Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE Radiation / Radioactive Thread Pt. 2

Re: THE Radiation / Radioactive Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby dohboi » Tue 02 May 2017, 22:02:36

"Base load" as a term was originally presented as a big problem that coal power presented--since it was not possible to easily shut down 'base load' at night, for example, it was necessary to create artificial electric 'need' like lighting every-f'n'-where so that the earth now glows on its dark side.

So get it through your collective heads--'base load' is a problem to be solved, not some absolute necessity to bend the future viability of the planet around in order to achieve. :lol: :lol: :twisted: :twisted:
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 16835
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: THE Radiation / Radioactive Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby Tanada » Wed 03 May 2017, 05:07:45

dohboi wrote:"Base load" as a term was originally presented as a big problem that coal power presented--since it was not possible to easily shut down 'base load' at night, for example, it was necessary to create artificial electric 'need' like lighting every-f'n'-where so that the earth now glows on its dark side.

So get it through your collective heads--'base load' is a problem to be solved, not some absolute necessity to bend the future viability of the planet around in order to achieve. :lol: :lol: :twisted: :twisted:


As usual this is a half truth. Base load does mean the minimum power needed by civilization compared to peak load when demand spikes up. You speak as if there is no electricity demand during nightime hours before street lamps were instituted. This is false on two grounds, for one thing there have always been and probably always will be people working or at least up and doing things during the hours of darkness. Doesn't matter if it is the drunks at the bar at last call or the PHD candidate studying at 1 AM for a class. Secondly street lighting has been around about as long as the USA, but in the early days they were flame lamps in the wealthier neighborhoods of large cities with professional 'lamp lighters' who would patrol the area and make sure they were lighted at dusk and extinguished at dawn and that they stayed lit all night. Electric street lighting provided this boon to even the poorest neighborhoods and your implication it is unnecessary strikes me as very classist.

So yes dohboi, there really is a baseload level of electricity needed to serve our civilization. The fact that shutting down large steam plants when demand falls below a certain percentage costs a lot of money in increased maintenance is the biggest factor in why there is a difference between absolute baseload, the power needed to light and power our civilization at night, and practical baseload where the power producers offer electricity at lower rates because it is cheaper to sell at or below cost of production than to cycle the plants and incur additional maintenance expenses that come with that cycling.
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14097
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: THE Radiation / Radioactive Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby dohboi » Wed 03 May 2017, 13:46:05

"You speak as if ..."

But didn't say.

But I guess constructing such a strawman out of what I did not say is a handy way of avoiding my actual argument, though the move suggests you don't actually have a way to address it. So....thanks for the concession. :) :) :)
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 16835
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: THE Radiation / Radioactive Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby Subjectivist » Thu 04 May 2017, 19:05:37

You sure take an awful lot of victory laps after not doing squat to refute anyone elses points. Must be the participation trophy version of modern proffessor behavior.
II Chronicles 7:14 if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.
User avatar
Subjectivist
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4151
Joined: Sat 28 Aug 2010, 06:38:26
Location: Northwest Ohio

Re: THE Radiation / Radioactive Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby dohboi » Fri 05 May 2017, 00:40:02

"...proffessor behavior"

Well...at least I know how to spell it! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 16835
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: THE Radiation / Radioactive Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby Squilliam » Fri 05 May 2017, 04:41:13

Boys....
To use a keyboard is to be at war.
Squilliam
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 359
Joined: Thu 04 Jul 2013, 00:51:46
Location: Auckland New Zealand

Re: THE Radiation / Radioactive Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby Cid_Yama » Fri 05 May 2017, 07:05:51

There are people that base their decisions on group membership and adopt views that align with those they perceive as belonging to their group, not on reason or logic. In fact, reason and logic get pretzeled by the ideology of the group, to fit the agenda of the group.

You can't convince them through logic or reason. Conservative conformity trumps logic and reason.
"For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst and provide for it." - Patrick Henry

The level of injustice and wrong you endure is directly determined by how much you quietly submit to. Even to the point of extinction.
User avatar
Cid_Yama
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 6952
Joined: Sun 27 May 2007, 02:00:00
Location: The Post Peak Oil Historian

Re: THE Radiation / Radioactive Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Fri 05 May 2017, 09:37:12

Which is exactly my observation about peakoil.com, Cid. Only I would have said that groupthink about AGW Doom trumps logic and reason.

As for the true fatality rates for power generation, the Forbes article still rules:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/#58e5dde709b7

It was first published in 2008, and in the last update in 2012, they included the road accident deaths from ICE-powered trucks transpourting nuclear fuel and spent fuel and wastes. That is when the Mortality Rate for nuclear (expressed in deaths/trillionkWhr) went from 0.04 to 0.10.

The conclusion remains the same. Nuclear energy is the safest form of power generation by far. If Ibon built a dam for his Hydropower (not always necessary in the mountains) then he has a fairly dangerous power plant. But even my rooftop solar is 4400X more deadly than commercial nuclear power.
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4263
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 16:16:32
Location: California's Silly Valley

Re: THE Radiation / Radioactive Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby dohboi » Fri 05 May 2017, 16:13:35

"Nuclear energy is the safest form of power generation..."

in a world without humans, perhaps.

Add human greed, incompetence, violence, corruptibility...and it is the worst option to put in the hands of us mad monkeys.
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 16835
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: THE Radiation / Radioactive Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby Cid_Yama » Fri 05 May 2017, 17:03:12

You mean only in the world of alternative facts.

The Forbes family has published/controlled the Social Register since it's inception. They are the gatekeepers of TPTB.

So who's views do you think they spin?
"For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst and provide for it." - Patrick Henry

The level of injustice and wrong you endure is directly determined by how much you quietly submit to. Even to the point of extinction.
User avatar
Cid_Yama
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 6952
Joined: Sun 27 May 2007, 02:00:00
Location: The Post Peak Oil Historian

Re: THE Radiation / Radioactive Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Fri 05 May 2017, 18:39:51

Those powerplant fatality numbers have been discussed and argued here in the forum for years. There have been multiple attempts by nuclear fear mongers to dispute them, all of which failed. They are good numbers, and you have lost your argument, and should acknowledge the same.

To continue to hold onto your fear of nuclear energy in the face of such evidence, is irrational. What we are actually talking about is the legacy of 1950's and 1960's "B" movies, that blamed atomic energy for everything from the giant ants to Godzilla. You were fed that nonsense from childhood, and more nonsense such as the movie The China Syndrome since then. It takes intelligence and courage to face up to the actual facts and let go of irrational prejudices. Most people cannot manage to do so.
Image
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4263
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 16:16:32
Location: California's Silly Valley

Re: THE Radiation / Radioactive Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby dohboi » Fri 05 May 2017, 21:31:59

"Those powerplant fatality numbers..."

???

Did somebody mention some specific 'fatality numbers' from power plants? Can you point to who it was so we can understand the context of your statement?

Thanks.
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 16835
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: THE Radiation / Radioactive Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby Hawkcreek » Fri 05 May 2017, 21:40:56

KaiserJeep wrote:The conclusion remains the same. Nuclear energy is the safest form of power generation by far. If Ibon built a dam for his Hydropower (not always necessary in the mountains) then he has a fairly dangerous power plant. But even my rooftop solar is 4400X more deadly than commercial nuclear power.

Some might be more concerned about the potential for harm, rather than the historical record of harm. Your rooftop solar probably has a limited potential to harm anyone, whereas a nuke, given the right circumstances (natural calamity, terrorism, etc) , can harm many. You can't always make decisions based only on what happened in the past.
"It don't make no sense that common sense don't make no sense no more"
John Prine
Hawkcreek
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 1455
Joined: Sun 15 Aug 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Washington State

Re: THE Radiation / Radioactive Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Sat 06 May 2017, 00:28:46

dohboi wrote:"Those powerplant fatality numbers..."

???

Did somebody mention some specific 'fatality numbers' from power plants? Can you point to who it was so we can understand the context of your statement?

Thanks.


https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/#26fb1d82709b
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4263
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 16:16:32
Location: California's Silly Valley

Re: THE Radiation / Radioactive Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby Tanada » Sat 06 May 2017, 07:33:44

Hawkcreek wrote:
KaiserJeep wrote:The conclusion remains the same. Nuclear energy is the safest form of power generation by far. If Ibon built a dam for his Hydropower (not always necessary in the mountains) then he has a fairly dangerous power plant. But even my rooftop solar is 4400X more deadly than commercial nuclear power.

Some might be more concerned about the potential for harm, rather than the historical record of harm. Your rooftop solar probably has a limited potential to harm anyone, whereas a nuke, given the right circumstances (natural calamity, terrorism, etc) , can harm many. You can't always make decisions based only on what happened in the past.


That sounds nice as far as it goes, but Chernobyl was about as bad as a nuclear power accident can get and it killed under a hundred people. Coal and Natural Gas and Diesel pollute the air in a way that kills many asthmatic people every year, and can even induce asthma in people who have not had the condition from an early age.
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14097
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: THE Radiation / Radioactive Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby diemos » Sat 06 May 2017, 11:21:20

I've been watching the Fukushima situation unfold for the past 6 years and my reaction to the aftereffects can be adequately summed up as, "There now ... that wasn't so bad, was it?"
User avatar
diemos
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 744
Joined: Fri 23 Sep 2005, 02:00:00

Re: THE Radiation / Radioactive Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby dohboi » Sat 06 May 2017, 12:56:03

T, do you really think that in a total civilizational collapse scenario that anyone will be able to muster the kind of response that kept Chernobyl or Fukushima from becoming a much worse situation.

If the wind happened to have been blowing a different direction during Fuku, they would have been talking about evacuating Tokyo and its environs, at least...that seems like a rather worse scenario, don't you think?

.....

So KJ basically just admitted that he brought up an argument no one was making so that he could shoot it down. Why bother being on a blog if you just want to talk to yourself? [smilie=bduh.gif] [smilie=dontknow.gif] [smilie=eusa_think.gif] [smilie=eusa_doh.gif] [smilie=icon_scratch.gif] [smilie=jerk.gif] [smilie=laughing4.gif] [smilie=tellme.gif] [smilie=sleepy1.gif]
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 16835
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: THE Radiation / Radioactive Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Sat 06 May 2017, 14:34:58

You asked about the power plant death statistics, and I linked to them, for the second time. Now you are STILL arguing against nuclear energy, and I can't decide whether you didn't read the "deathprint" article, didn't understand it, or are simply behaving in the usual immature way.

Whichever one of the three alternatives applies this particular time, you are convincingly failing to impress with your usual juvenile reasoning.
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4263
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 16:16:32
Location: California's Silly Valley

Re: THE Radiation / Radioactive Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby Hawkcreek » Sat 06 May 2017, 15:46:42

Tanada wrote:That sounds nice as far as it goes, but Chernobyl was about as bad as a nuclear power accident can get and it killed under a hundred people.

Well, if you are absolutely, positively sure that a nuclear accident can never, ever be worse than Chernobyl, then no worries.
If there is no potential possibility for harm to come from a nuclear accident, I feel much better.
We should definitely go with nukes instead of solar or wind. :lol:
"It don't make no sense that common sense don't make no sense no more"
John Prine
Hawkcreek
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 1455
Joined: Sun 15 Aug 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Washington State

Re: THE Radiation / Radioactive Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Sat 06 May 2017, 17:52:04

The movie The China Syndrome probably did more damage than all the "B" movies, because of the coincidental circumstances that it was being publicized while the Chernobyl disaster was happening.

It's total nonsense. The exact scenario the movie described, loss of cooling of a reactor at full power, happened at Fukushima. The "corium" melted togather in some cases, but it never actually breached the reactor vessel or the concrete containment. The ruptured reactor "torus" allowed seepage of primary coolant (contaminated water) but the "China Syndrome" never happened, because it is in fact nonsense. The fuel will not melt through the reactor vessel steel, nor the containment concrete, in the worst case - because that's what they are designed to do, contain the melted core. The movie was total and complete BS made by anti-nuclear fanatics.

Chernobyl was scary enough - but that terrible orange glow was burning graphite, a form of carbon - and the plume was hot carbon soot containing some uranium and other particulates from the burning nuclear "pile". In fact, the graphite pile is a design from the 1940's "Manhattan Project" era, intended to test the fission properties of enriched uranium fuel. It was Russian hubris to attempt to scale it up to power plant size and not build any containment structure around it.

The first actual reactor design for steam power generation was the boiling water reactor in the USS Nautilus nuclear submarine. The commercial nuclear power plants like Fukushima Dai-Ichi and Three Mile Island are referred to as "First Generation" designs, scaled up versions of the US Navy reactors. But the Navy reactors are surrounded by a submarine hull, and the civilian reactors by ferro-concrete domes, and both provide "containment".

Nowadays we have 3rd generation reactor designs. Some are constructed as to provide containment with no cooling at all. Others include "passive cooling" - commonly a 4+ day supply of emergency water that trickles through the reactor when a valve is opened. This gives you 4+ days to fly out emergency cooling pumps and connect a source of cooling water - something they were not prepared to do at Fukushima.

In fact, if we were to construct water towers containing 4+ days of cooling water above each 1st generation reactor still in service, we could upgrade their safety considerably. Probably not economical, since we don't typically build reactors in a Tsunami zone with emergency cooling equipment below ground level in a basement.
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4263
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 16:16:32
Location: California's Silly Valley

PreviousNext

Return to Environment, Weather & Climate

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: dohboi, pstarr, ROCKMAN, Tuike and 12 guests