Japanese earthquake / tsunami discussion

AskMyChocolate

geetar wrote: »

no id actually prefer if you said i was wrong, considering i do have a clue. quite a big clue actually

you can be dismissive all you like, and pretend that all us crazy nuclear lovin people are crazy and narrow minded, when in reality its the other way around.

do you even know how nuclear power works? do you know how any power generator works? and i mean now, not after you go to wikipedia and youtube like youve done before you posted all of your earlier posts. do you know the practicality and viability of any of these renewables?

i for one do know, and im sorry if you dont. your both wrong and mistaken.

no super grid is going to be built.
and renewable energy is going to have to make way for nuclear when the time comes.

get out of your al gore hollywood ideal movie land.

europe is financially crippled, so is ireland.

Welcome to the 21st century.

With all due respect chief, that sounds like an economic/neo-liberal/industrialist argument, rather than a scientific one. Not saying you're wrong.

Welcome to any century.

vibe666

My name is URL wrote: »

You should write a sitcom about it.. more people would give a shit

i have a sneaky suspicion that might have been a bit of a dig, but it was too funny not to thank.

el diablo

Surely solar power is the most favourable way to go. In just six hours the world’s deserts receive more energy from the sun than mankind uses up in a year. Costs have been slashed too. A solar panel now costs half of what it did in 2008.

stupidusername

AskMyChocolate wrote: »

I was out having a drink the other day with a Mod of this forum, and I brought up the fact that I had found this an incredibly informative thread.

how come i didn't meet him? who ever this mysterious mod is

PeakOutput

el diablo wrote: »

Surely solar power is the most favourable way to go. In just six hours the world’s deserts receive more energy from the sun than mankind uses up in a year. Costs have been slashed too. A solar panel now costs half of what it did in 2008.

The problem is the efficiency of the solar panels I dont know if they have improved(they probably have) but the last I heard was they are less then 10% efficient. You are then left with the problem of transferring the energy from were it is generated to were it is needed and that process is also horribly inefficient.

A combination of renewables is the answer (particularly for ireland) if we had the money we could set up a totally renewable grid but it would take time.

Modern Nuclear is still the second best option though no matter what is being said in this thread

My name is URL

vibe666 wrote: »

i have a sneaky suspicion that might have been a bit of a dig, but it was too funny not to thank.

More a dig at what the thread as a whole has become

If the title was removed, you'd have a hard time determining from the last few pages what it was ever about to begin with. The only people left posting seem to be those on either side of the nuclear debate arguing about whether or not we will be effected, while thousands upon thousands of people continue to actually be effected, regardless of the apparent safety/dangers of nuclear energy.

geetar

another problem with solar is the issue of getting more energy in the summer and getting much less in the winter when we actually need it.

the sun intensity in ireland is pretty lame aswell. it wouldnt be viable.

we do have other renewable options, but they would take some serious commitment and cash to get them off the ground. personally i dont think our energy sources will change anytime soon. nuclear is the new clear (pun intended) option. might need a referendum, and many years to come about. but im sure it will prevail in the end.

but... if we wait to long we wont have any oil to power the machines to make any new power stations :pac:

that will be fun.

Rob A. Bank

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ta-XXwjVEyo

Gundersen Postulates Unit 3 Explosion May Have Been Prompt Criticality in Fuel Pool.


:eek:

Coles

geetar wrote: »

you can be dismissive all you like, and pretend that all us crazy nuclear lovin people are crazy and narrow minded, when in reality its the other way around.

do you even know how nuclear power works? do you know how any power generator works? and i mean now, not after you go to wikipedia and youtube like youve done before you posted all of your earlier posts. do you know the practicality and viability of any of these renewables?

i for one do know, and im sorry if you dont. your both wrong and mistaken.

no super grid is going to be built.
and renewable energy is going to have to make way for nuclear when the time comes.

get out of your al gore hollywood ideal movie land.

europe is financially crippled, so is ireland.

Welcome to the 21st century.

I find this nonsense tiresome. If you are trying to pretend that you know what you're talking about, don't bother. You've already made it abundantly clear that you are out of your depth. Move on.

Smart Grids are an integral part of the EU energy strategy. The legislation is in place. Link to the European Commission.

Estimates show that smart electricity grids should reduce CO2 emissions in the EU by 9% and the annual household energy consumption by 10%. They also help to ensure secure functioning of the electricity system and are a key enabler of both the internal energy market and integration of vast amounts of renewable.
-EU Commission

Tough sh*t.

indough

so basically this thread has become an opportunity for you to salivate over a disaster affecting millions of people and pretend you know what youre talking about when everybody sees quite clearly that you dont

Coles

indough wrote: »

so basically this thread has become an opportunity for you to salivate over a disaster affecting millions of people and pretend you know what youre talking about when everybody sees quite clearly that you dont

This kind of crap is pointless. Get back on topic ffs.

I'm glad you can recognise the seriousness of this disaster because there's no shortage of clowns that can't.

indough

Coles wrote: »

Who's salivating, fool? I have posted nothing other than facts. What would you rather this thread be about?

I'm glad you can recognise the seriousness of this disaster because there's no shortage of clowns that can't.

but you are salivating over it, that much is plain to see. and you wouldnt have gotten so riled up about it if you didnt know i was correct. and for that matter i never actually named you in my post, so why else would you have assumed i was talking to you, other than you already knew you were acting like a know it all grief junky?

ps i never said that i was concerned about the radioactivity levels, but either way many people have been affected by the tsunami and earthquake, both of which you seem to have eclipsed with your nonsensical and irrelevant rants about the energy industry

andrew

Total death toll is past 14,000 now

Coles

@Andrew, What are your thoughts on the economic impact of this disaster?

Coles

indough wrote: »

but you are salivating over it, that much is plain to see. and you wouldnt have gotten so riled up about it if you didnt know i was correct. and for that matter i never actually named you in my post, so why else would you have assumed i was talking to you, other than you already knew you were acting like a know it all grief junky?

ps i never said that i was concerned about the radioactivity levels, but either way many people have been affected by the tsunami and earthquake, both of which you seem to have eclipsed with your nonsensical and irrelevant rants about the energy industry

The previous post was 6 hours earlier, fool. And every thing I've contributed to this thread has been relevant to the discussion. Move on like a good lad. You're wasting your time.

andrew

Coles wrote: »

@Andrew, What are your thoughts on the economic impact of this disaster?

As a disclaimer, I know enough about economics to know that I don't know a lot about economics, so I'm not going to make any predictions or anything.

I'd say it's probably not very good for Japan. Money which would otherwise have gone into new projects to expand output will now be spent repairing capital so that output can be maintained at, or return to, it's previous level. In the meantime, companies which rely on Japanese suppliers (of which there are many), will suffer, both in Japan and abroad. From what I've seen though, it's mostly rural parts which were directly affected by the Tsunami. From an economic perspective thats a good thing, since agriculture isn't that important to their economy in relative terms.

In addition, I presume the cost of repairs to infrastructure will cost the government quite a lot, which is a bad thing.

There also implications for the value of the Yen, and perhaps for bond markets too, but I'm not exactly sure what they are, and in the grand scheme of things they're probably not that significant.

So in general, bad for the Japanese economy and bad for companies who rely on Japanese suppliers.

indough

Coles wrote: »

The previous post was 6 hours earlier, fool. And every thing I've contributed to this thread has been relevant to the discussion. Move on like a good lad. You're wasting your time.

glad to see you are visibly shook, i wouldnt normally report a post but its twice now youve insulted me directly and it will at least mean nobody will have to put up with reading your garbage for a while

also your personal views on nuclear power are entirely irrelevant to people having their lives ruined by natural disasters half way across the world

dr.bollocko

mod: OK Folks lets cut out the personal stuff from here on out.
Fair warning.

Coles

andrew wrote: »

As a disclaimer, I know enough about economics to know that I don't know a lot about economics, so I'm not going to make any predictions or anything.

I'd say it's probably not very good for Japan. Money which would otherwise have gone into new projects to expand output will now be spent repairing capital so that output can be maintained at, or return to, it's previous level. In the meantime, companies which rely on Japanese suppliers (of which there are many), will suffer, both in Japan and abroad. From what I've seen though, it's mostly rural parts which were directly affected by the Tsunami. From an economic perspective thats a good thing, since agriculture isn't that important to their economy in relative terms.

In addition, I presume the cost of repairs to infrastructure will cost the government quite a lot, which is a bad thing.

There also implications for the value of the Yen, and perhaps for bond markets too, but I'm not exactly sure what they are, and in the grand scheme of things they're probably not that significant.

So in general, bad for the Japanese economy and bad for companies who rely on Japanese suppliers.

I suppose the full extent of the economic impact will takes years to determine, particular if the fishing industry is badly impacted. Here's a link to an Al Jazerra article reporting that the Japanese estimate the cost at US$295 Billion. It's impossible to know what assumptions that's based on, and whether they're realistic.

Coles

<snip>

indough

<snip>

dr.bollocko

Coles, indough, seriously. Enough. Take the infighting stuff to PM for the good of the thread please. PM for clarification. No need for it from here on out.

geetar

Coles wrote: »

I find this nonsense tiresome. If you are trying to pretend that you know what you're talking about, don't bother. You've already made it abundantly clear that you are out of your depth. Move on.

Smart Grids are an integral part of the EU energy strategy. The legislation is in place. Link to the European Commission.



Tough sh*t.

ignoring the provoking and personal side of your comment, i would like to point out the blaringly obvious.

the grid when developed will reduce carbon emissions through effeciency and monitoring. not necessarily at the source, which is what we are discussing here. nuclear energy must be used and im sorry you dont agree. your quite clear that you dont want it here. id like to know why you are so against it? is it the two major accidents in the last 30 years, one caused by crazy soviets experimenting foolishly with a 1950's power plant and the other caused by a 1970's plant hit by one of the largest quakes/ natural disasters in recorded history?

there is no valid excuse to not use nuclear energy. id just also like to confirm im currently a studying engineer, and have an immediate family member servicing power stations around the country, so im well informed on the subject of energy sources and systems and well within my depth. this thread is also not reserved for those with an indepth knowledge on the matter, thats what is great about this forum, accept contrary opinions.

(apologies to the mods if this comes across as a provocative post, its not meant to be, im trying to spin back to the previous discussion. delete if you want)

Coles

geetar wrote: »

ignoring the provoking and personal side of your comment, i would like to point out the blaringly obvious.

the grid when developed will reduce carbon emissions through effeciency and monitoring. not necessarily at the source, which is what we are discussing here. nuclear energy must be used and im sorry you dont agree. your quite clear that you dont want it here.

I've already covered this in detail. The Smart Grid is now European policy. It will allow far greater quantities of Renewable Energy to be supplied into the Grid because the demand will be controlled to match the supply. There are also a multitude of other technologies that are ready to deal with the intermittency issues of some Renewable Energy systems. Link to ARPA-E. There is now no technological limit to using Renewable Energy sources.

id like to know why you are so against it? is it the two major accidents in the last 30 years, one caused by crazy soviets experimenting foolishly with a 1950's power plant and the other caused by a 1970's plant hit by one of the largest quakes/ natural disasters in recorded history?

there is no valid excuse to not use nuclear energy.

Here's a list of more than 300 Nuclear accidents where radiation was released into the environment. But even if you completely ignore the environmental issues, Nuclear Energy makes no financial sense. You have repeatedly described it as a 'cheap energy'. It is not. It requires massive subsidies to operate and once the long term cost of disposing of the nuclear waste is factored in it is completely uneconomical. We will never have a nuclear power plant in Ireland.

As John Fitzgerald of the ESRI said yesterday... "Nuclear (power) will never be economic. The large size of standard plants makes them uneconomic and because onshore wind is already so successful, this will make investment in new nuclear plants uneconomic."

id just also like to confirm im currently a studying engineer, and have an immediate family member servicing power stations around the country, so im well informed on the subject of energy sources and systems and well within my depth.

I completely respect your interest in this subject and I appreciate that you feel that what you are endorsing is in the interest of the Public. But it is not. Look at Fukushima.

I studied engineering almost 20 years ago and I have designed, manufactured and installed hydroelectric systems. I have studied almost every aspect of power generation, but I certainly wouldn't claim to be an expert. We all learn by debating these issues.

geetar

i agree we all learn by debating. its essential we debate. youve posted a number of interesting things. the main point of my stance the whole way through is the defence of nuclear energy from the bad press it recieves form such disasters as in fukishima. i dont think its justifiable to dismiss it on that basis.

however, i have no problem accepting viable alternative means of electricity. i would love ireland to be powered 100% by renewables, but i fear that the idea is more idealistic than realistic. i find it a bit of a romanticised concept, that for the moment is probably unachievable the way things are going here. nuclear could provide ireland with a crutch to lean giving it a chance to source other means of electricity. time will tell. with our debt, im sure all of these things are on hold, and at the bottom of the list. it might be many years until we actually act progressively. who knows what options we'll have then.

Turtwig

I disagree, debates are sh1t. All they have is one side trying to beat another on brownie points. Communication of ideas is much more important. Debating is about being right, communication is about understanding. Apologies if this has already been said, just skimmed through the thread.

Rob A. Bank

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3T_bTPmDC8

The Japanese have changed the 'safe' level for children's radiation exposure to what other countries consider 'safe' for adults !

A 'gross miscarriage of radiation science'

Unbelievable !!!

:eek:

andrew

Japan's earthquake and tsunami: International trade and global supply chain impacts.

Coles

Good find Rob A. Bank.

Hopefully people will actually watch it.

Coles

andrew wrote: »

Japan's earthquake and tsunami: International trade and global supply chain impacts.

Good find Andrew, but I doubt if exports will pick up as quickly as they did after the Kobe quake. There might even be a portion of industry that takes the opportunity to rebuild it's factories overseas rather than to suffer the uncertainly of the ongoing release of radiation.

Some other data came out today indicating just how much of a body blow the Japanese economy has suffered. Link

The Economy, Trade and Industry Ministry said that the industrial output stood at 82.9 against the base of 100. This was a drop of 15.3 per cent from the previous month. The decline was the sharpest since record-keeping began in January 1953. It also far exceeded the previous record of 8.6 per cent logged in February 2009 following the Lehman shock. The sharp drop is due to the damage to factories caused by the natural disaster, disrupted supply chains and suspension of auto production. All 16 sectors in the ministry's survey marked falls. Economic and Fiscal Policy Minister Kaoru Yosano called the industrial data shocking and added that the quake had directly hit manufacturing bases, badly affecting Japan's corporate output, national broadcaster NHK reported.