Not Newsworthy, But . . .

What does make the world turn?
User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7637
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Postby TJrandom » Mon Nov 28, 2016 6:43 pm

Gawdzilla Sama wrote:"Every time I hear the word 'mainstream' I reach for my gun."


:lol:

I usually reach for my paddle... as I occasionally enjoy my canoe in the mainstream of my local rive.. (yikes, I heard that!) ..r. Please don`t shoot me! :(

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7637
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Postby TJrandom » Mon Nov 28, 2016 7:27 pm

Equating to about a fifth of a year`s Japan GDP. But spread out over the life of the clean-up - (up to 60 years or so?), then maybe not so much to be added to utility bills.

Fukushima plant decommissioning, compensation costs to almost double: gov't est.

http://mainichi.jp/english/articles/201 ... na/006000c

Ken Fabos
Poster
Posts: 83
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2007 7:54 pm

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Postby Ken Fabos » Mon Nov 28, 2016 10:06 pm

Inevitably I use a kind of shorthand, of which "mainstream" is one. That part of the political spectrum that would have encompassed most Democrat and Republican politicians in the US? Tories and Labour in UK? Labor and Liberal-National Coalition in Australia? Whilst generalisations have limitations they are part of how we make sense of our world. I don't expect everyone to agree with me but are the points I make understandable? Is my use of such generalities preventing communication?

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 19792
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Mon Nov 28, 2016 10:42 pm

I just loooooove buzz words.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
Flash
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6001
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:09 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Postby Flash » Tue Nov 29, 2016 12:29 am

Gawdzilla Sama wrote:
"Every time I hear the word 'mainstream' I reach for my gun."

Why? You have a gun called Mainstream?
When I feel like exercising, I just lie down until the feeling goes away. Paul Terry

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 19792
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Tue Nov 29, 2016 1:42 am

Flash wrote:Gawdzilla Sama wrote:
"Every time I hear the word 'mainstream' I reach for my gun."

Why? You have a gun called Mainstream?

What the Latin phrase for "it does not follow"?
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10238
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Postby Lance Kennedy » Tue Nov 29, 2016 4:04 am

Ken

The only part of Chernobyl that is still hazardous is ground zero, and that is low enough that people go there reasonably often. The vast bulk of the 30 km exclusion zone does not produce any measurable increase in mutation.

On granite and radon.
In the main, living in a granite area does NOT increase cancer rates. For example, Americans living in the Rocky Mountains actually live longer than Americans living on the prairies. Where radon from granite becomes a hazard is when it is concentrated. For example, if you build a house with a basement surrounded by granite, the radon builds up in the basement, and that increases the rate of lung cancer. But if sufficient ventilation is designed for, there is no added risk.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26775
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Postby Matthew Ellard » Tue Nov 29, 2016 5:13 am

Lance Kennedy wrote: The only part of Chernobyl that is still hazardous is ground zero,
By odd coincidence, a Russian model tank company, ICM issued this model around the same time. :D
lynx.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
Flash
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6001
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:09 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Postby Flash » Tue Nov 29, 2016 6:42 am

Gawdzilla Sama wrote:
"Every time I hear the word 'mainstream' I reach for my gun."

Flash wrote:
Why? You have a gun called Mainstream?

Gawdzilla:
What the Latin phrase for "it does not follow"?

But Shirley it is funny. :laff: :wink: :good: No? :blush:
When I feel like exercising, I just lie down until the feeling goes away. Paul Terry

Ken Fabos
Poster
Posts: 83
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2007 7:54 pm

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Postby Ken Fabos » Tue Nov 29, 2016 8:52 am

The only part of Chernobyl that is still hazardous is ground zero, and that is low enough that people go there reasonably often.


Lance - with respect to wildlife that does not appear to be what the study I linked to says.

My point about radon is that some health impacts can be directly related to ingestion of specific contaminants - rather than dependent on levels of ionizing radiation exposure.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 19792
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Tue Nov 29, 2016 11:48 am

Ken Fabos wrote:
The only part of Chernobyl that is still hazardous is ground zero, and that is low enough that people go there reasonably often.


Lance - with respect to wildlife that does not appear to be what the study I linked to says.

My point about radon is that some health impacts can be directly related to ingestion of specific contaminants - rather than dependent on levels of ionizing radiation exposure.

NatGeo showed a video called "Radioactive Wolves" that supports the claim that wildlife is flourishing in the area. It has the largest number of wolves per square mile of any place in the world. When the alpha predator is doing well the overall ecology is strong.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7637
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Postby TJrandom » Tue Nov 29, 2016 6:19 pm

Those weren`t wolves, but rather Toy Poodles… :lol:

Ken Fabos
Poster
Posts: 83
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2007 7:54 pm

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Postby Ken Fabos » Tue Nov 29, 2016 9:11 pm

Wolves were one species that appears to have benefited. Other species did not. The paper suggests that other predators have not done so well which may improve the opportunities for wolves. And larger part of the exclusion zone does indeed have low to minimal contamination - being unexploited and undisturbed would be expected to favour the return of wildlife. The paper does show ill effects on most species surveyed in the areas with higher radioactive contamination.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10238
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Postby Lance Kennedy » Tue Nov 29, 2016 10:55 pm

Ken

Different researchers will disagree on how much radiation harm still exists near Chernobyl, but the reality is that, except close to ground zero, the area around the site is largely safe from radiation damage. The Charnobyl disaster is one of the most exaggerated disasters in human history. The damage and deaths are way, way lower than most people believe. The only real cancer problems coming from the disaster were thyroid cancers, which affected perhaps 5,000 people, but only killed 16. (Thyroid cancer is easily and effectively treated). Other cancers have been a matter of speculation, but the health authorities in the Ukraine have not measured any spike in other cancer rates.

I like to compare it to Banqiao, because a dam burst in a hydroelectric scheme is a disaster of an entirely greater magnitude, but the majority of people have never even heard of the Banqiao disaster, even though they have been led to believe that Chernobyl is the worst such disaster. Politically motivated organisations have spread such a load of bulldust about the dangers of nuclear power.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 19792
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Tue Nov 29, 2016 11:10 pm

Ken Fabos wrote:Wolves were one species that appears to have benefited. Other species did not. The paper suggests that other predators have not done so well which may improve the opportunities for wolves. And larger part of the exclusion zone does indeed have low to minimal contamination - being unexploited and undisturbed would be expected to favour the return of wildlife. The paper does show ill effects on most species surveyed in the areas with higher radioactive contamination.

Wolves are the alpha predator. When they are in strength the other predators make way.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

Ken Fabos
Poster
Posts: 83
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2007 7:54 pm

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Postby Ken Fabos » Wed Nov 30, 2016 10:21 pm

I'll take surveys of wildlife - most of those species surveyed in higher radioactivity areas showing harmful impacts - over the assumptions they are not being harmed because of the increased populations and apparent good health of a few species.

Lance, Mainstream conservative politics choosing to reject climate science killed nuclear's golden opportunity in the face of climate change deader than all the influence of politically motivated organisations with anti-nuclear agendas, by the simple expedient of offering the much cheaper and easier to sell option of not addressing climate change at all. Climate science denial - being incompatible with strong climate action with nuclear energy or anything else - has diverted and muted the largest and most influential body of existing political support for it by denying there is any serious need. They weren't forced, they chose, of their own free will; pointing at the influence of anti-nuclear activists or those that seek action by other means and claiming they are why they can't commit to climate action doesn't cut it. Rather than building long term support for climate action using nuclear through emphasis of the need to do so, it's (largely unopposed and, yes, often sensationalist) unpopularity has become a convenient excuse for not doing so. Blame shifting - successful as it may be for short term political gamesmanship and longer term protection of the fossil fueled status-quo - doesn't change that people with far more power and influence than anti-nuclear activists have failed to fight for climate action or that nuclear for climate has been a casualty of that negligent expedience.

Until climate science denial within mainstream political parties like US Republicans is replaced with genuine commitment to knowledge based strong climate action the largest bodies of existing political support for nuclear can't be mobilised in any effective way. Political "leaders" like the US President- elect are willing to lie about climate change to protect fossil fuels whilst being unwilling to use the truth of it to enable strong climate action using nuclear.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 19792
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Thu Dec 01, 2016 2:44 am

Okay then. But the mutation rate for the wolves actually doubled, from 0.02% to 0.04%. You can imagine the horrors.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7637
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Postby TJrandom » Thu Dec 01, 2016 5:23 am

Gawdzilla Sama wrote:Okay then. But the mutation rate for the wolves actually doubled, from 0.02% to 0.04%. You can imagine the horrors.


Maybe they are only half-wolves.... :roll: and half mutants. :doggy:

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10238
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Postby Lance Kennedy » Thu Dec 01, 2016 8:39 am

Ken

I agree about the harm climate change deniers do in politics. I hope that this is waning, though Donald Trump does not come bearing hope.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 19792
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Thu Dec 01, 2016 12:04 pm

TJrandom wrote:
Gawdzilla Sama wrote:Okay then. But the mutation rate for the wolves actually doubled, from 0.02% to 0.04%. You can imagine the horrors.


Maybe they are only half-wolves.... :roll: and half mutants. :doggy:

"Dogs are wolves with all the interesting characteristics bred out of them." :yawn:
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7637
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Postby TJrandom » Thu Dec 01, 2016 12:16 pm

Gawdzilla Sama wrote:
TJrandom wrote:
Gawdzilla Sama wrote:Okay then. But the mutation rate for the wolves actually doubled, from 0.02% to 0.04%. You can imagine the horrors.


Maybe they are only half-wolves.... :roll: and half mutants. :doggy:

"Dogs are wolves with all the interesting characteristics bred out of them." :yawn:


But do they chase balls? Catch frisbies? Walk their owners?

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 19792
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Thu Dec 01, 2016 12:32 pm

TJrandom wrote:
Gawdzilla Sama wrote:
TJrandom wrote:
Gawdzilla Sama wrote:Okay then. But the mutation rate for the wolves actually doubled, from 0.02% to 0.04%. You can imagine the horrors.


Maybe they are only half-wolves.... :roll: and half mutants. :doggy:

"Dogs are wolves with all the interesting characteristics bred out of them." :yawn:


But do they chase balls? Catch frisbies? Walk their owners?

They chase balls attached to bison. They catch wolverines. They eat anyone who thinks they are owned.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26775
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Postby Matthew Ellard » Thu Dec 01, 2016 10:36 pm

TJrandom wrote:But do they chase balls?
I thought that was werewolves.

The Lonely Planet travel guide for Transylvania recommends that you always carry a tennis ball with you. That way if you are walking through the forest and encounter a werewolf you simply throw the ball and say "Whose a good boy!!" "Sckitch em Sckitch em"...."aaaaaand FETCH!!!"
:D

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7637
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Postby TJrandom » Fri Dec 02, 2016 8:08 am

A reversion to coal, oil, and nuclear as the subsidy rate for solar is dropping for new implementations. Mega solar projects have already stopped, leaving rooftop installs as the only growth path for solar. Eventually I expect that our nuclear will mostly be turned back on.

The solar project cost `break-even` was at ten years a few years ago while the installation life was expected to be 20 years. For new homes for young people, this may still make sense.

Sun setting on Japan's solar energy boom

http://newsonjapan.com/html/newsdesk/article/118367.php

User avatar
Paul Anthony
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2783
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2006 9:23 pm
Custom Title: The other god
Location: The desert
Contact:

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Postby Paul Anthony » Fri Dec 02, 2016 5:32 pm

TJrandom wrote:
The solar project cost `break-even` was at ten years a few years ago while the installation life was expected to be 20 years. For new homes for young people, this may still make sense.



The 10 year break-even touted by solar sellers assumes a steady increase in electricity rates in excess of past history. (I've listened to a few sales pitches.) If you want a battery back-up with your solar panels, there is no break-even point because the battery life is only about 5 years. Solar will be viable when battery technology improves.

Nuclear makes sense now.
People who say ALWAYS and NEVER are usually wrong, part of the time.
Science answers questions, Philosophy questions answers.
Make sense, not war.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7637
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Postby TJrandom » Fri Dec 02, 2016 10:35 pm

Paul Anthony wrote:
TJrandom wrote:
The solar project cost `break-even` was at ten years a few years ago while the installation life was expected to be 20 years. For new homes for young people, this may still make sense.



The 10 year break-even touted by solar sellers assumes a steady increase in electricity rates in excess of past history. (I've listened to a few sales pitches.) If you want a battery back-up with your solar panels, there is no break-even point because the battery life is only about 5 years. Solar will be viable when battery technology improves.

Nuclear makes sense now.


The break even I mentioned was for Japan projects - where the rate to the solar supplier was fixed by law. No expected rate increase...

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7637
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Postby TJrandom » Mon Dec 05, 2016 10:25 pm

Radiation in fish caught off of Fukushima is now significantly below the government set safety limit.

Volunteer group continues checking fish off Fukushima as radiation levels drop

http://mainichi.jp/english/articles/201 ... na/022000c

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11114
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Dec 06, 2016 11:56 am

TJrandom wrote:The solar project cost `break-even` was at ten years a few years ago while the installation life was expected to be 20 years. For new homes for young people, this may still make sense.

Everytime I have checked this I get the life of solar panels to be "unlimited." What does happen is a very slow degredation of output...but still going strong after eg: 40 years.

The 20 year numbers are tax or other accounting formulations... not actual physical performance. give them away in your will.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7637
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Postby TJrandom » Tue Dec 06, 2016 2:06 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
TJrandom wrote:The solar project cost `break-even` was at ten years a few years ago while the installation life was expected to be 20 years. For new homes for young people, this may still make sense.

Everytime I have checked this I get the life of solar panels to be "unlimited." What does happen is a very slow degredation of output...but still going strong after eg: 40 years.

The 20 year numbers are tax or other accounting formulations... not actual physical performance. give them away in your will.


Very close. Since the higher sales price is only locked in for 20 years, I believe that the maintenance/replacement costs eventually match or overtake the revenue. These projects are not done to obtain electricity for household consumption, but rather to sell. Indeed, why use any of your own if it can be sold for roughly double what you pay for over the grid.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11114
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Dec 06, 2016 10:15 pm

TJ--I can't make any sense of your post. Even when mixing home installations vs central generation solar complexes.... still doesn't make any sense. Once you have paid the fixed costs of any solar array, from 8 to 20 years given a full set of variables: THEN YOUR ELECTRICITY IS FREE.....for an unlimited amount of time. Maintenance costs near zero. The normal variable for cost/payback being the assumed/projected cost of grid electricity. We have no data on reasonable ACTUAL physical life expectancy for commercially sold home systems. I would assume 40 years with the only real downstream cost the replacement of the house or roof underneath.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7637
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Postby TJrandom » Tue Dec 06, 2016 10:41 pm

The up-front installation cost cannot be recouped from `free electricity` - at least here in Japan. Which is why the solar electricity sales price is set so high - to encourage solar. Maintenance costs here are not near zero - per friends who installed as few as two years ago. Regulatory overburden, no doubt, but mandatory annual inspections and replacement of defective components eats into the `profit` from sales. If the implementation costs are eventually reduced, it may be possible to justify a home system on the basis of `free electricity`. I don`t know the costs here vs the US, but as a general rule of thumb - electrical/electronics, plumbing, dietary supplements, etc. - our costs are double (or more) those in the US.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7637
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Postby TJrandom » Thu Feb 02, 2017 7:55 pm

This is an update on the radiation in the reactors which suffered meltdowns and a one or two meter hole found in a grating under the pressure vessel of one of them.

Radiation level at Fukushima reactor highest since 2011 disaster; grating hole found

http://mainichi.jp/english/articles/201 ... dm/087000c

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11114
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Feb 02, 2017 8:17 pm

Saw a good tv show last night on the Fukushina meltdown and the engineer who lied to management to pour water on the reactor to stop it from blowing up.....now in charge of getting the radiation levels down....so, glad of all that.

But Tj: any good summary on just what Japan is going to do in the future for energy? Is Nuclear out...or is the push now for "better designs?" Is coal out....if only for shipping costs???? Is solar out for regulatory mishandling for the time being but maybe large centralized wind farms and such still a go?

Articles abound on how Germany incentivized the private market to go solar and the market responded over the wildest predictions. Same plan could be implemented EVERYWHERE===for rapid and cheap solar based power. So whats the deal? No German to Japanese translators? :-)
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 19792
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Thu Feb 02, 2017 8:32 pm

Why do people freak out at the word "radiation"? Gojira didn't sweat it.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
psychiatry is a scam
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1288
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2013 12:23 am

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Postby psychiatry is a scam » Thu Feb 02, 2017 10:00 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Saw a good tv show last night on the Fukushina meltdown and the engineer who lied to management to pour water on the reactor to stop it from blowing up.....now in charge of getting the radiation levels down....so, glad of all that.

But Tj: any good summary on just what Japan is going to do in the future for energy? Is Nuclear out...or is the push now for "better designs?" Is coal out....if only for shipping costs???? Is solar out for regulatory mishandling for the time being but maybe large centralized wind farms and such still a go?

Articles abound on how Germany incentivized the private market to go solar and the market responded over the wildest predictions. Same plan could be implemented EVERYWHERE===for rapid and cheap solar based power. So whats the deal? No German to Japanese translators? :-)


tried to find a link to the tv story - found a bunch of stories about - the pacific ocean is dying - wow
for the real minority ; there will be no justice , there will be no peace .
makes sense 2me , so it has 2be wrong .

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7637
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Postby TJrandom » Thu Feb 02, 2017 11:30 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Saw a good tv show last night on the Fukushina meltdown and the engineer who lied to management to pour water on the reactor to stop it from blowing up.....now in charge of getting the radiation levels down....so, glad of all that.

But Tj: any good summary on just what Japan is going to do in the future for energy? Is Nuclear out...or is the push now for "better designs?" Is coal out....if only for shipping costs???? Is solar out for regulatory mishandling for the time being but maybe large centralized wind farms and such still a go?

Articles abound on how Germany incentivized the private market to go solar and the market responded over the wildest predictions. Same plan could be implemented EVERYWHERE===for rapid and cheap solar based power. So whats the deal? No German to Japanese translators? :-)


Yes – Japan could use a `White Paper` on the future of energy production and usage. I`ll keep an eye out for one. My take is this…

Japan politicians reward the status quo, and that means sunk capital – nuclear, coal, oil, and now a smattering of solar (in the course of supporting construction). Over time, maybe half of the nuclear plants should go back online. Only half, because most are built too close to the ocean, as was Fukushima, and some are on fault lines. All are of poor design (waste storage built on top of the reactors), and either near to, or have already exceeded, their expected life (40 years), so need to be replaced within the next 20 years or so. Building new today is just too sensitive, but may not be in 10 years as the rates go up and time heals the popular nuclearPSTD, so I would expect to see new designs and locations 10 to 20 years from now.

We do have some coal, but it is recognised as a dead end, as is oil since both need to be imported and neither is clean nor efficient.

That leaves solar and a bit of wind – but good wind locations don`t seem to be close to population centers. I would look for far more solar as new homes are built and the costs can be hidden within the larger home price. Retrofits are just not cost justified at present. With TPP now dead, maybe a new trade deal will include the lifting of `type certifications` - which are used by Japan to keep out cheaper foreign solar solutions.

Finally, there is conservation, which may be the greater contributor in the near term – reducing consumption as appliances are replaced and shifting it to non-peak hours (mostly for new homes with solar).

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10238
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Postby Lance Kennedy » Fri Feb 03, 2017 1:27 am

There is still a lot of bulldust being stated about Fukushima. The Pacific Ocean is not dying.

Radiation levels inside the plant were high and dangerous, unsurprisingly. But outside the plant, they are and have always been well below any level we could reasonably consider hazardous. To inflict measurable damage on the human body, an exposure of 100 millisieverts plus is needed. Inside the plant, such exposures are reached. Outside, no.

For a small and heavily poulated island nation like Japan, nuclear power is the most logical option. Since more than 25,000 people died in the earthquake and tsunami, but so far not one due to radiation, to focus on the radiation hazard is somewhat irrational.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7637
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Postby TJrandom » Fri Feb 03, 2017 5:12 am

Lance,

Nuclear would be the most logical option for Japan if.... IF...

- the government/operators didn`t hide the data on failures and lie to the public
- those at fault were actually charged and prosecuted (in practice, we face a higher penalty for running a red light than an operator does for causing a meltdown)
- the plants were only certified AFTER safety improvements were MADE (not just listed for eventual implementation)
- plant designs incorporated the best in safety - for example not building at sea level or on fault lines, and incorporating backup systems of ALL critical safety components
- a planned 40 year life actually meant a 40 year life
- there were a reasonable plan, already implemented, for long term storage of waste

At present, none of these conditions are met in Japan.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10238
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Postby Lance Kennedy » Fri Feb 03, 2017 6:50 pm

TJ

That sounds a bit like an apologist opposition from Greenpeace. In other words, if Greenpeace and the other irrational opponents cannot come up with a rational reason for opposing it, they dig out a few places human fallibility creeps in, and say this is a reason for opposing the entire technology. Nothing in this world is supported by perfect and saintly political back up.

I

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7637
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Postby TJrandom » Fri Feb 03, 2017 7:24 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:TJ

That sounds a bit like an apologist opposition from Greenpeace. In other words, if Greenpeace and the other irrational opponents cannot come up with a rational reason for opposing it, they dig out a few places human fallibility creeps in, and say this is a reason for opposing the entire technology. Nothing in this world is supported by perfect and saintly political back up.

I


Erm, Which one of the items I listed are not rational expectations? Please do explain....


Return to “Science, Technology, and Mathematics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest