Hydroelectric power's dirty secret revealed

New Scientist ^ | Duncan Graham-Rowe | Duncan Graham-Rowe

[SierraWasp]

You left out the sterilization of all air and water on the face of Eco-topia!!! (aka "The Worker's Pair-a-dice!")

What we have here... Is "The Enema Within!"

[VadeRetro]

There is nothing you can do without harming the environment. Yeah! Go ahead and kill yourself! Release your trapped carbon and methane and other noxious stuff! Can't even die without polluting, can you?

You have no right to exist!

[SierraWasp]

"Hunter Thompson themselves"

Oh ho ho ho... That's good!!! They, like Hunter, have no redeeming social value!!!

[SierraWasp]

Ahhhhhh Yes... Of cours... NOT!!!

[chimera]

All of the fuel assemblies at TMI-II had damage of one sort or another. Some had only breached the cladding, while others had significant melting of the fuel meat. The core as a whole did not melt.

Chornobil? It was a kind of combination of meltdown and burnup. The initial power transient caused significant comminution of the fuel and some melting, with decay heat causing the additional melting. The dispersion was driven primarily by the subsequent graphite fire. Fission products were being released from the fuel as the burning proceeded and likely wouldn't have gone far unless borne aloft by the heated air from the fire.

There were some destructive tests done in the 1950s as part of the SPERT and BORAX tests, but those were test reactors.

So your point is valid. Certainly LWR technology as used in the West is a very forgiving design. For a zero-emissions source of reliable, affordable baseload electricity, it is hard to beat.

[farmfriend]

Rights, farms, environment ping.
Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from this list.
I don't get offended if you want to be removed.

[E.G.C.]

BTTT!!!!!

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Just posted this Long Piece and pinged most of you....refutes some of this crap....

*******************************************

PERSPECTIVES: RISING CO2 LEVELS - THE REASON WHY ~~The earth has a cycle

***********************************

DO ADJUST YOUR SCREENS>>>>

[Major_Risktaker]

They want us to live in caves.

The left wants us to be naked cave families.
Peta wouldn't be happy about the fur coats
we would wear. No power or fuel no more
synthetic fabrics.

They aren't called the Loony Left for nothing.

I forgot to mention that the left will never
live the lifestyle they preach about.

[Outland]

More crap from New "Scientist".

According to CDIAC, methane's effect on "global warming" is 23 times that of CO2, not 21 (this is referred to as "Global Warming Potential" or GWP). However, we notice that the article says nothing about the current atmospheric concentration of methane, which is a measly 1852 Parts Per Billion (PPB). That's only 0.0001852% of the atmosphere!

By comparison, CO2 concentrations are about 375 PPM, or 0.0375% of the atmosphere. Since GWP is a comparison based on an equivalent mass of CO2, we see that the atomic mass of methane is 16.04 where CO2 is 44.0, roughly 2.743 times more than methane. What does that mean?

If I got my math right, it means that current methane levels have to rise to 0.00447% (over 24 times the current level) to reach CO2's current measly potential.

Do we clearly see how the "Warmiacs" are trying to scare the public? But that's not all. NASA reported in November of 2003 that methane levels have flat-lined over the previous 4 years. No rise in levels. The article also does not mention that methane only lasts 10 years or less in the atmosphere before hydrogen radicals break it down into CO2 and water vapor.

So where's the threat?

C'mon, you pseudoscience green freaks! You haven't scared me yet. Show me the real science to back your BS claims!

[Outland]

First a correction to my previous post... "over 24 times the current level" was intended to read "almost 24 times the current level".

Second: What about the world wide mass of vegetation that decays along every water way and coastline, every creek, stream, river, lake and sea? Vegetation decay due to dams is miniscule in comparison.

Yet methane levels have not increased. Go figure.

Where are the real scientists today?

[o_zarkman44]

Life in general is a bad thing for the environment.
Especially Human life.
What a crock!
I hope that idiot don't get his water from one of them bad boy reseviors or I would call him a hypocrite!

[o_zarkman44]

Burn off the vegetation before it rots! Get fast results over the time released version of emissions.
A log on the fire releases no more CO than decaying matter, but it releases stored energy faster. But the wackos don't like anything that benefits mankind or gasp......makes a profit!

[Eric in the Ozarks]

Its called "I've got mine."

[chimera]

It's a complex model. Anyone who has modeled complex systems with various feedback terms, sources, sinks, excitations, and dampenings, each with their own time constant, will know that it takes a long time to reach even a semblance of equilibrium (if it ever does), and any kind of perturbation tends to result in dynamic effects that are often counterintuitive. So rates of emissions and absorption can be a factor. If you dump a lot of something into the system quickly, over a short time span, the system behavior varies from that observed for longer and more gradual release times. If the system is close to a critical point, even small perturbations can tip the overall balance one way or the other, in a quite dramatic manner.

So, global warming or global cooling? From what I've seen of either model, the measured data points seem "noisy". That is, they have large error bars. Attempting to benchmark various models with such data comes close to GIGO, and basing public policy on GIGO is probably a bad idea.