Where do you hang out with smart science people?
I love this…he posts a bunch of links to PDF’s in Japanese and then smugly sits back with an air of having won…something. Somehow. What a freaking tool…
-XT
That’s not what it says.
FWIW, the Brazil site FX cited a graph from is pretty good for anyone wanting tech data:
http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~stolfi/EXPORT/projects/fukushima/plots/v9/Main.html
Hmm …
I have not checked the GD thread but will post my replies there I guess.
I will say, in response to levdrakon’s update to my cite I am not seeing nuclear being absurdly expensive as he (she?) claimed. Seems pretty competitive. Nothing in what was posted contradicts my original cite that I can see. Coal is the cheapest (shocker) as long as coal does not have CC equipment. Una Persson, who is an expert, said CC simply does not work on industrial scale coal plants. Period. (Yes they can clean other crud out which is good but CO2 remains).
This of course does not note other issues with fossil fuels. Namely fossil fuel plants are highly affected by fuel prices. Nuclear it barely registers. Natural gas and oil have a price/supply horizon within most our lifetimes. Wind/solar simply cannot meet global demand (certainly not till we can find a way to store power on a massive scale). Nuclear IS very expensive up front. After that they are relatively inexpensive to run…and that is with plants that are now old. New technologies could improve in a number of ways (including ways to have power plants that eat the nuclear waste of today’s plants thus negating the costs associated with what to do with waste fuel).
That leaves nuclear and coal as the only game in town. (Again I will note that there is a place for wind/solar/bio energy…I am all for them…I love them and they should be pursued but they cannot come close to meeting global demand).
There is a certain irony in taking an alarmist stupid rant thread and turning it into a serious discussion of economics and politics of the worlds energy production.
My hat is off to you fine gentlemen.
Meanwhile, back in the real world
The hell, did you join in 2009 and then just never read anything? This ALWAYS happens.
It’s funny you should ask that. When I see a thread that looks interesting I subscribe, and follow along, and the threads always peter out. Seriously.
Every single thread that I found interesting went dead. I have a subscription list of topics, and none of them lasted. It’s one reason I never posted. The things I found interesting, they never went anywhere.
Hell, you look at my first post and you see the thread dies after I posted. Nobody even responded.
But this shit, this is going to go on for years. About 30 of them if you can believe the predictions.
http://www.meti.go.jp/press/20110330002/20110330002-4.pdf
You have to multiply the cm3 stats to get the liter figures.
FWIW, this thread
was the reason I started reading the forums.
Thankyou for this link. It is very instructive.
From your link:
From you, yesterday morning:
Are you willing to retract your lie yet, now that you have provided evidence that directly contradicts it?
I know how to get liters out of cubic centimeters. I was raised in Australia, where we grow up with metric.
Your link still doesn’t say what you claim it says.
Man, you really are not down with what this thread is about. You need way more emotion, lots of cursing and at least make an effort to sound like you are pissed off.
“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
- Sherlock Holmes
You might try to take advice from that quote.
I’ve been bitching about the LACK of data and measurements, while the nuclear moonbats have been trying to convince everyone nuclear power is safe.
It’s not a theory if you find out some huge asshole is a liar, and has been withholding information.
But this nonsense about how no matter what nuclear is safe, that is ratshit insanity.
Because you can’t know that until you have the data from Fukushima, and you can’t have that until the entire thing is over. So to jump to a conclusion that ‘nuclear is safe’, before you even know anything, that is ultra stupid. It’s the opposite of science.
We do have decades of data from the industry to go on, I’m sure when this incident is wrapped up it can be included. You seem to be hell bent on using up to the minute blog posts to assess the entire industry rather than using the established facts.