|
They are cleaning up the Cs from the water as well and disposing of the concentrated stuff in the proper ways. If you should be mad at them for anything it should be them taking so drat long to admit they didn't know how to separate the ions from the water in the first place. These storage tanks leaking are a problem because they took so drat long in the first place to begin remediating the issue. Considering the government came in and kicked all of the failures out I don't know what else you'd expect them to do. Though I can't say your average hippie ever has an alternative plan anyway.
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 05:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 14:42 |
|
|
JollyPubJerk posted:They are cleaning up the Cs from the water as well and disposing of the concentrated stuff in the proper ways. If you should be mad at them for anything it should be them taking so drat long to admit they didn't know how to separate the ions from the water in the first place. These storage tanks leaking are a problem because they took so drat long in the first place to begin remediating the issue. Considering the government came in and kicked all of the failures out I don't know what else you'd expect them to do. Though I can't say your average hippie ever has an alternative plan anyway. Based on Germany the alternative to nuclear is natural gas.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 06:19
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Based on Germany the alternative to nuclear is natural gas. "Bloomberg posted:The profit from burning coal increased 3.4 percent to 8.89 euros a megawatt-hour yesterday in Berlin, based on German power, coal and emissions prices for next year. Gas-fired plants generated a loss of 17.40 euros a megawatt-hour, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. "Financial Times posted:The rapid expansion of solar and wind power means coal- and gas-fired plants are left with little to do on sunny and windy days and are increasingly unprofitable to operate.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 06:38
|
|
|
Neurotic Nurse posted:Australian Greens... none of them have any qualifications as physicists or epidemiologists? gently caress off. The Greens membership has a higher percentage of doctors, scientists and other researchers as than any other party in Australia. Neurotic Nurse posted:It is that they dont base their conclusions off facts, figures and observations, but their own opinions Yeah the only party pushing evidence-based policy in Australia don't base conclusions off evidence, not like the pro-nuclear Labor and Liberal parties~
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 07:16
|
|
Waaaah the Christians are out to get me
|
Quantum Mechanic posted:gently caress off. The Greens membership has a higher percentage of doctors, scientists and other researchers as than any other party in Australia. On membership occupations of the party which I myself am a member of. Evidence please? Also, while you're at it, please explain how the doctors, researchers and scientists are in any way more qualified to examine the very same evidence that the WHO, UNSCEAR the CSIRO, the IAEA, IEA and every other scientific body has decided and there is scientific consensus that is safe.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 08:18
|
|
|
GulMadred posted:If you're aiming to lose money, sure. The cool kids are burning coal instead.  You kinda need hilarious overcapacity + hilarious amounts of energy storage or rapidly load-following gas plants in any kind of scenario that involves lots of solar or wind. Maybe electricity prices need another 30% hike this winter to make that profitable 
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 08:37
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Neurotic Nurse posted:On membership occupations of the party which I myself am a member of. Evidence please? Discussions with the membership officers. Not that you're particularly interested in any case, since all you really want is a hippie boogieman to blame for the astoundingly awful PR of nuclear power, like the Australian Greens have the ability to ban an entire industry from operating in Australia on our own, just like we've managed to completely ban coal seam gas and old growth logging. Neurotic Nurse posted:Also, while you're at it, please explain how the doctors, researchers and scientists are in any way more qualified to examine the very same evidence that the WHO, UNSCEAR the CSIRO, the IAEA, IEA and every other scientific body has decided and there is scientific consensus that is safe. So first it was that the Greens weren't qualified as physicists or epidemiologists, now they don't understand ~*the right science*~. So is it a problem of general scientific literacy that means the population is overwhelmingly against nuclear power, or is it because not everybody is a trained nuclear physicist? Given that you've cited several organisations who, aside from the IAEA, are not in any way unequivocally pro-nuclear, I'm starting to feel like you're just simply throwing the word science around like a talisman while not actually having any personal understanding of the science beyond a collection of Neil deGrasse Tyson image macros. Especially considering that, as I've just realised now, I'm probably arguing with IWC.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 09:42
|
|
|
I love telling people that the best thing for the ocean would be to flood it with radioactivity since it just might stop everyone from killing the ocean haha. Just imagine if every thing in the sea around japan was unfit for human consumption! you'd have them ranging far to kill off fish life sure but around japan you'd see a massive rebound in the fish populations.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 11:00
|
|
|
I had to pull up more than a couple of the more stupid people on my Facebook sending around that video about how now the entire Pacific Ocean is radioactive and we need to stop eating fish and how even ONE RADIOACTIVE PARTICLE can kill you.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 12:29
|
|
|
Unrelated to the current discussion: It is my understanding that nuclear power plants typically provide base load power, is that correct? If yes, how would nuclear replace current peak load power sources?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 15:35
|
|
|
CombatInformatiker posted:Unrelated to the current discussion: Nuclear power is base load and it would not replace peaking plants. If wind or solar can't pick up the slack there you'd have to have peaking biogas plants to be 100% "renewable".
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 15:39
|
|
|
CombatInformatiker posted:Unrelated to the current discussion: Edit: If you can get away with having your nukes pump water uphill all night you could probably use hydro to cover peaks.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 15:39
|
|
|
Quantum Mechanic posted:gently caress off. The Greens membership has a higher percentage of doctors, scientists and other researchers as than any other party in Australia. Just because one is a scientist doesn't mean that they don't also believe in crazy poo poo (that happens to fall outside of their field of research). For example, Einstein for a long time was opposed to the theory of plate tectonics.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 15:41
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Just because one is a scientist doesn't mean that they don't also believe in crazy poo poo (that happens to fall outside of their field of research). While the theory was proposed in 1912ish according to wikipedia the mechanism by which continental drift occurs wasn't discovered until the late 40s and confirmed in the early 60s. Einstein died in 1955 so it seems perfectly reasonable for him to be "opposed" to plate tectonics.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 15:47
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:While the theory was proposed in 1912ish according to wikipedia the mechanism by which continental drift occurs wasn't discovered until the late 40s and confirmed in the early 60s. Einstein died in 1955 so it seems perfectly reasonable for him to be "opposed" to plate tectonics. Yes, but the particular theory he attached himself to was never accepted as a possible alternative in the scientific community.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 16:00
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Correct. To handle peak you either just build more nukes or have gas plants on hand. Unlike coal fired plants nuclear fuel costs are very low. Having them generating when they aren't needed isn't such a huge waste, and you can always use the extra to do something like desalinate water. Nuclear desalination is the next best idea after nuclear power that will never happen because people don't understand physics.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 16:08
|
|
|
Quantum Mechanic posted:Discussions with the membership officers. Not that you're particularly interested in any case, since all you really want is a hippie boogieman to blame for the astoundingly awful PR of nuclear power... Well, I suppose that you're at least honest about your source, a conversation, which I cant verify, so I'm prepared to call it bullshit. Anecdotal yep, but my party branch as exactly zero scientists in it, three physicians, four registered nurses, and an enrolled nurse. Quantum Mechanic posted:So first it was that the Greens weren't qualified as physicists or epidemiologists, now they don't understand ~*the right science*~. So is it a problem of general scientific literacy that means the population is overwhelmingly against nuclear power, or is it because not everybody is a trained nuclear physicist? Given that you've cited several organisations who, aside from the IAEA, are not in any way unequivocally pro-nuclear, I'm starting to feel like you're just simply throwing the word science around like a talisman while not actually having any personal understanding of the science beyond a collection of Neil deGrasse Tyson image macros. Actually, the CSIRO ARE pro nuclear. You could try to use the Efutures simulation, and in any circumstance, Nuclear Permitted is the way to go. As for the reference to images, I dont know what you're on about, sorry. Well, lets argue the science on this one. The science about energy generation, radioactivity, the epidemiology of those nuclear accidents. You'll find its the safest, most reliable and best form of power which we have to combat climate change, and while its not the cheapest, its a drat sight cheaper than anything renewable that we have as an option here in Australia.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 17:57
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Nuclear desalination is the next best idea after nuclear power that will never happen because people don't understand physics. Better yet, would be to heat store in molten potassium nitrate, or use a massive graphite heat sink and use it as the peak load generation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 18:01
|
|
|
Neurotic Nurse posted:Well, I suppose that you're at least honest about your source, a conversation, which I cant verify, so I'm prepared to call it bullshit. Anecdotal yep, but my party branch as exactly zero scientists in it, three physicians, four registered nurses, and an enrolled nurse.  http://www.roymorgan.com/findings/party-vote-by-professions-december-2012-201306140318 This is a stupid thing to be arguing about, and your hippie boogieman concept is also really dumb.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 18:20
|
|
|
GulMadred posted:If you're aiming to lose money, sure. The cool kids are burning coal instead. Its one of the things that pisses me off, because Japan basically wants to do the same damned thing, switching to wind supplemented by coal and natural gas.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 18:28
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Correct. To handle peak you either just build more nukes or have gas plants on hand. Unlike coal fired plants nuclear fuel costs are very low. Having them generating when they aren't needed isn't such a huge waste, and you can always use the extra to do something like desalinate water. The Enhanced CANDU 6 can go from 100% down to 60% full power fast enough to follow daily load times, which is kind of ridiculous. Other heavy water reactor designs are planned to be able to get similarly deep load-following capabilities: http://www.nuclearfaq.ca/cnf_sectionA.htm#load-follow Otherwise, we'll wait for the same things that are limiting renewables right now, specifically better intermittent storage. I still think molten cell and flow-cell batteries will win the day here since they're potentially cheap, very modular, and ridiculously efficient. CommieGIR posted:
They don't really have a choice but to go with coal/gas. They need to replace significant chunks of capacity in very short periods of time, and you simply cannot do that with something that is too expensive. Because if it's too expensive, you don't have the money/resources to do it quickly, so it takes a much longer time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 22:51
|
|
|
Office Thug posted:They don't really have a choice but to go with coal/gas. They need to replace significant chunks of capacity in very short periods of time, and you simply cannot do that with something that is too expensive. Because if it's too expensive, you don't have the money/resources to do it quickly, so it takes a much longer time. I know, but unfortunately selling the 'cheapest' solutions is allowing coal and gas to gain ground and is not doing anyone any favors except the coal and petroleum industry.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 23:24
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:I know, but unfortunately selling the 'cheapest' solutions is allowing coal and gas to gain ground and is not doing anyone any favors except the coal and petroleum industry. Also they have the (dis-)advantage of not being nuclear, i.e. not making you unelectable as quickly.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 00:17
|
|
|
Neurotic Nurse posted:Actually, the CSIRO ARE pro nuclear. You could try to use the Efutures simulation, and in any circumstance, Nuclear Permitted is the way to go. a) those are not an explicit endorsement of nuclear power, b) those efutures simulations are, as detailed IN THE DOCUMENT, based off cost projections for nuclear power which have very little in the way of solid evidence and commercial backing. They're estimates, and sketchy ones at that. It's as close to pulling numbers out of the air as a CSIRO document can get. Neurotic Nurse posted:Well, lets argue the science on this one. The science about energy generation, radioactivity, the epidemiology of those nuclear accidents. You'll find its the safest, most reliable and best form of power which we have to combat climate change, and while its not the cheapest, its a drat sight cheaper than anything renewable that we have as an option here in Australia. "The science" also shows that nuclear power will cure the heartbreak of psoriasis and give everybody a free pony. I'm happy to admit nuclear has a somewhat undeserved bum rap but I'm not going to pretend it's perfectly clean, safe and reliable, especially when we're now seeing a massive (and poorly-run) cleanup operation in Japan and god knows what we're going to do about the spill in Kakadu. Of course that's only brown people's land, so that gets written off as an externality. Nuclear power is relatively safe and clean as long as it's properly overseen, controlled and regulated. If the phrase "Clive Palmer, nuclear power plant operator" doesn't terrify you, maybe it should. That's also ignoring uranium mining, which I've only ever seen handwaved away with seawater extraction. Meanwhile, the work of scientists and engineers on various renewable energy reports like the UMelbourne Energy Institute and the AEMO apparently doesn't count as science because everybody knows renewables could never work. Sure though, keep blaming "those drat hippies" for apparently being able to sufficiently control the messaging and PR of an entire continent to keep an entire industry banned. I wish the Greens had that level of control over Australian politics. As it is, we're currently calling it a win that we've managed to stop our new you-beaut neoliberal government from poo poo-canning a renewable investment bank that makes money.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 00:52
|
|
|
Quantum Mechanic posted:"The science" also shows that nuclear power will cure the heartbreak of psoriasis and give everybody a free pony. Nobody is pretending nuclear is clean, safe, and reliable. No on demand power generation system is. But its the most clean one we have, generates the most electricity for the least input, and if one of the newer reactor designs is used its extremely safe.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 00:59
|
|
|
Quantum Mechanic posted:Nuclear power is relatively safe and clean as long as it's properly overseen, controlled and regulated.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 00:59
|
|
|
Quantum Mechanic posted:I'm happy to admit nuclear has a somewhat undeserved bum rap but I'm not going to pretend it's perfectly clean, safe and reliable, especially when we're now seeing a massive (and poorly-run) cleanup operation in Japan and god knows what we're going to do about the spill in Kakadu. Of course that's only brown people's land, so that gets written off as an externality. Nuclear power is relatively safe and clean as long as it's properly overseen, controlled and regulated. If the phrase "Clive Palmer, nuclear power plant operator" doesn't terrify you, maybe it should. That's also ignoring uranium mining, which I've only ever seen handwaved away with seawater extraction. Meanwhile, the work of scientists and engineers on various renewable energy reports like the UMelbourne Energy Institute and the AEMO apparently doesn't count as science because everybody knows renewables could never work. I think this is a misinterpretation of thread opinion, or whatever you want to call it. Nuclear isn't an alternative to renewable power sources because there is just so little renewable generation to replace in the first place, and that can only grow so quickly as the technology comes along. Nuclear, on the other hand, is ready to replace baseline generation from coal/gas now. The technology is more than mature enough to make it happen practically overnight (especially compared to the timelines for renewables) if the political will materialized. And the truth is that a lot of the shortcomings of nuclear can be handwaved away when compared to burning hydrocarbons because of just how lovely an option that is. Uranium mining could be an order of magnitude more toxic than it is, it would still an improvement over coal mining and oil/gas extraction simply because of the scales involved. And between the CO2 emissions and particulate pollution, we could probably have a major meltdown a couple times a year, dump the waste into the ocean, and still come out ahead with nuclear compared to the alternatives.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 01:08
|
|
|
Quantum Mechanic posted:we've managed to stop our new you-beaut neoliberal government from poo poo-canning a renewable investment bank that makes money. We did? I tuned out of politics for a while, that's great news. Also my original questions weren't meant to start the same old nuclear argument again, I really just wanted to know what's the deal with the fuel rods in Japan. What's going to happen to them? What happens if they touch, or are exposed to air? Are they going to move them, and if so, how? Or are TEPCO just not being forthcoming with any of this and so we just don't know? If so, where does that leave us? Is there some sort of international regulatory body that can step in in this kind of a situation? If not, should there be?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 01:24
|
|
|
Hobo Erotica posted:Also my original questions weren't meant to start the same old nuclear argument again, I really just wanted to know what's the deal with the fuel rods in Japan. What's going to happen to them? What happens if they touch, or are exposed to air? Are they going to move them, and if so, how? If the hot fuel rods are exposed to air they'll heat up, burn, and melt. That would be a bad thing for obvious reasons. They'll probably be removed and packed into casks for long term storage at some point. A lot of material is going to have to be very carefully disassembled and packed away during the mitigation process. It is going to take a long time and be incredibly boring, so I doubt it will get much news coverage. TEPCO isn't being particularly forthcoming with the press, but the government seems to have whipped them into line. What information does come out is in Japanese, so we aren't hearing a whole lot in the rest of the world.What I've seen translated is all pretty mundane. At the moment the Japanese government seems to have a handle on things so I don't see any reason for the international community to do anything other than provide support as requested. Though with the proliferation of nuclear technology into less developed states I can certainly see the utility of having an international nuclear accident task force ready.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 01:38
|
|
|
Is this "Nuclear Emergency Tracking Center" a thing to trick idiots into buying geiger counters they don't need or what's the deal? My more gullible hippie friends have been posting links about the latest dose of Fukushima radiation our media is covering up because reasons and they keep linking to it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 01:43
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Is this "Nuclear Emergency Tracking Center" a thing to trick idiots into buying geiger counters they don't need or what's the deal? It appears to be run by apocalypse-obsessed Christian Fundamentalists.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 01:51
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Is this "Nuclear Emergency Tracking Center" a thing to trick idiots into buying geiger counters they don't need or what's the deal? Are you talking about THIS map?  If so, its utter poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 01:57
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Are you talking about THIS map? That has made my day. It is awesome. I want that in a poster.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 02:12
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Nobody is pretending nuclear is clean, safe, and reliable. This was particularly in response to Neurotic Nurse. AreWeDrunkYet posted:Nuclear, on the other hand, is ready to replace baseline generation from coal/gas now. Not in Australia, it isn't. Any efforts we made towards nuclear power would take the best part of ten years to materialise even assuming our population overcame their overwhelming opposition to nuclear power tomorrow, not to mention the political pressure we had from the US the last time we talked about expanding our nuclear science program beyond basic research. It's like the US isn't fond of small desert nations reprocessing uranium. AreWeDrunkYet posted:And the truth is that a lot of the shortcomings of nuclear can be handwaved away when compared to burning hydrocarbons because of just how lovely an option that is. I have literally never claimed that nuclear power is worse than coal/gas so I don't know why people continue to point this out to me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 02:15
|
|
|
Saying coal/gas is about as useful as saying solar/nuclear.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 02:51
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Are you talking about THIS map? Did they just put a little nuclear symbol on every nuclear power plant or something? What the gently caress is this?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 04:21
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Did they just put a little nuclear symbol on every nuclear power plant or something? What the gently caress is this? There are nowhere near that many nuclear powerplants in the US. Those are just random Geiger counters connected to the internet.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 04:24
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Did they just put a little nuclear symbol on every nuclear power plant or something? What the gently caress is this? Its a map made by a crazy anti-nuclear group who bought into the idea that the map showing the debris flowing from the tsunami was actually a map of the radiation leaks.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 04:25
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:There are nowhere near that many nuclear powerplants in the US. Those are just random Geiger counters connected to the internet. A lot of them are at where nuke plants are. I think they're also adding any type of processing plant, national lab, or repository. Could go there and check but I'm lazy and think I'm correct.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 04:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 14:42 |
|
|
Pander posted:A lot of them are at where nuke plants are. I think they're also adding any type of processing plant, national lab, or repository. Could go there and check but I'm lazy and think I'm correct.  I don't think this has research reactors and national labs on it... CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 04:31 on Dec 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 04:29
|
|