Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 48 (9179 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,231 Year: 5,488/9,624 Month: 513/323 Week: 10/143 Day: 0/10 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Japan
Taq
Member
Posts: 10195
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 31 of 175 (608848)
03-14-2011 6:37 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by dronestar
03-14-2011 12:16 PM


Re: for Rahvin . . .
If a natural or man-made disaster causes another Chernobyl catastrophe, would you then still be a strong supporter?
How many lives lost would it take for you to change your mind? Hundreds? Thousands? Millions?
(I am not "anti-nuclear power", but I am curious with your response, as I think the latest news in Japan SHOULD at least give reflection)
Huntard and Jar,
If a natural or man-made disaster causes another Chernobyl catastrophe, would you then still be a strong supporter?
How many lives lost would it take for you to change your mind? Hundreds? Thousands? Millions?
(I am not "anti-nuclear power", but I am curious with your response, as I think the latest news in Japan SHOULD at least give reflection)
This interests me because there is a strong push to build a nuclear power plant near me, the first to be built in the US in quite some time. I wonder if this disaster will stall the project, or end it altogether.
On a related note, I wonder if the Japan disaster will heighten awareness of tsunami risks on the western coast of the US. From what I have been told, the Cascadia fault will, at some point, produce a tsunami. It's not a matter of if, only when.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by dronestar, posted 03-14-2011 12:16 PM dronestar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by jar, posted 03-14-2011 6:40 PM Taq has not replied
 Message 33 by dronestar, posted 03-15-2011 9:41 AM Taq has replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34136
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 32 of 175 (608849)
03-14-2011 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Taq
03-14-2011 6:37 PM


Re: for Rahvin . . .
Taq writes:
On a related note, I wonder if the Japan disaster will heighten awareness of tsunami risks on the western coast of the US. From what I have been told, the Cascadia fault will, at some point, produce a tsunami. It's not a matter of if, only when.
The US East Coast also faces an almost certain major Tsunami in the future. Check out Cumbre Vieja .

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Taq, posted 03-14-2011 6:37 PM Taq has not replied

  
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1426
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 33 of 175 (608924)
03-15-2011 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Taq
03-14-2011 6:37 PM


Re: for Rahvin . . .
Thanks Taq,
I think I mostly agree with Omnivorous' thinking Message 192 that when it comes to nuclear power safety, we might be able to trust scientists, however we shouldn't trust a de-regulated industry, a corporatist government, "terrorists", and, as shown in Japan, mother-nature to do the right/SAFE thing.
Case in point, I received this in my email yesterday from Credo Action . . .
Even now, politicians of both parties are so beholden to the nuclear industry, that they are racing to microphones to say that the U.S. must EXPAND its taxpayer support of building even more nuclear reactors.
President Obama's 2012 budget includes $36 billion in loan guarantees to the nuclear energy industry. With Congressional leaders competing to cut public spending, we face a spectacle where senators in both parties were quick to defend nuclear power in the days following {Japan's} earthquake. Sen. Chuck Schumer, vice chair of the Democratic Senate caucus, has joined with Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, in refusing to support a moratorium on building new nuclear reactors in seismically active areas in the U.S.1
https://act.credoaction.com/campaign/say_no_to_nuclear/?r...
(Dem. Schumer is my awful NY sen. He enthusiastically supports the funding of the deaths to women and children in Iraq and Afghanistan, pushes for a flag burning amendment, supports patriot act., etc,. Just a horrible criminal that NYers keep electing.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Taq, posted 03-14-2011 6:37 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Taq, posted 03-15-2011 12:25 PM dronestar has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10195
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 34 of 175 (608940)
03-15-2011 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by dronestar
03-15-2011 9:41 AM


Re: for Rahvin . . .
I think I mostly agree with Omnivorous' thinking Message 192 that when it comes to nuclear power safety, we might be able to trust scientists, however we shouldn't trust a de-regulated industry, a corporatist government, "terrorists", and, as shown in Japan, mother-nature to do the right/SAFE thing.
We shouldn't ignore the positives of nuclear power, either. Not to push this down the GW path too far . . . one of the positives is that nuclear power does not release CO2 (at least not during power production, uranium mining on the other hand . . .). At some point we need to get off of coal and natural gas, even if GW is not the main reason. While fission reactors are not the best option, they may be the lesser of two evils until the wet dream of fusion power is a reality (if ever).
And let's not ignore the political clout of petroleum, natural gas, and coal producers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by dronestar, posted 03-15-2011 9:41 AM dronestar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by dronestar, posted 03-15-2011 12:46 PM Taq has replied

  
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1426
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 35 of 175 (608943)
03-15-2011 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Taq
03-15-2011 12:25 PM


Re: for Rahvin . . .
Taz writes:
We shouldn't ignore the positives of nuclear power, either.
Taz writes:
lesser of two evils
Yes, I understand the positives of nuclear power and of our currently poor options. However, when reading . . .
a quake-crippled nuclear power plant exploded and sent low levels of radiation floating toward Tokyo
and
Prime Minister urged people within 18 miles of the facility -- a population of 140,000 -- to remain indoors
and
Officials said radiation in the capital was 10 times normal by evening
and
Toxicologist said such a radiation level was not an immediate threat to people but the long-term consequences were unknown.
and
. . . a chemical pathologist said the blasts could expose the population to longer-term exposure to radiation, which can raise the risk of thyroid and bone cancers and leukemia. Children and fetuses are especially vulnerable, . . .
. . . I am amazed that many of our US representatives are fighting to secure funding for nuclear power plants near earthquake zones.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110315/ts_nm/us_japan_quake
https://act.credoaction.com/...say_no_to_nuclear/index2.html

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Taq, posted 03-15-2011 12:25 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Taq, posted 03-15-2011 12:58 PM dronestar has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10195
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 36 of 175 (608944)
03-15-2011 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by dronestar
03-15-2011 12:46 PM


Re: for Rahvin . . .
Yes, I understand the positives of nuclear power and of our currently poor options. However, when reading . . .
It is a real tragedy that something on this scale has to occur before safety features are considered. I have no doubt that some form of containment or back up cooling systems can be put in place that would prevent this same disaster from occuring again in other facilities across the globe. No doubt this will increase the initial cost of a facility. What those fixes are I don't know, but I find it hard to believe that a fix could not be found.
I will have to read more into how these reactors failed and what precautions could have been made before making any final conclusions. Obviously, putting reactors on the coast where they can get hit by a one-two punch of earthquake and tsunami is not a good thing. It also saddens me that a country ravaged by two US nuclear bombs 70 years ago has to go through this modern tragedy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by dronestar, posted 03-15-2011 12:46 PM dronestar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by crashfrog, posted 03-15-2011 1:25 PM Taq has not replied
 Message 54 by ramoss, posted 03-15-2011 7:32 PM Taq has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1582 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


(1)
Message 37 of 175 (608947)
03-15-2011 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Taq
03-15-2011 12:58 PM


Re: for Rahvin . . .
I will have to read more into how these reactors failed and what precautions could have been made before making any final conclusions.
Well, predominantly they failed by being subject to the 17th largest earthquake and tsunami in recorded history. I remain unconvinced that there's the requisite engineering experience with magnitude 9 earthquakes/tsunami to design rod-based reactor systems resistant to them. It certainly didn't exist when the basic technology of the rod reactor was developed. It's a bit like trying to plan for an alien invasion.
Pebble-bed reactors are far more resilient to this sort of thing, incidentally, and aren't subject to meltdowns due to passive (rather than active) safety systems. They literally "fail-safe", whereas rod reactors tend to fail dangerously.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Taq, posted 03-15-2011 12:58 PM Taq has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4046
Joined: 07-01-2005


(1)
Message 38 of 175 (608948)
03-15-2011 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by dronestar
03-14-2011 9:55 AM


Re: for Rahvin . . .
SAFEST, bolded by me.
In light of the potential catastrophic problem in Japan regarding their nuclear power-plants, are you still enamored with nuclear power?
And besides natural disasters, what about potential terrorist attacks on nuclear power plants? Seems the 9/11 terrorists could have done a lot more damage if . . .
Yes, safest, as opposed to completely safe. Very little we do is completely safe, and every method of power generation we can possibly use carries certain risks and actual impacts to human health and the environment. The trick is objectively measuring those impacts and risks and determining which method creates the most net benefit with the least net harm.
The Fukushima reactors have suffered a significant natural disaster. The plant was designed to withstand a 7.8 quake, because historically the area could be expected to experience quakes in the 7.2-7.3 range. This quake was an 8.9, and to anyone familiar with the Richter scale, relative earthquake strength is not linear, it's exponential. In other words, this earthquake wasn't just a little worse, wasn't even 20% worse, but was more like orders of magnitude worse than what the plant was designed to withstand.
Still, the plant survived the quake without too much damage. The problem was the ensuing tsunami, which damaged the plant's cooling systems.
So, to be clear, we aren't talking about a normal circumstance, not even close.
But let's dismiss that - planning for the best possible scenario would be simply falling victim to the planning fallacy. So we'll disregard things like how poorly designed the Chernobyl plant was compared to modern reactors; we'll ignore that Fukushima was hit by two severe natural disasters followed by aftershocks, and so on.
To determine relative safety, we need to look at how many people actually die or are injured by different power generation methods, regardless of what caused the accidents, and regardless of what causes the harm (ie, a death due to radiation exposure is no different from a death in a fire or explosion, a casualty is a casualty).
It's premature to do such a calculation while this crisis is ongoing - we do not yet know how this is all going to play out. Right now we're detecting elevated but still not harmful levels of radiation in the area (2x normal is the number I've heard, and double the normal daily amount of radiation is virtually nothing). Fuel rods may have burned, which carries the risk of sending radioactive particulate matter into the air - ie, fallout. Instead of speculating with regards to the current disaster, let's look at the history of nuclear power.
The first commercial US nuclear power plant was completed in 1958. The first nuclear Navy vessel was launched in 1955. Either way, we have between 50-60 years of nuclear power generation.
Wiki has a nice, useful list of all nuclear or radiation accidents as defined by the Atomic Energy Commission, along with casualty figures.
Over the course of those 5-6 decades, we have had a total of 18 incidents, 19 if we count Fukushima (please note that the Chernobyl disaster was filed under Pripyat, Ukraine), that involved either multiple fatalities or damages over $100 million. These incidents range from explosions at power plants to radiation leaks to close-call meltdown aversions to simply getting caught violating safety protocols and being forced to shut down.
4 incidents involved deaths.
Only one killed more than 5 people.
The total death toll from all global nuclear accidents from 1952 to today (excluding only Fukushima because we don't have numbers yet) was 63. The overwhelming majority were caused by Chernobyl. As late as the late 90s, several Chernobyl workers and rescue personnel were being studied, and an additional 216 deaths were attributed to the disaster over the ensuing decade (long-term deaths due to radiation exposure). That bumps the total of nuclear reactor-related deaths to 279.
Outside of actual power plant accidents, there have been other radiological crises associated with nuclear power (waste storage problems, nuclear submarine disasters, etc). These cumulatively resulted in roughly 262 additional fatalities. At least one of the incidents is believed to have an overly conservative casualty estimate due to Soviet secrecy surrounding the event, so let's triple the number to try to account for that known inaccuracy; that gives us a total of 786 deaths.
So, between actual reactor crises and other radiological disasters related to nuclear power, we have a total of 1065 people who have been killed by a nuclear accident since the beginning of nuclear power generation.
In comparison, over 6000 coal miners died in China alone in 2004.
The US tracks their own coal mining deaths pretty well. Since 1952, the same period as our nuclear data for comparison, there have been 9367 coal mining deaths in the United States.
That's just coal, and it's only for the mining, not the power plants. I'm not even counting things like underground coal fires that have been burning since the 60s, or coal plant explosions and fires, etc. And I didn't even use global numbers like I did for nuclear plants. Yet the death toll is still roughly nine times that caused by nuclear accidents.
So yes - I'm still a strong supporter of nuclear power. The death toll in Fukushima would have to reach pretty high to make nuclear power more dangerous than coal - even another Chernobyl wouldn't be enough.
People aren't afraid of nuclear power because it's more dangerous. They're afraid because it's more scary. Nobody thinks about the natural gas line that exploded in the San Francisco Bay area last year and killed a few people and burned down homes, but they sure do think about radiation levels detected at double the background rate (normal exposure over a year from radiation is .05sv; at 1-2sv only 5% of those exposed will actually die, so double the normal amount isn't worth mentioning). For some reason, people are far more terrified of cancer and radiation sickness than they are of burning to death, or drinking water contaminated by hydraulic fracturing.
I'd rather live a few miles from a nuclear power plant than an oil refinery or a coal power plant.
Saying "oh look, there's a disaster happening, that means this is really dangerous! We should keep using other power generation methods instead of nuclear!" is like pointing at a recent plane crash and claiming that flying is more dangerous than driving. The statistics don't lie. We might be more frightened of one than the other; we might feel a nervousness when we board a plane that we don;t feel when we hop on the freeway. But we're irrational animals by nature, and our fears have little to do with real risk. It's safer to fly than it is to drive, even though terrorists hijacked planed on 9/11 and flew them into buildings, even though planes sometimes crash due to pilot or mechanical failure. Nuclear power is safer than fossil fuels, even if radiation is more scary than fire.
I don't include so-called "renewable" energy in the discussion because wind, solar, wave, hydro, and geothermal are all supplemental methods of power generation, not primary. They're great in locations where they're cost-effective, but they can only ever supplement the power grid, not run it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by dronestar, posted 03-14-2011 9:55 AM dronestar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by dronestar, posted 03-15-2011 4:06 PM Rahvin has not replied
 Message 42 by Son, posted 03-15-2011 4:17 PM Rahvin has not replied
 Message 43 by slevesque, posted 03-15-2011 4:25 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1582 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 39 of 175 (608949)
03-15-2011 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by dronestar
03-14-2011 9:55 AM


Re: for Rahvin . . .
In light of the potential catastrophic problem in Japan regarding their nuclear power-plants, are you still enamored with nuclear power?
Compared to what? Far more people have been exposed to airborne radioactive contamination as a result of burning coal than by the entire history of nuclear power generation. Extracting and burning coal has killed hundreds of thousands.
And besides natural disasters, what about potential terrorist attacks on nuclear power plants?
What about terrorist attacks on malls? What about terrorist attacks on airport security checkpoints?
Seems like being concerned about what terrorists might do, and making bad choices out of a fear of potential future terrorism, is not only something self-evidently stupid but something you've criticized the Obama administration for, in the past.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by dronestar, posted 03-14-2011 9:55 AM dronestar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Rahvin, posted 03-15-2011 2:15 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4046
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 40 of 175 (608959)
03-15-2011 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by crashfrog
03-15-2011 1:32 PM


Re: for Rahvin . . .
Seems like being concerned about what terrorists might do, and making bad choices out of a fear of potential future terrorism, is not only something self-evidently stupid but something you've criticized the Obama administration for, in the past.
Well, the real problems here seem to be terrorism and natural disasters, not nuclear power. Should we stop building anything that OMG TERRORISTS could fly a plane into? Which power plants, I wonder, are immune to damage from an 8.9 quake + tsunami?
What would happen to the Hoover Dam if there were an 8.9 quake nearby? Or if OMG TERRORISTS flew a plane into it? Does that mean hydro power is unsafe, of that quakes and plane crashes stress any design beyond normal operating parameters, and that sometimes we can't forsee all the shit that might happen?
(btw - those giant cooling towers on nuke plants? They were actually designed to take the impact of an airliner. We don't use them in newer designs anyway, but it's a fun fact).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by crashfrog, posted 03-15-2011 1:32 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1426
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 41 of 175 (608970)
03-15-2011 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Rahvin
03-15-2011 1:26 PM


Re: for Rahvin . . .
Hi Rahvin, nice to communicate with you again. Thanks for the detailed email.
Rahvin writes:
Yes, safest, as opposed to completely safe.
Safer than good ol' Hydro power? I live nearby the mostly-ecologically-safe Niagara Hydro Plant. I'm not an engineer, but I think a plane crash into the hydro plant wouldn't cause the area to be inundated with radiation for another 30+ years. I've always wondered why there can't be more similar designed hydro plants. There are rivers all over the US, right?
Rahvin writes:
The plant was designed to withstand a 7.8 quake, because historically the area could be expected to experience quakes in the 7.2-7.3 range.
The New Orleans coastal/dam system was designed for a rated 3-4 hurricane because historically that area could expect a 3-4 hurricane. Seemed like that wasn't too SAFE of planning either, was it? Seems to be a pattern here.
Rahvin writes:
The problem was the ensuing tsunami, which damaged the plant's cooling systems.
No, not quite. It was the loss of electrical power that allowed the cooling systems to be damaged. Not all the reports are clear/known right now, but read my links below for the best technical explanations now.
Rahvin writes:
planning for the best possible scenario would be simply falling victim to the planning fallacy. So we'll disregard things like how poorly designed the Chernobyl plant was compared to modern reactors;
Not quite. Please read my links below which showed that the Fukushima reactors were knowingly defective. And that planned US power plants will use the same defective design.
Rahvin writes:
To determine relative safety, we need to look at how many people actually die or are injured . . .
It's premature to do such a calculation while this crisis is ongoing . . .
That's why I asked how many people need to be killed BEFORE you would partly/fully change your stance. Please read and comprehend my posts in their entirety (praise be god you are not crashfrog).
Rahvin writes:
Fuel rods may have burned, which carries the risk of sending radioactive particulate matter into the air - ie, fallout.
It is my understanding, that, at this time, the fuel rods are likely exposed (see linked website). Possible that I'm wrong.
Rahvin writes:
People aren't afraid of nuclear power because it's more dangerous. They're afraid because it's more scary.
Well, actually both, they are potentially scarily dangerous. Cancer, birth defects, etc. Pretty scary to me.
Rahvin, as I wrote before, I am not anti-nuclear, but I'd simply want everyone to consider ALL the angles BEFORE any catastrophe can happen and make the necessary extraordinary precautions. I am sure you agree with this stance.
1. Natural disasters: in this case a nuclear power plant was built on the Pacific ring of fire, prone to earthquakes and tsunamis, with forewarnings. A meltdown can cause tens, or thousands, or millions to have radiation poisoning and to render VAST quantities of land to be uninhabitable for DECADES. Excuse me, but because of this reason, I (and you) should want better guarantees of safety than a simple coal burning plant.
2. Deregulated/dishonest industries. Check out my link below regarding corruption to make a profit. PLEASE, read through "Tokyo Electric to Build US Nuclear Plants" below. It will make you want to go back to the steam age. A meltdown can cause tens, or thousands, or millions to have radiation poisoning and to render VAST quantities of land to be uninhabitable for DECADES. Excuse me, but because of this reason, I (and you) should want better guarantees of safety than a simple coal burning plant.
3. Corrupt corporatist government. Check out my link that shows US representatives want to push funding for similar defective powerplants in quake areas of the US. Also, a power plant in Michigan has been in safety violation of law since 1994! A meltdown can cause tens, or thousands, or millions to have radiation poisoning and to render VAST quantities of land to be uninhabitable for DECADES. Excuse me, but because of this reason, I (and you) should want better guarantees of safety than a simple coal burning plant.
4. "Terrorists". Before 9/11, I could understand your marginalization. But after? The difference between flying a 747 into a nuclear powerplant and a "shopping mall" is that a nuclear power plant meltdown can cause tens, hundreds, thousands, or millions to have radiation poisoning and to render VAST quantities of land to be uninhabitable for DECADES. Excuse me, but because of this reason, I (and you) should want better guarantees of safety than a simple "shopping mall". (I know you didn't write the retarded example of "shopping mall".)
Lastly, PLEASE read the two links below about the seriousness of radiation spreading from Japan. It is likely that governmentS are going to downplay the actual amount of radiation released. Excuse me while I straighten my tin-cap, but I urge you to be extra skeptical in governmental and corporate media reporting.
Japan Facing Biggest Catastrophe Since Dawn of Nuclear Age
zcommunications.org - zcommunications Resources and Information.
Tokyo Electric To Build Us Nuclear Plants
zcommunications.org - zcommunications Resources and Information.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Rahvin, posted 03-15-2011 1:26 PM Rahvin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by NoNukes, posted 03-15-2011 6:21 PM dronestar has replied

  
Son
Member (Idle past 3945 days)
Posts: 346
From: France,Paris
Joined: 03-11-2009


Message 42 of 175 (608972)
03-15-2011 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Rahvin
03-15-2011 1:26 PM


Re: for Rahvin . . .
While I agree with most of your argument, I think you forgot to talk about the part of energy production that comes from nuclear compared to that coming from coal. If say 5% of energy was produced by nuclear technology and 95% by coal (random example), nuclear energy would still be relatively more dangerous if there were 1000 people dying from it while 15000 died from coal mining/use. In this case, taking the real numbers into account doesn't change the conclusion though but should have been included for completeness sake.
For 2005 , nuclear energy is actually producing 6% of our energy while coal is responsible for 25% of it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Rahvin, posted 03-15-2011 1:26 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4756 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


(1)
Message 43 of 175 (608974)
03-15-2011 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Rahvin
03-15-2011 1:26 PM


Re: for Rahvin . . .
Hi Rahvin,
You realize that uranium must be mined too, right ? How many deaths per capita are there in that type of mining compared to coal.
I don't really have a strong opinion on this since in Quebec we are world-leaders in Hydro-electricity (and the funny thing is, that there is a rising movement in the population claiming this is not clean energy :S) and also have a huge eolian potential in the northern part of the province, so Nuclear isn't really an option (we have only one nuclear plant, and apperently it's very safe)
But I found it a bit odd to include deaths by mining coal, and not by mining uranium.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Rahvin, posted 03-15-2011 1:26 PM Rahvin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Taq, posted 03-15-2011 5:25 PM slevesque has replied
 Message 46 by fearandloathing, posted 03-15-2011 5:35 PM slevesque has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10195
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 44 of 175 (608981)
03-15-2011 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by slevesque
03-15-2011 4:25 PM


Re: for Rahvin . . .
I don't really have a strong opinion on this since in Quebec we are world-leaders in Hydro-electricity (and the funny thing is, that there is a rising movement in the population claiming this is not clean energy :S) and also have a huge eolian potential in the northern part of the province, so Nuclear isn't really an option (we have only one nuclear plant, and apperently it's very safe)
You might want to check on those Canadian tar sand operations. It is one of the dirtiest, most destructive, and least effecient sources of energy there is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by slevesque, posted 03-15-2011 4:25 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by slevesque, posted 03-15-2011 5:41 PM Taq has replied

  
fearandloathing
Member (Idle past 4260 days)
Posts: 990
From: Burlington, NC, USA
Joined: 02-24-2011


Message 45 of 175 (608982)
03-15-2011 5:25 PM


I don't oppose nuclear power,although I would like to see safer designs. I understand the economics on placing multiple reactors at one location, security , handling of dangerous waste at one site, not to mention being able to still produce power when a reactor is down for repairs etc...But in japans case a seres of events has culminated in at the very least the loss of most if not all of that plant. Time will tell how bad it will ultimately be, and then we must learn and apply this to make an industry with a good safety record safer.
Comparing coal to nuclear don't always make sense when it comes to safety. If a coal plant had a worst case accident and the entire plant was lost then it could never compare to a worst case accident at a nuclear plant.
Coal is nasty to mine and burn, but I think both can be improved upon as can nuclear. Comparing deaths in coal mining compared to uranium mining is ludicrous... I not even sure if there is more than 2 or 3 mines in USA that mine uranium. But I will go out on a limb and say it is probably far fewer deaths simply because of how few there are compared to coal. If whoever wants to look at USA mining safety record I am sure you could at Dpt of interior or mining safety. Shouldn't be too hard as this type of info is public.
Although it is probably just another case of knit-picking because they have nothing valid to say and would rather answer a question with a question as opposed to researching it then making a statement.

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Rahvin, posted 03-15-2011 6:19 PM fearandloathing has replied
 Message 51 by crashfrog, posted 03-15-2011 6:30 PM fearandloathing has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024