Originally Posted by Vegemite Kids (Post 9246106)

I wonder if the Japanese Govt will set up a fund to take care of them and their families after all this is over? I hope so.

Originally Posted by lesleys (Post 9245786)

I haven't read the whole thread :o but here are some statistics

Energy Source Death Rate (deaths per TWh)

Coal – world average 161 (26% of world energy, 50% of electricity)
Coal – China 278
Coal – USA 15
Oil 36 (36% of world energy)
Natural Gas 4 (21% of world energy)
Biofuel/Biomass 12
Peat 12
Solar (rooftop) 0.44 (less than 0.1% of world energy)
Wind 0.15 (less than 1% of world energy)
Hydro 0.10 (europe death rate, 2.2% of world energy)
Hydro - world including Banqiao) 1.4 (about 2500 TWh/yr and 171,000 Banqiao dead)
Nuclear 0.04 (5.9% of world energy)


Source http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/low...t-hour-for.htm

And

But what about Chernobyl ?
The World Health Organization study in 2005 indicated that 50 people died to that point as a direct result of Chernobyl. 4000 people may eventually die earlier as a result of Chernobyl, but those deaths would be more than 20 years after the fact and the cause and effect becomes more tenuous.

He explains that there have been 4000 cases of thyroid cancer, mainly in children, but that except for nine deaths, all of them have recovered. "Otherwise, the team of international experts found no evidence for any increases in the incidence of leukemia and cancer among affected residents."


Averaging about 2100 TWh from 1985-2005 or a total of 42,000 TWh. So those 50 deaths would be 0.0012 deaths/TWh. If those possible 4000 deaths occur over the next 25 years, then with 2800 TWh being assumed average for 2005 through 2030, then it would be 4000 deaths over 112,000 TWh generated over 45 years or 0.037 deaths/TWh. There are no reactors in existence that are as unsafe as the Chernobyl reactor was. Even the eight of that type that exist have containment domes and operate with lower void co-efficients.

Source http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/dea...gy-source.html

Originally Posted by renth (Post 9245932)

Have you seen the news recently?

Originally Posted by Bob (Post 9246757)

Yup...and it's not all that bad.

The rescue effort because of the earthquake/tsunami could do with more news coverage because that's where the real disaster, tragedy and deaths are.

Originally Posted by Swerv-o (Post 9245005)

It's not just domestic energy generation that is the problem. Though there is lots of it needed, you would be unlikely to be able to power an aluminium smelting works using batches of cyclists. For this sort of heavy industrial application, you need a reliable baseload supply.


S

Originally Posted by Cape Blue (Post 9246938)

Like windpower with pumped hydro.

Originally Posted by Bob (Post 9246757)

Yup...and it's not all that bad.

Originally Posted by lesleys (Post 9245786)

I haven't read the whole thread :o but here are some statistics

Energy Source Death Rate (deaths per TWh)

Coal – world average 161 (26% of world energy, 50% of electricity)
Coal – China 278
Coal – USA 15
Oil 36 (36% of world energy)
Natural Gas 4 (21% of world energy)
Biofuel/Biomass 12
Peat 12
Solar (rooftop) 0.44 (less than 0.1% of world energy)
Wind 0.15 (less than 1% of world energy)
Hydro 0.10 (europe death rate, 2.2% of world energy)
Hydro - world including Banqiao) 1.4 (about 2500 TWh/yr and 171,000 Banqiao dead)
Nuclear 0.04 (5.9% of world energy)


Source http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/low...t-hour-for.htm

And

But what about Chernobyl ?
The World Health Organization study in 2005 indicated that 50 people died to that point as a direct result of Chernobyl. 4000 people may eventually die earlier as a result of Chernobyl, but those deaths would be more than 20 years after the fact and the cause and effect becomes more tenuous.

He explains that there have been 4000 cases of thyroid cancer, mainly in children, but that except for nine deaths, all of them have recovered. "Otherwise, the team of international experts found no evidence for any increases in the incidence of leukemia and cancer among affected residents."


Averaging about 2100 TWh from 1985-2005 or a total of 42,000 TWh. So those 50 deaths would be 0.0012 deaths/TWh. If those possible 4000 deaths occur over the next 25 years, then with 2800 TWh being assumed average for 2005 through 2030, then it would be 4000 deaths over 112,000 TWh generated over 45 years or 0.037 deaths/TWh. There are no reactors in existence that are as unsafe as the Chernobyl reactor was. Even the eight of that type that exist have containment domes and operate with lower void co-efficients.

Source http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/dea...gy-source.html

Originally Posted by iamthecreaturefromuranus (Post 9246996)

How many aluminium smelting plants use that approach currently? Any?

Originally Posted by iamthecreaturefromuranus (Post 9246996)

How many aluminium smelting plants use that approach currently? Any?

Originally Posted by renth (Post 9247008)

That's funny. I love your sunny outlook.

Originally Posted by Rambi (Post 9247029)

Not pump storage but I think there are some that use hydro. One was in the US somewhere. I think they're also building one in Iceland.

Edit: It looks like the US one closed in 2007 but was operating from 1917.

Originally Posted by renth (Post 9247054)

"Sebastian Pflugbeil, president of the private German-based Society for Radiation Protection, said Japan's efforts to pull the Fukushima 1 plant back from the brink signalled "the beginning of the catastrophic phase".



"Maybe we have to pray," he said.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=7xNSgBkum7o