It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
jrod
reply to post by Alekto
Japan could have built hydroelectric plants in various places along the coast that are powered by tidal currents. Hydroelectric plants are about as clean as you can get.
jrod
reply to post by Alekto
Japan could have built hydroelectric plants in various places along the coast that are powered by tidal currents. Hydroelectric plants are about as clean as you can get. (though there is some negative environmental impact which compared to nuclear and fossil fuel options is acceptable imho).
Also Japan is a technologically advanced country, they could have been using that to make some innovative ocean wave power plants.
jimmyx
it's not about having the tech, it's about spending the money. wars create profits, better and more efficient power production does not. destroying people and things are much more profitable, mainly because bullets and bombs are one-use products, and need to be replaced with new ones, as does the infrastructure that is destroyed....priorities, my friend, priorities.
The Marshall Plan (officially the European Recovery Program, ERP) was the American initiative to aid Europe, in which the United States gave economic support to help rebuild European economies after the end of World War II in order to prevent the spread of Soviet Communism.[1] The plan was in operation for four years beginning in April 1948.[2] The goals of the United States were to rebuild war-devastated regions, remove trade barriers, modernize industry, and make Europe prosperous again.[3] The phrase "equivalent of the Marshall Plan" is often used to describe a proposed large-scale rescue program.[4]
The initiative[5] was named after Secretary of State George Marshall. The plan had bipartisan support in Washington, where the Republicans controlled Congress and the Democrats controlled the White House. The Plan was largely the creation of State Department officials, especially William L. Clayton and George F. Kennan, with help from Brookings Institution, as requested by Senator Arthur H. Vandenberg, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.[6] Marshall spoke of an urgent need to help the European recovery in his address at Harvard University in June 1947.[3][7]
dlbott
reply to post by Alekto
It is funny how we throw price around around. We all do it. Me included. But when you get right down to it cost is an illusion. We can make anything cost effective if we really want to. Do we honestly think it has been cheaper to build nuclear power.
Hmm not after we built the first one and everyone after. Everything else is cheaper to build and operate. It has always been more about power and greed and corruption. We know how to burn coal cleanly, we set on natural gas for another hundred years. We have enough alternate forms we could provide energy for the whole country.
You can't put a price on your health or the welfare of the planet.
Aazadan
dlbott
reply to post by Alekto
We do not know how to burn coal cleanly, there is no such thing. Coal plants in the US where we have "clean coal" kill 15,000 people per TWH generated, worldwide it averages 150,000 per TWH, and in China it's as high as 240,000. Nuclear plants globally (including every nuclear plant disaster) kill 90 people per TWH. The numbers don't lie, nuclear is our safest option. Did you know that nuclear plants (including so called "clean coal") put out so much radioactive byproduct that there has been serious efforts made before to goto areas powered by coal and collect the material for use in nuclear plants?
As for the price, I think nuclear is more expensive per TWH which is why it's not more widely adopted but like you said, you can't put a price on your health. And it's a far more healthy choice.
Talk about disinfo, I said we do know how to burn coal cleanly, I did not say it was implemented. Search proven cause of death, which we have for every death in the United States for coal and you won't find what you are quoting. Simply false. None of your numbers are actual. You will not get this kind of real data out of China ever. You can get wild estimated numbers from the likes of green peace and others but none based on actual facts backed up by autopsy data, not happening.
Don't get me wrong I do not like coal for the same reason most other sane honest people don't, global warming. Not because it kills people.
Nuclear power is the most dangerous things we have to all life on earth. The only thing possibly more dangerous is the collider project and dark matter. In 2015 or sooner they are gonna hit that baby to the point it could end us all. The last time all kinds of strange things happened that you will only read about on sites like this. Literally playing god and playing with the whole planet.
Nothing else threatens us more than nuclear power. Of course you have the missiles, but don't count them because they are not actively being used like power plants. All of which are in areas susceptible to natural disasters.
You won't be able to go back to large area of Ukraine for what, thirty thousand more years or what ever ridiculous number it is. You are seriously insane to still be defending nuclear power. It would be better to have wind turbines and solar plants and numerous other new tech everywhere that is safe. Are you kidding me.
Anything, even no power is better than killing the planet. Which is exactly what happens when nuclear power goes bad.
The Bot
poet1b
reply to post by Aazadan
tomsebourn.blogspot.com...
I see no reason to dismiss bloggers putting out this information as a bunch of fear mongers. In fact, I would say they are more likely to report accurate information, as they are very unlikely to have any ulterior motives, like mainstream news agencies, and most government and private institutional sources.
The "Sea Star" claim only stated that radiation could be contributing to the problem, did not see it as the cause. You are focusing on a non-point here.
I don't know where you have done your research, but when you put out stuff like this, it really blows your credibility.
furthermore most of them (though not all, like caesium) have a halflife such that they decay by the time they reach our shores and fishing areas. As things currently stand there's nothing to worry about.
It turned out that the water in that area contained Strontium-90, a radioactive isotope of strontium produced by nuclear fission with a half-life of 28.8 years, at a level as high as 440 becquerels per liter.
Oh, and looking at radiation data from the 1950ties, and comparing it to the present and seeing similarities, actually indicates that the problem in Fukushima is far worse than we are being told.
Alekto
jhn7537
I wouldn't have them build it then
Quite honestly, I'm glad you're not making the decisions. Japan has precious little in the way of natural resources and is now importing coal and wood like crazy to make up for the reactors they closed down.
I know which one will cause more environmental damage in the long run. And it's not nuclear power.
Bakatono
The worry has always been that one of the cooling pools would melt down. If this has happened then we are truly effed.
It is also true that tepco is incompetent and has been covering this up as much as possible to save face. Along with the Japanese government.
Finally. The full lifespan of mox fuel is like 7 million years. If this thing is melting down no human will see its end.
Nuclear power is far from "clean". It is in fact very dirty. I will take co2 and some mercury any day over thousands of tons of massively radioactive rods which we don't have any idea what to do with. There are reactors all over the world and they all store their fuel rods in these pools. No one knows what to do with the mess. If you were to expose one and walk within 10' of it you are dead in a minute. Now multiply that by thousands per site times hundred upon hundreds of sites.
On top of that these sites are prone to issues. Just look at wolf creek in Kansas. It is one of the worst in the US and routinely has problems. So many in fact it gets special monitoring. Oddly enough form a power plant it keeps losing power. No power means no pumping which means meltdown. Others have had all sorts of issues like a near meltdown because no one bothered to replace old valves or old monitoring equipment. They all suffer from a lack of training and when something does happen they routinely screw up.
Our short sighted ness is our undoing. Even if we shut down every reactor we are burdened with hundreds of thousands of tons of these fuel rods to deal with for hundreds of thousands of years.
Dumb.
dlbott
Talk about disinfo, I said we do know how to burn coal cleanly, I did not say it was implemented. Search proven cause of death, which we have for every death in the United States for coal and you won't find what you are quoting. Simply false. None of your numbers are actual. You will not get this kind of real data out of China ever. You can get wild estimated numbers from the likes of green peace and others but none based on actual facts backed up by autopsy data, not happening.
Nuclear power is the most dangerous things we have to all life on earth. The only thing possibly more dangerous is the collider project and dark matter. In 2015 or sooner they are gonna hit that baby to the point it could end us all. The last time all kinds of strange things happened that you will only read about on sites like this. Literally playing god and playing with the whole planet.
You won't be able to go back to large area of Ukraine for what, thirty thousand more years or what ever ridiculous number it is. You are seriously insane to still be defending nuclear power. It would be better to have wind turbines and solar plants and numerous other new tech everywhere that is safe. Are you kidding me.
Anything, even no power is better than killing the planet. Which is exactly what happens when nuclear power goes bad.
The Bot
Aazadan
If the planet dies we die, but nuclear has the same environmental impact for the power released as technologies like wind and solar. No power isn't a solution since electricity saves more lives than it costs, and it improves everyones quality of life at the same time.
jhn7537
Aazadan
If the planet dies we die, but nuclear has the same environmental impact for the power released as technologies like wind and solar. No power isn't a solution since electricity saves more lives than it costs, and it improves everyones quality of life at the same time.
When solar and wind go wrong (ie disaster to a plant like Fukushima) do they have the same environmental impact too? Is that what you're saying? Or are you just saying that when the energy is doing its job, the environmental impact is no different from solar to wind to nuclear? Because I've never heard of wind farm plant disasters that have global impacts, but I have heard of nuclear plant disasters having possible global impacts...
here4awhile
i'm always confused when people say that we "don't know what to do with the fuel rods"...
with all the developments in robotics a human being wouldn't have to get remotely close to the rods and what exactly would be so wrong with launching this crap out into space?
just a thought as i don't know much about it...
I just can't believe that there is nothing that can be done about something like that...
vkey08
reply to post by Bakatono
If all the cooling pods melt down we are effed? You don't understand a little about Nuclear Power much less the aftereffects of a cooling pool meltdown (there's no such animal)
The cooling pool could catch on fire, yes. If the rods hit 700 degrees they will spontaneously combust this is true but it's not a meltdown mind you it's a fire.. a simple radioactive fire who's effects are not life threatening outside of a small exclusion zone. As long as the rods are kept below 700 degrees they are fine.
There's the issue, if the water from the cooling pool has evaporated or it is no longer at or below 120 degrees F, theres the chance that the rods will boil away the poolwater. but meltdown of the cooling pool is impossible. The only place you can have a meltdown is in the reactor Core itself which is why they call it CORIUM when the reactor melts down and produces a lavalike substance...
There's your nuke lesson for the day..
Which raises the questions: What exactly is a nuclear meltdown? And what is a partial meltdown?
"This term 'meltdown' is being bandied about, and I think people think that you get the fuel hot and things start melting and become liquid," said Charles Ferguson, physicist and president of the Federation of American Scientists. "But there are different steps along the way."
superheated core must be cooled with water to prevent overheating and an excessive buildup of steam, which can cause an explosion. In Japan, they've been relieving pressure by releasing steam through pressure valves. But it's a trade-off, as there's no way to do this without also releasing some radioactive material.
A nuclear meltdown is an accident resulting from severe heating and a lack of sufficient cooling at the reactor core, and it occurs in different stages.
As the core heats, the zirconium metal reacts with steam to become zirconium oxide. This oxidation process releases additional heat, further increasing the temperature inside the core. High temperatures cause the zirconium coating that covers the surface of the fuel rods to blister and balloon. In time, that ultra-hot zirconium metal starts to melt. Exposed parts of the fuel rods eventually become liquid, sink down into the coolant and solidify. And that's just the beginning of a potentially catastrophic event.
Meltdown can also occur in the pools containing spent fuel rods.
Overheating of the spent fuel pools could cause the water containing and cooling the rods to evaporate. Without coolant, the fuel rods become highly vulnerable to catching fire and spontaneously combusting, releasing dangerous levels of radiation into the atmosphere.
"If material [from the cooling pool] is released, it has a greater potential to spread because there's no primary containment,"
Aazadan
We do not know how to burn coal cleanly, there is no such thing. Coal plants in the US where we have "clean coal" kill 15,000 people per TWH generated, worldwide it averages 150,000 per TWH, and in China it's as high as 240,000. Nuclear plants globally (including every nuclear plant disaster) kill 90 people per TWH. The numbers don't lie, nuclear is our safest option. Did you know that nuclear plants (including so called "clean coal") put out so much radioactive byproduct that there has been serious efforts made before to goto areas powered by coal and collect the material for use in nuclear plants?
As for the price, I think nuclear is more expensive per TWH which is why it's not more widely adopted but like you said, you can't put a price on your health. And it's a far more healthy choice.
Aazadan
There's 3 types of radioactive particles released
Iodine 131
Cesium 134
Cesium 137
Also, it is important to include not only iodine-131 and cesium-137 in atmospheric release assessments, such as JAEA, but also radioisotopes such as iodine-133, strontium-89/90 and plutonium-isotopes, as they were also detected in soil, groundwater and sediment samples in Fukushima Prefecture.
Cesium 134 is a byproduct of fission, it doesn't naturally occur. Ever since the reactor melted down no more is being produced (though if fission starts back up more could be released). It has a half life of 2 years, as a result, more than half of the amount released has since decayed.
Cesium 137 is the big one because it has a halflife of 30 years and is a byproduct of the fuel rods, it's also the one they were trying to prevent being released from overheated fuel rods. For now that problem is under control.
The interesting part of this however is that up until 1993 15 countries were simply dumping these fuel rods into the ocean, mostly off the coast of Somalia due to the state of their government. Those fuel rods contribute way more radiation to the oceans than Fukushima.
There's a couple more types of particles like strontium that have been found in the groundwater around Fukushima but they haven't entered the ocean in any significant amount.
In the past months, there has been between 90 and 900 Tbq (terabecquerels) of strontium-90 pouring into the Pacific, raising levels by up to two orders of magnitude. Since June 2011, there have been further large discharges of strontium-90 from Fukushima that have not been measured with precision. - See more at: www.intrepidreport.com...
Oh, and looking at radiation data from the 1950ties, and comparing it to the present and seeing similarities, actually indicates that the problem in Fukushima is far worse than we are being told.
Aazadan
Deaths directly related to coal are just the coal miners, however there's a lot of deaths related to equipment for coal plants, and adverse health effects like increased rate of cancer to account for. Not every death is immediately lethal, some are in the form of giving more people cancer.
Nuclear power is very dangerous, you're right. That's why so many safeguards are put in place. That's also why it's absolute lunacy to ban building new nuclear plants that are safer by orders of magnitude while extending the life on our older plants that are literally falling apart. With the current nuclear technology we have, we're looking at a major nuclear accident every 13 years or so. If we actually used newer plant models we could push that to every 100 years while only creating 1% of the waste. Is that perfect? Nope. But it's the best we have right now.
BTW, more people die from wind and solar for the power generation than Nuclear, and it's by quite a few people. Those are still good technologies but they're not safe and they have serious power output issues.