HOME  |  NEWS  |  BLOGS  |  MESSAGES  |  FEATURES  |  VIDEOS  |  WEBINARS  |  INDUSTRIES  |  FOCUS ON FUNDAMENTALS
  |  REGISTER  |  LOGIN  |  HELP
<<  <  Page 8/16  >  >>
patb2009
User Rank
Gold
Re: Fukishima a success? Doubtful -- Almost Certainly :)
patb2009   5/8/2013 9:38:26 AM
NO RATINGS
T_L

It would be nice if the existing plants were upgraded to current best practices? Do you know why they aren't? Because it's too expensive.

Browns Ferry?  Still as vulnerable to a fire as when it was built.

As for Fukushima, you realize they had added a lot of expensive safety features.

Each rac had a filtration stack and venting tower.  Those didn't prevent the reactors from

exploding their containments.

 

if Nuclear power was as cheap and effective, it would be being built at a high rate world wide. Instead, Nuke construction has basically been in a coma for 30 years and without massive subsidies would be dying.

 

 

patb2009
User Rank
Gold
Re: Fukishima a success? Doubtful -- Almost Certainly :)
patb2009   5/8/2013 9:21:45 AM
NO RATINGS
from your last link

"www.oecd-nea.org/ndd/reports/2010/nea6862-comparing-risks.pdf"

Using Probabilistic safety assessments

 

that assumes they know the shape of the probability space.  

Probability is fantastic when you know the shape of the space such as dice or cards,

but becomes very misleading when you don't know the shape of the space, or these are sparse events or these are correlated events.

Fukushima is a classic one,  I'm sure, lots of A&*holes would have said 5 years ago.

"What's the chance of a Richter 8+ quake and a 30 foot tsunami and a grid wide black out and not being able to get some 100 KW generator sets in here? 1 in a billion?"

The chance turned out to be 1.0 once you had a Richter 9 quake.  

 

So given Japan experiences richter 9 quakes, do you think it's socially acceptable to poison the northern half of the island?

 

 

Totally_Lost
User Rank
Silver
Re: Fukishima a success? Doubtful -- Almost Certainly :)
Totally_Lost   5/8/2013 1:49:05 AM
NO RATINGS
As for Nuke's saving a significant number of lives ... in the millions per year, plus millions more that are injured by fossil fuel environmentals ... There are other resources to read, like these articles:

cen.acs.org/articles/91/web/2013/04/Nuclear-Power-Prevents-Deaths-Causes.html

www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/news/2011/04/19/9463/fossil-fuels-a-legacy-of-disaster/

www.reliableplant.com/Read/19729/renewable-energies-will-provide-health-benefits-to-workers

www.newscientist.com/article/mg20928053.600-fossil-fuels-are-far-deadlier-than-nuclear-power.html

nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html

www.nuceng.ca/refer/risk/risk.htm

www.decodedscience.com/fossil-fuel-vs-nuclear-for-safe-and-clean-power/7682

This document, which has many important facts, including a discussion about nuke facility upgrades over the years to steadily improve safety:

www.oecd-nea.org/ndd/reports/2010/nea6862-comparing-risks.pdf

Posts in this forum by anti-nuke activists, distort this steadily improving safety issue, to as much as deny that it's occuring, or to simply lie about it.

This is the real reality, dispite the purposeful fabrications of others in this forum. From many sources.

Totally_Lost
User Rank
Silver
Re: Fukishima a success? Doubtful -- Almost Certainly :)
Totally_Lost   5/8/2013 1:39:35 AM
There have been MANY distortions by the anti-nuke posters in this forum ... the other side of the story is important, no matter how hard they try to distort the real facts, reality is still there for them to ignore, hide from, and deny. Fossil fuels kill and injure a lot of people, while nukes are getting safer with time, and cheaper.

The Nuke safety record ... complete, and worth reading, can be found in the following link. 14,500 reactor years of operational safety, and only a few failures ... mostly with early designs, in the early years -- a MUST read:

ww.world-nuclear.org/info/Safety-and-Security/Safety-of-Plants/Safety-of-Nuclear-Power-Reactors/#.UYnfz6pnLT0

Comparitive costs of operations for electric generation by nukes, fossil fuels, and renewables -- another MUST read:

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Economic-Aspects/Economics-of-Nuclear-Power/#.UYniQKpnLT0


Other important resources about energy resources and policy:

http://www.world-nuclear.org/Information-Library/

 

Totally_Lost
User Rank
Silver
Re: Fukishima a success? Doubtful -- Almost Certainly :)
Totally_Lost   5/7/2013 4:46:49 PM
NO RATINGS
LOL .... Chillin with a smile

patb2009
User Rank
Gold
Re: Fukishima a success? Doubtful -- Almost Certainly :)
patb2009   5/7/2013 3:58:46 PM
John

 

you just need to chill out.

 

 

Totally_Lost
User Rank
Silver
Re: Fukishima a success? Doubtful -- Almost Certainly :)
Totally_Lost   5/7/2013 3:19:06 PM
NO RATINGS
PatB .... take responsibility for your own lies ... what I said was " It just helps to take their irrational voices away, by taking their arguements about deaths and injury and putting it into perspective for the alternatives they are forcing, which exceed 1B deaths and environmental injuries from fossil fuels over the same time period. About 6 orders of magnitude worse."

what  you said was "you cannot have it both ways, if you want to call coal clean and cheap, you cannot then say "Coal kills 1 billion people and destroys mountains".  That's just dishonest argument."

Coal has NOT killed 1B people in the last 50-60 years ... it is pretty unlikely that it did in the previous 200 as well when it left heavy soot from being burned in fire places, and steam engines. It did probably cause a lot of soot related illnesses -- there is a big difference between illness and death.



The coal being burned in the Rawhide plant is what the industry calls "clean", being low sulfer, low particulate, and pretty well scrubbed by the stack emissions systems ... It's not what I call clean in comparison to Nuke power ... but relatively it's pretty clean, with way too much CO2 emissions. It's a LOT cleaner than the stuff that most of the environmentalists around me burn in their wood burning stoves and fireplaces, with heavy particulate smoke, that does drive my allergies crazy. That they consider natural ... polution that man has done for thousands of years, while bitching about coal fired base generation facilities.


So ... the whining is your's ... you ran out of defenses, and decided to try and discredit your opponents ... with lies. Shameful ... just shameful


patb2009
User Rank
Gold
Re: Fukishima a success? Doubtful -- Almost Certainly :)
patb2009   5/7/2013 12:36:22 AM
Totally Lost 

appears to be a little disconnnected from a plain we call reality.

 

"They already have a paid for Rawhide power plant, with plenty of cheap clean coal not far away"

 

then whinges about how people quote him on it.

 

Unless you mean that cheap clean is not the same as Clean and Cheap.

 

 

Totally_Lost
User Rank
Silver
Re: Fukishima a success? Doubtful -- Almost Certainly :)
Totally_Lost   5/6/2013 11:45:17 PM
NO RATINGS
PatB ...told an outright fabricated lie:
if you want to call coal clean and cheap, you cannot then say "Coal kills 1 billion people and destroys mountains".  That's just dishonest argument.


That is just a completely fabricated lie, in every way.

 If you are going to quote someone, then cut and paste the quote accurately. Don't completely fabricate a quote, then argue against it ... that is just plain decietful.

Secondly, I'm making arguements in favor of Nuke power, for commercial, residential, and transportation needs .... and slamming fossil fuels hard in the process.

Nuke power is cheaper and safer than fossiil fuels when you factor in all the direct and indirect costs.

Solar and Wind are very very expensive today ... and probably in the future for a significant period of time as well, without large scale storage. They are an incomplete solution without large amounts of bulk storage, that are significantly more expensive than nuke power.


John

patb2009
User Rank
Gold
Re: Fukishima a success? Doubtful -- Almost Certainly :)
patb2009   5/6/2013 2:07:38 PM
T_L

 

you cannot have it both ways, 

 

if you want to call coal clean and cheap, you cannot then say "Coal kills 1 billion

people and destroys mountains".  That's just dishonest argument.

 

Also, PV and Wind are getting real cheap, real fast, we can build the systems out and count on the learning curve driving costs down.

 

I find it interesting you run PV/Wind systems and get according to you, 98% uptime.

You are down 2-5 days, that seems like a minor problem to fix, you have some small gas turbines, that can run for that known time period, or you need to structure for load management, or you plan to be down in that time period and do heavy maintenance.  Very few systems are up 6 nines.  

Rapid technological change in this field will make this much more affordable.

UDel got to 99% using wind and Solar for the whole state of Deleware, somehow I think,

that can scale out.

 

Besides Portugal is now at 70% renewables, and Germany is at one quarter renewables.

give europe 2 more years and they will be above 50%.

 

 

<<  <  Page 8/16  >  >>


Partner Zone
Latest Analysis
Released on September 19, 2014, this 5.5 inch screen iPhone is the larger version of the iPhone 6, whose teardown follows tomorrow.
A Design News course on field programmable gate arrays (FPGAs) should help engineers who are considering the technology for their upcoming designs.
In many engineering workplaces, there’s a generational conflict between recent engineering graduates and older, more experienced engineers. However, a recent study published in the psychology journal Cognition suggests that both may have something to learn from another group: 4 year olds.
CTC releases EtherCAT Master module for high-performance control of networked servos, stepping motors, and I/O devices.
Conventional wisdom holds that MIT, Cal Tech, and Stanford are three of the country’s best undergraduate engineering schools. Unfortunately, when conventional wisdom visits the topic of best engineering schools, it too often leaves out some of the most distinguished programs that don’t happen to offer PhD-level degrees.
More:Blogs|News
Design News Webinar Series
9/10/2014 11:00 a.m. California / 2:00 p.m. New York
7/23/2014 11:00 a.m. California / 2:00 p.m. New York
7/17/2014 11:00 a.m. California / 2:00 p.m. New York
9/25/2014 11:00 a.m. California / 2:00 p.m. New York
Quick Poll
The Continuing Education Center offers engineers an entirely new way to get the education they need to formulate next-generation solutions.
Sep 22 - 26, MCU Software Development – A Step-by-Step Guide (Using a Real Eval Board)
SEMESTERS: 1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5  |  6


Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.
Next Class: September 30 - October 2
Sponsored by Altera
Learn More   |   Login   |   Archived Classes
Twitter Feed
Design News Twitter Feed
Like Us on Facebook

Sponsored Content

Technology Marketplace

Copyright © 2014 UBM Canon, A UBM company, All rights reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Service