Post by: Manedwolf on August 25, 2008, 12:12:41 PM
Quote
Wind Turbines Give Bats the "Bends," Study Finds
Brian Handwerk
for National Geographic News
August 25, 2008
Wind turbines can kill bats without touching them by causing a bends-like condition due to rapidly dropping air pressure, new research suggests.
Scientists aren't sure why, but bats are attracted to the turbines, which often stand 300 feet (90 meters) high and sport 200-foot (60-meter) blades.
The mammals' curiosity can result in lethal blows by the rotors, which spin at a rate of about 160 miles (260 kilometers) per hour.
But scientist Erin Baerwald and colleagues report that only about half of the bat corpses they found near Alberta, Canada, turbine bases showed any physical evidence of being hit by a blade.
A surprising 90 percent showed signs of internal hemorrhagingevidence of a drop in air pressure near the blades that causes fatal damage to the bats' lungs.
In humans, the condition is called the bends and can affect divers and airplane passengers during ascents and descents.
(Related story: "Military Sonar May Give Whales the Bends, Study Says" [October 1, 2003])
The "Bends"
"As a turbine blade goes around, it creates liftlike an airplane's wingsand there is a small zone of [dropping] pressure, maybe a meter or so in diameter, on the tips of the blades," explained Baerwald, a doctoral candidate at the University of Calgary, in Alberta.
"Bats fly through this area, and their lungs expand, and the fine capillaries around the edges of the lungs burst."
The bats' lungs subsequently fill with fluid, and the animals essentially drown.
"We compare it to diversthey are pretty much dying of the bends," Baerwald said.
Bats have no natural defense against the unnaturally dramatic pressure changes.
"Bats can actually detect pressure changes, but we're talking large-scale, relatively slow changes, like the coming of a storm front," said Baerwald. "This is something entirely different."
Most bats that fall victim to turbines are migrating species, such as hoary bats, eastern red bats, and silver-haired bats.
There are not enough data to determine how wind turbine fatalities might be affecting populations of these slow-reproducing mammals.
Birds are also killed by blows from wind turbine rotors (see a related story), but their rigid, tubelike lungs can better withstand air pressure changes.
The study appears this week in the journal Current Biology.
Curiosity Killed the Bat
"They are the first to have done a large scale look at this [damage to the bat lungs]," Bat Conservation International (BCI) biologist Ed Arnett said of the researchers.
"It's fascinating information," said Arnett, who is not involved with the study.
"But ultimately it might not matter so much how [the bats] die but what is attracting them to the turbines in the first place."
Preventing the bat deaths has challenged experts for years.
"We've partnered with industry and federal agencies to raise and spend about two million dollars looking for a solution," said BCI founder and president Merlin Tuttle.
Laurie Jodziewicz, of the American Wind Energy Association in Washington, D.C., said where the turbines are placed may be the key.
"Bats are not being [killed] at all the wind projects all over the countryit is happening in some places and not others," she said.
"We're trying to determine before construction what areas might be risky."
Turbines create drops in pressure drop during normal operations, so the problem could possibly be addressed by changing when the turbines run, according to BCI's Tuttle.
"A large portion of the kills occur at the lowest wind speeds," he said, "and at those low speeds [the turbines] are not generating appreciable electricity anyway."
Bats also are at particular risk during migration periods in late summer and early fall, when many turbine related fatalities occur.
Arnett, Baerwald, and others are currently conducting tests to see if raising the "cut-in" wind speed at which rotors begin to turn will save batsparticularly during peak migration periods.
"It won't eliminate the problem, but it's a good step in the right direction," Tuttle said.
Brian Handwerk
for National Geographic News
August 25, 2008
Wind turbines can kill bats without touching them by causing a bends-like condition due to rapidly dropping air pressure, new research suggests.
Scientists aren't sure why, but bats are attracted to the turbines, which often stand 300 feet (90 meters) high and sport 200-foot (60-meter) blades.
The mammals' curiosity can result in lethal blows by the rotors, which spin at a rate of about 160 miles (260 kilometers) per hour.
But scientist Erin Baerwald and colleagues report that only about half of the bat corpses they found near Alberta, Canada, turbine bases showed any physical evidence of being hit by a blade.
A surprising 90 percent showed signs of internal hemorrhagingevidence of a drop in air pressure near the blades that causes fatal damage to the bats' lungs.
In humans, the condition is called the bends and can affect divers and airplane passengers during ascents and descents.
(Related story: "Military Sonar May Give Whales the Bends, Study Says" [October 1, 2003])
The "Bends"
"As a turbine blade goes around, it creates liftlike an airplane's wingsand there is a small zone of [dropping] pressure, maybe a meter or so in diameter, on the tips of the blades," explained Baerwald, a doctoral candidate at the University of Calgary, in Alberta.
"Bats fly through this area, and their lungs expand, and the fine capillaries around the edges of the lungs burst."
The bats' lungs subsequently fill with fluid, and the animals essentially drown.
"We compare it to diversthey are pretty much dying of the bends," Baerwald said.
Bats have no natural defense against the unnaturally dramatic pressure changes.
"Bats can actually detect pressure changes, but we're talking large-scale, relatively slow changes, like the coming of a storm front," said Baerwald. "This is something entirely different."
Most bats that fall victim to turbines are migrating species, such as hoary bats, eastern red bats, and silver-haired bats.
There are not enough data to determine how wind turbine fatalities might be affecting populations of these slow-reproducing mammals.
Birds are also killed by blows from wind turbine rotors (see a related story), but their rigid, tubelike lungs can better withstand air pressure changes.
The study appears this week in the journal Current Biology.
Curiosity Killed the Bat
"They are the first to have done a large scale look at this [damage to the bat lungs]," Bat Conservation International (BCI) biologist Ed Arnett said of the researchers.
"It's fascinating information," said Arnett, who is not involved with the study.
"But ultimately it might not matter so much how [the bats] die but what is attracting them to the turbines in the first place."
Preventing the bat deaths has challenged experts for years.
"We've partnered with industry and federal agencies to raise and spend about two million dollars looking for a solution," said BCI founder and president Merlin Tuttle.
Laurie Jodziewicz, of the American Wind Energy Association in Washington, D.C., said where the turbines are placed may be the key.
"Bats are not being [killed] at all the wind projects all over the countryit is happening in some places and not others," she said.
"We're trying to determine before construction what areas might be risky."
Turbines create drops in pressure drop during normal operations, so the problem could possibly be addressed by changing when the turbines run, according to BCI's Tuttle.
"A large portion of the kills occur at the lowest wind speeds," he said, "and at those low speeds [the turbines] are not generating appreciable electricity anyway."
Bats also are at particular risk during migration periods in late summer and early fall, when many turbine related fatalities occur.
Arnett, Baerwald, and others are currently conducting tests to see if raising the "cut-in" wind speed at which rotors begin to turn will save batsparticularly during peak migration periods.
"It won't eliminate the problem, but it's a good step in the right direction," Tuttle said.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/08/080825-bat-bends.html
Post by: richyoung on August 25, 2008, 12:25:08 PM
Post by: Scout26 on August 25, 2008, 12:31:08 PM
Quote
Wind Turbines Give Bats the "Bends," Study Finds
Scientists aren't sure why, but bats are attracted to the turbines, which often stand 300 feet (90 meters) high and sport 200-foot (60-meter) blades.
Scientists aren't sure why, but bats are attracted to the turbines, which often stand 300 feet (90 meters) high and sport 200-foot (60-meter) blades.
[high pitched bat voice] Holy Carp !!!!! Sonar indicates the biggest freakin' moquito ever !!!! [/HPBV]
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on August 25, 2008, 03:01:15 PM
That's not the "bends" - thats pulmonary hemorrhage. Bends is nitrogen bubbles in tissue. Article gets a F for FAIL.
Sounds to me like "the bends" is an apt description. The bat suddenly finds itself in a very low pressure area, which causes dissolved gas in the lung capillaries to bubble out. The article doesn't say so, but the gas involved would be mostly nitrogen.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on August 25, 2008, 03:02:35 PM
Post by: Standing Wolf on August 25, 2008, 03:57:44 PM
Quote
Scientists aren't sure why, but bats are attracted to the turbines, which often stand 300 feet (90 meters) high and sport 200-foot (60-meter) blades.
I can tell you right now: it's those stupid French meters that are killing bats. Use honest inches and feet, and they'll be fineif you care about bats, that is.
Post by: lupinus on August 25, 2008, 03:59:21 PM
Quote
Scientists aren't sure why, but bats are attracted to the turbines, which often stand 300 feet (90 meters) high and sport 200-foot (60-meter) blades.
I can tell you right now: it's those stupid French meters that are killing bats. Use honest inches and feet, and they'll be fineif you care about bats, that is.
Post by: One of Many on August 25, 2008, 04:16:12 PM
Post by: never_retreat on August 25, 2008, 05:56:18 PM
Post by: RevDisk on August 25, 2008, 06:01:25 PM
So what don't wind turbines kill?
Fistful.
Post by: freakazoid on August 25, 2008, 06:20:13 PM
Quote
which spin at a rate of about 160 miles (260 kilometers) per hour.
Everytime I see them it looks like they are barely spinning.
Post by: French G. on August 25, 2008, 06:39:26 PM
Quote
shocked Every time I see them it looks like they are barely spinning.
Figure out the circumference and the RPM, the tip speed can be astonishingly fast with even a low RPM.
Wind is costly to us in subsidy handouts, environmental damage, and in my local case scenery and habitat which drive the tourist trade. Benefits are dubious.
Build more nukes.
Post by: freakazoid on August 25, 2008, 06:54:42 PM
Post by: LAK on August 26, 2008, 12:43:13 AM
Quote
So what don't wind turbines kill?
Exactly.Sounds like a few dingbats are suffering deaths from misadventure. It is not as if they can not "see" the spinning blades. Evidently some of them are taking chances and getting too close to them.
Post by: 280plus on August 26, 2008, 03:19:10 AM
Post by: Mabs2 on August 26, 2008, 03:39:59 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on August 26, 2008, 03:40:44 AM
Quote
So what don't wind turbines kill?
Exactly.Sounds like a few dingbats are suffering deaths from misadventure. It is not as if they can not "see" the spinning blades. Evidently some of them are taking chances and getting too close to them.
You miss the point. Nuclear plants do not kill ANYTHING. Seabrook is surrounded by wetland marshes, silent and pristine.
Post by: Mabs2 on August 26, 2008, 03:47:26 AM
Quote
So what don't wind turbines kill?
Exactly.Sounds like a few dingbats are suffering deaths from misadventure. It is not as if they can not "see" the spinning blades. Evidently some of them are taking chances and getting too close to them.
You miss the point. Nuclear plants do not kill ANYTHING. Seabrook is surrounded by wetland marshes, silent and pristine.
My dad is moving to a town past Richmond with a Nuclear plant that cools off from the local lake. The lake stays like 80 degrees year round they say. Far as I can think, that can't be anything but good for local aquatic life.
Post by: Firethorn on August 26, 2008, 04:20:50 AM
My dad is moving to a town past Richmond with a Nuclear plant that cools off from the local lake. The lake stays like 80 degrees year round they say. Far as I can think, that can't be anything but good for local aquatic life.
It's been known for years that some of the best fishing is just downstream of a nuclear plant - the warmer water encourages marine life, as long as it's not too hot, and no plant is allowed to release water that hot.
Post by: richyoung on August 26, 2008, 04:33:59 AM
That's not the "bends" - thats pulmonary hemorrhage. Bends is nitrogen bubbles in tissue. Article gets a F for FAIL.
Sounds to me like "the bends" is an apt description. The bat suddenly finds itself in a very low pressure area, which causes dissolved gas in the lung capillaries to bubble out. The article doesn't say so, but the gas involved would be mostly nitrogen.Nitrogen does not dissolve int o blood at 1 atmosphere pressure. You need many times atmosphereic pressure for it to dissolve in - such as occurs on deep ocean dives. In fact, I seriously doubt that a wind-driven airfoil is going to reach low enough pressure to cause ANY gas to bubble in blood - more likely, the capillaries rupture from simple differential hydraulic pressure.
Post by: richyoung on August 26, 2008, 04:39:00 AM
indeed the bends is a term that covers a variety of symptomology and the pulmonary embolism is one of them
"Pulmonary embolism" is not the same thing as "pulmonary hemorrhage". Further, "bends" can indeed cause a pulmonary embolism, but not all pulmonary embolisms are "bends".
"the bends": caused by breathing nitrogen or other gases under pressure, which are not metabolized by the body.
Last I checked, bats don't scuba dive...
Post by: MechAg94 on August 26, 2008, 06:08:16 AM
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on August 26, 2008, 06:09:34 AM
Post by: HankB on August 26, 2008, 06:23:48 AM
folks got the bends long before scuba
"Caisson disease" was an affliction of bridge builders.As for the bats . . . sounds like windmills may speed evolution along and, eventually, make the bat population just a bit smarter.
Post by: Tuco on August 26, 2008, 06:24:15 AM
My dad is moving to a town past Richmond with a Nuclear plant that cools off from the local lake. The lake stays like 80 degrees year round they say. Far as I can think, that can't be anything but good for local aquatic life.
Warning - Hijack and oversimplification ahead -
Freshwater's ability to contain dissolved oxygen decreases as water temperature increases. Fish "breathe" dissolved oxygen through their gills.
Cold water lowers fish metabolism (fish are cold blooded) and they don't need as much oxygen. Warm water raises fish metabolism, requiring more oxygen..
Different fish species have different oxygen (temperature) requirements. The specific requirements for specific species is easily available with a google "Fish (trout, carp, cisco) Oxygen Requirements"
Warm water does not equate to limnological nirvana, but please, reach your own conclusions.
hijack off.
Post by: Firethorn on August 26, 2008, 07:14:46 AM
Freshwater's ability to contain dissolved oxygen decreases as water temperature increases. Fish "breathe" dissolved oxygen through their gills.
Cold water lowers fish metabolism (fish are cold blooded) and they don't need as much oxygen. Warm water raises fish metabolism, requiring more oxygen..
Cold water lowers fish metabolism (fish are cold blooded) and they don't need as much oxygen. Warm water raises fish metabolism, requiring more oxygen..
Which is why I specified 'warmer but not too hot'. In most cases it actually gives the fish a wider gradient of temperature to select from. Warmer water encourages marine plants to grow faster, helping to keep the O2 levels up and provide food for the bottom of the chain.
It also has the fish being more active - therefore eating more, more likely to take a bait.
"the bends": caused by breathing nitrogen or other gases under pressure, which are not metabolized by the body.
From my reading, it's not cause by taking in the gasses under pressure, it's what happens when they start exiting solution when the pressure decreases - thus why the bends becomes a problem for surfacing divers. And nitrogen DOES dissolve into the blood at 1 atm, it's just that at that point there's not enough of it to cause an issue as a pressure low enough to offgas the nitrogen is also going to be too low pressure to provide enough O2.
As for the bats, maybe the same sort of thing will be need as for birds - I believe they altered the design of the blades somewhat to avoid bird kills as well.
Post by: BridgeRunner on August 26, 2008, 07:36:33 AM
You miss the point. Nuclear plants do not kill ANYTHING. Seabrook is surrounded by wetland marshes, silent and pristine.
Exactly. Tell me again why we hate nuclear power?
Seriously, when did nuclear power become evil? It's farking awesome.
Yeah, my home town is getting another coal-fired power plant. Yay.
Only solution is that "someday" we'll have windfarms in the thumb, and until then we should use less power. You'd think that considering how much economic trouble this town is in and has been in, they'd be glad to have increasing power needs. Nope. Lansing is better off as a ghost town, I guess.
Post by: richyoung on August 26, 2008, 08:03:50 AM
folks got the bends long before scuba
..by excavating at depth under pressure conditions: see: "sand hogs".... no "p word" (pressure), no "bends"...
Post by: Iain on August 26, 2008, 08:14:45 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decompression_sickness#Ascent_to_altitude_in_the_atmosphere
Post by: richyoung on August 26, 2008, 08:15:17 AM
"the bends": caused by breathing nitrogen or other gases under pressure, which are not metabolized by the body.
From my reading, it's not cause by taking in the gasses under pressure, it's what happens when they start exiting solution when the pressure decreases - thus why the bends becomes a problem for surfacing divers. And nitrogen DOES dissolve into the blood at 1 atm, it's just that at that point there's not enough of it to cause an issue as a pressure low enough to offgas the nitrogen is also going to be too low pressure to provide enough O2.
You have to be uner pressure, and signifigant pressure at that, for long enough to absorb the nitrogen in the FIRST PLACE! That is how bottom time is calculated for deep dives - the amount of air you have, minus a reserve, minus the time for decompression stops, is how long you can stay on the bottom. If you don't take the gasses in under pressure, as you pointed out, pressures low enough to cause bends also cause other things more important to worry about.
Interstingly, what the bats are experiencing is indeed like one danger that divers face, its actually a form of barotrauma: divers can get this if they take a deep breath at depth, and then do not exhale during a free ascent - the lungs expand until blood vessels rupture, then you drown in your own juices.
Quote
As for the bats, maybe the same sort of thing will be need as for birds - I believe they altered the design of the blades somewhat to avoid bird kills as well.
Not that I'm aware of - although they are trying not to put them in bird and bat travel corridors.
Post by: richyoung on August 26, 2008, 08:21:31 AM
No idea who is right here, but wiki talks about people flying in unpressurised aircraft or hot air balloons at significant altitude getting decompression sickness, or the bends
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decompression_sickness#Ascent_to_altitude_in_the_atmosphere
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decompression_sickness#Ascent_to_altitude_in_the_atmosphere
From the article:
There is no specific altitude threshold that can be considered safe for everyone below which it can be assured that no one will develop altitude DCS, but there is very little evidence of altitude DCS occurring among healthy individuals at pressure altitudes below 18,000 feet (5,500 m) who have not been scuba diving. Individual exposures to pressure altitudes between 18,000 feet (5,500 m) and 25,000 feet (7,600 m) have shown a low occurrence of altitude DCS. Most cases of altitude DCS occur among individuals exposed to pressure altitudes of 25,000 feet (7,600 m) or higher. A US Air Force study of altitude DCS cases reported that only 13 percent occurred below 25,000 feet (7,600 m) The higher the altitude of exposure, the greater the risk of developing altitude DCS. It is important to clarify that although exposures to incremental altitudes above 18,000 feet (5,500 m) show an incremental risk of altitude DCS they do not show a direct relationship with the severity of the various types of DCS ...
You need oxygen to stay conscious above 10,000 feet. To get DCS withou exposure to pressure conditions, you need very rareified circumstances - like trying to set a balloon altitude record, (or flying a U2), AND having a pressure suit failure. Or bailing out of a jet fighter at altittude. Its not going to be a problem in most people's, (or bat's) lives.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on August 26, 2008, 08:30:16 AM
Post by: Iain on August 26, 2008, 08:40:02 AM
NOTE: About 90 percent of the bats studied suffered from barotrauma. The name of the ailment was restored to this article for clarification purposes after initial publication
Post by: Tallpine on August 26, 2008, 08:49:57 AM
National Geographic have changed their article to include the term barotrauma.
NOTE: About 90 percent of the bats studied suffered from barotrauma. The name of the ailment was restored to this article for clarification purposes after initial publication
NOTE: About 90 percent of the bats studied suffered from barotrauma. The name of the ailment was restored to this article for clarification purposes after initial publication
I'm guessing that the bats suffer from DQS
(Don Quixote Syndrome)
Post by: Firethorn on August 26, 2008, 08:59:52 AM
Or bailing out of a jet fighter at altittude.
Wouldn't the fact that the pilot's going to be descending tend to take care of the matter?
On the diving thing - isn't there a number of fancy things you can do to reduce/eliminate the need for decompression waits? Stuff like breathing pure O2 at the deeper levels, or using helium instead?
Post by: brimic on August 26, 2008, 11:25:25 AM
Quote
Wind turbines can kill bats without touching them by causing a bends-like condition due to rapidly dropping air pressure, new research suggests.
Tennis rackets kill bats too, though by a completely different mechanism.
Post by: richyoung on August 26, 2008, 12:02:02 PM
what kinda pressure differential is generated when a blade like that moves at 160 mph? from the low side tothe high side
The absolute maximum, if it could pull a perfect vacuum, would be one atmosphere - about 14.7 pounds per square inch. I would be shocked if its even close to half of that.
Post by: richyoung on August 26, 2008, 12:05:21 PM
Or bailing out of a jet fighter at altittude.
Wouldn't the fact that the pilot's going to be descending tend to take care of the matter?
Once he gets low enough, but again, if he's bailing out high enough that bends is an issue, and his suit doesn;t work, he's already having issues. Normally you want to stay with the plane until it gets below 18,000 feet.
Quote
On the diving thing - isn't there a number of fancy things you can do to reduce/eliminate the need for decompression waits? Stuff like breathing pure O2 at the deeper levels, or using helium instead?
They use something called 'trimix" that reduces the danger of nitrogen narcosis and bends, but does not eliminate the need to decompress, as at those pressures, other gasses dissolve into the blood as well.
Post by: richyoung on August 26, 2008, 12:10:43 PM
National Geographic have changed their article to include the term barotrauma.
NOTE: About 90 percent of the bats studied suffered from barotrauma. The name of the ailment was restored to this article for clarification purposes after initial publication
NOTE: About 90 percent of the bats studied suffered from barotrauma. The name of the ailment was restored to this article for clarification purposes after initial publication
Gee - where have I heard that term before?
"Interstingly, what the bats are experiencing is indeed like one danger that divers face, its actually a form of barotrauma: divers can get this if they take a deep breath at depth, and then do not exhale during a free ascent - the lungs expand until blood vessels rupture, then you drown in your own juices."
Post by: Physics on August 26, 2008, 03:59:40 PM
Quote
You miss the point. Nuclear plants do not kill ANYTHING. Seabrook is surrounded by wetland marshes, silent and pristine.
Correct when they are working properly. I think the folks that used to live in Prypiat, Ukraine might disagree with your statement however.
Post by: MicroBalrog on August 26, 2008, 04:20:58 PM
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on August 26, 2008, 04:24:37 PM
Post by: MicroBalrog on August 26, 2008, 04:35:31 PM
bats are protected in some areas and fill a very useful niche in the ecosystem
Let me put it this way:
A small amount of birds are killed every year by passing aircrft. Some are even rare birds. We don't stop flying.
A small amount of animals are killed by combined harvesters. Do we stop growing grain?
Is the damage to bats great enough to stop us using wind turbines?
Post by: MicroBalrog on August 26, 2008, 04:36:27 PM
Another hijack:
Correct when they are working properly. I think the folks that used to live in Prypiat, Ukraine might disagree with your statement however.
Quote
You miss the point. Nuclear plants do not kill ANYTHING. Seabrook is surrounded by wetland marshes, silent and pristine.
Correct when they are working properly. I think the folks that used to live in Prypiat, Ukraine might disagree with your statement however.
Single, isolated incident related to faulty construction and design.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on August 26, 2008, 04:45:22 PM
Post by: MicroBalrog on August 26, 2008, 04:46:38 PM
there is a faction of the moonbats opposed to wind power. at that point throw out logic
There's a faction of the moonbats opposed to practically anything, I suppose.
Post by: Physics on August 26, 2008, 04:51:12 PM
Quote
Single, isolated incident related to faulty construction and design.
What faulty construction/design? I always thought it was due to human error, and for the most part wiki seems to support this. I do agree though, that nuclear power is a good thing overall. We just need to figure out how to store the waste, because as many know, Hanford is not a very fun place to be downstream to.
Anyways, sorry, /hijack.
Post by: Gewehr98 on August 26, 2008, 09:39:53 PM
Quote
Quote from: Firethorn on August 26, 2008, 12:59:52 PM
Quote from: richyoung on August 26, 2008, 12:21:31 PM
Or bailing out of a jet fighter at altittude.
Wouldn't the fact that the pilot's going to be descending tend to take care of the matter?
Once he gets low enough, but again, if he's bailing out high enough that bends is an issue, and his suit doesn;t work, he's already having issues. Normally you want to stay with the plane until it gets below 18,000 feet.
Quote from: richyoung on August 26, 2008, 12:21:31 PM
Or bailing out of a jet fighter at altittude.
Wouldn't the fact that the pilot's going to be descending tend to take care of the matter?
Once he gets low enough, but again, if he's bailing out high enough that bends is an issue, and his suit doesn;t work, he's already having issues. Normally you want to stay with the plane until it gets below 18,000 feet.
Not that big a deal, really. My ejection seat and parachute pack had an 1800psi little green oxygen bottle attached to my O2 mask - keeping me "pressurized" until I descended to thicker, non-hypoxic air. Most military ejection seats have such amenities.
As for the three-eyed fish downstream of Three Mile Island/Hanford/Chernobyl/Tokai Mura...
BTW, I love wind turbines. We've had one generating 36 volts DC for many years on my dad's farm. There have been no dead bats or birds in the "kill zone" since the old WinCo Wincharger started spinning there, but I'm sure somebody can come up with something along the lines of it causing sterility, early onset menopause, or anything else related to the current fashionable trend of bashing renewable energy. Go figure - if it ain't coming from fossil fuel, it must be bad!
Post by: 280plus on August 27, 2008, 12:14:23 AM
Quote
early onset menopause
So that was YOUR turbine, wait till I tell the missus!
Post by: Regolith on August 27, 2008, 12:16:35 AM
Quote
Single, isolated incident related to faulty construction and design.
What faulty construction/design? I always thought it was due to human error, and for the most part wiki seems to support this. I do agree though, that nuclear power is a good thing overall. We just need to figure out how to store the waste, because as many know, Hanford is not a very fun place to be downstream to.
Anyways, sorry, /hijack.
Human error may have been what sparked the incident, but it was the poor design of the nuclear reactor that allowed the disaster to be as bad as it was.
IIRC, the reactor only had a single "shell" of concrete containing the core, which provided for only partial containment. In the event of a melt down, it's the shell that prevents the radiation from entering the atmosphere, and Chernobyl's inadequate one cracked under the pressure buildup. Most modern reactors can have two or more massively thick shells that prevent a meltdown from getting that far. Then there are new technologies like pebble-bed reactors, which are highly unlikely to cause meltdown due to their design.
According to Wikipedia, they did eventually decide that the design was what contributed most to the disaster: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster#Possible_causes_of_the_disaster
Post by: 280plus on August 27, 2008, 02:54:11 AM
Post by: LAK on August 27, 2008, 03:21:15 AM
Quote
You miss the point. Nuclear plants do not kill ANYTHING. Seabrook is surrounded by wetland marshes, silent and pristine.
Chernobyl? Three Mile Island? What about all the nuclear waste storage - how long before that stuff becomes a real problem?---
RE: the bends
Bends is only a potential problem when surfacing from depths below 33 feet using normal compressed air. You can stay down at 30 feet all day and surface without any decompression stops.
Trimix is oxygen, nitrogen and helium. Deep dives use oxygen and helium.
-----------------------------------
http://ussliberty.com/oldindex.html
http://www.gtr5.com
http://ssunitedstates.org
Post by: Firethorn on August 27, 2008, 04:56:03 AM
What faulty construction/design? I always thought it was due to human error, and for the most part wiki seems to support this.
Well, if you count approving and building the plant in the first place as 'human error'.
To wit, the reactor had what's called a 'positive void coefficient'. This is a very bad thing. What it means is that when a bubble forms, IE water transforming to steam, the reaction in that area goes UP. Because the reaction goes up, the heat goes up, and you get MORE bubbles. This can lead to a runaway reaction.
Plants in the USA are required to have a negative void coefficient - bubbles reduce the reaction, creating a self-regulating situation.
The second would be the lack of a secondary containment structure - no dome to contain the radioactive materials after the breach of the primary vessel.
Either of which would have most likely prevented the release of radioactive materials into the environment.
Quote
I do agree though, that nuclear power is a good thing overall. We just need to figure out how to store the waste, because as many know, Hanford is not a very fun place to be downstream to.
Quote from: LAK
Chernobyl? Three Mile Island? What about all the nuclear waste storage - how long before that stuff becomes a real problem?
Nuclear power waste isn't actually that big of a deal - for one thing you can reprocess it to recover 90-95% of it to be used as fuel again. The rest becomes much less radioactive much faster. As a bonus, you'd be able to keep a couple hundred years of waste for a plant in an area about the size of a football field, including shielding.
Thus, with some reprocessing/recycling Yucca Mountain becomes more of a temporary staging point than a facility that needs to last tens/hundreds of thousands of years.
Our current policy actually makes some sense - let the raw waste sit for 40 years and it's a lot easier to reprocess as it's nowhere near as hot as when it came out of the reactor. This reduces expenses.
As for Hanford - I make the distinction of 'nuclear power' for a reason. Hanford was primarily a weapons making facility - and I have to admit, we really screwed up environmentally wise during the cold war.
Post by: Manedwolf on August 27, 2008, 05:05:08 AM
Quote
You miss the point. Nuclear plants do not kill ANYTHING. Seabrook is surrounded by wetland marshes, silent and pristine.
Chernobyl? Three Mile Island? What about all the nuclear waste storage - how long before that stuff becomes a real problem?Chernobyl? Don't build an inherently dangerous Soviet-era graphite moderated reactor with no containment structure and then crew it with drunks.
Three Mile Island? Tech has advanced SO much since then. You'd be comparing the safety level of an early 1970's car to a modern one. And the newest pebble bed design is incapable of runaway. If cooling stops, fission will stop too.
Nuclear waste storage? Throw out the STUPID Carter-era rules that prohibit reactors that re-use that waste, and it wouldn't be a problem! Breeder reactors are banned because of asinine laws from back then. Anything that is left, you put in Yucca Mountain.
Do some research, please, instead of trotting out the same tired and already-debunked arguments people like the Clamshell idiots here used when they bankrupted PSNH and prevented the construction of Seabrook 2, which would have made NH completely energy-secure for all time.
Post by: 280plus on August 27, 2008, 05:18:05 AM
Quote
What about all the nuclear waste storage - how long before that stuff becomes a real problem?
Shoot it into the sun.
Post by: richyoung on August 27, 2008, 05:52:30 AM
Quote
What about all the nuclear waste storage - how long before that stuff becomes a real problem?
Shoot it into the sun. Vitrify, seal in stainless steel canisters, cover that in conctrete or ceramic, place on old warship, sink im Marianis Trench. One old aircraft carrier a decade should be plenty...
Post by: Firethorn on August 27, 2008, 06:09:47 AM
Vitrify, seal in stainless steel canisters, cover that in conctrete or ceramic, place on old warship, sink im Marianis Trench. One old aircraft carrier a decade should be plenty...
At this point, 1 carrier a century would be enough. Meanwhile, I say we keep the stuff available until we're willing to go through the effort to recycle it. Uranium's going to get more expensive at some point, and I don't want to explain to my kids why we sunk all that usable fuel at the bottom of the ocean.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on August 27, 2008, 08:22:52 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on August 27, 2008, 08:42:24 AM
say what you will about their country the french do nuke power right
They're the only part of Europe where the lights would stay on if the gas and oil tap were turned off.
Post by: MicroBalrog on August 28, 2008, 09:18:31 AM
Quote
Chernobyl? Three Mile Island? What about all the nuclear waste storage - how long before that stuff becomes a real problem?
Not a single person was killed by the accident at Three Mile Island.
And that was the worst nuclear incident in US history.
Thank you for making a beautiful, cogent argument for nuclear energy.
Post by: 280plus on August 28, 2008, 10:53:05 AM
Post by: Antibubba on August 28, 2008, 02:12:45 PM
Quote
Let me put it this way:
A small amount of birds are killed every year by passing aircrft. Some are even rare birds. We don't stop flying.
A small amount of animals are killed by combined harvesters. Do we stop growing grain?
Is the damage to bats great enough to stop us using wind turbines?
A small amount of birds are killed every year by passing aircrft. Some are even rare birds. We don't stop flying.
A small amount of animals are killed by combined harvesters. Do we stop growing grain?
Is the damage to bats great enough to stop us using wind turbines?
Micro,
You are using logic when cute little fuzzy flying brother mammals are being killed!
Does Israel have the "Animals are People Too" contingent?
Post by: French G. on August 28, 2008, 04:21:43 PM
Meanwhile, we have our 200K tax revenue. Of course we lost meals, lodging, sales tax revenue from the motorcyclists who descend like locusts to ride our scenic mountain roads and the bird and nature lovers. Nobody wants to look at a 400 ft wind turbine or 20 so land prices go in the toilet which lowers our real estate tax base, so we raise the assessment. Less tourists, more taxed land means less people making a living. The few people we have will move away. It's already happening and wind turbines might be built here in 3 years. Our real estate market tanked 1.5 years ahead of the national market as soon as this BS got approved.
Take all the steel, copper and concrete that go into putting up wind turbines and build some nuke plants.
I have not even addressed the energy that goes into making all these green wind turbines or the piss poor nature of their power as in they usually don't put out much power midday in the summer when it is 95 deg and the wind is dead and the AC is running...
Wind is a joke. Pull away all the renewable portfolio BS, the tax credits or any cap and trade scheme and see how wind competes.
Build nuke plants.
Post by: MicroBalrog on August 28, 2008, 04:37:34 PM
Quote
Let me put it this way:
A small amount of birds are killed every year by passing aircrft. Some are even rare birds. We don't stop flying.
A small amount of animals are killed by combined harvesters. Do we stop growing grain?
Is the damage to bats great enough to stop us using wind turbines?
A small amount of birds are killed every year by passing aircrft. Some are even rare birds. We don't stop flying.
A small amount of animals are killed by combined harvesters. Do we stop growing grain?
Is the damage to bats great enough to stop us using wind turbines?
Micro,
You are using logic when cute little fuzzy flying brother mammals are being killed!
Does Israel have the "Animals are People Too" contingent?
Oh yes. Yes it does.
No hunting licenses have been issued to citizens of this country since 1996.
Post by: 280plus on August 29, 2008, 01:05:12 AM
Post by: Regolith on August 29, 2008, 02:09:08 AM
Looks like that's not the only thing you have to worry about with windmills...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4N4HQv-UyUo&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKkTUY2slYQ&feature=related
So much for being "carbon neutral."
Post by: 280plus on August 29, 2008, 02:32:46 AM
Post by: LAK on August 29, 2008, 04:22:09 AM
Quote
Nuclear power waste isn't actually that big of a deal - for one thing you can reprocess it to recover 90-95% of it to be used as fuel again. The rest becomes much less radioactive much faster. As a bonus, you'd be able to keep a couple hundred years of waste for a plant in an area about the size of a football field, including shielding.
Sure, it's been old hat for decades.Manedwolf
Quote
Do some research, please, instead of trotting out the same tired and already-debunked arguments people like the Clamshell idiots here used when they bankrupted PSNH and prevented the construction of Seabrook 2, which would have made NH completely energy-secure for all time.
Research? I have lived through fifty years of nuclear power generation history here, and in europe. This is nothing new; general knowledge 101.The record is just not that good. And speaking of clamshells, getting time sensitive full disclosure from the nuclear industry about anything is like dealing with clamshells. The leak at the Thorp plant (now closed) in the UK is a shining recent example.
Advances in technology are fine; however it is not any lack of technology that has put people at risk and caused mishaps - 1970s cars were just fine thank you. It is a pattern of corporate practices and management, shortcuts and "cost saving" during constructions, operation etc. The usual suspects in the corporate world of any industry. That is the problem. With nuclear fuels however low the risks, the potential consequences are extremely high.
RichYoung
Quote
Vitrify, seal in stainless steel canisters, cover that in conctrete or ceramic, place on old warship, sink im Marianis Trench. One old aircraft carrier a decade should be plenty...
Yep; that' a clever idea - a future disaster waiting to happen. That is actually a good ending point for a discussion on nucler power generation safety.Post by: Manedwolf on August 29, 2008, 04:34:34 AM
You've got decommissioned reactors that look like Half Life, where they just dumped waste, lubricants and "hot" equipment into spent-fuel pools to rust in a swamp of noxious chemicals. You've got a test hole used for another equipment dump that they just kept dumping uranium residue and hot cooling system discarded parts into, and now they're worried it could reach critical mass.
Quote
The pond in which the waste is stored is known officially as B30, but nicknamed "dirty thirty" by Sellafield workers. It emits so much radiation that for safety reasons people are only permitted to work near it for less than an hour a day.
The pond was built in 1959 to store and unpack uranium fuel rods burnt in Britain's first generation of military and civil reactors. The hot fuel was stored under water to keep it cool, and to shield workers from its intense radiation.
After some fuel started corroding in the 1970s, the pond was phased out and eventually closed down in 1992. But it has been left with a huge legacy of nuclear waste under the water, which is slowly leaking into the surrounding air and earth.
The pond was built in 1959 to store and unpack uranium fuel rods burnt in Britain's first generation of military and civil reactors. The hot fuel was stored under water to keep it cool, and to shield workers from its intense radiation.
After some fuel started corroding in the 1970s, the pond was phased out and eventually closed down in 1992. But it has been left with a huge legacy of nuclear waste under the water, which is slowly leaking into the surrounding air and earth.
Yes, it's an OPEN POND with tons of plutonium in "impenetrably murky" water. In Dounreay, they just stuffed it all down the mentioned water-filled shaft, where it could form a lump of critical mass, and it's also leaking radiation all over the coast, now. Who allowed that idiocy?
Quote
A 65-metre deep shaft used for intermediate level nuclear waste disposal is contaminating some groundwater, and is threatened by coastal erosion in about 300 years time. The shaft was never designed as a waste depository, but was used as such on a very ad-hoc and poorly monitored basis, without reliable waste disposal records being kept. In origin it is a relic of a process by which a waste-discharge pipe was constructed. The pipe was designed to discharge waste into the sea. Historic use of the shaft as a waste depository has resulted in one hydrogen gas explosion[3] caused by sodium and potassium wastes reacting with water. At one time it was normal for workers to fire rifles into the shaft to sink polythene bags floating on water.[4] There are fears that accumulated material might represent a potential critical mass
That's the fault of your idiotic government who allowed that sort of nonsense. Look at other countries instead.
Post by: richyoung on August 29, 2008, 04:53:50 AM
RichYoung
Quote
Vitrify, seal in stainless steel canisters, cover that in conctrete or ceramic, place on old warship, sink im Marianis Trench. One old aircraft carrier a decade should be plenty...
Yep; that' a clever idea - a future disaster waiting to happen. That is actually a good ending point for a discussion on nucler power generation safety.Explain how vitrified, sealed waste 35000 feet down is a "disaster waiting to happen". You DO know that radioactivity is a naturally occuring phenomenon, right? You DO know a coal-fored power plant emits MORE radiation than a nuke plant, right? Nuclear waste, while toxic, is small in volume and easily contained, unlike coal plant waste, which we breath.
Post by: Gewehr98 on August 29, 2008, 10:16:24 AM
Quote
Not a single person was killed by the accident at Three Mile Island.
And that was the worst nuclear incident in US history.
Thank you for making a beautiful, cogent argument for nuclear energy.
And that was the worst nuclear incident in US history.
Thank you for making a beautiful, cogent argument for nuclear energy.
A little (subtle) hint. Look at the big bird below - I was responsible for flying it and sister ships almost 20 years. See the thingies on the fuselage? Hint: It's a WC-135W. Not a lot of people know they exist, or that the mission exists. Go google why it exists, and why I flew my ass off on many sorties, including Chernobyl, Tokai Mura, a couple Russian subs that had boo-boos, nuclear powerplants that oopsed, and why we were on 30-minute standby for any and all nuclear weapons tests and accidents throughout the world. Our yearly budget for such an operation was/is staggering, but we were deemed essential enough to keep two of these big birds flying through 2040. Go figure. Radioisotopes in the atmosphere - genetic diversity at its finest, keeping the gene pool fresh for generations to come, and keeping at least one agency of the U.S. Government gainfully employed for the indefinite future.
Post by: Manedwolf on August 29, 2008, 10:45:47 AM
The Soviet Union did not make nuclear safety a priority. Chernobyl, and all the reactors like it have a horrible graphite-moderated boiling water design with no containment and horrible excuses for safety systems.
I don't think what the Soviets did has much to do with current Western reactor design, especially the sort all over the place in France, or the newest pebble bed that is completely incapable of thermal runaway...
There are hundreds of reactors that have been operating cleanly and efficiently for decades, and they're not Soviet commie-corner-cutting designs at all.
Post by: Tallpine on August 29, 2008, 11:16:59 AM
Post by: Gewehr98 on August 29, 2008, 11:51:04 AM
Quote
I am aware of Constant Phoenix aircraft, yes. I would imagine they were mostly called into play for, as you said, SOVIET problems.
Nope - common misconception. Domestic or foreign, we were tasked to respond. The DOE just doesn't have big airframes with the speed, collection capability, or loiter time to track, size, analyze, and stay with the nuclear debris clouds. Hence a 4-engine Boeing WC-135, or an 8-engine B-52H with Giant Fish front bomb bay sampling pod, or a U-2/TR-1 with Olympic Race sampling pod. We had/have the legs and horsepower to provide immediate reconnaissance, activity readings, cloud sizing, and then relay the bad news back to Mom real-time.
If the White House Situation roomed called our Watch Officer with tasking, we went. It didn't matter if it was a Soviet nuclear sub in the Atlantic that caught fire, NASA's Cassini satellite breaking up on ascent, or a domestic reactor "oops". We get the call, we go, trailing a tanker or three if we need them.
Post by: MicroBalrog on August 29, 2008, 12:12:55 PM
Second, I am sorry, but the existence of these aircraft does not detract from my point:
Three Mile Island is generally agreed to be the biggest nuclear accident in American history, and yet not a single person (at least according to the Wiki) has a serious health problem directly attributable to it.
Post by: 280plus on August 29, 2008, 01:20:55 PM
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on August 29, 2008, 03:58:45 PM
each one a different design different procedures and parts. even if you give em a mulligan for the one they built with backwards blue prints(and that they didn't catch till it was a major faux paux) it would be wiser to try to standardize them some. that way . so that the left handed coolant pump in all of em was the same in the same place and could be more readily swapped out should the need arise. then there is staffing. after 3 mile island there was difficulty staffing there. 7 of the girls from the haircuttery next door went up and hired on. not the brain trust and apparently they weren't drug testing.
at the lake anna facility a decade ago the nrc paid a visit. there is a series of pumps that need to be turned on in the event of a OMG moment. the procedure is that they are energized one at a time at intervals so that the start up voltage surge doesn't overload things. they do drills where they flip the switches with the power off . when the inspectors showed up they found some mensa member had ganged all the pump switches/breakers together with paper clips so yhey could all be thrown at once during those pesky drills that were so annoying. had they done that in a real emergency the results woulda been "less than optimal".it might seem a lil harsh but i would break it off in someone over that 30 days in the house of many doors ,might get their attention
Post by: French G. on August 29, 2008, 07:08:53 PM
That has fail written all over it and yet nobody died off the accident there.
They put in North Anna near where I grew up and a terrible thing happened. A little creek surrounded by thousands of acres of low value timber increased in real estate value by at least 1000% and swarms of boaters descend there every weekend to stimulate the local economy. Terrible I say.
Post by: Iapetus on August 30, 2008, 03:33:14 AM
What faulty construction/design? I always thought it was due to human error, and for the most part wiki seems to support this.
Well, if you count approving and building the plant in the first place as 'human error'.
To wit, the reactor had what's called a 'positive void coefficient'. This is a very bad thing. What it means is that when a bubble forms, IE water transforming to steam, the reaction in that area goes UP. Because the reaction goes up, the heat goes up, and you get MORE bubbles. This can lead to a runaway reaction.
Plants in the USA are required to have a negative void coefficient - bubbles reduce the reaction, creating a self-regulating situation.
The second would be the lack of a secondary containment structure - no dome to contain the radioactive materials after the breach of the primary vessel.
Either of which would have most likely prevented the release of radioactive materials into the environment.
IIRC, there was yet another stupid design feature in the Chernobyl reactor.
In a well-designed reactor, the cooling fluid enters at the bottom of the reactor, and leaves at the top. That way, if the pumps fail, convection will keep it flowing. In the Chernobyl design, the coolant entered at the top, so convection would work against it.
Post by: 280plus on August 30, 2008, 03:39:57 AM
Post by: LAK on August 30, 2008, 03:47:56 AM
Our industry safety record, and in the general sense corporate attitude towards such things is no better nor worse than the Brits. Having lived and worked there for a collective 14 years, plus 9 on continental europe next door, and 27 years here at home in the U.S. I can say that is a general fact. You are going to have a very hard time convincing many people who have spent much time in euroland and the U.S. that somehow our industry is more reliable in this regard.
RichYoung
Quote
Explain how vitrified, sealed waste 35000 feet down is a "disaster waiting to happen". You DO know that radioactivity is a naturally occuring phenomenon, right? You DO know a coal-fored power plant emits MORE radiation than a nuke plant, right? Nuclear waste, while toxic, is small in volume and easily contained, unlike coal plant waste, which we breath.
,Volcanic eruptions in the deep blue sea are no rarity. Virtified and cased lumps of nuclear waste could become uncased and unvirtified material at any time; that's a very high stakes game of roulette.
Yes, I do know the rest. You are still on GK101 - except you missed an important part.
Post by: Firethorn on August 30, 2008, 05:22:01 PM
Stupid Russians. And they thought they were so smart because they used a pencil instead of spending $3,000,000 to design a pen that will write in space. Harumph!
In case you're not kidding, and if you are, for the innocents out there, the Fischer space pen was designed entirely privately by Fischer using his own funds. After creating the pen, a number were sold to both the US and Russian space agencies.
As for the pencil - remember the characteristics of a pencil when writing. Pencil graphite, especially in zero g/high O2 environments is flammable, conductive, and releases itself as a powder when writing with it.
And they are good pens. I love mine.
Quote
Volcanic eruptions in the deep blue sea are no rarity. Virtified and cased lumps of nuclear waste could become uncased and unvirtified material at any time; that's a very high stakes game of roulette.
Thing is, you do realize that even unvirtrified material won't make a measurable difference up against the radioactive materials already dissolved in seawater? That can come spewing out of the volcano itself?
Really, ask yourself: What's the failure mode?
Post by: 280plus on August 31, 2008, 01:43:39 AM
Post by: LAK on September 01, 2008, 02:54:34 AM
Quote
Thing is, you do realize that even unvirtrified material won't make a measurable difference up against the radioactive materials already dissolved in seawater? That can come spewing out of the volcano itself?
That depends on the radioactive level of the waste being dissolved.
Post by: Firethorn on September 01, 2008, 06:06:57 AM
That depends on the radioactive level of the waste being dissolved.
It also depends on quantity. Like I said, there's already enough radioactive material in seawater, in the millions of tons, and most heavy metals aren't all that dissolvable.
Plus, seawater from a trench has an awful long way to go to get into ecosystems we normally deal with. Given the wierdness that is deepest sea life, I wouldn't be surprised if they found the radioactive materials to be a good food source.
Post by: LAK on September 03, 2008, 03:41:41 AM
I think you missed my point.
If by chance your nuke waste dump becomes an area of catastrophic seismic activity it might well be uncased, unvitrified and might possibly come welling up from the deep.
Background radiation, radiation in seawater, heavy metals really have nothing to do with this aside from direct comparisons with verifiable figures from reliable, preferably independent (of the nuclear industry) sources. If the waste radiation levels happen to be anywhere between higher and alot higher than what we are led to believe it is a disaster waiting to happen.
Post by: Manedwolf on September 03, 2008, 04:13:48 AM
If by chance your nuke waste dump becomes an area of catastrophic seismic activity it might well be uncased, unvitrified and might possibly come welling up from the deep.
...Up?
Depleted uranium is going to float UP? I think you need to consult a science textbook under "mass" and "density".
Hint: There's a reason why we use it for penetrators.
Post by: richyoung on September 03, 2008, 04:59:46 AM
Post by: Firethorn on September 03, 2008, 06:09:46 AM
Depleted uranium is going to float UP? I think you need to consult a science textbook under "mass" and "density".
Quote
...not to mention the whole thing is an ad-hoc argument anyway. We know of geological formations that have been stable for longer than there have been humans - its a non-issue.
Very good points. My point is that even if we dump it down there unencased, unvitrified, totally unshielded, there's enough water down there that even if the waste becomes scattered and eventually disbursed, the combination of limited dissolve rate, the sheer amount of water, means that our waste won't appreciably increase the radioactivity of the water compared to the already dissolved radioactive materials in the ocean from natural sources.
Still, I'd prefer to keep it around until we start recycling the stuff. Most of it's still usable as fuel. Heck, we're developing a potential system that'll cause it to become less radioactive very fast - with the bonus that it does it fast enough that it can not only power the process, it can also produce electricity as a power plant. Bonus.
Post by: Manedwolf on September 03, 2008, 06:13:17 AM
Post by: French G. on September 03, 2008, 06:14:09 AM
Post by: Firethorn on September 03, 2008, 06:33:20 AM
I am not sure why people think there's no radioactive material in the natural environment. I can get a few detector crackles out of local granite if the beta window on the counter is open.
And there's enough Uranium and Radium and such in ocean water that we could build desalination/purification plants and collect enough material for it to be energy positive using breeder reactors.
There's millions/billions of tons of the stuff dissolved in our oceans.
Post by: Tallpine on September 03, 2008, 02:58:14 PM
Quote
I am not sure why people think there's no radioactive material in the natural environment.
In Colorado and some other places, radiation comes right out of the ground - and into the crawl space of your home. The you have to have special mitigation to avoid long term exposure
Post by: RocketMan on September 03, 2008, 04:17:22 PM
Quote
I am not sure why people think there's no radioactive material in the natural environment.
In Colorado and some other places, radiation comes right out of the ground - and into the crawl space of your home. The you have to have special mitigation to avoid long term exposure
And that's why I glow in the dark.
Post by: Manedwolf on September 03, 2008, 04:39:53 PM
Quote
I am not sure why people think there's no radioactive material in the natural environment.
In Colorado and some other places, radiation comes right out of the ground - and into the crawl space of your home. The you have to have special mitigation to avoid long term exposure
Here too. Radon gas from the granite, which is uranium bearing.
Post by: LAK on September 04, 2008, 03:01:27 AM
Quote
...not to mention the whole thing is an ad-hoc argument anyway. We know of geological formations that have been stable for longer than there have been humans - its a non-issue.
Like where? What you are suggesting is that somehow we know where any and all seismic activity has or will - and will not - occur. Astounding. And simply not true.
Post by: 280plus on September 04, 2008, 03:06:28 AM
Quote
Astounding. And simply not true.
Yea, what if the LHC opens up a black hole and we all get sucked into it? Then what? geez... 
Post by: Manedwolf on September 04, 2008, 04:09:03 AM
RichYoung
Quote
...not to mention the whole thing is an ad-hoc argument anyway. We know of geological formations that have been stable for longer than there have been humans - its a non-issue.
Like where? What you are suggesting is that somehow we know where any and all seismic activity has or will - and will not - occur. Astounding. And simply not true.And if Yellowstone explodes it will destroy the entire United States.
Post by: richyoung on September 04, 2008, 04:42:29 AM
RichYoung
Quote
...not to mention the whole thing is an ad-hoc argument anyway. We know of geological formations that have been stable for longer than there have been humans - its a non-issue.
Like where? What you are suggesting is that somehow we know where any and all seismic activity has or will - and will not - occur. Astounding. And simply not true.I know you are smart enough to realize that "has been stable" does NOT mean that "any and all seismic activity" never has, and never will, occur. Everywhere has "seismic activity" - I had a 3.2 earthquake with an epicenter about 4 miles from the building where I was working- it didn't even knock the power out - (which goes out all the time, for no damn reason at all...). When the discussion is safe storage of vitrified nuclear waste, (let me repeat this...) WHEN THE DISCUSSION IS ABOUT THE SAFE STORAGE OF NUCLEAR WASTE[/i], only very abrupt, extreme, and powerful events need concern us. Those kind of events leave scars on the very earth - so YES, we can examine a particular area's geology and safely determine that, in this vicinity, there is no evidence of a Krakatoa type cataclism here for X million years. Very much the same criteria is used to locate secure data storage facilities. As for "will occur", I know of no one that can see the future, but just like mutual funds, "past performance is no guarantee of future growth" - but its all you have to go on....
Post by: roo_ster on September 04, 2008, 05:38:11 AM
Past perf and probabilities be damned.
<=== Risk cop has no tolerance
Post by: drewtam on September 04, 2008, 04:24:29 PM
2.) Nuclear waste is small and easy to deal with.
3.) More people in the US are killed directly and indirectly by COAL production and pollution EACH YEAR than by Chernobyl AND all of the world's nuclear power combined.
4.) In order for nuclear power plants to be as deadly as coal on a yearly basis, they would need one significant meltdown and containment breach every month for the whole year.
5.) Every coal power plant produces more radioactive waste that goes to toxic waste dumps than a nuclear power plant that goes to controlled and encased storage facilities. (because nuclear waste is small and easy to deal with)
6.) Nuclear power is cheap enough to compete now without significant subsidies.
7.) There is enough nuclear fuel reserves and resources to power the future's entire world population (~15 billion people) at American levels of energy use per capita, for 200,000+ years. Some experts estimate the resource at over a billion years, that is, longer than the sun will survive. But even 100,000years seems good enough for me.
8.) To use the most extreme resources counted in point #6 would likely cost about $1000+/lb of fuel to recover(current price is ~$80/lb). That would increase current electricity prices by $0.02/kwhr. Current prices are ~$0.10/kwhr, so a $200 electric bill per month would be $240 in this far flung future.
9.) There are fully functional prototype reactors that are designed so that physics prevents the reactor from being capable of melting down. Even if the operators go on strike for centuries.
10.) Nuclear reactors in the US have been designed for decades to withstand a direct impact by a 747 size aircraft. One plant, Florida's Turkey Point NGS, survived a direct hit by Category 5 Hurricane Andrew in 1992, with no damage to the containment.
11.) I mean no exaggeration or hyperbole when I say, I am willing to move my family (wife and 11mos daughter) next to a nuclear power plant. But I would not do that for a coal plant.
12.) Nuclear power produces no greenhouse gases. It produces zero NOx, CO, or HC. (NOx and HC are primary ingredients in smog and ground level ozone which is asthmatic.)
To sum all of these points up, the energy security of the future via the use of nuclear energy is not a technical problem, but a political problem.
I have nothing against natural gas, wind, geothermal, or solar. I contend that solar and wind have not been developed enough to be viable primary energy sources but may be in the near future. "1 bird in the hand is better than 2 birds in the tree."
Post by: Firethorn on September 04, 2008, 04:54:50 PM
1.) We do not, under any circumstances, want to deep six used fuel. That is valuable fuel for the future! In a few centuries we'll be digging that stuff up out of Yucca mountain to recycle it. Only 2% of the energy is used in the first pass like current US designs.
And I mentioned this a couple pages back. Glad to see that we're on the same page.
Though the reusable fuel, as I understand it, is closer to 90-95% rather than 98%. *Shrug* Still not much difference.
Quote
2.) Nuclear waste is small and easy to deal with.
To be more specific, A gigawatt range nuclear plant produces two rail cars, to include shielding, per year. A similarly sized coal plant can go through 200 cars of coal a day.
Quote
3.) More people in the US are killed directly and indirectly by COAL production and pollution EACH YEAR than by Chernobyl AND all of the world's nuclear power combined.
Living near even recently built coal plants raises your odds of lung cancer to that of a 'former smoker'. Meanwhile, coal kills hundreds/thousands each year in China in mining accidents. Here in the USA, millions, maybe even billions, are spend treating the associated Asthma, and buildings were damaged from the acid rain.
Quote
4.) In order for nuclear power plants to be as deadly as coal on a yearly basis, they would need one significant meltdown and containment breach every month for the whole year.
Chernobyl killed around 50 directly, so that'd be 600 a year. You're still short, I think.
Quote
5.) Every coal power plant produces more radioactive waste that goes to toxic waste dumps than a nuclear power plant that goes to controlled and encased storage facilities. (because nuclear waste is small and easy to deal with)
There's more energy available in the transuranics present within most coal deposits than can be gained by burning the coal. In a nuclear power plant, said waste is contained. In coal plants, it can end up in your bricks. Funny fact: The US congress building would be too radioactive to be certified as a operational nuclear plant; indeed, it'd be classified as nuclear waste requiring special containment and cleanup. The stone used in the building is naturally radioactive.
Quote
6.) Nuclear power is cheap enough to compete now without significant subsidies.
Only Coal beats it for 'least subsidies'
Quote
7.) There is enough nuclear fuel reserves and resources to power the future's entire world population (~15 billion people) at American levels of energy use per capita, for 200,000+ years. Some experts estimate the resource at over a billion years, that is, longer than the sun will survive. But even 100,000years seems good enough for me.
Those estimates have us doing some funky things like filtering the oceans near the end, but it's doable.
Quote
8.) To use the most extreme resources counted in point #6 would likely cost about $1000+/lb of fuel to recover(current price is ~$80/lb). That would increase current electricity prices by $0.02/kwhr. Current prices are ~$0.10/kwhr, so a $200 electric bill per month would be $240 in this far flung future.
Yep, fuel costs for a nuke plant are considered 'insignificant'.
Quote
9.) There are fully functional prototype reactors that are designed so that physics prevents the reactor from being capable of melting down. Even if the operators go on strike for centuries.
Most of our operational reactors have this design.
Quote
10.) Nuclear reactors in the US have been designed for decades to withstand a direct impact by a 747 size aircraft. One plant, Florida's Turkey Point NGS, survived a direct hit by Category 5 Hurricane Andrew in 1992, with no damage to the containment.
Because of the secondary containment structure, which is supposed to withstand a worst case Chernobyl cap blow intact.
Quote
11.) I mean no exaggeration or hyperbole when I say, I am willing to move my family (wife and 11mos daughter) next to a nuclear power plant. But I would not do that for a coal plant.
Agreed.
Quote
12.) Nuclear power produces no greenhouse gases. It produces zero NOx, CO, or HC. (NOx and HC are primary ingredients in smog and ground level ozone which is asthmatic.)
For that matter we can use the heat and power for various schemes to make fertilizer, ethanol, make hydrogen, etc...
Quote
To sum all of these points up, the energy security of the future via the use of nuclear energy is not a technical problem, but a political problem.
Have you been reading my notes?
Post by: Regolith on September 04, 2008, 06:06:01 PM
Quote
Funny fact: The US congress building would be too radioactive to be certified as a operational nuclear plant; indeed, it'd be classified as nuclear waste requiring special containment and cleanup. The stone used in the building is naturally radioactive.
That explains a lot.
Anyway, one criticism drewtam: its estimated the sun will hit its red giant stage in 5 billion years, not 1 billion.
Not that it changes a whole lot; I doubt we will need to rely on fission for power in 100 years, let alone 1 billion. By then, fusion will have come online, if we're lucky, or solar will become efficient enough to be an acceptable replacement.
Post by: drewtam on September 04, 2008, 07:45:33 PM
Anyway, one criticism drewtam: its estimated the sun will hit its red giant stage in 5 billion years, not 1 billion.
My bad. Maybe there is something about the sun getting too cold for life after a billion years that I'm think of, or maybe it expands enough to be too hot/close. who knows.
Yeah, if we can't figure out how to make space solar or fusion or whatever work after 100,000 years; then our descendants will deserve to return to the stone age. But most of that stuff will likely be figured out in the next 50-150 years rather than 1000years or 100,000years. After all, even 1,000yrs is a pretty long time in terms of human civilization.
My point isn't to bash coal as the death of us all. But to make the stark comparison that if we (as a society) are willing to accept the negatives that coal brings for over 200 years, then we should realize the reasonableness of nuclear.
No intelligent supporter of nuclear energy will ever say "nuclear energy is perfectly safe." That would be ridiculous. Nuclear is just significantly safer than what we currently use, and we seem to find what we currently use acceptable. Is solar, wind, geothermal, biomass fuel, etc safer? Pretty likely. But until those technologies develop to the point of being economical, we got a great, proven, safe enough, and sustainable "plan B". When it comes to the survival of our civilization, the perfect is the enemy of the good.
Post by: K Frame on September 04, 2008, 07:53:42 PM
Holy crap!
Why aren't the Democrats making this impending global warming catastrophe known?
WHY AREN'T THEY DOING ANYTHING ABOUT IT???
Post by: K Frame on September 04, 2008, 09:04:17 PM
Heheheheheheheheh...
Yeah....
Like keeping those hyper deadly grenade launching pistol grip equipped assault weapons o'hyper death out of the hands of Harry the Lawabiding Homeowner, who used them to wantonly slaughter hundreds of thousands of American citizens every year...
Like giving free health care to crack whores and smack junkies, and making you and me pay for it (well, me, at least)...
Oh, let's not forget their task of routinely reminding us that it will take oil companies a minimum of 10 years to bring any ANWAR or offshore oil online.
Yeah, the Democrats have a LOT to do here...
Post by: erictank on September 05, 2008, 04:01:58 AM
My dad is moving to a town past Richmond with a Nuclear plant that cools off from the local lake. The lake stays like 80 degrees year round they say. Far as I can think, that can't be anything but good for local aquatic life.
Ahhh, the Lake Anna plant - I worked there for several years, till I moved to NoVA. The property owners around the lake are (were before I left, and I can't imagine they've stopped since) griping over Dominion's plans to add a third reactor to the site, because it'd degrade the property values on their lakefront property. For some reason, they never seem to understand that without Dominion's nuclear site, there'd BE no "Lake Anna". It's a man-made lake built specifically to cool the reactors, of which there were originally (late 70's to early 80's) supposed to be FOUR.
It IS a nice lake, and some of the fish get freakin' HUGE. Still haven't seen Blinky, though (the 3-eyed fish from The Simpsons).
Post by: French G. on September 05, 2008, 04:10:36 AM
Quote
"its estimated the sun will hit its red giant stage in 5 billion years, not 1 billion."
Holy crap!
Why aren't the Democrats making this impending global warming catastrophe known?
WHY AREN'T THEY DOING ANYTHING ABOUT IT???
Holy crap!
Why aren't the Democrats making this impending global warming catastrophe known?
WHY AREN'T THEY DOING ANYTHING ABOUT IT???
Because anything we do would take ten billion years and would not really help the consumer?
Poor Lake Anna property owners. I saw in an agricultural real estate report where 4.something acres, zoned A-1, sold for over a million in Bumpass, VA. Rezone and develop those 4 acres into lakefront mansions I assume.
Post by: K Frame on September 05, 2008, 05:03:05 AM
Before anyone laughs at that, that is the ACTUAL name of the place.
Bumpass.
I've been there while compiling evidence that a friend's wife is a lying, cheating, whore.
It truly IS a bump on the ass of Virginia.
Now you may commence your laughter.
Post by: Jamisjockey on September 05, 2008, 05:05:16 AM
"Bumpass, VA"
Before anyone laughs at that, that is the ACTUAL name of the place.
Bumpass.
I've been there while compiling evidence that a friend's wife is a lying, cheating, whore.
It truly IS a bump on the ass of Virginia.
Now you may commence your laughter.
Before anyone laughs at that, that is the ACTUAL name of the place.
Bumpass.
I've been there while compiling evidence that a friend's wife is a lying, cheating, whore.
It truly IS a bump on the ass of Virginia.
Now you may commence your laughter.
Mike, I never knew you were a P.I. on the side?
Post by: K Frame on September 05, 2008, 05:08:05 AM
Post by: Scout26 on September 05, 2008, 06:59:10 AM
I've been there while compiling evidence that a friend's wife is a lying, cheating, whore.
"Compiling evidence"........hmmmm is that a confession ??
