Power Plant Melt Down Obama's Fault?

[Amskeptic]

We shoulda never invented 99 % of anything. Hell, we shoulda never been born. Damn. Wish we could just cease existing. LOL

Can we keep the level of discourse, the exchange of ideas, flowing on some sort of adult level? This sort of hyperbolic acid sarcasm maybe acceptable on Faux News, but it ruins the exchange here.

This situation in Japan and the search for energy answers is worthy of intelligent debate.
Colin

[RussellK]

I'll admit being mostly ignorant about the subject of nuclear power. I understand how it works and I understand without mishaps it's cleaner than coal but damn when things go awry as they inevitably will, the consequences are scary as hell. And that doesn't even touch on the issues surrounding byproducts and waste. It reminds me of the septic tank guy that was pushing the newfangled aerator. He said "Why the water that comes out is so clean you can drink it" "Sure" I thought. "You go first"

[turk]

We shoulda never invented 99 % of anything. Hell, we shoulda never been born. Damn. Wish we could just cease existing. LOL

Can we keep the level of discourse, the exchange of ideas, flowing on some sort of adult level? This sort of hyperbolic acid sarcasm maybe acceptable on Faux News, but it ruins the exchange here.

This situation in Japan and the search for energy answers is worthy of intelligent debate.
Colin

I think you know well, why I responded with reciprocal glibness and to whom (pl). I think I put some ideas forth in almost every discussion I engage in here, and you know that too. It doesn't take away from an intelligent discussion to mirror the intelligence of other comment(s), if that reflection is a comment on the depth of the "search", as you say. Actually, that was not the main intention I had. If you look at almost anything humans have invented in history going back to the first tools, it scared the livin' out of people at first. Remember the scene from "2001: a Space Oddysey", with the hominid learning the other "use" of the skull-bone fragment? Beyond that, every technology starts out with flaws, fits, and problems. Almost every practical energy source is not without risks. Many kill far more people than Nuclear ever has. The dam that killed hundreds of thousands in China last year for example. Solar farms use tons of lead and silicon tetrachloride. That would kill virtually everything in the coastal sea off Sendai, if it was a solar farm of equal electricity generating capability.
So, my point here is these nuke plants (Fukoshima) are almost obsolete in nuclear technology. There are much safer plants already in operation and safer technology is available to those who aren't technophobic, like the mass U.S. opinion since the seventies. Economies of India and China will be the beneficiaries of that, not ours.
But I agree, a sober, moderate analysis of the topic, considering both sides is beneficial. Not this though : No Nukes, No Nukes NO NUKES!!! That isn't very objective.

No one needs to feel belittled.

[skin daddio]

[Birdibus]

image? nothing there

There is absolutely nothing CLEAN about nuclear power! That is the lie!! An absolute fallacy. It is the DIRTIEST stuff in the world and don't think otherwise for a second. In the end, the waste is very dangerous, and nowhere safe to store it for the next 100,000 years. It is only 'clean' for us for a short moment in time. It is a nightmare for future generations, for the planet.

If enough radioactive pollution saturates the planet, in the long run it might have the result of shortening human lifespan to 35 years. Like it was originally. As nature intended. Nasty brutish and short. That what you want?

We have alternative energy technologies. We need to develop those, not keep beating the dead horse of radiation.

[skin daddio]

image? nothing there

will send long slow pm

[ruckman101]

ARNIE GUNDERSEN, on Democracy Now!, March 15, 2011, speaking about the design of the Japanese plants having troubles noted, "The NRC in 1972 said we never should have licensed this containment. And in 1985, the NRC said they thought it was about a 90 percent chance that in a severe accident this containment would fail. ...... And we have—essentially one-quarter of all of the nuclear reactors in the United States, 23 out of 104, are of this identical design."

http://www.democracynow.org/2011/3/15/t ... n_steroids


What truly frightens me is the thought that regulatory oversight of the nuclear power industry here is probably on par with the regulatory oversight of the coal, gas, and petroleum industries. Essentially none. Republicans even now are attempting to scale back the budget by reducing operational funding for the NRC. All of the regulatory oversight agencies have been essentially de-funded to the point of absolute ineffectiveness. The EPA is also, of course, targeted for budget cuts in addition to being outright gagged. The industries currently regulate themselves in all practicality. And we've seen the consequences over and over again. Why should the nuclear industry be any different?

At least sixty of the US's operating plants are still running long past their designed operation. Profits over responsibility with no accountability.


neal

[ruckman101]

I would also like to take this opportunity to apologize to everyone for being part of the petty "tit for tat" problem and issues here.

I think my problem is a basic human psyche issue. Folks who rankle us the most often rankle us because we recognize behaviours within ourselves we aren't proud expressed in them. I am turk.

Coming to grips with these issues is difficult, so please call me on them should I backslide in the future.


thanks,
neal

[Amskeptic]

I would also like to take this opportunity to apologize to everyone for being part of the petty "tit for tat" problem and issues here.

I think my problem is a basic human psyche issue. Folks who rankle us the most often rankle us because we recognize behaviours within ourselves we aren't proud expressed in them. I am turk.

Coming to grips with these issues is difficult, so please call me on them should I backslide in the future.


thanks,
neal

Happily will I be vigilant to helping you.

That the Japanese reactors withstood the earthquake is heartening. That once again a nuclear power plant had a stack of "statistically impossible anomalies" is seriously worrisome. Nuclear energy is utterly not worth the cost. It is not worth the cost.
Colin

[chitwnvw]

Burning fuel, whatever it is, is like slavery. We humans are trying to get something for nothing, a free ride. If you burn this or that it will do the work of x men or women. In the end, nothing is free, for every upside is a downside. If you want to enjoy the upside of enslavement you must deal with the nasty down side. It is stored energy that we are stealing, we didn't work for it. This is who we are. Deal with it.

[turk]

Burning fuel, whatever it is, is like slavery. We humans are trying to get something for nothing, a free ride. If you burn this or that it will do the work of x men or women. In the end, nothing is free, for every upside is a downside. If you want to enjoy the upside of enslavement you must deal with the nasty down side. It is stored energy that we are stealing, we didn't work for it. This is who we are. Deal with it.

Good analysis. Every option has its up and down sides. Nuclear has its downsides, agreed. It has an upside too, I would think, considering everything. It would be a counteraction to the.., well, we shouldn't bring the subject up AGAIN NOW. Every type of energy has its problems. "Fossil fuels", "renewable", etc., ALL have problems. None is 100% "safe" or efficient. I don't think anything, ever, was safe and efficient to any standard, unless 6 billion people could exist on the planet with stone-age technology, i.e. ALL, or most, in the warmer latitudes using horses, carriages, etc., and as hunter-gatherers instead of a surplus agriculturally based civilization.
I personally celebrate the advancements in comfort and standards of living various technologies have enabled, instead of demonizing it.
Yes, concern for the future is appropriate, but only within a scientific frame of view, not an alarmist one.

[ruckman101]

Well there is a hella national security issue around every nuclear plant. Do we really need that to boil water?

In fact a centralized production model for energy delivery is hopelessly inefficient. Energy from Columbia River dams is used in California. High-voltage delivery lines are a health hazard and damn ugly. Efficient? How much energy is lost in the delivery process. All those massive transformers are toxic, too.

A huge start would be to localize, building by building, those structure's energy needs. Thermal berms. Passive solar water heating (100% non-toxic, safe and efficient). Rainwater runoff diverted to micro-turbines, then collected for yard and garden needs, closed underground thermal loops connected to heat pumps, solar panels, mini wind turbines and such. Self-composting toilets. You can eliminate batteries for storage with the proper grid that each building feeds excess power to, and pulls from when needs are greater than generation capabilities. Hydrogen cell technology is becoming more and more viable.

I don't think most folks would opt for mini nuclear reactors.

Think of an "off the grid" approach still tied to the grid. You could even conceivably get rid of the dams, restoring a natural river eco-system.



neal

[turk]

What you propose is good. How to get there is already an elementary institution of capitalism. I didn't say "FREE-MARKET" capitalism, notice. It could swing the way you propose, IF, the various solutions to energy abundance you propose are profitable enough on the micro-scale, to various consumers, and investors to be not only marketed but implemented on a macro-scale. I have no problem with it. Market it. See how it works. Right now it takes a lot of subsidizing by the government, which as Obama notoriously commented, will make "energy costs skyrocket". Maybe the average schlub like me out here will not mind a little higher costs of electricity and heat in winter if some tangible benefit is apparent. "Skyrocketing" costs, I'm not really sure will go over well in the technologically-interdependent culture we are mostly immersed in. I recycle, even though I know it is not cost effective in the short run. It's easy enough to do. It is a slight pain in the butt having shit pile up, but that's just me. I actually like it. I actually collect drainage water (from snow rain etc.) from my sump pump to water my plants, and it seems okay. I put all my toxic chemicals in old jars and am hoarding it till I can figure out what to do with it. I could just pour it out somewhere I guess. Gum-out, oil, gas, etc.. But I don't.

[ruckman101]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110323/ap_ ... lzZXR0bw--

It can be done.



neal