Nuke Energy

[Geof]

...In regard to moving the reactor up the hill, the pumping losses are only increased by the frictional losses within the pipe....

Plus your gravitational potential energy loss. Unless you let the water flow through turbines on its way back down the hill.

[fizzissist]

IPCC chief Raj Patchauri claims that the 17cm sea level increase in the 20th century made the Japanese tsunami worse.

Putting a little perspective on that:

Climate Craziness of the Week: IPCC’s Pachauri claims 17cm of sea level rise made the Tsunami worse, but let’s check | Watts Up With That?

Keep in mind the tsunami took out the back up generators, not the nukes themselves. All things considered, I think the nukes did pretty damned well.

When all is said and done, we'll learn from what mistakes were made, and have the opportunity to diffuse opposition to further expansion of good nuclear power production. Weighed against oil, gas, coal, wind, and solar energy production methods, I still stand by nuclear as the way to go.

Hydrinos are more entertaining, but you'll need nukes to power your computer to watch Blacklight's latest claims.

[naPS]

It's just interesting that we're not hearing about all the other environmental damage caused by other power sources and industry as a result of the tsunami.

How many fuel oil tanks emptied their contents onto the continent? How many refineries did the same? Refractories? Factories? How many gas tanks of fuel from cars, diesel trucks, airplanes are now floating in a body of water or displaced into the ground now?

On the grand scale of things, the amount of contaminants released into the environment from the reactors is most likely dwarfed by the amount released from any other single industry in Japan. It's just getting the most attention because of all the hype thrown out.

[PaulMakesThings]

I think it's all about the devil you know vs. the devil you don't. You can get roughly the same energy from a tiny pellet of uranium or 2 tons of coal. People are somehow ok with the carcinogens released into the water and air by that coal, but terrified of the little pellet. Maybe it's because radiation sounds scarier than carcinogens. I think people think of it like a virus, or a curse; radiation touches one thing it starts producing radiation, then that can make other things start producing radiation! I know it sounds moronic, but that really seems to be what many people think.

[RomanLini]

I agree with you completely.

I watched a documentary on the wildlife now living around Chernobl, there are birds and rats everythwere who are all very radioactive and all in absolutely perfect health. The radiation may increase chance of cancer in animals susceptible to it, or that have the seeds of cancer already, but the evidence looked like a situation where those individuals not particularly susceptible to cancer were simply unaffected, living their normal lives in a highly radioactive environment.

It's a statistics thing. If you expose 1000 people to X radiation and the cancer rate goes from 5% (50 people) to 10% (100 people) does that mean the radiation doubled everybody's chance of getting cancer? The average joe or scaremonger journalist, even most doctors(!) would agree with that.

The fact is that the radiation doubled the chance of getting cancer for 10% of the population and only those specific 100 people. Unless proven otherwise the other 90% were totally unaffected.

But try getting a fearful ignorant human to listen to logic... Or get a journalist to promote a logical argument when they could be promoting a "new scary risk!"

[handlewanker]

OH YEAH?....supposing you suddenly came home with a 6 months termination warning on your life, from some Nuclear derived contamination......how would you feel disposed to ANY form of nuclear energy that increased your final demise to a sooner date than the regular 3 score and ten expectancy.

On that basis I see no reason why you shouldn't go and have a holiday in Chernobyl....plenty of vacant accomodation going for free....LOL.....nut case.
Ian.