I have this lingering suspicion that, if solar could be used as a weapon, the efficiency would be more equal to nuclear plants. And, while we're at it, if they could run tanks on batteries, we'd have affordable electric cars. Not that I'm railing against the military-industrial complex, or anything.

I don't think solar arrays are limited to providing power to daytime hours. I could be wrong. Here in Arizona, peak usage during the majority of the year is from 1pm to 6pm. All those air conditioners, you know.

re the wobble: Most scientists seem to think this normally precedes an ice age, which now has me totatlly confused. Are we a) cooling off, b) warming up, or c) just generally in for a really bumpy ride?

Alternative energies are very limited.

Solar energies only work with Sun, at night there is no Sun and Sun is not always available all the time or in all the places. Sun can be too weak or the sky can be obscurred by clouds. Some days ago there was a big full moon, but I was unable to see it, I was unable to see before it reached its maximun and still today I am unable to see becuase the sky is covered by clouds. Some years ago Mars was also big, but for three months I was unable to see it because the sky was cloudy for three month and I live in Brasil, the tropical country full of beaches and Sun.

The Sahara desert is an excellent place for solar energy, a lot of Sun, no clouds, no rain, but there is nothing there and nobody lives there, also there are sand storms, much better, sand hurricans, imagine the sand of a snad hurricane polishing the solar panels.

Wind energy also can be useful, but to work it need to be wind and wind not always is present and depend on seasons or the hour of the day. If there is wind you have energy, if not you have wait until the wind comes again. Wind mills work in this way.

Sea tide energy can be useful, but only work in places that have big tides and also depend on the hour of the day.

The only sources that can deliver constant electric energy that you can use at any moment you want or need are coal, oil, gas, dams and nuclear energy.

Quote - I have this lingering suspicion that, if solar could be used as a weapon, the efficiency would be more equal to nuclear plants. And, while we're at it, if they could run tanks on batteries, we'd have affordable electric cars. Not that I'm railing against the military-industrial complex, or anything.

If solar could reach the energy density useful as a practical weapon, then it's usefulness as a power source would go up appreciably because the energy density would be higher. It has nothing to with no one wanting to develop it because it can't be used as a practical weapon.

In fact, as an aside, modern militaries such as that of the US are very interested in energy efficiency, alternate energy sources and the like. The reason is the weakness of all militaries: logistics. If someone developed super-high efficiency solar cells the Pentagon would be all over that because it would allow them to cut the logistical requirements (in terms of things like fuel), especially to units in the field or at forward bases, making the units more flexible as they wouldn't have to rely as much on the logistical tail, and the people taking care of the logistics could focus more on the things that go bang and boom and less on carrying in simple things like fuel to keep generators running.

ugh. I wish my brain understood science. There has to be some way to keep our lights and toys running without polluting the planet or creating disasters waiting to happen. This planet, and the sun are huge sources of energy. We just need to figure out how to tap into them. I know you can make magnets with electricity. Is it possible to do the reverse? 

Quote - ugh. I wish my brain understood science. There has to be some way to keep our lights and toys running without polluting the planet or creating disasters waiting to happen. This planet, and the sun are huge sources of energy. We just need to figure out how to tap into them. I know you can make magnets with electricity. Is it possible to do the reverse? 

Yes. It's called an electrical generator.

The only power source which does not use magnets to make electricity is solar cells: everything else uses something to make something move which turns a magnet and wire coil setup which generates electricity.

Alternative energies are very limited.

Solar energies only work with Sun, at night there is no Sun and Sun is not always available all the time or in all the places.

What about satellites?

Quote - Alternative energies are very limited.

Solar energies only work with Sun, at night there is no Sun and Sun is not always available all the time or in all the places.

What about satellites?

cost. not really practical until we can build a space tether or develop a cheap launcher system.

a Sat system, you really want to be at the Lagrange points for simplicity, it's going to be huge in size, (tho, the collector can be very lightweight/low mass, we're still talking bulk), then there's getting the power down.

and thats just one Sat....

Didn't Tesla work on wireless energy transmission?

How huge?

we're talking the collector array starting at 1km diameter  in space and the collector array on the ground being around 10km's diameter.

i wonder if there should be collectors spread around the world?

1km dia,  it might be able to serve as an orbital launch platform as well.

How much do you think it would cost?

Quote - cost. not really practical until we can build a space tether or develop a cheap launcher system.

a Sat system, you really want to be at the Lagrange points for simplicity, it's going to be huge in size, (tho, the collector can be very lightweight/low mass, we're still talking bulk), then there's getting the power down.

and thats just one Sat....

And, of course, there's a trade-off issue: security. The line between "orbiting solar power satellite" and "orbital death ray" is a fuzzy one (albeit not as fuzzy as some people would think, but still...)

You see people getting up in arms at the idea that WiFi signals might somehow be causing them to develop tumors. You think people are going to be more rational when told that someone is pointing a giant microwave at their heads?

This sounds like the Star Trek plot, where one moon learns how to derive power from the home planet, but a side effect was frying the people on the other moon.

I know magnets are involved in the production of power, but can they do it on their own? How about anti-matter? Ok, that might be a reach right now...

"And, of course, there's a trade-off issue: security. The line between "orbiting solar power satellite" and "orbital death ray" is a fuzzy one (albeit not as fuzzy as some people would think, but still...)" 

I'd read up on it ;) the Microwave beam used would be weak enough you could walk through it and have no ill effects. thats the reason for the 10km receiver...

And, of course, there's a trade-off issue: security. The line between "orbiting solar power satellite" and "orbital death ray" is a fuzzy one (albeit not as fuzzy as some people would think, but still...)

You see people getting up in arms at the idea that WiFi signals might somehow be causing them to develop tumors. You think people are going to be more rational when told that someone is pointing a giant microwave at their heads?

Some people will only believe what they want to believe.

10km receiver...i think the first one should be built in Scotland.

the reason you see 'em with cel-fones glued to their ears when driving or walking around is that, in addition to a fairly strong signal being sent to the nearest towers, there is also a very-short-range static electric field that works like a brain stim, acting on a pleasure centre on the side of the brain where the cel is held.  apparently it's very addictive.  we don't have clear evidence that either the long-range signal nor short-range field can cause the sort of excitation of molecular bonds that microwave ovens can achieve.  it might show up later in these individuals as some kind of schizoid or dissociative behavior, in the way that ultrasonic disruption may lead to an increase in the probability of autism in infants.

the reason you see 'em with cel-fones glued to their ears when driving or walking around is that, in addition to a fairly strong signal being sent to the nearest towers, there is also a very-short-range static electric field that works like a brain stim, acting on a pleasure centre on the side of the brain where the cel is held.  apparently it's very addictive.  we don't have clear evidence that either the long-range signal nor short-range field can cause the sort of excitation of molecular bonds that microwave ovens can achieve.  it might show up later in these individuals as some kind of schizoid or dissociative behavior, in the way that ultrasonic disruption may lead to an increase in the probability of autism in infants.

Would i be wrong in assuming this includes "blue tooths" too?

Quote - the reason you see 'em with cel-fones glued to their ears when driving or walking around is that, in addition to a fairly strong signal being sent to the nearest towers, there is also a very-short-range static electric field that works like a brain stim, acting on a pleasure centre on the side of the brain where the cel is held.  apparently it's very addictive.  we don't have clear evidence that either the long-range signal nor short-range field can cause the sort of excitation of molecular bonds that microwave ovens can achieve.  it might show up later in these individuals as some kind of schizoid or dissociative behavior, in the way that ultrasonic disruption may lead to an increase in the probability of autism in infants.

complete rubbish. where's your proof? the studies? the case notes? the evidence?

Quote - Didn't Tesla work on wireless energy transmission?

Nobody knows what Tesla was doing. In the oficiall version he was mad, the famous "crazy scientist" of the movies. In the alternative version he was a iniciate genius together with pyramids, Atlantis, reptilians and all the blah, blah.

The problem is that Tesla was not a physic, academic or theorists. He didn't create any theory and didn't left papers with any importance. He was only an engineer that turned all his ideas and conceptions into practical applications and he was a genius in this. Thanks to him we all have electricity available in our homes and in any place we want. He created alternating current, electrical transformer and the alternating current generator and motor, a brilliant mental conception. He was the first that conceived the wireless communication and not Marconi.

Another problem was tat some of his ideas were against what was accepted by the scientists and academics. He ridicularized Einstein, a great blasfemy and sacriledge. He stated that transversal waves cannot transmit power (this is right) and only longitunal waves can do it and his experiments of power transmission was based on longitudinal waves something impossible to exist. The Heaviside simplification of Maxwell's equation and the Lorentz condition only admit transversal electromagnetiv waves as solution to the Maxwell's equation, but with the original Maxwell's equation longitudial waves are possible, you don't find this is physics books, The sam as Ampere's law of the books that is not Ampere's law, it is Biot-Savart law, Ampere's law is different. If you are curious about all this you can read the original 1856 Maxwell's Treatise on electricity and magnetism book.

Tesla could be right or could be wrong, nobody knows what was in his mind, but electricity is much more than what is accepted by today's science

Yes tesla did work on wireless transmission and yes, there is a company that thinks they've figured out how it can be done.  At least I saw so on TV.  ;)

As for solar power, the best solar cells caputure only a fraction of the available energy and some solar plants refocus the sun to... wait for it... generate steam.  /facepalm

Our modern society takes a c---load of energy to run and it's only going to take more in the years ahead.  Yes having power runs with risks, but not having energy for cooking/refrigeration/heating/cooling/internet/tv runs even greater risks.

A small car with 70 HP needs an electric power of 51 KW. The solar energy is 1.366 kilowatts per square meter, so this small car with require a solar panel with 38 square meters area, something like 4m x 9m or 6m x 7m that is of course much bigger than this small car and I have assumed 100% energy efficience in the conversion.

You know what it's going to take though is our banks heavily investing in energy.  The only bank i've seen so far doing this is the Bank of Scotland.  The others still seem stuck in the mortgage derivatives quagmire.

One of the interesting things that I just noticed that you'll see is that the amount of electrical generation is often given in "household" units. "This (source of electrical power) will provide enough electricity for X number of homes/number of families/whatever."

It's very intuitive. It's also very useless. Civilization depends on more than just providing power to homes.

To put it in perspective, the world's current largest windfarm is Roscoe Wind Farm in Texas, which supplies enough power for "more than 250,000 average Texas homes". Sounds more impressive than saying that it provides enough juice to power less than one single aluminum smelter, doesn't it?

i wonder how much power the fusion reactor in France will produce?

What we have with all of this can be boiled down to one simple answer. The world press is creating a panic over something that shouldn't be blown this far out of porportion! I lived in Japan for several years as a kid when my father was in the Navy and I feel for the Japanese people who have lost their families and are suffering through hardships most of us couldn't begin to fathom. But we have the talking heads on the glogal news networks creating a panic about radiation that is less than a chest x-ray! How about focusing on the homeless and hungry japanese people who could be better served by the talking heads than some fantasy radiation scare that will never be noticed? Who cares is a miniscule amount of radiation is added to the atmosphere for a few days? I am currently on R&R in Or and I am not worried one bit, if people on the West coast are worried STAY INSIDE! Plus with all of the talking heads going on about potasium iodine pills and decon kits is bordering on negligent behavior, they are going to hurt more people over this than the radiation will. The American public has become addicted to these talking heads and believe what they are told through them. If they would stop for a minute and quit trying to out sell everyone else on TV they might actually do more good than the harm they are currently causing. If you have a question about radiation and what to do, turn off the TV and find a book or look on the internet for the answer. It might be better for you in the long run.

OK I am off the saop box now, let the rotten tomatos fly.

Quote - There was one interesting comment I saw this morning that might help give some people some perspective.

Between 1945 and 1992, over 900 nuclear weapons were detonated in Nevada, until 1962 most of them above ground, with no containment of fallout or radiation spread. Given that the US east of the Rockies is not a radioactive post-apocalyptic wasteland with two-headed mutant cows and flesh-eating ghouls, perhaps one should temper one's immediate reaction to an accident at a single nuclear power facility for a moment of contemplation of the first bit of data.

dam!  i was hoping for the flesh eating ghouls!

this world is just no fun

No, not two-headed mutant cows and flesh-eating ghouls, only obesse children with learning problems.

Well now that Japan is really radioactive, I expect to see a rise in Godzilla movies!!

"What we have with all of this can be boiled down to one simple answer. The world press is creating a panic over something that shouldn't be blown this far out of porportion! I lived in Japan for several years as a kid when my father was in the Navy and I feel for the Japanese people who have lost their families and are suffering through hardships most of us couldn't begin to fathom. But we have the talking heads on the glogal news networks creating a panic about radiation that is less than a chest x-ray! How about focusing on the homeless and hungry japanese people who could be better served by the talking heads than some fantasy radiation scare that will never be noticed? Who cares is a miniscule amount of radiation is added to the atmosphere for a few days?"

I have to disagree a bit. The TV news that I am getting seem to downplay what's going on at Fukushima . I even heard one talking head say that radiation is good for you. It would be funny, if it wasn't a serious issue. Radiation is not good for you. My national tv news doesn't even talk about what's going on at fukushima any more. As if the situation is solved. It's not. It's ongoing and it is serious.  I understand the need to downplay the incident, after all creating large scale panic would kill more people than radiation eventually may. Also the nuclear industry has a product to sell, so Fukushima is not excatly good publicity for them.

Same thing happened with Chernobyl. Every government on earth (Especially Soviet government) tried to downplay the meltdown and all kinds of redicilous things were being said publicly. Now some recent studies suggest that more than a million people died because of Chernobyl.

It's possible that the people who live in the Fukushima area, wont be able to return to their homes. If I lived there, I certainly wouldn't go back as long as I lived.  The soil might also become contaminated for a long period of time, making it useless for agriculture.  I think that's a serious issue when you have so many displaced people already and the governments resources are stretched.

is this the latest news on the reactor?  LINK

There are big differences between Chernobyl and Fukushisma.

Chernobyl was one nuclear reactor located in the URSS, it was a Russian product and Russians were Communist in those days, Communists always lie and Russia has always crapy products.

Fukushima is a plant with six nuclear reactors. It are an American GE product and Japan and the US are Capitalists countries, paladins of the truth and their products are the best and always use the top technology.

Besides these differences, the rest is the same and you have at least four Chernobyls. The earthquake damaged the plant, the reactors were not stopped because the control central was not operational due the earthquake's damage. The reactors run out of control and sufferered a partial meltdown until the control was restored in a partial and precarious way. The part of the rods that melted fell to the bottom of the container creating a blob above the critical mass and so the fission goes on and cannot be controlled anymore and it will continue until all fissionable material is exhausted or the blob is exploded int not critical pieces. The critical blob didn't explode as a nuclear bomb because the uranium and plutonium has a very low degree of enrichment, but it can burn for years.

You can disagree with all that I am saying, but use pure logic and common sense and examine the known facts:

• Minutes after the earquake Japan raised a nuclear alarm in five reactors. Fukushima has six reactors and something very bad must happened with five reactors.

• When you shut down a nuclear reactor the fission stop within microseconds. The power or heat drops in the act to 6%. This 6% is not due fission that doesn't exist anymore, it is due radioactive decay that also drops quickly, within one hour is 0.4% and a day later is 0.2% droping in a exponential way. You can find this in any physics textbook, and not what the tales circulating in the media.

• And have passed some weeks since the earthquake, time enought to nothing be hot if the reactor was shut down.

• The combustible rods are not fixed and welded to the container. The rods can be removed and changed by new rods plenty of combustible. When a rod is exhausted you replace it with a fresh new one without any big problem and without thurning down the reactor for some years. You also can insert a rod for creating isotops and alter remove it when is full of them.

• If a nuclear reactor has some problem you remove the rods and take them to a safe place.

• If the pool with used rods had a problem, why they didn't remove the rods from the pool instead of trying to cool the pool? Don't tell that it were very hot, you can move melted iron/steel from one part to other in a steel plant without any problem.

• Why there were injecting borum acid in the reactors? Borum acid is not used to cool nothing, borum has the property of absorving neutrons and so, stop the fission. Stop which fission if the reactor was shut down ?

• A nuclear reactor is used to generate electric power, it has a generator. If there is heat enough and steam enough the generator can produce all the electricity you need without the need o kilometers long cable to bring electricity to the reactor. And if the steam circuit was not more operational due the damage, bringing a kilometers long electric cable will solve nothing because it is not workin anymore.

• But if the reactors were not stopped, the rods melted and are under fission today the scenario is rather different. The fission is not anymore under control, cannot be controlled, it generate a lot heat and a lot of radiation. The released heat is damaging all what was not damaged, the heat source is now located in a part where the reactor was not designed to handle this heat, so the cooling process is not very effective and how many months or years you will have to continue cooling?

For me what should have to be done is: In the moment that the earthquake damaged the reactors and the nuclear alaram was raised, take the decision. The reactors are lost and without control and so isolated it from the population, retire as many combustible rods as possible, take it to a save place and burry the recators in sand and concrete. The fission can continue burning inside the concrete block for years, but all the radiation will be confined inside the concrete block without creating any damage to the surrounding population and all the world.

If they have done this the population would be saved, but....

• The company and their insvertors would have total loss, nothing would be able to save and recover meaning a loss of many billions.

• The world would know that nuclear plants are not so secure and that is not green energy.

• There are many nuclear plants around the world with the same design, design proved nothing secure. Not good for GE and their investors.

• Great damage to the plans of creating of new carbon free "green" nuclear plants.

• And much more.....

Do you think they'll start pouring the concrete this week?

I hope they do it and soon, time is life and not money!

There are two ways to deal with the problem, or they isolate the reactors from the world with a concrete block as big as necessary, after all concrete is nothing expensive. Or they explode the reactor into pieces and then clean the mess. The second solution is nothing good because it will spread a lot of radioactive pieces around an area with dense population, but if the reactor would be located in a desert where nothing was living there it would not be a bad solution.

Some counterpoint to kawecki's ill-informed postings.

-> http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2011/03/reflections_on_a_fukushima_for.html

-> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/25/fukushima_scaremongering_debunk/

The comments on both articles are worth reading through.

Good counterpoint nruddock.  i guess if they don't start pouring concrete this week then "the proof is in the pudding" so they say.

Quote - There are big differences between Chernobyl and Fukushisma.

Chernobyl was one nuclear reactor located in the URSS, it was a Russian product and Russians were Communist in those days, Communists always lie and Russia has always crapy products.

Fukushima is a plant with six nuclear reactors. It are an American GE product and Japan and the US are Capitalists countries, paladins of the truth and their products are the best and always use the top technology.

Besides these differences, the rest is the same and you have at least four Chernobyls. The earthquake damaged the plant, the reactors were not stopped because the control central was not operational due the earthquake's damage. The reactors run out of control and sufferered a partial meltdown until the control was restored in a partial and precarious way. The part of the rods that melted fell to the bottom of the container creating a blob above the critical mass and so the fission goes on and cannot be controlled anymore and it will continue until all fissionable material is exhausted or the blob is exploded int not critical pieces. The critical blob didn't explode as a nuclear bomb because the uranium and plutonium has a very low degree of enrichment, but it can burn for years.

You can disagree with all that I am saying, but use pure logic and common sense and examine the known facts:

• Minutes after the earquake Japan raised a nuclear alarm in five reactors. Fukushima has six reactors and something very bad must happened with five reactors.

• When you shut down a nuclear reactor the fission stop within microseconds. The power or heat drops in the act to 6%. This 6% is not due fission that doesn't exist anymore, it is due radioactive decay that also drops quickly, within one hour is 0.4% and a day later is 0.2% droping in a exponential way. You can find this in any physics textbook, and not what the tales circulating in the media.

• And have passed some weeks since the earthquake, time enought to nothing be hot if the reactor was shut down.

• The combustible rods are not fixed and welded to the container. The rods can be removed and changed by new rods plenty of combustible. When a rod is exhausted you replace it with a fresh new one without any big problem and without thurning down the reactor for some years. You also can insert a rod for creating isotops and alter remove it when is full of them.

• If a nuclear reactor has some problem you remove the rods and take them to a safe place.

• If the pool with used rods had a problem, why they didn't remove the rods from the pool instead of trying to cool the pool? Don't tell that it were very hot, you can move melted iron/steel from one part to other in a steel plant without any problem.

• Why there were injecting borum acid in the reactors? Borum acid is not used to cool nothing, borum has the property of absorving neutrons and so, stop the fission. Stop which fission if the reactor was shut down ?

• A nuclear reactor is used to generate electric power, it has a generator. If there is heat enough and steam enough the generator can produce all the electricity you need without the need o kilometers long cable to bring electricity to the reactor. And if the steam circuit was not more operational due the damage, bringing a kilometers long electric cable will solve nothing because it is not workin anymore.

• But if the reactors were not stopped, the rods melted and are under fission today the scenario is rather different. The fission is not anymore under control, cannot be controlled, it generate a lot heat and a lot of radiation. The released heat is damaging all what was not damaged, the heat source is now located in a part where the reactor was not designed to handle this heat, so the cooling process is not very effective and how many months or years you will have to continue cooling?

 

For me what should have to be done is: In the moment that the earthquake damaged the reactors and the nuclear alaram was raised, take the decision. The reactors are lost and without control and so isolated it from the population, retire as many combustible rods as possible, take it to a save place and burry the recators in sand and concrete. The fission can continue burning inside the concrete block for years, but all the radiation will be confined inside the concrete block without creating any damage to the surrounding population and all the world.

If they have done this the population would be saved, but....

• The company and their insvertors would have total loss, nothing would be able to save and recover meaning a loss of many billions.

• The world would know that nuclear plants are not so secure and that is not green energy.

• There are many nuclear plants around the world with the same design, design proved nothing secure. Not good for GE and their investors.

• Great damage to the plans of creating of new carbon free "green" nuclear plants.

• And much more.....

WOW! That is some of the most uninformed ranting I have heard in a while. First off this disater has noting to do with Socialist/Capitalist politics. If the Japanese were Communists, the earthquake would have been just as devistating! A 9.0 earthquke would level any modern city in the world, but the Japanese have had to deal with earthquakes and are the Subject Matter Experts in the field of building in an earthquake zone.

The next part may come as a shock, but I will try to break it to you gently...Governments lie. Its what they do, they get elected by the people by lieing to them and then they continue to lie to keep their jobs. It is an ugly fact of life.

You seem to be hung up on the idea that there are six reactors at this plant, that is no unusuall at all. Many plants have multipule reactors, it is a space saving issue. The Japanese have a limited amount of it, so they combine several plants into one footprint, not a part of the problem. You also make it sound like the Japanese overrode safety protocols to keep the reactors operating, that is also incorrect. When the power failed the system automaticaly shifted to the back-up generators, which were unfortunately also damaged by the quake.

With a quake of that size, you are pretty much going to get knocked to the ground and will have to wait it out until you can pick yourself back up after it is over.

You keep wanting to compare this to Chernobyl, although both are accidents they are not similar enough to use as a comparasion. Chernobyl's explosion ruptured the core containment vessel and exposed the core when it blew parts of itself all over the surrounding countryside. Fukushisma has had some explosions but they have yet had a core breach of Chernobl's magnitude. Fukushisma's problem stems from a loss of power to circulate coolant through the recator vessals which created a preasure build up that caused an explosion of the main structure, not the containment vessel.

You are talking aobut melted cores and runaway reactions, once freash water can be restored and circulating these "runaway reactions" will become moot. Then it will be a clean-up of enormous undertaking.

You spout off facts that you gleam for the net or from books but you do not know how to use these facts other than to sow confussion and fear. Nuclear energy is not the boogie man that you and other Green factions are saying. Yes there is an issue with the waste by-product, but there is also a waste by product from using fossil fuels but all the greenies still drive their SUV's to rallies.

If you are going to go off on some politically motivated rant, at least make sure that you learn you facts a little better. Right now you are no better than the talking heads that are sittin in their sudio's on the East Coast of the U.S. telling all of the West Coast Sheeple who will listen to them that they need to go out and buy DECON kits and Potasium Iodine pills.

Which would you prefer nuclear fission reactor or nuclear fusion reactor?

Quote - Which would you prefer nuclear fission reactor or nuclear fusion reactor?

Well, in a perfect world I believe that fusion would be better in the long run, the energy released from the reaction produces less waste and the fuel sourse would need to be changed less often because it would last longer than current Fussion fuel rods. Personally I would like to see a breakthrough in room temprature super conductors and Geo-thermal energy. I would like to see the U.S. break its dependancy on fossil fuels simply for the fact it would lower our taxes and raise the standard of living by creating cheaper energy for the masses. But knowing our government they would raise taxes on it so that we would be worse off than if we still used oil.

"WOW! That is some of the most uninformed ranting I have heard in a while."

look at the name..... this is the norm ;)

Yep!  Thank gwad this is the real America.  Hopefully there's still a few cowboys left that are willing to explore other energy sources besides hydro-carbons. 

Quote - Some counterpoint to kawecki's ill-informed postings.

-> http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2011/03/reflections_on_a_fukushima_for.html

-> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/25/fukushima_scaremongering_debunk/

The comments on both articles are worth reading through.

I almost completely subscribe kawecki comments, those links are just pro-nuclear propaganda. In case you are wondering, I have a M.Sc. in Physics...

About fusion reactors:

1 - D+T reaction has not yet powered a SINGLE F$%$$ING light bulb (and it is not going to do so for at least a couple of decades). There are also well founded doubts that fusion reactors will be able to fertilize enough T out of thir Li layers so in practise they will likely to still require fission plants to produce the balance of T.

2 - D+He-3 is NOT aneutronic. NO reaction in which there is D is. The problem is that, if you have appropriate conditions for fusion, the D+D -> T + p reaction can take place and that is immediately followed by D+T -> He-4 + n. And before you start uttering the R-word (regolyte) remember that lunar soil contains one part in 100 million of He3 so each ton of He-3 require processing 100 million tons of soil. Last but not least, D+He-3 reaction requires confinement conditions which make D+T ones "easy cake". Do your math.

3 - p+B reaction is NOT even that aneutronic (same problem, intermidiate reactions can follow neutron production paths) and its containement conditions make D+He-3 one look like "easy cake". Again, do your math.

Meanwhile solar energy requires nothing more than starting to build plants.

As I wrote in another thread, energy politics are dictated by:
1 - the need for power groups to prevent our countries to become indipendent (and indifferent) to Middle East politics;
2 - the need to handle military programs needs with civilian one (AFAIK, Fukushima are the usual bloody PWRs which are the worst possible design for a reactor... unless you need to contain space and weight, like on a navy vessel);
3 - the need for industrial and financial energy conglemerates not to change a single item in order to keep their earning to their current indecent levels.

Bye... and when dose rate is in the 1 Svh range, don't talk people about bananas: their are busy wretching (interesting stuff: early wretching is a nearly sure sign of a fatal exposure but lack of it is not necessarily a positive sign. In one accident in Russia, the victim had absorbed about 45 Sv and did not wretch. He died withing 3/4 days).

Let's see if i got this straight...we build a fusion reactor/giant laser on the moon...transmit the power/weapon to earth...and every agency is happy?

another british publication (economist) mentioned this:

"the fiasco at the Fukushima Dai-ichi has revealed, again, the cosy ties between the nuclear industry and government.  Together, they have stifled debate, covered up bungles and made assumptions about risks that were too optimistic."

it occurred to me that's why we have trolls at internet forums - to stifle debate.  but they're of no concern in the context of those nuke plant workers whose legs were burned by radioactive seawater because they were only given ankle boots with plastic bags taped over them.

...but Nancy, if someone disagrees with you and calls for your evidence, you term them a troll. you don't present your evidence, you just stop posting for awhile.

thats not them stifling debate. that is debate. you make a statement, you then back up your statement with evidence.

Quote - another british publication (economist) mentioned this:

"the fiasco at the Fukushima Dai-ichi has revealed, again, the cosy ties between the nuclear industry and government. Together, they have stifled debate, covered up bungles and made assumptions about risks that were too optimistic."

it occurred to me that's why we have trolls at internet forums - to stifle debate. but they're of no concern in the context of those nuke plant workers whose legs were burned by radioactive seawater because they were only given ankle boots with plastic bags taped over them.

LMAO Me, a troll trying to say that nuclear energy is safe? Not a chance, I am one of the most anti-government advocates that you will see. I love my country but I hate the government that runs it. I was simply stating that the talking heads were causing more issues than they needed too. As far as the workers getting burned by the contaminated worker, I think the owners of the facility should be held responsible for not having adiquate safety equipment available for their workers. I firmly believe that better safety precautions should be in place for ALL contingincies no matter where you work. There should have been manual counter measures in place in the event that both primary AND secondary measures are disabled. But in nuclear energy's defense, how many accidents have there been since they started using it? Three maybe four? Now how many oil spills and refinery explosions have there been since the use of fossil fuels? More than I can count. Yeah considering the difference in contamination due to an accident is catistrophic. I still think that our governments are being influenced by the oil industry AND other special interest groups thus preventing the development of clean safe energy.

Attached Link: http://www.cmch.tv/mentors/hottopic.asp?id=70

Dude! Just Google Cellphone Effects on the Brain! There are plenty of links to case studies!

Quote - ...but Nancy, if someone disagrees with you and calls for your evidence, you term them a troll. you don't present your evidence, you just stop posting for awhile.

thats not them stifling debate. that is debate. you make a statement, you then back up your statement with evidence.

Maybe Miss Nancy doesn't have time for your BS when you're perfectly capable of looking it up with Google like everyone else. I've attached one such found link for you to go look at if you're not too full of it to read it for yourself.

It doesn't matter if stupid Communists damaged Chernobyl or a powerfull earthquake damaged Fukushima. The URSS was full of Communists and Japan is full of earthquakes, in both cases the reactors were damaged and this is the point.

Fukushima reactors were damaged, end of story. Now what to do with the damage and how protect the population from the mess and it doesn't matter if was caused by a huge 9.0 earthquake, schit happened.

Quote - > Quote - > Quote - the reason you see 'em with cel-fones glued to their ears when driving or walking around is that, in addition to a fairly strong signal being sent to the nearest towers, there is also a very-short-range static electric field that works like a brain stim, acting on a pleasure centre on the side of the brain where the cel is held. apparently it's very addictive. we don't have clear evidence that either the long-range signal nor short-range field can cause the sort of excitation of molecular bonds that microwave ovens can achieve. it might show up later in these individuals as some kind of schizoid or dissociative behavior, in the way that ultrasonic disruption may lead to an increase in the probability of autism in infants.

complete rubbish. where's your proof? the studies? the case notes? the evidence?

Dude! Just Google Cellphone Effects on the Brain! There are plenty of links to case studies!

Quote - ...but Nancy, if someone disagrees with you and calls for your evidence, you term them a troll. you don't present your evidence, you just stop posting for awhile.

thats not them stifling debate. that is debate. you make a statement, you then back up your statement with evidence.

Maybe Miss Nancy doesn't have time for your BS when you're perfectly capable of looking it up with Google like everyone else. I've attached one such found link for you to go look at if you're not too full of it to read it for yourself.

ok lets make this clear Matrixworks, lost in spaceman, mizreal.

I try to avoid you. but if you keep changing names it's hard to do.

I have nothing to say to you after this post period.

Quote - > Quote - > Quote - > Quote - the reason you see 'em with cel-fones glued to their ears when driving or walking around is that, in addition to a fairly strong signal being sent to the nearest towers, there is also a very-short-range static electric field that works like a brain stim, acting on a pleasure centre on the side of the brain where the cel is held. apparently it's very addictive. we don't have clear evidence that either the long-range signal nor short-range field can cause the sort of excitation of molecular bonds that microwave ovens can achieve. it might show up later in these individuals as some kind of schizoid or dissociative behavior, in the way that ultrasonic disruption may lead to an increase in the probability of autism in infants.

complete rubbish. where's your proof? the studies? the case notes? the evidence?

Dude! Just Google Cellphone Effects on the Brain! There are plenty of links to case studies!

Quote - ...but Nancy, if someone disagrees with you and calls for your evidence, you term them a troll. you don't present your evidence, you just stop posting for awhile.

thats not them stifling debate. that is debate. you make a statement, you then back up your statement with evidence.

Maybe Miss Nancy doesn't have time for your BS when you're perfectly capable of looking it up with Google like everyone else. I've attached one such found link for you to go look at if you're not too full of it to read it for yourself.

 

ok lets make this clear Matrixworks, lost in spaceman, mizreal.

I try to avoid you. but if you keep changing names it's hard to do.

I have nothing to say to you after this post period.

Good! Because quite frankly I'm fed up with your bullshit antagonistic behaviour towards me and some of my friends here including Miss Nancy who wasn't here to debate you. I'm fed up with you telling people what they can and can not do here in the forums as you did to me when I asked a question about the religion thread and you told me to move along as if you were some sort of moderator I should listen to. Frankly I'm as tired of you as you are of me so after this we can both just ignore each other from now on.

Quote - until cars and trucks and airplanes run electric, there is a need for oil no matter what."

Even cars, truks and planes would be running with electricity it would solve nothing. It only use a fraction of oil, most of the oil is used by plastics and chemical industry.

Unless you get rid of plastics and return to the old glass, wood, metal and ceramic a huge amount of oil will continue to be needed.

Got any sources for that? The numbers I could find show that just a small fraction is used for petrochemicals.  Parts of this need for oil could possibly be fulfilled by hemp oil