Fukushima disaster; 10yrs on and millions of tonnes of radioactive rubble.

moon said:
Ain't nuclear power stations great ? Clean and cheap.


Haw, haw....................................haw.
Click to expand...

Cheaper to clean up than the BP Deepwater Horizon oil rig catastrophe in the Caribbean...

Dumping water that has had any solids or dissolved solids removed by filtration and has sat for at least two weeks prior to dumping is perfectly fine. By the way, that's the US Navy standard for pumping primary use water (eg., previously exposed to radiation) from nuclear power ships. The reason is because after 14 days the residual radiation in water is 90% natural and the overall level so low that there's no contamination or biohazard to doing so.
On top of that, such water (being fresh water, not sea water) actually has less radioactivity in it than naturally occurring seawater.

By the way 1.27 million tons of water dumped into the Pacific Ocean represents about 1.58 x 10^-10% of the total water in that ocean. That is to say that amount isn't even a drop in a 5 gallon bucket. It's the amount of water in the humidity of the air at less than 1%.
So, citing that the Japanese are dumping 1.27 million tons of water from this accident is nothing but utter and complete fear mongering coming from scientific and engineering illiterates.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
So, citing that the Japanese are dumping 1.27 million tons of water from this accident is nothing but utter and complete fear mongering coming from scientific and engineering illiterates.
Click to expand...

It was the ' scientific and engineering illiterates ' that built nuclear power stations in the first place- along with the nuclear bombs.
Anybody promoting either technology has taken leave of whatever sense they were born with.

The planet doesn't need that brand of stupidity. Quite the contrary.
 
moon said:
It was the ' scientific and engineering illiterates ' that built nuclear power stations in the first place- along with the nuclear bombs.
Anybody promoting either technology has taken leave of whatever sense they were born with.

The planet doesn't need that brand of stupidity. Quite the contrary.
Click to expand...

They did a damn fine job too. What got in the way of doing it right were politicians. What the planet doesn't need is hundreds of thousands of square miles paved over with solar panels that have to be replaced every 20 years.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
They did a damn fine job too. What got in the way of doing it right were politicians. What the planet doesn't need is hundreds of thousands of square miles paved over with solar panels that have to be replaced every 20 years.
Click to expand...

Solar is a comparatively harmless technology- whereas nuclear does no good for anybody at all , other than those with commercial interests- and committed fools. Worse- it's downright dangerous.

Go down a pint of Fukushima water.
 
moon said:
Solar is a comparatively harmless technology- whereas nuclear does no good for anybody at all , other than those with commercial interests- and committed fools. Worse- it's downright dangerous.

Go down a pint of Fukushima water.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Solar is far more invasive in terms of ongoing disposal of panels that are hard to recycle, land use, urban heat island effect, use of water, and massive requirements for mining of materials to make the panels. It also requires equal amounts of fossil fuel generation sources to make up for when it doesn't produce power resulting in even more negative consequences.

Nuclear has a tiny footprint, requires only limited mining, and requires a fraction of the waste disposal area of solar.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Wrong. Solar is far more invasive in terms of ongoing disposal of panels that are hard to recycle, land use, urban heat island effect, use of water, and massive requirements for mining of materials to make the panels. It also requires equal amounts of fossil fuel generation sources to make up for when it doesn't produce power resulting in even more negative consequences.

Nuclear has a tiny footprint, requires only limited mining, and requires a fraction of the waste disposal area of solar.
Click to expand...

Sure- how many thousands of years must pass before solar equipment is rendered- er- safe-ish.
How many civilians have been killed by dropping solar panels on them .
 
https://www.lefigaro.fr/conjoncture...37itXBybwhMngc_GaIA3AfSLJvoKyuyIZ-W8Sw_X6TdcY

safe_image.php


Magnifique!
"The money raised on the markets by this mechanism "will in no way be able to finance investments in nuclear energy", clarified the commissioner, because this sector is not recognized as contributing to the green transition within the framework of the recovery plan."
Click to expand...

Sane news.
 
Nuclear plants have poisoned lots of valuable land around the world. There are massive pools of radioactive waste. They are on the water, lakes, ocean, or rivers. Nuclear is just a terrible way to boil water.
 
World’s first “fully recyclable” wind turbine blades roll off production line

SiemensGamesaRecycleableBlade.jpg


The world’s first fully recyclable wind turbine blades have rolled off the production line of a factory in Denmark, ready to be installed and tested at an offshore wind farm being developed in Germany.

Siemens Gamesa announced the launch of its RecycleableBlade on Tuesday, as a “milestone” step towards its goal of making whole wind turbines fully recyclable, by 2040.

For now, the company has produced the first six 81-meter long recyclable blades at its manufacturing plant in Aalborg, ready for commercial use.

The blades look likely to make their operational debut at the 342MW Kaskasi offshore wind farm, which is in the early stages of construction in the German North Sea, as part of an agreement with developer RWE. The project is expected to be operational in mid-2022.

Siemens said it had also made deals with French company EDF Renewables and German wind project developer, wpd, both of which had agreed to install sets of the RecyclableBlades at one of their future offshore wind farms.

The production of fully recyclable wind turbine blades is a milestone for the global wind industry, which – like the solar and battery industries – has been scrambling to find sustainable end-of-life solutions to match with the enormous and escalating uptake of the technology.


https://reneweconomy.com.au/worlds-...KphGdohifavn8EOKPAfCt4yrPQPa_UVRtG_wFpkL2DO34
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top