@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: China plans to build a thorium - molten salt cooled reactor. LINK The description of safety strikes me as overly simplistic. It'll be interesting to watch one in production and see what occurs.

Nooooo - pleeeeaaase!


China is much closer to Germany than Japan - and we already had enough nuclear fallout here from other nuclear accidents (e.g. Windscale and Chernobyl)...

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@TMTisFree

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: @BrianK ... Quote: However, there are statitical approximations of this data. ... Surely the kind of "approximations" climate pseudo-scientists are used to: what is the status of 2 women one pregnant one not on average? Half pregnant. Thanks but no. ...

Nope.
This means that 50% of them are 100% pregnant.

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@Plaz

Quote:

Plaz wrote: @Dandy Quote: Maybe you got me wrong - I was talking about the ability (or better: inability) of the engineers and scientists to imagine all possible events No, I got you there. That's still where I say the scope of vision is too small.

Ahhh - now I see - I got YOU wrong.

Quote:

Plaz wrote: I say you don't need to imagine what might lead to total power/system failure. Instead think of a way to netralize that puppy if the need ever arises even if all your backup systems are gone. Heck.. the whole plant is now 30 feet below the ocean surface. Given the size of that quake, that shore line might have ended up below sea level. No one imagines that kind of a hit.

You are of course right with this.

Quote:

Plaz wrote: Here's a picture (God forbid).... catastrophy has hit at or near a reactor causing total loss of power/control of the core systems. Either because of the catastrophy or the reactor itself, everyone within a 25 mile radius is dead and the reactor can't be approached without certain loss of life. How might you put a lid on that big a mess?

Only possibility that comes to my mind would be to use remote controlled robots - I think I already suggested that in an earlier posting...

Quote:

Plaz wrote: Standard answers are probably going to be ... "well that would never happen", or "chances of that happeing are statistcally nill". At that I'm just going to point to a picture of Fukishima. The rest of the population hears those types of responses, rolles their eyes and says "not in my back yard". One wimsicle crazy plan.... Create a deep (half a kilometer, more?) but sealed cavern beneath the core. Triggered either manually or by extreme heat/radiation, the seal is blown and the core drops. Crude example but you get the idea. Plaz

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Dandy ... Why not use the heat from the core to melt it's own cavern if needed?

And how about the ground water contamination?
In the case of Japan they heavily rely on it...

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@Dandy

Quote:

Dandy wrote: @BrianK Quote: BrianK wrote: @Dandy ... Why not use the heat from the core to melt it's own cavern if needed? And how about the ground water contamination? In the case of Japan they heavily rely on it...

In reality that is the problem with the drop the reactor down a big hole. Heck if you make a hole that big and deep might as well use geothermal. Certainly the digging costs are paid for.

In a scary place that everyone wishes was some alternative reality we have Republican Pundit Ann Coulter telling people that radiation only makes us stronger and encourages going to Japan to bath in the radioactive water. So certainly groung water contamination will only create some new breed of Ubermensch.

@BrianK

Quote:

Well except for the USA where the political greens are more associated with the Democratic Party which is not socialistic.

Fair enough for the first part, but it is not unusual to qualify a leftist party as socialistic (I understand not as socialistic as the leftists here in Europe): I read enough US newspapers (of all sides) to know that the US Dems are usually called socialists (though not using this word themselves) and some (many?) have the card from the Socialist International movement (like the story with Carol Browner in 2009 IIRC).

Quote:

Maybe not english in so much as understanding of your audience.

I appreciate the irony.

Quote:

In the USA we have may have a Green Party but as they win, basically nothing, the political greens who want real influence are part of the Democratic party.

That's why I first used the words 'political greens': I rarely read about the green party in the US. Here in Europe we have such green parties always more or less linked with leftists/socialists.

Quote:

(Even if the opposition uses that term to try and discredit them. )

I always wondered about that. The ideas they promote are nevertheless more related to left wing we call socialistic that ones supported by right wing people. A socio-cultural difference perhaps, but not so large I think.

Quote:

A 'greenie' to us is someone that's pro-environmentalism but in no way does that dictate they be part of the 'Green Party'.

I understand the difference. That's why, I repeat, I wrote 'political greens'.

Quote:

Though there's probably a conversation around that if they were being honest or just trying a tactic to sabotize their opponents.

Political games are the same everywhere I see.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@Dandy

Quote:

Never trust any statistics you didn't tamper with yourself... (old saying here)

The tables are built from data collected by other organizations (including the ExternE source I gave you earlier if you read, for example, the Paul Scherrer Institut reports, [see below table for references]).

Quote:

(like going to bed in the evening and then passing away peacefully while sleeping

Who would not? But odds are order of magnitude greater to die from a 'natural' cancer as data prove. The point is nuclear is far safer than anything else. Though I can understand it could be difficult to accept due to prejudices or emotional bias or some other somewhat irrational reasons. I myself have no reason to think otherwise.

Quote:

This was the 7th day after the quake and it was the first time they (publically) talked about that.

This source said differently, so I don't really know. Better wait for the final report next year (or the next one) to be sure.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@Dandy

Quote:

I'd prefer solar cells (photovoltaic and heat collectors) on my roof

Solar technology is too young; for example I have no warranty that panels will be up to the job (100% efficiency) in 10 years. I also need power 24h a day not 50% a day. Windmill is a very poor energy source (they actually have historically disappeared for solid reasons), so a no-no. Geothermal could be great with enough area (not the case here in a big town).

Quote:

Not sure how the pond would help you to generate a fine income from all the chopped birds...

The fact is that it's you (the customer of green energy) who is paying for this 5 zeros figures as it was a condition to build the 10 pluming pluckers I will eventually direct the money to my wallet if the rotating butchers are too 'voluntary'.

Quote:

Imagine - you could grill them with the clean energy from the windmills...

Why would I eat a bones-meat-plumes mix when I produce fine beefsteaks myself?

Quote:

I bet neither you, nor me can proove that with solid figures...

I have real life, first hand experiences with such hypocritical behaviour, better than any data.

Quote:

You shouldn't have done so, as it was meant as a joke...

I can take joke seriously: see, the mental experience of you, nudist, on my beach (I live near the sea) was very a terrible one, so my sensible words. Please refrain in the future

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@Dandy

Quote:

Keep in mind that these figures are just from one uranium mine and mainly from the 1945-1950 period...

I think the uranium was certainly used for military applications in the USSR (atomic bombs, military research) because the first nuclear nuke was not built until mid-fifties. So do not count as we are interested in commercial nuclear energy.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@Dandy

Quote:

Now this is interesting: official reports refuse to take all the indirect casualties of nuclear power into accout - but they shall be taken into accout for all the other energy forms?

I made the (simple) calculation for BrianK with his method and the official numbers (see posts #420 and previous for background): adding the indirect consequences (that we will never be able to observe according to the UN report because the figure will be very low, about 30, when compared to the other casualty numbers) of Tchernobyl accident into the balance does not change the conclusion.

Quote:

Ahhhh - now we know why you want to burn more coal and oil - you want all the inhabitants of cities to get cancer!

We have no such things here (coal and oil), and because of this, we invested in clean and safe nuclear technologies long ago. Sorry to disappoint you.

The rest of your post fails accordingly.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@Dandy

Quote:

This means that 50% of them are 100% pregnant.

In the real world, it would be a shame to be so unscientific. But I clearly stated the kind of "approximations" climate pseudo-scientists are used to. In the ivory tower of the climate bastion, any statistical trick is useful to push the right 'message'.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@Dandy

Quote:

Yeah - and I'm afraid the rest of the world would also be massively affected...

Yeah, no more Bruce Willis and Arnold Schwarzenegger movies. An unbearable future for sure.

In seriousness though, the world not only would have huge environmental problems, but also be loosing one of the biggest sources of food. Not a pretty outlook in many ways.

Plaz

@BrianK

Quote:

Here in the USA I think we're in agreement that environmental causes aren't necessarily owned by a socialist party.

Correct. And since I'm exceedingly far from socialist policies myself and yet proselytize alternate energy, conservation and *some green tech you can say for certain it is not owned by socialist in the USA. I will say that green tech that has you grow then burn food crops is bad mojo.

Quote:

I love bikes. My only problem is the -40F MN temps make for a long, long bike ride.

You just don't have the right bike...
http://eckiller.com/2011/01/top-10-let-it-snow.html

Plaz
Stay warm out there!

@BrianK

Quote:

China plans to build a thorium

I read today a NYT paper (here) about the 3 options nuclear (fission, fusion and hybrid) where it is said: Quote:

pollution by coal and oil extraction and combustion (which continue to cause more deaths per year than nuclear power has in its entire history)

So we have yet another independent source (from the NYT, no less) who just appear to parallel my claim.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

I made the (simple) calculation for BrianK with his method and the official numbers (see posts #420 and previous for background): adding the indirect consequences (that we will never be able to observe according to the UN report because the figure will be very low, about 30

Here's your calculation.. Quote:

You say it, let's do a little calculus: 25% of 4000 may die from a spontaneous cancer not related to the accident = 1000 persons. An expected 3% increase of radiation-induced death may occur = 30 persons..

Seems to me your math is bad, or more properly your understanding of the UN report is bad.

Here's an article with the UN numbers The 4000 figure in this article is the "A total of up to 4000 people could eventually die of radiation exposure from the Chernobyl "

The 25% figure is "As about quarter of people die from spontaneous cancer not caused by Chernobyl radiation" The 25% figure is the average number of people in the world deaths are caused by cancer. You incorrected applied this to the 4K when that had already been done.

The 3% figure "the radiation-induced increase of only about 3% will be difficult to observe." Again this number is already in the final calculation resulting in the 4K estimate.

Later the report confirms not the 30 figure with your miscalculations but the 4,000 figure... "The total number of deaths already attributable to Chernobyl or expected in the future over the lifetime of emergency workers and local residents in the most contaminated areas is estimated to be about 4000"

I'd also argue that 'fatalities' is not the only measure of harm. There was about 4K children with thyroid cancer. There are other people with cancers too. Just because mediciine make them better doesn't mean the nukes didn't cause harm to their lives. And for some with cancer will never be fully restored. It seems you want to promote death as the only harm.

Quote:

We have no such things here (coal and oil), and because of this, we invested in clean and safe nuclear technologies long

and shifted the deaths to Niger so now we don't have to count them because they're not 'developed'. FIXED!

Last edited by BrianK on 30-Mar-2011 at 11:58 PM.

@BrianK

Quote:

Republican Pundit Ann Coulter telling people that radiation only makes us stronger and encourages going to Japan to bath in the radioactive water.

The problem with Ms. Coulter's critics is they take her too seriously. She know it and plays them accordingly. I think she make her living as more a successful liberal irritant than pundit.

Plaz

@TMTisFree

Quote:

Solar technology is too young; for example I have no warranty that panels will be up to the job (100% efficiency) in 10 years. I also need power 24h a day not 50% a day.

Actually needing power 24hr/day is fairly minimum assuming that most people in the modern world leave their house at some point. And there is this energy storage technology called batteries. I've spent a week in a cabin that was solar powered and charges batteries at night. Never ran out of power for anything. And if your expectation is really 100% efficiency there's a problem there. It's called the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Quote:

So we have yet another independent source (from the NYT, no less) who just appear to parallel my claim

Verifies the overridding idea certainly. Though your mathematical errors and inconsitency of empirical data makes your details and how much better nukes are to be more than questionable.

Quote:

...but it is not unusual to qualify a leftist party as socialistic

Previously in #426 I posted "Who we call 'liberals' but are clearly not socialistic. (Even if the opposition uses that term to try and discredit them. )" So now I understand that you weren't serious but committing an ad hominem.

@Plaz

Quote:

The problem with Ms. Coulter's critics is they take her too seriously. She know it and plays them accordingly. I think she make her living as more a successful liberal irritant than pundit.

There was an article by an ex-boyfriend of Coulter who stated the public persona is all an act. I'd hope that the ignorance she displays is such a thing. What's more scary to me is Michele Bachmann as she has some power in our system.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Dandy Quote: Dandy wrote: @BrianK And how about the ground water contamination? In the case of Japan they heavily rely on it... In reality that is the problem with the drop the reactor down a big hole. Heck if you make a hole that big and deep might as well use geothermal. Certainly the digging costs are paid for.

That's perfectly right...

Quote:

BrianK wrote: In a scary place that everyone wishes was some alternative reality we have Republican Pundit Ann Coulter telling people that radiation only makes us stronger and encourages going to Japan to bath in the radioactive water.

Will she take the lead?

Quote:

BrianK wrote: So certainly groung water contamination will only create some new breed of Ubermensch.

Sounds somehow familiar...

Last edited by Dandy on 31-Mar-2011 at 06:38 AM.

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@TMTisFree

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: @Dandy Quote: Keep in mind that these figures are just from one uranium mine and mainly from the 1945-1950 period... I think the uranium was certainly used for military applications in the USSR (atomic bombs, military research) because the first nuclear nuke was not built until mid-fifties. So do not count as we are interested in commercial nuclear energy. Bye, TMTisFree

Sorry, but they used it for A-boms AND nuclear reactors as well:

25th December 1946: Start of operation of the first experimental nuclear reactor F1 at the Moscow periphery

June 1948: Start of operation of the nuclear reactor at Tscheljabinsk

1st June 1954: Start of operation of the nuclear power station at Obninsk


Furthermore, from a technical point of view it is irrelevant, whether the uraium from the mines is used for weapons or power stations - the miners were contaminated anyway.

Nuclear energy is nuclear energy and remains nuclear energy - no matter whether you release this energy in the fraction of a second (bomb) or whether you release it in the course of years/decades (reactor).

So in my book the figures do count very well...

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)