# Fukushima today



## sags (May 15, 2010)

It is kind of disturbing that the aftermath of the Fukushima "triple meltdown" is still not under control.

The company has no idea what is going on in the basements of the reactors. Five robots sent down have not returned.

It is suspected the radioactive rods melted through the steel floors and into the basement, but nobody knows what is actually going on.

The company has built 1,000 tanks to hold radioactive water that is being pumped out of the reactors, but the water keeps flowing in.

They just keep building new storage tanks.

They are now trying an "ice wall" to stop the ground water from entering the plant.

Chernobyl still burning away under tons of a concrete dome. These problems at Fukushima.

I hope we are done with nuclear energy. It isn't safe and never will be.

We don't even know what to do with all the radioactive stuff from the development of the atomic bomb.........let alone creating more.

I have read that stuff from the 1940s is in the ocean in rusting barrels. That should work out well...........salt water and all.

I am not hopeful the world will survive another 100 years without destroying ourselves.

Our arrogance at our ability to solve all the problems we create in the delusion of our superior intellect, is likely to be our downfall.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/30/science/fukushima-daiichi-nuclear-plant-cleanup-ice-wall.html?_r=0


----------



## Shanline (Aug 24, 2016)

Hope it will come to under control soon. lol


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

Chernobyl still burning? Really? You better put on a gas mask and hide in your basement. Actually... No. That's probably full of radon, so it's radioactive and burning. Whatever you do, make sure you never hug another person. Their muscles are burning, full of potassium 40 isotope. And under no circumstances use gas ovens. That gives you a dose too. And you know what? Extracting oil and gas, generates produced water, which is very radioactive and toxic to boot. So, we should really go back to caves... Damn, they are full of radon. Might as well commit suicide, it's the safest option by far.


----------



## Shanline (Aug 24, 2016)

Self commit suicide will not solve this problem. Rather should take proper steps to grab the situation asap.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

The nuclear contamination nightmare continues inspite of engineering innovations such as a permafrost wall around the reactor core still active underground.

If the protection depends on electrical power being available 100% of the time even with backup generators, there is always something that could possibly go wrong, causing sea water to find the weakest point in the frozen wall, leak in and leak out, contaminating the ocean around Japan and the fish stock. 

For a people that depend a lot on fish for their diet, that will spell some sort of ecological nightmare disaster!



> Some also *warn that the wall*, which is electrically powered, *may prove as vulnerable to natural disasters as the plant itself,* which lost the ability to cool its reactors after the 45-foot tsunami caused a blackout there


.



> The water has also created a waste-management nightmare because Tepco must pump it out into holding tanks as quickly as it enters the buildings, to prevent it from overflowing into the Pacific. *The company says that it has built more than 1,000 tanks* that now hold more than 800,000 tons of radioactive water, enough to fill more than 320 Olympic-size swimming pools.


1000 tanks already?
This contamination will go on "forever"...how many tanks will be necessary for story the contaminated water in the future? 
I guess the frozen wall innovation will solve that..maybe..or maybe not. 
if not, then more tanks will be necessary and the plant could run out of space to build them. 

I'm sure we all heard that Tokyo will be holding the next summer Olympics in 2020.
A nightmare for any athletes attending, even if they drink bottled water imported from Canada.



> Some call the ice wall a flashy but desperate gambit to tame the water problem, after the government and Tepco were initially slow to address it. Adding to the urgency is the 2020 Olympics, which Prime Minister Shinzo Abe of Japan helped win for Tokyo three years ago by *assuring the International Olympic Committee that the water troubles at Fukushima Daiichi were under control.*


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

After 30 years, Chernobyl is still dangerous and highly radioactive.

The concrete dome is collapsing and they are building a steel structure over the dome to capture the radiation when the dome fails.

There is a concern the dome could collapse and lead to a second catastrophic event before the new containment is completed.

These "accidents" are never solved. The best we can do is try to contain the damage.

These plants should never have been built in the first place.

https://www.asme.org/engineering-topics/articles/nuclear/chernobyl-25-years-later


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

sags said:


> After 30 years, Chernobyl is still dangerous and highly radioactive.
> 
> The concrete dome is collapsing and they are building a steel structure over the dome to capture the radiation when the dome fails.
> 
> ...


Why are you giving references which say nothing of the kind you are saying? A few points:

1. The source is accurate at the time of writing (5 years ago). That would be 25 years after the accident, not 30.

2. Things have changed quite a bit in the intervening years. 

3. Where does it say anything about "nuclear plants should never have been built"?

4. Interesting quote from your reference: "A landmark 2005 study by the Chernobyl forum, comprised of eight specialized UN agencies and the (post-Soviet) governments of Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine found that poverty, mental health problems, alcoholism, and tobacco pose far greater threats to human beings than radiation exposure". Stupidity should take a prominent place in this list as well.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Things like nuclear, radiation and oil are media/NGO hot buttons. It's fashionable to beat on them without perspective of anything else. No one hears about the millions of birds that wind turbines kill continuously, but 100-200 oiled ducks at Syncrude some time ago was an utter catastrophe. We are doomed due to skewed social media influences in particular.


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

AltaRed said:


> No one hears about the millions of birds that wind turbines kill continuously


Interesting AltaRed. Your source? As the owner of a small wind turbine (2.5 kw. on a 90-foot tower) I am interested. My research when I put one up did not support the killer turbine theory. What I found was generally along the lines of what is reported at the url below. Some interesting figures laid out there, including some rather shocking estimates for deaths due to window strikes, automobile collisions, etc. Perhaps that is all a crock and I and others, have been deceived. So pls. share what you have.

At our home, in the almost 10 years since built, I have seen no evidence of a bird death due to our turbine. Our windows have caused a few fatalities, although most of the time the birds are just stunned and mange to recover if picked up and placed in a box with a blanket and allowed to recover. And yes, despite my remonstrations, our cats have done in a few, even though they seem to focus more on mice, which explains why we have never had a mouse in the house or in an outbuilding

http://www.treehugger.com/renewable...ds-annually-house-cats-around-3000000000.html


The article there, says in part:

For North-America:

Wind turbines kill between 214,000 and 368,000 birds annually — a small fraction compared with the estimated 6.8 million fatalities from collisions with cell and radio towers and the 1.4 billion to 3.7 billion deaths from cats, according to the peer-reviewed study by two federal scientists and the environmental consulting firm West Inc.

"We estimate that on an annual basis, less than 0.1% ... of songbird and other small passerine species populations in North America perish from collisions with turbines," says lead author Wallace Erickson of Wyoming-based West.

For those who don't have an envelope nearby to do the math, that's about 10,000x more deaths from just house cats than from wind turbines.

And that's not even looking at some of the other biggest bird killers out there: building and vehicles. That's probably millions, if not hundreds of millions or billions, of other birds right there. In the grand scheme of things, wind turbines are probably lost in the margin of error.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

AltaRed said:


> Things like nuclear, radiation and oil are media/NGO hot buttons. It's fashionable to beat on them without perspective of anything else. No one hears about the millions of birds that wind turbines kill continuously, but 100-200 oiled ducks at Syncrude some time ago was an utter catastrophe. We are doomed due to skewed social media influences in particular.


There is that. Then again, wind and sun do not really compete with the baseload sources of power, such as fossil fuel or nuclear. If the likes of sag want to ban nuclear and greenhouse gas emissions then we might as well forget about on-tap electricity.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

Mukhang pera said:


> Wind turbines kill between 214,000 and 368,000 birds annually — a small fraction compared with the estimated 6.8 million fatalities from collisions with cell and radio towers and the 1.4 billion to 3.7 billion deaths from cats, according to the peer-reviewed study by two federal scientists and the environmental consulting firm West Inc.


This may be true, but it appears to be quite a bit more than ~100 oiled ducks. And yet we don't tend to hear about turbines killing birds in the press but the oiled ducks were front page everywhere. Just as radioactivity released into environment during production of phosphate fertilizer is far more hazardous in terms of cumulative risk than all 100 liquid waste tanks at Fukushima but who knows about the former?


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

In the interests of making full and frank disclosure on the topic of wind turbines and birds, I have to add that we have had one unexplained bird fatality here. 

We found an injured bald eagle on the beach in front of the house one day. Broken wing. Called an animal rescue outfit in Courtenay (maybe it was Comox). Received brief instruction on eagle-catching methods and did so without too much fuss. Delivered the eagle by boat to the nearest island with a ferry terminal and met by rescuer, who took over. Later spoke with the vet who said the wing was beyond repair. He could not explain the mechanism of injury, but offered that it looked like the eagle collided with a building or something. Hmmm. Could it have been our turbine? We have eagles flying around here every day and one pair nests here annually. Not an experience before or since. One for Forensic Files, I suppose.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

Well, are there any other tall structures in the vicinity? 

Wind turbines certainly do injure and kill bald eagles.


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

mordko said:


> Well, are there any other tall structures in the vicinity?
> 
> Wind turbines certainly do injure and kill bald eagles.



Nope, the turbine is in the lead for height, except for some taller trees, so I'll agree it attracts suspicion. It's standing mute.


----------



## mrPPincer (Nov 21, 2011)

Hmm.. it's only one incident, no solid evidence, I'd say your turbine is in the clear.

Possibly just one exceptionally dumb eagle, maybe flew into a tree branch or something, I'm sure your turbine is totally eco-friendly, that said, I'd maybe keep an eye on your turbine friend for the next few days, not to implicate anything, but you know, just to be sure.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

There are a lot of 'articles' regarding bird kills by wind turbines. Most data is published by vested interests (low and high) so it is hard to take numbers literally. Still, worldwide, millions of birds killed is not an exaggeration.

Yes, I know, wind interests will pooh-pooh this link due to its bias. http://savetheeaglesinternational.o...10-20-times-more-than-previously-thought.html Still, don't trust anything the wind industry publishes either.

I also know other structures kill more birds/yr than wind turbines but one reason is because such structures still vastly outnumber wind turbines. It will get much worse before it gets better as we pepper the planet with wind turbines.


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

Well AltaRed, I read the article to which you provided a link. Interesting. I'll agree with its statement that cats and some of the other killers mentioned do not kill many raptors, bats, etc. So, IF, turbines do cause mortality in the numbers there suggested, there is cause for concern.

I have to say that my current thinking aligns somewhat with one who commented on the article thus:

I drive my truck past so many wind turbines in the Mid-west and most time they don’t even look like they’re turning. How can a bird with ‘eagle eyes’ not be able to see and avoid the blades. No one has ever give me a good answer for that, even though I’m sure many will try. They’ll try to tell me they turn faster than a B-24 Liberator prop and I’m suppose to agree with them and not my own eyes. Give me a break And they are keep harping on eagles, as if one who supports the Wind Energy, and since Wind turbines supposedly kill so many eagles, then to support wind energy equals being unpatriotic. If there were studies showing they were killing crows or disease carrying pigeons nobody would care so they keep bringing up eagles. Well sorry for the eagles…but seriously, how they can spot mice from two miles away but can’t seem to see a wind turbine blade? What gives? Then they like to claim that Wind turbines are the major bird killers. Hell, I’ve pulled no fewer than four hen pheasants out of the front grill of my tractor trailer since June and countless sparrows and red-winged blackbirds over the summer and I’m real sorry about it but I have to make a living. But if it happens to me, it probably happening to thousands of other truckers and still nobody ever tried to shut down the trucking industry. I just came here by accident and I’ll likely not be back so please don’t anyone write to argue my points or sway my thinking cause I won’t be writing back. I’m just using some common sense and calling it the way I see it.

I just returned from a 10,000 km. road trip in Canada and the U.S. Like the above writer, we saw quite a few turbines in action. Mostly turning at what appears to be a low speed. Like that writer, I too have oft wondered how those enormous slow-rotating blades can fairly be said to be unseen or a magnet for birds. The turbine we have, in the other hand, has blades only 12 feet across and in a stiff wind it is really spinning, but never at a speed at which it becomes a near-invisible blur. So to me, the huge number of hacked up birds mentioned comes across as a mystery to this kid.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

Can you see a stack on top of a power plant? Yes, usually several miles ahead. And yet birds can't. That's why we place special lights on top of stacks and other similar structures - to warn off birds. One of the problems with your windmill blades - can't do that. And yes, movement, even slow, makes it even more dangerous.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Mukang, vested interests with personal agendas have snookered the ignorant with excessive and repeated misinformation. The point is wind turbines kill a lot more wildlife on an ongoing basis than has ever been disclosed to the public and it will get magnitudes worse as proliferation continues. The good? better? news is that the bigger, slower moving blades on latest generation turbines are much better than earlier technologies. I saw the evolution of wind power from the early models on the Cowley ridge decades ago in southwestern Alberta to the latest and biggest models. Anything that can improve the situation is welcome.

However, what we really need is objectivity, disclosure and facts. Denial and dismissal and outright manipulation undermines credibility.


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

Well, you guys are educating me. I had no idea that lights were placed on those structures to warn off birds. I thought they had to do with aircraft. So cannot lights be placed on wind towers? Maybe lights that will illuminate the blades?

I should mention that I am no proponent of the wind industry. I am not particularly for or against it. Just someone who has a wind turbine to power our house so I can run my computer and debate deep subjects with other cmf members and maybe learn a thing or two. We also have solar, but the wind often supplies power at night and on cloudy days, etc, when solar is insufficient. It probably supplies half of our power.

I recently saw something on television about Australia and a movement there to go more to small solar home installations using some newly-invented type of lithium batteries that are now said to be able to be able to store a lot more juice than lead acid or other types of batteries. If we had batteries capable of storing any significant amount of power as the tv presentation suggested, I'd take down our wind turbine. Our lead acid batts cost $12,000. The tv story suggested that many would still balk at the AUD10,000 price tag for a lithium battery that would power a whole house for a couple of days. I'd cheerfully pay $25,000 for such a thing. I intend to look into the matter more closely, but right now I am not pressed to do so since our batts are less than 10 years old and have a life expectancy of 20 years if properly maintained, which they are at all times. But for us who rely on solar and wind, storage is the bottleneck. With one or the other, on just about any day we can produce far more power than we can possibly use or store. So a better storage medium would be a blessing. For my part, I don't give a hoot about what it costs.


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

Let me add that I am not a great admirer of "wind farms". A few of those big turbines, when first encountered, are a novelty, but it wears off. Seeing acres of the damn things is not particularly a thing of beauty and a joy forever. Not that acres of solar panels are much more pleasing to the eye.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

Yes, very tall structures require lights to ensure safety for low-flying aircraft. They - as well as shorter structures - require special lights for bird protection, e.g. according to the USFWS guidance. Also, you shouldn't build wind turbines anywhere near bird migration routes or habitats for rare species. 

Why don't they place these lights on the blades of wind turbines? Not sure. For one thing, they are trying to cut the costs. 

Solar is awesome for locations which produce reliable sunlight. Wind - not as environmentally friendly - but I would support it for appropriate locations. 

Keep in mind, that you can't have over ~15% of renewables in a grid, or your grid becomes unstable. 

What is being done in Ontario though... It's something else. We have a lot of wind in Spring and Fall. We need energy in Summer and Winter. So, when our ultraexpensive and taxpayer-funded wind turbines generate power, it is usually sent south of the border for next to nothing. One of the main reasons for Ontario's ballooning debt. This ideologically driven stupidity should be a lesson to everyone.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

The Ontario experiment is how NOT to do something. Alas, they keep on insisting on doing stupid things. I recall reading that a number of European countries are having to back off renewables as a percentage of electrical supply due to the havoc it causes to the grid. Which goes to say that 'religion' causes objectivity to take a back seat.

I won't go to renewable (solar) until I can be assurred of a reasonable payout. Right now, it is about 25 years...and that is without considering panel/battery replacements. I likely won't live another 25 years. 

What really surprises me is why there are not more solar panel equipped homes in Hawaii. If any place should be able to justify solar power, they should. What is that not the case?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

An up to date report on Chernobyl.

Not much has changed since 2011, beyond the containment arch nearing completion and elevated levels of thyroid cancer in adults who were children in 1986. The radioactive spent fuel rods are the next problem they will have to deal with.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/30-year...-arch-rises-to-seal-melted-reactor-1461526871


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

On the topic of wind turbines, they have already developed wind turbines without blades. 

Progress in alternative energy sources continues to move forward.

http://www.technologist.eu/wind-turbines-without-blades/


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

sags said:


> It is kind of disturbing that the aftermath of the Fukushima "triple meltdown" is still not under control.
> 
> The company has no idea what is going on in the basements of the reactors. Five robots sent down have not returned.
> 
> ...


read about both sides of the issue. 

https://www.amazon.ca/Environmental...+Robert+C.+Morris,+published+by+Paragon+House


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

AltaRed said:


> The Ontario experiment is how NOT to do something. Alas, they keep on insisting on doing stupid things. I recall reading that a number of European countries are having to back off renewables as a percentage of electrical supply due to the havoc it causes to the grid. Which goes to say that 'religion' causes objectivity to take a back seat.


Keep in mind that western Europe has a single grid. Small countries, such as Denmark, can have a very high percentage of renewable energy because they import nuclear-generated electricity from France or fossil-generated stuff from Germany.


----------



## zylon (Oct 27, 2010)

*wind turbines and birds*

Birds don't seem to have a handle on judging speed of an object. Reason being, I suppose, has something to do with placement of an eyeball on each side of the head. Makes for good periphreal vision - depth perception, no so much.

Most of us have likely hit a bird while driving 100kph and wondered, 'bird, what the hell were you thinking?"

Wind turbines can appear to be turning slowly, but the tips are moving faster than your average kadiddlehopper.

Following snip stolen from here: 
https://windpowergrab.wordpress.com/2012/04/26/industrial-wind-turbine-blade-speed-calculations/


----------



## s123 (May 3, 2015)

why the nuclear plants are allowed on the fault zone or active volcano near by?
Japan have more than 50 plants that's a totally insane.
The world should be concerned that the JP gov & utility companies have been pushing to get reactors back and not much count on the risk of own country nor others.

Need simple international rule --- NO Nuke on the Ring of Fire!
How it's possible to make safe on this circumstance?

- Worldwide map of nuclear power stations and earthquake zones:
http://maptd.com/worldwide-map-of-nuclear-power-stations-and-earthquake-zones/

- Japan reactor restarts, despite protests, boosting Tokyo's nuclear push: 
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-08-12/japan-reactor-restarts-in-post-fukushima-nuclear-push/7729892

"We protest this restart of the Ikata nuclear reactor and are extremely angry," the residents' group said in a statement, adding that the reactor's use of a plutonium-uranium MOX fuel made it especially dangerous.
"We can't have another Fukushima."
The utility said it would make "ceaseless efforts" to ensure the plant was safe and to keep residents informed about key details of the restart.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

Fukushima Daiichi was commissioned in 1971. It was not designed to withstand a large wave. 

Onagawa Nuclear Power Plant was commissioned in 1980. It was designed to withstand a large wave. It was closer to the epicenter of the 2011 event, and yet all reactors withstood the earthquake and the tsunami undamaged.

Four people died as a result of the accident at the Fukushima nuclear power plant (from falls). There were about 16 thousand deaths from the 2011 Tohoku earthquake and tsunami, not in any way related to the nuclear power plant. 

A smaller earthquake/tsunami hit Haiti in 2010. 160 thousand people died. Perhaps we should simply ban people from living on Haiti.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

mordko said:


> Stupidity should take a prominent place in this list as well.


In the case of Chernobyl, yes..one of the world's worst nuclear accident was not so much just stupidity, but the chief engineer in charge of the cooling test (Alexander Akimov) was determined to carry out the cooling test shutdown even though the other reactor technicians warned him that he was pushing that reactor to thebrink of no return..still he continued until the core meltdown due to reactor "poisoning" where it was out
of the range of recovery,no matter what they tried after that, a runaway reactor out of control, a serious situation that was never considered prior to cooling test and probably nobody in the control
room was aware of this happening as it started to happen. 



> The accident occurred during an experiment scheduled to test a potential safety emergency core cooling feature, which took place during a normal shutdown procedure.





> The operation of the reactor at the low power level and high poisoning level was accompanied by unstable core temperature and coolant flow, and possibly by instability of neutron flux, which triggered alarms. The control room received repeated emergency signals regarding the levels in the steam/water separator drums, and large excursions or variations in the flow rate of feed water, as well as from relief valves opened to relieve excess steam into a turbine condenser, and from the neutron power controller. *In the period between 00:35 and 00:45, emergency alarm signals concerning thermal-hydraulic parameters were ignored, apparently to preserve the reactor power level.*[54]





> The reactor was in an unstable configuration that was clearly outside the safe operating envelope established by the designers. If anything pushed it into supercriticality, it was unable to recover automatically.


So, with nuclear power there is always a possibility that something could go wrong with serious consequences to the general population, like in Chernobyl, Three Mile Island in the US, or Fukishima .

This are rare events but still can happen with any reactor design. I believe that Canada's Candu Reactors as used in Ontario Power's Pickering-Darlington generating facility are a different design using heavy water to sustain the reaction and employ a a steam containment/vacumn building for safety of any accidental radioactive steam release..but..as they say...accidents can still happen.


The biggest problem with any nuclear power generation is where to store the spent nuclear radioactive fuel..nobody wants a nuclear dump in their back yard!



> The used nuclear fuel and some refurbishment waste generated by the plant sits on-site at the Pickering Waste Management Facility. All operational low and intermediate-level waste is transported to OPG's Western Waste Management Facility at the Bruce nuclear site near Kincardine, Ontario. OPG has proposed the construction and operation of a deep geologic repository for the long-term storage of low and intermediate level waste on lands adjacent to the Western Waste Management Facility.[4] The Nuclear Waste Management Organization is currently seeking a site for a potential repository for the used fuel from all Canadian nuclear reactors.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

^ At Three Mile Iseland there were no "serious consequences to general population". 

Chernobyl design had several unique characteristics. It lacked containment and had positive reactivity, which ensured that accident was irreversible. As the fire started, helicopter pilots were dumping chemicals on top of the burning unit. Normally cutting out oxygen puts the fire out. Because they were dumping it on top of nuclear fuel, which heats itself, they just ensured that the heat didn't dissipate and the fire ranged on and on for weeks, leading to widespread contamination as the wind direction changed. The pilots died. 

As for spent nuclear fuel in Canada... Something like 20 communities requested for it to be disposed in their back yard.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

mordko said:


> Chernobyl design had several unique characteristics. It lacked containment and had positive reactivity, which ensured that accident was irreversible. As the fire started, helicopter pilots were dumping chemicals on top of the burning unit. Normally cutting out oxygen puts the fire out. Because they were dumping it on top of nuclear fuel, which heats itself, they just ensured that the heat didn't dissipate and the fire ranged on and on for weeks, leading to widespread contamination as the wind direction changed. The pilots died.


Uh..huh..you are so smart when it comes to nuclear disasters..and I presume you were there also to witness what REALLY went on in an attempt to stop the spread of radioactivity after the meltdown started? :applouse:



> As for spent nuclear fuel in Canada... *Something like 20 communities requested for it to be disposed in their back yard*.


Besides the 10 or so still vying for the *Billions of dollars* they would receive..maybe..where are the rest of the 20 you speak of? Obviously they are hoping for a lot of money to flow their way to enrich the town
coffers and the town counsel if successfull. But what about the future generations that may have to deal
with contamination as a result of these nuclear dumps?



> *While billions of dollars will flow directly through the chosen town over a period of four or five decades, Lloyd suggests that most of the money is likely to end up in the pockets of big-city consultants and other outside beneficiaries.
> *


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repo...ce-for-canadas-nuclear-waste/article23178848/


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

> Uh..huh..you are so smart when it comes to nuclear disasters..and I presume you were there also to witness what REALLY went on in an attempt to stop the spread of radioactivity after the meltdown started?


No, I wasn't there to witness Chernobyl accident. I was at school. Spent quite a bit of time in Chernobyl later on. Interesting place. 



> Besides the 10 or so still vying for the Billions of dollars they would receive..maybe..where are the rest of the 20 you speak of?


NWMO had 21 communities early on but several were deemed inappropriate for various reasons and were screened out.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Discussing Chernobyl and Fukushima in the past tense, as if the problems have been solved doesn't align with the facts.

Both are still active and very dangerous. 

The "solution" of containing the radioactive emissions, by covering them up with steel dome and an ice wall respectively, is no solution.

Blaming faulty engineering is true.........and is the point actually. Engineering doesn't provide perfection.

The Titanic was called unsinkable, but engineers overlooked the small gap at the top of each bulkhead that enabled sea water to leap frog across the ship. The engineers were wrong. The ship was not unsinkable.

And yet, after all these years with evolution to state of the art technology and engineering..........ships still sink today.

Even with state of the current technology, aircraft still falls out of the sky........glass walkways still collapse.......balconies still explode.........

Owning a computer or smartphone is a constant reminder of how imperfect engineering continues to be.

There is a rule called Noah's Law.

"If an ark may be essential for survival, begin building it today, no matter how cloudless the skies appear.”

Perhaps it would be wise not build things we may not be able to control and have the potential for wide spread disaster.

Any probability of a failure...........no matter how small the probability, eventually becomes a mathematical certainty over time.

I put things like nuclear plants, and oil drilling in the Arctic on the..............not a smart thing to do list.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

Good point indeed. We should build no more ships. Still, the most dangerous piece of engineering of them all is a car. And houses? Look at what happened in Italy. 

I am all for finding a nice and safe cave for sags and his pals.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The consequences of Chernobyl are just beginning to be uncovered. A sharp increase in thyroid cancer among adults who were children when Chernobyl released all that radioactivity, is starting to show.

Some die from radiation poison quickly. Many more die slowly over time.

The affects of Fukushima will not be felt for another 30 years. It is too early to conclude the damage was minimal.

Meanwhile, the areas around Chernobyl and Fukushima remain inhabitable and will be for the foreseeable future.

Imagine a nuclear plant in a heavily urbanized area having an event, and millions of people forced to leave the area permanently.

Is nuclear power worth the risk or should we be dedicated to finding alternatives ?


----------



## steve41 (Apr 18, 2009)

> Meanwhile, the areas around Chernobyl and Fukushima remain inhabitable and will be for the foreseeable future.


 So is the top of Mt Everest and the bottom of the Marianas trench. We just avoid them.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

mordko said:


> Good point indeed. We should build no more ships. Still, the most dangerous piece of engineering of them all is a car. And houses? Look at what happened in Italy.
> 
> I am all for finding a nice and safe cave for sags and his pals.


If a ship sinks or a car collides with another, millions of people wouldn't be forced to run and leave everything behind.

The potential losses in a heavily populated area would be catastrophic.

Insurance companies deal with risk management. Their business depends on actuarial science and real facts.

Nuclear power plants would top their ......"thanks, but we don't want your business" list.

The cost of remediation in Chernobyl and Fukushima is being paid by the public. 

The government in Ukraine is struggling to find the funds. Fukushima has cost almost $3 Billion already and in both cases the solutions are temporary.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

steve41 said:


> So is the top of Mt Everest and the bottom of the Marianas trench. We just avoid them.


Easy to say when you don't live there and the threat is thousands of miles away.

What if there was an accident on the US eastern seaboard ? Would people be as cavalier about vacating New York or Boston permanently ?

_“The release of atom power has changed everything except our way of thinking…the solution to this problem lies in the heart of mankind. If only I had known, I should have become a watchmaker.”_
– Albert Einstein

_“The unleashed power of the atom has changed everything save our modes of thinking, and we thus drift toward unparalleled catastrophes.”_
– Albert Einstein


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

> The consequences of Chernobyl are just beginning to be uncovered.


BS.



> A sharp increase in thyroid cancer among adults who were children when Chernobyl released all that radioactivity, is starting to show.


It was known at the time that there would be future cases of thyroid cancer in children. This was entirely preventable,e.g. by informing people at the time and by giving iodine tablets. While it's not great to get thyroid cancer, if you are going to get one, thyroid would be the variety you'd pick. Easy to operate and cure. In total we've had something like 10,000 cases attributable to Chernobyl and there is no "peak" or "surprise". Latency periods are well known. If you are really interested you can search for 10, 20-year old UNSCEAR/WHO reports (available on line) which accurately estimated the number of cases. 



> Some die from radiation poison quickly.


110 people, if I remember rightly (All Chernobyl, none in Fukushima). Mostly young firefighters who were sent to pointless and utterly awful death without having much of an idea of what they were dealing with. 



> Many more die slowly over time.


BS



> The affects of Fukushima will not be felt for another 30 years.


BS



> Meanwhile, the areas around Chernobyl and Fukushima remain inhabitable and will be for the foreseeable future.


Assume you mean unihabitable. People had to leave the exclusion zones, which was a tragedy. A few have returned; the size of the zone is a political issue. It is now a unique nature reserve, the human tragedy had amazing/positive effect on the environment. The main threat to the environment is us. Now the exclusion zone is a major tourist destination, one of significant income streams for Ukraine. 

I expect the exclusion zone around Fukushima Daiichi to be removed in the next few years but I could be wrong - again, it's a political decision.




> Imagine a nuclear plant in a heavily urbanized area having an event


The only one in the world is in Canada. It's called Pickering.



> Is nuclear power worth the risk or should we be dedicated to finding alternatives ?


I am all for alternatives. We don't live in the future, and our main options are Hydro (already maximized), fossil (greenhouse gas emissions) or nuclear. Renewables are great for... maybe 10% of the total load and only in appropriate locations.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Nuclear is orders of magnitude safer than fossil fuels, in terms of bodycount per unit of energy produced. Tens of thousands die every year due to poor air quality. Nuclear power requires vigilance and good design. The biggest disasters to date, Chernobyl and Fukushima are more bureaucratic failures. Most of the deaths in Chernobyl were due to Soviet incompetence and could have been avoided if the evil of communism didn't wantonly disregard the value of human life. Fukushima was mainly caused by a design flaw (not designing backup power to survive a tsunami).


----------



## steve41 (Apr 18, 2009)

Or, we could pollute the landscape with mega acres of windfarms and solar arrays. Screw the birds and bird-lovers!


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

Fukushima did have back-up power. The generators were flooded. The Tsunami wall was 4m high vs >10m actual wave. Other, newer plants had proper wave protection and withstood the event without problems even though they were closer to the epicenter.

Fukushima Daiichi had more than one design flaw. For example they placed spent fuel pools on top of the reactors, which seems really, really weird. As hydrogen exploded, cooling water from the pools leaked which lead to most of the emissions. Guess they were short of space. 

Also, design didn't have means of dealing with hydrogen generated during the accident. Hydrogen accumulated and exploded. Canadian plants have always had hydrogen igniters/burners. 

It was a very old design, things were different back then.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

steve41 said:


> Or, we could pollute the landscape with mega acres of windfarms and solar arrays. Screw the birds and bird-lovers!


Also, you won't have any power when the wind isn't blowing (summer and winter) or the sun isn't shining.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Since nobody can access the core reactors of either Chernobyl or Fukushima to assess the damage and come up with a solution, we will just throw a blanket over it and pretend it keeps the monsters away.

Only Pickering in Canada ? Only within range of 6 million people is all.

Try to imagine what that immediate evacuation would look like as people flee in all directions.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

sags said:


> Only Pickering in Canada ? Only within range of 6 million people is all.
> 
> Try to imagine what that immediate evacuation would look like as people flee in all directions.


A mass panic evacuation would never be necessary at Pickering short of a nuclear strike by Putin. That is what a vacuum building is for. Assess the situation... do a precautionary evacuation on a measured scale. 

You are making mountains out of molehills. When you don't have the facts, try scaremongering and exaggeration... waving arms in frantic motions at the same time.

Disclosure: I was a controls and safety systems engineer on the original Pickering B project.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

sags said:


> Try to imagine what that immediate evacuation would look like as people flee in all directions.


I don't need to imagine. There are evacuation plans for beyond design basis accidents for all nuclear generating stations in Canada. If it was me, I wouldn't have put Pickering where it is, but it was decided a long time ago. Anyway, it will be shut down soon.




> Since nobody can access the core reactors of either Chernobyl or Fukushima to assess the damage


I like it how you generate BS with such impressive speed. First of all it's "reactor core", not core reactors. Secondly, there are videos showing the state of the inside of the reactor in Chernobyl. Ditto at Fukushima - a robot was sent to investigate the state of the primary containment, measured a whole bunch of important parameters and took pictures and videos.


----------



## Nelley (Aug 14, 2016)

Global conventional crude oil production peaked 2005-2006-it has been on a plateau since-one of the reasons I can't get into the absurd global warming hysteria is that this oil supply issue is going to be a big problem going forward, very few are aware of the problem (thanks to the MSM) and it isn't going to take hundreds of years to kick in-it is literally right around the corner.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Nelley said:


> Global conventional crude oil production peaked 2005-2006-it has been on a plateau since-one of the reasons I can't get into the absurd global warming hysteria is that this oil supply issue is going to be a big problem going forward, very few are aware of the problem (thanks to the MSM) and it isn't going to take hundreds of years to kick in-it is literally right around the corner.


Even if you don't accept climate change, you should support reduction in fossil fuel burning because poor air quality causes many thousands of premature deaths every year.


----------



## Nelley (Aug 14, 2016)

Your hero selfie boy is over in China-maybe he can twist some arms on your behalf.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Nelley said:


> Your hero selfie boy is over in China-maybe he can twist some arms on your behalf.


Unlike CO2, air pollution is a mostly local phenomenon. Reducing emissions in China won't help much here.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

mordko said:


> I don't need to imagine. There are evacuation plans for beyond design basis accidents for all nuclear generating stations in Canada. If it was me, I wouldn't have put Pickering where it is, but it was decided a long time ago. *Anyway, it will be shut down soon.
> *


If OPG is planning to shut down Pickering, where is the power that it is generating come from? Windfarms? There aren't too many rivers left where dams can be built within a reasonable distance from the big city.

The Star article is 3 years old, but still relevant, as the cost of generating each Kwh of power becomes more expensive,
what will be the final solution for ensuring there is sufficient power to meet future demand?



> Not building the new reactors, while shutting down Pickering, will be a real shrinkage in the role of nuclear energy, which now supplies about half the province’s power.


https://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2013/10/10/if_not_new_nuclear_plants_whats_ontario_plan.htm


At one time,after they stopped construction on the nat gas plants in Oakville and Mississauga, they were looking into
resurrecting the old mothballed bunker oil generatiing plant in Napanee ON and refurbishing it to run on nat gas.
However as projected costs kept escalating, there doesn't appear to be any plans on continuing with it. 
With a new transmission line being required to support the power being generated there, the costs would more than
likely double the initial estimate. 



> A substantial portion of the net $675 million cost of cancelling the Oakville plant and replacing it with the Napanee plant relates to the decision to locate the replacement plant farther from the location of power consumption in the GTA and farther from natural gas supplies.
> The Auditor General calculated increased gas supply costs and additional line transmission losses totaling of $609 million (included in the $*675 million total)*, which are wholly or partially off-set by a savings of $275 million through a lower negotiated price for the Napanee plant. [2]


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

carverman said:


> If OPG is planning to shut down Pickering, where is the power that it is generating come from? Windfarms? There aren't too many rivers left where dams can be built within a reasonable distance from the big city.


They will start the process of shutting down in 2020 or so, one unit at a time. It's a good question you are asking... Suspect Ontario will be buying a heck of a lot of electricity in the not too distant future. 

Also, south west Ontario will start getting a lot of blackouts. I think the Provincial government is hoping that there won't be an economic recovery; otherwise we are in big trouble because industry needs power.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

All in all, the energy policy of our government should be a scandal. It's much, much, much bigger than the billion or so they wasted in Oakville/Mississauga.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

mordko said:


> They will start the process of shutting down in 2020 or so, one unit at a time. It's a good question you are asking... Suspect Ontario will be buying a heck of a lot of electricity in the not too distant future.


Which means more expensive power is on the way. We are already paying 14c per kwh for domestic use. That will no doubt be much higher by 2020 when they start phasing out Pickering...provided they have an alternate source of power. 

I wonder if Pickering will require a very expensive retrofit on the reactors by 2020, so rather than spend the millions on repairs, they will just shut down the units as way of saving money, and passing the costs of buying power onto the consumer...who are already screaming about high electricity bills.

Even if domestic consumers can't do anything about it...industry, if faced with more expensive power may choose to shut down and move their factories to the US or elsewhere. 



> Also, south west Ontario will start getting a lot of blackouts. I think the Provincial government is hoping that there won't be an economic recovery; otherwise we are in big trouble because industry needs power.


This is the big issue and the Fiberals really don't seem to have a good handle on what they will do if that is the case. Blackouts due to power shortages is not good for business. 

Power management/conservation isn't the total answer either for a definite shortage of power especially in weather extremes like this year, being the hottest summer (number of days) on record. 
People do depend on heating and A/C, so they would be protesting if this started to happen.

There was a major blackout in 2003, that lasted for 2-3 days in some places. While this was unusual at the time, triggered by a generating station overloading tripping circuit breakers somewhere in the northern US, it was connected to Ontario's power grid and the chain reaction brought down the entire southern Ontario and Eastern Ontario power grid. It can happen if conditions are right. 

Then there were blackouts in Toronto a couple years ago, but this was due mostly to the ice storm there in December.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Maybe look to the success in Sweden for the answers.

They already have switched more than 50% of their energy needs from fossil fuels to alternative energy.

https://sweden.se/society/energy-use-in-sweden/


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Too understand that, you must know the percentage of electrical supply that is hydro-electric in Sweden. BC is almost entirely (if not completely) renewable and so is Quebec. It helps when one has the topography to do it.

What we need more of is incentives to conserve energy usage. LEED certified buildings, electric vehicles, etc, etc. A carbon tax on consumption helps but ON and QC are pretty much sidestepping that issue by focusing more on cap and trade than a tax on carbon. QC is especially disengenious in that regard. ON seems to be delicately putting a foot in both types. Don't want to piss off the voter too much with his/her SUV, quad cab, etc. right? Nor his/her fuel oil fired furnace? At least BC and AB are taxing consumption which IS the fairest methodology of all.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

sags said:


> Maybe look to the success in Sweden for the answers.
> 
> They already have switched more than 50% of their energy needs from fossil fuels to alternative energy.
> 
> https://sweden.se/society/energy-use-in-sweden/


- Only possible thanks to a single European grid, which we don't have.
- Right now Swedish electricity is 15% nuclear.
- Sweden imports 30% of its electricity from countries like France. When the windmills stop it's a much higher percentage.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Thus the inherent bias in articles. Careful of the colour of the Kool-aid. There is more misinformation out there than real facts.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

carverman said:


> If OPG is planning to shut down Pickering, where is the power that it is generating come from?


On the flip side, Ontario might be able to stop paying NY State to take the excess power being generated. :biggrin:


Cheers


*PS*

According to the graphs for each type of electrical generation, it looks like five Pickering reactors add up to about 2200 MW. It looks like the idle gas plants can absorb that. Though only about half look like they are relatively close to the GTA.

https://www.cns-snc.ca/media/ontarioelectricity/ontarioelectricity.html


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Eclectic12 said:


> On the flip side, Ontario might be able to stop paying NY State to take the excess power being generated. :biggrin:
> According to the graphs for each type of electrical generation, it looks like five Pickering reactors add up to about 2200 MW. It looks like the idle gas plants can absorb that. Though only about half look like they are relatively close to the GTA.
> https://www.cns-snc.ca/media/ontarioelectricity/ontarioelectricity.html


Are you sure that the existing gas plants can absorb that much? 

So which Nuclear generators could be required to take up the hydro slack of 2200mw, when Pickering is finally retired? Darlington or Bruce?

Bruce has 8 generators totalling current capacity of: 4981MW. G5 :514 Mw and G7:542 Mw (total 1056 Mw will probably pick up the slack for Pickering).

Does Bruce have the transmission line capability to carry the 2200 mw and more? or is it going to cost hundreds of millions to build new
infrastructure to accommodate the extra capacity needed for replacing Pickering and further growth after 2020.

I'm sure we can expect our hydro rates to rise in any case.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Eclectic12 said:


> On the flip side, Ontario might be able to stop paying NY State to take the excess power being generated. :biggrin:
> 
> 
> Cheers
> ...


The gas plants are for absorbing peak demand. You need to look at the hottest workday in summer/coldest night in winter and base off that.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

andrewf said:


> The gas plants are for absorbing peak demand. You need to look at the hottest workday in summer/coldest night in winter and base off that.


Hottest day in summer/coolest day in winter... That's when wind farms idle so one has to build gas plants to sit around for times like that.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

A developer in our city is building a new "village" that will be off the grid.

Sifton is our landlord and they know how to build. 

They own thousands of rental units, office buildings, golf courses, retirement homes and sub-divisions of new homes in several cities.

They are also an environmentally sensitive company, donating many acres of their land.........such as the Sifton Bog.

They recently abandoned plans to develop an area, after residents pointed out the environmental cost to the area.

If anyone can build it.............they can, and it will show that individual self dependency is the future of energy.

http://www.lfpress.com/2014/06/27/green-village-to-sprout-in-west-london


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

My son installed security fencing around 6 solar farms the last couple of years. 

Southwestern Ontario has more solar farms than people realize.

Fuel cells are another technology that is coming along nicely. Technology is advancing rapidly in alternative energy.

Geothermal, solar, wind, waves, and individual energy generation are all going to contribute to the goal of 100% renewable energy.

I don't think there is much public support for nuclear energy anymore.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

A few interesting things about solar farms...

1. Manufacturing results in the generation of greenhouse gas emissions. Substances like sulfur hexafluoride are much, much, much worse than CO2 (which isn't a particularly important greenhouse gas all things considered). 

2. They have low albedo (aka dark/don't reflect). Their efficiency is very low, only ~10% of energy is converted into electricity. Guess what the rest of the absorbed energy does? It heats = exactly what solar farms are supposed to prevent! Not a huge issue while there are so few of them, but will become a major issue as these farms multiply. 

3. The technology is very space-intensive. It takes the space away from food production.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

sags said:


> Geothermal, solar, wind, waves, and individual energy generation are all going to contribute to the goal of 100% renewable energy.


Sure. Some people believe in heaven and angels, same kinda thing.


----------



## Nelley (Aug 14, 2016)

Mordko: You said it-the politically correct crowd can't even be bothered to look at the facts-as of 2013 fossil fuels was 81.4% of world energy supply-the stuff sags mentioned was 1.2%-it is growing strongly but that is because it is still so small after 40 years of development. It is debatable whether the raw materials even exist for 100% renewable (without nuclear).


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

mordko said:


> A few interesting things about solar farms...
> 
> 1. Manufacturing results in the generation of *greenhouse gas emissions*. Substances like sulfur hexafluoride are much, much, much worse than CO2 (which isn't a particularly important greenhouse gas all things considered).


Good to know at least it is non toxic even if it is greenhouse gas. 



> How might it affect the environment?
> Sulphur hexafluoride is not considered likely to harm the environment in the vicinity of its release. On a global scale however, it is a greenhouse gas contributing to global warming. It has an extremely high "global warming potential" (23,000 times that of carbon dioxide), but does not contribute particularly significantly to global warming because of the small amounts released. Sulphur hexafluoride can persist in the atmosphere for up to thousands of years.
> How might exposure to it affect human health?
> At environmental concentrations, *pure sulphur hexalfuoride is not harmful to human health. However, it is usually accompanied by impurities which may be toxic to humans.*





> 2. They have low albedo (aka dark/don't reflect). Their efficiency is very low, only ~10% of energy is converted into electricity. Guess what the rest of the absorbed energy does? It heats = exactly what solar farms are supposed to prevent!


Scientists have come up with more efficient solar cells than 10%, however these are not going to end up on the average rooftop anytime soon.
Like any new technology there is considerable lead time between discovery and prototypes and production..these are about 20 years away.



> Australian engineers have taken us closer than ever before to the theoretical limits of sunlight-to-electricity conversion, by building photovoltaic cells that can harvest an unheard-of 34.5 percent of the Sun's energy without concentrators - setting a new world record.





> Germany’s Agora Energiewende think tank set an aggressive target of *35 percent efficiency by 2050 *for a module that uses un-concentrated sunlight, such as the standard ones on family homes," said one of the researchers, Martin Green. "So things are moving faster in solar cell efficiency than many experts expected."





> The previous record of 24 percent was held by a large, 800-square centimetre solar cell produced by a US company, but these new photovoltaic cells aren't only more efficient, they also cover far less surface area, which means they're going to make solar power even cheaper.


http://www.sciencealert.com/engineers-just-created-the-most-efficient-solar-cells-ever



> Not a huge issue while there are so few of them, but will become a major issue as these farms multiply.


If the efficiency with the new solar cells improves within a few years, there will be a lot more of these solar farms in areas of southern Ontario that will form a blight on the land. It's ok in the Morrocan desert, where only a few live there and the land is not arable, but here in southern and eastern Ontario, it's more of a future consequence of political decisions that only think of $ to their pockets and the provincial/county/township coffers.

Wynne and her Fiberals, will no doubt make the "right" choices of wind and solar farms to cut green house gases and reduce the carbon footprint.
Something they are now committed to do with the new carbon tax on home heating as well as motor fuels.



> 3. The technology is very space-intensive. It takes the space away from food production.


This is the problem that the present governments don't consider..the best food growing land in Ontario is in the Niagara area, which has already been paved over with lots of development in the last 50 years.
Each acre of arable land paved over (or used for windfarms and solar farms), is
one less acre for future generations to grow food..fruit being an example, due to the milder winters there.


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

carverman said:


> This is the problem that the present governments don't consider..the best food growing land in Ontario is in the Niagara area, which has already been paved over with lots of development in the last 50 years.
> Each acre of arable land paved over (or used for windfarms and solar farms), is
> one less acre for future generations to grow food..fruit being an example, due to the milder winters there.


Sad, but true, Carverman.

The so-called "Golden Horsehoe" has fallen prey to development since before I was born. Decades ago I lived for a time in Essex County. It was then said that agricultural land was going out of production at the rate of 30 acres an hour. Much more now, I suppose. So we pave over our best growing land and leave alone the Canadian shield to the north. 

The same in BC. When I was young, Richmond was all agriculture on the fertile Fraser River Delta. Almost all gone now. Ditto for chunks of the Fraser Valley and the Okanagan. Sure, there still lots of land in the Peace Region, where it takes 10 acres of land to produce what one acre would produce in the Fraser Valley.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The paved over urban areas, which also happen to house the greatest need for energy, will be the future of solar and wind technology.

Every rooftop offers an opportunity to collect energy............and there are many millions of rooftops.

Technology in new home building can make a significant impact with solar gathering windows and interior energy storing walls among a few of the vast array of new technologies being developed.

It is a lack of full commitment, and an unwillingness to let go of old concepts in energy, that hinders the natural progression to individualized energy production.

The evolution is coming, but it will take decades.

Many other countries are already well ahead of North America. We have some catching up to do.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

Lead by example. Install the panels. Cut yourself off the grid. No cheating, make sure you cut your gas as well. Swap your car for a horse. Good luck.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The future won't be individuals sticking solar panels on their roof. 

It will be a transformation performed city block by city block, initiated by government and performed and administered by private companies.


----------



## steve41 (Apr 18, 2009)

..... and funded by the Tooth Fairy.


----------



## mrPPincer (Nov 21, 2011)

Rooftop solar panels don't take up agricultural land.
They're becoming more inexpensive by the minute, soon I'll be going off the grid if I can stop procrastinating.

Mordco,


> Swap your car for a horse. Good luck.


, horses take a lot to maintain; why not a battery assisted bicycle?
I've dreamed of letting the car go, but in a rural area, it's not quite as easy to do when one has to get to a job, still considering it though.

Wind turbines have a tiny footprint land-usage-wise; they're all over the place around here, completely surrounded by cornfields


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

mrPPincer said:


> Rooftop solar panels don't take up agricultural land.


Based on pics I have seen, the big solar farms in Ontario do take agricultural land out of production. It borders on criminal.


----------



## mrPPincer (Nov 21, 2011)

AltaRed said:


> Based on pics I have seen, the big solar farms in Ontario do take agricultural land out of production. It borders on criminal.


I haven't seen solar farms like that; each farmer has one or two of those directional ones that follow the sun near his house & barn, where there was no crops growing in the first place.

But I wasn't talking about solar fields in prime land, (which may or may not be happening, I've seen none); I was talking about rooftop solar panels, and there are a lot of those around here too, & I mean on a commercial level, like all along the top of some large barns or equipment storage buildings or laundromats; no reason that can't be done in the cities as well imho.


----------



## mrPPincer (Nov 21, 2011)

There's an acre or so of them on the south side of my small town, it's on land that would be marginal at best for agricultural use, but was sitting idle.

When the power goes out, due to a lightning strike, capacitor blow-out, brown-out, ice-storm, whatever, the lucky portion of the town that is on that part of the grid doesn't go down.

Maybe we should throw up a few more


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

> The future won't be individuals sticking solar panels on their roof.


What you are really saying is that you want someone else to pay for your dreams.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

mrPPincer said:


> There's an acre or so of them on the south side of my small town, it's on land that would be marginal at best for agricultural use, but was sitting idle.


The top few pics are some examples. The rest are USA examples. http://www.canadiansolar.com/solar-projects.html


----------



## mrPPincer (Nov 21, 2011)

^ Interesting, one of those is fairly close to me.
I should go and have a look sometime maybe.

Optimally they should be above space that is being used for something else, especially in prime farming area, imho.

But prime farming land is being swallowed up every day by urban expansion and has been for decades in southern ontario, so this is nothing new.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

It isn't easy to get governmental and municipal permission to convert productive farm land in Ontario for other reasons than agriculture.

The land for solar farms is leased from farmers, often for 20 years and the leases aren't very lucrative. 

If it were possible, the land would probably produce more income in agriculture.

Productive farm land is much more valuable than pasture or poor land. 

We sold a quarter section of pasture land and it was worth $50,000 compared to $250,000 for prime farm land right beside it.

There may be exceptions, but I wouldn't expect farmers would tie up their land for 20 years if they could be farming it.

Solar farms can be placed almost anywhere on non or less productive land, but urban expanding has to be on the edge of cities and that means it gobbles up the adjacent farms.........highly productive prime land or not.

A quarter of pasture on the edge of a big city is valued a lot higher than a quarter section of pasture 20 miles away.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

FWIW, one thing BC did back in the '70s and/or '80s was to set up an Agriculture Land Reserve system, along with a Commission to oversee it, to virtually prevent the transformation of productive agricultural land to any other use. Municipalities can't re-zone wthout an ALR application and approval, which from my limited experience, is virtually never forthoming. It is a good way to keep productive land from being lost. Every province needs something as 'powerful' as that to prevent urban sprawl/creep on productive land.

When I lived in Alberta, I saw a lot of urban creep on productive land. Criminal in my opinion.


----------



## s123 (May 3, 2015)

AltaRed said:


> Thus the inherent bias in articles. Careful of the colour of the Kool-aid. There is more misinformation out there than real facts.


When industries push to the market they don't usually mention about disadvantages or negative impacts. They focus on their profit as a first priority + low cost management. 
This is the base of our current system. 
The consumers have some benefits from the third party research data because of the industry-funded studies that produce results contrary to the interests of the funder. 
But the third party research is not enough funded for the mass database in most of the case.
This is the catch-22 we face on the every corner. 
(Health, food, technology products, environment, energy)



- Fukushima Report: 10,000 Excess Cancers Expected in Japan as a Result of 2011 Reactor Meltdowns, Ongoing Radiation Exposure:
http://www.psr.org/news-events/press-releases/fukushima-report-10000-excess-cancers-japan.html

The PSR/IPPNW report uses the best available science and data to gauge the excess cancer rates among children, rescue and clean-up workers, and the general population of Japan. In addition to the 200,000 Fukushima residents relocated nearby into makeshift camps, the exposed include millions of others in Japan as a result of fallout-contaminated food, soil and water. Fukushima is often incorrectly seen as a "past" event; the reality is that radioactive emissions from the wrecked reactors continue to this day both into the atmosphere and in the form of 300 tons of leakage each day into the Pacific Ocean.

- Japan Population 1950-2016:
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/japan/population
- Japan GDP 1960-2016 
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/japan/gdp

- Nuclear Energy Pros and Cons Notes:
http://greentumble.com/nuclear-energy-pros-and-cons-notes/

* Nuclear waste remains radioactive for a very long time, with a half life in the 10,000s of years that must somehow continue to be managed well into the future ³.

* Currently, humanity’s primary way of dealing with nuclear waste is simply to store it somewhere, and then we are supposed to “figure out what to do with it later.” Globally, there are very few permanent repositories for the long-term safe storage of nuclear waste. Right now, all that we can do is to effectively manage it until we can create effective long-term storage and disposal solutions¹,³.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

In general, I wouldn't go to "physicians for social responsibility" for an estimate of radiological risks, just as I wouldn't ask a health physicist to operate on my appendix.


----------



## Shanline (Aug 24, 2016)

mordko said:


> In general, I wouldn't go to "physicians for social responsibility" for an estimate of radiological risks, just as I wouldn't ask a health physicist to operate on my appendix.


Great idea so far. Carry on!


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

s123 said:


> - Fukushima Report: 10,000 Excess Cancers Expected in Japan as a Result of 2011 Reactor Meltdowns, Ongoing Radiation Exposure:
> http://www.psr.org/news-events/press-releases/fukushima-report-10000-excess-cancers-japan.html


Good report. Nuclear fission power comes with a number of risks. The impact of a reactor meltdown, the disposal of radioactive byproducts and the potential for being targeted by terrorists all need to be addressed to the satisfaction of regulators and the public. 

I support nuclear fission power, but only if the risks are fully addressed.


----------



## twa2w (Mar 5, 2016)

AltaRed said:


> FWIW, one thing BC did back in the '70s and/or '80s was to set up an Agriculture Land Reserve system, along with a Commission to oversee it, to virtually prevent the transformation of productive agricultural land to any other use. Municipalities can't re-zone wthout an ALR application and approval, which from my limited experience, is virtually never forthoming. It is a good way to keep productive land from being lost. Every province needs something as 'powerful' as that to prevent urban sprawl/creep on productive land.


Well that is true today, but not so in the past. IIRC a good part of a little town called Kelowna used to be in the ALR. Including what is today, the Orchard Park mall which was owned by an obscure family who name I believe was Bennet. 
Seems they had some pull and managed to get out from under the ALR. Seems to have been quite profitable for them.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

Mukhang pera said:


> carverman said:
> 
> 
> > ... This is the problem that the present governments don't consider..the best food growing land in Ontario is in the Niagara area, which has already been paved over with lots of development in the last 50 years. ...
> ...


Fifty years would put the date of concern at about 1966. My dad talked about his high school teacher being concerned about it in 1939.

In the late 90's, some of the international types (I can't recall if he was from France or not) were saying in the paper as well as presenting to the provincial gov't that Niagara needed similar protections like what the Napa Valley has ... or wine production would dwindle.


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

mrPPincer said:


> AltaRed said:
> 
> 
> > Based on pics I have seen, the big solar farms in Ontario do take agricultural land out of production. It borders on criminal.
> ...


There's those and then there's a whole field of them just off the 401, in Tillbury. The south boundary is Industrial Park Road, the west boundary is Baptiste Road and the north boundary is Rogers Street. There's what looks like farm land all around it.

There's another one just off Highway 40 & Plank Road near Sarnia. 

There's also the twenty four of them in the yet to be developed sub-division in Cottam, ON. I'm not sure who would want to build/buy a house with one of those sun-seeking solar panel assemblies in their side or back yard!

All can be seen on the Google satellite images.




mrPPincer said:


> ... But I wasn't talking about solar fields in prime land, (which may or may not be happening, I've seen none); I was talking about rooftop solar panels ...


Trouble is ... little prevents productive farm land from going into solar farms or Wal Mart parking lots or sub-divisions, regardless of what rooftop solar panels are being installed.




mrPPincer said:


> ... Optimally they should be above space that is being used for something else, especially in prime farming area, imho.


Which none of the three listed about have done as they are all taking up the possible growing or housing space.




mrPPincer said:


> ... But prime farming land is being swallowed up every day by urban expansion and has been for decades in southern ontario, so this is nothing new.


So because it's solar there's nothing to get worked up about?

Either way, producing land is disappearing.


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

sags said:


> ... The land for solar farms is leased from farmers, often for 20 years and the leases aren't very lucrative.
> If it were possible, the land would probably produce more income in agriculture.


In Cottam, the sub-division owner is forgoing building houses so I'm not sure this is true.

From what I recall of the questions at a London, Ontario show - the farmers weren't worried about "productive/non-productive" land.




sags said:


> ... There may be exceptions, but I wouldn't expect farmers would tie up their land for 20 years if they could be farming it.


Maybe ... but then again, if solar had been an choice at these prices and my parents knew what they were facing for their grape farm - it would have been tempting to have a more stable income where they wouldn't have to depend on their friends helping out so much.


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

sags said:


> It isn't easy to get governmental and municipal permission to convert productive farm land in Ontario for other reasons than agriculture ...


I forgot about this part on the first go round.

YMMV ... the farmers in the area in the '90s were steamed that a local needed something like seven years to get a part of his farm severed to give to his daughter to build a house on. In something like six month, a Toronto radio station bought a chicken farm then tore everything down so that they could put up transmission towers. When a hearing that had been skipped was requested - it was scheduled to take place near Montreal, in Quebec. (Guess how many farmers made the trek to make a presentation?)


Cheers


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I don't think the economics are there to buy farmland to install solar farms, anywhere but on the cheapest, non productive land.

_The ‘Farmland Values Report,’ published by Farm Credit Canada (FCC) in April 2015, states that Ontario farmland values increased an average of 12 per cent in 2014, which is a little less than the 16 per cent increase of 2013 and substantially less than the hefty 30 per cent in 2012. The report states that low interest rates last year, coupled with the fact that in several areas of the province demand for farmland significantly outweighed supply, contributed to price increases. 

There were wide variations in farmland prices in southern Ontario in 2014, says Brady Deaton Jr., a professor in the department of Food, Agriculture and Resource Economics at the University of Guelph — from as little as $4,000 per acre to a whopping $20,000 per acre. _

http://www.ontariograinfarmer.ca/MAGAZINE.aspx?aid=1160

Ontario no longer allows solar farms on productive land.

They are typically placed on farmland such as described in this article "a rocky hayfield" which is of little productive value.

Renting out the land gives the farmer some extra passive income.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repo...forefront-of-canadian-energy/article19786759/

My son fenced in one solar farm that was so rocky they couldn't drive posts into the ground for the solar panel supports or fence posts, so they trucked in soil to build mounds to pour concrete footings into.

I don't think the loss of land to solar farms is a big issue. More of an issue with urban sprawl.


----------

