I would assume that includes hydro? Environmentalists tend to forget about hydro, but it is both the largest source of renewable energy and a huge killer (dams burst).
Actually, hydro is a piker by comparison to biofuels. My number was for biofuels alone. The other renewables just add a digit at the third significant digit or so. ~3 billion people cook with solid fuels; wood, charcoal, dung, or crop refuse. About 2 million of them die from respiratory distresses brought on by the fumes thereof. But hey, they are just primitives, they don't count to the greens. Oh, and even high tech biofuels seem to cause more damage/harm than an equivalent amount of coal (IIRC), so if we converted from coal to wood powered electricity, the health problems would escalate.
The problem at Fukushima is that the state was not observable in enough detail or with enough accuracy to make the specific decisions you wanted to have made - such as whether or not it was safe to "bunker in" anywhere within the large zone of potential for lethal effects - regardless of contingency planning. That problem is shared by all serious nuke mishaps to date - the fates of the cores at Chernobyl and TMI were not determined for years afterwards, for example, and the weather etc was not perfectly predictable in detail during those events. There isn't a contingency plan one could make that could have led to an informed decision to bunker down near Fukushima - the reactor core fates, the aftershock probabilities and effects, the weather for days in advance, and several other factors, were simply not knowable. No can do. Plan, of course, but not to have information you are not going to be able to get. Contingency plans are not going to allow responsible authorities to not evacuate people in the kill range of an uncontrolled reactor meltdown, for example. Every time I think I've seen the bottom level of irresponsible argument from nuke proponents, I get surprised one more time. This guy does not know what the worst case estimate for Fukushima would be - doesn't even have a reasonable notion of what the direct kill from Fukushima has already been (for one thing, persists in dismissing the tolls of the evacuations and diversion of resources and so forth, on the grounds of some fantasy of more responsible government and corporation management of disasters that should have taken place). And this, after dismissing all the actual consequences of Fukushima because the situation should have been handled better in some ways, and all the possible consequences because he doesn't like to think about them or something, is his candidate for the proper data to use in evaluating renewable energy sources for an industrial economy: So we are supposed to compare a fantasy of how a highly capable and wealthy and well motivated and ever alert industrial elite of the mythical future would handle nuclear mishaps (and always be as lucky as at TMI and Fukushima), with a reality of how the poorest and least educated people in the world actually handle their stone age technological options for short term survival. And then we are supposed to do what - refuse to build thermal solar plants in the high SW desert because dung fire smoke is not healthy to breathe?
Wasn't and couldn't are two VASTLY different things. Since they had no real contingency planning beyond "when in danger, or in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout". But if they had ACTUALLY engaged in contingency planning, they could easily have measured the required data. Had they done so, no one would hae been "evacuated". Some would have been relocated later, but many fewer than were evacuated. Their planning sucked, their execution was par for their planning, it sucked too.
Direct kills, three last time I read. One by falling from a crane, two drowned in the tsunami. Radiological direct kills, none. There have been two somewhat responsible studies of the aftermath of Fukushima. WHO published their LNT study based on estimated maximum possible exposure and listed lowest, median, and highest rates at 30, 135, and 1,800 (IIRC). The UNSCEAR has yet to publish their study (RSN) but word has it that it uses actual measured exposure to improve the estimates used by the WHO and their study suggests the probable death toll to be ZERO. But even using the 1800 worst case WHO study, the death toll is minuscule by comparison to renewables or fossil fuels.
Nope, you are supposed to realize that the future likelihood of a significant accident is much lower now than it was BF1 (Before Fukushima Dai-ichi) and that even if it happens, the results, like F1, will be small. And with proper planning, they can be smaller still. Indeed, the REAL lesson from F1 is that FEAR kills much more substantially than nuclear ever will. The nuclear industry kills few. The ANTI-nuclear industry kills many. You, iceaura, by your arguments here, participate in an industry that kills many more than the nuclear industry does. How does it feel to be among the killers?
As noted, that is silly. They did not have the information they would have needed to restrict the evacuation zone, and nothing they could have done would have provided it. It was not possible then, and will not be possible in the foreseeable future, to predict the weather, earthquake aftershocks, or behaviors of the reactor cores and spent fuel pools during that kind of event. Like I said: nothing from the evacuation, nothing from the response - not a clue. The drownings, btw, were tsunami kills - not Fukushima event kills. A large proportion of the evacuation kills (say several hundred of the 1500+ people who died quickly enough to have their deaths credited thereby) are direct Fukushima kills, however - like falling from a crane while trying to handle the emergency is a direct Fukushima kill. Whether it's lower or not is irrelevant - you don't know what it was then, or is now. Neither do you know what it would be after a large expansion of nuke plants and a couple of years of good fortune lulling followed by severe economic pressures, a war or two - let's say "higher" would be good guess, eh? As far as the "results" being "small" - we know then what nuke proponents consider small, as well as "results". We also know the role of luck in nuke proponent estimates - very good luck is assumed to be a property of future mishaps, an inevitable feature of nuke accidents, and an indication of the safety of nuke power plants. The fact that the tsunami at Fukushima hit during the weekday with thousands of employees on hand to respond, that three of the six reactors were not running in power production (two were in cold shutdown), that no really large aftershocks hit, that the wind blew out to sea for the entire crisis an major radiation releases, that some minimal power generation withstood the quake and wave - all this is simply luck, not acceptable as part of a plan of safety. More blind good luck was seen at Fukushima Daini, which among other fortunate circumstances saw its one surviving connection to external power not fail in the week of aftermath of the tsunami (its other lines and all its onsite diesel generators were destroyed by the quake and wave), and though designed for one reactor only prove adequate through great skill and effort to prevent meltdowns in any of the three vulnerable reactors there. Again: that quake hits on a weekend night and all bets are off. But such good luck is treated as evidence of safety by nuke proponents. A few hours different timing, a very slightly stronger main shake, and Japan is looking at six Chernobyls on top of the tsunami. But it didn't happen, so nukes are safe, see? Nuke proponents's idea of "responsible study" is a joke. They don't even count, for Fukushima, the range of the possible consequences of treating the thyroid cancers expected in four or five years as life lost from Fukushima - let alone the cardiovascular problems or the stillbirth and miscarriage frequencies or the other stuff that showed up in spots downwind (but not upwind) of TMI and Chernobyl. It took ten years for the effects of the Castle Bravo bomb mishap to show up incontrovertibly among even the severely exposed - after ten years nobody was even tracking the Chernobyl or TMI exposed - not that they'd measured their exposure in the first place. The WHO study included only deaths and only from certain directly caused cancers, the thousands of casualties from the evacuation were part of the cost of avoiding more radiation kills (your bizarre trick of denying the evacuation deaths while trumpeting the minimal exposures that were among the evacuation benefits is hard to accept as unknowing), and your comparisons with "renewables" and 19th century fossil fuel tech have been absurd.
This is sick!!! Fukushima Dai-ichi did not kill those people, the anti-nuke industry FUD did. Fear driven reaction combined with bad planning and stupid execution of a needless evacuation killed those people, not radiation.
Nope. I don't need to know the exact values to know that the technology to prevent such accidents has improved a lot and so has the technology to identify the threats and do something about them. You are flailing about to find some excuse to defend your indefensible position. Too bad. You are beginning to look like a fool.
Your notion that evacuating the potential kill zone of a wayward reactor is "needless" cannot be amended by reason, I know - but you can at least, on grounds of sheer logic, acknowledge that the paucity of confirmed radiation casualties at Fukushima was at least partly due to the paucity of people nearby to be irradiated - the landscape most thickly exposed to emissions and plumes and leaks having been evacuated. Do you have at least that much reasoning ability left? Improved? But the question of from what to what is meaningless to you - nuke proponents often display such indifference to actual risks, "exact values" for hazards and costs, actual capability of response, and so forth. Meanwhile, we are no more capable of handling the debris and waste from Fukushima than we are any other nuke's. Neither can we stop the plumes currently crossing the Pacific from the leakage of Daichi, redistribute the resources devoted to preventing worse disaster there, or retrieve the money, time, learning, labor, and skill that was wasted building that reactor complex and all that depended on it.
[/QUOTE] Sorry, you attempt at logic is faulty. If there was no immediate danger, then evacuating people from a non-dangerous situation would not save anyone. Improved from by far the safest generation technology, despite the accidents, to even safer. That should compute for even you. TEPCO is a bit overwhelmed. Seems they have no equivalent of the Price Anderson Act, so TEPCO faces the burden alone. We handle the waste from non-accident nukes just fine. Insinuating otherwise is simply brainless fossil tool fear mongering. As to the "plumes" in the Pacific, they are measurable, but totally innocuous. More fear-mongering. As to the other drivel, that is sometimes the cost of doing business. I could complain, with much more valid reasons, about the waste of money, time, learning, labor, and skill that was wasted building all those valueless windmills cluttering the landscape and ruining the power system. Ditto the other unreliable power sources. Nukes are by far the best available, they are getting steadily better, and will get better still. They beat any current system by miles and miles.
And if there was immediate danger, such as is created by complete loss of control of a local nuclear reactor, or two, or three, then the decision to evacuate from such a dangerous situation would of course be a given. Why yes, it does: this is the very best we can expect from this industry, it costs a fortune, and it obviously isn't anywhere near good enough. The job now is to figure out how to get out of this mess, replace the power loss, deal with the waste and debris, and so forth. We've got increasingly concentrated "temporary" storage pools and bunkers and casks and so forth, awaiting some kind of "handling" nobody has figured out yet, all over this country. There are two or three of them right in my neighborhood, sitting on earthquake faults near the headwaters of the Mississippi River. That's just the fuel - nobody has even begun to deal with decommissioning these things. And that is a nuke proponent's idea of "just fine". And the nuke proponent dismisses the unmeasured plumes of unknown concentration and uncertain effect as "measurable" and "innocuous". When little kids put their hands over their eyes so the monster can't see them, it's cute. When nuke proponents don't bother to measure radwaste emissions or track their effects, we are supposed to think of their monster as fictional, or something? We are supposed to respect their opinions, as if they were adult and informed ?
Another Typhoon, Francisco, is headed Fukushimas way. At the very least, they are going to get a lot more rain.
[/QUOTE] Only to the brain dead, i.e. the anti-nukes. The cleanest, safest, most reliable source isn't good enough for you? I guess you want pixie dust magic power. Well, dream on. The best you will get with current technology is nuclear fission power, and the best of those is the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor. All figured out. The only REAL thing to figure out is how to get the Luddites out of the way. How would you handle that, Ned? Your lack of knowledge is somewhat astonishing. There are many technical solutions for each of the issues you mention. There is only political impediment to doing it. That is the result of folk like you. You work like hell to impede progress and then blame others for their lack of progress. Tis truly sick. Your assertion is totally bogus. If there is anyone who knows about radiation and nuclear "waste" issues, it is the nuclear proponent. What the anti-nuke fails to appreciate is that knowledge brings understanding, and we, the knowledgable, understand that there are actually few problems with nuclear energy. And we also understand that the freakazoid reaction of the MSM is in general much more dangerous that even the worst accidents. After all, such reaction has caused more deaths in Fukushima than the nuclear accident ever will.
Looks like this one storm will kill more folks than the Fukushima Dai-ichi accident.. http://www.japantoday.com/category/...=email&utm_source=jt_newsletter_2013-10-21_PM
And you guys actually think that is reassuring. You repeatedly surprised, always confronted with stuff you never saw coming, willfully oblivious shills are the best informed, most expert nuke people on the planet? OK. So remember that the next time somebody wants to build another Fukushima in your town. Your safety and the economic health (as well as the physical) of your community depends on the likes of TEPCO, GE, and Kiteman, right here. They didn't measure the exposure regimes at Fukushima, they didn't track the plumes, they didn't measure or track the health effects, they didn't foresee the events, they lost control of every reactor that was running (despite the event hitting at the best possible time by sheer luck), and they haven't been able to handle even the luckily mild and easily contained aftermath. That was also true of Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and every other serious nuke mishap. And we have the nuke proponent's word, right here, that this is the best we can expect from anyone in the nuke business. Because of Greenpeace, he says - after saying it was "working fine" already. I want thermal solar, with storage. I want funnel wind towers and panels with storage. I want conservation, and free turbine hydro, and the occasional fossil fuel plant, and the occasional nuke - in Antarctica, say. Leave the nuclear pixie in the bottle - pixies are mean.
No it wasn't. When you have to make shit up to try to make nuclear power look more scary than it is - you might be an extremist. They tried that. I'd rather have it here where it's easier to fix if something goes wrong, and where the power is useful to people.
Yes, it was. You might want to review that mess - what incredible good luck we had: it should not be forgotten. The power is very useful to people in Antarctica, the environs are already desolate, and the obvious alternatives, like thermal solar etc, are not nearly as convenient. Perfect spot for them. They make sense, almost. They aren't easy to fix anywhere - not even in small, close knit technological centers like Japan. The protocol is that nothing major is allowed to go wrong.
Like most Fossil Fuel Industry tools, your fundamental thesis is flawed. There has been little if anything that wasn't seen coming. That doesn't preclude idiots from being idiots. All the technologies that were needed to prevent the release of the large plume were offered to Japan and declined. TEPCO, not so good, avoid them. GE, quite good. Me, I kibitz, I don't design. But personally I would move rapidly toward Liquid Fluoride Thorium Recyclers, walk away safe for several years. Thank you for making my point. Contingency planning would hve required that they have, and employ, that capability. They didn't. Political screw-up number 27. Actually, many did foresee, but until after the event, Japan had no analog to the NRC and still has no law making the companies mutually liable for such events like the US has in the Price Anderson Act. So in truth, there was little impetus to act on the vision. I guess that depends on what you mean by "handle". Some idiots are freaked out by the very word, "radiation". They impede every action that isn't seen as perfect. Well, perfect is the enemy of the good enough. Without the fossil fuel industry tools in the anti-nuke industry spreading their FUD, freaking people out, this situation would be much further along. The last thing these folks need is some hysterical bozo grabbing the controls of their machinery. What ARE you babbling about? Since when is "not all that bad" semantically equal to "the best we can expect"? We are already building better. The worst of them are being vastly improved. New, inherently safe, designs are in progress. Things are looking rosy. So you want very expensive fairy dust. Dream on, tinkerbell. Leave your fairy dust plan hidden. Believing in fairy dust plans is stupid, and destructive too.
Iceaura: and they haven't been able to handle even the luckily mild and easily contained aftermath. That was also true of Three Mile Island, . . . billvon: No it wasn't. . iceaura: Yes, it was. You might want to review that mess - what incredible good luck we had: it should not be forgotten. Me: Iceaura, your statement that they haven't been able to handle the aftermath is NOT true about TMI. Billvon is correct, you are incorrect. A reasonable argument can be made that it is not true about TEPCO in Fukushima either.
