Typhoon headed for Fukushima...

[Asta Kask]

What do you call a worst-case scenario... (http://beforeitsnews.com/story/667/990/Super_Typhoon_Heading_For_Fukushima_Nuclear_Power_ Plant.html)

...that keeps getting worse?

:eek:

[Lateral]

O_o

We're all dead.

[Asta Kask]

Nah, but the Japanese may be SOOL. I really hope none of my Japanese friends are in trouble.

[LaZodiac]

Yo dawg I heard you like disasters so we put a disaster in your disaster so you can suffer and die while you suffer and die.

Seriously, at this point nature is just trolling Japan and it makes me sad, and attempting a joke is the only way to make me feel better about it ;_;

[Drascin]

...holy damn. Okay, so officially nature has decided to see the plant's safety as a challenge. It survived the "bigger than anything in the last hundred years" earthquake, then it was hit with a huge tsunami, and when it looked like it was getting under control after the double hit, a typhoon?

[Frozen_Predator]

what the hell did the japanese do to piss off mother nature so badly?

heres to hoping enough people can get to safety in time

[Traab]

If the plant isnt reduced to rubble after this, next comes mecha godzilla.

[ImaginaryGirl]

Or the original godzilla, which was created via nuclear radiation.

Hot damn I hope this misses, though. :{ Japan's had way too much tragedy.

[Mando Knight]

It's a sign: don't build nuclear reactors on flood plains or similar areas. Or else nature will be all
http://s3.amazonaws.com/kym-assets/entries/icons/square/000/004/457/challenge.jpg?1291495361

And you'll end up going
http://s3.amazonaws.com/kym-assets/entries/icons/square/000/000/063/Picture_2.png?1232033096

[Lateral]

It's a sign: don't build nuclear reactors on flood plains or similar areas. Or else nature will be all
http://s3.amazonaws.com/kym-assets/entries/icons/square/000/004/457/challenge.jpg?1291495361

And you'll end up going
http://s3.amazonaws.com/kym-assets/entries/icons/square/000/000/063/Picture_2.png?1232033096

Lolwut. Just... lolwut.

[Eldan]

So, what did they do? Try and harness the earth and water spirits to build a giant robot?

[mikej]

It's certainly not been Japan's year, that's for sure.

Hope nothing to horrible happens. That country has been through enough already in the last few months.

[H Birchgrove]

Oh crap. :smalleek:

[AsteriskAmp]

If only no great earthquake was being talked about at the other side of the pacific...

[thubby]

*headdesk*
just
*headdesk*

[Phishfood]

The reactors have to be about shut down by now right? I know they said it would take weeks for the radiation to drop off completley, but should be fine now by my reckoning. Course, theres no such thing as a good typhoon so its still pretty bad....

[Elder Tsofu]

Well, look at it from the bright side - at least its not placed on an active volcano.

... and now don't say that it is, or I'll be sad.

[Perenelle]

:smalleek: :smallfrown:
Poor Japan...

Maybe after all this something really good will happen to Japan.
Maybe they'll get extremely fertile soil.. Or maybe diseases will die out and Japan will be a little bubble of healthiness.. Perhaps it will rain ice cream.

[AtlanteanTroll]

Or the original godzilla, which was created via nuclear radiation.

Hot damn I hope this misses, though. :{ Japan's had way too much tragedy.
Speaking of that, they've been letting a lot of radiation get into the water supply (as you can see in the Editor's Note). At least they can prep for this. And we all know that weather-folks are never right. Never. Right? Hahahahahahahahaha ... :smallfrown:

The one good thing out of this is that Japan has sworn to go from 50% Nuclear to 50% Green (as in Solar and Wind and Hydro).

[Kislath]

Obviously, the whales are the perps behind this.

[DeadManSleeping]

what the hell did the japanese do to piss off mother nature so badly?

They lived in Japan.

Seriously, for as long as humans have been there, the entire archipelago has been very obviously tectonically active, battered with storms every year, and lacking in every natural resource except fish. It is probably the least hospitable place on earth for humans except for deserts and polar regions.

Oh, and if you thought the typhoon was bad, scientists at Caltech think that because there was no fault movement near the Japan Trench from the last earthquake, that it's due for another huge earthquake sometime in the nearish future. This one would be much closer to Tokyo.

[Lord Raziere]

why? Why?? WHY!? :smallfrown:

[Skeppio]

:eek: This is just going from utterly horrible to even worse! It's not fair... :smallfrown:

[Asta Kask]

Is there something we can do? Donate money or something?

[Elder Tsofu]

I'd guess that they have the money they "need", more would probably not make that much a difference. After all, it is not some remote development country with poor infrastructure and below average healthcare we're talking about.
They've outlived typhoons before and will again. :smallsmile:

[AsteriskAmp]

Well, look at it from the bright side - at least its not placed on an active volcano.

... and now don't say that it is, or I'll be sad.

Not placed on, but 15 killometers away (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Adatara).

[Elder Tsofu]

... I should have seen that coming, Japan being what it is. -.-

[H Birchgrove]

Speaking of that, they've been letting a lot of radiation get into the water supply (as you can see in the Editor's Note). At least they can prep for this. And we all know that weather-folks are never right. Never. Right? Hahahahahahahahaha ... :smallfrown:

The one good thing out of this is that Japan has sworn to go from 50% Nuclear to 50% Green (as in Solar and Wind and Hydro).

:smallannoyed: "Good thing"? When a state says it will replace nuclear power with "green" energy, it ends up replacing it with fossil fuels, at least in the "short" term (read: the next 10-20 years). Not only are solar and wind not effective enough as of today, the more efficient solar cells and all wind turbines demand rare earth metals found mostly in China, which want to keep those metals to themselves. I wouldn't call hydroelectricity in the form of dams "green", they often destroy arable lands and/or forests. There are promise of certain types of solar plants (using mirrors directing solar radiation toward towers with steam or gas turbines, the latter combined with fossil gas when there is not enough sunshine) and with wave and tidal power as well as ocean thermal energy... but there have been promises of such technologies since the 1970's. :smallsigh:

Japan has invested in nuclear power for very good reasons; the lesson to be taught here is that we mustn't keep old reactors and that we must replace the old reactors with newer, safer, more efficient ones. And, I suppose, that there are better places to build nuclear power plants than Fukushima, even in Japan. Now, I can understand why countries which often gets earth quakes and tremors like Italy and China wouldn't want nuclear power (right) now, but to say geophysically stable countries like Germany and Sweden shouldn't have nuclear power because of the situation in Japan, as some people argue, makes my head hurt.

[Solaris]

:smallannoyed: "Good thing"? When a state says it will replace nuclear power with "green" energy, it ends up replacing it with fossil fuels, at least in the "short" term (read: the next 10-20 years). Not only are solar and wind not effective enough as of today, the more efficient solar cells and all wind turbines demand rare earth metals found mostly in China, which want to keep those metals to themselves. I wouldn't call hydroelectricity in the form of dams "green", they often destroy arable lands and/or forests. There are promise of certain types of solar plants (using mirrors directing solar radiation toward towers with steam or gas turbines, the latter combined with fossil gas when there is not enough sunshine) and with wave and tidal power as well as ocean thermal energy... but there have been promises of such technologies since the 1970's. :smallsigh:

I just figured the typhoon was nature's way of helping the Japanese meet the wind requirements for 50% Hippie Power.

[H Birchgrove]

Is there something we can do? Donate money or something?

Relevant links:

Japanese Red Cross:

http://www.jrc.or.jp/english/relief/l4/Vcms4_00002070.html

Swedish Red Cross (on Swedish):

http://www.redcross.se/teman/tsunami-japan/

"Ge en gåva till Japan":

http://www.redcross.se/teman/tsunami-japan/ge-en-gava-till-japan/

[RebelRogue]

:smallannoyed: "Good thing"? When a state says it will replace nuclear power with "green" energy, it ends up replacing it with fossil fuels, at least in the "short" term (read: the next 10-20 years). Not only are solar and wind not effective enough as of today, the more efficient solar cells and all wind turbines demand rare earth metals found mostly in China, which want to keep those metals to themselves. I wouldn't call hydroelectricity in the form of dams "green", they often destroy arable lands and/or forests. There are promise of certain types of solar plants (using mirrors directing solar radiation toward towers with steam or gas turbines, the latter combined with fossil gas when there is not enough sunshine) and with wave and tidal power as well as ocean thermal energy... but there have been promises of such technologies since the 1970's. :smallsigh:

Japan has invested in nuclear power for very good reasons; the lesson to be taught here is that we mustn't keep old reactors and that we must replace the old reactors with newer, safer, more efficient ones. And, I suppose, that there are better places to build nuclear power plants than Fukushima, even in Japan. Now, I can understand why countries which often gets earth quakes and tremors like Italy and China wouldn't want nuclear power (right) now, but to say geophysically stable countries like Germany and Sweden shouldn't have nuclear power because of the situation in Japan, as some people argue, makes my head hurt.
I've got to agree with this!

Edit: I just realized that this is probably to be considered political, so I suppose it's a good idea not to pursue the discussion any further.

[Mando Knight]

Now, I can understand why countries which often gets earth quakes and tremors like Italy and China wouldn't want nuclear power (right) now, but to say geophysically stable countries like Germany and Sweden shouldn't have nuclear power because of the situation in Japan, as some people argue, makes my head hurt.

The Fukushima reactors barely took any structural damage from the earthquake, and it was a 9.0 magnitude 'quake. If it wasn't for the compounded problems that accompanied the earthquake (the tsunami, mostly, but also the aftershocks), there wouldn't have been much news on the subject, despite the fact that the thing took an earthquake and is still structurally sound.

[Coidzor]

Well, look at it from the bright side - at least its not placed on an active volcano.

... and now don't say that it is, or I'll be sad.

Depending upon what kind of eruption it was, a volcanic-based destruction of a nuclear power plant seems like it would probably limit the spread of radioactive material more than any other natural disaster.

Of course, then the question becomes why someone wasted land that could be used to make a geothermal plant on making a nuclear power plant.

[Asta Kask]

Just for the sake of the discussion, there is another plant (http://depletedcranium.com/the-other-fukushima-nuclear-power-plant/) at Fukushima, built nine years later. You may wonder why you have heard nothing about it. It's probably because the shutdown sequence worked and there was no core breech, no radiation escaped, no disaster. The conditions were similar at the two plants, but it shows what a decade of improved safety can do. We've had three more decades since then.

[Solaris]

Depending upon what kind of eruption it was, a volcanic-based destruction of a nuclear power plant seems like it would probably limit the spread of radioactive material more than any other natural disaster.

Of course, then the question becomes why someone wasted land that could be used to make a geothermal plant on making a nuclear power plant.

Why do we waste hundreds of square miles of empty desert for a training ground when it could be a solar power plant? Humans, they is the crazy.

[AtlanteanTroll]

:smallannoyed: "Good thing"? When a state says it will replace nuclear power with "green" energy, it ends up replacing it with fossil fuels, at least in the "short" term (read: the next 10-20 years).
Yeah. That's true, but it'll pay off in the long run. Short term doesn't really mean as much in energy.


Not only are solar and wind not effective enough as of today, the more efficient solar cells and all wind turbines demand rare earth metals found mostly in China, which want to keep those metals to themselves. I wouldn't call hydroelectricity in the form of dams "green", they often destroy arable lands and/or forests. There are promise of certain types of solar plants (using mirrors directing solar radiation toward towers with steam or gas turbines, the latter combined with fossil gas when there is not enough sunshine) and with wave and tidal power as well as ocean thermal energy... but there have been promises of such technologies since the 1970's. :smallsigh:


Eh, not like Japan has much arable land anyway. Plus, they're already turning the farmland that's not completely useless due to Fukashima into a field of Solar Cells (and as stated, not like there was much farmland anyway). They're working on a mandate that all new industrial buildings have to have Solar Cells on the roof. This is a bad thing?

And Japan is one of the most technologically advanced countries in the world. With a green push their, I'm sure they'll come up with something much more initiative then what they have now. Heck, Germany is planning to phase out all Nuclear Plants by 2021 is this a bad thing?


Japan has invested in nuclear power for very good reasons; the lesson to be taught here is that we mustn't keep old reactors and that we must replace the old reactors with newer, safer, more efficient ones. And, I suppose, that there are better places to build nuclear power plants than Fukushima, even in Japan.
They aren't closing any of the newer plants, they're just not building new ones. They'll still have a lot of Nuclear power, they're just going to have a bunch of new green energy. I realize my post wasn't very specific about the situation, but you've assumed, and wrongly, all over the place.


Now, I can understand why countries which often gets earth quakes and tremors like Italy and China wouldn't want nuclear power (right) now, but to say geophysically stable countries like Germany and Sweden shouldn't have nuclear power because of the situation in Japan, as some people argue, makes my head hurt.

Thank you for putting words in my mouth. :smallsmile:

:smallannoyed:

Japan isn't geographically stable. It's Japan. DeadManSleeping is right,


... for as long as humans have been there, the entire archipelago has been very obviously tectonically active, battered with storms every year, and lacking in every natural resource except fish. It is probably the least hospitable place on earth for humans except for deserts and polar regions.

[RebelRogue]

Heck, Germany is planning to phase out all Nuclear Plants by 2021 is this a bad thing?
You bet it is! So much for reducing CO_2 emissions :smallannoyed:

[Elder Tsofu]

Well, the Danish weren't that negative when we closed down Barsebäck. :smalltongue:
But yeah, closing down nuclear power won't come cheap - the politicians can't really pull those watts out of their behinds (even though that would be environment friendly).
I just hope that they take the second, much harder, step and pour money into research.

[Killer Angel]

The one good thing out of this is that Japan has sworn to go from 50% Nuclear to 50% Green (as in Solar and Wind and Hydro).

Confirmed


:smallannoyed: "Good thing"? When a state says it will replace nuclear power with "green" energy, it ends up replacing it with fossil fuels, at least in the "short" term (read: the next 10-20 years).

Actually, AFAIK the government is favoring solar energy. The whole cost for a house installation, is now paid by the government (the house owners will repay this debt in many years... 10-15 bucks/month in the electricity bill), and the maintenance costs are all paid by government.
(Info source: the sister of a friend of mine lives in japan, in Tokio area)

[AtlanteanTroll]

You bet it is! So much for reducing CO_2 emissions :smallannoyed:

They'll cut emission. Especially since they're well on the way to finish what they started? What did they start? Cut energy use by 50% by 2050 and switch to 50% Green. C02 will disappear.

[Elder Tsofu]

Germany cut energy use by 50% to 2050?
Hehehehe. :smallbiggrin:

[Mercenary Pen]

C02 will disappear.

Even if the rest of your statement is entirely accurate (rather than being gleaned from press releases), this is a gross oversimplification. For CO2 to disappear would require the immediate and complete cessation of life as we know it across the entire globe, as CO2 is an inherent byproduct of respiration, and is a prerequisite for the production of oxygen by photosynthesis.

Perhaps what you meant to say was that CO2 emissions would be greatly reduced.

[AtlanteanTroll]

Even if the rest of your statement is entirely accurate (rather than being gleaned from press releases), this is a gross oversimplification. For CO2 to disappear would require the immediate and complete cessation of life as we know it across the entire globe, as CO2 is an inherent byproduct of respiration, and is a prerequisite for the production of oxygen by photosynthesis.

Perhaps what you meant to say was that CO2 emissions would be greatly reduced.

>.>
<.<

Yeah ... That could be. I meant CO2 Emissions will disappear (not completely, but ...)

[RebelRogue]

They'll cut emission. Especially since they're well on the way to finish what they started? What did they start? Cut energy use by 50% by 2050 and switch to 50% Green. C02 will disappear.
I've yet to see a plan for these things that seemed realistic to me, and it will certainly be very expensive. An even then, there will still be a reliance on some kind of power source that provides power when 'the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow'. Which more or less means using coal or buying nuclear power from other countries :smallsigh:

Edit: Let my add, that I am not opposed to these green initiatives. But ditching nuclear power because of some irrational scare is just... not right.

And let me assure you, that not all danes cheered when Barsebäck was closed!

[AtlanteanTroll]

I've yet to see a plan for these things that seemed realistic to me, and it will certainly be very expensive. An even then, there will still be a reliance on some kind of power source that provides power when 'the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow'. Which more or less means using coal or buying nuclear power from other countries :smallsigh:
If the sun isn't shining in Japan, it's windy. It's an island nation, it has the resources it needs.


Let my add, that I am not opposed to these green initiatives. But ditching nuclear power because of some irrational scare is just... not right.

Germany didn't decide to close plants after a scare. They just decided to. In fact, many plants are getting a 10 year reprieve.

[Solaris]

Eh, not like Japan has much arable land anyway. Plus, they're already turning the farmland that's not completely useless due to Fukashima into a field of Solar Cells (and as stated, not like there was much farmland anyway). They're working on a mandate that all new industrial buildings have to have Solar Cells on the roof. This is a bad thing?

Only if the solar cells don't recoup their expenses.
Hey, guess what they tend not to do. Hopefully the Japanese can make 'em worth the while, 'cause otherwise it'll just be a massive tax sink. Someone said it was okay, 'cause the government was paying for them with taxes instead of the homehowner... Except there's a problem with that logic. Guess who pays taxes?


And Japan is one of the most technologically advanced countries in the world. With a green push their, I'm sure they'll come up with something much more initiative then what they have now. Heck, Germany is planning to phase out all Nuclear Plants by 2021 is this a bad thing?

Yes, tremendously. Nuclear power is the only alternative energy source that's actually proven itself useful in nearly every situation. Solar? Wind? Tidal? Geothermal? Localized at best, criminally inefficient at worst.


Germany cut energy use by 50% to 2050?
Hehehehe. :smallbiggrin:

I'm afraid I must share the mirth. You know what fuels an economy? Energy. If you cut the energy, you cut the economy. Making the energy used go farther is an excellent idea. Efficiency is always good. Cutting energy usage (note that I didn't say waste) is always bad.
But hey, maybe Germany doesn't like things like computers.

[RebelRogue]

If the sun isn't shining in Japan, it's windy. It's an island nation, it has the resources it needs.
I was referring to Germany.

Germany didn't decide to close plants after a scare. They just decided to. In fact, many plants are getting a 10 year reprieve.
Well, ok, I'm certianly no expert on German energy politics. I still don't think it's a particularly wise decision, obviously...

[Solaris]

Well, ok, I'm certianly no expert on German energy politics. I still don't think it's a particularly wise decision, obviously...

Personally, I'd like better having them keep the plants open and get their green on. Didn't all of this start because fossil fuels were a problem?

[Elder Tsofu]

From the news-reports around here it seem like the German government made a quite sharp turn regarding opinions of nuclear power.
It is quite easy to say that you will do something in 10 years time (eternity in politics), but actually doing it...

As a comparison, Sweden should technically be rid of nuclear power if we're just going by the old decisions politicians have made. And we're a large nation with a small population, enormous resources of water-power and coasts for wind power.

[Keld Denar]

Its been a couple years since I had the class, but I took a high level engineering class in college called Design of Alternative Energy Systems. I've built coal power plants since then. Most plants I've worked on have 600-700 MW generators. Nuke plants are much largers than that. A single modern wind turbine can generally pump out around 1-2 MW. That means that you need 300-700 turbines (each one covering about 1 acre of land) to produce as much juice as a single coal fire plant, and probably 2-3 times that to equal a nuke. Thats MASSIVE amounts of land.

Add in the construction and maintenance of wind power (those things break due to great stress, general wear, excessive weather, etc), and its not hard to see that it's wind power that isn't sustainable in its current form. Super-critical low sulfer coal power and nuclear power produce much more energy at much lower costs with much much much lower land impacts. Well controlled super-critical coal puts out very little CO2, CO, and NOx, and those emmisions are tracked VERY closely by the EPA in America.

And don't even get me started on solar concentration...its possibly the least efficient "green" power production, with farms greater than one square mile struggling to produce a handful of MWs despite costing billions of dollars in construction and maintenance of the delicate lenses. Photovoltaic solar, despite being rather inefficient in it's transfer rate is at least relatively compact. That is the technology we should be persuing, of the things that we can produce.

For a country where real estate is not a luxury, like Japan, high energy boilers such as those you get with coal and nukes are a necessity.

What we really need to do, if we want to be truely sustainable, is continue to make developements with hydrogen fuel cells and nuclear fusion. The issue there isn't even really doing it, its controlling the rediculously massive amounts of heat and energy that are generated. A hydrogen fuel cell large enough to power a car with the same energy as an internal combustion engine puts off enough waste heat to roast a person to death, which also does very nasty things to the materials used to build the fuel cell, and nuclear fusion...well, just look at the sun for more details on just how much energy that reaction puts off.

[Volthawk]

*snip*

Wow, I knew solar and wind power wasn't as efficient as nuclear/fossil fuel power, but I didn't realise it was that much of a difference...

[Mercenary Pen]

and nuclear fission...well, just look at the sun for more details on just how much energy that reaction puts off.

I think you mean nuclear fusion here, don't you? I was under the impression that fission was the stuff we could already control and that fusion power was the one we haven't yet made commercially viable...

[Keld Denar]

Wow, I knew solar and wind power wasn't as efficient as nuclear/fossil fuel power, but I didn't realise it was that much of a difference...
Think about it...we still have coal and natural gas power, yes? If wind and solar were even simply AS efficient land-wise and cost-wise as fossil fuels and nuke plants are, that would be ALL we would use. No, its not even close.


I think you mean nuclear fusion here, don't you? I was under the impression that fission was the stuff we could already control and that fusion power was the one we haven't yet made commercially viable...

Ah, right. Fission is what nuke plants use. Fusion is what we need to master as far as an unlimited renewable resource. Unfortuantely, we are still probably generations from harnessing the massive amounts of energy produced. Fixt.

[H Birchgrove]

If the sun isn't shining in Japan, it's windy. It's an island nation, it has the resources it needs.

Actually, it has to import a lot of resources it needs.


Germany didn't decide to close plants after a scare. They just decided to. In fact, many plants are getting a 10 year reprieve.


The current government in Germany has or had a positive view on nuclear power and wanted to extend the time allowed to run the plants (I assume that is what you meant with "reprieve", English not being my 1st language), but it seems they had to stop that decision after the Fukushima disaster.


From the news-reports around here it seem like the German government made a quite sharp turn regarding opinions of nuclear power.
It is quite easy to say that you will do something in 10 years time (eternity in politics), but actually doing it...

As a comparison, Sweden should technically be rid of nuclear power if we're just going by the old decisions politicians have made. And we're a large nation with a small population, enormous resources of water-power and coasts for wind power.

Yeah, but there is also a decision to not build more big dams, because we only have four large rivers left. Even small dams are bad for the ecology. Wind turbines are also controversial thanks to the noise they produce, especially at infra-level (noise too low to be heard by human ear) and because they block people's landscape view (why do people choose to live in the country-side?).

We do have great potential in bio-fuels, but we need to use them to replace gasoline... Using cellulose based fuels (such as methanol and synthetic diesel), because grain- and sugar-based ethanol makes food more expensive. Unlike what some people think, peat is NOT a bio-fuel, and the harvesting of it destroys important wetlands that regulate water in nature.

Sweden needs cheap electricity... Without it, there will be no more production of paper pulp, steel, aluminium, etc, and there will be much more unemployment. Our country would be reduced to undeveloped nation selling raw materials to more industrious nations.

[Volthawk]

Think about it...we still have coal and natural gas power, yes? If wind and solar were even simply AS efficient land-wise and cost-wise as fossil fuels and nuke plants are, that would be ALL we would use. No, its not even close.


Yeah, I just didn't realise it was THAT inefficient. As in, the whole "up to 700 turbines equal one coal plant" thing. Thought it was a bit less than that.

[Elder Tsofu]

Yeah, but there is also a decision to not build more big dams, because we only have four large rivers left. Even small dams are bad for the ecology. Wind turbines are also controversial thanks to the noise they produce, especially at infra-level (noise too low to be heard by human ear) and because they block people's landscape view (why do people choose to live in the country-side?).

We do have great potential in bio-fuels, but we need to use them to replace gasoline... Using cellulose based fuels (such as methanol and synthetic diesel), because grain- and sugar-based ethanol makes food more expensive. Unlike what some people think, peat is NOT a bio-fuel, and the harvesting of it destroys important wetlands that regulate water in nature.

Sweden needs cheap electricity... Without it, there will be no more production of paper pulp, steel, aluminium, etc, and there will be much more unemployment. Our country would be reduced to undeveloped nation selling raw materials to more industrious nations.

Certainly, these are reasons why we haven't scrapped nuclear power. Which is sort of my point, we have enormous potential to get "cleaner" energy but in the end we haven't. We've ended up valuing other things higher.

Biofuels of wood is interesting, but will it be economic in the end when the market is "the world" instead of (more or less) Sweden pop. 9 million? We'll have to see.

Now think Germany (or Japan), they have less realistic choices which are "cleaner" than nuclear power, and they plan to scrap it in 10 years?

[H Birchgrove]

Certainly, these are reasons why we haven't scrapped nuclear power. Which is sort of my point, we have enormous potential to get "cleaner" energy but in the end we haven't. We've ended up valuing other things higher.

Biofuels of wood is interesting, but will it be economic in the end when the market is "the world" instead of (more or less) Sweden pop. 9 million? We'll have to see.

Well, the Swedish forest industry is or will face hard competition from eucalyptus forests planted in tropical areas, when it comes to paper at least.


Now think Germany (or Japan), they have less realistic choices which are "cleaner" than nuclear power, and they plan to scrap it in 10 years?

IMO, they should get rid of fossil fuels before getting rid of nuclear power. Unless carbon capture and storage will work, because coal will exist for the next thousand years (and so will uranium and thorium, if the 4th generation plants will be built and used).

Remember why we got nuclear power plants built in the 1970's? Because the oil price went up. :smallamused:

[Keld Denar]

I work in a bio-fuel power plant/pulp mill right now. We use chemicals to break down wood into fiber and lignins, harvest the fiber to make paper, and concentrate the solution of spent chemical, lignins, and water to produce a fuel, which is then burned in a boiler to produce steam. Spent chemical is harvested off the bottom of the boiler as a molten salt, baked in a kiln, and in the end reverts back to the solution used to break down even more wood. Its called the Kraft process (Kraft being power in German, where the process was invented), and is interesting in that it nets more energy than it requires, assuming you have a supply of wood chips to keep fueling the process. Unfortuantely, its not THAT efficient. Most recovery boilers only produce enough steam to power a 35-50 MW generator, less than 1/20th of the size of most main commercial coal boilers. Its renewable in as much as the timber industry is (most timber farms utilize aspen with a 4-5 year maturity cycle on rotating tree plantations), but still has the same issues with CO, CO2, and NOx that coal has (although luckily no sulfer issues). Not all renewable energy is clean.

[Elder Tsofu]

Well the theory is that the carbon of the tree has to come from somewhere, which is supposedly thin air.
It will release carbon dioxide when combusted, but since quite a bit of that have already been "removed" there wont be a major impact as using fossilized fuels?

[H Birchgrove]

I work in a bio-fuel power plant/pulp mill right now. We use chemicals to break down wood into fiber and lignins, harvest the fiber to make paper, and concentrate the solution of spent chemical, lignins, and water to produce a fuel, which is then burned in a boiler to produce steam. Spent chemical is harvested off the bottom of the boiler as a molten salt, baked in a kiln, and in the end reverts back to the solution used to break down even more wood. Its called the Kraft process (Kraft being power in German, where the process was invented), and is interesting in that it nets more energy than it requires, assuming you have a supply of wood chips to keep fueling the process. Unfortuantely, its not THAT efficient. Most recovery boilers only produce enough steam to power a 35-50 MW generator, less than 1/20th of the size of most main commercial coal boilers. Its renewable in as much as the timber industry is (most timber farms utilize aspen with a 4-5 year maturity cycle on rotating tree plantations), but still has the same issues with CO, CO2, and NOx that coal has (although luckily no sulfer issues). Not all renewable energy is clean.

Aren't modern pulp mills and paper factories, as well as power plants burning solid or liquid fuels, using filters and/or catalytic converters of some sort to remove particles, hydro-carbons, NOx and CO?

I previously forgot to mention that there are ways to produce biofuels in ways not competing with production of paper, Rayon, planks etc. There is research in making dimethyl ether for diesel engines or gas to gas turbines used by the pulp mills (which would be even more efficient than the recovery boilers) from black liquor. It should become possible to make ethanol or biobutanol from lignin (which is also a by-product when making ethanol from cellulose). In Sweden, diesel fuel partially made of tall oil has recently started to be sold.


Well the theory is that the carbon of the tree has to come from somewhere, which is supposedly thin air.
It will release carbon dioxide when combusted, but since quite a bit of that have already been "removed" there wont be a major impact as using fossilized fuels?

As long as new trees are planted, yes. I suppose the burning of chemicals might release CO2 which is fossil.

[Elder Tsofu]

tall oil

Just clarifying, "tall" is the Swedish name for a type of "pine tree (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scots_Pine)". A tree which we have quite a lot of. :smallsmile:

[Tyndmyr]

Fukushima is, all things considered, not that bad off. I mean, look at the bright side, with all the horrific things that have happened to them...if it'd happened to a less prepared, less advanced nation, there would be ludicrous amounts of deaths and injury. I think they've weathered the unfortunately extreme situations rather well.

Personally, I'd prefer a nuke in my back yard than a coal one. Odds of a nuke actually killing random populace around the area? Extremely low. Odds that coal/oil fumes are bad for you? Well...they're not made from vitamins.

Nuke accidents get talked about for the same reason that car accidents don't. They're rare. It's not the accidents that are problematic...it's planning. Nuclear reactors produce waste, and that requires extremely long term planning...even longer than the long-term safety designs. This is fairly unusual as business models go, and it poses a lot of problems for those who would run them. What we really need are more breeder reactors. Reprocessing the waste and burning it off might be more difficult short term, but long term, it's fantastically better.

[Keld Denar]

Aren't modern pulp mills and paper factories, as well as power plants burning solid or liquid fuels, using filters and/or catalytic converters of some sort to remove particles, hydro-carbons, NOx and CO?
We have electrostatic precipitators for catching heavy particulates such as fly ash, but we mostly control our CO and N2O emmisions by controlling combustion temperature and stoichiometry.


I previously forgot to mention that there are ways to produce biofuels in ways not competing with production of paper, Rayon, planks etc. There is research in making dimethyl ether for diesel engines or gas to gas turbines used by the pulp mills (which would be even more efficient than the recovery boilers) from black liquor. It should become possible to make ethanol or biobutanol from lignin (which is also a by-product when making ethanol from cellulose). In Sweden, diesel fuel partially made of tall oil has recently started to be sold.

This is interesting...especially given the rather volitile nature of recovery boilers. Regardless, wouldn't that break off the relatively closed cycle of caustic recovery? That would increase the amount of caustic we would need to purchase in a given time period, since we recover like, 96% of the caustic we use to break down the pulp with our recovery boiler.

[AtlanteanTroll]

Fukushima is, all things considered, not that bad off. I mean, look at the bright side, with all the horrific things that have happened to them...if it'd happened to a less prepared, less advanced nation, there would be ludicrous amounts of deaths and injury. I think they've weathered the unfortunately extreme situations rather well.The series of events wouldn't happen to any other nation.

[AsteriskAmp]

The series of events wouldn't happen to any other nation.

Try at the other side of the pacific, South American west coast is as likely as Japan to get horribly trashed, the only difference would be possibly a typhoon absence, but they've got "El Niño".

[DeadManSleeping]

The series of events wouldn't happen to any other nation.

A lot of nations have non-advanced nuclear plants. Earthquakes are just one kind of violent natural disaster. Yes, Japan is more prone to natural disasters than, well, anywhere, but it's not like they've been continually advancing the safety codes for nuclear power unendingly for decades just because they feel like it. Something bad can happen anywhere, and Japan is much better equipped for natural disasters than most places.

[H Birchgrove]

Just clarifying, "tall" is the Swedish name for a type of "pine tree (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scots_Pine)". A tree which we have quite a lot of. :smallsmile:

Verily, thou doth speaketh the truth. :smallwink:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tall_oil


We have electrostatic precipitators for catching heavy particulates such as fly ash, but we mostly control our CO and N2O emmisions by controlling combustion temperature and stoichiometry.

That makes sense. I would prefer having both proverbial suspenders and belt, in case the former malfunctions, but catalytic converters are expensive. BTW, it's interesting (IMHO) to note that while there have been mass-produced catalytic converters for cars since the 70's (three-way since the 80's), but only recently for ships.


This is interesting...especially given the rather volitile nature of recovery boilers. Regardless, wouldn't that break off the relatively closed cycle of caustic recovery? That would increase the amount of caustic we would need to purchase in a given time period, since we recover like, 96% of the caustic we use to break down the pulp with our recovery boiler.

I haven't thought about, nor have that issue been mentioned in the articles I've read. Would the caustics be gasified too? (I assume that when coal is gasified, the heavy metals in it is separated from the hydrogen and CO.)

[AtlanteanTroll]

Try at the other side of the pacific, South American west coast is as likely as Japan to get horribly trashed, the only difference would be possibly a typhoon absence, but they've got "El Niño".
But do you have Volcanoes everwhere?

[Elder Tsofu]

Verily, thou doth speaketh the truth. :smallwink:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tall_oil

*face-palm*

Well, you won this one Mr. Björklund - but I'll be back! :smalltongue:

[Keld Denar]

That makes sense. I would prefer having both proverbial suspenders and belt, in case the former malfunctions, but catalytic converters are expensive. BTW, it's interesting (IMHO) to note that while there have been mass-produced catalytic converters for cars since the 70's (three-way since the 80's), but only recently for ships.
I've not heard of putting a catalytic converter on a boiler. I do know that you get a pretty massive pressure drop across one though. The reason street racers and other such clowns bypass or remove their catalytic converter is that it allows more air to flow through the engine. Thats on a small scale. The pair of fans we have on our recovery boiler deal in tens of thousands of SCFM. If we experienced that much of a pressure drop needed to get out of the stack, we would probably need to triple the size of our ID and FD fans at least, which are already rather significant. The rotor on the ID fan is almost 20 feet in diameter. Plus, a catalytic converter would have almost no impact on CO2 or N2O. We already minimize our CO output simply by maintaining efficient combustion, a catalytic converter would cripple us.


I haven't thought about, nor have that issue been mentioned in the articles I've read. Would the caustics be gasified too? (I assume that when coal is gasified, the heavy metals in it is separated from the hydrogen and CO.)
A quick look over the wikipedia site for coal gasification (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_gasification), and granted, I don't have NEARLY enough (in)organic chemistry to even sound credable, but assuming they use a similar process to break down the organic lignins into CO and H2, then the caustic (NaOH) would probably precipitate out (good!), or result in dangeous sodium being produced (bad), or some third result that I don't know because "Damn it Jim, I'm an engineer, not a scientist."

But do you have Volcanoes everwhere?
What do you think the Andes Mts are?

[H Birchgrove]

*face-palm*

Well, you won this one Mr. Björklund - but I'll be back! :smalltongue:

Knowing is half the battle! :smallcool:


I've not heard of putting a catalytic converter on a boiler. I do know that you get a pretty massive pressure drop across one though. The reason street racers and other such clowns bypass or remove their catalytic converter is that it allows more air to flow through the engine. Thats on a small scale. The pair of fans we have on our recovery boiler deal in tens of thousands of SCFM. If we experienced that much of a pressure drop needed to get out of the stack, we would probably need to triple the size of our ID and FD fans at least, which are already rather significant. The rotor on the ID fan is almost 20 feet in diameter. Plus, a catalytic converter would have almost no impact on CO2 or N2O. We already minimize our CO output simply by maintaining efficient combustion, a catalytic converter would cripple us.

I didn't know that... :smalleek:

I understand now.


A quick look over the wikipedia site for coal gasification (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_gasification), and granted, I don't have NEARLY enough (in)organic chemistry to even sound credable, but assuming they use a similar process to break down the organic lignins into CO and H2, then the caustic (NaOH) would probably precipitate out (good!), or result in dangeous sodium being produced (bad), or some third result that I don't know because "Damn it Jim, I'm an engineer, not a scientist."

Thanks! :smallsmile:

[Mando Knight]

But do you have Volcanoes everwhere?

On the Pacific coast, it's a Pacific coast. The Pacific Ring of Fire extends pretty much all around that ocean. If you live by the Pacific, you're near either a fault line or a volcano. Possibly both. (Except Australia, which gets away because it's practically in the middle of its tectonic plate. The islands on its north and east sides get the seismic activity instead.)

[AtlanteanTroll]

What do you think the Andes Mts are?

*grumbles* The entire mountain region isn't solely located in one country though.

[AsteriskAmp]

*grumbles* The entire mountain region isn't solely located in one country though.

Try makes the most of the peruvian area, and they have had earthquakes recently, and "El Niño" once caused a rain season so intense it crashed the economy into a 3000% inflation.