What a tragedy in Japan.

For other topics related to the FreeBASIC project or its community.
D.J.Peters
Posts: 7825
Joined: May 28, 2005 3:28

What a tragedy in Japan.

Postby D.J.Peters » Mar 15, 2011 20:38

What a tragedy in Japan.

Even in adversity, the Japanese are very disciplined.
So far what i can see in the TV.

Here in germany there are no tsunamis no earthquakes no hurricanes ...
In view of disasters it's a very peaceful location.

Joshy
rolliebollocks
Posts: 2655
Joined: Aug 28, 2008 10:54
Location: new york

Postby rolliebollocks » Mar 15, 2011 21:54

vdecampo
Posts: 2982
Joined: Aug 07, 2007 23:20
Location: Maryland, USA
Contact:

Postby vdecampo » Mar 15, 2011 23:03

I read that 50 workers volunteered to stay at the nuclear plant to help avert disaster. Heroes all.

-Vince
roook_ph
Posts: 402
Joined: Apr 01, 2006 20:50
Location: philippines
Contact:

Postby roook_ph » Mar 19, 2011 14:55

I live south of japan and I have seen 7+ magnitude earthquake. I worked near a large pool of water and I thought it would pour on me. And I have seen storm floods past my neck on roads that I have to carry my bike on my way home. But I have never seen what has been shown as it happens there, Hopefully none of that happens again. Hopefully
D.J.Peters
Posts: 7825
Joined: May 28, 2005 3:28

Postby D.J.Peters » Jul 01, 2011 7:04

Germany waived forward on nuclear power. !?!

to be continued

...
cha0s
Site Admin
Posts: 5317
Joined: May 27, 2005 6:42
Location: Illinois
Contact:

Postby cha0s » Jul 01, 2011 8:30

I know it's controversial but I actually think we should continue investing in nuclear. We need to keep them maintained and not build them on fault lines where there are earthquakes but for now it's our best bet besides stinky, dirty, deadly coal and oil.

Did you know there is more radiation around a coal plant than a nuclear one?
jevans4949
Posts: 1148
Joined: May 08, 2006 21:58
Location: Crewe, England

Postby jevans4949 » Jul 01, 2011 9:15

In the UK, many nuclear plants are built on relatively unstable low-lying coastal sites, and it's recently been announced that new plants will be built nearby - also crazy IMO.

The hypocrisy around the German decision is that they will probably be making up their electricity need by importing from France - where nuclear is the major source of electricity.
vdecampo
Posts: 2982
Joined: Aug 07, 2007 23:20
Location: Maryland, USA
Contact:

Postby vdecampo » Jul 01, 2011 12:22

I believe solar and geothermal are the only two truly clean energy sources that are viable as long-term high capacity solutions. For now, coal and oil are cheap and we will use what makes the most economic sense. But eventually these sources will diminish.

-Vince
MichaelW
Posts: 3500
Joined: May 16, 2006 22:34
Location: USA

Postby MichaelW » Jul 01, 2011 13:29

cha0s wrote:Did you know there is more radiation around a coal plant than a nuclear one?

That only applies for an intact, properly built, and properly operated nuclear plant. IMO a nuclear plant under the control of a public utility and the idiots that they typically hire is a ticking bomb.
ike
Posts: 383
Joined: Jan 17, 2011 18:59

Japan

Postby ike » Jul 01, 2011 18:21

In market capitalism word DAMAGE
is linked to word INSURANCE.

How big is DAMAGE, and what was INSURANCE?
Company that operate 5 nuclear plant was insured on 70 million.
I run a small company (2 people) and I am insured on 2 million.

- Who get into jail in Japan (because of inproper insurance)? Nobody.
- Who is going to pay? Taxpayers, I mean people.
- I am sick of this crony capitalism! When I make profit - it is mine. When I have deficit (loose money) let share it.

Why it is like that? Because our leaders are uneducated people! It doesnot matter if they finish university. Go to any parliament and give them high school test in math and you will see!

Recently, in one european country, a candidate for president couldnot answer simpla question: "What year WWI started?"

He said 1911 :)
Kot
Posts: 336
Joined: Dec 28, 2006 10:34

Postby Kot » Jul 01, 2011 18:51

cha0s wrote:and not build them on fault lines where there are earthquakes

It was designed to stand a natural disaster that happens once in a hundred years. Unfortunately, the one like this happens once in a thousand years.
@vdecampo: producing solar panels is a disaster for the environment. Energy gathered this way is way more expensive than from nuclear or coal power plants.
I'd rather turn to wind energy - every day you have fresh birds chopped by rotor blades ;-)
joseywales72
Posts: 206
Joined: Aug 27, 2005 2:02
Location: Istanbul, Turkey

Postby joseywales72 » Jul 02, 2011 8:17

In Turkey, we do not have any nuclear power stations yet, but it is being planned to be built on southern parts of Anatolia, on Mediterranean coast. There has been a tremendous amount of controversy and discussion on this subject, and being on pro-nuclear side I researched a lot for some arguments againts my pseudo-environmentalist and well-educated friends. (They almost crucified me for being pro-nuclear)

In short, it is exactly as Chaos said. Conventional coal burning thermoelectricity stations release a lot more radioactive isotopes to the atmosphere and as a bonus they release a lot of CO2 too.

Also, sun and wind (which both are abundant in my country) are not very reliable or feasible for a large scale electricty production. Once, I was called for a network problem to a wind farm and saw the natural gas fueled turbines. When I asked about them, they smiled and said, "The wind does not always blow." Same for the sun. Both sun and wind are good for local and small scale consumption and production but on a large scale?

Hydro really screws up the environment too. A lot of streams and rivers in northern Anatolia are dammed for hydropower and it has been a disaster for the forests and animal life there. And for what, for a measly few megawatts of power?

I agree with the hazards of nuclear power but I think it is the only sustainable, large scale and relatively environment friendly solution.

Ps.I also recently read World War Z, nuclear is the only reliable power source in a worldwide zombie outbreak. :-) (Save for a meltdown.:-)

Sorry for my possible mistakes in English.
Anil
badmrbox
Posts: 659
Joined: Oct 27, 2005 14:40
Location: Sweden
Contact:

Re: Japan

Postby badmrbox » Jul 02, 2011 10:29

ike wrote:Recently, in one european country, a candidate for president couldnot answer simpla question: "What year WWI started?"

He said 1911 :)
Well, he was close at least.
Dr_D
Posts: 2389
Joined: May 27, 2005 4:59
Contact:

Postby Dr_D » Jul 03, 2011 1:18

vdecampo wrote:I believe solar and geothermal are the only two truly clean energy sources that are viable as long-term high capacity solutions. For now, coal and oil are cheap and we will use what makes the most economic sense. But eventually these sources will diminish.

-Vince


Well, I agree with that, for the most part. Although, I see it slightly different. When we lose solar, we're gone anyway... by the limits of our current technology. When we lose geothermal, we also lose our magnetic field... where we will be fried by the sun. So... actually, either one of those solutions should last until we're finished with whatever it is we're doing here. :p
Pritchard
Posts: 5492
Joined: Sep 12, 2005 20:06
Location: Ohio, USA

Postby Pritchard » Jul 03, 2011 3:13

I'd love to post more qualitative opinions on this subject, but I'm sure there's plenty of quantitative ones already.

Mind sharing them?

Return to “Community Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Sisophon2001 and 2 guests