1950s Chest Freezer Refurbish

Page 7 of 10  
wrote:

China has ordered a LOT of nuclear power plants recently.

Not for that reason("global warming"),but for the deaths from mining coal,and the pollution from burning it.(even using scrubbers)

I believe we would be better off using our coal in a coal-to-gasoline conversion for autos,than burning it in electric generation.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
In article

Geez. That is why it is called a business CYCLE, for the love of Pete.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload


far more people die mining coal than have from US nuclear power. Then there's the emissions and pollution from coal burning.

have you researched pebble-bed reactors yet?
Face it,you really ignore how safe they actually are,and are just unreasonably afraid. You must live in fear of asteroid strikes,too.

Shipping high paying jobs to Mexico by building nuke plants there certainly isn't the answer.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 18:56:28 -0800 (PST), " snipped-for-privacy@aol.com"
Already done.
1. China embraces the atom By Frederick W Stakelbeck Jr http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China_Business/HC04Cb05.html
March 04, 2006
With domestic energy demand expected to increase steadily over the next several decades and with a precipitous decline in domestic production from existing oil and natural-gas fields, China finds itself at an unavoidable "energy crossroads" that will define its growth, influence and prosperity for years to come.
Recognizing the potential consequences associated with any protracted energy shortage, Beijing has embraced nuclear power as a solution. According to the China National Nuclear Corp (CNNC), the government body responsible for much of the country's nuclear-power program, China plans to invest US$48 billion to build 30 nuclear reactors by 2020. Currently, the country has nine reactors in operation with another two under construction at a combined cost of $3.2 billion. (more)
2. Let a Thousand Reactors Bloom Explosive growth has made the People's Republic of China the most power-hungry nation on earth. Get ready for the mass-produced, meltdown-proof future of nuclear energy. By Spencer Reiss http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.09/china.html http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.09/china.html?pg=1&topic=china&topic_set
3. . China may halt production of liquefied coal: official June 10, 2007 http://english.people.com.cn/200706/10/eng20070610_382750.html China, which is rich in coal but poor in petroleum and gas, may put an end to projects which are designed to produce petroleum by liquefying coal, an official with the country's top economic planning agency has said. The consideration came after evaluation of the nation's limited energy resources and its econological environment, a deputy director of the industry department of the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) told a seminar on China's fuel ethanol development, held in Beijing on Saturday. "Liquefied coal projects consume a lot of energy, though the successful industrialization of liquefied coal could help reduce the country's dependence on petroleum," said the official who declined to be named. The Chinese government said earlier it would invest more in developing alternative energy resources including biomass fuel and liquefied coal to substitute petroleum during the 11th Five-Year Program (2006-2010) period, amid concerns over the country's growing dependence on petroleum. (more) ..... elsewhere I recall China's official abandonment of this technology as it requires enormous amounts of water. Already scarce water is more precious for human consumption and for agriculture.
4. Ban on use of corn for ethanol lauded By Le Tian (China Daily) Updated: 2007-06-22 06:47 http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2007-06/22/content_899837.htm
China's policy not to use basic food crops, especially corn, to make biofuel as a substitute for petroleum is a "sound decision", a Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) official said yesterday.
"Such a decision by such an important world player as China is likely to accelerate the second-generation technology for production of ethanol fuel from non-food crops - through conversion of biomass," Abdolreza Abbassian, Commodity Analyst and Secretary of FAO's Intergovernmental Group for Grains, told China Daily.
The UN food body official's remarks came shortly after China imposed a moratorium on projects making ethanol fuel from corn and other basic food crops. The importance of corn in China's food economy has prompted the government to ask companies to switch to non-basic food products such as cassava, sweet potato and cellulose to make ethanol fuel.
"Food-based ethanol fuel will not be the direction for China," said Xu Dingming, vice-director of the Office of the National Energy Leading Group, at a seminar on China's ethanol fuel development in Beijing on Saturday. (more)
5. It goes without saying that China is charging ahead on all fronts to develop hydroelectric power, wind farms, coal bed methane, solar power and more I can't remember for the moment.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It's true. I remember.

Name ONE lie. One. I won't even ask for a reference.
The [too cheap to meter] claim was NOT a lie. It might have happened had it not been for the concerted efforts of a single-minded, anti-nuke campaign.

Yeah, and it passed over numerous, other land masses before it got here. Look, Ma! No fallout!

I disagree. The [no nukes] crowd was typically hysterical while those with information and a capability for reasoned, rational thought were mostly unconcerned.

Agreed. Those prayers paid off and the irradiated cloud caused no trouble - anywhere.
The biggest disaster was The Soviet Union's INTENTIONAL withholding of information for DAYS following the accident. Countless thousands of humans received the equivalent of an extra day in the sun unnecessarily.
Everything in moderation. It works EVERY time it's tried.
--
:)
JR

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

well you can claim the radiation cloud caused no troubles but sadly the hot material settled all over the world and is reportedly still causing cancer today.
thus it wasnt a non event............
coal is plentiful, 100% american and well understood.
the nuke power industry is going to have a horrible time getting any new plants licensed in our country..........
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Actually,new licenses have already been granted for new nuke construction,with more on the way. The application process has been streamlined to speed up nuke construction.
I think you have an irrational fear of "radiation".
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jim Yanik wrote:

There have to the best of my knowledge only been two applications _filed_--certainly no construction licenses have yet been granted that I'm aware of.
Since the applications were only filed in July and October of last year, that would indeed be a sped-up process.
If you know something different, I'd surely like to know what.
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
In article

And very dirty unless all sorts of things are added (to the cost).

Heck the environmentalists manage to delay the NG peaking plants, so getting ANY new plants licensed in our country.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

well the final waste product of nuclear plants will kill you for thousands of years....... or so yucca mountain is supposed to store them for.
knowing people in nuclear power plant building, note i live in pittsburgh no new plants have been licensed in the US although some are coming close, then the public will express their opinion:)
the pebble idea sounds great, and i hope its safe.
but remember we were told the existing plants were perfectly safe, and would produce power so cheap meters would be unnecessary. ultimately neither were true, TMI came way too close to poisioning a populated area.
bring on the nukes, watch the public howl, and build them in china. I predict licenses wouldnt be approved here because public opinion will demand no nukes
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
note the pro nuke poster ignored totally that the chernobyl radiation cloud has no doubt caused cancer in people world wide.........
a sad inconvenient detail.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

Possibly so, but not provable one way nor the other.
I'll simply note US NRC regulations and licensing policy stops at the US border. Russia (and China coincidentally to the other sidethread) are very authoritarian societies so that they could and did make policy and design choices that would not be acceptable in the US.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Don't know. We should have pretty good data on where the cloud went with the winds and all. Also should be able to model dispersal. The first is just meteorology 101, the second should be floating around from the days of above-ground testing of the nuke weapons. After that it would be simple epidemeology to match up the above with (or lack thereof) clusters of nuclear fallout-related cancers.

But if anything, the Japanese and French are even more anal retentive about such things than even the US, yet they have long (and safe) histories of nuclear energy.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Kurt Ullman wrote:

Sure -- but that's not exactly what I said. Studies have been made although I've not looked at what conclusions they may have drawn.
It is, however, a statistical correlation at best and my guess is that except for the near downstream track it will be impossible to detect any increase owing specifically to Chernobyl.
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

From a purely epidemiological standpoint, it really shouldn't be all that difficult to find clusters of excess cancers, and there are forms of cancer that are more highly correlated with exposure to nuclear materials. It would be correlational, but then much of public health is.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Kurt Ullman wrote:

That assumes there _are_ such clusters...the dispersion was so wide, it's highly unlikely to be concentrated enough to show up imo.
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That should be even easier, then. Any related cancers suddenly spike after Chernobyl world wide? Any upswings over time, since radiation-induced cancers are very dose dependent. There either was an important change in cancers after Chernobyl or there wasn't. If there are no clusters and no spike, then it would be hard to argue (at least from an epi standpoint) that Chernobyl had any impact.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Kurt Ullman wrote:

Precisely, and imo, if any studies had shown even a hint, haller and his ilk would be on them like a hen on a June bug, even if they weren't statstically significant but only showed a point estimate possibility. Of course, the "suddenly" is a problem w/ low-dosage events and that makes the correlation of causation even more tenuous.
That they're not implies to me w/o even looking that all work (of which I'm sure there's a lot because plans were in effect to begin such follow-on studies while I was still in Oak Ridge participating in engineering solutions studies/analyses for the site within the year after the incident).
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

And what you refuse to recognize is that the design of that reactor was pee poor and dangerous. Does not apply to the US plants.
Harry K
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
In article

No doubt.. but no evidence.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.