Yup. this is going to be devastating.
NOT, that anyone should be eating fish to begin with. But with BIO-Accumulation the pacific fish will become very toxic. The radiation is absorbed by plakton, small shrimp/fish eat the plankton, the bigger fish eat the small fish, hughmahns eat the big fish, = CANCER. Not to mention the water is filtered through the fishs's gills, it's like a radiation collector.
You'd think the ocean dilutes it, and it does, but Marine life will CONCENTRATE this radiation.
You can forget eating sushi in Jpn, if you're going there, you're breathing in fresh reactor dust, that has blown in from the mountains which remain highly contaminated and uncleanable. 70% of the contaminated landmass is forests/hills/mountanous terrain. Impossible to clean/decontaminate. We're looking at almost a 300mile circle around fukushima. The dust travels. They also have radioactive rubble which they're burning and casting into concrete. So, that radioactivity just rises with the air and wind. Their cancer rates have skyrocketed, they've removed all journalistic freedoms in the nation and it can not be reported on.
Specific to the water, Tritium is NOT the only thing in there, their efforts to filter the water has FAILED, which means it's contaminated still with things like Strontium.
Not to take sides, but what proof do we have that they’re wrong, and you’re right? I’m not calling you a liar, but perpetuating claims without sourcing them is how people get the wrong ideas in their head. That’s all.
in a few months all of that water is going to be all mixed and so all sushi will be equal, and one million tonnes seems large, but i am not even sure it will really move the needle when it comes to the greater ocean, dunno, haven't done any research right nowOK, I'll do it for you: 1 million tonnes of water is 0,00000000000000007% of the world ocean.
in a few months all of that water is going to be all mixed and so all sushi will be equal, and one million tonnes seems large, but i am not even sure it will really move the needle when it comes to the greater ocean, dunno, haven't done any research right nowOK, I'll do it for you: 1 million tonnes of water is 0,00000000000000007% of the world ocean.
The risk is much greater if current unfiltered radioactive water seeps into groundwater. They had to make a choice.
Fish are getting contaminated by other chemical agents and heavy metals, dumped by industry, and there are well known scandals around that.
Eating a banana, or a bag of cashew nuts will give you a radioactive dose much greater than any fish that has been in Fukushima waters.
Scientific consensus is that this is safe, and I don't really see any reason to believe otherwise. I'd say mercury is a much more pressing concern, and unrelated to Fukushima.
No problem putting my money where my mouth is, either - I'm in Japan for work every year, 2020 notwithstanding. I'll keep eating plenty of sushi when I'm there.
That is not what's happening, Attempts at filtration has been done but the results are poor, and they've disclosed that they still have alot of water that is contaminated with heavy elements.What's your source on this ?
The GROUND WATER is already in contact with the reactor containment. This is why they built the icewall (a refrigeration trench to stop ground water) which did not work, and 300+ tons of ground water reaches core containment per day and is still seeping through directly into the ocean. This is in excess of what they're pumping and storing to keep the melted fuel cool.Again, source ?
[/size][/color]
Japan will release more than one million tonnes of radioactive water from the destroyed Fukushima nuclear plant into the Pacific Ocean. (https://news.sky.com/story/fukushima-japan-to-release-contaminated-water-into-sea-after-treatment-12274032)
Nuclear is not clean. when all the mining, transport, processing, is taken into account, nooq is only ~6 to 9% cleaner than coal power.That's preposterous at best: if you compare with coal mining, transport etc. it's not even in the same order of magnitude.
and it builds extremely slowly, ~30 years.No it doesnt... Again, wrong scale factor here.
We don't have that kind of time, We are no longer in a climate crisis we're in a climate emergency.Indeed and going full coal is certainly not the answer. The facts are, nuclear plants are being replaced by coal plants, right now.
Wind mills go up in 1 year, highly reliable. The Tesla Utility scale Battery has already been proven in australia, it works. Everything is ready to go.Certainly. Look at Kurzgesagt video above please. They have actual real figures, and a set of different, reliable sources for them. Wind cannot fulfill the energy demand, again by several orders of magnitude. The increase in energy demand is actually greater than the increase in windmill deployment (plus the problem of getting a location, political support, etc.). Hydro is saturated. Solar, while also increasing at exponential rates, is not following the demand.
There is no future in nooq.Disagree here. It's the perfect transitional step towards 100% renewable. Current politics to disassemble nuclear plants and replace them with coal are driven by corruption, not facts.
SummaryOnly one single source from 2011, with zero figure, no independent measurement, from an obvious anti-nuclear NGO (and who funds them by the way..). I'll refer again to Kurzgesagt: they cite all their sources, who have done actual measurements.
(...)
problem with TP, i tried last time doing the same as you but he will not take into account any data going against his views, like any good american. he got in his mind that anything is better then nuclear so you will not be able to change him, and he will continue to go full trump and disseminate lies about it all over the place, it is why i did not even try to counter him on this post, the best way is to just ignore what he is saying at one point.Yeah i got that, just posting links to actual facts for others to see (like the Kurzgesagt vid that was just posted to YT a few days ago, very nicely done). I didnt know about these facts myself before doing some research, and nuclear is a really sensitive topic, with a lot of extreme views and emotional responses.
problem with TP, i tried last time doing the same as you but he will not take into account any data going against his views, like any good american. he got in his mind that anything is better then nuclear so you will not be able to change him, and he will continue to go full trump and disseminate lies about it all over the place, it is why i did not even try to counter him on this post, the best way is to just ignore what he is saying at one point.I don't like defending TP but it's not a matter of head in the sand like you claim.
problem with TP, i tried last time doing the same as you but he will not take into account any data going against his views, like any good american. he got in his mind that anything is better then nuclear so you will not be able to change him, and he will continue to go full trump and disseminate lies about it all over the place, it is why i did not even try to counter him on this post, the best way is to just ignore what he is saying at one point.I don't like defending TP but it's not a matter of head in the sand like you claim.
You claim he was like a typical American and stuck in his ways on anything but nuclear when in reality he is/was open to hearing other ideas, just not the one you wanted.
You're not going to sway him on this by just spewing the same claims pro-nuclear activists have thrown around for the last 60 years, he grew up in nuclear's prime and heard all of it before. You better bring facts, links, and evidence and new ideas if you want it to be a viable solution and it needs to be an actual solution, not just another stop gap that just creates an even larger mess to deal with later.
the thing is, we did in the last thread on the subject, i was not alone, and right now we have the choice between a stopgap that will destroy us in the next 40 years or a stopgap that maybe will render some part of the world inhabitable in the next 500 years.It has to be said that in one case, the risk is manageable (nuclear power plants do not blow up randomly.. they never do), and yes managing that risk is expensive, but much less than what the alternative currently entails. That's the whole point. I dont think any of us here is pro-nuclear (I clearly remember Chernobyl, and as other Europeans the cloud got over my area too) - but there's no other stop gap for the next decades or so before full renewable can take over.
It produces NET NEGATIVE POWER.
It produces NET NEGATIVE POWER.
This is an absurd claim. How has France produced 70% of it's power from nuclear energy over the past decades? How has it been able to export significant amounts of power to neighboring countries?
Where are YOUR sources, you have provided none.I posted quite a few links, and asked you to look at the souces provided by kurzgesagt. You obviously did not...
Nooqular powerThat doesnt go in favour of getting you any credit, spelling like a 12 year old...
It produces NET NEGATIVE POWER.No. You clearly have zero idea of what you are talking about. Also from a scientific point of view, the cringe is definitely strong here.
Nope it hasn't, their nuclear industry is fully bankrupt, google it. They even import power from neighboring countries because the renewable power that those countries invested in, like Germany is cheaper.No where did you get that info again ? Fox News ? What the hell, it's not even close to reality, it's the complete opposite. France exports a lot of its electricity, and yes to Germany, since they did close nuclear power plants and are at a deficit. As for "bankrupt", where did you get that, nuclear power plants in France are owned by a public company (= the state) not by a private entity. And France is no more bankrupt than the US would be... Source: I live there.
France also now has to deal with the Millions of tons of waste product that NO ONE on the planet knows what to do with.Not millions of tons.. again with the wrong scale.
Nooq waste has to be monitored and guarded from 3000-1,000,000 years. For the short time each reactor is online, it is IMPOSSIBLE to generate the power necessary to OFFSET the labor cost of the End product.That kiddie spelling again... And no, even counting the dismantling of power plants, it's still cheaper than coal when we account for environment impact.
So, YES, Nuclear is NET NEGATIVE POWER.That was a net negative argument...
France is the largest energy export in Europe.It produces NET NEGATIVE POWER.
This is an absurd claim. How has France produced 70% of it's power from nuclear energy over the past decades? How has it been able to export significant amounts of power to neighboring countries?
Nope it hasn't, their nuclear industry is fully bankrupt, google it. They even import power from neighboring countries because the renewable power that those countries invested in, like Germany is cheaper.
France also now has to deal with the Millions of tons of waste product that NO ONE on the planet knows what to do with.
Nooq waste has to be monitored and guarded from 3000-1,000,000 years. For the short time each reactor is online, it is IMPOSSIBLE to generate the power necessary to OFFSET the labor cost of the End product.
So, YES, Nuclear is NET NEGATIVE POWER.
It's really unfortunate. We will have to adapt. Aquaculture will become more widespread in the generations to come, I would wager.
I hope mankind learns from this lesson and stops spilling waste into our oceans. Like stated by others in the thread, I have high hopes for batteries and other forms of energy generation.
In my opinion, we shouldn't need to rely on anything except the power of the sun for all of our needs.
France is the largest energy export in Europe.
https://www.nsenergybusiness.com/features/electricity-export-france/
https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/france.aspx
France is going to need to run on existing nuclear tech for nearly another thousand years to get up to a million tons. Meanwhile Gen3 designs use significantly less waste, and Gen4 designs are even larger leaps forward. As for monitoring and guarding, it's pretty minimal effort. Bury it where there's no water table.
Neither of your sources refute mine. Nor do either of them even indicate nuclear has to be the most expensive - just that the current political realities and scale of economics mean that building new ones is quite expensive, largely because so few are being built.
France is the largest energy export in Europe.
https://www.nsenergybusiness.com/features/electricity-export-france/
https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/france.aspx
France is going to need to run on existing nuclear tech for nearly another thousand years to get up to a million tons. Meanwhile Gen3 designs use significantly less waste, and Gen4 designs are even larger leaps forward. As for monitoring and guarding, it's pretty minimal effort. Bury it where there's no water table.
That article and report is clearly bogus industry shill numbers.
Nuclear is the most expensive form of electrical power. If they're exporting so much and doing so well, explain how their system went bankrupt.
Just because exports exist, does not means the system works. They're taking on a HUGE LOSS. The burden is then payed for by the tax payers.
This is because it costs France more to make this power than their income selling it. Again, NATIVE french businesses in france are buying power from across the pond to stay competitive.
The result of France's export at utility scale is one of desperation, it's been a firesale.
https://www.pv-magazine.com/2020/09/24/nuclear-power-is-now-the-most-expensive-form-of-generation-except-for-gas-peaking-plants/
https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2F978-3-658-25987-7_10.pdf?error=cookies_not_supported&code=6fcf4e22-4721-4f8d-984f-0b13e1b41366
Neither of your sources refute mine. Nor do either of them even indicate nuclear has to be the most expensive - just that the current political realities and scale of economics mean that building new ones is quite expensive, largely because so few are being built.
It's not really possible to argue with someone who just immediately dismisses any counter-evidence as bogus industry shill numbers, while claiming that their sources are infallible, though, so I'm not really sure where to go from here.
Neither of us are in charge of policy for this, so I guess it doesn't much matter what either of us believes.
Nuclear is the most expensive form of electrical power.It's not. Fossil fuels are, when you account for environmental damage. You clearly didnt read properly the article you posted yourself: they are talking costs of new energy (so building new power plants - which has become expensive in France for political reasons mostly, again, see the K video for more complete data on this).
If they're exporting so much and doing so well, explain how their system went bankrupt.Again, France is exporting a lot, and selling electricity at near cost to its residents. Still do not understand what is "bankrupt" here - I'm not saying we have zero problem in France (by far) but electricity generation is not one. Actually the EU would want France to privatize its electricity sector which is still mostly public as of today. Explain to us, how a whole country can become bankrupt. Boggles the mind what kind of propaganda is being fed to people in the US...
Just because exports exist, does not means the system works. They're taking on a HUGE LOSS. The burden is then payed for by the tax payers.So, do you understand how a public system works ? It's not a private company. It's indeed paid by taxes (for the investment part), but mostly by the electricity bill itself (for running costs). The participation of the public tax money into that is what irks the EU who sees that as "anti competitive" - which of course is obvious since it DOES NOT NEED TO TURN A PROFIT SINCE IT'S PUBLIC.
This is because it costs France more to make this power than their income selling it. Again, NATIVE french businesses in france are buying power from across the pond to stay competitive.No they dont. Again where did you get that idea ?
It was never made to reduce carbon, and that's why it has minimal impact on carbon emmissions.It's completely false. The opposite is clearly demonstrated by actual measurements (a simple search on air quality in France vs Poland for example, to get nuclear vs coal results). Again, the video from K i posted provides all the sources and actual measurements... It's also quite obvious when you know how a nuclear power plant works, which i'm starting to think that you do not.
The only reason reactors exist is because its a convenient public fascade to maintain the refinery infrastructure to build weapons.Again, you have zero idea of what you are talking about. Weapons grade uranium is completely different from the one that's used in civilian reactors, and need to be refined in a very specific way.
I am a supporter of the arms use of this technologyYou understand that the weapons use is actually a major threat to our global existence, right ? And just the open air tests we've done in the last 70 years or so did contaminate the whole surface of the globe, to a point we have to use special steel from sunk WW2 battleships to build radiation detection equipment ? By the way, this background radiation is also non-zero but weak, a bit like what the seawater released at Fukushima would be.
There is a utility to nuclear that WORKS and that's the weapons systems. And an area which clearly does NOT work and is extremely harmful , that's the reactors.Fox News again ? Do you get your science facts from Tucker Carlson ?
None sense
When you grow up a little moreI suggest you do, before talking about grown up topics like this one...
French nuclear industry is bankrupt, this is a fact,It's not, again, nuclear power plants in France are owned by the public sector, which is the state. Is my English wrong or something ? Seems like i've repeated this multiple times and it still does not get through.
NO ONE even in FRANCE wanted nuclear powerWe like our relatively cheap electricity. How are things in Texas, remind me ?
Nonsense
So it's clear you know nothing about America, and despite being French, you know very little about France. I've answered your questions, the rest is on you.What the actual hell, no you didnt, you answered zero question... I'll stop here, you didnt even read my sources.
So it's clear you know nothing about America, and despite being French, you know very little about France. I've answered your questions, the rest is on you.What the actual hell, no you didnt, you answered zero question... I'll stop here, you didnt even read my sources.
And your "reality" is not our reality, as it seems...
I did answer your questionsNo you did not, even just one... especially the important one: with your own words what do you think is the solution for the next 40 years or so, to answer to the rapidly expanding energy demand ?
, you refused to follow up and research on your own.I think i posted interesting sources of information. That should be enough for anyone that's not a conspirationist / Qanon / whatever you claim you are..
For the sake of your own people, please do your homework.I'm not a politician. For what it's worth, no one told us in France that we are bankrupt, it's one of the funniest and most perplexing things i've been told in the last few months, and I'm writing this on a computer that runs with.. nuclear electricty. Guess no one told my provider they are bankrupt, either. I'll make sure to phone and warn them, on behalf of "tp4tissue from Geekhack"...
nonsense
NEGATIVE POWER HAS NO MEANING. POWER, LIKE LENGTH CAN'T BE NEGATIVE YOU ABSOLUTE BABOON, ELSE YOU CAN TRAVEL BACK IN TIME FFS LEARN PHYSICS (Power = Energy/time and neither energy or time can be negative...)It produces NET NEGATIVE POWER.
This is an absurd claim. How has France produced 70% of it's power from nuclear energy over the past decades? How has it been able to export significant amounts of power to neighboring countries?
Nope it hasn't, their nuclear industry is fully bankrupt, google it. They even import power from neighboring countries because the renewable power that those countries invested in, like Germany is cheaper.
France also now has to deal with the Millions of tons of waste product that NO ONE on the planet knows what to do with.
Nooq waste has to be monitored and guarded from 3000-1,000,000 years. For the short time each reactor is online, it is IMPOSSIBLE to generate the power necessary to OFFSET the labor cost of the End product.
So, YES, Nuclear is NET NEGATIVE POWER.
NEGATIVE POWER HAS NO MEANING. POWER, LIKE LENGTH CAN'T BE NEGATIVE YOU ABSOLUTE BABOON, ELSE YOU CAN TRAVEL BACK IN TIME FFS LEARN PHYSICS (Power = Energy/time and neither energy or time can be negative...)While tp4 is trolling, I would point that if you talk about "net power delivery" you could subtract power input from power output (although scientists prefer a ratio, so divide one by the other, to get the efficiency factor), so a power plant of course should always have positive net power delivery (otherwise it's not a power plant...). A good example is current fusion reactor experiments, which have negative net power delivery (or a ratio <1.0) since they need more energy input than they can produce, and the goal of course of research there is now to engineer a solution that is net positive (so we can use fusion to power our grid). ITER is such an experiment, also there's a really nice prototype in Germany with a really interesting approach, and various variants of discrete/solid state "z-machines", all look very good but are still decades away from producing more energy than they consume.
We're keyboard lovers, not keyboard warriors :)Speak for yourself!
We're keyboard lovers, not keyboard warriors :)Speak for yourself!Show Image(https://i.imgur.com/mTDlC.png)
Let's get back on the subject - I understand that Japanese government made this decision to release that water to ocean - do they need an approval from International Atomic Energy Agency for example to do that? Apparently, from this article it looks like they haven't received any yet.According to Reuters they just did:
Sorry guys, I put this subject out, so we could discuss and share our opinion on this, didn't want to "ignite flames" between us.
We're keyboard lovers, not keyboard warriors :)
Let's get back on the subject - I understand that Japanese government made this decision to release that water to ocean - do they need an approval from International Atomic Energy Agency for example to do that? Apparently, from this article it looks like they haven't received any yet.
Germany is N1 on coal in Europe, and has been actively importing from France for the NEGATIVE POWER.
(and no you do not need to actively monitor it for 3000 to 1000000 years... if you properly get rid of it)