though both events were well beyond the plant's design specifications. No they where not. The plant is designed for a 6.5 quake or something. And that is exactly what happened at the plant site, probably weaker. The 9.3 quake was 450miles away!
That's ignoring the difference between base load nuclear to unreliable wind and solar. You still don't know what base load actually means but continue to torture us with your rants. Hint: the axis of "base load" to "peak load" and the axis of "undispatchable (unreliable is simply wrong)" versus dispatchable are two axises that don't even cut each other and don't form a coordinate system.
The plants in Chernobyl and Fukushima are completely different designs and based on completely different technologies. It does not matter which one is/was older.
This was NOT a modern nuke plant with decent safety features that went meltdown. That is completely irrelevant. Fukushima melted down because it hat no cooling, due to misplaced emergency power generators. It bottom line had nothing to do at all with the design of the plant itself.
However it is astonishing that they where not able to bring a ship in front of it and supply emergency power from that ship.
There's an easier solution to rising water -- move further inland. Its not like the 6 or 10 or whatever it is these days foot rise will happen over night. Does not work for plenty of people/countries/islands.
Hydrogen, is short term at least, not a solution. Neither for burning nor for fuel cells. Producing Hydrogen makes it nearly as expensive as gasoline. And: you need to produce it. It costs a lot of energy. Long term it could be a solution when we have enough solar/wind power to produce it. But then again we simply can use batteries instead of building up an hydrogen infrastructure. Or create hydrogen and feed it into the gas grid.
So long as people can vote the people will vote away a tax they view as unfair, excessive, or otherwise not in their interest. Wow! In what heavenly country do you live, that you can vote away taxes?
Shutting down clean nuclear plants and burning dirty coal in its place? Germany is not replacing nuclear with coal, idiot. The power produced by coal got already reduced by nearly 20%...
And if you still not know that Germany is world champion in reduction of CO2 emissions, you must be living behind the moon.
Linking a climate change deniers link which completely made up data and graphs proves nothing and is idiotic. As the link mainly rants about IPC... I suggest to check IPC itself:D The temperature increase graph is at the upper edge of the error bar since decades, as IPC as well as basically all climate research institutes down play the problems we are in and facing in future.
The countries with the biggest populations have the lowest carbon footprint per person.
The biggest impact on climate change is if idiots like the US americans reduce their personal carbon emissions. Using 4 times as much energy per person as an European, and ten times as much as an African is not necessary, you can easily solve that, but you don't want to.
The "climate change" concern in the 60s and 70s was global cooling, not global warming. That was never a "concern", that was a newspaper hoax. I doubt any scientist believed in global cooling, that we have global warming was pretty clear around that time.
The only bit you got correct is that Carter got involved; he signed the National Climate Program Act to deal with "the global cooling crisis." Never heard of that, you have any references?
The larger amount is methane from the animal farming industry That is nonsense. which luckily has a much shorter lifespan in the atmosphere. Exactly:D and that is the reason why your first part is nonsense.
Nitrogene is in the atmosphere. Plenty of plants take it from there and put into the soil for other plants, e.g. beans, pea and lentils. That you need fertilizer to run an agriculture is a modern myth. Sure, it is "easier" and "more productive" in a sense, but not necessary.
Just to follow your nitpicking with another nitpick: when it passes into Earth's umbra then it's dark all over. No it is not, it is darkish red. As the earth atmosphere is bending the red spectrum on the moon. You can see that easily when you watch an lunar eclipse.
Not only does the fusion process expose reactors to extreme pressure That is nonsense. The fusion reactors we have right now operate with a near vacuum.
If I give you a trip to Tahiti, that's not something in your POCKET, but most certainly it's taxable, particularly if it's compensatory. It most certainly is not. And feel free to give me one and lets see:D
In Germany living for free in a house is only income if the house is property of your employer or if your employer is involved in paying for it. I can life for free everywhere else, regardless if it is my GFs flat, my fathers or the second house of my father.
What is next? You own the house you live in and get taxed for the rent you safe by not paying it to yourself?
I live mostly in Karlsruhe, Germany. Where people claim power would be to expensive. I run a 4 room, 100sqm flat and besides my computers I run a fridge:D and my stove is gas (as is my heating).
Obviously they use nukes for base load, when they have roughly 75% of their power produced by nukes and have a base load of 60%.
while far left extremists continue to push for replacing with AE, which is impossible to do. First of all: that has nothing to do with far left or far right, I'm tired about such idiotic labels. If you want to put a label on it then use "green" or "environmentalists" or anything that fits. Left, far left, does not fit.
Then secondly: Germany and France are both already getting a high percentage of their base load via wind. And in Germany over Solar. Or how would you handle non dispatch able power producers? Use them for load following? Or even load balancing;D ?
Slashdot Mirror
http://fukushimaontheglobe.com...
The plumbing for the cooling system was damaged by the earthquake. :D ... no idea which.
That is incorrect, too
There are pipe damages
Main problem was: no power. The plant relied on power from the grid. But the grid was gone as the earthquake destroyed the masts of the power grids.
So it relied on the emergency power generators, which were flooded by the tsunami.
though both events were well beyond the plant's design specifications.
No they where not.
The plant is designed for a 6.5 quake or something. And that is exactly what happened at the plant site, probably weaker. The 9.3 quake was 450miles away!
No, they only needed to put the walls high enough.
Every coast is a Tsunami region, even if they are more common in some areas and less common in others.
That's ignoring the difference between base load nuclear to unreliable wind and solar.
You still don't know what base load actually means but continue to torture us with your rants.
Hint: the axis of "base load" to "peak load" and the axis of "undispatchable (unreliable is simply wrong)" versus dispatchable are two axises that don't even cut each other and don't form a coordinate system.
The plants in Chernobyl and Fukushima are completely different designs and based on completely different technologies.
It does not matter which one is/was older.
This was NOT a modern nuke plant with decent safety features that went meltdown.
That is completely irrelevant. Fukushima melted down because it hat no cooling, due to misplaced emergency power generators. It bottom line had nothing to do at all with the design of the plant itself.
However it is astonishing that they where not able to bring a ship in front of it and supply emergency power from that ship.
There's an easier solution to rising water -- move further inland. Its not like the 6 or 10 or whatever it is these days foot rise will happen over night.
Does not work for plenty of people/countries/islands.
Look on a damn map.
Hydrogen, is short term at least, not a solution. Neither for burning nor for fuel cells.
Producing Hydrogen makes it nearly as expensive as gasoline. And: you need to produce it. It costs a lot of energy.
Long term it could be a solution when we have enough solar/wind power to produce it. But then again we simply can use batteries instead of building up an hydrogen infrastructure. Or create hydrogen and feed it into the gas grid.
So long as people can vote the people will vote away a tax they view as unfair, excessive, or otherwise not in their interest.
Wow! In what heavenly country do you live, that you can vote away taxes?
Shutting down clean nuclear plants and burning dirty coal in its place? ...
Germany is not replacing nuclear with coal, idiot.
The power produced by coal got already reduced by nearly 20%
And if you still not know that Germany is world champion in reduction of CO2 emissions, you must be living behind the moon.
hint: you can click on the blue text ... on /. links are green, not blue :P
Hint: get a counsel from an eye doctor
Linking a climate change deniers link which completely made up data and graphs proves nothing and is idiotic. ... I suggest to check IPC itself :D
As the link mainly rants about IPC
The temperature increase graph is at the upper edge of the error bar since decades, as IPC as well as basically all climate research institutes down play the problems we are in and facing in future.
To the Sahara most likely not.
To the south west of the USA: definitely not.
I suggest to read a book about it.
That is nonsense.
The countries with the biggest populations have the lowest carbon footprint per person.
The biggest impact on climate change is if idiots like the US americans reduce their personal carbon emissions. Using 4 times as much energy per person as an European, and ten times as much as an African is not necessary, you can easily solve that, but you don't want to.
The "climate change" concern in the 60s and 70s was global cooling, not global warming.
That was never a "concern", that was a newspaper hoax. I doubt any scientist believed in global cooling, that we have global warming was pretty clear around that time.
The only bit you got correct is that Carter got involved; he signed the National Climate Program Act to deal with "the global cooling crisis."
Never heard of that, you have any references?
The larger amount is methane from the animal farming industry :D and that is the reason why your first part is nonsense.
That is nonsense.
which luckily has a much shorter lifespan in the atmosphere.
Exactly
Nitrogene is in the atmosphere.
Plenty of plants take it from there and put into the soil for other plants, e.g. beans, pea and lentils.
That you need fertilizer to run an agriculture is a modern myth. Sure, it is "easier" and "more productive" in a sense, but not necessary.
but not all
No, everything is releases.
Go into an tropical jungle, e.g. Amazonas. The mulch is not even 30cm thick, below that is sand.
Peatlands have the same property. It's not a fast process, by any means, but it is an ongoing process, and net positive.
No, it is not net positive.
Just to follow your nitpicking with another nitpick:
when it passes into Earth's umbra then it's dark all over.
No it is not, it is darkish red. As the earth atmosphere is bending the red spectrum on the moon.
You can see that easily when you watch an lunar eclipse.
Not only does the fusion process expose reactors to extreme pressure
That is nonsense. The fusion reactors we have right now operate with a near vacuum.
If I give you a trip to Tahiti, that's not something in your POCKET, but most certainly it's taxable, particularly if it's compensatory. :D
It most certainly is not. And feel free to give me one and lets see
The university does not give them money. They waive a part of the money the student owes them.
In Germany living for free in a house is only income if the house is property of your employer or if your employer is involved in paying for it.
I can life for free everywhere else, regardless if it is my GFs flat, my fathers or the second house of my father.
What is next? You own the house you live in and get taxed for the rent you safe by not paying it to yourself?
I live mostly in Karlsruhe, Germany. Where people claim power would be to expensive. :D and my stove is gas (as is my heating).
I run a 4 room, 100sqm flat and besides my computers I run a fridge
Obviously they use nukes for base load, when they have roughly 75% of their power produced by nukes and have a base load of 60%.
while far left extremists continue to push for replacing with AE, which is impossible to do.
First of all: that has nothing to do with far left or far right, I'm tired about such idiotic labels.
If you want to put a label on it then use "green" or "environmentalists" or anything that fits. Left, far left, does not fit.
Then secondly: Germany and France are both already getting a high percentage of their base load via wind. And in Germany over Solar. Or how would you handle non dispatch able power producers? Use them for load following? Or even load balancing ;D ?