassemble the empire and secure greater and greater energy assets. This already has Germany trending into their orbit 2) military needs - future units will rely more and more on technology which needs electricity. 3) echoing 1 - much of the world's oil resides in places hotstile to us

there is a wonderful idea proposed regarding solar to make it viable... giantic solar collectors in orbit (like the size of Vermont) collecting 24/7/365. The problem will be transmission. We are already developing the technology. As I understand it one proposal is to transform it into microwaves and beam it to terrestrial collectors. This may possibly even go so far as to personal collector service but a main goal is to use this method to keep our forces energy supplied however remote they may be
Our main AC has not been on 20 minutes in over 10 years. Due to my wife's bad health we have a window unit in one bedroom. It is only on when the temperature goes over 90F. But we do have some large shade trees on three sides of the house. And our windows actually open.:D
 
#17
Our main AC has not been on 20 minutes in over 10 years. Due to my wife's bad health we have a window unit in one bedroom. It is only on when the temperature goes over 90F. But we do have some large shade trees on three sides of the house. And our windows actually open.:D
You missed the point

Energy consumption predictions target the wasteful user not the efficient user
 

Similar Discussions