Quote from Wyttenbach

The Fukushima reactor died directly during the earth quake. 3 months before end of live ... The stability of the reactors internal self sustain energy cooling pipe was the main problem. The steel was rated for a 5.5 earth quake at the beginning of the operation but after 40 years best case is 4.5, due the neutron capture degradation. Also the vessel cracked for the same reason. So it finally was a triple kill event with the flooding. The crack of the main vessel would have been a "minor problem" if they would have had enough refill water ready.

Today Japanese reactors must withstand an 8 fold stronger shock! What is equivalent to the whole building vertically falling down by 2 meters ! But still not enough after 40 years...

I remember many claims and theory of causes back in the days. I'm not sure what was proven or not wrt burst of piping and pressure vessels, but I remembered the backup generator design, which was flooded and caused complete Loss of emergency power.

Some more info in this article

https://www.nei.org/resources/…ystems-fukushima-response

Quote from oystla

I remember many claims and theory of causes back in the days.

This is not theory: It's facts.

Quote from Wyttenbach

This is not theory: It's facts.

According to the article I linked from Nuclear Energy Institute, they would have avoided the hydrogen generation and explosion if the backup generators worked, i.e. they claim cooling system and piping was intact.....

That is why I referred to flooding of those critical units.

https://www.nei.org/resources/…ystems-fukushima-response

One bunch of idiots discovering that sea water from a tsunami can take down a nuclear reactor's ancillary cooling systems in a known earthquake zone, ditto for ITER in France and Hinckley in the UK is known to flood too. Does the Atomic Energy Authority go out of its way to locate the worst possible sites to build these expensive white elephants? We have an adequate energy source under our feet and more energy coming from the sun than we know what to do with. Just a matter of shoving solar panels on all rooting spaces which should be supplied free of charge by all governments worlwide. Storage batteries included.

Quote from Alan Smith

The alternative was to get up on the roof and unbolt some of the corrugated cement roof panels to vent the hydrogen. There would have been no hydrogen build-up and no explosion then. An hour's work at most with a cherry picker and a volunteer or six.

They could have installed catalytic hydrogen combustion filters made by CANDU expressly for the purpose of preventing H gas buildup in reactor areas.

Quote from Dr Richard

One bunch of idiots discovering that sea water from a tsunami can take down a nuclear reactor's ancillary cooling systems in a known earthquake zone, ditto for ITER in France and Hinckley in the UK is known to flood too. Does the Atomic Energy Authority go out of its way to locate the worst possible sites to build these expensive white elephants? We have an adequate energy source under our feet and more energy coming from the sun than we know what to do with. Just a matter of shoving solar panels on all rooting spaces which should be supplied free of charge by all governments worlwide. Storage batteries included.

And the worst thing is that they knew this type of tsunami could happen after the Indonesia tsunami in 2004. They had Even made reports and recommendations to strenghten the nuclear safety of the Japanese plants. But they delayed and delayed due to high cost related.

And at the end the most expensive desision on was just that- the Delay.

Quote from oystla

According to the article I linked from Nuclear Energy Institute, they would have avoided the hydrogen generation and explosion if the backup generators worked, i.e. they claim cooling system and piping was intact.....

Pipes were broken. It's apolitical lie.

Quote from Alan Smith

The alternative was to get up on the roof and unbolt some of the corrugated cement roof panels to vent the hydrogen. There would have been no hydrogen build-up and no explosion then. An hour's work at most with a cherry picker and a volunteer or six.

The workers at the site were completely untrained monkeys. The never made an emergency training and obviously they never unlocked the over pressure vent on the roof that was fully corroded... Tepco was simply a company that did print money for some small set of Japanese families.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

They could have installed catalytic hydrogen combustion filters made by CANDU expressly for the purpose of preventing H gas buildup in reactor areas.

Guess why we know all the details! A German manufacturer of hydrogen filters was just in time (during quake) onsite reactor 2. They took some photos of the emergency actions ... No Japanese nuclear power plant had hydrogen filters installed. In newer plants e.g. Fukui it (tritium) was vented every night . We know this thanks to Safecast.

Here is an interesting article describing the rapid changes in the U.S. electric power industry. This discusses several issues that have come up here. I think this is free because it is part of the coronavirus coverage. But only marginally.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/0…ectricity-renewables.html

In a First, Renewable Energy Is Poised to Eclipse Coal in U.S.

The coronavirus has pushed the coal industry to once-unthinkable lows, and the consequences for climate change are big.

WASHINGTON — The United States is on track to produce more electricity this year from renewable power than from coal for the first time on record, new government projections show, a transformation partly driven by the coronavirus pandemic, with profound implications in the fight against climate change.

It is a milestone that seemed all but unthinkable a decade ago, when coal was so dominant that it provided nearly half the nation’s electricity. And it comes despite the Trump administration’s three-year push to try to revive the ailing industry by weakening pollution rules on coal-burning power plants.

Those efforts, however, failed to halt the powerful economic forces that have led electric utilities to retire hundreds of aging coal plants since 2010 and run their remaining plants less frequently. The cost of building large wind farms has declined more than 40 percent in that time, while solar costs have dropped more than 80 percent. And the price of natural gas, a cleaner-burning alternative to coal, has fallen to historic lows as a result of the fracking boom.

Now the coronavirus outbreak is pushing coal producers into their deepest crisis yet.

As factories, retailers, restaurants and office buildings have shut down nationwide to slow the spread of the coronavirus, demand for electricity has fallen sharply. And, because coal plants often cost more to operate than gas plants or renewables, many utilities are cutting back on coal power first in response. . . .

In just the first four and a half months of this year, America’s fleet of wind turbines, solar panels and hydroelectric dams have produced more electricity than coal on 90 separate days — shattering last year’s record of 38 days for the entire year. On May 1 in Texas, wind power alone supplied nearly three times as much electricity as coal did. . . .

. . . electric companies used to worry that using more than just a tiny fraction of wind and solar would make it difficult to keep the nation’s lights on, since the sun isn’t always shining and the wind isn’t always blowing. But since then, utilities have discovered ways to tackle this problem by using technologies like natural-gas plants that can be quickly turned on to meet spikes in demand, better weather forecasting and, increasingly, vast battery storage projects such as those planned in Nevada and California. . . .

. . . One danger sign for many coal plants is that they are running less frequently. Back in 2010, the average U.S. coal plant ran at about 67 percent of its capacity. Last year, that fraction dipped below one-half for the first time in decades and is slipping further this year.

“The less you use these plants, the more expensive they are to keep around,” said Seth Feaster, a data analyst at the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis. His group recently estimated that, by 2025, coal could make up 10 percent or less of the electricity generated in the United States. . . .

. . . The United States is not yet at the point reached in Britain, which now goes for weeks at a time without using any coal power at all. . . .

For example the Drax plant in England is fueled by compressed wood pellets imported from commercial forests overseas, mostly in the eastern United States and Canada. Every overseas transport utilizes fossil energy with no exception. And it consumes it lot - the transportation consumes 15% of oil transported. In addition these ships run on low quality bunker oil, which is highly polluting and generates additional health risk.

The wood pellets are more valuable as chemical feedstock in the absence of oil, than just a fuel. For wood pellet production whole trees are processed into pellets by using fossil fuel electricity and the bark must be removed instead. This practice must be subsidized by tax payers without their permission given. And their producers indeed want to get subsidized even more, because the biomass industry economically collapsed due to shale gas from USA and tar sands from Canada.

One pound of dried wood generates 8.000 Btu's, while one pound of diesel fuel contains 36.000 BTu's of heat i.e. more than 4x more per weight. Now, if 15% of oil gets wasted in overseas transport, the rough calculation would imply, that transport of wood overseas wastes 60% of its nominal energy content (and large oil tankers are more energy effective than wood transport ship). The lumbering and manipulation with wood would require additional fossil fuels...

Quote from Curbina

A documentary that was recently published for free in YouTube focused in the biomass energy industry as a part of the green energy movement.

It’s hard to watch and will probably shatter many illusions, but is inline with what Alan Smith is saying, that the biomass industry is just a money making scheme.

External Content m.youtube.com

Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.

Display all external content

Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

If anything, this documentary makes The case for LENR being even more necessary than most would want to acknowledge.

I agree on biomass and biofuel. It is not sustainable and should be banned.

But Moore is Completely wrong on solar and wind in the movie.

The info was old from 2005 and 2010, which has nothing to do with present status and technology. A lot of misinformation on solar and wind.

State of art in solar technology will last for 40 years and the New bifacial panels can be combined with farming when designed accordingly.

Danish research is now developing a 20MW wind turbine not using rear earth metals in the generator.

So technology is developping exponentially fast.

But it would be nice if LENR could be part of the game of course.

Moore said after the movie was released that it really was about too many humans on earth, and that humans consume too much.

In that case it was a strange movie, that should have had another content in Focus.

Quote from Curbina

A documentary that was recently published for free in YouTube focused in the biomass energy industry as a part of the green energy movement.

This is only true for the US. They transform corn into alcohol and sell it as add-on for car fuel.

I always tell "Offroaders": One tank empty one more dead African boy as he just burnt his food...

Cheaper storage batteries will help solar and wind power

Jaramillo's company, Massachusetts-based startup Form Energy Inc.,

announced last week the first real-world pilot of its "aqueous air" battery —

a technology that can discharge 1 megawatt of power for about 150 hours straight, according to the company.

The 150-hour-duration battery runs roughly 20 to 40 times longer than lithium-ion batteries,

which are currently used to store and back up solar power when the sun isn't shining.

https://www.eenews.net/stories/1063138901

Quote

But Moore is Completely wrong on solar and wind in the movie. The info was old from 2005 and 2010, which has nothing to do with present status and technology. A lot of misinformation on solar and wind.

We already discussed it here. If the solar and wind plants would really save life environment, then they would also generate subsidizes instead of consuming them (into account of fossil-fuel based energetics indeed). Not accidentally Denmark has most expensive (=most environmentally demanding) electricity from all Western Europe countries, because it also has most renewables in its portfolio. The saving nature with "renewables" is like saving coal by buying Bugatti Veyron...

Basic problem with electric cars is we will still be burning fossil fuels to generate energy to recharge them. So it's just another green delusion, unless we each have a purpose built wind turbine and solar panels stuck on the roof of the car! Or have it powered by a big turbine at home and solar arrays on the roof, and use the car battery storage capacity to power the house at night. Or just dig down a few km and use geothermal to power a steam generator, but in the end we have to ask ourselves do we in the age of global internet need these cars at all? After the lockdown there will be very few planes which could be recycled into travel homes and wind turbines. Bicycles are selling like hotcakes, so maybe a return to cycling and the old fashioned stagecoach? Go out and buy a horse!

Quote from Dr Richard

Basic problem with electric cars is we will still be burning fossil fuels to generate energy to recharge them.

Even in that case you would overall use less fuel. But the planning for future wind parks will include Hydrogen electrolysis from Water because in Europe - since a few year - wind covers more than 100% of the grid demand during windy hours and the spot market price for electricity goes negative !!! (like for the oil due to corona..)

Quote from Dr Richard

Basic problem with electric cars is we will still be burning fossil fuels to generate energy to recharge them. So it's just another green delusion, unless we each have a purpose built wind turbine and solar panels stuck on the roof of the car! Or have it powered by a big turbine at home and solar arrays on the roof, and use the car battery storage capacity to power the house at night. Or just dig down a few km and use geothermal to power a steam generator, but in the end we have to ask ourselves do we in the age of global internet need these cars at all? After the lockdown there will be very few planes which could be recycled into travel homes and wind turbines. Bicycles are selling like hotcakes, so maybe a return to cycling and the old fashioned stagecoach? Go out and buy a horse!

With Tesla/Maxwell's upcoming dry elctrode tabless battery revamp I think electrical cars won't be a problem. Atleast if we do take the figures at face value. There isn't a need for to ride horses and bicycles... It is a need for recreation, sport and exercise though, good stuff.