Toxic Water Detected In Newly Built Well At Fukushima Nuclear Plant

[Purveyor]

Source: The Japan Times

Tokyo Electric Power Co. said Sunday it has detected radioactive tritium in groundwater collected from a newly built observation well by the sea at the crippled Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant.

The groundwater sample collected Saturday from the well contained 34,000 becquerels of tritium per liter, up from 23,000 becquerels detected in a sample collected Thursday, a day after the well was installed some 4 meters away from the sea, the plant operator said.

--clip
The utility suspects that groundwater has been contaminated at an underground trench by the sea that is connected to the No. 2 reactor building. The newly built well is located some 160 meters north of the trench.

Around 300 tons of groundwater containing radioactive substances could be flowing into the Pacific Ocean daily from the damaged Fukushima No. 1 nuclear complex, according to the government. Tepco recently admitted that toxic groundwater is leaking into the ocean.

Read more: http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/08/11/national/toxic-water-detected-in-newly-built-well-at-fukushima-nuclear-plant/#.UgfkqDtOZJE

[Generic Other]

1. The situation seem s all but hopeless

I hope the very name Fukushima becomes the standard response to any apologists for the industry.

Apologist: We need to build new reactors right away!
Me: Fukushima you, ya bastid!

[wtmusic]

2. Ah, so you're an apologist for coal/gas/fracking.

Renewables aren't cutting it, so it's one or the other.

Or maybe you're off the grid. If so, I salute you and your bicycle-powered computer.

[Flaxbee]

3. Renewables have had nowhere near the financial support / subsidies that coal/gas/fracking have...

which is why they were / are so costly.

However, it would be very easy to have a world powered predominantly by renewables - but you try getting past the energy cartel and living to tell about it...

The only reason renewables "aren't cutting it" is because very powerful, entrenched interests are making sure it stays that way.

[wtmusic]

4. That excuse has been around for forty years

and it doesn't make any more sense now than it did then.



Get over the conspiracy theory nonsense. Renewables are not up to the job.

[MindMover]

13. You are correct with current technologies about renewables ... however

those technologies are changing very rapidly and your statement that "renewables are not up to the job" will be just another incorrect assumption along the search for energy independence.

[NutmegYankee]

14. Right now, can they do the job?

Obvious answer right now - NO. I like renewable energy systems, and I want them to grow and advance, but I like also want electricity right now.

[kristopher]

21. Yes current renewable technology CAN do the job.

Any statement to the contrary is false.

[wtmusic]

25. OK. Just what are you declaring independence from?

[MindMover]

47. From being sucked dry by the leeches and vampires known as ...

our infamous energy companies .... ie, too many to list ...

[wtmusic]

48. You do understand the difference between energy companies

and utilties, correct?

[MindMover]

49. Yes, and you will now state that utilities have nothing to do with

the price of tea in China .... BULLHOCKEY ....

[wtmusic]

50. Utilties are permitted to charge 10% more than their costs.

Best deal around. If you want to pay more, please just try to create your own little grid and get a taste of what's involved.

[kristopher]

52. Expanding the rate base drives unneeded generation and wasteful spending on facilities

The only way to increase profits is to increase the amount they spend - whether the spending is needed or not.

That's why CWIP and nuclear plants are so popular with certain utilities.

[MindMover]

53. Been there done that and very proud to say it ... in Northern California

lived like a king with computer, lights, tv, etc. with energy to sell back ... panels and batteries ... not really a big deal ...

[wtmusic]

54. For how long, 6 hours?

[MindMover]

55. Wow, you really are a nonbeliever....

the panels and batteries I used could replace and store continuously for 2 people living in a 900 sf cabin .... and this was 2 years ago, so I am certain that the technology has progressed to a more efficient state now ....

Yes, I did have a backup generator that I ran 6 times in 2 years.... for a total of 32 hrs

[wtmusic]

56. Let's put it this way

Currently there are about 180,000 people in the U.S. living "off the grid".

That means 1 out of every 1,600 Americans - six one-hundredths of one percent - either feels sucked dry by vampires and leeches, as you do, or can't afford utility electricity. The rest of us think we're getting a pretty good deal.

How is that remotely practical for 300,000,000 people and the businesses at which they work?

[MindMover]

57. Coming to a town and city near you .... Soon

Instead of currently capturing less than 20% of solar energy used to produce electricity ....

Twintin and MJD will help to produce 90% +

[wtmusic]

58. That's the Church of Renewables mantra: "coming soon".

Been hearing that for about 40 years too.

[MindMover]

59. Not really that big a deal since it is currently known technology applied

to solar generated electricity ... it just takes us dumb humans a little longer to figure out we already had the cure ...

[wtmusic]

61. There is not even close to enough retrievable energy in sun/wind to meet 21st century needs.

Not even close. It's wishful thinking, pixie dust. What if none of this wishful thinking pans out? Suddenly we're three decades behind in addressing global warming.

Global warming will make Fukushima, Chernobyl, TMI look like a joke. Let's put the toys away and apply some power tools before it's too late.

[MindMover]

65. Finally talking some sense about climate change....but then you digress

to making a patently false statement about retrievable energy in sun and wind....

"If you took the amount of sunlight that hits the Earth in one second and converted it into matter, how much would it weigh? How much energy is this in practical terms?
This is an excellent question, which puts the energy balance on Earth into perspective. Let me answer this question in two steps, and then let me compare the amount of energy from the Sun to the amount humankind is using right now.

The energy per time put out by the Sun is its luminosity, 3.8 x 1026 Joules per second (or Watts). Using Einstein's renowned formula that describes how much mass is transformed into energy, when energy is being produced, E = M * c2 (or: Energy = Mass * (Speed of Light)2), as 1 Joule = 1 kg m2/s2 and c = 300,000,000 m/s, the mass the Sun burns into energy every second is:


Mass/Time = 3.8 x 1026/(3 x 108)2 kg/s = 4.4 x 109 kg/s

or roughly 4 million tons per second.
At its distance of 1 Astronomical Unit (150 million km), the Earth is hit by the Sun's energy flux F = 1400 Joules/s/m2. We call this quantity the "solar constant", as this value averaged over each year is constant within better than 1% over time. With an Earth radius of approx 6400 km, the area, which is (pi * Earth's radius)2, with which the Earth intercepts sunlight is (pi * Earth's radius)2 = 1.3 x 1014 m2 making the amount of energy captured by the Earth each second:


F * (pi * Earth's radius)2 = 1.8 x 1017 Joules/s
According to the same procedure as above this makes the mass to produce this amount of energy per second:


Mass captured as sunlight per second = 1.8 x 1017 / (3 x 108)2 kg/s = 2 kg/s

This is about 4.5 lbs/s or close to 5 lbs/s.

To put these numbers into a perspective with highly practical relevance, on average, humankind is only using about 1/10,000 of that amount for its total energy consumption. In other words, sunlight seems to be a viable option for our energy needs, at least from the perspective of the total amount needed. Or from the point of view of mass, we are transforming about 20 kg of mass per day into energy for our energy consumption.

If we were to use much more energy, say a sizeable fraction of the amount that the Earth gets from the Sun, the Earth would have to heat up considerably in order to get rid of the waste heat. Every power plant needs a cooler to get rid of its heat; the Earth as a whole can only do this by getting hotter."

Dr. Eberhard Moebius
(January 2005)

[kristopher]

51. Don't you recognize the strategy of accusing others of your own weakness when you see it?

Nuclear power - the cause wt is here to promote - is the worst on the planet for centralization of power, promotion of a social system of inequality, and secrecy in government.

So naturally it behoves wt to make that accusation towards renewables (as ridiculous as that obviously is) in an effort to defuse the legitimate criticism of nuclear.

A new book by the CEO of a German renewables developer is drawing a lot of attention in Germany right now. In this first of three installments, we present the German debate to the non-German-speaking world.

The promise of the Energiewende: energy democracy

Matthias Willenbacher, head of one of Germany’s largest renewable development firms, says he will give away his shares in the company if Chancellor Merkel adopts a 100% renewable target for energy, not just electricity, by 2020. Today, the positive things about the book he wrote in German for this purpose.

A few weeks ago, I mentioned the announcement of the German book “My indecent proposal to the Chancellor”; now I have had a chance to read it. Parts of it are worth making known to the non-German-speaking world as an indication of what the debate sounds like over here. (Alas, no translation is in the works.)

First, some facts that were not clear to me from the press releases before I read the book. The author is talking about 100% renewable energy, not just electricity, though he could make that distinction clearer even in his book. Second, he would donate his shares in juwi, the firm he cofounded, to Germany’s energy cooperatives – the citizens who have invested in renewables over the past few decades.

Willenbacher minces no words about the role that energy democracy will play in the transition to renewables: “The German government still believes energy corporations can implement the Energiewende. This is a fundamental error.” He believes it will only work with distributed renewables in the hands of citizens, coops and municipals.

I find this stance a bit radical in Germany, but common enough...

http://www.renewablesinternational.net/the-promise-of-the-energiewende-energy-democracy/150/537/71909/

[Stonepounder]

16. One minor point.

Renewables are just that - renewable. Oil, gas, Coal, etc are not - at least not on any scale we can reasonably discuss. If we don't figure out some way to get energy from renewable sources, we are all going to be pedaling bicycles to run our freezers, electric ranges, computers, etc.

And please don't try and sell me nuclear. We have had nuclear power around for 50 years and we still have the problem of what to do with the leftovers, not to mention that we can't seem to figure out how not to build nuclear plants on earthquake faults. And I don't think that we have figured out how not to let the lowest bidder build them either.

[wtmusic]

24. The leftovers of coal kill about 15,000 Americans every year

Since I can't try to sell you on nuclear, I'll let an illustration do it for me.



Storing nuclear leftovers is not a problem at all, there's not that much of it (if your entire life was powered by nuclear, the resulting waste would fit in a Coke can).

[Stonepounder]

27. So, all the stuff that is flowing into the ocean from Fukishima is just a Coke can's worth? n/t

[wtmusic]

29. Hype that keeps the public buying newspapers.

"A French expert said the environmental risk posed by the leaks was small compared to the overall radioactive contamination from the disaster.

"We are not seeing anything new in our measurements of the ocean water, sediment or fish. I think it is negligible," said Jerome Joly, deputy director general of the French Institute for Radiological Protection and Nuclear Safety, IRSN, which has closely monitored the Fukushima disaster.

"Japan, in this geographical area, benefits from two currents travelling along the coast eastwards to the Pacific, and they play a valuable dilution role," he told AFP."

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/urgent-fight-to-stop-fukushima-radioactive-water-leaking-into-pacific/story-e6frg6so-1226693262253

[FBaggins]

33. Much less in fact.

The only element that they've been able to confirm is "flowing to the ocean" (by detecting it in the quay beside the plant) is tritium. It's quite possible that most of the other elements are filtered by the ground as the water flows through it (or at least that whatever is leaking is smaller than the variability in existing readings).

Tritium has a specific activity of about 350 trillion Bq/gram. At the current estimated rate, they think there has been about 20-40 TBq of tritium leaked to the ocean over the last 2+ years.

So yes... roughly 1/10th of a gram would be quite a bit less than a coke can's worth.

[kristopher]

19. In your zeal to promote nuclear you simply refuse to be bound by the truth

"That excuse has been around for 40 years" you say? You really are incapable of shame, aren't you? You keep repeating the same falsehoods over and over when you KNOW you are spreading misinformation.

It isn't an excuse, it is a fact.

...In comparing current support for renewable energy with past aid for today’s traditional energy sources, the report focuses on two types of assistance: funding during the first 15 years of support and annualized expenditures over the life of the energy source.

The first 15 years, the report says, are critical to developing new technologies. It finds that oil and gas subsidies, including tax breaks and government spending, were about five times as much as aid to renewables during their first 15 years of development; nuclear received 10 times as much support.

Federal support during the first 15 years works out to $3.3 billion annually for nuclear energy and $1.8 billion annually for oil and gas, but an average of only $400 million a year in inflation-adjusted dollars for ­renewables."
http://cen.acs.org/articles/89/i51/Long-History-US-Energy-Subsidies.html

[carla]

5. My Norwegian neighbor

just one kilometer away is off the grid. It cost him only 8,500$+/-. He runs his tv and stereo and fridge/freezer, etc. without aid of a bicycle. The Green Team program, affiliated with 180 US universities, visit his farm/home regularly to show just how it can be done. Off the grid isn't hard to do, if you want to do it. I'm on my way...

[wtmusic]

6. I hope he doesn't have anything in that fridge/freezer that can spoil

because when the sun goes down and the wind isn't blowing he's out of luck.

[jtuck004]

17. You may have noticed that your landline phone doesn't go out when we lose power. That's because

they have racks and racks of batteries to power them when the grid fails. As it does.

And while the food in your freezer may spoil in such an event, properly designed systems of renewable power have battery back-up that can run them for some time, whether they are wind, solar, or hydro.

Is it pricey? Sure, but not as pricey as it was 20 years ago, and it is getting better all the time.

Thus, you are partly correct, but only partly. And it doesn't negate the idea that we could do a lot better than we are by including more renewable sources at the residential level, using the grid more at night, or in times of higher-power needs, such as for cooling in the summer.

But that takes profit out of the hands of those who would rather see other people die or live in poverty than do what is right for the country.

[wtmusic]

18. A refrigerator uses 120x the energy of a landline phone

and the batteries at your phone utility are designed to kick in briefly until diesel generators start up.

As usual when discussing renewable power, its limitations get plenty of weasel words:

...properly designed systems of renewable power have battery back-up that can run them for some time

How long is "some"? Is it remotely practical to build a system that lasts several days if it's cloudy and the wind isn't blowing?

Is it pricey? Sure, but not as pricey as it was 20 years ago, and it is getting better all the time.

Fine. What happens in unusual events when even the batteries run out?

...we could do a lot better than we are by including more renewable sources at the residential level, using the grid more at night, or in times of higher-power needs, such as for cooling in the summer.

But that takes profit out of the hands of those who would rather see other people die or live in poverty than do what is right for the country.

That depends on what part of the country you're "doing right for". Solar panels are highly subsidized, an expense that affluent people who can afford a $20,000 system write off at the cost of the poor, who pay taxes just like everyone else. As panels are used during the day, the utility loses money, which is billed to everyone in the form of higher rates. Who gets screwed then - rich or poor?

[jtuck004]

26. You can define parameters so they suit your outcome, which doesn't add anything but more weasel

words, as you termed them. Is it remotely practical to ignore the benefits of renewable energy for the 350 days that it would work just fine, because of the 15 days that it wouldn’t? And those batteries at the telco are designed and have the capacity to last for days, not a few hours.

What happens when a tornado wraps up the wires of the grid system in the trees of Oklahoma. 100+ degrees, three weeks no power, something that happens on a regular basis? One can create all sorts of scenarios, but it doesn't negate the fact that more installations of renewable energy would help lessen our dependence on fossil fuels and reduce the impact we are having on the planet. We don't wait on curing death to offer what care we can in the meantime. We have had great advances in medicine, especially emergency medicine, but nobody wants to forego those because people in rural areas don't have hospitals, or even clinics, or even doctors. They help the better, well-subsidized urban population, screw everyone else. So it's not as if this isn't done across the board. So that self-righteous thing about not doing stuff for some if we can't do it for all is kind of moot, mostly just useless and argumentative. Like most of Congress today.

Some work would bring improvement to a great number of people, and we work toward the rest as we have always done.On the other hand, we can keep exploiting and burning up fossil fuels, dirtying the landscape, and ruining people's lives by increasing the incidents of earthquakes. Temps rise, our food production falters, who do you think will be hurt the most, rich or poor?

Maybe we change the ownership of the utilities - perhaps more cooperative and less corporate, then it would be pointless for them to screw people like you described above. But that won't happen as long as we leave it in their greedy and grasping hands.

Who is making money now, rich or poor? We create atmosphere's that affect the air that children and families have to try to breath, screwing over the poor with their asthma and other lung diseases in cities like Los Angeles, full of people in the urban areas who can't afford to move, surrounded by the wealthy who simply moved away from it.

Btw, panels are made outside the U.S. (are any even being made here now?) so do you have a link to your assertion that a company, whether Chinese or other foreign national, is being subsidized by U.S. tax dollars to make panels? The U.S. has invested in a couple of companies, but that's not unusual. Most big projects are subsidized, whether it is the highway systems, big dams that create electricity, nuclear plants, farming, whatever. They all depend to a large extent on government funding.

The problem then becomes why the politicians listen to the lobbyists who garner those benefits for the rich, instead of working to help the whole of the country, not the subsidies themselves.

There are some very good reasons to work towards more renewable energy, regardless of it's current shortcomings, or the short-sightedness of the people who can't get their vision out of the 20th century.

[wtmusic]

28. "Greedy and clasping hands"? That's a laugh.

You may be surprised to learn that utilties are about the least profitable enterprise in the corporate world. In California, where I live, utilities are allowed to charge the public 10% above their expenses. In terms of annual return that's nothing - and the reason that people buy utility stocks as a safe investment. No one, repeat no one, has gotten rich quick in utilities.

So when you say "change the ownership of the utilites" - as a largely socialist enterprise, you in fact already own the utilities through the strictest regulation in the corporate world.

You, like many others, have it exactly backwards. You want to give the power to rich people who can afford solar arrays, I want to distribute it economically and evenly, with economies of scale, for everyone. You want to create opportunities for solar and wind entrepreneurs like T. Boone Pickens (tax writeoffs) which depend on dirty fossil fuels as backup; I want to create fossil-free sources which benefit everyone, without ridiculous subsidies.

[jtuck004]

30. Enron. n/t

[wtmusic]

36. Not only was Enron not a utility

they represented the exact kind of problem you want to promote.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron_Wind

[jtuck004]

38. You want to have it both ways. Not hardly worth talking to at this point.

But a couple points - 10% return? That's 10 times or more what most people can get today on safe money. And as a place like Enron jacks around with utility prices the cost is just passed on to the consumer. Then the stockholders get 10% of a lot more money. It's also nearly bulletproof, the kind of stuff you put widows and orphans into. Well, unless you are Goldman Sucks, then you figure out something to steal anything they have left. So people holding that aren't hurting. Not at all, And they represent a very small part of the population. And of course there is management, making millions of dollars in salaries each year, apiece.

Typical 20th century thinking, a hundred years behind.

On the other hand, you have no earthly idea what I want.

cya.

[wtmusic]

39. I have no earthly idea what you want

nor do I care.

Have a nice day.

[AtheistCrusader]

34. If you're really concerned about that you can get a tank of LP, and a dual fuel fridge

that runs on electricity and gas.

Not hard. All bases covered. If the amount of gas you end up using is unacceptable over time, add more batteries, and more turbine or solar panel as needed.

[Helen Borg]

44. Solar in Norway?

Seems pretty north for that... I guess it must be something else (wind? Tides?)

[kristopher]

20. You're right.

And a grid built of distributed renewables has far more redundancy than a centralized grid, and is therefore far more reliable

The idea that the variability of renewables means a highly effective energy production and delivery system isn't possible is nothing more than a lie perpetuated by the stakeholders in our centralized thermal system built on coal and nuclear.

You will find tons of peer reviewed science that supports a renewable grid as the best possible sustainable system, you'll find none saying they can't.

None.

[Generic Other]

7. Not on nuke power

blessed by hydro in the PNW, but we have Hanford. That could become a new curseword too! Hanford you and your environmantal catastrophes. Why isn't wind and solar on your list?

Believe it or not they did try to rig a bicycle powered computer at our local occupy. Maybe the wave of the future. Who knows.

[wtmusic]

9. Wind/solar = renewables, and Hanford didn't have anything to do with power generation, did it?

It was the result of careless disposal of weapons materials, which ended forty years ago.

I'm all for pedaling a bicycle for power, if more people did it they would have an understanding of the value of a consistent power source. My guess is that the average U.S. citizen could pedal-power an iMac for 5 minutes tops before they give up and plug it into a wall.

[Generic Other]

10. Hanford does have one commercial reactor these days

I don't think they sell power to my area though.

[wtmusic]

11. So they do, I didn't know that.

It started operation in 1984 so hopefully they're more careful with their spent fuel.

All of WA gets a very small percentage from nuclear, about 5%.

[Generic Other]

15. My city burns garbage in an incinerator

I think it burns clean. Why aren't we building more of these? Seems as if we have plenty of fuel (Pacific gyre, landfills...). We just have so many options and yet always put all our eggs in the most dangerous baskets.

[wtmusic]

22. The problem is not a shortage of clean energy at all

It's a shortage of clean energy that's can be practically converted into electricity, and is dispatchable (ready when we need it).

That doesn't leave a lot of options, but nuclear is one of the best. Statistically it's the safest form of clean, dispatchable energy. onedit: after hydro, available in some areas.

[Generic Other]

31. But you are never going to convince most of us that this is true

You are trying to sell us on a technology most of us view in the same light we view pedophiles. If we feel revulsion, fear, phobia, aversion, disgust every time someone promotes nuclear energy (and make no mistake, many many many feel as strongly as I), nothing is going to change our minds. No logical arguments or illogical. No truths, no opinions, no half truths. No emotional appeals.

Every puff of radioactive steam emitted from Fukushima, every tick of the geiger counter, every gallon of radioactiove water seals the industry's fate and guarantees its doom.

Time for a new plan.

[wtmusic]

37. I'm fortunate in that I've actually been able to change quite a few minds

but some I won't. All I can do is present what I know, and what I believe.

I have no doubt your feelings of revulsion, fear, phobia, aversion, disgust are real. But to hear you reject logical arguments and truths is actually reassuring, because then I know it's not nuclear power, and it's not my power of persuasion.

It's your own inability to look at an issue with an open mind. It's your problem, not mine.

[Generic Other]

60. There are no logical arguments for using nuclear technology

And the biggest argument against using this technology is that we are unable to control it when it breaks down, and we are unwilling to keep equipment up-to-date, or to properly maintain that equipment so it won't break down because we are too cheap. Shoddy practices. Willingness to take shortcuts. Continuing to operate unsafe outmoded plants, lack of concern about worker safety. Leaking waste. That kind of stuff cannot be logically argued away. That is the state of the industry today. No one wants a nuke plant in their neighborhood. Including you.

You are expecting me to place trust in a deadly technology that destroys the planet and continues to generate poison. Don't worry about the waste the industry says. By the time it matters we will have found a way to contain it.... That's not a logical plan to me.

A major nuclear plant in Florida is closing because it is not safe to continue operations. The cost to replace is upwards of 22 billion. I thought Florida has now decided natural gas would be cheaper. I imagine consumers did the math and decided they could not afford what the nuke industry wants to sell. I would say in more ways than one.

[wtmusic]

63. Then you are for coal/gas/fracking. You support climate change.

All the problems you mentioned, as serious as they are, will be dwarfed in fifty years by the freight train that's coming down the tracks.

[Generic Other]

64. That's ridiculous

I am not FOR destructive and expensive ways to destroy the planet. We do not NEED costly new nuclear plants so we can generate enough juice so some powersucking company can make more aluminum cans to sell cola in. The promise of a few jobs is not worth the risks.

I would much rather see local projects -- wind, solar, geo-thermal, tidal, hydro-- we can live comfortably without killing ourselves. Perhaps if our government had spent money on something more significant than newer faster nastier ways of killing people in the past century, we might already have the clean technology you seem to think is not an option. This nation once put a man on the moon. We could probably manage to figure out a way to put a lot more of these technologies in place.

[NickB79]

43. Burning garbage creates the most deadly waste of all

Carbon dioxide. The one waste product capable of literally impacting every ecosystem on the planet.

The same reason we can't keep burning fossil fuels is why we can't burn garbage for energy. Frankly, it would be better environmentally to bury it than burn it, even if it leaches residual toxins into the ground.

[Generic Other]

62. The industry does say they burn clean and gov. regs are strict

but you may be right that is still contributing to problems. Just not Fukushima-size ones.

[AtheistCrusader]

35. Columbia Generating Station cranks out 10% of the state's power.

So you are either using it at times, or it offsets other sources that you can buy instead.

Our hydro resources are fucking awesome though. We just uprated the plant at the Snoqualmie Falls. Pretty sure it covers all of our town's needs plus surplus at this point. More when the north side goes online.

[Generic Other]

66. I have been cutting energy use my whole life

Close the plant. I have been in it. The concrete walls have waterstains running down them like a damn cheap motel flop. The geiger counter clicked the whole time I toured that so-called "modern" facility. They put yellow police tape across the floor to mark where it was not safe to cross. Are you kidding me?

I witnessed for myself what the inside of that facility looked like. I have no problem with phasing out all the plants NOW. I do not think I am the only one who feels this way. Not in our state. Or in the rest of the country.

Your Snoqualimie Falls is a great example of local areas taking advantage of the sustainables that exist. Your electric plant must have generated a huge supply in a few days last winter. I recall seeing some shots of the falls that made it look like it had doubled in size and strength. What a beautiful place and good for your community that you can generate power without destroying either your health or harming the environment.

Imagine what the PNW could do with some underwater generators at Deception Pass, the Narrows, the Straits using tidal energy. The state considered a Dutch company doing just such a thing when they built the second Narrow's Bridge. They really should have done it IMO. All of the South Sound goes in and out of the Narrows twice a day. That's a lot of free energy just like your falls. Just have to think outside the old reactor silo sometimes. And we could be selling surplus power rather than still paying for crap we ultimately decided we could do without.

[hunter]

68. Tidal power is loathsome.

The toxins used on ships and other marine equipment to prevent fouling are as bad as tritium. Add to this the disruption of marine environments and tidal power is unacceptable to me. I also support dam removal and restoration of natural riparian environments.

There are plenty of energy sources far worse than nuclear power -- coal and fracked natural gas are among them.

Problems with nuclear waste, even accidents like Fukushima, really are negligible in comparison to the global catastrophe of fossil fuel use.

[Generic Other]

69. I read that there are only 20 viable sites in the world for tidal?

Maybe they are thinking on too large a scale? I would have to agree that environmental destruction of tidal areas is not a great alternative but is at least not poisonous. Maybe they need to think on a smaller scale.

And of course wind is barely being tapped, yet there are those who attack this alternative too. Would that we had had so many vigilant watchdogs when the nuke plants were first being licensed.

[hunter]

71. I have many stories about the old days of the anti-nuclear movement...

...tales much too ticklish to tell. I am a gentleman. Good advice -- be kind to anyone you've seen naked, and anyone who has seen you naked.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hunter/34

This last and final incident was not the first time San Onofre has had trouble with steam tubes.

I remember many public meetings about nuclear power with both sides lying.

It's not quite so bad now that we have the internet. (Mitt Romney learned that lesson the hard way.)

Lately I'm just an Ursula K. Le Guin Always Coming Home Luddite.

What will be will be.

[kristopher]

23. Global energy consumption: Nuclear 2.7%; Renewables 16.7%

16.7 is greater than 2.7
That is a 2010 number, the spread is much larger headed to the end of 2013.

[Generic Other]

32. Encouraging news

I will be working in a geothermal heated building next year. Glad there is a push to look for sustainable alternatives to ringing the planet with another generation of technology we can't control.

[hollysmom]

8. and this surprises them why?

[sakabatou]

12. I don't get why they would be surprised

[Generic Other]

67. It doesn't surprise them

It merely makes it harder for them to convince us to let them build more of reactors.

[ConcernedCanuk]

40. This may not fly, but here goes.

.
.
.

Most in the USA know about our Health Care

How many know about our Nuclear Plants, known to be the safest in the World?

USA's been dicking around with their so-called health care system but refuse to take a good look at ours.

Canada built one of the fastest airplanes in the World during WW2, but USA's pressure made them scrap it,

couldn't have Canada embarrassing them with a better plane than the "superpower" could build.

Candu reactors - that's us Canucks for ya

no surprise we won in 1812.

CC

[wtmusic]

41. Yeah but we won in 2013.

Go 'hawks.



(Canada is miles ahead of the U.S. in Gen IV development, I had the pleasure of meeting members of two separate startups creating CANDU spinoffs in Chicago at a conference in May.)

[ConcernedCanuk]

42. Only took ya 300 years!

.
.
.

and I used to to be a hockey nut

Chicago Black Hawks if I remember correctly -

CC

[L0oniX]

45. We obviously need to go to war over this.

[ConcernedCanuk]

46. again?

.
.
.



CC

[Octafish]

70. Notice they never mention what else they find.

Tritium, OK, yeah. What about uranium, strontium, plutonium, americium?