Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Subject: Nuclear power debate: yes or no?
I was looking for the answer but can't find any info at all.
thx.. :-) I hope that it can settle down.... :-( but atoms are not stone :-(
anyway, it can be in ocean thousands years.. right ? so fishes can be less good for health as it is now :-(
or not ?
or not ?
This is also a nice video :)
wwow, this is cool :P
lol :D
wwow, this is cool :P
lol :D
anyway, it can be in ocean thousands years.. right ? so fishes can be less good for health as it is now :-(
I won't eat fish caught near japan at the moment. But if you know what already has been dumbed in the ocean you get scared of everything out of it ;) But yes, everything extra in the ocean that wasn't in it before makes it worse, however small.
(edited)
I won't eat fish caught near japan at the moment. But if you know what already has been dumbed in the ocean you get scared of everything out of it ;) But yes, everything extra in the ocean that wasn't in it before makes it worse, however small.
(edited)
Well, these radioactive isotopes are solved in the water; so normally they will stay in there. If you are boiling the whole sea, they will go to the atmosphere; but only minimal (read: you can't even measure) amount can reach the clouds.
edit: an example: if you have a glass of salted water, the salt will stay in the glass and won't go to the air. Technically these isotopes are the same material as the salt.
(edited)
edit: an example: if you have a glass of salted water, the salt will stay in the glass and won't go to the air. Technically these isotopes are the same material as the salt.
(edited)
Ultimately it will partially end up in the fish population as well. The main problem is usually predator fish meat - even without regard to radiation pollution - that kind of collect all the toxic substances of the food chain that came before them.
That's why for example shark meat is one of the worst fish meat types you can eat because it contains most toxic substances.
That's why for example shark meat is one of the worst fish meat types you can eat because it contains most toxic substances.
I admire your patience trying to talk to some very ignorant people here, but its really a waste of time:)
I look at this very positive after all, some of them will be close to the next big accident, which will surely happen. Simply statistical propability:P
I look at this very positive after all, some of them will be close to the next big accident, which will surely happen. Simply statistical propability:P
I agree that we should start build just clean PP (powerplants)... (that videos looks nice :-) ) I just think that stopping all nuclear PP now is not possible and silly step...
If governments of all states are able to build just clean PP, after 20-30 years we can stop all old nuclear PP.
But this is maybe fairy-tale :-( nice dream. Try to force for example France or in future Iran :-) completely turn from nuclear to clean energy :-)
But if there is voting I would vote for clean energy, just era of replace have to take more time, step by step.
If governments of all states are able to build just clean PP, after 20-30 years we can stop all old nuclear PP.
But this is maybe fairy-tale :-( nice dream. Try to force for example France or in future Iran :-) completely turn from nuclear to clean energy :-)
But if there is voting I would vote for clean energy, just era of replace have to take more time, step by step.
I'm not ignorant - I've studied chemistry and that means I already was in a working nuclear reactor... :P
Why do you only thank Charles? Other people were also patient with you. ;)
You guys ever heard about Deep Green Underwater Kite? Google it out, really interesting stuff.
New study: Emissions from fossil power plants, cars and agriculture kills 3400 each year in Denmark alone and 600.000 in the EU. http://jp.dk/indland/article2382885.ece (in Danish unfortunately). The cost for the Danish society is estimated at 28 bill. kroner ~ 3,75 bill. euros a year. At that prize we could build a state of the art nuclear reactor each year effectively ending our demand for fossil fuels in less than a decade. Then we just need to make our cars run on the cheap and plentyful nuclear powered electricity. Or on the biofuel suddenly not needed for power production. And just like that... Danish CO2-emissions are as good as gone - instead of beeing among the highest per capita in the world, even beating USA if we consider Danish shipping a part of our CO2-footprint.
About the future of renewables:
It's always exctiting with new tehcnologies in renewables. What I almost never hear anything about when these are presented is prize and practicability. More modern wind mills for example won't make the biggest inherent problem with wind power go away: That it's only available when the wind blows - and not when we need it. Denmark already has a share of 20% wind power of total electrical power production, and it gives us quite a bit of headaches already. Besides the need for backup power from fossil fuelled plants (and Swedish and German nuclear power plants) we have a hard time making use of the wind power when it's really windy. Much of it is exported at dumping prizes, and this in only possible, because none of neighbours has an equal share of wind power but instead rely on a steady and controllable supply of energy from fossils, nuclear and hydroelectricity.
(edited)
About the future of renewables:
It's always exctiting with new tehcnologies in renewables. What I almost never hear anything about when these are presented is prize and practicability. More modern wind mills for example won't make the biggest inherent problem with wind power go away: That it's only available when the wind blows - and not when we need it. Denmark already has a share of 20% wind power of total electrical power production, and it gives us quite a bit of headaches already. Besides the need for backup power from fossil fuelled plants (and Swedish and German nuclear power plants) we have a hard time making use of the wind power when it's really windy. Much of it is exported at dumping prizes, and this in only possible, because none of neighbours has an equal share of wind power but instead rely on a steady and controllable supply of energy from fossils, nuclear and hydroelectricity.
(edited)
That's true. Especially wind and solar energy suffer from this problem. However, there are ways to solve this.
In my opinion the most promising solution is using energy storage technology that is already existing, mainly in the form of pump storage power stations. These are usually connected with hydro electric power plants.
There's currently a discussion in Germany to install a strong power network to Norway because there's a lot of possibility to install pump storage power stations or re-structure hydro electric power stations to use them as pump storage as well. This way Norway would serve as a battery for Europe.
The idea is to store the wind and solar energy (or whatever else) e.g. in summer when there's less need to be able to use use in winter time when there's less energy income from renewable sources.
Of course this again makes countries dependent from other countries. I don't see it as a big problem within the EU though.
Other interesting ideas are Desertec in Africa and Solar Grand Plan in the USA.
In my opinion the most promising solution is using energy storage technology that is already existing, mainly in the form of pump storage power stations. These are usually connected with hydro electric power plants.
There's currently a discussion in Germany to install a strong power network to Norway because there's a lot of possibility to install pump storage power stations or re-structure hydro electric power stations to use them as pump storage as well. This way Norway would serve as a battery for Europe.
The idea is to store the wind and solar energy (or whatever else) e.g. in summer when there's less need to be able to use use in winter time when there's less energy income from renewable sources.
Of course this again makes countries dependent from other countries. I don't see it as a big problem within the EU though.
Other interesting ideas are Desertec in Africa and Solar Grand Plan in the USA.
There are a lot of creative solutions beeing proposed to store the excess production from wind mills. And using hydroelectricity as a "battery" is certainly one of the best proposals out there.
But again it all comes down to prize and practicability. The prize for wind power - and the impact on the environment - goes up dramatically when taking such solutions into the equation. And the safety level goes dramatically down. Again I'll just remind people, that the worst catastrophies in the history of power production comes from breaking dams. Just last year about 50 workers were killed in an accident at a hydroelectric facility in Russia. It's almost the same as was the case at Chernobyl, but it never made it to the front pages of any Danish newspaper.
A bit about major dam failures in history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dam_failure#List_of_major_dam_failures
(edited)
But again it all comes down to prize and practicability. The prize for wind power - and the impact on the environment - goes up dramatically when taking such solutions into the equation. And the safety level goes dramatically down. Again I'll just remind people, that the worst catastrophies in the history of power production comes from breaking dams. Just last year about 50 workers were killed in an accident at a hydroelectric facility in Russia. It's almost the same as was the case at Chernobyl, but it never made it to the front pages of any Danish newspaper.
A bit about major dam failures in history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dam_failure#List_of_major_dam_failures
(edited)
An interresting point I just discovered.
The Japanese earthquake also caused a damfailure: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fujinuma_Dam
Quote from the article:
In the early morning of 12 March 2011, the dam failed, reportedly due to the Tōhoku earthquake. Locals reported hearing a loud burst before seeing a flood. The flood washed away five houses while damaging others, disabling a bridge and blocked roads with debris. Eight people were missing and four bodies were discovered after searches began at dawn.
So dams busting due to the earthquake has already caused more deaths than the triple meltdown at Fukushima is likely to cause. But I haven't heard anything about it so far. And I highly doubt this will make us reconsider the safety of hydroelectricity and deem it unsafe for the future.
The Japanese earthquake also caused a damfailure: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fujinuma_Dam
Quote from the article:
In the early morning of 12 March 2011, the dam failed, reportedly due to the Tōhoku earthquake. Locals reported hearing a loud burst before seeing a flood. The flood washed away five houses while damaging others, disabling a bridge and blocked roads with debris. Eight people were missing and four bodies were discovered after searches began at dawn.
So dams busting due to the earthquake has already caused more deaths than the triple meltdown at Fukushima is likely to cause. But I haven't heard anything about it so far. And I highly doubt this will make us reconsider the safety of hydroelectricity and deem it unsafe for the future.