[Vo]:The Fukushima disaster
Jarold McWilliams wrote: Fukishima disaster? How many people died in this disaster? 3 so far, 0 > from radiation. > It was more an economic disaster, like Three Mile Island (TMI). TMI nearly bankrupted the local Pennsylvania power company, and cost billions of dollars. Fukushima effectively bankrupted TEPCO, the largest power company in the world, and it will probably end up costing approximately a trillion dollars after 40 years. I believe the cost will be higher than all other industrial accidents in Japanese history, combined. That's a disaster! It is also an ecological disaster of unknown proportions. A significant fraction of Japan's land area -- 4,000 square miles or 0.3% of all the land in the country -- has been abandoned for 30 to 50 years. 90,000 people are homeless, and have lost their farms, businesses, schools, livestock autos and all other possessions. It also triggered the shutdown of all but 2 Japanese power reactors, which is 18% of their capacity. It destroyed the nuclear power industry in Japan. I think there is no chance additional plants will be approved. The event was unimaginable beforehand. I am pretty sure that if you were to describe such a thing, most politicians and all power company officials would have said, "that would be a disaster, but it is impossible." I would have said that. How much was the damage to property? > About a trillion dollars, as I said. It is unclear whether the costs will be borne by TEPCO and the government, or by the 90,000 people who lost their houses, businesses and farms. Knowing Japan as I do, I predict the victims will end up paying most of the cost. I predict there will be trials lasting decades into the future. TEPCO and it successor companies will use delaying tactics until the victims die of old age. > How many people died when a renewable energy dam broke? > That seldom happens nowadays. Retaining dams made from earth sometimes break, but not power dams made from concrete. About 1,000 and probably about the same economic damage with the homes > washed away. > When and where did that happen? I have never heard of a dam destroying 4,000 square miles. > There were also fires at oil refineries that killed more people than the > nuclear plants. > Not when you take into account people killed by pollution from uranium mining. Fortunately, that has been greatly reduced in recent decades. > Also, the nuclear plants were built in the 1960's. > The 1970s actually, but the accident was caused by the overall facility layout rather than the reactor itself. The emergency power fuel supplies and generators were destroyed by the tsunami. That would destroy any fission reactor, of any current design. The overall design was much more vulnerable than most experts thought possible. Next generation reactor plants may also be vulnerable. We'll never know; they will never build one. At least, not in Japan. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster
Von: Jed Rothwell An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Gesendet: 15:38 Samstag, 31.März 2012 Betreff: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster >About a trillion dollars, as I said. Monetizing the issue makes it comparative. But I doubt that. No every issue can be monetized. The whole topic of 'betting markets' is nothing else: Monetizing issues by assigning probabilities on them. Money as a marker of probability. Should we -the scientifically minded- be bounded to such banality? The question of 'value' is/should be- put out of commercialized time and profit-expectations. Maybe there is scientific time, which borders on to the infinite, and is opposed to commercial time, which seems to be quarterly profit. 'Value' is a societal variable, and as such should be put into special consideration. Embarassed, Guenter
Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster
Regarding the scale of the ecological disaster, my impression is that is so big that no one has a handle on it. No one knows how much radioactive material escaped, where it ended up, or how widespread it is. It is much worse than they originally thought. Last week they inserted a camera into one of the reactor cores for the first time. A lot of the material they expected to find is not there. There is nowhere near as much water as they expected. It is leaking out. Much of the reactor core is probably spread out as fine dust in the ocean and surrounding land, from the hydrogen explosion and subsequent chaos. No one really knows. They are getting dangerously high readings from places far from the plants. They have millions of tons of contaminated earth and debris, and nowhere to put it. The Japanese government has dragged many professors, engineers and experts out of retirement to work on the problem. They sent soil samples taken many kilometers away from the plant to Mizuno and others in Hokkaido. The soil was so radioactive, Mizuno was scared to deal with it, and did not know where to store it. The Japanese government is very anxious to cover up this mess with their proverbial blue plastic tarps -- physical, political and mental. A few weeks ago someone in Japan downloaded the U.S. NRL report on the accident. They printed hundreds of copies which were used in the ongoing Parliamentary hearings, and shown prominently on TV, because -- as one MP put it, "we can't this kind of information out of our own government, so we are forced to rely on the Americans." The other day, at the 1-year anniversary memorial service the Emperor gave a short speech. I have never heard the Emperor say anything controversial. This did not seem controversial either, but he mentioned that the nuclear accident is still happening and many people have lost their houses and farms perhaps for decades. National NHK TV and other major news organizations censored that part of the speech. They cut it right out. Even the Emperor is not allowed to say the obvious! NHK and the mass media also censored the famous videos of the reactors exploding. I watched NHK extensively during the accident, and recorded it. They never showed that video; only photos of the buildings days later. Takahashi told me that everyone in Japan saw the videos on YouTube but not on TV. The rest of Japan's reactors are shut down and undergoing extensive examinations and stress testing. Yesterday they reported that one of them has much more neutron embrittlement in the steel reactor vessel than expected, or than predicted by theory. Some government official said, "don't worry, it is just a math error." (keisan-machigai). Keep moving folks. Nothing to see here. This is why the Japanese public does not trust the government or the power companies. I wouldn't trust them as far as I can throw them. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster
Here are some details about that rough estimate of $1 trillion damage over the long term. The immediate aftermath of the entire tsunami disaster was cost roughly $250 billion, but it will cost a lot more in the future, especially if they rebuild the towns. I doubt they will rebuild many of them. Immediate insurance claims a few months after the accident were only $1.2 billion. Many of the would-be claimants were dead. Here is an estimate of costs from Greenpeace, admittedly a partisan organization, but facts and figures are all from Japanese government and industry sources: http://www.greenpeace.org/switzerland/Global/switzerland/de/publication/Nuclear/Lessons%20Learned%20from%20Fukushima%20final%20text.pdf They report that the Min. of Ed. and Science now estimates up to 13,000 km^2 (5,000 square miles) of affected land. TEPCO is committed to paying $59 billion damages over two years, but that's just the beginning. The amounts per capita do not begin to cover damages to lost property or relocation. Compensation -- if paid -- is expected to cost around $261 billion over the next 10 years. I expect it will go on much longer than 10 years but they will not pay. The direct cost of the clean up and decommissioning is estimated about at about $650 billion. The land area and affected by the reactor accident and the number of people was larger than the tsunami itself, I think, because it goes far inland, and the effects will last for decades. Japanese per capita wealth (not income) is ~$0.18 million. Farmers and people living in the countryside generally have a lot more wealth in property and facilities such as barns or warehouses than the urban population. Their income is low but they own lots of buildings, fertile fields, plastic greenhouses, livestock and so on. All of this property was destroyed or abandoned. All public facilities such as schools, government offices, fire departments, fire engines, hospitals, water processing plants and so on were abandoned. Even if they can go back in 40 years this stuff will be a pile of junk. This was a prosperous part of the country. Not all 90,000 of those people owned farms, canneries, chicken houses, or fishing boats but many of them did. I happen to know several Japanese farmers who do not have many acres, but they have canneries and fishing boats, tractors, trucks, buzz saws, milking machines, bakeries and so on. When you live in the countryside, you have to have physical tools or equipment to make a living. Not just an internet connection or a law degree. I suppose that conservatively, the private and public property of an average Japanese farmer is about 3 times higher than the average for the population as a whole. Say, $0.6 million. Multiply by 90,000 people gives an immediate loss of $54 billion. Add in the lost income from those farms and factories for the next 40 years and you are looking at a lot of money. I suppose farms earn about ~4 times the value of the land and equipment over 40 year, so that's $250 billion. It will never actually be paid by TEPCO or the government, but that is how much the victims and their survivors will lose. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster
Von:Jed Rothwell An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Gesendet: 17:00 Samstag, 31.März 2012 Betreff: Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster Jed, the problem is: Are there problems who should be adressed as NIL. In software-speak this has been the thrash-can or the NIL-device, maybe patented by Apple. Or are there other problems termed infinite or undecidable? Guess. And please do not consider Yourself as the highest of the wise men. I would never accept. Sorry. Even Buddha would not apply for this eminent position. But your intellect is highly appreciated, nevertheless. Guenter.
Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster
This is nothing new, I am reading Atomic America by Todd tucker. When the SL-1 reactor went super critical in 1961 the control rod assembly impaled an army operator and pinned him to the roof of the containment structure. When they got the body out days later, it was perfectly preserved because the radioactivity had killed all of the bacteria. The Fermi nuclear reactor melted down in another disaster that had the potential to wipe out Detroit. It been a long bad history. Frank Z -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l Sent: Sat, Mar 31, 2012 9:38 am Subject: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster Jarold McWilliams wrote: Fukishima disaster? How many people died in this disaster? 3 so far, 0 from radiation. It was more an economic disaster, like Three Mile Island (TMI). TMI nearly bankrupted the local Pennsylvania power company, and cost billions of dollars. Fukushima effectively bankrupted TEPCO, the largest power company in the world, and it will probably end up costing approximately a trillion dollars after 40 years. I believe the cost will be higher than all other industrial accidents in Japanese history, combined. That's a disaster! It is also an ecological disaster of unknown proportions. A significant fraction of Japan's land area -- 4,000 square miles or 0.3% of all the land in the country -- has been abandoned for 30 to 50 years. 90,000 people are homeless, and have lost their farms, businesses, schools, livestock autos and all other possessions. It also triggered the shutdown of all but 2 Japanese power reactors, which is 18% of their capacity. It destroyed the nuclear power industry in Japan. I think there is no chance additional plants will be approved. The event was unimaginable beforehand. I am pretty sure that if you were to describe such a thing, most politicians and all power company officials would have said, "that would be a disaster, but it is impossible." I would have said that. How much was the damage to property? About a trillion dollars, as I said. It is unclear whether the costs will be borne by TEPCO and the government, or by the 90,000 people who lost their houses, businesses and farms. Knowing Japan as I do, I predict the victims will end up paying most of the cost. I predict there will be trials lasting decades into the future. TEPCO and it successor companies will use delaying tactics until the victims die of old age. How many people died when a renewable energy dam broke? That seldom happens nowadays. Retaining dams made from earth sometimes break, but not power dams made from concrete. About 1,000 and probably about the same economic damage with the homes washed away. When and where did that happen? I have never heard of a dam destroying 4,000 square miles. There were also fires at oil refineries that killed more people than the nuclear plants. Not when you take into account people killed by pollution from uranium mining. Fortunately, that has been greatly reduced in recent decades. Also, the nuclear plants were built in the 1960's. The 1970s actually, but the accident was caused by the overall facility layout rather than the reactor itself. The emergency power fuel supplies and generators were destroyed by the tsunami. That would destroy any fission reactor, of any current design. The overall design was much more vulnerable than most experts thought possible. Next generation reactor plants may also be vulnerable. We'll never know; they will never build one. At least, not in Japan. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster
> How many people died when a renewable energy dam broke? > >> That seldom happens nowadays. Retaining dams made from earth sometimes >> break, but not power dams made from concrete. > >> About 1,000 and probably about the same economic damage with the homes >> washed away. > > When and where did that happen? I have never heard of a dam destroying > 4,000 square miles. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Francis_Dam -- 1929 ? ... the current death toll is estimated to be more than 600 victims (excluding the itinerant farm workers camped in San Francisquito Canyon, the exact number of which will never be known). Of course, 1929 doesn't count as "nowadays". And the land can immediately be re-inhabited.
Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster
Alan Fletcher wrote: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Francis_Dam -- 1929 ? > > ... the current death toll is estimated to be more than 600 victims . . . A concrete dam failure of this nature is extremely unlikely today. I believe dams are the safest and cheapest way to generate electricity. Wind turbines are almost as safe. (Safety is measured in accidents per kilowatt-hour.) - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster
Nuclear is just as safe, if not more, than both of them. On Mar 31, 2012, at 8:27 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Alan Fletcher wrote: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Francis_Dam -- 1929 ? > > ... the current death toll is estimated to be more than 600 victims . . . > > A concrete dam failure of this nature is extremely unlikely today. > > I believe dams are the safest and cheapest way to generate electricity. Wind > turbines are almost as safe. (Safety is measured in accidents per > kilowatt-hour.) > > - Jed >
Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster
Jarold McWilliams wrote: Nuclear is just as safe, if not more, than both of them. > Evidently not. The Fukushima accident proved it is not safe. Just because it did not kill people right away that does not make it safe. It will likely kill many workers in the years to come. It caused tremendous havoc and cost ~$600 billion. Taking that much money out of the economy and throwing it down a black hole will surely cost many lives. A source of energy that can bankrupt the largest power company in the world in one day is not "safe." No sane business executive would select it. If anyone had known this might happen, no country would have built nuclear reactors. People do not seem to grasp the magnitude of this event. This is $600 billion in damage and 90,000 people's lives and livelihoods destroyed. No industrial accident in history was even remotely as destructive, except Chernoblyl, of course. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster
I agree Jed. The Fukushima accident was extrodinarily bad. It also should make us understand that we are not capable of anticipating the worst event that can occur. I suspect that there are scenarios much worse than what actually happened and thank God that they did not appear. Energy sources other than nuclear will not have such devastating consequences, particularly ones that last for many decades. Once I was a proponent of nuclear energy, but now I would not want to live anywhere close to one due to the dangers that seem to come out of nowhere. The promise of LENR keeps me looking forward to a better future for my children. I just wish we could speed up the progress! Dave -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l Sent: Sat, Mar 31, 2012 11:19 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster Jarold McWilliams wrote: Nuclear is just as safe, if not more, than both of them. Evidently not. The Fukushima accident proved it is not safe. Just because it did not kill people right away that does not make it safe. It will likely kill many workers in the years to come. It caused tremendous havoc and cost ~$600 billion. Taking that much money out of the economy and throwing it down a black hole will surely cost many lives. A source of energy that can bankrupt the largest power company in the world in one day is not "safe." No sane business executive would select it. If anyone had known this might happen, no country would have built nuclear reactors. People do not seem to grasp the magnitude of this event. This is $600 billion in damage and 90,000 people's lives and livelihoods destroyed. No industrial accident in history was even remotely as destructive, except Chernoblyl, of course. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster
Other renewable energy sources will take trillions out of just the U.S. economy every year because they cost about twice as much as other energy sources. And your numbers for cost are way too high. It creates jobs by rebuilding lost homes, etc., thus stimulating the economy according to a lot of people. Like I said, these reactors were built in the 60's or 70's and there are safer reactors today. I suggest you look up liquid fluoride thorium reactors that are an order of magnitude safer than today's nuclear and has a projected cost lower than coal. On Mar 31, 2012, at 10:19 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Jarold McWilliams wrote: > > Nuclear is just as safe, if not more, than both of them. > > Evidently not. The Fukushima accident proved it is not safe. Just because it > did not kill people right away that does not make it safe. It will likely > kill many workers in the years to come. It caused tremendous havoc and cost > ~$600 billion. Taking that much money out of the economy and throwing it down > a black hole will surely cost many lives. > > A source of energy that can bankrupt the largest power company in the world > in one day is not "safe." No sane business executive would select it. If > anyone had known this might happen, no country would have built nuclear > reactors. > > People do not seem to grasp the magnitude of this event. This is $600 billion > in damage and 90,000 people's lives and livelihoods destroyed. No industrial > accident in history was even remotely as destructive, except Chernoblyl, of > course. > > - Jed >
Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster
LENR notwithstanding as influential in this rejoinder… Everything is relative. The trillion dollar price tag is a drop in the bucket for non-carbon based energy; a great bargain in life and treasure lost. Nuclear disaster is a bargain. This unfortunate incident though tragic and heart-rending is but a pittance, a trifle, a minute allowance compared to the horrendous cost associated with the eventual sea level rise that comes from the warming of our world, an appalling tragedy that would inundate most of that poor imprisoned island. The inhabitants of that island will be forced to endure life on a habitable portion reduced by half to its current extent. How much does the lost coastline of this shrunken and embattled Japanese island cost to replace and move inland and upland into the hills. A certain and impending nightmare is the forfeiture of the bountiful and rich harbor and city of Tokyo. This priceless jewel of the japans will be swallowed far beneath the rolling waves of the Pacific. And yet so great a tragedy, this loss as certain as guaranteed can be is but one of a thousand, the gems lost along the coast despoiled dismantled and torn asunder by the remorseless cruel sea. And that irradiated area that you are so concerned about will also be taken by the rising and roiling seas, a price of courage lost, of future vision clouded by the stinging mists of fear, a shining city lost forever to any living memory of man. Embrace the thing you fear most and in that embrace the assent of the greater good is certain. On Sun, Apr 1, 2012 at 12:31 AM, Jarold McWilliams wrote: > Other renewable energy sources will take trillions out of just the U.S. > economy every year because they cost about twice as much as other energy > sources. And your numbers for cost are way too high. It creates jobs by > rebuilding lost homes, etc., thus stimulating the economy according to a > lot of people. Like I said, these reactors were built in the 60's or 70's > and there are safer reactors today. I suggest you look up liquid fluoride > thorium reactors that are an order of magnitude safer than today's nuclear > and has a projected cost lower than coal. > > On Mar 31, 2012, at 10:19 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > > Jarold McWilliams wrote: > > Nuclear is just as safe, if not more, than both of them. >> > > Evidently not. The Fukushima accident proved it is not safe. Just because > it did not kill people right away that does not make it safe. It will > likely kill many workers in the years to come. It caused tremendous havoc > and cost ~$600 billion. Taking that much money out of the economy and > throwing it down a black hole will surely cost many lives. > > A source of energy that can bankrupt the largest power company in the > world in one day is not "safe." No sane business executive would select it. > If anyone had known this might happen, no country would have built nuclear > reactors. > > People do not seem to grasp the magnitude of this event. This is $600 > billion in damage and 90,000 people's lives and livelihoods destroyed. No > industrial accident in history was even remotely as destructive, except > Chernoblyl, of course. > > - Jed > > >
Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster
one point that start to emerge from the toll of fukushima (that will be zero, because population have been protected, and lover that 100mSv/y have no effect), and chernobyl (mainly dozens of neutron carbonized firemen send to death , and few kids who died of thyroid cancer that shoul have been threated)... the theorical cancer or linera law did not happens... anyway in the two place, the main toll have been (for chernibyl) and start to be (in fukushima) the cost of FEAR and EVACUATION. in japan there are dicussion to allow people to go back home, abandonnin the ALARA rule (as low as reasonably acceptale) of 1mSv, to apply a conservative law of 25mSv, and more for elderly (fow whom avec stron irradiation won't decrease life expectancy by cancer).. to be precise the big problem in Chernobyl have been the mental disease linked to evacuation, like fear, depression, anxiety, leading to acoolism, family violence, depression, and many suicides and murders. beside the clear kid thyroid cancer fro the most irradiated, the clear statistic message is that evacuation kills many people, thousands of suicides and more about indirect mental problems. in japan, beside the manipulators and the noise that western environmentalist loves, some thert to moan on the few avoidable suicides of erderly. there is a mediatic war by the wat tsumani are awful, in banda acheh, one third of the population died, and the 21000-28000 japaneses dead will be hard to compare with neven the suicides and economic loses of fukushima. especially if to separate the cost of the nuclear accident and the cost of the delirious fear of radioactivity. beside that look at George Monbiot (The Guardian Environmentalist croniker) article that explain how he have been manipulated by environmentalist abot the pretented high danger of radioactivity. when you realise that even for high deadly irradiation, the impact in term of cancer is not so huge compared to usual behaviors (tobacco, alcool..) http://www.monbiot.com/2011/04/04/evidence-meltdown/ I remind that being exposed to 1000mSv increase you cancer probability from about 35% to few % more (+3%about), known from a big population of 1000mSv irradiated victims in Hiroshima/nagasaki... not se different from usual behaviors (lasiness, alcool, tobacco) Anyway our human brain is not rational enough to manage invisible low probability threat. that is a problem with LENR since it could forbid the diffusion of Hyperion-like devise at home, because of negible , danger less, radiation... leading to concentration of the lenr power plants in only big corps. 2012/4/1 David Roberson > I agree Jed. The Fukushima accident was extrodinarily bad. It also > should make us understand that we are not capable of anticipating the worst > event that can occur. I suspect that there are scenarios much worse than > what actually happened and thank God that they did not appear. > > Energy sources other than nuclear will not have such devastating > consequences, particularly ones that last for many decades. Once I was a > proponent of nuclear energy, but now I would not want to live anywhere > close to one due to the dangers that seem to come out of nowhere. > > The promise of LENR keeps me looking forward to a better future for my > children. I just wish we could speed up the progress! > > Dave > > > -Original Message- > From: Jed Rothwell > To: vortex-l > Sent: Sat, Mar 31, 2012 11:19 pm > Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster > > Jarold McWilliams wrote: > > Nuclear is just as safe, if not more, than both of them. >> > > Evidently not. The Fukushima accident proved it is not safe. Just > because it did not kill people right away that does not make it safe. It > will likely kill many workers in the years to come. It caused tremendous > havoc and cost ~$600 billion. Taking that much money out of the economy and > throwing it down a black hole will surely cost many lives. > > A source of energy that can bankrupt the largest power company in the > world in one day is not "safe." No sane business executive would select it. > If anyone had known this might happen, no country would have built nuclear > reactors. > > People do not seem to grasp the magnitude of this event. This is $600 > billion in damage and 90,000 people's lives and livelihoods destroyed. No > industrial accident in history was even remotely as destructive, except > Chernoblyl, of course. > > - Jed > >
Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster
> I believe dams are the safest and cheapest way to generate > electricity. (Safety is measured in accidents per kilowatt-hour.) > - Jed You might look at the Hydro Quebec James Bay project(s). Wiki is a start -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Bay_Project -- but it's largely from a Quebecoi point of view. An ecological disaster -- covers an area the size of NY state, induced earthquakes, completely disrupted (good? bad?) the native Cree/Inuit population, extensive mercury contamination (alleged forced abortions). 10,000 caribou drowned during one storm (or, alleged, a planned test release). > While highly motivated, the Cree's opposition to the Great Whale River > Project was mainly ineffective until 1992 when the State of New York withdrew > from a multi-billion dollar power purchasing agreement due to public outcry > and a decrease in energy requirements. I was in Albany at the time, and peripherally involved with the "public outcry".
Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster
A terrible dam disaster: Vajont 1963. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vajont_Dam&useformat=desktop mic Il giorno 01/apr/2012 23:12, "Alan Fletcher" ha scritto: > > I believe dams are the safest and cheapest way to generate > > electricity. (Safety is measured in accidents per kilowatt-hour.) > > - Jed > > You might look at the Hydro Quebec James Bay project(s). > > Wiki is a start -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Bay_Project -- but > it's largely from a Quebecoi point of view. > > An ecological disaster -- covers an area the size of NY state, induced > earthquakes, completely disrupted (good? bad?) the native Cree/Inuit > population, extensive mercury contamination (alleged forced abortions). > 10,000 caribou drowned during one storm (or, alleged, a planned test > release). > > > While highly motivated, the Cree's opposition to the Great Whale River > Project was mainly ineffective until 1992 when the State of New York > withdrew from a multi-billion dollar power purchasing agreement due to > public outcry and a decrease in energy requirements. > > I was in Albany at the time, and peripherally involved with the "public > outcry". > >
Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster
I am not saying that Fukushima was not a big and horrible disaster, but things must be seen in perspective. There is no greater tragedy in human history as coal. Fukushima is a footnote in history of disasters compared to coal. And yet, people go making much more fuss about nuclear powerplants than they do about coal. Coal mining kills a lot of people. That is an issue even in developed countries. Coal mining killed 48 people in USA in 2010 ( http://www.msha.gov/stats/charts/coalbystates.pdf). In least developed countries, it's a horrific disaster. Many goods made with energy prompted by coal-based powerplants are in our houses. China is powered by coal-based powerplants. See details on this tragedy here : http://www.clb.org.hk/en/node/17013. And those figures do not consider what coal does to public health considering air pollution. Many more die everyday from lung diseases as air gets fulfilled with toxic gases expelled by coal-based plants. Coal mining also destroys landscapes and pollute water, not to mention greenhouse effects. As if it is not enough, coal ash is radioactive. As a matter of a fact, it pollutes the environment with much more radiation than nuclear plants waste does. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste Em 1 de abril de 2012 19:10, Michele Comitini escreveu: > A terrible dam disaster: Vajont 1963. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vajont_Dam&useformat=desktop > > mic > Il giorno 01/apr/2012 23:12, "Alan Fletcher" ha scritto: > > > I believe dams are the safest and cheapest way to generate >> > electricity. (Safety is measured in accidents per kilowatt-hour.) >> > - Jed >> >> You might look at the Hydro Quebec James Bay project(s). >> >> Wiki is a start -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Bay_Project -- but >> it's largely from a Quebecoi point of view. >> >> An ecological disaster -- covers an area the size of NY state, induced >> earthquakes, completely disrupted (good? bad?) the native Cree/Inuit >> population, extensive mercury contamination (alleged forced abortions). >> 10,000 caribou drowned during one storm (or, alleged, a planned test >> release). >> >> > While highly motivated, the Cree's opposition to the Great Whale River >> Project was mainly ineffective until 1992 when the State of New York >> withdrew from a multi-billion dollar power purchasing agreement due to >> public outcry and a decrease in energy requirements. >> >> I was in Albany at the time, and peripherally involved with the "public >> outcry". >> >>
Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster
I meant "there is no greater tragedy in human history, in pursuit of energy, as coal". Em 2 de abril de 2012 11:26, Bruno Santos escreveu: > I am not saying that Fukushima was not a big and horrible disaster, but > things must be seen in perspective. > > There is no greater tragedy in human history as coal. > > Fukushima is a footnote in history of disasters compared to coal. And yet, > people go making much more fuss about nuclear powerplants than they do > about coal. > > Coal mining kills a lot of people. That is an issue even in developed > countries. Coal mining killed 48 people in USA in 2010 ( > http://www.msha.gov/stats/charts/coalbystates.pdf). In least developed > countries, it's a horrific disaster. Many goods made with energy prompted > by coal-based powerplants are in our houses. China is powered by coal-based > powerplants. See details on this tragedy here : > http://www.clb.org.hk/en/node/17013. > > And those figures do not consider what coal does to public health > considering air pollution. Many more die everyday from lung diseases as air > gets fulfilled with toxic gases expelled by coal-based plants. > > Coal mining also destroys landscapes and pollute water, not to mention > greenhouse effects. > > As if it is not enough, coal ash is radioactive. As a matter of a fact, > it pollutes the environment with much more radiation than nuclear plants > waste does. > http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste > > > > > Em 1 de abril de 2012 19:10, Michele Comitini > escreveu: > > A terrible dam disaster: Vajont 1963. >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vajont_Dam&useformat=desktop >> >> mic >> Il giorno 01/apr/2012 23:12, "Alan Fletcher" ha scritto: >> >> > I believe dams are the safest and cheapest way to generate >>> > electricity. (Safety is measured in accidents per kilowatt-hour.) >>> > - Jed >>> >>> You might look at the Hydro Quebec James Bay project(s). >>> >>> Wiki is a start -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Bay_Project -- >>> but it's largely from a Quebecoi point of view. >>> >>> An ecological disaster -- covers an area the size of NY state, induced >>> earthquakes, completely disrupted (good? bad?) the native Cree/Inuit >>> population, extensive mercury contamination (alleged forced abortions). >>> 10,000 caribou drowned during one storm (or, alleged, a planned test >>> release). >>> >>> > While highly motivated, the Cree's opposition to the Great Whale River >>> Project was mainly ineffective until 1992 when the State of New York >>> withdrew from a multi-billion dollar power purchasing agreement due to >>> public outcry and a decrease in energy requirements. >>> >>> I was in Albany at the time, and peripherally involved with the "public >>> outcry". >>> >>> >
RE: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster
From: Bruno Santos As if it is not enough, coal ash is radioactive. As a matter of a fact, it pollutes the environment with much more radiation than nuclear plants waste does. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactiv e-than-nuclear-waste Conclusion of the article - living near a coal plant 3 to 6 times riskier than living near a nuclear plant, in terms of annual radiation dose. Radiation from coal is found in the ash (which is disposed of) but also is exhausted directly into air, where it does the most harm. Testing of estimated fly ash radiation in individuals' bones near coal plants was around 18 millirems a year. Doses for those the living near nuclear plants was between three and six millirems for the same period. And if food was grown in the area, radiation doses were 50 to 200 percent higher around the coal plants than around nuclear plants. Plus - natural gas - which touts itself as "clean" compared to coal - also releases more radiation than nuclear plants. Depending on where the methane comes from, radon and/or tritium is found in the gas and it goes directly into the air (in your home with a gas fired stove). http://nucleargreen.blogspot.com/2011/02/radioactive-radon-in-home-natural-g as.html I can measure a significant radiation signal coming for the exhaust duct of our gas-fired hot water heater when it turns on (this is in California) although to be honest, it has gone down in recent years. The dose of radiation in natural gas depends on where the gas-well is located - and the worst (most toxic methane) is said to be from "fracking" sites... Jones <>
Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster
No one disputes that coal fired plants kill far more people than nuclear power, even taking into account casualties from uranium mining pollution. Anyone who believes that global warming is real will certainly agree that nuclear power is safer even factoring the Chernobyl and Fukushima accidents. I think alternative energy such as wind and solar would be more cost-effective and much safer. Unfortunately Japan does not have significant wind resources, and not much potential solar power either. Putting aside the long term perspective, nuclear power is uniquely disastrous from an economic and business point of view. No other source of energy could conceivably cause so much damage in a single accident, or cost even a small fraction as much money. As I said, this accident bankrupted the world's largest power company and effectively destroyed the houses, towns, bridges and livelihood of 90,000 to 150,000 people in 5,000 square miles of land. (It turns out 90,000 people were ordered out by the government but 60,000 others left on their own after they and their local governments detected radiation far above natural background. TEPCO and the government say they will not pay compensation to these 60,000 people, even though no one disputes their land now has lethal levels of radioactivity.) If TEPCO had known this might happen I seriously doubt they would've built any nuclear power reactors. No corporate executive would risk the destruction of the entire company in a single accident. It reminds me of Churchill's description of World War I Adm. Jellicoe as "the only man on either side who could lose the war in an afternoon." People say that no one was killed. I expect many of the young workers will prematurely die of cancer in the next 20 or 30 years. But assuming for the sake of argument that no one was killed the situation is still unprecedented. Consider this: The U.S. commercial airline fleet consists of 7185 airplanes. That includes "3,739 mainline passenger aircraft (over 90 seats) . . . 879 mainline cargo aircraft (including those operated by FedEx and UPS) and 2,567 regional aircraft jets/turboprops." I believe the average replacement cost of the big mainline ones is around $150 million per aircraft. http://atwonline.com/aircraft-engines-components/news/faa-us-commercial-aircraft-fleet-shrank-2011-0312 http://www.boeing.com/commercial/prices/ Okay imagine that in the middle of one night, when these airplanes are parked with no one aboard, all 4,615 of the big passenger and freight airplanes suffer fuel leaks and are destroyed by fire. No one is hurt, but the entire fleet is destroyed. The replacement cost of the equipment would be ~$692 billion, which is roughly how much the Fukushima disaster will cost. Do you think that Boeing, Airbus or any airline would survive this? Do you think any insurance company would? I don't. As it happens, this incident did not destroy the Japanese insurance industry. That is because no nuclear power plant in the world is covered by private insurance. When nuclear power was invented, the insurance companies took a close look and decided it was too risky and they would never cover it. From the very beginning of nuclear power this risk has been assumed by national governments only. So the Japanese government and TEPCO customers are on the hook for this. Obviously, no power company can pay for an accident that costs ten times their entire annual revenue! TEPCO's earnings are here: http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/corpinfo/ir/tool/annual/pdf/2011/ar201101-e.pdf 5065 billion yen = $62 billion Jones Beene and others have correctly pointed out that coal-fired plants generally spew far more radioactive material into the environment than nuclear power plants do. This is common knowledge. No one disputes it. However, the Fukushima plant probably put out more radioactive materials than all coal fired plants in history have, and I am sure the Chernobyl reactor did. Here is one description of the radioactive material at a location 40 km from the Fukushima reactors, a year after the accident, long after short lived isotopes were gone: "Outside the Iitate community hall, the radiation dosimeter carried by one of my travelling companions to measure external radiation reads 13.26 microsieverts per hour -- a level around one hundred times natural background radiation. When he holds his dosimeter over the drainage culvert in front of the hall, it stops working altogether -- the radiation level has gone off the scale. One of the things that you quickly learn in a place like Iitate is that levels of radiation can vary enormously within a relatively small area. Iitate has the misfortune to lie in a spot where the winds from the coast meet the mountains, and quickly became a radiation hotspot due to precipitation. Its inhabitants are among the 150,000 people who evacuated from the area affected by the nuclear accident, and have no idea when they will be able to return home." http://www.greenp
Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster
I wrote: > The replacement cost of the equipment would be ~$692 billion, which is > roughly how much the Fukushima disaster will cost. > As Greenpeace pointed out, by coincidence this is roughly the cost of the 2008 TARP bailout. Note however, that nearly all of the TARP money was returned the U.S. government by the corporations and banks. Most of them paid high interest rates on the loans, so they were anxious to return the money. I think most of the money came back within two years. As of last year all but $19 billion of the TARP money was returned to Uncle Sam. The remaining $19 billion will probably not be returned because the companies went bankrupt. That's not good, but you cannot compare it to a $650 billion dead loss. That is, to money spent cleaning up tens of millions of tons of contaminated soil, building a giant sarcophagus for a nuclear power plant, and compensating people for the loss of their houses and livelihoods. Such activities contribute nothing to long-term prosperity or happiness. It is like hiring hundreds of thousands of people to spend 20 years digging holes in the ground every morning, and filling them in every afternoon for no purpose. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster
*Putting aside the long term perspective, nuclear power is uniquely disastrous from an economic and business point of view. No other source of energy could conceivably cause so much damage in a single accident, or cost even a small fraction as much money. As I said, this accident bankrupted the world's largest power company and effectively destroyed the houses, towns, bridges and livelihood of 90,000 to 150,000 people in 5,000 square miles of land.* You can’t dismiss the long term perspective. What happens in the future is important. Your value system is completely opposite to what it should be on this issue; let me explain. In economic theory, *moral hazard* is a tendency to take undue risks because the costs are not borne by the party taking the risk. The term defines a situation where the behavior of one party may change to the detriment of another after a transaction has taken place. Without moral hazard, there is no way for a party to be motivated to change his behavior, improve his design, or pay for any damage caused. Paying for damage caused is a great economic principle. Without moral hazard, somebody else pays for your damage. You take your profits to the bank and will increase your damage causing behavior to make more profit. Lack of moral hazard caused the global financial meltdown and that financial system has not yet been fixed. Lack of moral hazard is causing global warming since someone else will pay to move the cities up into the hills, not the producers of fossil fuels. Restoring the concept and practice of moral hazard will save this world, without it we are screwed so whatever you do or say, don’t put it down. On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 4:02 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > No one disputes that coal fired plants kill far more people than nuclear > power, even taking into account casualties from uranium mining pollution. > > Anyone who believes that global warming is real will certainly agree that > nuclear power is safer even factoring the Chernobyl and Fukushima > accidents. I think alternative energy such as wind and solar would be more > cost-effective and much safer. Unfortunately Japan does not have > significant wind resources, and not much potential solar power either. > > Putting aside the long term perspective, nuclear power is uniquely > disastrous from an economic and business point of view. No other source of > energy could conceivably cause so much damage in a single accident, or cost > even a small fraction as much money. As I said, this accident bankrupted > the world's largest power company and effectively destroyed the houses, > towns, bridges and livelihood of 90,000 to 150,000 people in 5,000 square > miles of land. > > (It turns out 90,000 people were ordered out by the government but 60,000 > others left on their own after they and their local governments detected > radiation far above natural background. TEPCO and the government say they > will not pay compensation to these 60,000 people, even though no one > disputes their land now has lethal levels of radioactivity.) > > If TEPCO had known this might happen I seriously doubt they would've built > any nuclear power reactors. No corporate executive would risk the > destruction of the entire company in a single accident. It reminds me of > Churchill's description of World War I Adm. Jellicoe as "the only man on > either side who could lose the war in an afternoon." > > People say that no one was killed. I expect many of the young workers will > prematurely die of cancer in the next 20 or 30 years. But assuming for the > sake of argument that no one was killed the situation is still > unprecedented. Consider this: > > The U.S. commercial airline fleet consists of 7185 airplanes. That > includes "3,739 mainline passenger aircraft (over 90 seats) . . . 879 > mainline cargo aircraft (including those operated by FedEx and UPS) and > 2,567 regional aircraft jets/turboprops." I believe the average replacement > cost of the big mainline ones is around $150 million per aircraft. > > > http://atwonline.com/aircraft-engines-components/news/faa-us-commercial-aircraft-fleet-shrank-2011-0312 > > http://www.boeing.com/commercial/prices/ > > Okay imagine that in the middle of one night, when these airplanes are > parked with no one aboard, all 4,615 of the big passenger and freight > airplanes suffer fuel leaks and are destroyed by fire. No one is hurt, but > the entire fleet is destroyed. The replacement cost of the equipment would > be ~$692 billion, which is roughly how much the Fukushima disaster will > cost. Do you think that Boeing, Airbus or any airline would survive this? > Do you think any insurance company would? I don't. > > As it happens, this incident did not destroy the Japanese insurance > industry. That is because no nuclear power plant in the world is covered by > private insurance. When nuclear power was invented, the insurance companies > took a close look and decided it
Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster
Von:Jed Rothwell An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Gesendet: 22:02 Montag, 2.April 2012 Betreff: Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster >No one disputes that coal fired plants kill far more people than nuclear power, even taking into account casualties from uranium mining pollution. >Putting aside the long term perspective, nuclear power is uniquely disastrous from an economic and business point of view. No other source of energy could conceivably cause so much damage in a single accident, Agree. Your assessment is sane. What seems to be difficult to understand to some, is distinguishing different risk-categories. a) coal-fired plants probably emit more radioactivity than any orderly working nuclear power-plant over decades. Because this has an intrinsic upper limit, as a function of time, society can decide and switch it off. b) on the other hand, you have a nuclear plant, which occasionally explodes or is otherwise severely damaged, and kills the neighbouring people. Now how to decide? Assume, both probabilities are equal in the long term, (which is purely hypothetical, because noone knows) . Which option would you choose? Surprise: It depends where you live! And this has other surprising consequences, eg, that the probability-space in the time-domain is transformed into a probability-space in the space-domain. And the results are VERY different. G.
Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster
It will be horrendously expensive, but I would like to think that as smart as the Japanese are, they will come up with some creative solutions to mitigate the cost - and maybe ultimately it won't be as expensive as currently imagined. My parents told me that when they visited Nagasaki and Hiroshima 25 years ago that apart from the monuments they couldn't even tell where the bombs had been. Interestingly the population of Japan peaked in 2008 and is now falling by about 7 per year. This is accelerating, so it won't be as hard to find places for the displaced people. Returning the land to productive agriculture use may not be economic but with the addition of a bit of appropriate covering to shield off the worst of the contamination for a few hundred years, there are any number of non-agricultural industrial (manufacturing, chemical processing, refineries), military (bases, test ranges, spaceports), transport (airports, ports, roads, trains), recreational (parks, golf courses, race tracks) and even power generating (more reactors?) purposes that the exclusion zone could be useful for. It might also be fine for hydroponics and animal feed-lots that don't use anything from the ground (assuming water supplied from elsewhere), and maybe even forestry would be an option. On 2 April 2012 21:24, Jed Rothwell wrote: > I wrote: > > >> The replacement cost of the equipment would be ~$692 billion, which is >> roughly how much the Fukushima disaster will cost. >> > > As Greenpeace pointed out, by coincidence this is roughly the cost of the > 2008 TARP bailout. Note however, that nearly all of the TARP money was > returned the U.S. government by the corporations and banks. Most of them > paid high interest rates on the loans, so they were anxious to return the > money. I think most of the money came back within two years. > > As of last year all but $19 billion of the TARP money was returned to > Uncle Sam. The remaining $19 billion will probably not be returned because > the companies went bankrupt. That's not good, but you cannot compare it to > a $650 billion dead loss. That is, to money spent cleaning up tens of > millions of tons of contaminated soil, building a giant sarcophagus for a > nuclear power plant, and compensating people for the loss of their houses > and livelihoods. Such activities contribute nothing to long-term prosperity > or happiness. It is like hiring hundreds of thousands of people to spend 20 > years digging holes in the ground every morning, and filling them in every > afternoon for no purpose. > > - Jed > >
Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster
Maybe the best long term answer for nuclear is to put reactors in large barges or on platforms 10's-100's of miles off-shore. While they would be more vulnerable to the elements they would not threaten any land.
Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster
Axil Axil wrote: *Putting aside the long term perspective, .. .* > > You can’t dismiss the long term perspective. > No, you can't, but I just did. My sentence begins "putting aside the long term perspective" meaning "let's not talk about the future for a moment here; let's look only at the present." > What happens in the future is important. > Yes, it is. What happens in the present is also important. An accident that bankrupts the biggest power company on earth and costs the Japanese taxpayers several hundred billion dollars is important. Your value system is completely opposite to what it should be on this > issue; let me explain. > You don't need to. I made it quite clear that I agree that coal is a bigger threat in the long term. However, nuclear power is a gigantic economic threat in the short term. If 3 more Japanese reactors were to go out of control and explode, it would paralyze the entire economy, which is of the third largest in the world. It would be roughly the equivalent of the U.S. fighting the Iraq war again, 5 times in a row. Coal threatens global warming which in the worst scenario will destroy entire nations and kill millions of species and individual people. That's horrible. But a disaster that would impoverish an entire nation -- 4 reactors exploding -- is also horrible, albeit in a different way. Neither risk is acceptable. Both coal and nuclear have to go. We need something better. I hope that cold fusion can overcome the academic politics and replace them both, but if that is not to be, I am sure that solar and various other methods can replace them. This will be more expensive than coal per kilowatt hour (ignoring future costs). It will be far cheaper than nuclear however, now that we have seen the true dollar cost of nuclear power. After Fukushima it became the most expensive method of generating electricity in history. I believe it wiped out all of the profits ever made by TEPCO. Before Fukushima I supported nuclear power. I knew that nuclear accidents have occurred and that they might be severe. However, I never imagined that a reactor manufactured in the US and installed in Japan could malfunction to this extent and cost this much money. If you asked me before 2011 I would have said: "that that might happen in theory but in actual practice we should not worry about such extreme scenarios." Before 9/11 I would have dismissed the likelihood of fanatics crashing commercial airliners into buildings. Life is full of surprises. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster
Robert Lynn wrote: Maybe the best long term answer for nuclear is to put reactors in large > barges or on platforms 10's-100's of miles off-shore. That seems like a bad idea to me. A rogue wave or a storm at sea can capsize or break apart any ship, including the largest aircraft carrier or containership. That happens even when the ships are skillfully handled to reduce damage. Barges and platforms cannot be handled. In any case, the long term answer in Japan is already clear. They will build no more reactors. The public will not stand for it. I doubt they will even turn back on most of the remaining ones, which are presently off line, pending inspections. Nuclear power is dead in Japan. Probably in Germany, too. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster
It is also important to notice that japanese government overlooked serious issues with the Fukushima power plant. The plant cooling design was not optimal and they knew it. The japanese government must be held responsible for the disaster as much as TEPCO. Accidents happen, but this was no accident. This was people making bad judgements on safety issues that they knew were wrong. Many have pointed out that Fukushima was vulnerable, but people decided to overlook and kept the plant in use anyway. Em 2 de abril de 2012 18:08, Robert Lynn escreveu: > Maybe the best long term answer for nuclear is to put reactors in large > barges or on platforms 10's-100's of miles off-shore. While they would be > more vulnerable to the elements they would not threaten any land.
Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster
Bruno Santos wrote: > The japanese government must be held responsible for the disaster as much > as TEPCO. > It is a little difficult to know what you can do to a government. Vote them out of office? The people who authorized this plant retired and died long ago. > Accidents happen, but this was no accident. This was people making bad > judgements on safety issues that they knew were wrong. > I doubt that. They are not fools. Generally speaking, power company officials and engineers are risk adverse. One commentator in Japan remarked that after any major industrial accident, if you go into the files of the plant, you will find someone at sometime did a study and warned this might occur. It does not matter what happens; someone anticipated it. They're supposed to think about every possible scenario. That's their job. In this case someone made careful studies of tsunamis in local history and determined that a large one might come. It turned out this person was right. The problem is, if you were to take action against every accident scenario suggested by every engineer, no power plant would ever be built or allowed to operate anywhere. That is more or less the situation they have now got themselves into, with 50 out of 52 remaining nuclear power reactors turned off. Local citizens and government regulators are now demanding such impossibly high standards of safety that I doubt more than a handful of these reactors will be turned on again. This is bad. At present Japan does not have clean energy replacements for these reactors, so they are burning a great deal more coal and natural gas, and they're having severe shortages of electricity. It would make more sense to implement some immediate short-term fixes such as higher seawalls, and then put in place a 20 or 30-year phaseout of nuclear power. They should live with the risks of another accident for 20 years. It is an unfortunate necessity, better than the alternatives. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster
Where do you keep getting this $600 billion dollar number? Most of the sources I've seen say it's around $50 billion. And Tepco is the 4th largest electric utility in the world, not the 1st. Adding Chernobyl to nuclear's safety record is unfair. Chernobyl just showed what can happen to a nuclear reactor if you ignore all safety issues. The Soviet Union didn't really care much about safety. Current nuclear reactors are much safer than Fukishima and Chernobyl reactors. Most future nuclear reactors can be designed to use passive safety which makes it an order of magnitude safer still. I don't care about global warming. Nuclear can be far safer, cheaper, and cleaner than any other power source. Do you know how much subsidies wind and solar receive? The subsidies are much larger/kwh than other power sources. Solar costs about a $1/kwh without subsidies. Renewable energy subsidies are paid for by coal, so the more subsidies you have, the more coal you are burning. Research 4th generation nuclear concepts, more specifically the LFTR, and you will see that nuclear can be very safe and economical at the same time. On Apr 2, 2012, at 3:02 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > No one disputes that coal fired plants kill far more people than nuclear > power, even taking into account casualties from uranium mining pollution. > > Anyone who believes that global warming is real will certainly agree that > nuclear power is safer even factoring the Chernobyl and Fukushima accidents. > I think alternative energy such as wind and solar would be more > cost-effective and much safer. Unfortunately Japan does not have significant > wind resources, and not much potential solar power either. > > Putting aside the long term perspective, nuclear power is uniquely disastrous > from an economic and business point of view. No other source of energy could > conceivably cause so much damage in a single accident, or cost even a small > fraction as much money. As I said, this accident bankrupted the world's > largest power company and effectively destroyed the houses, towns, bridges > and livelihood of 90,000 to 150,000 people in 5,000 square miles of land. > > (It turns out 90,000 people were ordered out by the government but 60,000 > others left on their own after they and their local governments detected > radiation far above natural background. TEPCO and the government say they > will not pay compensation to these 60,000 people, even though no one disputes > their land now has lethal levels of radioactivity.) > > If TEPCO had known this might happen I seriously doubt they would've built > any nuclear power reactors. No corporate executive would risk the destruction > of the entire company in a single accident. It reminds me of Churchill's > description of World War I Adm. Jellicoe as "the only man on either side who > could lose the war in an afternoon." > > People say that no one was killed. I expect many of the young workers will > prematurely die of cancer in the next 20 or 30 years. But assuming for the > sake of argument that no one was killed the situation is still unprecedented. > Consider this: > > The U.S. commercial airline fleet consists of 7185 airplanes. That includes > "3,739 mainline passenger aircraft (over 90 seats) . . . 879 mainline cargo > aircraft (including those operated by FedEx and UPS) and 2,567 regional > aircraft jets/turboprops." I believe the average replacement cost of the big > mainline ones is around $150 million per aircraft. > > http://atwonline.com/aircraft-engines-components/news/faa-us-commercial-aircraft-fleet-shrank-2011-0312 > > http://www.boeing.com/commercial/prices/ > > Okay imagine that in the middle of one night, when these airplanes are parked > with no one aboard, all 4,615 of the big passenger and freight airplanes > suffer fuel leaks and are destroyed by fire. No one is hurt, but the entire > fleet is destroyed. The replacement cost of the equipment would be ~$692 > billion, which is roughly how much the Fukushima disaster will cost. Do you > think that Boeing, Airbus or any airline would survive this? Do you think any > insurance company would? I don't. > > As it happens, this incident did not destroy the Japanese insurance industry. > That is because no nuclear power plant in the world is covered by private > insurance. When nuclear power was invented, the insurance companies took a > close look and decided it was too risky and they would never cover it. From > the very beginning of nuclear power this risk has been assumed by national > governments only. So the Japanese government and TEPCO customers are on the > hook for this. Obviously, no power company can pay for an accident that costs > ten times their entire annual revenue! > > TEPCO's earnings are here: > > http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/corpinfo/ir/tool/annual/pdf/2011/ar201101-e.pdf > > 5065 billion yen = $62 billion > > Jones Beene and others have correctl
Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster
Greenpeace is not a credible source. On Apr 2, 2012, at 3:24 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > I wrote: > > The replacement cost of the equipment would be ~$692 billion, which is > roughly how much the Fukushima disaster will cost. > > As Greenpeace pointed out, by coincidence this is roughly the cost of the > 2008 TARP bailout. Note however, that nearly all of the TARP money was > returned the U.S. government by the corporations and banks. Most of them paid > high interest rates on the loans, so they were anxious to return the money. I > think most of the money came back within two years. > > As of last year all but $19 billion of the TARP money was returned to Uncle > Sam. The remaining $19 billion will probably not be returned because the > companies went bankrupt. That's not good, but you cannot compare it to a $650 > billion dead loss. That is, to money spent cleaning up tens of millions of > tons of contaminated soil, building a giant sarcophagus for a nuclear power > plant, and compensating people for the loss of their houses and livelihoods. > Such activities contribute nothing to long-term prosperity or happiness. It > is like hiring hundreds of thousands of people to spend 20 years digging > holes in the ground every morning, and filling them in every afternoon for no > purpose. > > - Jed >
Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster
If we decide to get rid of nuclear and coal in favor of wind and solar, a millions of people will die of starvation. Our GDP would decrease by half. I'd rather take a "risk" that a nuclear reactor explodes or a coal mine collapses than the alternative. On Apr 2, 2012, at 4:16 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Axil Axil wrote: > > Putting aside the long term perspective, .. . > > > You can’t dismiss the long term perspective. > > No, you can't, but I just did. My sentence begins "putting aside the long > term perspective" meaning "let's not talk about the future for a moment here; > let's look only at the present." > > > What happens in the future is important. > > Yes, it is. What happens in the present is also important. An accident that > bankrupts the biggest power company on earth and costs the Japanese taxpayers > several hundred billion dollars is important. > > > Your value system is completely opposite to what it should be on this issue; > let me explain. > > You don't need to. I made it quite clear that I agree that coal is a bigger > threat in the long term. However, nuclear power is a gigantic economic threat > in the short term. If 3 more Japanese reactors were to go out of control and > explode, it would paralyze the entire economy, which is of the third largest > in the world. It would be roughly the equivalent of the U.S. fighting the > Iraq war again, 5 times in a row. > > Coal threatens global warming which in the worst scenario will destroy entire > nations and kill millions of species and individual people. That's horrible. > But a disaster that would impoverish an entire nation -- 4 reactors exploding > -- is also horrible, albeit in a different way. Neither risk is acceptable. > Both coal and nuclear have to go. > > We need something better. I hope that cold fusion can overcome the academic > politics and replace them both, but if that is not to be, I am sure that > solar and various other methods can replace them. This will be more expensive > than coal per kilowatt hour (ignoring future costs). It will be far cheaper > than nuclear however, now that we have seen the true dollar cost of nuclear > power. After Fukushima it became the most expensive method of generating > electricity in history. I believe it wiped out all of the profits ever made > by TEPCO. > > Before Fukushima I supported nuclear power. I knew that nuclear accidents > have occurred and that they might be severe. However, I never imagined that a > reactor manufactured in the US and installed in Japan could malfunction to > this extent and cost this much money. If you asked me before 2011 I would > have said: "that that might happen in theory but in actual practice we should > not worry about such extreme scenarios." Before 9/11 I would have dismissed > the likelihood of fanatics crashing commercial airliners into buildings. Life > is full of surprises. > > - Jed >
Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 10:03 PM, Jarold McWilliams wrote: > Where do you keep getting this $600 billion dollar number? > The Japanese mass media, NHK, and The Japan Center for Economic Research. See: http://www.jcer.or.jp/eng/research/pdf/pe(iwata20110425)e.pdf This shows 20 trillion yen for the cleanup ($243 billion). Since this was written in April 2011, the estimated costs have climbed considerably, and far more land had to be abandoned. I estimated the cost to individuals in an earlier message. That is on the order of $250 billion. Based on Japanese history I doubt the government or the power company will pay anything to this group. They have offered families $12,000 each. Their strategy is clear: they will hire an army of lawyers and delay and stonewall until the people die. This is how Japanese industry dealt with previous cases of pollution at Minamata and similar cases, such as ex-U.S. POWs who demanded payment for slave labor during the war. > Most of the sources I've seen say it's around $50 billion. > It has cost more than that already, and they have hardly begun. The cleanup may not cost as much as anticipated because they are already saying it is impossible, and the only alternative is to abandon the towns and cities for 50 years or longer. In other words, there is no way to clean it up at any cost. > And Tepco is the 4th largest electric utility in the world, not the 1st. > I stand corrected. > Adding Chernobyl to nuclear's safety record is unfair. > No one would compare the two. I merely mentioned that Chernobyl reportedly dumped more radioactive garbage into the air and soil than all coal fired plants in history. I am pretty sure Fukushima did as well, since thousands of square miles are now at levels ~100 times background. > Solar costs about a $1/kwh without subsidies. > What does nuclear power now cost, taking into account the cost of Fukushima? In this report, Greenpeace uses mainstream, official sources such as the Japanese government and The Japan Center for Economic Research. Their numbers are as reliable as any. All official sources reportedly underestimate the likely cost by a wide margin. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster
Jarold McWilliams wrote: If we decide to get rid of nuclear and coal in favor of wind and solar, a > millions of people will die of starvation. Our GDP would decrease by half. > This is nonsense. Five states in the U.S. alone have more potential wind energy than the energy from all the oil pumped in the Middle East. It can be converted to liquid fuel, and we could use it to put OPEC out of business. The solar energy from a small section of the desert in Nevada could also outproduce the Middle East, or generate all of the power in the U.S., if we can find a way to store it. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster
Jarold McWilliams wrote: Greenpeace is not a credible source. > That is true. Greenpeace gets most of the numbers in the report from official source in the Japanese government and TEPCO. These are not credible sources -- as you say -- but there are not many independent sources in Japan. Local governments are now conducting their own research, and measuring radioactivity themselves. They show much higher levels, or much broader areas than the Japanese government. So the problem is much worse than Greenpeace estimated. However, you have to start somewhere with a rough estimate. Most people in Japan do not believe the government, according to public opinion polls. You would have to be crazy to believe them, because they have been lying, stonewalling and distorting the facts from day one. After the reactors blew up, TEPCO spokesmen were actually on NHK denying that anything had happened. They said there were some "sonic effects" (loud noises) but it was unclear what, if anything they meant. To this day, they have never shown the video of the explosion on TV as far as I know. They even censored the Emperor when he spoke about it! A few weeks ago, the Japanese Parliament investigating committee finally tossed out their own government reports and began using copies of the U.S. NRL report instead because -- as one MP put it -- the Japanese reports are "a pack of lies." - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 1:55 PM, Axil Axil wrote: Without moral hazard, there is no way for a party to be motivated to > change his behavior, improve his design, or pay for any damage caused. > I think you have moral hazard exactly backwards. Moral hazard is a bad thing -- it's what happens when people are not held to account for the money they spend. Eric
Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster -- 34 meter tsunamis?
Japanese experts warn of earthquakes that could produce 34-metre tsunamis http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/01/japan-earthquake-tsunami-wave-risk Much of Japan's Pacific coast would be inundated by a tsunami more than 34 metres (112 feet) high if an offshore earthquake as powerful as last year's occurred, according to a government panel of experts. They report that a wave of such height could result from any tsunami unleashed by a magnitude-9.0 earthquake in the Nankai trough, which runs east of Japan's main island of Honshu to the southern island of Kyushu. ... The Fukushima plant was designed to withstand a 6-metre (20-foot) tsunami, less than half the height of the surge that hit it on 11 March, 2011. The latest forecast shows a tsunami of up to 21 metres (69 feet) could strike near the Hamaoka nuclear plant on the south-eastern coast. Its operator, Chubu Electric Power Co, is building an 18-metre (59-foot) high sea wall to counter tsunamis. The wall is due to be completed next year. ... - Original Message - > From: "Jed Rothwell"
Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster -- 34 meter tsunamis?
This information does not build up my confidence in nuclear reactors located on shorelines. Perhaps a need exists for some form of absolute kill mechanism that can be called upon in such an emergency. It would sacrifice the reactor forever but prevent any catastrophic damages. There must be some material that can be flooded into the reactor vessel that would behave in this manner, at least I hope there is. Dave -Original Message- From: Alan Fletcher To: vortex-l Sent: Sun, Apr 1, 2012 10:06 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster -- 34 meter tsunamis? Japanese experts warn of earthquakes that could produce 34-metre tsunamis ttp://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/01/japan-earthquake-tsunami-wave-risk Much of Japan's Pacific coast would be inundated by a tsunami more than 34 etres (112 feet) high if an offshore earthquake as powerful as last year's ccurred, according to a government panel of experts. They report that a wave of uch height could result from any tsunami unleashed by a magnitude-9.0 arthquake in the Nankai trough, which runs east of Japan's main island of onshu to the southern island of Kyushu. ... The Fukushima plant was designed to withstand a 6-metre (20-foot) tsunami, less han half the height of the surge that hit it on 11 March, 2011. The latest forecast shows a tsunami of up to 21 metres (69 feet) could strike ear the Hamaoka nuclear plant on the south-eastern coast. Its operator, Chubu lectric Power Co, is building an 18-metre (59-foot) high sea wall to counter sunamis. The wall is due to be completed next year. .. Original Message - From: "Jed Rothwell"
Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster -- 34 meter tsunamis?
David Roberson wrote: This information does not build up my confidence in nuclear reactors > located on shorelines. > They are all on the shoreline in Japan. They use ocean water for cooling. > Perhaps a need exists for some form of absolute kill mechanism that can > be called upon in such an emergency. > Reactors are SCRAM'ed of course, but it is physically impossible to keep them from generating heat. You have to cool them down for many days. I think the problem can be addressed by putting emergency generators far above the waterline, perhaps in the second story of the reactor building. The Fukushima disaster was caused by the tsunami destroying the Diesel fuel tanks. The tsunami did not destroy the reactor itself, although water did get into the buildings I think. If the fuel tank and generator had survived there would have been no disaster. The disaster was made worse by a mistake made a few days into the disaster. They brought in an emergency Diesel. It ran out of fuel during the night. No one noticed. That sounds like an incredibly stupid mistake, but it is understandable. The people were working under extreme duress, similar to soldiers in a battlefield. They were facing extreme peril, with intense radiation and explosions all around them. They had gone without sleep for days. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster -- 34 meter tsunamis?
After a reactor shuts down, 15% of the rated capacity of the reactor is released as delayed heat due to the decay of short lived radioactive byproducts. This delayed heat must be dissipated into the environment to keep the structure of the reactor from damage. The Indians have designed and are implementing a nuclear reactor that can passively dissipate this delayed heat production after reaction shutdown has been triggered. This passive heat dissipation design uses heat pipes specifically reserved for this purpose. These pipes carry heat unaided into the environment. Such heat pipes can operate unpowered in air and/or completely submerged in water. The contents of the reactor core are totally sealed from the outside environment which includes these heat pipes. Nevertheless, uncontaminated delayed heat can be passively carried into the environment cooling the reactor without any possibility of core compromise. The pebble bed reactor design is also passively cooled and can dissipate the delayed heat load without external power. The point, many nuclear reactor designs exist that can be deployed on the coast, underground or under the sea without the possibility of shutdown failure. Early on, the decision to go with the light water reactor design was a political one born within internal governmental political in-fighting in preference to safer type designs. The decision makers in the nuclear industry both in government and in industry will stay with the light water design for their own reasons. Today in the American led orthodox view, nuclear safety lies in maintaining ages old tried and true technology that maintain safety by relying on ultimate human intervention and control. Some question that view as foolish. But other countries are going in other directions including fail safe engineered passive control. On Sun, Apr 1, 2012 at 11:17 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > David Roberson wrote: > > This information does not build up my confidence in nuclear reactors >> located on shorelines. >> > > They are all on the shoreline in Japan. They use ocean water for cooling. > > > >> Perhaps a need exists for some form of absolute kill mechanism that can >> be called upon in such an emergency. >> > > Reactors are SCRAM'ed of course, but it is physically impossible to keep > them from generating heat. You have to cool them down for many days. > > I think the problem can be addressed by putting emergency generators far > above the waterline, perhaps in the second story of the reactor building. > The Fukushima disaster was caused by the tsunami destroying the Diesel fuel > tanks. The tsunami did not destroy the reactor itself, although water did > get into the buildings I think. If the fuel tank and generator had survived > there would have been no disaster. > > The disaster was made worse by a mistake made a few days into the > disaster. They brought in an emergency Diesel. It ran out of fuel during > the night. No one noticed. That sounds like an incredibly stupid mistake, > but it is understandable. The people were working under extreme duress, > similar to soldiers in a battlefield. They were facing extreme peril, with > intense radiation and explosions all around them. They had gone without > sleep for days. > > - Jed > >
Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster -- 34 meter tsunamis?
One of the characteristic of moder reactors like EPR (Areva) is that they can self cool without external energy. one thing missing were sand filters, that are installed in french powerplant by the demand of a stubborn engineer that lobby for that desperate mitigation system. people were moaning about that being useless since no cas was probable, bu thsi engineer asked to accept that worst can hemmeps, and that reducing the catastrophe is a good idea, and it is cheap. there would have been much less radioactive leaks if used (iodium, cesium) Fukushima could be easily avoided, with few good decisions, but one lesson is that under cataclysmic stress (they lose all they family, were afraid , stressed) you make mistakes and lose many opprtunity,... no way to change the fact that under awful stress people are not perfectly rational. another things is that ther shoudl exist robust and flexible system. the time to be able to bring sea water, as a backup solution is not acceptable... it is dirty, but should be possible. another is to accept that catastrophe happens in group (the famous blackswan/dragon king), because of correlated causes. there have bee design errors, that were identified and could have been corrected. there was bad risk assumption in the 70s (the geophysicians were convinced earthquake could not be higher that 7 because of ferquent quake in sendai zone, but recently they discovered that 25% of the displacement was not dissipated at sendai and 9 quake ver probable... they did not believe in tsunami in that zone, but recently archeologist found 300years old huge tsunami ins the zone... (source french version of Sci American)... recent data were ignored, because of cost. as usual an accumulation of many faults, errors, bad luck, ignorance, delusion.. also like in chernobyl the privatization/performance-race seems to have allowed/caused the bad behavior... (nb: in chernobyl the change of boss to put a modern performance driven manager instead of careful old executive, caused the pressure that cause the crash. in fukushima the private status of TEPCO explain the unwillingness to address problems because of costs). but in fukushima many things have been well done, avoiding death... 2012/4/2 Axil Axil > After a reactor shuts down, 15% of the rated capacity of the reactor is > released as delayed heat due to the decay of short lived radioactive > byproducts. This delayed heat must be dissipated into the environment to > keep the structure of the reactor from damage. > > >
Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster -- 34 meter tsunamis?
Alain Sepeda wrote: One of the characteristic of moder reactors like EPR (Areva) is that they can self cool without external energy. Sure. There are several designs that use passive cooling. The pebble bed reactor is another example. But none have been commercialized yet. The designs are radically different from present-day reactors. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster -- 34 meter tsunamis?
FYI: The EPR is equipped with what Areva refers to as a “core catcher.” If the fuel cladding and reactor vessel systems and associated piping become molten, these first two safety mechanisms the molten core will fall into a core catcher which holds the molten material and has the ability to cool it. This, in turn, protects the third barrier, containment. On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 2:53 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Alain Sepeda wrote: > > One of the characteristic of moder reactors like EPR (Areva) is that they >> can self cool without external energy. >> > > Sure. There are several designs that use passive cooling. The pebble bed > reactor is another example. But none have been commercialized yet. The > designs are radically different from present-day reactors. > > - Jed > >
Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster -- 34 meter tsunamis?
In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Sun, 1 Apr 2012 23:17:19 -0400: Hi, [snip] >I think the problem can be addressed by putting emergency generators far >above the waterline, perhaps in the second story of the reactor building. I suggest building the entire reactor on the sea floor off shore. That way there would never be a shortage of cooling water, even if all electrical systems failed completely and permanently, provided of course that the design used gravity feed for the cooling water. If the reactor was far enough off shore, and deep enough, then tsunamis would go right over it, making little impact. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster -- 34 meter tsunamis?
Both underwater and underground deployment of nuclear plants is ideal for certain types of nuclear designs that are totally passively controlled. This design is old and venerable. Being greatly concerned about nuclear safety, the last paper that Dr. Edward Teller (designed the H bomb) wrote before his death recommended this design. Also being greatly concerned about nuclear safety, the designer of the light water reactor also fought for this design and was fired for pushing too hard. Light water reactors are good at producing Pu239 which was important in those days at the begining of the cold war. These designs behave like a nuclear battery. In such a design, the core supplies heat as required. The heat output of the design is load leveled. The laws of nature regulate the nuclear reaction automatically and without the possibility of error. If no heat is extracted then the plant goes subcritical and dormant. The core is the only part of the reactor that is below the sea. Reactor automated core control and the power plant is on a surface barge or platform that can be unmoored and remove to port if required to avoid a strong hurricane. The core would remain underwater in a dormant shutdown state. Delayed heat remove from the core is enabled using a chimney effect where heated water would rise to the surface through a large pipe. The surface turbo-generator rejects heat into the ocean surface and joins the prevailing ocean current flow. Reactor refueling is simple and can be done automatically and waste processing is integral to the reactor design were 99% of the nuclear fuel is consumed. The underwater deployment is highly resistant to terrorism since the core is maintained in a hot cell supported by robots. The core is deployed at a 100 meters depth and can withstand any natural disaster (earthquake and associated wave generation) or the crash of any sized plain no matter the size. Using water as a structural material will greatly reduce the size of the plant minimizing the cost of structural material to a small fraction of the size and cost of current reactors. Such a plant is unlikely to be built because of a lack of heart and incipient fear from many quarters. Too bad the advice of the great men in American science was ignored for political reasons… Regards: axil On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 10:33 PM, wrote: > In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Sun, 1 Apr 2012 23:17:19 -0400: > Hi, > [snip] > >I think the problem can be addressed by putting emergency generators far > >above the waterline, perhaps in the second story of the reactor building. > > I suggest building the entire reactor on the sea floor off shore. That way > there > would never be a shortage of cooling water, even if all electrical systems > failed completely and permanently, provided of course that the design used > gravity feed for the cooling water. If the reactor was far enough off > shore, and > deep enough, then tsunamis would go right over it, making little impact. > > Regards, > > Robin van Spaandonk > > http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html > >
Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster -- 34 meter tsunamis?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_M._Weinberg I looked up the name of the guy who I referred to as the father of the light water reactor. Following in the tragedy and tradition of J. Robert Oppenheimer, a giant of nuclear enegineering, Alvin M. Weinberg was crushed under the heal of the plutonium madness at the beginning of the nuclear age were safty takes a backseat to plutonium production. IMHO, it is this plutonium madness of the cold war that is the primal seed of the Fukushima disaster. On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 11:44 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > Both underwater and underground deployment of nuclear plants is ideal for > certain types of nuclear designs that are totally passively controlled. > This design is old and venerable. Being greatly concerned about nuclear > safety, the last paper that Dr. Edward Teller (designed the H bomb) wrote > before his death recommended this design. > > Also being greatly concerned about nuclear safety, the designer of the > light water reactor also fought for this design and was fired for pushing > too hard. > > Light water reactors are good at producing Pu239 which was important in > those days at the begining of the cold war. > > > These designs behave like a nuclear battery. In such a design, the core > supplies heat as required. The heat output of the design is load leveled. > > > The laws of nature regulate the nuclear reaction automatically and without > the possibility of error. > > > > If no heat is extracted then the plant goes subcritical and dormant. > > > > The core is the only part of the reactor that is below the sea. Reactor > automated core control and the power plant is on a surface barge or > platform that can be unmoored and remove to port if required to avoid a > strong hurricane. > > > > The core would remain underwater in a dormant shutdown state. > > > > Delayed heat remove from the core is enabled using a chimney effect where > heated water would rise to the surface through a large pipe. > > > > The surface turbo-generator rejects heat into the ocean surface and joins > the prevailing ocean current flow. > > > > Reactor refueling is simple and can be done automatically and waste > processing is integral to the reactor design were 99% of the nuclear fuel > is consumed. > > > > The underwater deployment is highly resistant to terrorism since the core > is maintained in a hot cell supported by robots. > > > > The core is deployed at a 100 meters depth and can withstand any natural > disaster (earthquake and associated wave generation) or the crash of any > sized plain no matter the size. > > > > > > Using water as a structural material will greatly reduce the size of the > plant minimizing the cost of structural material to a small fraction of the > size and cost of current reactors. > > > > > Such a plant is unlikely to be built because of a lack of heart and > incipient fear from many quarters. > > > Too bad the advice of the great men in American science was ignored for > political reasons… > > > > > > Regards: axil > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 10:33 PM, wrote: > >> In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Sun, 1 Apr 2012 23:17:19 -0400: >> Hi, >> [snip] >> >I think the problem can be addressed by putting emergency generators far >> >above the waterline, perhaps in the second story of the reactor building. >> >> I suggest building the entire reactor on the sea floor off shore. That >> way there >> would never be a shortage of cooling water, even if all electrical systems >> failed completely and permanently, provided of course that the design used >> gravity feed for the cooling water. If the reactor was far enough off >> shore, and >> deep enough, then tsunamis would go right over it, making little impact. >> >> Regards, >> >> Robin van Spaandonk >> >> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html >> >> >
Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster -- 34 meter tsunamis?
I believe that the design of the Fukushima reactors were Pre-Three Mile Island. I found this resent post on “The Nuclear Green Revolution” website. This story provides eyewitness on the scene details about the politics involved during the early days of Light Water Reactor development. This story give insight why the design of the Fukushima reactors were flawed in terms of safety. It is a story of human folly on the level of tragedy. http://nucleargreen.blogspot.com/2012/03/brief-history-of-light-water-reacto-to.html On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 2:35 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_M._Weinberg > > I looked up the name of the guy who I referred to as the father of the > light water reactor. > > Following in the tragedy and tradition of J. Robert Oppenheimer, a giant > of nuclear enegineering, Alvin M. Weinberg was crushed under the heal of > the plutonium madness at the beginning of the nuclear age were safty takes > a backseat to plutonium production. > > > IMHO, it is this plutonium madness of the cold war that is the primal seed > of the Fukushima disaster. > > On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 11:44 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > >> Both underwater and underground deployment of nuclear plants is ideal for >> certain types of nuclear designs that are totally passively controlled. >> This design is old and venerable. Being greatly concerned about nuclear >> safety, the last paper that Dr. Edward Teller (designed the H bomb) wrote >> before his death recommended this design. >> >> Also being greatly concerned about nuclear safety, the designer of the >> light water reactor also fought for this design and was fired for pushing >> too hard. >> >> Light water reactors are good at producing Pu239 which was important in >> those days at the begining of the cold war. >> >> >> These designs behave like a nuclear battery. In such a design, the core >> supplies heat as required. The heat output of the design is load leveled. >> >> >> The laws of nature regulate the nuclear reaction automatically and >> without the possibility of error. >> >> >> >> If no heat is extracted then the plant goes subcritical and dormant. >> >> >> >> The core is the only part of the reactor that is below the sea. Reactor >> automated core control and the power plant is on a surface barge or >> platform that can be unmoored and remove to port if required to avoid a >> strong hurricane. >> >> >> >> The core would remain underwater in a dormant shutdown state. >> >> >> >> Delayed heat remove from the core is enabled using a chimney effect where >> heated water would rise to the surface through a large pipe. >> >> >> >> The surface turbo-generator rejects heat into the ocean surface and joins >> the prevailing ocean current flow. >> >> >> >> Reactor refueling is simple and can be done automatically and waste >> processing is integral to the reactor design were 99% of the nuclear fuel >> is consumed. >> >> >> >> The underwater deployment is highly resistant to terrorism since the core >> is maintained in a hot cell supported by robots. >> >> >> >> The core is deployed at a 100 meters depth and can withstand any natural >> disaster (earthquake and associated wave generation) or the crash of any >> sized plain no matter the size. >> >> >> >> >> >> Using water as a structural material will greatly reduce the size of the >> plant minimizing the cost of structural material to a small fraction of the >> size and cost of current reactors. >> >> >> >> >> Such a plant is unlikely to be built because of a lack of heart and >> incipient fear from many quarters. >> >> >> Too bad the advice of the great men in American science was ignored for >> political reasons… >> >> >> >> >> >> Regards: axil >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 10:33 PM, wrote: >> >>> In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Sun, 1 Apr 2012 23:17:19 -0400: >>> Hi, >>> [snip] >>> >I think the problem can be addressed by putting emergency generators far >>> >above the waterline, perhaps in the second story of the reactor >>> building. >>> >>> I suggest building the entire reactor on the sea floor off shore. That >>> way there >>> would never be a shortage of cooling water, even if all electrical >>> systems >>> failed completely and permanently, provided of course that the design >>> used >>> gravity feed for the cooling water. If the reactor was far enough off >>> shore, and >>> deep enough, then tsunamis would go right over it, making little impact. >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Robin van Spaandonk >>> >>> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html >>> >>> >> >
Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster -- 34 meter tsunamis?
Axil Axil wrote: I believe that the design of the Fukushima reactors were Pre-Three Mile > Island. > As far as I know, the design of the reactor itself is not at fault. The accident was caused by the destruction of the backup power supplies. As far as I know, none of the commercial reactors now sold have passive cooling after shutdown. So any reactor would have the same problem. Even CANDU reactors have to be actively cooled. The Three Mile Island accident was caused by a defective reactor design, with a stuck valve and a badly designed instrument panel. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster -- 34 meter tsunamis?
Von: Axil Axil An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Gesendet: 21:20 Dienstag, 3.April 2012 Betreff: Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster -- 34 meter tsunamis? >I believe that the design of the Fukushima reactors were Pre-Three Mile Island >It is a story of human folly on the level of tragedy. Axil, You're probably right. Meanwhile there is the nth generation of nuclear reactors on the drawing board, which maybe are several orders of magnitude safer than the old ones. But this mutated into a story of a feeling of collective (UN)safety. Germany: "NoNo" Czechoslovakia: "Nuclear reactors are no problem" Spanish communities: "We welcome nuclear waste from all over Europe. Its a question of money. Pay us. Give us work, and we'll be happy to take care of the waste." (But the next generation mabe has a different idea. So WHO exactly has the right to decide on intergenerational issues?) I think , sort of a higher reason has to be at work in such a situation. Long-term. Cautious. But it does not seem to exist. Human decision-making seems to be driven by short-term fear and greed and not by rational long-term evaluation. Quite possibly this will kill us as a species. G.
Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster -- 34 meter tsunamis?
Any reactor larger than ca. 400 MWe needs active cooling system, because power output is larger that can be cooled down passively. However, 300 MWe and less can be cooled down after the shut down just submerging reactor into water, hence they are inherently safe. And there won't be reactor pressure vessel breach if active cooling fails. For example, Kursk's nuclear reactor did not suffer any damage in the accident and it is still fully operational reactor. It was kept cool by surrounding sea water. It would be best to have small modular reactors. However nowadays politicians count nuclear power as a number reactors. Hence they allow building new reactors one at the time and if number of individual reactors is limited, industry of course will build the biggest reactor on the market! For example, here in Finland politicians allowed to be build one (1) nuclear reactor into Olkiluoto, and of course industry chose to build one 1600 MWe EPR (world largest!) that is just waiting for Chernobyl/Fukushima scale disaster if every planned backups fails like they did fail in Chernobyl/Fukushima. Olkiluoto 3 EPR reactor was commercial failure, it is now some five years delayed, mostly because of the safety issues that are inherently extremely difficult and demanding for that scale reactor. It would be far more wise to build modular 5x300MWe reactors. Safety issues are much cheaper and the grid reliability is higher (single module can be maintained at the time while others are running), but it is almost impossible to get licence for five (5) nuclear reactors in current political atmosphere! ―Jouni On 3 Apr 2012, at 22:47, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Axil Axil wrote: > > I believe that the design of the Fukushima reactors were Pre-Three Mile > Island. > > As far as I know, the design of the reactor itself is not at fault. The > accident was caused by the destruction of the backup power supplies. > > As far as I know, none of the commercial reactors now sold have passive > cooling after shutdown. So any reactor would have the same problem. Even > CANDU reactors have to be actively cooled. > > The Three Mile Island accident was caused by a defective reactor design, with > a stuck valve and a badly designed instrument panel. > > - Jed >
Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster -- 34 meter tsunamis?
In engineering, the simplest design is usually the most elegant, prudent, safest, and cost effective design. The Light Water reactor design is a Rube Goldberg Machine design which leads to high cost and over complication. *The accident was caused by the destruction of the backup power supplies.* In a reactor design that does not have a need for a power supply then there is no chance for a problem with power supplies. *As far as I know, none of the commercial reactors now sold have passive cooling after shutdown.* China is building a completely passive waste free commercial reactor to be available in 10 years. His will blow the current Light water reactor builders out of the business. . The Chinese are not wedded to the past mistakes of the Americans. *The Three Mile Island accident was caused by a defective reactor design, with a stuck valve and a badly designed instrument panel.* If there is no valve needed in the design then the valve cannot get stuck. If there is no instrument panel needed then this panel cannot be misread. On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 3:47 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Axil Axil wrote: > > I believe that the design of the Fukushima reactors were Pre-Three Mile >> Island. >> > > As far as I know, the design of the reactor itself is not at fault. The > accident was caused by the destruction of the backup power supplies. > > As far as I know, none of the commercial reactors now sold have passive > cooling after shutdown. So any reactor would have the same problem. Even > CANDU reactors have to be actively cooled. > > The Three Mile Island accident was caused by a defective reactor design, > with a stuck valve and a badly designed instrument panel. > > - Jed > >
Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster -- 34 meter tsunamis?
Axil Axil wrote: In a reactor design that does not have a need for a power supply then there is no chance for a problem with power supplies. Yes. Right. We got it. However there are none available at present. Right? So why blame this particular design? Any currently available reactor would have failed in this accident. China is building a completely passive waste free commercial reactor to be available in 10 years. Okay, so in 10 years a solution will be here. Japan presently has 50 reactors turned off, and they cannot afford to replace them with Chinese reactors available in 10 years. Anyway, even if cold fusion does not succeed, I think there is no chance people will building uranium fission reactors 10 years from now. Certainly they will not be in Japan. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster -- 34 meter tsunamis?
*Any reactor larger than ca. 400 MWe needs active cooling system, because power output is larger that can be cooled down passively.* A good nuclear reactor design should be air cooled. Such as design can be upscaled to handle any cool down heat capacity. *And there won't be reactor pressure vessel breach if active cooling fails.* A good nuclear reactor design should be unpressurized, with no pressure vessel required. A good reactor design should be modular and be easily expandable from very small to very large without design complications. Such a design was prototyped back in 1969 demonstrated for a year and was discarded for political reasons China took this prototype design as the starting point for their main line commercial nuclear reactor development. > > Any reactor larger than ca. 400 MWe needs active cooling system, because > power output is larger that can be cooled down passively. However, 300 MWe > and less can be cooled down after the shut down just submerging reactor > into water, hence they are inherently safe. And there won't be reactor > pressure vessel breach if active cooling fails. For example, Kursk's > nuclear reactor did not suffer any damage in the accident and it is still > fully operational reactor. It was kept cool by surrounding sea water. > > It would be best to have small modular reactors. However nowadays > politicians count nuclear power as a number reactors. Hence they allow > building new reactors one at the time and if number of individual reactors > is limited, industry of course will build the biggest reactor on the > market! > > For example, here in Finland politicians allowed to be build one (1) > nuclear reactor into Olkiluoto, and of course industry chose to build one > 1600 MWe EPR (world largest!) that is just waiting for Chernobyl/Fukushima > scale disaster if every planned backups fails like they did fail in > Chernobyl/Fukushima. Olkiluoto 3 EPR reactor was commercial failure, it is > now some five years delayed, mostly because of the safety issues that are > inherently extremely difficult and demanding for that scale reactor. > > It would be far more wise to build modular 5x300MWe reactors. Safety > issues are much cheaper and the grid reliability is higher (single module > can be maintained at the time while others are running), but it is almost > impossible to get licence for five (5) nuclear reactors in current > political atmosphere! > >—Jouni > > > On 3 Apr 2012, at 22:47, Jed Rothwell wrote: > > Axil Axil wrote: > > I believe that the design of the Fukushima reactors were Pre-Three Mile >> Island. >> > > As far as I know, the design of the reactor itself is not at fault. The > accident was caused by the destruction of the backup power supplies. > > As far as I know, none of the commercial reactors now sold have passive > cooling after shutdown. So any reactor would have the same problem. Even > CANDU reactors have to be actively cooled. > > The Three Mile Island accident was caused by a defective reactor design, > with a stuck valve and a badly designed instrument panel. > > - Jed > >
Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster -- 34 meter tsunamis?
*Yes. Right. We got it. However there are none available at present. Right? So why blame this particular design? Any currently available reactor would have failed in this accident.* ** ** ** The design of such a reactor was deminstated back in 1969. FYI, the NRC will not license a reactor that is not based on a Light Water Reactor design. This killed the original 2008 self-regulating, uranium hydride reactor. >From Wikipedia Hydrogen Moderated Self-regulating Nuclear Power Module http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_Moderated_Self-regulating_Nuclear_Power_Module On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 4:37 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Axil Axil wrote: > > In a reactor design that does not have a need for a power supply then >> there is no chance for a problem with power supplies. >> >> > Yes. Right. We got it. However there are none available at present. Right? > So why blame this particular design? Any currently available reactor would > have failed in this accident. > > > > China is building a completely passive waste free commercial reactor to >> be available in 10 years. >> >> > Okay, so in 10 years a solution will be here. Japan presently has 50 > reactors turned off, and they cannot afford to replace them with Chinese > reactors available in 10 years. > > Anyway, even if cold fusion does not succeed, I think there is no chance > people will building uranium fission reactors 10 years from now. Certainly > they will not be in Japan. > > - Jed > >
Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster -- 34 meter tsunamis?
*Okay, so in 10 years a solution will be here. Japan presently has 50 reactors turned off, and they cannot afford to replace them with Chinese reactors available in 10 years.* * * * * * * *Anyway, even if cold fusion does not succeed, I think there is no chance people will building uranium fission reactors 10 years from now. Certainly they will not be in Japan.* Jed, you often lecture the critics of cold fusion because they have not put in the time to properly understand and apply LENR technology. I think you are suffering from the same lack of desire to educate yourself about nuclear power when you categorically reject nuclear power based on an incomplete education. The Japanese are smart people; they should not reject nuclear power based on the past mistakes and criminally deficient nuclear engineering of their American idols. Like China they should take their on fate in their own hands; they can devote some money and talent to direct their nuclear industry in the proper direction. It’s only a matter of applying some decent engineering to this need. On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 4:37 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Axil Axil wrote: > > In a reactor design that does not have a need for a power supply then >> there is no chance for a problem with power supplies. >> >> > Yes. Right. We got it. However there are none available at present. Right? > So why blame this particular design? Any currently available reactor would > have failed in this accident. > > > > China is building a completely passive waste free commercial reactor to >> be available in 10 years. >> >> > Okay, so in 10 years a solution will be here. Japan presently has 50 > reactors turned off, and they cannot afford to replace them with Chinese > reactors available in 10 years. > > Anyway, even if cold fusion does not succeed, I think there is no chance > people will building uranium fission reactors 10 years from now. Certainly > they will not be in Japan. > > - Jed > >
Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster -- 34 meter tsunamis?
Axil Axil wrote: > I think you are suffering from the same lack of desire to educate yourself > about nuclear power when you categorically reject nuclear power based on an > incomplete education. > I am not rejecting it so much as reporting that the Japanese public, mass media, and people living near reactors have rejected it. The people living in towns near nuclear reactors insist that they remain shut down. The central government must bow to their wishes. The Japanese are smart people; they should not reject nuclear power based > on the past mistakes and criminally deficient nuclear engineering of their > American idols. > 1. Perhaps they should not reject it but they have. 2. Americans are not their idols. 3. The problem in this case was Japanese site engineering (the placement of the diesel engine fuel tanks), not the American reactor. As I pointed out several times, any commercially available reactor would have failed under these circumstances. > Like China they should take their on fate in their own hands; they can > devote some money and talent to direct their nuclear industry in the proper > direction. > I think it would be more cost-effective to devote money and talent to conventional alternative energy. I'm sure the Japanese could build offshore wind turbines and rooftop solar at a far lower cost than nuclear energy. I would not have said that before the Fukushima disaster revealed the true dollar cost of nuclear energy. The average wind turbine a few years ago cost ~$2 million per MW of nameplate capacity. That's $2000/kw, but actual capacity is about one third of the nameplate so it $6000/kw. That is expensive, although it is cheaper than a nuclear power plant starting cost per kilowatt. Anyway, for the cost of this accident, ~$650 billion, you could buy about ~108 GW of wind generating capacity, which is about half of Japan's installed generator capacity, and far more than their nuclear capacity. Needless to say, the cost of wind power is falling rapidly, and long before you build 108 GW the cost would fall by a large margin. Even if it turns out the accident cost only half as much as people now estimate, you could easily replace all of Japan's nuclear power with offshore wind for the cost of this one accident. As I said to three more accident like this would go a long way to bankrupting the nation. Nuclear power is an economic sword of Damocles. I do not think anyone in his right might would build more fission reactors now that we have seen what they can do, and how impossible it is to clean up. Any Japanese politician who recommended more reactors would be voted out of office. That is not a problem in China where they do not have democracy or elections and the government can get away with anything it wants. The recent high speed train accident in turn illustrated this. The literally buried the evidence on site. They buried the smashed railcars in the ground. The public made a huge commotion so the government dug them up, moved them to a local station and covered them up again with tarps this time. Given their track record on safety, pollution and other issues I do not think you should hold the Chinese as a shining example to the world. The government is, after all, a ruthless dictatorship. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster -- 34 meter tsunamis?
*I am not rejecting it so much as reporting that the Japanese public, mass media, and people living near reactors have rejected it. The people living in towns near nuclear reactors insist that they remain shut down. The central government must bow to their wishes.* I am heartened to see that you reject simplistic generalization in your personal thinking. You are not the type of thinker that will throw out the baby with the bathwater. You do not reject the very concept of the automobile because GM once designed, built, and sold the 1961 Corvair or American Motors the 1970 Grenlin. But that is what the Japanese are doing. They bought a defective product and failed to upgrade it with a newer and safer model. Now the Japanese people will take to their feet and walk, painful and bleeding, the rutted road of energy production with yet another flawed technologies forced upon them. The Fukushima disaster is a failure of the Japanese government for taking the safer path, the easy road that will lead them into eventual national collapse. These hapless and incompetent bureaucrats wanted to squeeze the last possible kilowatt out of a pile of old nuclear junk. *I'm sure the Japanese could build offshore wind turbines and rooftop solar at a far lower cost than nuclear energy.* The Japanese will be at the tender mercies of the Chinese for the rare earth materials absolutely required to produce and manufacture this green stuff. But like Germany, they will be forced to buy it from the Chinese at whatever the market will bear. Be assured, the cost of goods from any cartel won’t come cheap. We are entering a new age of national Darwinism, where the decisions made now about energy production will determine if a country will long survive. Germany, Japan, France, and China have already sealed their fate. And by standing pat…by doing business as usual... the US can flood the skies with enough CO2 from burning their massive coal and gas reserves to destroy every coastal city on earth. So far, mankind has lacked the ability to think in a more nuanced way. The species lacks the ability to act in its long term interest, Such stupidity will reap its own grim fate. On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 6:28 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Axil Axil wrote: > > >> I think you are suffering from the same lack of desire to educate >> yourself about nuclear power when you categorically reject nuclear power >> based on an incomplete education. >> > > I am not rejecting it so much as reporting that the Japanese public, mass > media, and people living near reactors have rejected it. The people living > in towns near nuclear reactors insist that they remain shut down. The > central government must bow to their wishes. > > > The Japanese are smart people; they should not reject nuclear power based >> on the past mistakes and criminally deficient nuclear engineering of their >> American idols. >> > > 1. Perhaps they should not reject it but they have. > > 2. Americans are not their idols. > > 3. The problem in this case was Japanese site engineering (the placement > of the diesel engine fuel tanks), not the American reactor. As I pointed > out several times, any commercially available reactor would have failed > under these circumstances. > > > >> Like China they should take their on fate in their own hands; they can >> devote some money and talent to direct their nuclear industry in the proper >> direction. >> > > I think it would be more cost-effective to devote money and talent to > conventional alternative energy. I'm sure the Japanese could build offshore > wind turbines and rooftop solar at a far lower cost than nuclear energy. I > would not have said that before the Fukushima disaster revealed the true > dollar cost of nuclear energy. > > The average wind turbine a few years ago cost ~$2 million per MW of > nameplate capacity. That's $2000/kw, but actual capacity is about one > third of the nameplate so it $6000/kw. That is expensive, although it is > cheaper than a nuclear power plant starting cost per kilowatt. Anyway, for > the cost of this accident, ~$650 billion, you could buy about ~108 GW of > wind generating capacity, which is about half of Japan's installed > generator capacity, and far more than their nuclear capacity. Needless to > say, the cost of wind power is falling rapidly, and long before you build > 108 GW the cost would fall by a large margin. > > Even if it turns out the accident cost only half as much as people now > estimate, you could easily replace all of Japan's nuclear power with > offshore wind for the cost of this one accident. As I said to three more > accident like this would go a long way to bankrupting the nation. Nuclear > power is an economic sword of Damocles. > > I do not think anyone in his right might would build more fission reactors > now that we have seen what they can do, and how impossible it is to clean > up. Any Japanese politician who recommended more reactors would
Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster -- 34 meter tsunamis?
You really think people know what they want? The vast majority of people don't think cold fusion is possible, and an even larger amount don't care and focus on issues that don't matter. Most people reject cold fusion, so we should invest no money into it because it would be a waste of money? A democracy is a horrible form of government. Dictatorships are much better, and you don't have people making decisions based on irrational fear and emotions. Offshore wind costs at least twice as much as onshore, and advances in technology like solar is relying on could just as easily help nuclear. As the best spots for wind are taken up, the price will go up again. On Apr 3, 2012, at 5:28 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Axil Axil wrote: > > I think you are suffering from the same lack of desire to educate yourself > about nuclear power when you categorically reject nuclear power based on an > incomplete education. > > I am not rejecting it so much as reporting that the Japanese public, mass > media, and people living near reactors have rejected it. The people living in > towns near nuclear reactors insist that they remain shut down. The central > government must bow to their wishes. > > > The Japanese are smart people; they should not reject nuclear power based on > the past mistakes and criminally deficient nuclear engineering of their > American idols. > > 1. Perhaps they should not reject it but they have. > > 2. Americans are not their idols. > > 3. The problem in this case was Japanese site engineering (the placement of > the diesel engine fuel tanks), not the American reactor. As I pointed out > several times, any commercially available reactor would have failed under > these circumstances. > > > Like China they should take their on fate in their own hands; they can devote > some money and talent to direct their nuclear industry in the proper > direction. > > I think it would be more cost-effective to devote money and talent to > conventional alternative energy. I'm sure the Japanese could build offshore > wind turbines and rooftop solar at a far lower cost than nuclear energy. I > would not have said that before the Fukushima disaster revealed the true > dollar cost of nuclear energy. > > The average wind turbine a few years ago cost ~$2 million per MW of nameplate > capacity. That's $2000/kw, but actual capacity is about one third of the > nameplate so it $6000/kw. That is expensive, although it is cheaper than a > nuclear power plant starting cost per kilowatt. Anyway, for the cost of this > accident, ~$650 billion, you could buy about ~108 GW of wind generating > capacity, which is about half of Japan's installed generator capacity, and > far more than their nuclear capacity. Needless to say, the cost of wind power > is falling rapidly, and long before you build 108 GW the cost would fall by a > large margin. > > Even if it turns out the accident cost only half as much as people now > estimate, you could easily replace all of Japan's nuclear power with offshore > wind for the cost of this one accident. As I said to three more accident like > this would go a long way to bankrupting the nation. Nuclear power is an > economic sword of Damocles. > > I do not think anyone in his right might would build more fission reactors > now that we have seen what they can do, and how impossible it is to clean up. > Any Japanese politician who recommended more reactors would be voted out of > office. That is not a problem in China where they do not have democracy or > elections and the government can get away with anything it wants. The recent > high speed train accident in turn illustrated this. The literally buried the > evidence on site. They buried the smashed railcars in the ground. The public > made a huge commotion so the government dug them up, moved them to a local > station and covered them up again with tarps this time. > > Given their track record on safety, pollution and other issues I do not think > you should hold the Chinese as a shining example to the world. The government > is, after all, a ruthless dictatorship. > > - Jed >
Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster -- 34 meter tsunamis?
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 7:28 PM, Jarold McWilliams wrote: > A democracy is a horrible form of government. > Sad but true. > Dictatorships are much better, and you don't have people making decisions > based on irrational fear and emotions. > Dictatorships are better governments, until they're not. And they have a bad habit of being overthrown in violent revolutions and coups. If I were to place a long bet on the stability of a country, I would go with the helter-skelter of a democracy over the forced calm of an unrepresentative dictatorship. As Churchill once remarked, "it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." Nonetheless, I suspect the democracies of the world are going to have to get their acts together and impose a little authoritarian discipline upon themselves in order to survive in the emerging global order. Here's to hoping that cold fusion will throw a complete wrench in the works and wreak delightful havoc. Eric
Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster -- 34 meter tsunamis?
If a thief wanted to steal wholesale the wealth of a community, he would first disable the cop on the beat and make sure that this source of property protection is disabled for as long as possible. In like manner, if a competitor country wanted to steal the commercial base of another country, first it would buy politicos to relax trade and corporate regulations to motivate the tendency of corporate officers to look to their own self interests in a me first management attitude and then motivate his company to transfer jobs and technology to the bandit country. Forign contributions to Super-packs are secret and may well be used by a bandit country to accomplish this subversive trade strategy. The best type of Congress for the international transfer of wealth from a victim country to the bandit country is one in governmental gridlock. The best type of executive branch is one that relaxes or removes corporate regulations to give the ‘me first’ corporate executive his full head and allows him to ignore his duty to his country to pad his own bank account. Ironically, the lobbyists employed by the bandit country can say they want to maximize liberty for all the people living in the victim country as they pick their pockets clean. On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 12:07 AM, Eric Walker wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 7:28 PM, Jarold McWilliams wrote: > > >> A democracy is a horrible form of government. >> > > Sad but true. > > >> Dictatorships are much better, and you don't have people making decisions >> based on irrational fear and emotions. >> > > Dictatorships are better governments, until they're not. And they have a > bad habit of being overthrown in violent revolutions and coups. If I were > to place a long bet on the stability of a country, I would go with the > helter-skelter of a democracy over the forced calm of > an unrepresentative dictatorship. As Churchill once remarked, "it has been > said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other > forms that have been tried from time to time." > > Nonetheless, I suspect the democracies of the world are going to have to > get their acts together and impose a little authoritarian discipline upon > themselves in order to survive in the emerging global order. Here's to > hoping that cold fusion will throw a complete wrench in the works and wreak > delightful havoc. > > Eric > >