Fukushima

[Weyland]

Very informative graphics from the NY Times.

They're not the kind of reactors I worked on a bit years ago, but they all work roughly the same way — make steam to drive turbines which spin alternators which generate electricity. The Japanese reactors can each make enough steam to produce about 480MW.

Here's another nice link from a science site (though it's engineering we're talking about).

[sesley]

i think there is more harmful pollution from the industrys and factorys and oil refinery that were devasted by the tsunami out weighs the small amount of radiation. the farmland and enviroment will be contaminated for years. I suppose they will just scrap a lot of the top soil off,won't they?

[Alpha Hooligan]

That place is trying it's damndest to blow the Hell up isn't it?


AH

[riotgrrl]

Nuclear Power? No Thanks.

[Alpha Hooligan]

All that aside, I don't consider this to be any kind of real disaster until a few giant robots start slugging it out in Tokyo harbour or suchlike...



There are certain standards I expect from the Japanese, and violent Mech action is one of them.


AH

[tarzanontarmazepam]

Mar 15, 2011 13:29:37 GMT Alpha Hooligan said:

All that aside, I don't consider this to be any kind of real disaster until a few giant robots start slugging it out in Tokyo harbour or suchlike...



There are certain standards I expect from the Japanese, and violent Mech action is one of them.


AH

Alpha,

For crying out loud. They are only human beings.

Put your toys away.

Nature versus Robots. Nature will always win.

[aubrey]

There will be a Japanese film about it, with robots, and maybe Mothra in a couple of years.


Godzilla was really about Hiroshima and Nagasaki. (The original Godzilla, before it was re-edited and added to by Hollywood, was a lot more serious than you'd imagine.)


They seem to have been very open about it so far.


Anyway - Fukushima - hee hee, fnurr fnurr. (It's only what everyone's thinking, isn't it?)


Mothra and Godzilla:

[everso]

Mar 15, 2011 20:00:58 GMT aubrey said:

There will be a Japanese film about it, with robots, and maybe Mothra in a couple of years.


Godzilla was really about Hiroshima and Nagasaki. (The original Godzilla, before it was re-edited and added to by Hollywood, was a lot more serious than you'd imagine.)


They seem to have been very open about it so far.


Anyway - Fukushima - hee hee, fnurr fnurr. (It's only what everyone's thinking, isn't it?)

Mothra and Godzilla:

Yeah, I've been wondering who that Shima is.

Seriously, though. Those poor devils. It's just about knocked Libya into a cocked hat, so far as the news is concerned.

[Weyland]

Mar 15, 2011 13:15:31 GMT @riotgrrl said:

Nuclear Power? No Thanks.

But there are no other options with current technology, Riot. Unless you want to use more fossil fuels and/or vastly reduce the demand.

So far, none of the "renewable" sources can bear the present load either reliably or affordably. Take your pick.

[everso]

Did you see Question Time this evening? There was a good discussion on nuclear energy.

I really can't decide how I feel. On the one hand I like the idea of a source of energy that doesn't rely on fossil fuels, but watching those poor souls in Japan... I know we don't have earthquakes of the same magnitude in this country, but there is terrorism to contend with.

And as someone on Question Time mentioned, what about the tsunami in the Bristol Channel in 1607? ;D

[housesparrow]

Does anyone feel that the nuclear threat has distracted us from focusing on the all-too-present suffering of those who have lost their limbs, their loved ones, their homes and livelihood?

[everso]

Yes, you are right. The thing is it must be difficult to keep all aspects of what happened in Japan to the fore. Potentially, the crisis with the nuclear reactors is catastrophic. It makes me so sad when I see how patient and supposedly uncomplaining most of the Japanese people are.

[Alpha Hooligan]

Mar 17, 2011 17:53:34 GMT Weyland said:

Mar 15, 2011 13:15:31 GMT @riotgrrl said:

Nuclear Power? No Thanks.

But there are no other options with current technology, Riot. Unless you want to use more fossil fuels and/or vastly reduce the demand.

So far, none of the "renewable" sources can bear the present load either reliably or affordably. Take your pick.

Indeed. Nuclear power is the only viable option for the power hungry western world - And in an age of "energy security" or whatever they call it, it's quite literally a Godsend.

Biofuels, wind power, solar power and all the other limp wristed alternatives are feeble also rans when compared to the might of the atom and good old fossil fuels.


AH

[Weyland]

Mar 18, 2011 14:00:59 GMT Alpha Hooligan said:

Mar 17, 2011 17:53:34 GMT Weyland said:

But there are no other options with current technology, Riot. Unless you want to use more fossil fuels and/or vastly reduce the demand.

So far, none of the "renewable" sources can bear the present load either reliably or affordably. Take your pick.

Indeed. Nuclear power is the only viable option for the power hungry western world - And in an age of "energy security" or whatever they call it, it's quite literally a Godsend.

Biofuels, wind power, solar power and all the other limp wristed alternatives are feeble also rans when compared to the might of the atom and good old fossil fuels. AH

Exactly right, Alph, except that in truth it's the might of the steam turbine, which doesn't care where the steam comes from.

Invented in the 1890s in Newcastle by an Irish engineer. I served my apprenticeship at the company he founded. An 800MW steam turbo-alternator set under full load is a thing of unbounded power and beauty. Drax has six sets. That's 4800MW, or 7% of total demand, all day every day. You'd be lucky to get 1MW from a wind turbine, and then only IF the wind was blowing hard.

[trubble]

Mar 18, 2011 2:11:53 GMT everso said:

Did you see Question Time this evening? There was a good discussion on nuclear energy.

I really can't decide how I feel. On the one hand I like the idea of a source of energy that doesn't rely on fossil fuels, but watching those poor souls in Japan... I know we don't have earthquakes of the same magnitude in this country, but there is terrorism to contend with.

And as someone on Question Time mentioned, what about the tsunami in the Bristol Channel in 1607? ;D

Wind Power has a lot of pros and cons. I don't understand why there isn't more about tidal and wave power as it seems much more sensible to me; presumably there are cons I don't understand?? Maybe the expense of setting it up compared to windmills.

Solar power is vastly under utilised. My sister lives in a house built just two years ago, if that, and it has various 'green' elements -- a solar panel on their roof heats all the water needed by a working couple (they are out of the house for for most of the day obviously). I must ask her if that has changed now that she is at home with a young baby.

Every house could have this sort of energy. Imagine the savings for the national grid.

A mixture of renewables and a minor change of lifestyle, as put forward by Caroline Lucas, would certainly be a preferable choice to more nuclear power. Not just because of the risk of disaster, but also the disposal of waste, not to mention human error.

I think it's obvious that we will have a nuclear incident every x-amount of years, be it earthquake, terrorism, error, etc. I think it's inevitable that one day it will be on such a massive scale that millions of people will be affected. (We are already affected. You can't carbondate anything after 1950, for example, (or some date like that) because of radiation from atomic bomb tests.)

Aside from these changes due to natural processes, the level has also been affected by human activities. From the beginning of the industrial revolution in the 18th century to the 1950s, the fractional level of 14C decreased because of the admixture of large quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere, due to the excavated oil reserves and combustion production of fossil fuel. This decline is known as the Suess effect, and also affects the 13C isotope. However, atmospheric 14C was almost doubled during the 1950s and 1960s due to atmospheric atomic bomb tests.

I think it's stupid to keep on developing an industry that is favoured because it makes huge profit (like oil) for the few but is willing to take risks with the entire planet. I think it's immoral to let people who live near fukushima, sellafield, chernobyl etc etc etc be at such risk just so we can continue our unrealistic energy-guzzling lifestyles.

Renewables will make less huge profits but will create more local profits and jobs, as well as causing less problems for the planet. We may have to adjust to spending our energy rations differently. A small price compared to Chernobyl? (No answer is problem free).

[Weyland]

Mar 19, 2011 20:44:40 GMT trubble said:

Renewables will make less huge profits but will create more local profits and jobs, as well as causing less problems for the planet. We may have to adjust to spending our energy rations differently. A small price compared to Chernobyl? (No answer is problem free).

That's the crux.

But even if we halved demand, the fact remains that the only viable way, by a country mile, we have available today to deliver such large amounts of electricity reliably is the steam turbine. As I said, it doesn't care where the steam comes from.

It would seem that, without nuclear fission or fusion, coal is the obvious answer for Britain and many other countries, given efficient handling of the exhaust gases. Which would need large amounts of money spent on research and development. Which rules Britain's privatised shambles out of the picture, not to mention the dearth of coal mines.

And even if we started building today in Britain, whether nuclear or fossil, we still cannot replace the worn-out generating capacity in time. Britain will run out of electricity sometime soon. Yet another gift from Thatcher and Co.

[Alpha Hooligan]

Trubb, Caroline Lucas lives in a little fantasy world, a world where Gaia provides all we need and the masses are all reasonable folk, sufice to say, the woman is quite bonkers...I wouldn't elect her to run a tea stall...these greenists would drag us back to the dark ages (quite literally) if we gave them full control of our power generation tomorrow.

Weyland, it's a shame that hydro-electric isn't able to cover all (or most of) our needs...we need to build more rivers...problem solved!. ;D


AH

[Weyland]

Mar 19, 2011 22:27:17 GMT Alpha Hooligan said:

Weyland, it's a shame that hydro-electric isn't able to cover all (or most of) our needs...we need to build more rivers...problem solved!. ;D

AH

If only we could hitch a ride to see a man about a deal — Slartibartfast is your man!

[swl]

We need more electricity, cheaper. Green alternatives will triple the cost of power in this country, penalising the poor. Only the wealthy will be able to afford electricity with the rest of us forced to return to wood stoves and peat fires.

As for developing the Third World, forget it.