Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
well good for them
and good luck not needing them, especially the nuke plants
Actually, the Germans are probably very wise to discontinue using the old style nuclear plants that they have been using. Possibly someday some new safe, cheap and non-polluting form of nuclear power plant will be developed that might aid in the very necessary process of eliminating CO2 emitting power sources, but until then, current nuclear power generation is very dangerous and problematical, as the Fukushima disaster demonstrates.
Fukushima: a Looming Nuclear Disaster
Guardian Express
by James Turnage
August 18, 2013
(excerpts)
Fallout researcher Christina Consolo told RT that the removal of 1,300 fuel rods from the disabled Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant, could result in a disaster. The situation poses a monumental challenge to TEPCO, the Tokyo company contracted to do the clean-up. There are 400 tons of the rods stored in a pool inside of reactor number 4. They must be removed manually from the top of the reactor which has an environment filled with high radioactivity. Consolo says that the slightest mishap with a single rod could cause an above ground meltdown with disastrous results and no way to control it. The end result could be millions of deaths. But she points out that maintaining the status quo could have the same results. Although fuel rod removal happens on a daily basis at the 430+ nuclear sites around the world, it is a very delicate procedure even under the best of circumstances. What makes fuel removal at Fukushima so dangerous and complex is that it will be attempted on a fuel pool whose integrity has been severely compromised. However, it must be attempted as Reactor 4 has the most significant problems structurally, and this pool is on the top floor of the building, said Consolo.
Other problems have increased the difficulty of the process. The racks which hold the rods were damaged in the explosion. There is no way to know how damaged the walls of the pool may be, or to what extent the rods may be corroded until they are removed. In addition, the cranes formerly used to lift the rods were destroyed when the plant exploded after the tsunami. Each rod must be removed individually by a team of humans, who will be working in an extremely dangerous environment. Mishandling of a single rod could cause a chain reaction between all 1,300, creating a nuclear accident that could not be stopped. Reactor number 4 is sinking. There have been attempts to remove the ground water inside the structure which in itself is radioactive and is contaminating the ocean and the shoreline. When Consolo was asked what the most serious complication could be, she said: The most serious complication would be anything that leads to a nuclear chain reaction. And as outlined above, there are many different ways this could occur. In a fuel pool containing damaged rods and racks, it could potentially start up on its own at anytime. TEPCO has been incredibly lucky that this hasnt happened so far.
What no one wants to talk about is that there is an identical reactor sitting on the NJ shore that was right in the path of Hurricane Sandy. They keep on renewing the license even though it is well past it's "Use by" date.
You know why no one talks about it?
b/c nothing happened
If they did talk about it, liberals and fools would be faced with undeniable facts that they are WRONG again.
You dumb ass. If the pool goes critical, quite literally, millions of people will be in danger of dying. Not only in Japan, but there will be fallout here on the West Coast. This is an extroidinery situation, one frought with danger for everyone on this planet.
But people like you would have said that nothing like this was possible prior to this situation. Not only that, we have cooling pools here in the US that have three times the number of rods in them that they were designed for. A New Madrid type quake could very well test our ability to contain a nuclear accident of this very type.
I hope the German utilities are aware of that. Perhaps you should warn them.
I don't give a shit about Germany.
I'm just telling it like it is.
It never fails to amaze me just how much misinformation and BS you denier cult retards are full of. And always so certain about your ignorant mistaken pseudo-'facts' too. That takes a special kind of stupid. LOLOLOL.
Energy Subsidies Black, Not Green
A study released by the Environmental Law Institute, a nonpartisan research and policy organization, shows that the federal government has provided substantially larger subsidies to fossil fuels than to renewables. Subsidies to fossil fuels totaled approximately $72 billion over the seven-year study period, while subsidies for renewable fuels totaled $29 billion over the same period. Th e vast majority of subsidies support energy sources that emit high levels of greenhouse gases when used as fuel. Moreover, just a handful of tax breaks make up the largest portion of subsidies for fossil fuels, with the most significant of these, the Foreign Tax Credit, supporting the overseas production of oil. More than half of the subsidies for renewables are attributable to corn-based ethanol, the use of which, while decreasing American reliance on foreign oil, has generated concern about climate effects. These figures raise the question of whether scarce government funds might be better allocated to move the United States towards a low-carbon economy.
I don't give a shit about Germany.
I'm just telling it like it is.
It never fails to amaze me just how much misinformation and BS you denier cult retards are full of. And always so certain about your ignorant mistaken pseudo-'facts' too. That takes a special kind of stupid. LOLOLOL.
Energy Subsidies Black, Not Green
A study released by the Environmental Law Institute, a nonpartisan research and policy organization, shows that the federal government has provided substantially larger subsidies to fossil fuels than to renewables. Subsidies to fossil fuels totaled approximately $72 billion over the seven-year study period, while subsidies for renewable fuels totaled $29 billion over the same period. Th e vast majority of subsidies support energy sources that emit high levels of greenhouse gases when used as fuel. Moreover, just a handful of tax breaks make up the largest portion of subsidies for fossil fuels, with the most significant of these, the Foreign Tax Credit, supporting the overseas production of oil. More than half of the subsidies for renewables are attributable to corn-based ethanol, the use of which, while decreasing American reliance on foreign oil, has generated concern about climate effects. These figures raise the question of whether scarce government funds might be better allocated to move the United States towards a low-carbon economy.
with the most significant of these, the Foreign Tax Credit, supporting the overseas production of oil
US corporations can deduct foreign tax payments. Whether they are evil oil companies or not. That's not a subsidy.
Renewable companies can deduct their business expenses too, that's not a subsidy either.
Subsidies to fossil fuels totaled approximately $72 billion over the seven-year study period, while subsidies for renewable fuels totaled $29 billion over the same period.
Even if this idiotic claim were true, looking at the tiny percentage of green energy we generate, the green subsidy is 40% as much as the exaggerated lie of $72 billion for energy that we actually find useful.
That's outrageous. End green subsidies now!
It never fails to amaze me just how much misinformation and BS you denier cult retards are full of. And always so certain about your ignorant mistaken pseudo-'facts' too. That takes a special kind of stupid. LOLOLOL.
Energy Subsidies Black, Not Green
A study released by the Environmental Law Institute, a nonpartisan research and policy organization, shows that the federal government has provided substantially larger subsidies to fossil fuels than to renewables. Subsidies to fossil fuels totaled approximately $72 billion over the seven-year study period, while subsidies for renewable fuels totaled $29 billion over the same period. Th e vast majority of subsidies support energy sources that emit high levels of greenhouse gases when used as fuel. Moreover, just a handful of tax breaks make up the largest portion of subsidies for fossil fuels, with the most significant of these, the Foreign Tax Credit, supporting the overseas production of oil. More than half of the subsidies for renewables are attributable to corn-based ethanol, the use of which, while decreasing American reliance on foreign oil, has generated concern about climate effects. These figures raise the question of whether scarce government funds might be better allocated to move the United States towards a low-carbon economy.
with the most significant of these, the Foreign Tax Credit, supporting the overseas production of oil
US corporations can deduct foreign tax payments. Whether they are evil oil companies or not. That's not a subsidy.
Renewable companies can deduct their business expenses too, that's not a subsidy either.
Subsidies to fossil fuels totaled approximately $72 billion over the seven-year study period, while subsidies for renewable fuels totaled $29 billion over the same period.
Even if this idiotic claim were true, looking at the tiny percentage of green energy we generate, the green subsidy is 40% as much as the exaggerated lie of $72 billion for energy that we actually find useful.
That's outrageous. End green subsidies now!
Why not just end ALL subsidies, period? The oil industry certainly doesn't need them given the massive profits and paltry taxes that they pay. If we are going to balance the budget then corporate subsidies across the board should be the first to go. Of course this will probably mean that there will be a spike in gas prices at the pump.
In order to plug reactors into existing coal plants you would have to upgrade the security at those facilities and obtain licenses from the Nuclear Regulatory Authority. The problem that we have is that many of the old plants are being kept running even though they have exceeded their lifespan. What is more these reactors are sited near earthquake faults and oceans. Simply because there has not been a recent tsunami in the North Atlantic does not mean that it won't happen. In summary you are content to run the risk of exposing the American people to a nuclear disaster for the next couple of decades, right?
The new modular nukes can be buried underground thereby making them more secure than current reactors and even more secure than current plants running on coal oil and gas where the volatile fuels are stored above ground in tanks.
Try again.
The clear and present danger from the existing aging nuclear plants will continue for the next couple of decades.
The new modular nukes can be buried underground thereby making them more secure than current reactors and even more secure than current plants running on coal oil and gas where the volatile fuels are stored above ground in tanks.
Try again.
The clear and present danger from the existing aging nuclear plants will continue for the next couple of decades.
Clear and present danger?
Really? How many people in the US have died because of this "clear and present danger"?
How many have died in accidents related to oil gas and coal?
The clear and present danger from the existing aging nuclear plants will continue for the next couple of decades.
Clear and present danger?
Really? How many people in the US have died because of this "clear and present danger"?
How many have died in accidents related to oil gas and coal?
The nuclear plant at Oyster Creek in NJ is identical to the Fukishima reactors. It was a near miss for Hurricane Sandy. Power was knocked out throughout NJ. A direct hit storm surge could take out the backup generators the next time. This is just one example of the danger.
Take a look at the map for the locations of existing reactors.
NRC: Map of Power Reactor Sites
Look at how many of them are sitting in hurricane and earthquake zones.
Clear and present danger?
Really? How many people in the US have died because of this "clear and present danger"?
How many have died in accidents related to oil gas and coal?
The nuclear plant at Oyster Creek in NJ is identical to the Fukishima reactors. It was a near miss for Hurricane Sandy. Power was knocked out throughout NJ. A direct hit storm surge could take out the backup generators the next time. This is just one example of the danger.
Take a look at the map for the locations of existing reactors.
NRC: Map of Power Reactor Sites
Look at how many of them are sitting in hurricane and earthquake zones.
How many people have died in this country from nuclear accidents?
Not maybe, someday, could have, possibly sometime in the near or distant future but as of today?
Face it nuclear power is the only viable large scale emission free option and now with the new small safe modular reactors it's even more attractive.
If we get into the business of recycling spent nuclear fuel we can add billions if not trillions of new business revenue as well.
The nuclear plant at Oyster Creek in NJ is identical to the Fukishima reactors. It was a near miss for Hurricane Sandy. Power was knocked out throughout NJ. A direct hit storm surge could take out the backup generators the next time. This is just one example of the danger.
Take a look at the map for the locations of existing reactors.
NRC: Map of Power Reactor Sites
Look at how many of them are sitting in hurricane and earthquake zones.
How many people have died in this country from nuclear accidents?
Not maybe, someday, could have, possibly sometime in the near or distant future but as of today?
Face it nuclear power is the only viable large scale emission free option and now with the new small safe modular reactors it's even more attractive.
If we get into the business of recycling spent nuclear fuel we can add billions if not trillions of new business revenue as well.
No point in debating further with someone intent upon denying the reality of the situation as it presently stands. Have a nice day.
