View Single Post
Old 03-28-2011, 01:26 PM   #28
David Orange
Dojo: Aozora Dojo
Location: Birmingham, AL
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,511
United_States
Offline
Re: The fact that you believe a nuclear plant can explode....

Quote:
Katherine Derbyshire wrote: View Post
The amount of energy required to make a solar panel has indeed come down substantially.
And if the US put the kind of funding behind solar that it has put behind nuclear, that price would drop further and further. There simply is no excuse for a uranium powered nuclear plant on earth.

However, we could deploy sodium fast reactors long enoug to consume existing waste and we could put some funding into thorium reactors instead of uranium-powered reactors:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/theweek/2011...VsZHRob3JpdW0-

Quote:
Katherine Derbyshire wrote: View Post
Where do you live? Seattle certainly doesn't get 12*365 hours of sunshine per year, and neither does most of the northern US or northern Europe.
I live in Alabama, but photoelectric cells and water heaters work very well even on cloudy (but not rainy) days. Still, there is absolutely zero risk that they will blow up and spread radiation across the planet, is there?

Quote:
Katherine Derbyshire wrote: View Post
In any case, I wasn't suggesting that we abandon solar energy, just that it does not, in itself, meet all of the world's energy needs.
And I didn't suggest that it would, either. But combined with wind, water geothermal, tidal and other renewable sources (and uses), solar is a vital component for energy independence and what we're doing now is simply wasting a free resource because the super wealthy have not been able to formulate a way to monopolize the sun.

The fact is, we have nuclear plants not at all because they benefit people but because they benefit corporations and their investors. They are poison to humans and that poison will be released as long as we have nuclear plants.

Quote:
Katherine Derbyshire wrote: View Post
Untrue. The Google corporate headquarters solar array, for example, provides only about 1/3 of the power consumed by the complex.
Is their entire parking lot covered with a solar roof? I don't think anyone has done that yet. And there are other elements involved, such as the type of installation they do have. But 1/3 of their power every day, year after year...that's nothing to sneeze at. Perhaps they could add geothermal and wind units to reach 2/3s and, as solar technology continues to improve, as in nanosolar, that will improve. Further, as each year goes by and the costs of other types of energy continue to soar, the cost of solar will become increasingly cheaper even if no advances are made.

Quote:
Katherine Derbyshire wrote: View Post
The installations of that kind that already exist are generally *not* net producers of power. Whether the bill would be less than for conventional power depends on the cost of the electricity vs. the rent paid for the space, but the site owner should still expect to draw more power from the grid than the excess he feeds back to it.
Still, it would be less than what he's drawing without the solar array. And as conventional costs soar, it becomes a better deal.

(DWO--In other words, "The fact that I believe that a nuclear power plant can blow up shows just how little I understand nuclear power"?)

Quote:
Katherine Derbyshire wrote: View Post
Frankly, yes.
Well, frankly, you're wrong. The Fukushima explosions are exactly the kind of accident I referred to: a breech of core containment and release of core material to the environment. If it doesn't get far worse than it currently is, it will be a miracle--not a technological triumph.

Quote:
Katherine Derbyshire wrote: View Post
Okay. Then please tell us precisely what sort of explosions occurred at Fukushima vs. Chernobyl and what the consequences of those explosions are.
No question that the two explosions are different, but anyone who says the Fukushima plant didn't blow up is merely playing with semantics in a matter of grave global import. And as for the consequences? Those have yet to be seen. Explosions and releases continue to occur at Fukushima. You speak as if it's all over now, but the crisis continues to evolve and there is no indication that it will be over soon. So what do you think the consequences are? You have no way of estimating. But I do know that they all result from nuclear industry lies and underestimations of the dangers of building a nuclear plant anywhere--but especially in an earthquake prone area and dismissing the very real likelihood of a massive tsunami. We can certainly expect something at least this bad in California.

Quote:
Katherine Derbyshire wrote: View Post
I don't see a gaseous hydrogen ignition by an ordinary spark as comparable to a graphite fire ignited by an uncontrolled nuclear reaction, so please explain why I am mistaken.
First, the hydrogen ignition occurred when the hydrogen mixed with the atmosphere. And that explosion destroyed the spent-fuel cooling pool on top of the reactor building . Those spent fuel rods were left dry, exposed to the atmosphere, melting down and releasing radiation to the environment. How much radiation? We cannot tell because that information is in the hands of Tokyo Electric Power Company--a corporation covering its association for criminal negligence.

And you haven't seen the end of it yet. Or is a ruptured reactor containment a mere inconvenience, outweighed by Chinese waste dumping in a field?

What I see as your big mistake is to drastically overstate the pollution of photovoltaic manufacture and to drastically minimize the toxicity and scale of the nuclear waste problem.

Thinking forward.

David

Last edited by David Orange : 03-28-2011 at 01:31 PM.

"That which has no substance can enter where there is no room."
Lao Tzu

"Eternity forever!"

www.esotericorange.com
  Reply With Quote