NOVA: Nuclear Meltdown Disaster (Fukushima Japan) -------must see video!!!!!!!!

[Tron717]

mdg:

2. No insult intended here, but the fact that your career and livelihood have been dependent on the continued existence of nuclear energy suggests to me that you have an unavoidable bias in favor of that industry.

Had to comment on this. You are making the assumption the poster does not have the ability to objectively comment on their area of expertise. I don't see any evidence of that. Do we disqualify what a doctor says about medical information because of bias? How about a baseball player commenting on baseball information? Bias? Sorry, it just seems you're saying you need to be less of an expert on a topic in order to have credibility and that's strange.

If you think that way, How can anyone be deemed credible?

 

[T J]

mdg: Thanks for weighing in on this. Your perspective is obviously an educated one. I think Brother Felli could perhaps have been a bit less emotional in his argument, but I have a couple of questions for which I would appreciate your comment.

1. The radioactive half life of plutonium (which is I believe the fuel used in these nuclear plants) is very long. Isn't it roughly 1,000 years? Does it not trouble you that we are accumulating an ever increasing supply of spent plutonium fuel rods that are highly radioactive, will be highly radioactive for a long time to come, and need to be stored in a safe place? The definition of a "safe" place can and will vary over time, if for no other reason than population growth, war, human migration, etc. What to do with all this radioactive stuff gives me some pause when it comes to nuclear energy.

2. No insult intended here, but the fact that your career and livelihood have been dependent on the continued existence of nuclear energy suggests to me that you have an unavoidable bias in favor of that industry.

This may not be current or complete, but perhaps informative...
IIRC a presentation on the topic once showed a plutonium disk in the bare hand of a human. The only thing separating the two was a clear plastic bag.

The point of the photo was to demonstrate what it took to shield the particular radiation from humans. This was many years ago, but was presented by those running the U.S. Savannah River processing facility.

Then the long term storage process was shown in step fashion. Small radioactive particles were made and separated via glass, which contained the ingredients that would absorb or block radiation. So the tiny particles were frozen, if you will, by being separated and suspended in glass, in the form of cylinders, along with the corresponding agents to contain and control the particles.

Then the glass cylinders were contained in stainless steel cylinders, along with additional redundantcy and buffering layers.

These containers were then surrounded with a refined clay material to repel moisture and placed in salt mine cavities that were known to be stable for much longer periods than needed.

Note: Any updates, additions or modifications are welcome.

 

[mdg164]

mdg: Thanks for weighing in on this. Your perspective is obviously an educated one. I think Brother Felli could perhaps have been a bit less emotional in his argument, but I have a couple of questions for which I would appreciate your comment.

1. The radioactive half life of plutonium (which is I believe the fuel used in these nuclear plants) is very long. Isn't it roughly 1,000 years? Does it not trouble you that we are accumulating an ever increasing supply of spent plutonium fuel rods that are highly radioactive, will be highly radioactive for a long time to come, and need to be stored in a safe place? The definition of a "safe" place can and will vary over time, if for no other reason than population growth, war, human migration, etc. What to do with all this radioactive stuff gives me some pause when it comes to nuclear energy.

2. No insult intended here, but the fact that your career and livelihood have been dependent on the continued existence of nuclear energy suggests to me that you have an unavoidable bias in favor of that industry.

1) The longest lived isotope of Plutonium is I believe 24,000 years. Plutonium can be used, but our reactors use enriched Uranium. Plutonium is a by-product when you fission Uranium. Spent fuel can be reprocessed to extract new fissile material like Plutonium, which not only reduces the amount of waste, it creates more energy. They have breeder reactors that create more fuel than it uses. France does this, and is 80% nuclear. Since Plutonium is used in nuclear weapons, Jimmy Carter banned reprocessing in the United States.

I took a class in Radioactive Waste while at PSU. There are a lot of intriguing options, but deep geological storage is the best. Yucca Mountain has been studied to be a safe repository for 10,000 years. Only politics hold it up. I have no concerns about it being stored there. Ideally it would be reprocessed first to reduce the volume.

2) Point taken, I do have a bias. But that bias existed before I entered the field, I got in to this field because I believed in this industry. If nuclear went away tomorrow, there would be years of decommissioning work, probably enough to last my career. I also think my skills and experience are easily transferred to another field. I'd be fine, but I'd be concerned about the future of our country.

 

[WeR0206]

Meanwhile, back in reality...

Shocker: Top Google Engineers Say Renewable Energy ‘Simply won’t work’

by Eric Worrall



A research effort by Google corporation to make renewable energy viable has been a complete failure, according to the scientists who led the programme.

After 4 years of effort,

their conclusion is that renewable energy “simply won’t work”.

According to an interview with the engineers, published in IEEE;

“At the start of RE<C, we had shared the attitude of many stalwart environmentalists: We felt that with steady improvements to today’s renewable energy technologies, our society could stave off catastrophic climate change. We now know that to be a false hope …

Renewable energy technologies simply won’t work; we need a fundamentally different approach.”
​

http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/what-it-would-really-take-to-reverse-climate-change

There is simply no getout clause for renewables supporters. The people who ran the study are very much committed to the belief that CO2 is dangerous – they are supporters of James Hansen. Their sincere goal was not to simply install a few solar cells, but to find a way to fundamentally transform the economics of energy production – to make renewable energy cheaper than coal.

To this end, the study considered exotic innovations barely on the drawing board, such as self erecting wind turbines, using robotic technology to create new wind farms without human intervention. The result however was total failure – even these exotic possibilities couldn’t deliver the necessary economic model.


The key problem appears to be that the cost of manufacturing the components of the renewable power facilities is far too close to the total recoverable energy – the facilities never, or just barely, produce enough energy to balance the budget of what was consumed in their construction. This leads to a runaway cycle of constructing more and more renewable plants simply to produce the energy required to manufacture and maintain renewable energy plants – an obvious practical absurdity.

As a review by The Register of the IEEE article states.

“Even if one were to electrify all of transport, industry, heating and so on, so much renewable generation and balancing/storage equipment would be needed to power it that astronomical new requirements for steel, concrete, copper, glass, carbon fibre, neodymium, shipping and haulage etc etc would appear. All these things are made using mammoth amounts of energy: far from achieving massive energy savings, which most plans for a renewables future rely on implicitly, we would wind up needing far more energy, which would mean even more vast renewables farms – and even more materials and energy to make and maintain them and so on. The scale of the building would be like nothing ever attempted by the human race.”
​

I must say I’m personally surprised at the conclusion of this study. I genuinely thought that we were maybe a few solar innovations and battery technology breakthroughs away from truly viable solar power.

But if this study is to be believed, solar and other renewables will never in the foreseeable future deliver meaningful amounts of energy.​

Again,another article which does nothing other than echo one of my points...we dont have the tech or know how to efficiently harvest green energy. ...yet. We need to find a cheaper way of manufacturing the components, that is all.

I just watched a separate Nova show where a professor found a way to manipulate the DNA of a virus so that its outer shell would attract metal. Using these virsus she created a battery. Her process of creating a battery was cheaper and produced little waste compared to the current manufacturing process to make a battery. Perhaps this technology/process can be used to make solar panels? We've only just scratched the surface of how to harvest renewable energy. In addition to solar, Geothermal also shows a lot of potential.

So one company looks into it for only a few years then concludes it can't be done and you just want fold up your tent and give up?? Thats weak dude. How about 20 companies trying for ten years or the federal government trying for ten years in conjunction with the 20 companies? That's what im talking about.

With your ridiculous mindset we never would have found the new world across the Atlantic or went to the moon all because some people initially said it couldn't be done.

Are you paid by the fossil fuel industry or something? Every time climate change or renewable energy is discussed on this board you come out of the wood work.

 

[The Spin Meister]

The key problem appears to be that the cost of manufacturing the components of the renewable power facilities is far too close to the total recoverable energy – the facilities never, or just barely, produce enough energy to balance the budget of what was consumed in their construction.

Same issue with gasohol from corn. Takes just about as much energy to make as it produces, all at a huge environmental cost. The environmental cost of building all that solar and wind would be huge when calculated on such a large scale.

 

[johnsonguy45]

Again,another article which does nothing other than echo one of my points...we dont have the tech or know how to efficiently harvest green energy. ...yet. We need to find a cheaper way of manufacturing the components, that is all.

I just watched a separate Nova show where a professor found a way to manipulate the DNA of a virus so that its outer shell would attract metal. Using these virsus she created a battery. Her process of creating a battery was cheaper and produced little waste compared to the current manufacturing process to make a battery. Perhaps this technology/process can be used to make solar panels? We've only just scratched the surface of how to harvest renewable energy. In addition to solar, Geothermal also shows a lot of potential.

So one company looks into it for only a few years then concludes it can't be done and you just want fold up your tent and give up?? Thats weak dude. How about 20 companies trying for ten years or the federal government trying for ten years in conjunction with the 20 companies? That's what im talking about.

With your ridiculous mindset we never would have found the new world across the Atlantic or went to the moon all because some people initially said it couldn't be done.

Are you paid by the fossil fuel industry or something? Every time climate change or renewable energy is discussed on this board you come out of the wood work.

Yes. TJ has all but admitted that he's paid to post those things.

 

[The Spin Meister]

We need to find a cheaper way of manufacturing the components, that is all.
-----

That is all? How long have scientists been studying solar and wind? How much money has been spent? Answer: decades and hundreds of billions if not trillions.

If it is not yet ready for prime time, why are we spending billions subsidizing plants, worker training, end use buyers, and more. Why not spend the money on research until it is both reliable and competitive?

 

[T J]

Again,another article which does nothing other than echo one of my points...we dont have the tech or know how to efficiently harvest green energy. ...yet. We need to find a cheaper way of manufacturing the components, that is all.

I just watched a separate Nova show where a professor found a way to manipulate the DNA of a virus so that its outer shell would attract metal. Using these virsus she created a battery. Her process of creating a battery was cheaper and produced little waste compared to the current manufacturing process to make a battery. Perhaps this technology/process can be used to make solar panels? We've only just scratched the surface of how to harvest renewable energy. In addition to solar, Geothermal also shows a lot of potential.

So one company looks into it for only a few years then concludes it can't be done and you just want fold up your tent and give up?? Thats weak dude. How about 20 companies trying for ten years or the federal government trying for ten years in conjunction with the 20 companies? That's what im talking about.

With your ridiculous mindset we never would have found the new world across the Atlantic or went to the moon all because some people initially said it couldn't be done.

Are you paid by the fossil fuel industry or something? Every time climate change or renewable energy is discussed on this board you come out of the wood work.

Rational decisions are based on reality and science. Too many exaggerated and unsupportable claims have been spread, to mislead. Helping to clear the air of some misguided perceptions is always an important step, when considering rational options.

You apparently didn't comprehend what was written in the report.

Google is flush with cash and their initial approach was based upon being true-believers. They WANTED to believe. They WANTED to be world leaders in spreading the technology that really worked.

As such, they used their very deep pockets to evaluate all known and proposed, potential renewable concepts.

Google was fully ready to bankroll and expand the most promising workable concepts. However, after reviewing the economics of all the known options ... None of them worked... Current or proposed.

That doesn't close the door on research, contrary to your silly claim.

They said that it will require a completely new concept, not currently being used or proposed as a potential.

First, wave your magic wand, then...

There is no way to predict future breakthroughs. Groups have invested fortunes toward that end since the 70s.

So far, we've discovered there are lots of ways to waste enormous fortunes of money, on existing boondoggles.

What the review does do is to address the many current claims that are not grounded in economic reality, but which are used as flim-flam, to mislead the uninformed.

Google's multi-year review of all known and proposed options concluded:

"Renewable energy technologies simply won’t work; we need a fundamentally different approach.”​

When you've got a totally new concept, please keep us posted. The world would love to finally get even one concept whose economics really work.

 

[WeR0206]

"If it is not yet ready for prime time, why are we spending billions subsidizing plants, worker training, end use buyers, and more. Why not spend the money on research until it is both reliable and competitive?"

Well, that's pretty much my point. Once we spend the time/money on research it will help us to find cheaper/better ways to manufacture the materials, harvest the energy, etc..perhaps during this research a completely new/different way comes about.

The overall point of my response to TJ was that just b/c one company (google) spent a few years looking at this and said it can't be done with current abilities it doesn't mean that we should just stop trying. If the current way we are trying to harvest green energy isn't working then stop making the materials, go back to the drawing board, do some research and continuously improve.

Think about Edison and the light bulb. If he gave up after the first 100 materials didn't work where would we be today? He kept trying and trying and eventually figured out a way to do it that was cost effective.

 

[WeR0206]

Too many exaggerated and unsupportable claims have been spread, to mislead. Helping to clear the air of some misguided perceptions is always an important step, when considering rational options.

Exactly what unsupportable claims to mislead have been spread? Please do elaborate. What are these misguided perceptions? Is it a misguided perception that we need to free ourselfs of fossil fuel dependence? The only person trying to spread misinformation is you, IMO.

Google's multi-year review of all known and proposed options concluded:

"Renewable energy technologies simply won’t work; we need a fundamentally different approach.”
When you've got a totally new concept, please keep us posted. The world would love to finally get even one concept whose economics really work.

Ok, so all this tells me is that we need to spend more time/money on researching to find a "fundamentally different approach". What if google didn't get it right? You can't just take one company's word on it. What if google was paid off by the very people that pay you to spread your drivel on this forum? Who the heck knows? All I know is if at first you don't succeed try, try again.

The fact remains that eventually the fossil fuels we currently use WILL run out on earth, there isn't an unlimited supply of them. It would behoove us all if we found a way (sooner rather than later) to free ourselves from relying on it as well as the risk associated with nuclear power (disposing of the waste, accidents/melt downs, etc.)

 

[simons96]

Forbes did a pretty decent breakdown of the mortality rates for most energy sources in the world:

LINK

Nuclear is at the bottom of the list (fewest deaths per trillion kWh produced)

 

[The Spin Meister]

Well, that's pretty much my point. Once we spend the time/money on research it will help us to find cheaper/better ways to manufacture the materials, harvest the energy, etc..perhaps during this research a completely new/different way comes about.
------
But you missed my point. Billions are being wasted on inefficient systems that don't work, not on research. If we had spent the money on research instead of lousy systems that don't really work, except in few specific locations, we have already made that breakthrough everyone talks and dreams about.[/QUOTE]

 

[WeR0206]

Well, that's pretty much my point. Once we spend the time/money on research it will help us to find cheaper/better ways to manufacture the materials, harvest the energy, etc..perhaps during this research a completely new/different way comes about.
------
But you missed my point. Billions are being wasted on inefficient systems that don't work, not on research. If we had spent the money on research instead of lousy systems that don't really work, except in few specific locations, we have already made that breakthrough everyone talks and dreams about.

[/QUOTE]

I didn't miss your point...We are on the same page. I agree that it sucks money was wasted instead of doing the proper research first.

 

[T J]

Exactly what unsupportable claims to mislead have been spread? Please do elaborate. What are these misguided perceptions? Is it a misguided perception that we need to free ourselfs of fossil fuel dependence? The only person trying to spread misinformation is you, IMO.



Ok, so all this tells me is that we need to spend more time/money on researching to find a "fundamentally different approach". What if google didn't get it right? You can't just take one company's word on it. What if google was paid off by the very people that pay you to spread your drivel on this forum? Who the heck knows? All I know is if at first you don't succeed try, try again.

The fact remains that eventually the fossil fuels we currently use WILL run out on earth, there isn't an unlimited supply of them. It would behoove us all if we found a way (sooner rather than later) to free ourselves from relying on it as well as the risk associated with nuclear power (disposing of the waste, accidents/melt downs, etc.)

Many haven't even taken the time to read and understand the Google info yet.

You can lead some people to science and economics, but you can't make them think.​

There are plenty of people who will continue to believe in fantasies, no matter how much evidence is available for them, if they opened their eyes.

That's what the flim-flammers rely upon. They know too many people desperately want to believe in unsupported fantasies, that make them feel good and they won't investigate the false and misleading claims. Too often makes for easy pickings.

 

[T J]

Yes. TJ has all but admitted that he's paid to post those things.

Hilarious watching some posters make up nonsense attack claims against others, when they've lost on the issues.

Funny stuff...

 

[johnsonguy45]

Hilarious watching some posters make up nonsense attack claims against others, when they've lost on the issues.

Funny stuff...

I've never lost on your issues TJ. Like I've said previously, I actually agree with a lot of what you post.

What irks me with you is that you present this stuff as if you have no skin in the game. Your information is slanted because you're paid to post it. You are BWIs version of the Willard Preacher.

 

[T J]

What irks me with you is that you present this stuff as if you have no skin in the game. Your information is slanted because you're paid to post it. You are BWIs version of the Willard Preacher.

LOL - That you are self-confessing you are apparently being too easily duped by nonsense and/or delusions, only reflects upon you.

But, thanks for sharing... I guess.