Fukushima declared an emergency...

[CJR09]

[Revolver]

Originally Posted by fordomatic

Ok you have my attention, what is it, PM if you like

Same here.

[GasoLane]

Of course ENENews and the other online blogs are reputable news organisations, right ?

Even if most of their 'news' is more than a year old !

[mik]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

Something like 56 people died as a direct result from Chernobyl. Thats it. The widespread quick introduction of medication with iodine which stops radioactivity gathering in places like, especially, the thyroid, helped greatly.
The much talked about Three Mile Island accident? Not one person even injured.

Nuclear power is safe, and has harmed a miniscule number of people compared to coal mining.

Good point (and about time) someone mentioned the truth about high level and low level virtually harmless radioactivity too. Too much fear around.

Do people know that living near a coal fired station will actually expose you to more radiation than living near a nuclear power station? Not many people know that one.

Those figures are disputed to this day, have you ever wondered why cancer is so prominent in modern times ? And as nucleer has onlly been around for about 50 years , it may well take generations to see what damage has been done and is still happening today by fallout from nucleer accidents.

[mik]

http://enenews.com/tv-they-are-turni...uildings-video

[jpblue1000]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

Nuclear power is safe, and has harmed a miniscule number of people compared to coal mining.

Good point (and about time) someone mentioned the truth about high level and low level virtually harmless radioactivity too. Too much fear around.

2011G6E you are both right and wrong in my opinion here. Nuclear Power generation when its going right is safe, and I like to parallel that with coal based power generation which when going right is actually dangerous. When coal fails it is no more dangerous than when working fine. Yet when Nuclear fails, and due to its complexity and long term nature has greater opportunity for failure is instantly devestating and widespread in its impact.

However to claim any by-product of the current nuclear power generation industry as harmless radioactivity is wrong. The short lived high level radiation kills quickly and horribly. the low level stuff, which is less dangerous but still bad enough to need caring for, storing away, and protection for tens of thousands of years plus is still amongst the most hazardous material known to mankind. Perolonged exposure will kill, limited exposure 'may' cause defects through breeding, cancers, and other anomolies that detract from a quality of life for the victim and their families and those that become exposed to the victim and their remains effectively forever. Death shoudl not be the only measure of impact, and certainly death of humans may be an insignificant toll in the grand scheme


Yet Fukishima offers us one clear lesson, Nuclear based energy production is bad, but its less bad than coal based energy production.

Nuclear may offer us a short term solution to bridge the gap between coal to a renewable energy producing future. Unfortunately it is a 20-50 year benefitting strategy that will leave an impact on the people of the globe effectively forever.

I believe there is an alternative, not only would it provide us clean energy security it has the propensity to save our economy, for now and itno the future. From today as a start point it is not necesarily an easy solution, public awareness and opinion needs to be adjusted, but it is the right thing to do, possible and an appropriate solution for our times with an appropriate legacy.

Justin

[GasoLane]

Originally Posted by jpblue1000

I believe there is an alternative, not only would it provide us clean energy security it has the propensity to save our economy, for now and itno the future. From today as a start point it is not necesarily an easy solution, public awareness and opinion needs to be adjusted, but it is the right thing to do, possible and an appropriate solution for our times

And the alternative is... ?

[jpblue1000]

Originally Posted by GasOLane

And the alternative is... ?

Thank you Mr O'Lane, you, perhaps inadvertently, proved my argument. The Alternative is a household term, not anew term nor a confronting one, but one that somehow has been lost or ignored or declared irrelevant by well funded vested interests in the holistic debate about energy production. A perfect example of the election rhetoric we suffer from at the moment. Its the right solution, It might not be popular due to miss-information and self interest, It may not be short term cheap, but mark my words it is the solution to this countries and others social, economic, environmental and secure future.

Renewables!

Justin

[b0son]

Originally Posted by jpblue1000

Renewables!

Which renewables are capable of supplying base load, now?

[pottery beige]

Originally Posted by b0son

Which renewables are capable of supplying base load, now?

fermented vegie scraps dipped in unicorn poo

[2011G6E]

The only "alternative" to coal fired is, to be blunt, nuclear, full stop. Our modern society and especially industry needs constant, high output, base-load power available at any time of the day or night, on demand, when needed, as much as needed. "Renewables" simply can't do that, and probably never will.
Solar for your house? Amazingly good idea. Solar to power a city and factories? Keep dreaming...

Originally Posted by mik

Those figures are disputed to this day, have you ever wondered why cancer is so prominent in modern times ? And as nucleer has onlly been around for about 50 years , it may well take generations to see what damage has been done and is still happening today by fallout from nucleer accidents.

Cancer is so prominent in "recent times" because of a few things...better diagnoses (didn't used to be found in a lot of cases in the old days until the autopsy, if at all), and most importantly a longer lifespan. At the turn of the last century, the average life expectancy in modern civilised countries like the United States was only into your thirties and forties. Go for a walk around an old grave yard and it's a depressing sight to see how many young people there are once you get back before about the 1950's and 1960's.

Another fun fact...we have actually evolved to need a small amount of radioactivity. We're radioactive beings...they say sleeping beside someone is increasing the radioactivity you absorb? Hell, did you know that eating a banana actually gives you more radiation than living within 50km of a nuclear power station?
Here's a link to a graphic showing exposure and how it works:
http://www-tc.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-k.../radiation.png

By the way...if you really want to frighten yourself (for no good reason) look at how "dangerous" it is to live in a stone, brick, or concrete building for a year...

Pretty interesting!

This is the article:
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know...dy-guide/8124/

[redxm]

solar storage of molten salt.
csiro have made good progress on working prototypes.

[GasoLane]

Originally Posted by jpblue1000

Renewables!

Justin

I bet you're in Politics or Management.

No one else would use appx 100 words when 4 would have done (Solar & Wind)

Now that's a waste of energy.

[jpblue1000]

Originally Posted by b0son

Which renewables are capable of supplying base load, now?

All of them are capable, any renewable energy technology produces electricity, just as a coal power plant or nuclear power plant does. The difference at the moment between a renewable source and a fossil fuel source is quantity due to past investment.
We cannot turn off the coal tomorrow without significant social drama. a transition to a renewable future requires a stop gap solution which will comprise many smaller initiatives, it may include nuclear. But with enough investment in renewables construction we can easily power our 'base load' nationally. we lack the vision to make those investments, we desire the cheap solution ignoring the true costs, our economies models don't measure true cost but pure input costs only. ( dont believe nuclear si cheap as we don't cost or pay for the ongoing 100,000 years of storage costs per kwh used)
And what comes out of that investment in renewables, jobs, industry, research, and power security, what comes from that is reliable power which does not pollute anywhere as badly as todays generation (there is probably no such thing as zero carbon production, hence I make this consideration). but we need vision and to look beyond today.
As this is a discussion about the impacts of the Fukishima event I parallel renewables with Nuclear. In our country we have reached a fork in the road, which way should we go, where should we invest.
I for one will hope for a 'dispersed', mixed renewable solution which employs Australians across the country locally, rather than a 'centarlised' nuclear response whos technology is provided by a multinational provider in a mechanised automated low staff solution.
Justin

[jpblue1000]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

Another fun fact...we have actually evolved to need a small amount of radioactivity. We're radioactive beings

Radiation is everywhere, Agreed, it is what is known as background radiation, and is used as a base for determining the half life of certain materials.
The back ground radiation you mention is in effect harmless, the radiation we are dicussing from a nuclear event has a hal life measured in tens of thousands of years. That means that the radiation from a compunds decay, known as radiation, only achieves half the decay from dangerous to safe in that tens of thousands of years. That means it is dangerous, significantly greater in radiation than background 'safe' radiation that you mention.

Again, I declare I do not want to be anywhere near that event, ever.

Jsutin

[nstg8a]

What about hydro power?

Clean, green (apart from the big concrete thing) and safe...

[timeout]

yeah and this should have happened 2 years ago, being declared an emergency when this took place. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4-LofPS6FA

so how much have we been irradiated? and what damage has been done we have not been told about?

Any figures about increase of cancer rates yet?

[fte50]

Originally Posted by mik

Those figures are disputed to this day, have you ever wondered why cancer is so prominent in modern times ? And as nucleer has onlly been around for about 50 years , it may well take generations to see what damage has been done and is still happening today by fallout from nucleer accidents.

Synthetic society is to blame, along with genetically modified everything in life.

On Fukishima however, it was approx. 3 months into the tragedy that 'real news sites' were reporting the nuclear fall out was already upto 500 times greater than that of the Hiroshima bombings, however most in the waters.

The Jap propaganda machine has worked overtime trying to convince their people there is no problem etc but folks are dying as we speak. The folks that say it wont harm are very very delusional.

Check out this article and dig deeper - if your a Morning Show fan don't bother as this is real new .....
http://www.naturalnews.com/041720_Fu...inwashing.html

[fte50]

sorry mods, delete these multiple posts - my pc has gone mad - my bad.

[GasoLane]

Originally Posted by fte50

sorry mods, delete these multiple posts - my pc has gone mad - my bad.

It's not your PC, it's happening all over the place.

I would have replied sooner but I've been kinda busy

[fte50]

Thanx for that, thought my pc developed some sort of Intel gonorrhea.

[GasoLane]

Originally Posted by fte50

Thanx for that, thought my pc developed some sort of Intel gonorrhea.

Y'know how some people think that radiation will cause animals to be born with 2 heads ?

Well all this talk of radiation on here................

[SPArKy_Dave]

Like this two headed pig?

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/hom...-1226620916876

[fte50]

talking of pigs check this out , though irrelevant to thread topic ....
http://www.naturalnews.com/040727_GM..._stomachs.html

[2011G6E]

Large scale hydroelectric does work.

Good luck getting a project approved though...for instance, the Snowy Mountain Scheme would never be approved today. Protest groups would appear by their thousands, politicians would rally against it, etc. Back then people saw it as "nation building" and applauded it...not green groups wouldn't let it happen.


Base load power is vitally important. Renewables can't cope with that. Nuclear and coal can.

"Long term storage" of waste? We live on a geologically stable continent with vast areas of bugger all where deep holes could be drilled to store glassified nuclear waste perfectly safely. The high yield stuff gives up most of it's radioactivity fairly quickly, and the rest cooks away slowly at low yield.
How much nuclear waste is produced by a power plant each year? Activists seem to think it's massive amounts. It doesn't.
http://www.nei.org/Knowledge-Center/...-Nuclear-Waste
It;s of two types: high level and low level waste:

Used Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste

A typical nuclear power plant in a year generates 20 metric tons of used nuclear fuel. The nuclear industry generates a total of about 2,000 - 2,300 metric tons of used fuel per year.

20 metric tons of waste wouldn't, physically, be a large stack of the stuff...remember, it's twice as heavy as lead.
Low level waste is safer, and there's more of it...

Low-level radioactive waste (LLRW) consists of items that have come in contact with radioactive materials, such as gloves, personal protective clothing, tools, water purification filters and resins, plant hardware, and wastes from reactor cooling-water cleanup systems. It generally has levels of radioactivity that decay to background radioactivity levels in less than 500 years. About 95 percent decays to background levels within 100 years or less.

Total amount of waste produced? You might be surprised...

Over the past four decades, the entire industry has produced about 69,720 metric tons of used nuclear fuel. If used fuel assemblies were stacked end-to-end and side-by-side, this would cover a football field about seven yards deep.

Probably not what you were imagining when you thought of the anti-nuclear propaganda idea of "endless amounts of waste" piling up each year unable to be stored anywhere.

There are several perfectly safe means of disposing of the waste, usually by burying it deep in the Earth in old salt mines and other deep places like that.

[nstg8a]

Doesn't Australia already take other countries nuclear waste and bury it in a hole somewhere out in the sticks?

[b0son]

Originally Posted by jpblue1000

All of them are capable

Solar and wind are not capable of supplying base load as they are dependent on presence sunlight and wind, neither of which are guaranteed, especially at night.

[mickbundy]

Why is it people worry about a little leak at a power station which has killed what ? 20 - 30 people. But the Yanks dropped nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki which took out 200,000 straight away. Sorry I can not see the relevance of this thread. One was man made (no big deal we wont even mention it ) the other Nature cant be helped ????

[jpblue1000]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

There are several perfectly safe means of disposing of the waste, usually by burying it deep in the Earth in old salt mines and other deep places like that.

Possibly...But can anyone guarantee that over the next 100, 000 years or even the next 10,000 years or just the next 1000 years that our political, social and or geographical systems will remain stable?.
Furthermore who pays for the up-keep of the waste as I said before effectively forever for what cheap power for the early 21st centry, take into account those costs and the power isnt very cheap at all irrespective of the amount its the life thats costs.
even in the last 200 years we have experienced massive global,social and economic change and it was mild in comparison to previous eons. I for one choose not to inflict that legacy on the future.

Justin

[jpblue1000]

Originally Posted by b0son

Solar and wind are not capable of supplying base load as they are dependent on presence sunlight and wind, neither of which are guaranteed, especially at night.

There are plenty of renewable power generating sources, hency why I used the term diverse, wind, solar are the commonly know ones, how about biamass, wave, Hydro-electric, deep sea currents, geothermal, heat reclamation and exchange etc. and decentralised meaning when the wind isnt blowing in one location it will be somewhere else or augmented by an alternate method.
Off shore wind is being extensively rolled out in the northern hemisphere where off shore provides more constant and stronger winds than on land and addresses the NIMBY and other concerns.
with appropriate investment we have the solution

Justin