Meanwhile, a few miles from Hong Kong's teeming millions...

[kristopher]

China Guangdong Nuclear Says Leak at Daya Has No Impact on Environment
By Bloomberg News -

Radiation that leaked from Daya Bay nuclear power station, China’s first large-scale atomic generator, poses no danger to the environment, the public or plant workers, said China Guangdong Nuclear Power Group Co.

The leak, detected on Oct. 23, was caused by a fault at a pipeline bearing coolant from the No. 1 reactor, the state-owned company said on its website today. The fault has been fixed since it was found on Oct. 26, Guangdong Nuclear said.

The leak is Daya Bay’s second following a leakage from a fuel rod in May. The No. 1 reactor has been shut since Oct. 22 for scheduled maintenance, Guangdong Nuclear, which owns 75 percent of the plant, said today.

Guangdong Nuclear classified the leak as a “level one” incident, the least serious on a scale of one to seven set by the International Atomic Energy Agency. ...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-15/china-nuclear-plant-workers-exposed-to-radiation-south-china-post-reports.html

And you know it is nothing because Guangdong Nuclear told you so. Remember, you can trust the nuclear industry just like you trust your mother.

[madokie]

1. Just think when they get a thousand of these babies

air'll be clear as a whistle but the land will be toxic, good move idiots...

[kristopher]

2. To shift to a nuclear energy system

Would require bringing a new large reactor on line every other day for 50 years...

[madokie]

3. you shit'n me?

we all better figure out a better way of going about our lives because we're definitely going to kill the world we live in otherwise at that rate.

Just wait until one of our old nuke plants takes out a large number of people then we'll see how many are willing to take a chance on any more. Having been around machines of some sort most of my life I have to say that the chances is pretty great for a major fuck up with one or our 100 or so reactors. Especially when they are trying to get twenty more years out of them. metal fatigues just like anything else does. different metals at different rates but all metals are subject fo failure at any moment and as that piece of metal goes through a long time at a high or low temperature or from low to high temps and pressures all of that has an effect on that piece of metal. I say we need to get our asses in gear and start funding and building alternates to the nuke plants we have already, piss on adding to that number too. Some government mandates on efficiency is one place we can do a lot in a pretty short period of time, personal habits would help a bunch too. Many of those who it would work for, EV's would be a big help. Nothing that the wife and I do anymore requires more than a 100 miles range, 99% or our days would requires 25 or 30 miles of driving at most. For every gallon of gas burned 20 some pounds of co2 is releassed into the air and I'll bet you anything that to make the electric to go the distance a gallon of gas goes wouldn't make a pound of co2 at a power plant.

Nuclear wasn't right 50 - 60 years ago and many of us knew that back then. what tipped us off was when we started to ask about the waste we were, well you can say we seen early on that we'd hit a nerve. That there was a lot more to worry with there than they wanted us to know so instead of trying to educate the people as to the dangers they chose to mislead us, treat us as we were too stupid to understand when in truth it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out when something is hurting you to get away from it. I don't have to know the hows and whys of nuclear energy to understand that I don't want to trade the security of having electric power for the security of having land to live on thats under my feet right now. I mean how difficult is it to be able to figure out that some of the waste from nuclear plants is some dangerous shit that needs many years of safe secure storage, something btw we, actually they, haven't figured out how to do just yet. Its a hole to throw money into and one with the potential to making a large section of land uninhabitable for many years. Its insane to have even gone there to begin with.

[Confusious]

7. There's this thing called maintance, and thats where

People check for those things.

There's also techniques that use X rays and ultrasound to find the problems before they start.

They're pretty common.

[TheWraith]

15. Yes, he is bullshitting you actually.

That assumes that you would need one gigawatt of electricity to replace every gigawatt of thermal energy in fossil fuels. Most of that thermal energy--in cars, in fuel-burning power plants, etcetera--is wasted. In fact, you would likely only need a third or less of what he describes. Which is no worse, economically speaking, than the several million wind turbines needed to generate the same energy.

By the way, as far as "taking out a large number of people," it doesn't seem like anyone here cares very much that pollution from coal plants kills an estimated 40,000 people a year in the US, which is five to ten Chernobyls. Every year. Just in the US.

[XemaSab]

4. Are you going to tell us how many windmills and solar panels are needed?

Or is the manufacture problem only with nuclear? :shrug:

[joshcryer]

5. Yes, or almost a thousand wind turbines, and hundreds of CSP and solar plants, daily.

[joshcryer]

6. But *now* we know your metric for shifting to different energy systems. 50 YEARS.

2060 we'll have clean energy. Fucking yippee.

[Confusious]

8. If you want to include the entire world, which of course you do.

If you include only the United States, it's a thousand, which you won't mention.

As we are the largest producer of CO2, that would go a long way to slow global warming.

[OnlinePoker]

9. Actually, to replace conventional thermal, it's less than half that

In 2008, the 104 U.S. nuclear plants generated 806,208 Bkwh of electricity
Conventional Thermal (coal, gas) generated 2,926,731 Bkwh, 3.63 times as much.

3.63 x 104 gives 378 as the number of extra nuclear plants of a similar size to the current ones that would have to be constructed to replace coal and gas with today's generating capacity.

Actually, what really needs to be done is to cut consumption. Between 1980 and 2008, U.S. population increased by 34.7%. Consumption of electricity over the same time went up 86.5%. Something has to give and a big factor that could influence the need to build new plants is conservation. Like everything, it seems people think electricity has an endless supply. They don't think about where it comes from and what it takes to get it to their outlets.

[joshcryer]

10. Yeah, conservation promises to be the most cost effective way, too.

But we're too sorry to require better building standards, oh nos.

[Kolesar]

14. Architects are on board with energy efficiency and conservation

New commercial construction is going to become profoundly more energy efficient.

[kristopher]

11. The "10,000 plants" and 50 year timeline are from a presentation by DOE Sec. Chu

He made a presentation in 2005 on his area of research (biomass as energy storage) where he DISMISSED nuclear energy as a solution to climate change by dedicating 1/2 of a slide to this:

Nuclear Fission

WASTE & PROLIFERATION

10 TW = 10,000 new 1 GW reactors: i.e., a new reactor every other day for the next 50 years

If you have a beef, take it up with him.

[OnlinePoker]

12. I was replying to the post about needing 1000 new plants in the U.S.

I only did the math to say that it was not necessary to build that many at the current rate of consumption.

As my post also said, conservation is where the real savings should be as the U.S. has become a nation of power hogs, increasing consumption at over twice the rate of the population increase. I know where I grew up, there used to be a street light on every second power pole. Now there is one on every pole "for safety". As a kid, I never felt unsafe walking that street at night. Nobody got robbed, raped or hit by cars (no sidewalks, either). You could actually see the stars at night. The urban light bubble has invaded even that small city and the stars have blinked out.

[madokie]

13. Conservation is where we can get the biggest bang for our buck

I'd say nearly all the street lights today could be solar powered and that would be enough to be able to see a change in our need for energy. Thats just one example there are many more.

[TheWraith]

16. Which gives away the fact that you're being dishonest, because Chu is pro-nuclear.

He's one of the administration's loudest advocates in favor of expanding nuclear power.

[kristopher]

19. Are you denying that Chu's chosen area of research is solar energy storage via biomass?

Or are you denying that he used precisely the quote I provided to dismiss nuclear as a sustainable solution to our energy needs?

Those are not disputable facts.

He has promoted nuclear energy as Sec of the DOE, but that job is a political appointment, and the fact that he not only did not pursue research in nuclear energy but is even on the record rejecting it in favor of solar would seem to me to indicate what his true beliefs are.

If you choose to interpret it differently be my guest.

[TheWraith]

25. What a wonderfully selective interpretation you have there.

It ignores the fact that Chu has been a very loud advocate of nuclear power since long before he became Energy Secretary.

http://www.ne.doe.gov/pdfFiles/rpt_SustainableEnergyFuture_Aug2008.pdf

You're also redefining "solar power" to now include biofuels.

[kristopher]

26. He signed that as Director of a National Lab getting significant funding for nuclear

His words expressing his personal opinion are quite clear when he dismissed it:
Nuclear Fission

WASTE & PROLIFERATION

10 TW = 10,000 new 1 GW reactors: i.e., a new reactor every other day for the next 50 years

And the link between solar and biomass as a medium for storage of solar is how HE views the issue. He applies his expertise (and the work that won him the Nobel Prize) to helping solve AGW with bioengineering.

His words:
"Chemical Fuel From Solar Energy"

[NickB79]

27. "Chemical Fuel From Solar Energy"

Wouldn't that definition also include coal, oil and natural gas? They're all chemical fuels storing solar energy (albeit from hundreds of millions of years ago).

[kristopher]

28. Is that what you think Chu was referring to in describing his work?

[NickB79]

29. I think Chu chose a poor title to describe his work in this instance. nt

[kristopher]

30. To me that implies you are not familiar with the nature of his accomplishments.

[TheWraith]

36. So your interpretation of one half of a PowerPoint slide speaks more to his opinions...

...than, say, his 2005 interview in which he explicitly talks about the importance of nuclear power? And where he outlines the waste and proliferation issues as arguments for nuclear fuel reprocessing?

http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2005/10/03_chu.shtml

Should fission-based nuclear power plants be made a bigger part of the energy-producing portfolio?

Absolutely. Right now about 20 percent of our power comes from nuclear; there have been no new nuclear plants built since the early '70s. The real rational fears against nuclear power are about the long-term waste problem and proliferation. The technology of separating and putting the good stuff back in to the reactor can also be used to make bomb material.

And then there's the waste problem: with future nuclear power plants, we've got to recycle the waste. Why? Because if you take all the waste we have now from our civilian and military nuclear operations, we'd fill up Yucca Mountain. ... So we need three or four Yucca Mountains. Well, we don't have three or four Yucca Mountains. The other thing is that storing the fuel at Yucca Mountain is supposed to be safe for 10,000 years. But the current best estimates - and these are really estimates, the Lab's in fact - is that the metal casings will probably fail on a scale of 5,000 years, plus or minus 2. That's still a long time, and then after that the idea was that the very dense rock, very far away from the water table will contain it, so that by the time it finally leaks down to the water table and gets out the radioactivity will have mostly decayed.

Suppose instead that we can reduce the lifetime of the radioactive waste by a factor of 1,000. So it goes from a couple-hundred-thousand-year problem to a thousand-year problem. At a thousand years, even though that's still a long time, it's in the realm that we can monitor - we don't need Yucca Mountain.

And all of a sudden the risk-benefit equation looks pretty good for nuclear.

Right now, compared to conventional coal, it looks good - what are the lesser of two evils? But if we can reduce the volume and the lifetime of the waste, that would tip it very much against conventional coal.

[kristopher]

37. That sounds a lot like the "If a frog had wings..." metaphor...

Before he gets to the "Suppose... instead" he sums up the CURRENT reality:

And then there's the waste problem: with future nuclear power plants, we've got to recycle the waste. Why? Because if you take all the waste we have now from our civilian and military nuclear operations, we'd fill up Yucca Mountain. ... So we need three or four Yucca Mountains. Well, we don't have three or four Yucca Mountains. The other thing is that storing the fuel at Yucca Mountain is supposed to be safe for 10,000 years. But the current best estimates - and these are really estimates, the Lab's in fact - is that the metal casings will probably fail on a scale of 5,000 years, plus or minus 2. That's still a long time, and then after that the idea was that the very dense rock, very far away from the water table will contain it, so that by the time it finally leaks down to the water table and gets out the radioactivity will have mostly decayed.


And I don't know what universe he is living in, but 1000 years ago we were in the beginnings of the Dark Ages, so to glibly say that "it's in the realm that we can monitor" is sheer lunacy.

[TheWraith]

38. No, it sounds like the practical difference between recycling waste and not recycling it.

Which is the entire point he was making about the waste problem. Given the fact that you've already been shot down for completely misrepresenting his positions and beliefs once in this thread, do you really want to try it again?

[NNadir]

17. If you don't know what you're talking about, make stuff up.

Radioactivity is measurable and its risks are known.

While the anti-nuke cults lay around terrorized by their own ignorance, the leading cause of death on this planet for children under five is respiratory distress, caused by burning biomass, largely.

I'd quote the reference, but it would be over your tiny little heads.

Have a nice day ducking from beta particles!!!!

[madokie]

18. Thats all?

you're slipping. Are you sick, not feeling well? If thats the case eat lots of campbells chicken noodle soup and drink lots of water and get lots of rest and you should feel better in a day or two. so sad to hear of someone here under the weather :-)

[kristopher]

20. As well as I can understand what he means...

Since the only mention of biomass on this thread is when it was pointed out that Chu was researching solar energy storage via biomass, I think he just implied that Sec Chu wants children to die from "respiratory distress".

[NNadir]

21. Yeah. That's all. It's not like offering dogmatists is a useful enterprise. The claim from

an anti-social solipsist with no education to care about children doesn't deserve much more than that, does it.

Like I said, the largest killer of children under 5 on this planet involves air pollution, not that there is ONE dumb uneducated anti-nuke on this planet who gives a fuck.

There is consistent evidence that exposure to indoor air pollution increases the risk of pneumonia among children under five years, and chronic respiratory disease and lung cancer (in relation to coal use) among adults over 30 years old. The evidence for a link with lung cancer from exposure to biomass smoke, and for a link with asthma, cataracts and tuberculosis was considered moderate. On the basis of the limited available studies, there is tentative evidence for an association between indoor air pollution and adverse pregnancy outcomes, in particular low birth weight, or ischaemic heart disease and nasopharyngeal and laryngeal cancers.

While the precise mechanism of how exposure causes disease is still unclear, it is known that small particles and several of the other pollutants contained in indoor smoke cause inflammation of the airways and lungs and impair the immune response. Carbon monoxide also results in systemic effects by reducing the oxygen-carrying capacity of the blood.

Pneumonia and other acute lower respiratory infections.

Globally, pneumonia and other acute lower respiratory infections represent the single most important cause of death in children under five years. Exposure to indoor air pollution more than doubles the risk of pneumonia and is thus responsible for more than 900 000 of the 2 million annual deaths from pneumonia.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs292/en/index.html">The World Health Organization on the World's Biggest Threat to Children.

Anti-nukes a morally and intellectually vapid lot in general, but are never quite so annoying when they claim to give a fuck about the future of humanity, which is, in fact, involved very much with the fate of our children.

Now nobody objects to people <em>not</em> having children. That said, I have yet to meet an anti-nuke with a big mouth and and tiny mind - and there are no other kinds - who knows a child, never mind cares about a child. It's easy to see why, as well. Like I said, they're almost all solipsists, entirely unaware of the world around them.

Have a nice evening by the pool next to the solar pool light.

[kristopher]

22. That is an excellent example of the misuse of science.

You provide a lot of those, you know.

Here is why this particular instance is on the list.

Yes, the use of wood and manure as an energy source for cooking in third world countries is a health hazard.

No, that is not what Chu is working towards.

No, nuclear power will not help alleviate those problems since the places where this problem not only cannot afford the extremely high price of nuclear power, but they also can't afford to build a grid to distribute the power.

However, as the advanced countries continue to press for increasing capacity in renewable energy, the price continues to drop. That will soon make distributed energy a viable, inexpensive way to dramatically improve the lives of those you profess concerned for.

Nuclear power, which you claim will help them, has shown that the more we build, the more the price escalates.





And before you say "what about France"; it too has followed the same pattern of prices increasing, not decreasing.

[NNadir]

23. How would you know?

I spend my life in conversations involving science, pretty much every damn day.

I am acutely aware of what does and does not involve competence in making a scientific judgement.

This isn't a scientific conversation. It's a circus diversion because I'm tired from a four day business trip involved with, um, science, and need to have some fun.

There's nothing more fun than hanging out with Stan Laurel, straight man.

[kristopher]

24. I'm sorry but I've never heard of science that is based on misrepresenting the data.

That is what you did with the inappropriate attempt to link the article on third world deaths from indoor pollution to the work that Chu has done on biomass as a vehicle for solar energy storage.

The primary quality underpinning all science is a dedication to truth. That was lacking in your effort, so it was a misuse of "science" when you attempt to use that dedication as validation of your spin.

[NNadir]

31. I would, or course, agree totally with your statement if...

...you would truncate the sentance to "I'm sorry but I've never heard of science." Note the use of the period. Thus constructed, you would be stating something that is obviously true.

[kristopher]

32. Perhaps you could explain this then?

Vestas calls itself in its company reports, the Vestas OIL, GAS and WIND company.

Posted by NNadir on Sat Oct-16-10 09:29 PM

Vestas, OIL, GAS and wind company.

They know what they are, even if mathematically illiterate purveyors of self delusion and indifference don't.

It's notable that this piece of shit dangerous fossil fuel company suffered huge losses in the middle of the decade for being required to meet five year warranties on their worthless hunks of metal.

Their "solution" to this problem with their reliability did not lead them to improve the crappy gearboxes on their subsidized garbage, but rather to reduce the warranty period from five years to two years.

It is interesting to note that the most transparently dishonest people are the first to accuse others of dishonesty.

Have a nice day.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=261737&mesg_id=262014

They were never in fossil fuel, they started in engineering
Posted by muriel_volestrangler on Sun Oct-17-10 06:17 AM

NNadir was talking a load of complete bollocks about 'oil and gas'.

# 1898 - Vestas founded by H.S. Hansen, a blacksmith, in the small town of Lem in Denmark. He and his son, Peder Hansen, manufactured steel windows for industrial buildings.
# 1945 - Peder Hansen established the company VEstjyskSTålteknik A/S, whose name was shortened to Vestas. The new company, which initially made household appliances, started to produce agricultural equipment.
# 1970s - During the second oil crisis, Vestas began to examine the potential of the wind turbine as an alternative source of clean energy.
# 1979 - Vestas delivered the first wind turbines. The industry experienced a genuine boom at the start of the 1980s, but in 1986 Vestas was forced to suspend payments because the market in the United States was destroyed due to the expiration of a special tax legislation that provided advantageous conditions for the establishment of wind turbines.

http://www.vestas.com/en/about-vestas/profile/vestas-brief-history.aspx

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x261737#262053

No, you are very, very wrong; they have NEVER been a fossil fuel company
Posted by muriel_volestrangler on Sun Oct-17-10 06:14 AM

Vestas is a wind turbine company. It does not sell oil or gas. It never has. What it says, in one part of its website, is "Wind, Oil and Gas is Vestas’ vision, which expresses the ambition of making wind an energy source on a par with fossil fuels." So, they want to be as big as the huge oil and gas companies that supply so much of the world's energy. That's where the 'oil and gas' phrase comes from.

I realise that you're hoping no-one will check to see what your link says, because you're counting on them thinking "yet another boring piece of crap from NNadir, why bother looking?", but you are being highly misleading.

It is not a fossil fuel company. Your claim is incorrect, wrong and misleading. You have the gall to accuse others of dishonesty in the same post. You have no shame.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x261737#262052

[jpak]

35. So - are you a scientist or do you just think you have invented a molten salt breeder reactor?

:rofl:

[jpak]

34. The risks of radiation are known and no level is considered safe

yup

[jpak]

33. The benevolent authorities have spoken - now move along

and eat local seafood - because our dear leaders say it's safe

yup