7.9 and 8.8 Earthquakes in Japan

Nice cheery map!
http://hisz.rsoe.hu/alertmap/index2.php?smp&lang=eng

it's a huge cultural thing. following the rules is just what you do.

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1149/646592734_9c2b7678bf.jpg

Pipo-kun's name also comes from the toddler's word for police car (really "pii-po pii-po"), which in typical Nihongo fashion is onomatopoeic for the sound of a siren.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-12769810

thats what im talkin bout

the only silver lining in the clouds here is that this is gonna seriously derail other nuke-power efforts (Israel already making similar noises as Germany, etc.) I'm sure France will cling to their reactors, but I doubt any new plants will be built in the US any time soon. Which is great.

how many natural disaster does germany have? for christ's sake.

That's not a silver lining. Less nukes mean more coal (and 100x more radiation in normal operation, from the fly ash). This has the potential be absolutely disastrous for those of us screaming hair-on-fire about greenhouse emissions. Gywnne Dyer, lefty columnist who knows as much about climate change consequences as any non-specialist, has something to say about this.

^^^

I mean, I'm seriously depressed about this. Here I was last week, optimistic that a consensus around conservation + baseload nuclear supplemented by renewable with storage, might be coalescing to help avoid the mid-century famines from drought. We let the Shakey's of the world veto nuclear, and we'll get coal. Lots of coal.

Well, you already announced your personal investment portfolio is long on nukes so I can imagine you're bumming on that, but the silver lining (and not that it's going over your or others' head(s)) is that Merkel is saying "We want Germany to go 100% renewable ASAP", not "*shrug*, back to coal i guess".

yeah, leery though I am of nukes, I think coal might be much worse in the long run

her comment about the loincloth/bone -in-nose is sorta racist though. : /

We let the Shakey's of the world veto nuclear, and we'll get coal. Lots of coal.

it's not an either or scenario. simple efficiency regulations massively cut into generation requirements, for ex.

unless Germans are willing to live like monks, I think going 100% renewable is a total pipe dream.

And America? No nuclear = Coal.

that's not how it's working in California FYI

how many natural disaster does germany have? for christ's sake.

Out of the 3 nuclear disasters I can think of, this is the only one caused by a natural disaster - 3 Mile Island and Chernobyl were human error? As someone mentioned earlier in the thread, when nuclear power plants go wrong they can go really wrong.

Renewable energy is great for a low-population density, low energy intensity society. The problem is it doesn't scale to anything remotely like current consumption, and it doesn't provide the kind of baseload that a manufacturing or technology sector requires. I recommend the book Power Hungry, by Robert Bryce as a primer on the issues with energy density and disappointing emissions reductions seen thus far with renewables.

For what its worth, I'm also invested in wave power, solar thermal, and algal biodiesel. These will all play a role. But the main enemy is coal, and unless we as a global civilization put barbed wire and guards around the remaining coal deposits soon, its going to be a long hot millenium.

xps: The Bay Area is managed by PG&E who set the bar of public safety and efficiency:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_San_Bruno_pipeline_explosion

Well, you already announced your personal investment portfolio is long on nukes so I can imagine you're bumming on that, but the silver lining (and not that it's going over your or others' head(s)) is that Merkel is saying "We want Germany to go 100% renewable ASAP", not "*shrug*, back to coal i guess".

― taco al pastorius (Steve Shasta), Thursday, March 17, 2011 8:58 PM (9 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

bingo. afaik im not worried about germany going back to coal?? do they have coal??

there have been no new power plants built in California in over 30 years, and yet in that time our population increased over 54%. this was done without the addition of any new nuke plants (afaik there are no coal plants in the state at all).

xp

gas pipeline explosions don't have anything to do with energy efficiency Shasta

(well I guess they're an inefficient waste of gas lol)

you guys have a lot of hydro, no?

(not weed)

The problem is it doesn't scale to anything remotely like current consumption

it doesn't have to. consumption levels (and their rate of increase) can be drastically cut. we're doing it already in California. it's like the only part of our economy that's working lol

CA is powered almost entirely by natural gas, hydro is second, nukes are third, renewable portfolio is small but growing and the main problem there is utility-scale applications (small-scale applications like schools, homes, and individual businesses work fine and those kinds of installations are booming)

also yes the weed is awesome

(not weed)

― FUN FUN FUN FUN (gbx), Thursday, March 17, 2011 9:12 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

they do have this too iirc

p sure the entire cali economy is based off that now

we can take this to the energy thread, I guess

afaik im not worried about germany going back to coal?? do they have coal??

They're building 26 new coal plants right now ffs!

lol nev mind me then

apparently we have 10 coal-fired stations in California and no mines (utilities must purchase the coal from out-of-state vendors). that's a tiny percentage of our generation tho, pretty sure we could phase those out over the coming decades.

xp

Shakey, California imports 23% of its electricity. State utilities own 37.5% of the Palo Verde nuclear plant in Arizona (commissioned 1988). They also import a helluva lot of electricity from coal and natural gas generators which sensibly didn't want to deal with CA activists. You can't even build a solar plant in the Mojave without a decade of lawsuits.

huh and one of them, the Mt. Poso plant, is currently being converted to burn 100% biomass

xp

Back to Fukushima: "Water cannons effective in cooling fuel pool, but radiation level unchanged."

not sure what you mean by "helluva lot". 23% is not a helluva lot

xp

but we're supposed to be excited about the 1% of power that Cali gets from solar?

Reactor #3 currently radiating at 292 mSv

#4 containment pool containing spent fuel appeared empty from surveillance from helicopter fly-by

285k people living in 2200 shelters.

but we're supposed to be excited about the 1% of power that Cali gets from solar?

that's just the utility portfolio, correct? which (as Sanpaku correctly notes) is hampered by both technical problems of scale and legal challenges. But that 1% doesn't count all the solar installations that aren't run by utilities but still generate power for their owners.

xp

23 people have died in shelters, mostly elderly hospital evacuees.

anyway i get that nuke power is necessary for stopping global warming but its also easy to watch that turn into a handout to power co.s that push nukes as we manage to avoid both reduction of consumption & exploring less dangerous/long-term stupid power ideas. theres no way solar power will run the world in time to stop coal. but theres a fine line here

#4 containment pool containing spent fuel appeared empty from surveillance from helicopter fly-by

― taco al pastorius (Steve Shasta), Thursday, March 17, 2011 9:23 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

fuuuuck

ie power that is generated by private solar installations isn't counted as solar generation capacity, it's counted as a reduction in consumption/demand

xp

The total of confirmed dead and missing totals over 15k.

23% is not a helluva lot

xp

― in my world of suggest bans (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, March 17, 2011 5:20 PM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark

sounds like a lot to me!

guys I love this but take it to the energy thread prob

xps

isn't cankles banned yet

Reactor #2 is now "billowing smoke"