Keeping radiation in context.
- Thread starter Sunfish
- Start date
The Chernobyl thing is up at the top of Sunfish's chart at 300 Sv / hr.
I agree 1 Sv / hr is bad, but the figure 1 ain't anywhere near 300.
i'm pretty sure that if you stand near the core of those reactors which had meltdown and core shell has been breached, the measurements wouldn't be far from Chernobyl's
we are lucky that thing didn't blew up and spread the contents of it's core around itself, but it looks like there is still a chance of it.
we are lucky that thing didn't blew up and spread the contents of it's core around itself, but it looks like there is still a chance of it.
I was reading this morning that they have found contamination from Japan in Europe and USA now. The report says that there is no risk but it doesn't exactly make you feel warm and fuzzy does it?
....more like green and glowwy
I always expect that we are never told the whole truth as most govt believes "the people" are idiots who will panic (possibly correct) and are unable to handle the truth. None of what has happened has convinced me that nuclear power is "clean" though.
....more like green and glowwy
I always expect that we are never told the whole truth as most govt believes "the people" are idiots who will panic (possibly correct) and are unable to handle the truth. None of what has happened has convinced me that nuclear power is "clean" though.
Define "clean". Consider of course that you must burn coal to provide the electricity to purify silicon to "semi-conductor" grade. If you are curious enough to search on that, check out how much water is used in the same process.
Thirty years ago I had a T shirt proclaiming there is no such thing as a free lunch. More true today than ever.
And another thing:
If you quarantined the "wind" industry and said it could only use power generated via wind turbines to build new generators, the industry would die in the ***.
Have you any idea how much steel, concrete, aluminum, exotic materials and rare earths are needed to build one of those monstrosities?
If you quarantined the "wind" industry and said it could only use power generated via wind turbines to build new generators, the industry would die in the ***.
Have you any idea how much steel, concrete, aluminum, exotic materials and rare earths are needed to build one of those monstrosities?
Sunfish the same goes for solar power. They're getting more efficient, but for a long time solar cells cost more energy to manufacture than they were likely to produce during their working life.
....and nuclear reactors are made out of renewable resources like bamboo and straw?
I agree that coal is certainly not clean but in the case of, oh I don't know -an earthquake,then a wind farm, solar panel etc isn't going to create a huge contaminated area that may be unfit for human use for decades and cause an untold number of cancers. So when I say "clean" I am talking long term getting rid of the "yukky" stuff that nuclear power creates.
I agree that coal is certainly not clean but in the case of, oh I don't know -an earthquake,then a wind farm, solar panel etc isn't going to create a huge contaminated area that may be unfit for human use for decades and cause an untold number of cancers. So when I say "clean" I am talking long term getting rid of the "yukky" stuff that nuclear power creates.
At least nuclear reactors have a positive Energy Return/Energy Input. That is probably a neg figure for corn based ethanol, was neg for photo voltaics until recently and is unknown for wind. The proponents of wind energy skirt around the payback time of a wind turbine measured in both dollars and energy.....and nuclear reactors are made out of renewable resources like bamboo and straw?
Are you aware that a wind farm has to import electricity for multiple tasks but this is not metered and therefore not deducted from gross output to give a fairer nett output? In low wind conditions they become a nett importer.
I just also want to include in the equation the cost of a nuclear disaster. What is the cost of maybe 20000 people getting cancer, or 20 square kms of land becoming uninhabitable? If you are including every possibility then these must be considered too. What about the style and years of storage for depleted uranium? Does that come for free?
This really is a risk and reward type of argument, obviously for you the risk is worth it, but to me it isn't. I am quite happy to agree to disagree on this. If they decide to build a reactor near where I live I will put my money where my mouth is and move. I would probably lose money to do it too. I imagine the value of houses in Japan around the reactor are now pretty cr@p.
Will I use nuclear generated electricity? If necessary, but I would still be hopeful of science coming up with a better solution.
This really is a risk and reward type of argument, obviously for you the risk is worth it, but to me it isn't. I am quite happy to agree to disagree on this. If they decide to build a reactor near where I live I will put my money where my mouth is and move. I would probably lose money to do it too. I imagine the value of houses in Japan around the reactor are now pretty cr@p.
Will I use nuclear generated electricity? If necessary, but I would still be hopeful of science coming up with a better solution.
joanmc - of all the nuclear reactors ever built, only a small proportion have ever had problems, let alone had catastrophic meltdown.
factoring in those events to calculations is about as useful as factoring in potential loss from a meteorite impact when buying a house in the 'burbs.
we should all remember that nuclear power isn't even nuclear power. it's putting radioactive rods close together, pouring water in between the rods that gets heated, releases steam and turns steam turbines to generate power.
you could build the same generator over a geo-thermal vent.
food for thought.
factoring in those events to calculations is about as useful as factoring in potential loss from a meteorite impact when buying a house in the 'burbs.
we should all remember that nuclear power isn't even nuclear power. it's putting radioactive rods close together, pouring water in between the rods that gets heated, releases steam and turns steam turbines to generate power.
you could build the same generator over a geo-thermal vent.
food for thought.
Well, I wouldn't.
I'd prefer to live next to a nuclear reactor than next to a coal mine.
I like to watch the 'tour de France' on TV. France, what a spectacular beautifull countryside? Powered by nuclear. Then compare to the Hunter Valley that is being turned into an embarrasingly dusty, dirty mound of rubble. My farming area is full of coal miners who don't want to live in the Hunter or bring their families up there.
No comparison here.
Whats happened in Japan is terrible, but it will now bring in a new and much safer period for nuclear power as all the old plants are upgraded or the dodgy ones shut down.
See ya's.
Sorry, I was just expressing my personal opinion and I am happy to agree to disagree. everyone has their own personal values etc that forms their opinions. to me, the risks with nuclear are not worth it IMO. As the other poster said it is easy to be flippant when you are not having to decide what water to put in your babies bottle. For the record I wouldn't live next to a coal generator either, but I accept that at the moment, what we have for generating power is maybe not the best but it is all we have. I would love to see improvements and better and better forms of generation out there.
We have a lot of sun and I feel that if the $$ were put into it there will be better ways to generate power from it, same with tidal power etc. Just because I don't have a preference for nuclear doesn't mean I think all other forms of power are superior or without problems. I am only saying that MY preference is NOT nuclear. I didn't realise dissenting views would not be accepted...that never happens here does it?
We have a lot of sun and I feel that if the $$ were put into it there will be better ways to generate power from it, same with tidal power etc. Just because I don't have a preference for nuclear doesn't mean I think all other forms of power are superior or without problems. I am only saying that MY preference is NOT nuclear. I didn't realise dissenting views would not be accepted...that never happens here does it?
have to admit - i'm with joan here.
i would rather the $$ be put into funding r&d for items such as improving efficiency of solar paint for roofs and cars ... or improved wind generation techniques, or capturing of core heat (thermal etc).
there area so many alternatives. granted, there are not many major accidents happens with nuclear - but when they happen they are really really major for a long period of time. a bit like saying that not many airliners go down compared to small aircraft - but when one does, it is pretty major for a lot of people.
i would rather the $$ be put into funding r&d for items such as improving efficiency of solar paint for roofs and cars ... or improved wind generation techniques, or capturing of core heat (thermal etc).
there area so many alternatives. granted, there are not many major accidents happens with nuclear - but when they happen they are really really major for a long period of time. a bit like saying that not many airliners go down compared to small aircraft - but when one does, it is pretty major for a lot of people.
You feel that there must be a better way.
No matter how "green" the technology, a lot of energy is used in it's construction and pollution is caused BEFORE it becomes green.A modern wind generator has 1500 kgs of heavy rare earths and separating the RE elements is a filthy business. So much so that China was the only nation willing to allow it. The US forced Moly Corp. to close down because of pollution concerns. Lynas Corp. is challenging China's monopoly now but is building it's refinery in Malaysia. As happens so often "green policy" merely moves filthy industries across borders.
If you don't want to freeze in the dark, accept that we need to generate base-load power 24 hours a day. Mickey Mouse solutions won't cut it.
BTW. I'm reading today that things are indeed becoming grim in Fukushima and I am not indifferent to Japan's suffering.
Sigh... again .....
That is a probaly the most common myth perpetuated against solar energy production.
In 1977, studies estimated that cells can recover the energy used in manufacturing in 6 - 7 years that was at 12.5% efficiency.
http://www.csudh.edu/oliver/smt310-handouts/solarpan/pvpayback.htm
Today's panels are many times more efficient, take much less materials in their production and will recover the energy production costs in a very short time. Current estimate for EROEI, energy returned on energy invested is 1.5-2 years for the US, Aus would have to be comparable or better. Then those panels will continue to produce electricity for 25+ years.
Economic considerations of whether you would be better off financially by putting the purchase cost into a managed fund aside, a very conservative estimate would have the panels returning the energy used in manufacturing 10 times over, perhaps twice that.
Cheers,
Beef
C'mon SF are your knees that bad today? reread my post, I agree to disagree, I was just voicing my opinion, I accept that at the moment we don't have a lot of choice. We also used to have doctors recommending smoking as healthy- when we knew better we did better. I am just advocating looking for ways to do better, what is wrong with that? I am not attacking you for your opinion nor am I saying you are wrong I am just saying what I think on this subject.
My knees are fine today, thanks Joan.
But I am a practical person. Things must be practical before they interest me. When someone builds a wind farm or solar array or makes ethanol WITHOUT subsidies I will believe in the practicality of the technology. In the meantime I have no interest in wishin an hopin.
I really DO want the light to come on when I flick the switch. Must be selfish, I suppose.
