"where scientists working on the Manhattan Project developed the atomic bomb in World War II" Oh really? And you think that Fukushima and this fire are unrelated?
Not at all. I, for one, firmly believe that the tsunami caused the wildfires. No question about it. And vice-versa. I see you do too.
"where scientists working on the Manhattan Project developed the atomic bomb in World War II" Oh really? And you think that Fukushima and this fire are unrelated?
Safety Officials Take Precautions as Northern New Mexico Blaze Nears Los Alamos Research Complex
Reuters
Flames from the Las Conchas fire burn in the hills above Los Alamos National Laboratory on Monday.
A large wildfire moving across northern New Mexico Tuesday had authorities watching for a potential release of radiation around the nation's main nuclear-weapons lab in Los Alamos.
The fire, covering some 60,740 acres, was headed north toward the Los Alamos National Laboratory, the nuclear-research facility that sprawls across 36 square miles and contains 2,000 buildings. The complex, where scientists working on the Manhattan Project developed the atomic bomb in World War II, has been closed since Sunday because of the blaze.
Lab spokeswoman Lisa Rosendorf said the blaze was at the border of the lab's property but not close to any buildings.
As a precaution, officials have been clearing brush from the lab's key buildings and have stored hazardous nuclear materials inside a vault.
Radiation hasn't been found above normal levels at or around the lab, officials said, but they are bringing in extra monitors.
Its not just the reactors that will melt down if left unattended but many of the storage facilities that store "spent" fuel require constant water cooling also that will also stop once left unattended with no power...
It was the storage of the spent rods that prompted my whole string of events in the first place. It was the storage tank in Japan that failed, I think first, and then the incident in Nebraska was a storage tank as well. The waste is the biggest problem with the current system. A loaded reactor can be shut down if the control rods can be lowered, but the waste pools will fail without cooled water. A simple power failure is all that is needed for that to happen.
All the more reason we get Yucca Mountain or somewhere else (NIMBY) back together and have a place for all this stuff to be rounded up.
Edit; I guess I'm late to the party on reaching a conclusion that the present type of reactors need to be turned off and dismantled as soon as possible. But at least I finally came around to it. If we can do it safely with something like Thorium then yippy skippy. But the present stuff ? I'm done, no support anymore.
Location: In a hovel in effluent Damnville, VA Gender:
Posted:
Jun 19, 2011 - 1:47pm
kurtster wrote:
Thanks Jeff,
I remember seeing something about the Thorium reactors posted before and glossed over it. If it was you who posted this originally, thanks for reposting.
This is good stuff and with the timing, if this guy gets it together and overcomes the inherant lobbying obstacles, we will have what seems to be the next best thing to fusion.
All the more reasons to stop building and start decommisioning the current reactors we have. The thought of runaway meltdowns due to a cataclysmic event never occured to me before which was the reason for my post. I have never been one of those no nuke people and thought that our present reactors were manageable except for the waste. Then I had the thought today of the scenarios I mentioned and it just all of a sudden made these reactors a terrible idea that could no longer be considered worth any risks.
RP is the only place I have even seen or heard anything on this subject. Not even C2C which I still listen to somewhat regularily. Now that this has clicked and registered in my haid, I will continue to learn more and try to advocate support for this whenever possible as you do.
Its not just the reactors that will melt down if left unattended but many of the storage facilities that store "spent" fuel require constant water cooling also that will also stop once left unattended with no power...
Hey Kurt, please listen and/or read this when you get the time. Peace.
Thanks Jeff,
I remember seeing something about the Thorium reactors posted before and glossed over it. If it was you who posted this originally, thanks for reposting.
This is good stuff and with the timing, if this guy gets it together and overcomes the inherant lobbying obstacles, we will have what seems to be the next best thing to fusion.
All the more reasons to stop building and start decommisioning the current reactors we have. The thought of runaway meltdowns due to a cataclysmic event never occured to me before which was the reason for my post. I have never been one of those no nuke people and thought that our present reactors were manageable except for the waste. Then I had the thought today of the scenarios I mentioned and it just all of a sudden made these reactors a terrible idea that could no longer be considered worth any risks.
RP is the only place I have even seen or heard anything on this subject. Not even C2C which I still listen to somewhat regularily. Now that this has clicked and registered in my haid, I will continue to learn more and try to advocate support for this whenever possible as you do.
Here are some thoughts I have never heard discussed anywhere before. These are thoughts that came to me as a result of thinking about my post in the Libya thread and China.
On why we need to turn off and dismantle the reactors ASAP.
If any of the following should happen, mankind could be toast.
A nuclear war of some kind that kills millions and disables systems.
A cosmic wave or solar blast that knocks out chips and circuits in operating systems.
Or an EMP weapon attack which does the same as a cosmic wave. There are probably some more but that is enough for my point.
Any of the above items would leave reactors without power and controls and humans to prevent meltdowns. While mankind could conceivably survive all the above events, the failing reactors would do far more harm than an asteroid hitting the earth. Imagine 100 reactors melting down in the US. It would make the US and probably the world uninhabitable for thousands of years.
These reactors may be safe enough to operate when all systems are go, but an event that sends us into the stone age will leave these reactors alone to do what they do when no one is able to operate them anymore.
So tear them down and bury the waste somewhere safe (yeah, we can only hope) so we can avoid uncontrolled meltdowns that will essentially leave this planet uninhabitable. We only get one chance to do this. If anything should drive our energy policy, this should all by itself. ?????
Hey Kurt, please listen and/or read this when you get the time. Peace.
Safer, cleaner and cheaper thorium reactors could change the world
Kirk Sorensen has been studying thorium technology since 2000 and has been a public advocate for its use and development since 2006. He started the weblog, Energy from Thorium, which has spawned a global movement of interest in liquid-fluoride thorium reactor technology. He has a masters' degree in aerospace engineering from the Georgia Institute of Technology and is studying nuclear engineering at the University of Tennessee under Dr. Laurence Miller. He worked at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center from 2000 to 2010 and led advanced technology development for new space transportation systems. From May 2010 to May 2011 he served as Chief Nuclear Technologist to Teledyne Brown Engineering in Huntsville, but left recently to found a new company, Flibe Energy, which is devoted to the design, development, manufacture and operation of liquid-fluoride thorium reactors.
Jim Puplava is pleased to welcome Kirk Sorensen to the Financial Sense Newshour this week. Kirk explains how thorium reactors can change the world through the use of a safer, cleaner and more available energy source than uranium.
Here are some thoughts I have never heard discussed anywhere before. These are thoughts that came to me as a result of thinking about my post in the Libya thread and China.
On why we need to turn off and dismantle the reactors ASAP.
If any of the following should happen, mankind could be toast.
A nuclear war of some kind that kills millions and disables systems.
A cosmic wave or solar blast that knocks out chips and circuits in operating systems.
Or an EMP weapon attack which does the same as a cosmic wave. There are probably some more but that is enough for my point.
Any of the above items would leave reactors without power and controls and humans to prevent meltdowns. While mankind could conceivably survive all the above events, the failing reactors would do far more harm than an asteroid hitting the earth. Imagine 100 reactors melting down in the US. It would make the US and probably the world uninhabitable for thousands of years.
These reactors may be safe enough to operate when all systems are go, but an event that sends us into the stone age will leave these reactors alone to do what they do when no one is able to operate them anymore.
So tear them down and bury the waste somewhere safe (yeah, we can only hope) so we can avoid uncontrolled meltdowns that will essentially leave this planet uninhabitable. We only get one chance to do this. If anything should drive our energy policy, this should all by itself. ?????
my company: Yes, we do get tax breaks. They are pretty small in scale and since we are pretty small in scale we don't have lobbyists on payroll out stumping for them. The ones we use are generally structured to be an incentive to behaviors that the locals want to encourage. So we get breaks for installing high efficiency equipment which lowers the burden on the power grid. We get a few breaks on large capital expenditures because the .gov was trying to get business to step up and spend a bit the last couple years (if you hadn't noticed there was sort a slump going on). We get breaks for providing health care coverage to all our employees - we're still tuning our health care down here, but we're trying to model a couple of things like universal coverage that we see working elsewhere. There are lots more, but I don't think you really care much so I'll stop here.
We take them because they are there, that's good business. We don't actively lobby for them, and I'm not out trying to take positions that specifically limit my competitors. Heck, in my industry a sizable number of my competitors are my customers as well, I don't want them folding up or going away. We've all found a way to add value and co-exist, especially where it benefits the customers.
My other statement was specifically targeted toward the solar panels removed from the White House - I said nothing about vehicle technology (although I could have, but it would have been directed more toward weight and feature creep than to conspiracies). This was done by Reagan, who was a good friend to big oil. Oil companies have had sweetheart lease deals, and tax breaks galore for ever. They are also making record profits while the prices of their products (which are to some extent a necessity for many) are exceeding the pace of inflation by double digit multiples. I'm just saying maybe we should consider cutting back on the mammoth breaks that we give to these well established companies and redirect some of that to alt.energy field and see if they make any substantial gains in the next decade. This is what we should be using tax (public money) incentives for. If they don't we look for another place to redirect that money. And if by some chance the oil companies profits tumble to the point where they are only making 10 BILLION dollars a year in profit, then maybe we reinstate those breaks to prop them up again... or not, either way.
Reconsider my statements... No thanks, I'm pretty happy with them.
I truly appreciate your considered input into these matters. Now, if they put up a Republican who espoused such clarity, the RNC might have a whippersnapper's chance at gaining the Presidency. Oh hell, if the DNC were to put forth such a candidate, they might be worthy of winning.
Hey, let's move the conversation to something more local to you - your own company.
Is your company the recipient of any tax breaks?
If yes, why do you need them? If no, how do you possibly manage to survive in such a cut throat environment?
Surely just to exist, your company must offer either innovative technology that no one else has, or a value proposition that makes your competitors curse you. —- Are you suggesting in any way that all significant innovation has had government subsidization? Being in the IT field, surely you have heard talk, maybe the odd rumour of angel investors located in Sillycon Valley. Are you suggesting that no one ever was interested in 'refining and improving' vehicle technology as that is the exclusive domain of the government handout/subsidy/tax break?
I think you might want to reconsider your statements a tad.
my company: Yes, we do get tax breaks. They are pretty small in scale and since we are pretty small in scale we don't have lobbyists on payroll out stumping for them. The ones we use are generally structured to be an incentive to behaviors that the locals want to encourage. So we get breaks for installing high efficiency equipment which lowers the burden on the power grid. We get a few breaks on large capital expenditures because the .gov was trying to get business to step up and spend a bit the last couple years (if you hadn't noticed there was sort a slump going on). We get breaks for providing health care coverage to all our employees - we're still tuning our health care down here, but we're trying to model a couple of things like universal coverage that we see working elsewhere. There are lots more, but I don't think you really care much so I'll stop here.
We take them because they are there, that's good business. We don't actively lobby for them, and I'm not out trying to take positions that specifically limit my competitors. Heck, in my industry a sizable number of my competitors are my customers as well, I don't want them folding up or going away. We've all found a way to add value and co-exist, especially where it benefits the customers.
My other statement was specifically targeted toward the solar panels removed from the White House - I said nothing about vehicle technology (although I could have, but it would have been directed more toward weight and feature creep than to conspiracies). This was done by Reagan, who was a good friend to big oil. Oil companies have had sweetheart lease deals, and tax breaks galore for ever. They are also making record profits while the prices of their products (which are to some extent a necessity for many) are exceeding the pace of inflation by double digit multiples. I'm just saying maybe we should consider cutting back on the mammoth breaks that we give to these well established companies and redirect some of that to alt.energy field and see if they make any substantial gains in the next decade. This is what we should be using tax (public money) incentives for. If they don't we look for another place to redirect that money. And if by some chance the oil companies profits tumble to the point where they are only making 10 BILLION dollars a year in profit, then maybe we reinstate those breaks to prop them up again... or not, either way.
Reconsider my statements... No thanks, I'm pretty happy with them.
Well I hope it works out better than catalytic converters that the Germans had the EU impose on us, killing off the much cleaner (and platinum-free) true lean-burn engines that would have been a much better bet.
We've had manditory catalytic converters since 1975 here in the states. Heck, my 1963 Corvair got 35 mpg even after is was 8 years old, with a pair of crappy single barrel carbs. And our gas still has lead in it, they still can't find a way to keep the valves from burning without it.
You are getting your revenge on us with those mercury laced CFL's the EU is so hot to trot about.
I shouldn't think so. The Germans (as in general public) seem to genuinely not want nuclear, they have had strong Green politicians for years. I wasn't being ironic, I'm genuinely interested in how they propose to do it. I was, however, being ironic about the electric cars as the very same people who are against nuclear (and coal, and oil, and gas) power are often the very same who want electric cars - they just seen to think electric cars run on magic moonbeams rather than the output of power stations.
Exactly. Like it's all effin magik.
And of course the evil oil and car mfr corporations have been withholding these 'free-energy' cars from us for decades.
The public can be such a stupid bunch some times.
Although I agree with your base sentiment that it's not free/magic, The oil/car manufacturers have spent a lot of money successfully lobbying to hold back competition.
Himin Solar park in China has a museum that holds one of the solar panels that Reagan had removed from the roof of the White house (Carter had them installed). Imagine the progress that we could have made if we spent the last 30 years working on refining and improving that technology instead of giving tax breaks and sweetheart deals to established companies that were already making a healthy profit.
The legislators can be such a stupid bunch some times.
I shouldn't think so. The Germans (as in general public) seem to genuinely not want nuclear, they have had strong Green politicians for years. I wasn't being ironic, I'm genuinely interested in how they propose to do it. I was, however, being ironic about the electric cars as the very same people who are against nuclear (and coal, and oil, and gas) power are often the very same who want electric cars - they just seen to think electric cars run on magic moonbeams rather than the output of power stations.
Exactly. Like it's all effin magik.
And of course the evil oil and car mfr corporations have been withholding these 'free-energy' cars from us for decades.
The public can be such a stupid bunch some times.
In the US, our magic moonbeam technology has mostly been hydrogen-fueled cars promoted as a way to become energy independent and pollution-free. Nary a State of the Union Address passes without sunshiney references to promoting alternate fuels, sometimes hydrogen specifically by name.
It's not as if they're turning them all off tomorrow - they have at least 10 years to figure stuff out. That could be a pretty long time for one of the most technologically advanced and economically potent nations on the planet...or maybe not.
Well I hope it works out better than catalytic converters that the Germans had the EU impose on us, killing off the much cleaner (and platinum-free) true lean-burn engines that would have been a much better bet.
It's going to be interesting to see how they are going to replace the 23% of their generating capacity - plus power all those electric cars that are being touted so hard.
It's not as if they're turning them all off tomorrow - they have at least 10 years to figure stuff out. That could be a pretty long time for one of the most technologically advanced and economically potent nations on the planet...or maybe not.
one factor in the groundswell in favor of renewables here is a feeling of optimism that German engineering will rise to the challenge and find new technologies / refine existing ones to a point where they can compete against fossil fuels / nuclear. One of my mates is R&D director of a specialist engineering company here and he thinks it can be done so it's not just utopian greenies who are on the bandwagon.
This might explain why there is less resistance from big industry here than one would normally expect
I am so happy about this.
Well, they have been known to fail before
But, you're right, good luck to them. It would be great if they succeeded.
In the simplest terms possible: If we haven't figured out a safe way to work with and dispose of waste from nuclear power plants, we aren't ready to use them. Of course we are capable of achieving most anything.
one factor in the groundswell in favor of renewables here is a feeling of optimism that German engineering will rise to the challenge and find new technologies / refine existing ones to a point where they can compete against fossil fuels / nuclear. One of my mates is R&D director of a specialist engineering company here and he thinks it can be done so it's not just utopian greenies who are on the bandwagon.
This might explain why there is less resistance from big industry here than one would normally expect
Gee- The german government bonkers? Whoulda ever thunk it?
beamends wrote:
I shouldn't think so. The Germans (as in general public) seem to genuinely not want nuclear, they have had strong Green politicians for years. I wasn't being ironic, I'm genuinely interested in how they propose to do it. I was, however, being ironic about the electric cars as the very same people who are against nuclear (and coal, and oil, and gas) power are often the very same who want electric cars - they just seen to think electric cars run on magic moonbeams rather than the output of power stations.
one factor in the groundswell in favor of renewables here is a feeling of optimism that German engineering will rise to the challenge and find new technologies / refine existing ones to a point where they can compete against fossil fuels / nuclear. One of my mates is R&D director of a specialist engineering company here and he thinks it can be done so it's not just utopian greenies who are on the bandwagon.
This might explain why there is less resistance from big industry here than one would normally expect.
