NRC Study Lowers Hazard Estimate For Nuke Plants 168
JSBiff writes "With the incident at Fukushima causing much renewed concern about the risks of nuclear power this year, the NY Times brings news that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has released the preliminary version of a safety report due out in April 2012, based upon new science about the behavior of Cesium-137. The report finds that the public health hazards of nuclear accidents at the types of reactor designs currently in common use are lower than previously thought, based upon a better understanding of the science behind earlier estimates."
TFA (Score:5, Insightful)
TFA says that 1-2% of cesium 137 is likely to escape the core in the event of a containment breach, unlike 60% in previous estimates (Most of it dissolves in stagnant water or is deposited on the containment vessel surface). People living in a 10-mile radius would have enough time to evacuate, and cancer estimates within 10 miles went from 1 in 167 previously to 1 in 4348. A rainstorm happening during the meltdown can cause a higher dose to accumulate in small areas.
Re: (Score:2)
It's worth noting that the panel was considering the results of the most-likely mode of failure under average conditions and not a worst-case scenario. If a reactor managed to explode and destroy the containment vessels, I'm sure their earlier estimates of the death toll would still apply.
The Fukushima accident suggests that Three-Mile-Island was actually more of a real disaster than a narrowly avoided one; a contained meltdown with some radiation release is a normal failure mode and not tremendously hazard
Re: (Score:2)
Sooner or later I'm sure a worst-case nuclear disaster will occur and the result will be a handful of acute radiation sickness deaths and a few million people who end up with a statistically-insignificant increase to their chances of getting cancer.
A worst case nuclear disaster has already occurred, in 1986.
Re: (Score:3)
Reactors don't explode.
Unless you pack them full of TNT or some such.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, the Chernobyl reactor didn't explode? I'll alert the media. They've been wrong all these years. Why didn't you tell them?
Re:TFA (Score:4, Informative)
Chernobyl exploded - it was a steam explosion, not a nuclear explosion, but it was sufficient to blow apart the building and throw pieces of the core everywhere. Really much worse than a nuclear bomb, since a bomb would burn more of its fuel.
And there might have been a small nuclear explosion too - there were 2 explosions, and the second might have been nuclear, although it certain isn't clear - the wikipedia article on the Chernobyl disaster discusses this. In any case, the damn thing exploded.
That was very quick! (Score:3)
In that case, I am not too
Re: (Score:2)
that do not align with observations in the field
Observations by who? Measurements published by NISA and the IAEA (and freely available), or from 'independent' observers. Observers who often don't know the first thing about taking accurate measurements, haven't calibrated their equipment (or more commonly, don't even know it needs to be calibrated), have built their own detectors by blindly following plans on the internet, or all three. I'm all for community monitoring from competent amateurs, but I'd take any aggregate data from them with several metric
Re: (Score:3)
No properties are selling within a 100 mile radius of the plant. You, being enlightened, should profit by buying cheap land from the stupid masses at a discount. You can start by buying my house. Though, I have yet to receive an offer from your ilk. Must have something to do with
Re: (Score:3)
Real Estate prices have everything to do with mass fear among the populace, and prove nothing about the actual risks or hazards of living in the area. Real Estate is about A) Perceptions, and B) Economy (e.g. can anyone *afford* to buy a house, even if they want to).
Your argument doesn't actually address the science in the report. It's just a statement of your lack of belief in the ability of any expert, ever, to make a correct determination based upon science. So, experts sometimes make mistakes, but that
Nice, but in the end . . . (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How much land?
What's the asking price?
How many neighbors are also looking to sell their land?
Are they asking for comparable prices?
Few will hear this (Score:2)
It will not get in the tabloids because lack of fear does not sell newspapers.
It will not get in most of the adult newspapers because it win't fit the editorial stance that is either anti-technology because "green is good" or anti state control because they are so right wing they could only be seen as mainstream in the USA. Few people really want nuclear power run like Monty Burns one...
This does not leave many other sources of information that "normal" people (not like the /. crowd) will hear.
Re: (Score:2)
Few people really want nuclear power run like Monty Burns one...
I'd say that was a pretty efficient operation. You didn't even have to type in "Y-E-S" every time you wanted to vent off some gas to prevent an explosion.
isn't it great? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
There've been nearly 15,000 reactor-years of operation worldwide, not 50 years. So "one in ten thousand years" is a bit off, but not spectacularly.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but even though I *know* the they mean "reactor-years" in the same way as man-years, when they just say years I automatically read it as chronological years. And that's the proper way to read it. They say it that way because that's how they want you to read it.
If they wanted you to understand reactor-years, that's what they'd say. They don't. They want you to think of it as a lot safer than it really is. Which is why I distrust their "revised report". It *may* actually be more accurate, but they
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but even though I *know* the they mean "reactor-years" in the same way as man-years, when they just say years I automatically read it as chronological years.
I don't.
They say it that way because that's how they want you to read it.
I doubt that. It's the same use of the words "100 year storm" which is considerd fit for consumption for the general public and widely used.
How much should I trust them?
Don't trust them at all. Examine the statistics. Decide for yourself.
Would you prefer the technology that i
Re: (Score:2)
The data have been fudged. There are many minor incidents that are never reported, so the don't appear in the records. There have been safety violations that have gone unfixed for years. Were they important? I have no way of judging.
Also plants are in the process of being re-licensed which have known safety problems, which are beyond their design life, and to operate at levels of power beyond what was specified for their safe operation when they were new. Some of them are the same model as that used in
Re: (Score:2)
An excellent point, and one that I agree with. For the same reason I *don't* trust coal plants, and prefer solar, geothermal, wind, etc. And I definitely don't trust plans to put the CO2 back underground without chemically altering it to a solid. I look at those plans and stand amazed that anyone can seriously consider them. We aren't putt
Re: (Score:2)
Surprisee, surprisee. Industry whoring. (Score:2)
http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/11/06/20/1540233/AP-Investigation-Concludes-US-Nuke-Regulators-Weakening-Safety-Rules [slashdot.org]
and this :
http://www.myweathertech.com/2011/07/03/leaked-emails-reveal-government-conspiracy-to-downplay-fukushima-nuclear-disaster/ [myweathertech.com]
and this :
http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/2011/05/19/confirmed-epa-rigged-radnet-japan-nuclear-radiation-monitoring-equipment-report-levels-nuclear-fallout-22823/ [alexanderhiggins.com]
is it ANY surprise that an official government committee said 'nucl
Re:Surprisee, surprisee. Industry whoring. (Score:5, Insightful)
No, the real outcasts of society are those, who are trying to hold economic and technological development of society back, from allowing that sort of development to help the society to become more wealthy and affluent by having more and cheaper and safer energy sources, and nuclear is that type of source.
Re: (Score:2)
and nuclear COULD BE that type of source.
FTFY
Without open and honest dialogue about the realities of the risks inherent with nuclear, and what must be done to mitigate them, nuclear will never be a viable option. The people who would conceal the risks and continually lower the safety standards are the societal outcasts. They are more focused on saving money and increasing profits than they are on running things safely and responsibly.
Re: (Score:2)
Their safety records are already excellent, regardless of which metric you are using,
ill tell you which metric they are using - continually decreasing metrics.
did you even read the first link i posted there, fool ?
Yes, just like in Fukushima . . . (Score:2)
If you want nuclear technology, first build a proper system to protect and compensate those negatively impacted by the limitations of institutional governance and oversight. You can start by compensating my family and myself. Otherwise, STFU.
Re: (Score:2)
Please note that heart attacks and strokes due to fearmongering hysteria don't count.
Alright . . . (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, if it wasn't for the opponents they would just be building cheaper boiling water reactors with fewer safety precautions, and dumping the nuclear waste in the river. Because they really don't give a shit about anything but making money, and designing a new reactor costs money, safety precautions cost money, disposing of waste properly costs money. The captains of industry have been fucking over the little guys for much longer than nuclear power has existed, and they aren't going to magically stop becau
dont bullshit (Score:2)
moron. wake up to this fact - when there are profits involved, corporations do anything. it is cognitively stupid to expect a corporation to care about your life over their profits. time and time again, this was proven, yet you still talk like a fool.
Re: (Score:2)
How many people died from the Fukushima reactors? (Answer = 0)
Nuclear deaths are typically slow ones. Those people haven't died (well, maybe one) but they are now developing cancers they wouldn't have otherwise developed. It will take some time for them to die in agony. Or they will simply commit suicide and it will be covered up -- credible estimates suggest that Japan's actual suicide rate is three times what the nation reports, electing to classify most suicides as accidental death.
Re: (Score:2)
Put your money where your mouth is . . . (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Holding back cheap electric power makes tremendous sense in some circles.
Think about it for a moment. If electricity was limited and there was only enough for a few lights at home and the refrigerator we wouldn't have to worry about coal pollution, coal mining, light pollution (no more streetlights!) or many of the problems we face today. There would probably be less electricity for commercial purposes, so instead of using a computer there would be 10-20 clerks with mechanical calculators. Full employmen
Re: (Score:2)
That would bring back Tetanus as a big killer, what with all that horse manure laying around.
It should be noted that tetanus from horse manure has probably caused more deaths than have nuclear reactors. Or nuclear bombs, for that matter.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The second was about British government PR campaign to contain uneducated hysteria about nuclear power generation. Yes, particularly important when you're looking to build a plant. Typical overstatement by press and (worse)
The third simp
Does this include cost? (Score:2)
Like the astronomical cost required for a cleanup and that can for example negatively impact the economy with all the negative health effect that causes?
Events of this type and impact magnitude always need to have all their negative impact looked at in a holistic fashion. Everything else is just lying with statistics.
Fukushima Death Toll Approaches Zero (Score:2)
This is about as bad of scenario as one could imagine, yet there were no public deaths. That sounds to me like n
Re: (Score:3)
The Fukushima plants were hit with a heavy earthquake. ....
This is about as bad of scenario as one could imagine, yet there were no public deaths.
No, no public deaths. Most deaths will be private. And slow enough that it will be impossible to prove that the cancer was caused by the Fukushima accident and not by carcinogenic food additives, pollution, or background radiation (e.g. previous nuclear tests) - All of them cancer sources previously labeled insignificant by the industry, their paid stooges, and some stools on /. who call anyone who questions their 19yo wisdom an unscientific troll.
Re: (Score:2)
Since everyone dies, it is truly hard to say what the cause of death was decades after an event. Japan is a nation of smokers, and that is proven to be unhealthy. I can tell you do not like corporations (whatever 'the industry' is that does all these bad things), but one thing is clear: life expectancy has about doubled s
Re: (Score:2)
I can tell you do not like corporations (whatever 'the industry' is that does all these bad things)
It's a phenomenon that results from the very definition of a capitalist economy. Businesses are created and motivated by the opportunity for profit. Profit is the business's revenue less their expenses. If a business can reduce their expenses, their profit increases. If protecting the public has an expense tied to it (as it generally does), not protecting the public will increase profits. The same is true of protecting workers. While free market forces would presumably push away workers and consumers if con
Re: (Score:2)
I agree completely with your conclusion, but this statement is misleading:
"background radiation (e.g. previous nuclear tests)"
Only about 3% of the background radiation originates from man made sources like medical radiation, nuclear testings and power stations.
Almost all of it is from naturally occurring sources like radioactive minerals in the earth crusts, the sun or cosmic rays.
inform yourselves (Score:2)
The NRC is slow, weak and not well informed.
The Trouble with Reports: (Score:3)
Only half the people that know about it, read it.
Only half the people that read it understand it.
Only half the people that understand it believe it.
Only half the people that believe it will agree with it.
Of those six people, maybe one will actually try and persuade others.
The rest are as jaded as me, if not more so. I admire the sentiment behind it, but alas I don't think the general populace will be won over by anything larger than a few tens of words. *sigh* If only we could curtail fear-mongering in the
Re: (Score:2)
So there's only 96 people that know about it?
Re: (Score:2)
If the alternative is a permanent blackout, they'll find a way to have it make economic sense or they will have the government do it, and switch from capitalism to a command economy if need be.
Without energy, there is nothing. No economy, no goods, no services, no medicine, no food, no life.
Re: (Score:2)
nuclear power provides only a tiny amount of electric energy compared to other types, so no nuclear power does not mean a permanent blackout. In fact, wind and solar alone can provide enough electricity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermittent_power_source#European_super_grid [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.eia.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/epm_sum.html [eia.gov]
20% of total electricity production in the US is not a tiny amount, and is thousands of times the currently installed wind and solar capacity. It'll be many decades before they can replace nuclear.
Re: (Score:2)
http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/07/renewable-power-booms-in-developing-world-as-it-tops-nuclear-in-the-us.ars [arstechnica.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Review of the source [eia.gov] of that article shows that it's misleading.
Figure 44 shows nuclear passing renewables(including hydro) for electricity production in 1974, and still in the lead today.
Figure 59 shows "renewables" leading worldwide energy production since the graph start in 1970. It's in BTUs, so includes things like burning wood.
Rereading the article, it boils down to that more is now being invested into renewable power, than nuclear power. Given that we aren't building a lot of nuclear plants, that's
Re: (Score:2)
All power is "renewable" on one time scale and "exhaustable" on another. It's really about "Red Team Power" and "Blue Team Power", and we need to stop playing that game.
Re: (Score:2)
Your scheme for "renewing" nuclear fuels is ... ?
BTW, I do understand "breeder" technologies. If you want to bring them up as "renewed" fuels, then I'll be glad to demolish the proposition.
Re: (Score:2)
"Your scheme for "renewing" nuclear fuels is ... ?"
You wait for another supernova.
Re: (Score:2)
We'd need to be a type-II or type-III civilisation to consider this practical (using the whole power output form a star, or from a galaxy).
Re: (Score:2)
As I said, it's all a matter of time scale. We have such a terribly short term view of things, and make so many bad decisions as a result.
More practically, the only reason we store spent reactor fuel (past the first few years) is that it can be renewed via a breeder reactor and used again.
Re: (Score:2)
The only reason. Nothing to do with having a stock of highly unpleasant nucleides for making weaponry - conventional nukes or dirty bombs?
Oh to be so young and uncynical!
Oh, hang on, what's this [slashdot.org] in today's headlines? Oh, nothing terribly suspicious.
Sort of thing I might have done in my youth, except for the bit about asking for a license.
Re: (Score:2)
So since one day the sun will burn out and die, the score is the same in the end?
You Nihilists are like existentialists with no life. Get a life, you'll decide something means something, even if you insist it is arbitrary.
Re: (Score:2)
If we have a little vision, we'll survive the Sun burning out. Stars are renewable on that time scale. Eventually it all goes dark, of course, but that's a heck of an eventually.
Re: (Score:2)
The big question is, what is the true state of energy development? You will never get a straight answer from the utility companies, the government people cannot or will not divulge what they know. We can put men on the moon, look at every planet in the solar system, look at distant planetary systems and ascertain probable life bearing planets, yet we're stuck with fossil fuels owned by people without a lick of
Re: (Score:2)
The US is certainly headed in that direction. You can expect to start seeing the power companies using the tools homeowners are giving them to turn off appliances, air conditioning and just about everything else during the day and at other peak times. For the rest, you can expect to see time-dependent electric rates when it becomes idiotic to try to be running anything more than a 7-watt CFL bulb in your house at some times.
More capacity will not be built. The war on utilities has pretty much been won by the environmentalists so today even if the federal government declared instant approval without any possibility of court hearings, environmental impact studies and endless negotiations over land use it would take at least five years before new capacity came on line. We don't have five years of reserve capacity left and if we turn off the nuclear power plants (likely!) we will be in an instant capacity crisis.
Sure, in California, where PG&E seriously considered building a power plant in orbit to avoid the NIMBY problem, but gave up because they'd need a city block somewhere to receive the power, and so back to NIMBY. Meanwhile, Texas has its own power grid, and is doing fine.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, but humans existed for a long, long time, with a much smaller population in much more rural/agrarian settings, without electric power
FTFY
Re:The Trouble with Reports: (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/29/business/energy-environment/29nuke.html?pagewanted=all [nytimes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
As such I would say it's failure in capitalism more than failure in nuclear power that the plant is late and over budget.
communistic nuclear power isn't better ...
Re: (Score:2)
So we get one try and when it doesn't work, oh well, let's keep burning coal and burying otherwise usable fuels? Yes, nuclear is dangerous, but I bet even the japanese use more and more of it in the future. You have to get electricity from somewhere and throwing away fuel that was only 1% spent doesn't make any sense to me.
The fact is, there would be more of these reactors if the government would allow fuel reprocessing -- Carter shutdown that program for reasons unclear to me. Was it because he was
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
what might happen if the State decided to stop micromanaging energy production and allowed technology to advance on its own.
When the power source in question is capable of rendering 100 mile radius uninhabitable for decades....sorry I want micromanagement.
Now, solar/wind on the other hand don't do a damned thing when they fail. They might fall over and hit you but once they have failed they are completely inert and can be cleaned up right after the storm.
To be fair, I like Thorium as a reactor fuel, but my understanding of Thorium is the tech isn't yet there; i.e. keeping corrosive radioactive salts contained with no ma
Re: (Score:2)
When the power source in question is capable of rendering 100 mile radius uninhabitable for decades....sorry I want micromanagement.
Coal is vastly more dangerous than nuclear. The real world problems are far worse - US nuclear power never killed anyone (except during plant construction), but coal miners still die relatively young. And mine fires have actually made 100s of square miles uninhabitable, while the worst-realistic-case risk from a nuclear plant is far smaller.
Please step away from "scary-scary-nukular-scary".
Re: (Score:2)
Nuclear is not possible to contain in a 'failure', by definition because things have failed you don't have control. Without control, the entire area is no longer safe.
Some failures are and have been contained, but others haven't. So you can't guarantee that it can be contained. Hence you can't say it's 'safer' th
Re: (Score:2)
The former [wikipedia.org] residents of Centralia Pennsylvania might beg to differ. Their town has been uninhabitable since the 60s, the toxic air has killed many. Coal mining is very dangerous and has killed far more people than all nuclear accidents combined.
There are certainly nuclear designs that are far less prone to failure, the fact that many stations have been running for 40 years without major incident is proof that the old designs with known problems are still safer than the current approach to coal.
Re: (Score:2)
Even if you're comparing the apples of mining to oranges of plant operation...
Re: (Score:2)
coal vs nuclear is like croad travel vs air travel.
coal kills vastly more people all the time but it only makes the local news or doesn't make the news at all. one more case of lung cancer isn't international news much like a couple of people dying in a car crash rarely makes the international news.
nuclear is vastly safer on average but in the incredibly rare case that it fails it makes international headlines for weeks. Even if people aren't killed any failure makes the international headlines much like ho
Re: (Score:2)
Which is my point, you can't plan for failure, because things have failed. You can try and mitigate and redundancy you're way to some percentage, but it is not and never will be 100% safe.
Coal simply does not have these types of failure conditions. It has operational issues, which you can plan for adequately. We certainly haven't, but you *can*. Nuclear cannot be
Re: (Score:2)
China [wikipedia.org] is the world's largest user of coal and I think they would beg to differ. 100,000 people even in Japan were not permanently relocated. You are correct that nuclear will never be 100% safe, neither will coal, neither will any power generation method that is on any appreciable scale. People were evacuated from the areas surrounding Fukashima not because it was unsafe to be there but specifically because they weren't sure and until they were sure it was better safe than sorry.
Also, given that they did
Re: (Score:2)
In reality, you look at the system and determine how it can fail: Collisions {read ended, head-on, t-boned, sideswip
Re: (Score:2)
100,000 people even in Japan were not permanently relocated.
You mean everybody is allowed to go home now? Sources please... They were decidedly *not* concerned with safety since the US had a bigger exclusion zone than the Japanese did. It was politics playing its role. They finally had to admit that multiple reactors had full containment breach through the bottom. That's not 'safe' by any stretch.
You are correct that nuclear will never be 100% safe, neither will coal, neither will any power generation method that is on any appreciable scale.
What 'safety' issues exist with solar and wind? Again, coal has operational issues but not failure issues. You can plan for the former, you can at best mitigate th
Re: (Score:2)
Not yet, AFAIK, no. But just because they haven't gone home yet doesn't mean that they've been relocated permanently. And, you're saying, over and over, that just because an old reactor failed during a pair of natural disasters that were far worse than anything it was designed for (It survived the earthquake, you know, even though that was much worse than it was built to survive.) all reactors, regardless of where they're built or how they're designed are aut
Re: (Score:2)
just because an old reactor failed during a pair of natural disasters that were far worse than anything it was designed for
So it was 'safe' right up until it wasn't? what's your point? My point is that it can't ever be 'safe' enough because there will always be something you haven't planned for.
And yes every situation has *something* that isn't planned for. The difference with nuclear is the effect of that failure. And we're seeing it can be downright
Re: (Score:2)
My point is that it was much safer than anybody thought it would be, even when it was hit by not one, but two disasters outside its design limits. And, no matter how much you weep and wail about how unsafe it is, not one, single, solitary person outside the facility has been shown to be affected by radiation leaking from Fukushima Daiichi. Not only that, the only workers affected have merely received their year's quota of radiation and can't w
Re: (Score:2)
Not only that, the only workers affected have merely received their year's quota of radiation and can't work there for a while.
They received much more than one year's dose, which is why they raised [theintelhub.com] the allowed dosage by 500%.
The reactors are still emitting fatal doses [nytimes.com] of radiation to this very day. 10 sieverts per hour was the max on the readers and it was pegged.
Here's a handy radiation dosage chart [xkcd.com]. They are well into the bottom right of the scale.
Re: (Score:2)
1) Modern nuclear plants have vast improvements in safety compared to the old clunkers in Fukushima. Judging nuclear safety based on Chernobyl and Fukushima is like judging modern highway safety based on highway safety in the 1970s including how well Ford Pintos handled getting rear-ended.
2) The disaster that triggered Fukushima killed at least 26,000 people outright and wiped entire towns off of the map. That's significantly more than the entire tally of deaths from the full history of nuclear power ge
Re: (Score:2)
What kind of nonsense is that? Try living in coal country for a while - coal kills, and there's no such thing as a clean coal mine. And you clearly don't understand the failure mode [wikipedia.org] of coal mining, either.
The only nuclear disaster that wasn't contained was Chernobyl, where there was no containment dome - they didn't even try. And that was a pretty small disaster, in term os casualties, relative to "communist engineering failures" worldwide.
How do you wan't to measure "safety"? By whose science-fiction no
Re: (Score:2)
Did I ever say coal was 'good'? nope, I simply said it does not have the failure issues that nuclear does. If you think a coal plant failing is remotely close to a nuclear plant failing, logic won't sway you I'm sure.
Mining is bad, I agree. You know what? You have to mine uranium too. What's your point again? I"m in favor of renewable so there's nothing of the sort for fuel.
The only nuclear disaster that wasn't contained was Chernobyl
Which was a human event with no safety syst
Re: (Score:2)
The one issue there is - US power reactor designs weren't designed for weapons purposes. There has historically been a fairly clear division between civilian and military nuclear reactors in this country. However, while designs have evolved significantly in terms of safety since the old clunkers at Fukushima, those designs have only been built internationally. All of the failure modes experienced at Fukushima have ALREADY been addressed in modern designs such as the ESBWR and AP1000.
This is in stark cont
Re: (Score:2)
Search for the Google TechTalk videos about LFTR and you'll see that the use of hazardous coolants like sodium is not required for a molten salt reactor.
Re: (Score:2)
Ignorance is bliss.
Re:So, which is it?? (Score:4, Insightful)
Based on what real life experimentation? (Score:3)
Translation: (Score:2)
Yes, I can admit that I work for the NRC, since all our astroturfing is outsourced to India. Yes, I think I believe our own bullshit, but I would NEVER do something substantial like purchasing land arou
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Hi, the name is molo.
As for "cheating", I gave them a HTTP request. They decided to answer it with an article. No cheating involved.
Cheers.
-molo
Re: (Score:3)
You know you can just clear your nytimes.com cookies to have them forget about the 20 articles you already read, right?
-molo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeh and those same apologists will quote this sort of rubbish to try and "prove" nuke is safe.
And those same folks will say that climate scientists are corrupt, and cant be trusted, whereas nuke scinetists who are directly employed by their indusrty are to be believed.
Funny about that eh? Nuke fans get the message, most people dont want nuclear plants near them and that is NOt going to
change. Lets get on with other forms of energy, not piss around with a thouroughly discredited nuke industry.
Re: (Score:2)
Renewables are even older, so what's your point?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, nuclear power was commercialized in the 1960s... And? So were integrated circuits and color TV, dumbass.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't the problem with geothermal that there are very few spots where it is feasible to create said "hole in the ground"?
Re: (Score:2)
The more I read about geothermal, the less I like it. Economically optimal locations are few in number and tend to be located far from population centres. As I continued to read, thoughts of of how the process of drilling could contribute to earthquakes, landslides and other forms of natural "disasters" ran through my head. Lo and behold:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=geothermal-drilling-earthquakes [scientificamerican.com]
Now I Know the editors over at scientific american are a bunch of marxist hippies (most like
Re: (Score:2)
I live near The Geysers, the world's largest geothermal field, which has a power plant on. Arsenic and other toxics come up from the earth. This happens at an increased rate because we have increased venting, and we inject water (actually, primary-treated sewage) into the ground to keep it going, potentially loosening deposits which would otherwise remain static.
Before they came up with a sequestration strategy for these deposits (which are pressure-washed off the turbine blades -- interestingly the turbine
Re: (Score:2)
As to anecdotal evidence of two-headed calves and such, against the region's natural output I'm doubtful that the powerplants made a significant environmental impact.
It was a superfund site, I've given you all you need to know to find out more. We have had several here because we also have a cinnabar mine and a borax lake. But it will be clearly indicated.
PV is a grand idea. I support it wholeheartedly. I look forward to the day when a PV cell can generate more energy in its lifecycle than the energy required to produce it, install and maintain it, and recycle it.
So you're looking forward to the 1970s?