flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.

Index > Heap > Tsunami Alert, 8.9 earthquake in Japan.

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author
Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
bitRAKE



Joined: 21 Jul 2003
Posts: 2915
Location: [RSP+8*5]
bitRAKE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Fukushima_nuclear_accidents

I for one welcome our robotic reactor safety overlords.
Post 15 Mar 2011, 16:19
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
edfed



Joined: 20 Feb 2006
Posts: 4237
Location: 2018
edfed
nulear powaaa!!

here (France), reactors have been created in 80's.

they were all supposed to have a limited 15 years lifetime, foolowed by a disassembliyng of the structures. but...

30 years passed. and they are still working, and work more than 30 years ago.

nulear energy is for sure, the main danger of our time.
and maybe the main danger of all times.

because it is the complete descrution of the atom.

tsunamis and earthquakes are far less dangerous than nuclear bombs, or reactor explosion.
Post 15 Mar 2011, 16:28
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
ManOfSteel



Joined: 02 Feb 2005
Posts: 1154
ManOfSteel
bitRAKE wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Fukushima_nuclear_accidents

I for one welcome our robotic reactor safety overlords.

Me too. I can't imagine the Japanese (and others) made robots for sex and playing football and still don't have nuclear hazard incident robots.

~~~~

edfed wrote:
30 years passed. and they are still working, and work more than 30 years ago.
[...]
nulear energy is for sure, the main danger of our time.
and maybe the main danger of all times.

I'm all for renewable clean energies (especially solar and aeolian) and nuclear fusion. But for now, nuclear fission will have to be enough. It's most likely the only way you could sustain your economies and way of life. This may change in the next decades, but we shouldn't dream too much.
So let us talk again when you 1) have successfully countered/destroyed the nuclear fission and fossil fuel industry corporations and lobbies, 2) have secured the huge investments in nuclear fusion and renewable energy technologies, and 3) are able to produce 90%+ of your energy needs using these methods in an efficient way and without negatively impacting your long-term welfare.
Post 15 Mar 2011, 20:15
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
JohnFound



Joined: 16 Jun 2003
Posts: 3500
Location: Bulgaria
JohnFound
Nuclear energy is probably most ecologically clean energy, that is economically profitable. Every other "green" energy exists only because west countries want to pay for it. (Well, actually west countries forces its citizens to pay for it). Maybe in time this fact will be changed by new technologies, but IMHO not very soon.
One little example - you don't want to ban all air plains only because one or two, or ten crashed, killing hundreds of people. And even after all plain crashes, they are safer, than traveling by car.
The same for nuclear energy - I would not point to an accident, caused by 8.9 earth quake, followed by tsunami.
Post 16 Mar 2011, 10:17
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website ICQ Number Reply with quote
asmhack



Joined: 01 Feb 2008
Posts: 431
asmhack
JohnFound wrote:
The same for nuclear energy - I would not point to an accident, caused by 8.9 earth quake, followed by tsunami.


How about telling you that your nuclear power plant in Bulgaria can handle 7 richter max ?
Post 16 Mar 2011, 14:27
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
JohnFound



Joined: 16 Jun 2003
Posts: 3500
Location: Bulgaria
JohnFound
asmhack wrote:
How about telling you that your nuclear power plant in Bulgaria can handle 7 richter max ?


At first, 7 is not so little. At second, this number is totally unbaked. Or you are some of the support engineers in Kozlodui???
BTW: There was some 7.1 quakes earlier in this region and nothing bad happened. And I think they can survive a lot bigger earth quakes. Our old reactors are built in the socialism - you know, when no one cared about the maximal profits and savings. Very Happy
Post 16 Mar 2011, 15:17
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website ICQ Number Reply with quote
MazeGen



Joined: 06 Oct 2003
Posts: 975
Location: Czechoslovakia
MazeGen
JohnFound wrote:
Our old reactors are built in the socialism - you know, when no one cared about the maximal profits and savings. Very Happy
You mean that nuclear plants built "in the socialism" were not effective because no one cared about savings? Or that they were dangerous, like for example the A-1 reactor at Bohunice in Slovakia, built 50 kilometers from the capital?
Post 16 Mar 2011, 16:07
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
JohnFound



Joined: 16 Jun 2003
Posts: 3500
Location: Bulgaria
JohnFound
What about Bohunice? I never heard about failures there?

In general, the discussion about the safety and the effectiveness of the old "communist" nuclear plants (and economics at all) is very long and very complex for one forum thread.
Post 16 Mar 2011, 17:21
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website ICQ Number Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8902
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
water dropped from heli

reactor 3 got the first shower because of escaping smoke or steam, indicating water evaporating from the cooling pool.

worse.... the situation IS STILL NOT under control.
Post 17 Mar 2011, 01:43
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
bitRAKE



Joined: 21 Jul 2003
Posts: 2915
Location: [RSP+8*5]
bitRAKE
JohnFound wrote:
Nuclear energy is probably most ecologically clean energy, that is economically profitable.
Humanity merely exchanges a brief immediate comfort for longterm unknowns.
Quote:
The time frame in question when dealing with radioactive waste ranges from 10,000 to 1,000,000 years. Practical studies only consider up to 100 years as far as effective planning and cost evaluations are concerned.
If power companies had to pay the real costs of waste then the profitability might look different.

Our solar system has a reliable power plant. Wink

_________________
¯\(°_o)/¯ unlicense.org
Post 17 Mar 2011, 05:11
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
JohnFound



Joined: 16 Jun 2003
Posts: 3500
Location: Bulgaria
JohnFound
bitRAKE, "long term unknown" is the natural state of the human race and nothing can be changed here (independent of our wishes).
The problem with radioactive wastes is solvable and not with so big expanses - the earth is full of wasted lands, where no one lives and no one needs them (even animals).

Yes, I am agree - the Sun is the natural source of energy, but the density of this energy is too small for practical use (even if we could use it entirely - but we can't)
The examples from the eco-booklets are funny from the engineering point of view.
The another problem is that there is no good way to accumulate electricity in big quantities.
Post 17 Mar 2011, 05:57
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website ICQ Number Reply with quote
ManOfSteel



Joined: 02 Feb 2005
Posts: 1154
ManOfSteel
JohnFound wrote:
the Sun is the natural source of energy, but the density of this energy is too small for practical use (even if we could use it entirely - but we can't)

Not at all. The relatively "small" quantities that do reach Earth's surface are more than enough to satisfy our entire global energy needs. We could easily build vast solar power farms in desert areas since we already have all the needed technology.
The not-so-clean photovoltaics are not even needed actually. A simple conversion of heat is enough and can be achieved using technologies and materials that have been available for ages, i.e. parabolic reflectors and mirrors coupled with steam engines.

Quote:
The sun provides us with 174 petawatts (174,000 terawatts) of energy, of which half (89 petawatts) reaches the Earth surface. Since humanity consumes ‘only’ an estimated 15 Terawatts (2005 figure) of power, we only need to convert a tiny fraction of this free solar energy (~0.00016%) in order to fulfill the energy needs of the global population.

source
Quote:
A study by the German Aerospace Center estimated that harnessing the sun's energy falling on just 6,000 square kilometers of desert in North Africa would supply energy equivalent to the entire oil production of the Middle East of 9 billion barrels a year.

The study calculated that solar thermal power plants could supply 68 percent of North Africa's as well as Europe's electricity by 2050.

source

This solar farm in California produces 80 megawatts using 640 acres of land. By making a rough extrapolation, we would need 187,500 times that much energy on 120,000,000 acres or 485,622 square kilometers. The Sahara is 9,400,000 square kilometers.

JohnFound wrote:
The another problem is that there is no good way to accumulate electricity in big quantities.

That's why we can accumulate *heat* in water/salt/oil tanks instead. That's how we can also solve the problem of solar energy use during nighttime.
Post 17 Mar 2011, 12:28
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
bitRAKE



Joined: 21 Jul 2003
Posts: 2915
Location: [RSP+8*5]
bitRAKE
Of course, the radioactive waste is much worse than an unknown future. The unknown is an expansive space of possibilities. Whereas waste must be packaged and transported and monitored - tended to like a farmer who's crop will never go to market.

I'm still all for the present use of nuclear power.
Just believe it could be much safer.
Post 17 Mar 2011, 13:09
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
JohnFound



Joined: 16 Jun 2003
Posts: 3500
Location: Bulgaria
JohnFound
ManOfSteel, I am reading such writings since the 70's. They are very manipulative. Yes, the great numbers sounds very tempting, but this is distorted picture of the reality. "Just" 0.00016% can be unreachable high value, despite it looks so small.
Can you imagine how big are 640 acres - it is 1.6x1.6km (1sq.mile) and how big are expanses only to clean the mirrors from the dust on such big area. Now imagine only 187500 times this trouble.
The things tends to become complex when you try to implement even good idea in big scale.
Actually the most effective way of using solar energy in the moment is to plant trees and then to burn the wood. (Well or rapeseed or any other suitable plant).
Accumulating energy by heat is very, very bad idea. Actually the most effective way in the moment is to use super-flywheels. There are many engineering problems, but I hope they can be solved in the future.

With today technology, the only reason someone builds "ecological" power plants is in order to get some (big) money from the government. The government takes these money from me and you, of course.
Post 17 Mar 2011, 13:45
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website ICQ Number Reply with quote
edfed



Joined: 20 Feb 2006
Posts: 4237
Location: 2018
edfed
about energy...

there are not only solar power. and in solar power, not only the production of electricity with solar cells.

there are many other ways to produce (extract) enrgy from the sun:
put a black water container under the sun light, water will warm up, and the pressure will increase, the water will be then used as in every hydroelectric power converters, and just let the water cold down in some shadow area, retunr by a simple system of pipes to the main black container, and you have solar power.

there are many others energies to convert on this planet.

wind, solar, sea, torrents, and even energy produced by us, human when we walk, when we use a bike, or any muscle propulsed vehicle.

then, nuclear power is a pure waste and destruction...

just look, what this energy is used for:
it is used to make turn some factories, that will produce more and more engines to use fossil energy, or let you sit down, relax and don't move.

the electricity is mainly used to warm up some rooms with resistors, but if you work, you move, you don't need to have a warm room, because moving is the natural way to warm your body.

and when it is the night, time to sleep, go in the bed, nobody force you to sleep akll necked in the bed with just one little blanket, you can sleep with some clothes, under a lot of blankets, and then, no need to use the chemney.

i believe the goal of life is not to be an incative person who only knows the comfort, life is more than that.

and energy saving is the key of eternity.
Post 17 Mar 2011, 15:16
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
ManOfSteel



Joined: 02 Feb 2005
Posts: 1154
ManOfSteel
JohnFound wrote:
They are very manipulative. Yes, the great numbers sounds very tempting, but this is distorted picture of the reality. "Just" 0.00016% can be unreachable high value, despite it looks so small.

They aren't. Anyone with an intelligence above that of a child can understand the high costs involved. No one is saying it wouldn't cost us anything. All that is being said is that it can be done and it is a viable alternative to the already costly, polluting and dangerous existing sources of energy and related technologies.

JohnFound wrote:
how big are expanses only to clean the mirrors from the dust on such big area. Now imagine only 187500 times this trouble.

I honestly don't know. Are they near as much as the maintenance of thousands of fossil and dozens of nuclear power plants, as well as the extraction, refining and transport of the involved raw materials, something that can be very difficult, costly and dangerous too, and can sometimes involve energy dependence and geopolitical and diplomatic stunts?
Even if it is equal in cost to the entire above process, at least it doesn't pollute the environment (apart from the resource consumption needed to produce the devices) or risk blowing up.
Also, aside from the obvious automated mechanical dusting systems, some great minds have already thought of an interesting solution.

JohnFound wrote:
Accumulating energy by heat is very, very bad idea.

The molten salt may cause some problems if it's allowed to cool down uncontrollably, but otherwise heat accumulation in general can (and does) work and has been successfully used before.


Last edited by ManOfSteel on 17 Mar 2011, 16:36; edited 1 time in total
Post 17 Mar 2011, 16:31
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
MHajduk



Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 6034
Location: Poland
MHajduk
What about the solar updraft towers?

An interesting animation presenting a project of such a power plant:
Post 17 Mar 2011, 16:36
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
JohnFound



Joined: 16 Jun 2003
Posts: 3500
Location: Bulgaria
JohnFound
In order to continue the progress, and to survive the human race needs light, compact and safe power source with very high power density.
If we fail to discover such power source - the human race will disappear because the only possible way is outwards. What is one planet, when there are millions. It might be after centuries, but we should take this way now.
Post 18 Mar 2011, 07:33
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website ICQ Number Reply with quote
edfed



Joined: 20 Feb 2006
Posts: 4237
Location: 2018
edfed
the real issue is not the constant progress.
Image
it is the perenity.

just look the nature, it is there since billion years, and even with human destruction, it can recovers it's rights, example is Prypiat town in ukraine. the nature recovered 20 years latter.

then, the issue is not the progress, it is the eternity.

be able to live with and for the nature.

only people who don't realise the problems induced by human progress can hope this as a solution.

the only progress we can do in order to survive is to give up the industry and the economy. grow your food, build your tent, travel with just a little backpack.

yesterday, i tested something like this:
Image
it works, it turns very well with the wind, and the wind can come from any direction, no need to align it with the wind axis.

this design of wind converter is one of the future improvements to do if we want to forget nuclear energy.

for energy, we should try to convert every natural sources in electricity, in local zones, not as global.

the waste will be far less than if we build huge atomic generators.

everybody have wind in his garden, not everytime, there are some days without wind, these days, we will use solar power on some converters, and the night, we sleep.

and to warm water, noo need of electricity, just need of a direct solar energy capture on black surfaces, black water pipes
Post 18 Mar 2011, 12:13
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
JohnFound



Joined: 16 Jun 2003
Posts: 3500
Location: Bulgaria
JohnFound
And what the "eco-mankind" will do on the next big asteroid, next supernova exploded near us, next infection that can not be cured?
The dinosaurs ruled the world a lot longer than humans. Where are they now?
I mean, the only way for the mankind to really survive is to settle separately on different stars. Not to "give up the industry and the economy. grow your food, build your tent, travel with just a little backpack."
What is one planet, compared with the universe?
Post 18 Mar 2011, 13:27
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website ICQ Number Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

< Last Thread | Next Thread >
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Copyright © 1999-2020, Tomasz Grysztar.

Powered by rwasa.