Nuclear Meltdown?
Mar 17th 2011 | 2:02 am
#361
Banned
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 22,348
Re: Nuclear Meltdown?
I would think so. Possibly older people/people without families would be more likely to be coming forward to help too. What a terrible triple tragedy it all is. It's really is a job for someone who's already terminally ill. I wonder if there are such stories that'll be revealed later on.
Mar 17th 2011 | 2:25 am
#362
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,514
Re: Nuclear Meltdown?
I haven't read the whole thread 
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
but here are some statisticsEnergy 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
Mar 17th 2011 | 7:17 am
#364
BE Enthusiast
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 351
From: Chicago, IL
Re: Nuclear Meltdown?
Am watching CNN and MSNBC..and each and every one of the 'experts' they are interviewing are saying...NO DANGER to this side of the Pacific. I'm with you Bob...I would rather see and hear about the real disaster..then this hoped for one by American media.
Mar 17th 2011 | 8:52 am
#365
Democracy advocate
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 13,313
Re: Nuclear Meltdown?
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
S
I also saw an article recently regarding converting windpower into methane - using the wind electricity to crack CO2 and water to produce methane, which was then stored in the existing gas infrastructure and burnt in existing gas power stations. That would be a very elegant solution if they can scale it.
Mar 17th 2011 | 9:19 am
#367
(It's not my real name)
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 12,469
From: Ilukapool. WA
Mar 17th 2011 | 9:22 am
#368
Rhino with a big horn!
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 3,117
Re: Nuclear Meltdown?
I haven't read the whole thread 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
but here are some statisticsEnergy 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
Nuclear. Does it include any deaths from uranium mining?
Chernobyl. It's meaningless to calculate a ration of those 50 deaths and all the nuclear electricity generated between 1985 and 2005 because Chernobyl wasn't operating during that period and I'm fairly sure there must have been some deaths on other nuclear plants during that period.
Sorry, although I'm willing to accept that nuclear power has a lower death rate than coal or dams I suspect that there are some dodgy calculations in there.
Last edited by Rambi; Mar 17th 2011 at 9:32 am.
Mar 17th 2011 | 9:27 am
#369
Rhino with a big horn!
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 3,117
Re: Nuclear Meltdown?
Edit: It looks like the US one closed in 2007 but was operating from 1917.
Last edited by Rambi; Mar 17th 2011 at 9:30 am.
Mar 17th 2011 | 9:29 am
#370
(It's not my real name)
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 12,469
From: Ilukapool. WA
Re: Nuclear Meltdown?
US, UK Pull Search Teams Out Of Japan As TEPCO Admits Situation Is "Severe"
"This is a severe incident that is occurring right now," the spokesman said at a news conference. "We have vented and used seawater as cooling, followed the accident management plan but this is a very severe operation." The admission comes as plant operator Tokyo Electric Power Co (Tepco) continues attempts to stop the six-reactor Fukushima 1 complex from going into nuclear meltdown. "We have to keep cooling the fuel so it doesn't reach criticality," the Tepco spokesman said, adding that radiation levels have barely fallen at the site." Translation: if operation "Irrigation" fails, TEPCO itself confirms the chance of a critical reaction in the nuclear fuel is very high. Which of course would explain why everyone who knows more than the average peasant who just watches manipulated media, is getting the hell out of dodge."
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/us-...tuation-severe
"This is a severe incident that is occurring right now," the spokesman said at a news conference. "We have vented and used seawater as cooling, followed the accident management plan but this is a very severe operation." The admission comes as plant operator Tokyo Electric Power Co (Tepco) continues attempts to stop the six-reactor Fukushima 1 complex from going into nuclear meltdown. "We have to keep cooling the fuel so it doesn't reach criticality," the Tepco spokesman said, adding that radiation levels have barely fallen at the site." Translation: if operation "Irrigation" fails, TEPCO itself confirms the chance of a critical reaction in the nuclear fuel is very high. Which of course would explain why everyone who knows more than the average peasant who just watches manipulated media, is getting the hell out of dodge."
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/us-...tuation-severe
Mar 17th 2011 | 9:33 am
#371
Democracy advocate
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 13,313
Re: Nuclear Meltdown?
In order to help smooth renewable intermittency we will need more robust electricity grids and enhanced storage - pumped hydro is already used in some countries to store excess power and is an obvious way of doing this before other more novel techniques like the methane system come on-line.
Mar 17th 2011 | 9:36 am
#372
(It's not my real name)
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 12,469
From: Ilukapool. WA
Re: Nuclear Meltdown?
"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.
"Maybe we have to pray," he said.
Mar 17th 2011 | 9:38 am
#374
Account Closed
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 14,188
Re: Nuclear Meltdown?
I only knew of Dinorwig in the UK and I'm not aware of any here in Australia... that doesn't mean there isn't plenty, just that I've never heard of any
Mar 17th 2011 | 9:39 am
#375
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 41,517
Re: Nuclear Meltdown?
"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
"Maybe we have to pray," he said.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=7xNSgBkum7o
)
