How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 Oil well, well, well....   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  ]
 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Oil well, well, well....

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


75 posted 03-12-2011 08:23 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Agreed...I think you may agree, however, that the public has gotten a bit more vocal lately in their demands to be 'taken care of'...and socialistic tendencies a bit more intense from 1600.
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


76 posted 03-12-2011 08:58 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.


Let’s all watch what happens at Fukushima.
There are two nuclear reactors involved.

The Kanto earthquake of 1923 killed 140,000.

.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


77 posted 03-12-2011 09:24 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

True, John, but that's going back almost 90 years.

On NPR today, experts were speaking of how the Japanese reactors were much more advanced than those at Chernobyl. For one thing they are housed in a concrete building designed to withstand the effects of a meltdown and contain it. Also, the monitoring of the radiation is favorable and not rising, which is good because, as time passes and it cools down, there is even less chance of a catastrophe.

Let's hope they are right.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


78 posted 03-12-2011 09:48 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Delays in offshore oil and gas drilling permits are “ridiculous” at a time when the economy is still rebuilding, former President Bill Clinton told attendees Friday at the IHS CERAWeek conference. Clinton spoke on a panel with former President George W. Bush that was closed to the media, Politico reported. There also was no video of the event.

Still, there were several attendees who confirmed to Politico that Clinton agreed with Bush on many oil and gas issues, including criticism of delays in permitting offshore since last year’s Gulf of Mexico spill.

“Bush said all the things you’d expect him to say” on oil and gas issues, said Jim Noe, senior vice president at Hercules Offshore and executive director of the pro-drilling Shallow Water Energy Security Coalition. But Clinton added, “You’d be surprised to know that I agree with all that,” according to Noe and others attending the conference who talked to Politico.

Clinton said there are “ridiculous delays in permitting when our economy doesn’t need it,” according to Noe and others.

Both Clinton and Bush agreed on the need to get offshore drilling workers back on the job. They also agreed on the need for more domestic shale gas production, with Clinton noting that it has been done safely for years in his home state of Arkansas.


http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/bill-clinton-drilling-delays/2011/03/11/id/389213?s=al
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


79 posted 03-13-2011 01:38 AM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.

In Japan we're seeing worst case
happening.  If in the end we don't
have a nuclear Kanto or giant moths
I think the US should have another
look at nuclear.


.

Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


80 posted 03-13-2011 04:46 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     Not the worst case, yet, John; and I hope it won't come to that.  The Washington Post has some excellent diagrams describing the situation that I ran across this evening.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/world/japan-nuclear-reactors-and-seismic-activity/?hpid=topnews


     It appears that a hydrogen explosion within the plant vented Cesium 137 into the environment and that the core is partly exposed and the coating for the fuel rods seems to be coming off at least some of them in one reactor.  Power has failed for getting decent cooant into the reaxctor core and as a result seawater is being directed into the reactor vessel.  Usually the seawater is kept within a separate system isolated entirely from contact with the core to prevent leakage of radiation into the ocean.

     From the diagram it looks as though radiation is being vented directly into the Pacific in an effort to keep the core from melting through the bottom of the reactor.  This means that radioactivity is being vented into the atmosphere as well as the sea.

     I've got my fingers crossed that the evacuation of 200,000 folks from the area will limit the damage for right now, but who can say what the damages will be from fallout and from contamination of the ocean and potential food supplies.  Let's also hope that this is the only reactor that ends up giving difficulty out of the five spread between the two sites.

     I saw the information and thought I'd share it with whomever was interested.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


81 posted 03-14-2011 01:18 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     The reactor problem in Japan appears to have grown worse.  There appear to be substantial difficulties with as many as four reactors on one site and a total of two of them, including the one from last night, have vented gasses including, as I understand it, cesium 137 into the atmosphere.  In order for this to happen, temperatures inside the containment vessels need to have reached a temperature of 2000 to 4ooo degrees Farenheit.  Seawater was being pumped directly into the active reactor cores and then vented directly into the Pacific.

     Here's the reference:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/at-two-reactors-a-race-to-contain-meltdowns/2011/03/13/ABtdVDU_story.html?wpisrc=nl_natlalert
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


82 posted 03-14-2011 07:02 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     A third reactor, Yahoo reports, has partly exposed fuel rods, and the situation is not good.  Two of the three reactors cannot be inspected visually at this point to assess whether there is a core meltdown in progress.  Seawater continues to be pumped directly into these reactors and then vented directly into the ocean.

     Japan adopted atomic energy as a way of helping to offset the cost of its oil imports, at least in part.  President Obama suggests we do the same.  I believe that the decision is not a good one, for reasons now unfolding before us.

     Many countries have attempted to use atomic power as a way of reducing dependence on petrochemicals.  This suggests to me that there is not only a widespread desire for atomic weapons, but also a widespread realization of the obsolescence of petrochemicals as a power source.  Smart folks are trying to get away from them and have been trying to do so for forty or more years.  This apparently includes people who run the power companies who have built the things to replace plants running on petrochemicals.

     Both petrochemical and atomic sources of energy are long term dead ends.  We need to put research into new energy sources and we need to fund this research in a big way.  
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


83 posted 03-15-2011 01:08 AM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.


"for reasons now unfolding before us."


Like an earthquake that moves a country
13 feet to the East . . .
and by itself has killed 10,000
and counting.

.

Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


84 posted 03-15-2011 02:23 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     The people who were against the use of atomic power believed that the design parameters would not ensure safety.  The builders assured everybody that they would.

     Furthermore, they would have folks in the United States believe the same thing.

     What part of

quote:


Like an earthquake that moves a country
13 feet to the East . . .
and by itself has killed 10,000
and counting.




was included in the design parameters for the reactors?  And what part of the same quote was anticipated by the folks who were against building the plants in the first place?  I would venture None and All as my answers, what about yours?

     I would venture that Atomic power in its current form is by its very nature dangerous, and that the nuclear industry has systematically lied about the dangers involved in its use.  I would further suggest that the pollution problem that it represents is potentially as great or greater than that represented by petrochemicals.

.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


85 posted 03-15-2011 03:48 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K




     I have found a news source with what appears to be more neutral and more objective information, whose link I am including here.
http://mitnse.com/

     While I do trust The Washington Post, it looks to me that the MIT source may have been one of the places that they got their information.  I'd be interested in how people react to the information from the new news source, and what they think of it compared to the Washington Post.  I'll continue to see if I can find better information, hopefully with as little spin on it as possible in any direction.  If anybody else has solid information, I'd like to see it, too.

     If Mike thinks this is an Okay use for his oil thread, maybe we could do it here.  If not, there's no reason we couldn't try splitting off another thread.  Whatever's most useful is okay with me.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


86 posted 03-15-2011 08:12 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

It's a fine OK from me.
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


87 posted 03-15-2011 11:34 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.


"Japan currently faces a real emergency. As a result of the earthquake and the ensuing tsunami, thousands of people are dead, and tens of thousands more are missing and may be trapped under rubble, severely injured, and in danger of death by thirst or suffocation. There are over 500,000 people without shelter, with a blizzard on the way, and even the as-yet unscathed could soon face death from epidemics caused by thousands of unburied corpses.


At such a time, nothing could be more scandalous than the current campaign by much of the international press to spread panic over trivial emissions of radiological material from several disabled nuclear power stations.

Let us be clear. Compared to the real disaster at hand, the hypothetical threat from the nuclear stations is zero."


http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/262210/anti-nuclear-press-puts-japan  ese-lives-risk-robert-zubrin


.

Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


88 posted 03-16-2011 02:08 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K

      Thank you for responding, John.

     Why should we be concerned about comparing the threat of nuclear power problems with the problems of the tidal wave and potential pestilence and mass starvation?  That's not the issue at all.

     The issue is the threat of the nuclear problems already happening, and the potential problems to come in comparison with trouble-free operation of nuclear power plants.  

     Nobody promised that nature wouldn't produce Tsunamis, that disease wouldn't spread, and that earthquakes wouldn't happen.  They did promise that nuclear power plants were safe, and that we wouldn't have to worry about them.  The comparison the National Review is offering is not a legitimate comparison for that reason.  Lies about the safety of the design of nuclear power plants is an issue that The National Review seeks to distract us from.

     Compared to a black hole, a flu pandemic is nothing.  The significance is not on the same scale, unless the actual comparison is being covered up by the red herring being offered.  If the actual comparison is the occurrence of the flu epidemic versus no flu epidemic as a result of adequate preparation of vaccines, then the whole black hole business is disingenuous.

     I believe the National Review is being disingenuous.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


89 posted 03-16-2011 05:38 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

I have to say I never heard anyone say that nuclear plants were completely safe. It would be fairly ridiculous of anyone to say so. I mean, a meteor could hit one and I doubt they would survive.

One can say they would be safe under ALMOST all conditions, based on their construction and management. Chernobyl was a disaster based on shoddy and inferior construction, managements and safeguards. Japan is an issue based on being hit by the fifth worst earthquake in history - and the jury is still out on how much of an emergency it is.

Is there the danger of a radioactive disaster coming from it? Time will tell. Is the press milking it for all it's worth? Oh, yes.....
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


90 posted 03-16-2011 08:05 AM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.


"The reactors in question were all shut down four days ago. The control rods have been inserted, and the cores have been salted with boron. It is physically impossible for them to sustain a fission reaction of any kind at this point, let alone cause another Chernobyl. Only the fission-byproduct decay heat remains, and it is fading fast as the short half-life material (which accounts for most of the radioactivity) performs its decay reactions and ceases to exist. At this point, the total heating power in the reactors is only about 0.3 percent of what it was when the reactors were operating. That means that a system previously capable of generating 1,300 megawatts of heat would now yield 4 megawatts thermal — about the same as that emitted by a dozen 100-horsepower automobile engines. The Japanese engineers can certainly deal with that with water cooling. And even if they were to stop, there just isn’t enough heating power in the system anymore to generate a dangerous plume of radioactive materials, which is doubly impossible at this point since all the more active short half-life stuff is already gone."

..................

Given the tens of thousands of people who die
every year using them, why are there still cars?

.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


91 posted 03-16-2011 08:34 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K




     For an expansion of the material you summarized above, John, as well as a more detailed account — both hopeful and discouraging — please have a look at the update at
http://mitnse.com/

which supports as well as undercuts some elements of your presentation.  Rather than trying to stack the negatives from that report against the positives also reported there, I think it might be more useful if we both looked at the plusses and the minuses involved rather than each of us pretending that stuff the other guy is saying has no reality.  I think both of us are trying to deal with facts.

     As for your comment about cars, I think it's an example of the same sort of thing that I spoke about above.

     At this point, we are a car culture and most of the planet seems to have accepted that, while the planet has not accepted that we are a nuclear powered culture, or that we need to be, at least in its current form.

     My personal opinion is that one of the factors that almost wiped out the American car industry recently is the failure of theAmerican part of the industry to keep up with the minimum expectations of the public in terms of safety, durability and quality.  En masse we turned to better built imports.

     The promises the nuclear industry made were promises of safe, reliable and affordable electrical power.  Every time one of these nuclear disasters happens, it points out the lies bundled in that promise.  The truth is that the promises were both overblown and oversold, but were probably the only way to get any of the power plants built in the first place.

     I always tended to think of them as a bridging technology between oil and nuclear fusion, but nuclear fusion seems an ever more distant and retreating goal.  I think that whoever decided to build nuclear power plants in one of the worst earthquake zones in the world was an idiot.  Building them where they would be additionally at risk for tidal waves was simply the capper as far as I'm concerned.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


92 posted 03-17-2011 05:55 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



This following is excerpted from the MIT site I referenced above:

quote:



t 4 a.m. EDT on Wednesday, a radiation level of 75 millirem per hour was recorded at the plant’s main gate. At 4 p.m. EDT, the reading at one plant site gate was 34 millirem per hour. By comparison, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s annual radiation dose limit for the public is 100 millirem. Radiation readings are being taken every 30 minutes.

Japan’s Chief Cabinet Secretary, Yukio Edano, said earlier today a radiation level of 33 millirem per hour was measured about 20 kilometers from the Fukushima Daiichi plant earlier this morning. He said that level does not pose an immediate health risk.



     Something feels a bit strange about this.  Twenty km. out from the site, people are taking a normal year's radiation dose limit every three hours, yet this is not grounds for concern?  What about people who are closer in?  And what about after another couple of days.  

     I'm sure my math is off someplace, but this suggests that people have been taking in the range of eight years' worth of maximum safe radiation exposure every day.  Three days worth is 24 years worth of exposure.  There have been periods when the exposure at the site has spiked considerably beyond the level now being emitted.  It's been, for short periods, over 8000 millirem at the plant itself.  It sounds to me as though a lot of people are absorbing a steady dose of radiation that might be safe over decades but whose safety over a period of mere days seems highly questionable to me.

     Even if the weather there were Tony-The-Tiger terrific, I don't think you could convince me to take a long weekend there.  Not even if the only problem was the release of radiation.

     At what point will the radiation pose an immediate health risk?
Ringo
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 02-20-2003
Posts 3696
Saluting with misty eyes


93 posted 03-17-2011 05:28 PM       View Profile for Ringo   Email Ringo   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Ringo

quote:
The promises the nuclear industry made were promises of safe, reliable and affordable electrical power.  Every time one of these nuclear disasters happens, it points out the lies bundled in that promise.  The truth is that the promises were both overblown and oversold, but were probably the only way to get any of the power plants built in the first place.

There are, according to the European Nuclear Society, 442 nuclear power plants in current operation around the world with another 65 under construction at this very moment. That does not include the number of nuclear powered submarines, whose numbers cannot be verified.
Since 1952, there have only been 5 partial of complete meltdowns recorded (and one nuclear sub reactor that was never officially confirmed). That would be 1 severe incident every 11 years and months. Of those, there has only ever been one recorded total meltdown, and that wa the reactor at Prypiat, Ukraine (Chernobyl).

By comparison, there are hundreds of underground coal fires currently burning with no hope of extinguishment (short of burning out) because they are hard- or impossible- to get to. Also, there have been 118 major oil spills (10,000 gallons+) around the world since 1967. Yet, no one seems to be complaining about how oil and coal energy is unsafe and needs to be banned. And, you will notice I didn't mention the explosions in oil tank farms around the world... just the leaks.

There are currently 31 nations around the world who receive part of their energy needs from nuclear power. These countries receive anywhere from around 3% to over 75% of their power needs from nuclear reactors... and there have been only 28 reported incidents (mostly involving personnel, not involving the general population) with only 5 major incidents. France, who uses the most nuclear power in the world has only 1 incident, and that was March 13, 1980 when there was a rupture of fule bundles, which had no major effect, and the reactor continued to operate for an additional 12 years.

In America, there are over 100 plants in current operation which provides almost 20% of the nation's power requirements. I, personally, lives on Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, Ca in the shadow of the San Onofre Nuclear reactor, which has been in constant operationi since the 1960's without a single incident of any type.

Now, with the facts at hand, it seems that nuclear energy is, indeed, a safe, reliable source of power, doesn't it?

Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out, shouting, "WHAT A RIDE

Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


94 posted 03-17-2011 08:17 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     Those are indeed the facts, Ringo.  You would be remiss in not pointing them out, as would be John, as would be Mike.  Nor have I denied them...

     The question, however, is not whether the rate of failure is low or not — though within certain limits, you do have to consider that the rate must be low for the process even to be considered — but what the effect of a failure actually means in terms of the outcome for the populations concerned.

     You do not and will not hear me building an argument in favor of more coal or more oil.  If you hear me doing so, you are mistaken, and you conflate my position with Mike's, who does want to do more drilling for oil.  His position on coal is not clear to me at this point; but I believe he is in favor of something called "the new Clean coal."   I believe there is no such thing, and I believe that the new clean coal is just as vulnerable to the underground fires you mention as the old dirty coal was.

     I cannot tell you if nuclear power is more or less dangerous than hydrocarbons as a power source.  I know it is a source that we are using now, but it is a source that, as is the case with all our power sources, we did not understand before getting involved with it.  Each of them has provided advantages and drawbacks for us, and in the case of each, we made entrepreneurial investments in the new source that made it difficult to back out or rethink the original commitment.

     I don't think you've said anything untrue about the nuclear industry.  I do think that you may have omitted some things.

     Nobody builds a catastrophe on purpose.  They only build them in hindsight.  Your comments about Chernobyl are flawed, I believe, by overlooking this.  It appears that the plant couldn't help but fail when we look back on it, but while it was being built, it was somebody's proud baby.  In this, it is no different than any other house, sludge plant, farm, automobile or nuclear power plant.  The decision makers thought it was good enough, just like everybody else who makes decisions thinks the project they shepherd through to completion is good enough.  And exactly like those folks, these Chernobyl folks had the power to make their decision stick.

     Tell me how this is different from the decision makers anyplace else in the world.

     Sometimes these people are right, and sometimes they are wrong.  The reasons for their rightness or wrongness don't particularly matter as long as they have the power to make their decisions stick, does it?

     I admire the design capability of many of the nuclear engineers, by the way.  I am very impressed with the MIT website that I've quoted several times in this thread, and I think you might be as well.  They are not alarmist, they are quite objective and very thoughtful; and I think you might find a lot there to bolster your case, if you're interested.  

     But the fact is that when people make errors with nuclear power, the errors are not small ones, and we haven't even begun to solve some of the most basic problems necessary to make nuclear power a safe option.  Key among those is what to do with spent nuclear power rods.  This in particular is one of the problems that's proving troublesome in Japan right now.

     And across the United States we have the same problem, lots of spent nuclear power rods sitting in pools of water on the grounds of nuclear power plants serving as terrorist magnets and waiting for some sort of accident to have them begin their own little melt-downs.  Nobody wants to have the things transported through their neighborhoods to a larger storage facility because there are issues with the safety of moving them, and nobody wants them to stay where they are.  And nobody has really thought the problem through.

     That's a "for example."

     That doesn't mean you're wrong, Ringo.  But It does mean that I disagree with you and John and Mike and President Obama about the safety of nuclear power.  And it does me that I believe that the promises were oversold, and the liabilities were not thought through, as I stated above.

     And it does mean that having a low failure rate is not enough, not even a spectacularly low failure rate.  After all, suns fail only once in several billion years.  You quite simply don't want to be anywhere in the vicinity when they do.  We have trouble enough with the fluctuations in that particular power plant, after all.

quote:


There are, according to the European Nuclear Society, 442 nuclear power plants in current operation around the world with another 65 under construction at this very moment. That does not include the number of nuclear powered submarines, whose numbers cannot be verified.
Since 1952, there have only been 5 partial of complete meltdowns recorded (and one nuclear sub reactor that was never officially confirmed). That would be 1 severe incident every 11 years and months. Of those, there has only ever been one recorded total meltdown, and that wa the reactor at Prypiat, Ukraine (Chernobyl).

By comparison, there are hundreds of underground coal fires currently burning with no hope of extinguishment (short of burning out) because they are hard- or impossible- to get to. Also, there have been 118 major oil spills (10,000 gallons+) around the world since 1967. Yet, no one seems to be complaining about how oil and coal energy is unsafe and needs to be banned. And, you will notice I didn't mention the explosions in oil tank farms around the world... just the leaks.




     Since we don't know how many nuclear powered boats there are, let alone subs, we can't talk about potential failures there, can we?  If there were any, it is indeed probable they'd be state secrets.  Nor do we have good numbers for plants that are sited in countries that are not forthright in data reporting.  We may have reported data from those countries or not, depending on whether or not we wished to reveal the state of our own detection capability, right?

     Your figures may be spot on, they may not be; but your confidence in them should not be as high as it seems, I believe, for the reasons I suggest.  I can sympathize with your wish (and my own) to accept them as accurate, of course.

     Your belief that there are no people who wish to ban coal and oil power in this country or in the world is false.  The problem is with finding an alternate generation source for electricity.  I believe that coal and oil should be saved for other things than power generation, and I'd like to find some way of using solar, tide and heat differentials to make up the difference.  I believe that fusion is the holy grail of power, but that it seems to retreat before us as we search.

     So yeah, I'm against coal and oil power, though I see no way of getting off it right now.


serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 02-02-2000
Posts 28839


95 posted 03-17-2011 09:18 PM       View Profile for serenity blaze   Email serenity blaze   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for serenity blaze

Hello, to Ringo!

I just want to say that the U.S., according to various news sources (so far, across the board) does not have all of the facts. What we are seeing in Japan is horrifying.

In light of the current tragedy, I think we'd be fools to not consider that perhaps we should commence to cleaner energy alternatives that utilize our natural resources ...like the sun?

Maybe even the wind.

And there's a powerful force of a river *wince* right across that levee down the street.

As for the topic--oil--I'd like to give it just a little more time, Mike. We're kind of curious to see if the affected marshland will come back.

Just a little time, lovie.

*Peace poetkins, all*

I'm going to take my expertise back to my game, Civilization.

(Last night I actually managed to get Mount Rushmore...in Egypt. Yep. Ticked Teddy Roosevelt right off.)

ciao
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


96 posted 03-19-2011 12:37 AM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12789749
.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


97 posted 03-19-2011 12:56 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

That doesn't mean you're wrong, Ringo.  But It does mean that I disagree with you and John and Mike and President Obama about the safety of nuclear power

Bob, you are entitled to disagree with anything you like but, as the English say, "The proof is in the pudding." Ringo was able to substantiate his claim with facts. Your "disagreement" seems to be more on an emotional or personal level.

Ringo was not advocating more oil or coal usage. He was simply pointing out the fact that both  of those industries, which have produced many, many more instances of death and destruction that nuclear has, continue to produce with no one mounting an offensive against them, as some are with regards to nuclear energy.

Think I'll side with the facts on this one...
serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 02-02-2000
Posts 28839


98 posted 03-19-2011 01:09 AM       View Profile for serenity blaze   Email serenity blaze   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for serenity blaze

John? It is heartbreaking and striking that what they need, what they want now is more water.

G'nite folks...
Uncas
Member
since 07-30-2010
Posts 348


99 posted 03-19-2011 06:57 AM       View Profile for Uncas   Email Uncas   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Uncas

442 nuclear plants and 5 accidents?

That's a really really bad failure rate Ringo, especially when you consider the potential damage of a single failure. If you extrapolated the number of oil rigs or coal mines in the world my guess is that they'd win hands down in a potential catastrophic risk assessment and that their failure rate would be way below one in eighty-eight. Using your figures if we increased the number of nuclear power plants to 44200, an amount closer to what we'd need to completely replace oil and coal, we'd have 500 nuclear incidents and 50 of them would be critical meltdowns.

That doesn't sound too safe to me.

It's actually worse than that, you see the folk that build nuclear plants are doing everything possible to avoid a failure, they're well aware of the potential for catastrophe on a grand scale and will do anything to avoid it. The coal and oil industry on the other hand are fighting tooth and nail to cut corners on safety to maximise profits.

Fortunately, who's had more accidents, or the potential of one of those accidents being catastrophic isn't the only argument against nuclear power.

For instance, a far more potent argument is that nuclear power is no more sustainable than oil. Current calculations suggest that there's enough minable uranium to sustain current usage for 100 years, that's current usage, increase the reliance on nuclear power and nuclear power plants and the lack of sustainability gets even more stark.

As Ron has pointed out several times relying on a non-renewable power source that you dig out of the ground and building a society reliant upon it is a recipe for disaster, I can't see how nuclear power scores any better than oil in that regard.

.
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> Oil well, well, well....   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors