Solar panels

On Mon, 16 Nov 2015 09:17:25 +0000, Tim Streater

Ok, so you would be ok sitting on a freshly broken nuke? Don't get me wrong, I have no issue with nukes, just that they *are* more of a potential liability (to as many people) than a solar panel or windmill. ;-)

Yup ... have solar panels or windmills ever killed that many? ;-)

I'm not all of it was at the beginning?

Quite ... dead or contaminated fish possibly.

;-)

Question then, what IS all the fuss about re Nukes? Why aren't they being built all over the place, including at the back of your place? After all, you wouldn't be a NIMBY eh? ;-)
Cheers, T i m
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 16/11/2015 21:10, T i m wrote:

Per joule - yes. Lots more. This was the first hit on Google for "death rate kilowatt hour" (no quotes)
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/
AKA http://tinyurl.com/6m2o7c5
Solar (rooftop) 440 Wind 150 Nuclear – global average 90
And nuclear works on a cold, calm winter's night...
Andy
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 16 Nov 2015 21:26:22 +0000, Vir Campestris

So they were probably installers?

They could be anyone, installers or local residents?

Of course ...
Cheers, T i m
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

So what? They're still dead.
--
Today is Boomtime, the 30th day of The Aftermath in the YOLD 3181
I don't have an attitude problem.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Really?

Yes, but one is possibly some stupid installer falling off a roof because he/she was taking liberties (and it's a 'risk' that comes with their business) versus some innocent passer-by killed by a flying solar panel, wind turbine blade or a radioactive leak.
'Most people' when discussing such stats would really only consider the people outside the main action. Just as they might when a joyrider kills themselves and a queue at a bus stop. Ok, the media / authorities wouldn't say on TV that the joyrider 'had it coming to him/her' but ...
HTH, Cheers, T i m ;-)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
writes

Just the usual stupidity from those too stupid to even notice that nukes add a lot less radioactive material to the atmosphere than coal fired power stations do and fools like Harry that are too stupid to even work out that putting the waste back in the ground after its been thru the nuke is no worse than the situation when the nuclear material was taken from the ground in the first place to use in nukes.

See above.

For the same reason that coal fired power stations aren't.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Monday, 16 November 2015 22:46:18 UTC, John Jackson wrote:

What ignorant drivel. In the first place nuclear waste is laregely stuuf that doesn't exist naturally. It's not possible to just dig a hole and bury stuff and expect it to remain there. They have tried and failed. The holes they dig elsewhere get deeper more elaborate and costly. If it were simple we would be doing it and we aren't. We are hanging back watching what happens elsewhere. Hoping for a solution. Success rate so far has been zero.
You are the living proof that everything is simple to the simple minded.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

To be pedantic, it seems Fukushima may no longer be zero
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/20/us-japan-nuclear-fukushima-idUSKCN0SE0VD20151020#z7mkqDqWGHH3ILkm.97
--
Chris B News

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 17/11/15 10:26, Chris B wrote:

Well if he died from less radiation than you get from a Cat scan, or living on Dartmoor for a year, I should be dead ten times over.

--
the biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
writes

On the other hand it may still be zero.
--
bert

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 16/11/2015 22:46, John Jackson wrote:

Except it occupies a much smaller volume so it's considerably more concentrated?
--
F



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

You don't need to renew them for 60 years - longer life than a solar panel and the waste is less toxic and doesn't end up in landfill.

--
bert

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

That's a good thing.

Also a good thing.

Hmmm ...

Where does the radioactive remains of the structure go then?
Cheers, T i m
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 16/11/15 21:12, T i m wrote:

what radioactive remains>?

--
the biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 17 Nov 2015 00:07:38 +0000, The Natural Philosopher

I was thinking of the structure itself, pressure vessels and all that? Surely it has to be more radioactive than the general surroundings or say a std demolished house (and not one made of granite). ;-)
Cheers, T i m
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 18/11/15 10:19, T i m wrote:

Well not really.
Not after a while.
to create unstable nuclei you do indeed have to acquire neutrons, but most of what is created is fairly unstable and therefore short-lived.
That's why in general they simply seal up a reactor after the fuel rods have been removed and wait about 60 years. Then its pretty much 'background radiation'.
That's the thing about radioactivity: the more intense and the more dangerous it is, the quicker it decays.
Most of it is so stable its hardly a risk, or so unstable it isn't a risk for long.
The very few things in between tend to be transuranics and those are only created in the fuel itself.
You have a worse radiation hazard from coal ash tips than a 60 year old reactor.
--
the biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 18 Nov 2015 10:43:00 +0000, The Natural Philosopher

Thanks for the feedback.

Taken over the whole 60 years?
Don't get me wrong, I'm pro Nukes and especially until we actually have something that can replace them (if we ever needed to etc).
Cheers, T i m
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 18/11/15 14:53, T i m wrote:

After the 60 years.
The basic point is this. The reactor vessel abosrbs the neutrons, and gets a bit 'hot', and the concrete outside keeps everything inside. After 60 years what you have left is a concrete bunker full of scrap metal, and that's that. No special equipment needed. Just bulldozers.
The nastier stuff has all gone to Sellafield - spent fuel rods and high atomic number detritus.
That has to be dealt with differently.

--
the biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 18 Nov 2015 15:05:18 +0000, The Natural Philosopher

Ok.

Ok.

We went round the visitor centre when on one of our motorcycle / camping holidays. Very interesting. ;-)

So I understand. Nice if we could find something useful to do with it. ;-)
Cheers, T i m
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 18/11/15 17:59, T i m wrote:

Well most of it makes decent nuclear fuel.
And some of it can be burnt up in breeder reactors as well.
Its just cheaper to store it right now. Uranium is dirt cheap.

--
the biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.