AngelLestat

A cost exercise, after this I would change of subject to talk about new energy alternatives in develpment. Nuclear plant vs Wind plus storage Source: http://gallery.mailchimp.com/ce17780900c3d223633ecfa59/files/Lazard_Levelized_Cost_of_Energy_v7.0.1.pdf Nuclear Energy: How the graphic show, Nuclear values does not reflect decommissioning costs or potential economic impact of federal loan guarantees (this mean accidents) or other subsidies. Lower cost represent the new Nuclear Reactor model AP1000 (1.1GW) Total Cost/GW: 5,3 Billions / LifeTime: 40 Years / Construction time: 48-69 month / LCOE: $86/MWh Then we need to add the decommission cost which vary from 15% of the construction cost to 100 Billions, depending on the kinds of accidents that had. Lets assume 0 accidents in its lifespan. This mean a Decommission cost of 1 Billion. Total Cost/GW: 6,3 billions. +operation +fuel +waste-management Wind energy: Total Cost/GW: 1,5 Billion / LifeTime: 20 Years / Construction time: 12 month / LCOE: $45/MWh Due to lifetime we multiple this value by 1.7 to equal the nuclear plant (Not all the parts are remplaced, the concrete base always remains) http://www.windmeasurementinternational.com/wind-turbines/om-turbines.php Total Cost/GW: 2,55 Billion + 1,6 Billion (Storage x4 - 12 Hrs)= 4,15 Billions +maintaince +smart grid +charge cost. There are some other storage options: Pumped Hydro: Cost-270$/kwh Capacity-14GW Power-1.4GW Duration-10hrs Efficiency-82% Lifetime-13000 cycles Total Cost-2,7 Billions http://www.purdue.edu/discoverypark/energy/assets/pdfs/SUFG/publications/SUFG%20Energy%20Storage%20Report.pdf Batteries: Cost: 200$/kw Efficiency-75% Lifetime-10000 cycles (30 years) http://www.eosenergystorage.com/technology-and-products/ http://www.eosenergystorage.com/opportunity/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- False. so cancer death due to radioactivity does not count? nuclear plants working and construction accidents either? Deform childs birth and natural enviroment damage? WHO said 9000 (only chernobyl) I said more than 40000 (which they will take place over time) if we add all nuclear accidents. Plus an economic cost of 700 Billions. The reports (not the pdf) said how these estimations are taken. Is not imagination. Is science. The fact that we can not prove with 100% certainty if someone die by natural cancer or by radiactivity causes, it does not mean that all those death does not exist. .That is not a link. 2010?? Try to use a 2014 source.. We are talking about technology here. This is a link: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/wind-and-solar-harvest-enough-energy-now-to-pay-back-manufacture-plus-add-storage/ Source Nature magazine >> to any university becouse of their policy. I have. http://cleantechnica.com/2013/09/11/analysis-50-reduction-in-cost-of-renewable-energy-since-2008/ http://ecowatch.com/2013/08/31/solar-capacity-grows-efficiency-pv-panels-increase/ http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/programs/energy-and-climate/how-fast-are-the-costs-of-solar-really-coming-down http://www.energypost.eu/iea-exaggerates-costs-underestimates-growth-solar-power/ in resume to the data that you can find, PV fall 50% from 2008 to 2013. The rapidly decreasing costs of solar cells and corresponding grow of the global solar industry have lead people to invoke Moore’s law and predict that the installed capacity of solar PV on homes and businesses will double every two years. Some estimations only follow the graphics trend and add the production limit that solar may had to face. But if we take into account the new technologies comming (a lot), how cheap and mass production they may be.. the 50% cost reduction for 2020 is a fact.

The gravity of titan is not so low, the power/weight ratio of the RTG is not enoght to provide lift at the same time to power comunications and instruments.

Thanks, I would test them. A quadcopter has not issues with respect to maneuverability, meanwhile is 100% vertical is safe for dock. But if you want to dock with something in land (that you can hit and crash) with weird angles, is a lot more difficult.

I said that nuclear fans after my post would ignoring or diverting the facts, and that is what exactly happens. Let me show you: Haha, ignoring and diverting All the data that I post was real data. Real numbers. If you have different values post them.. Lets compare sources. I remember you that in my previous post I dint said nothing about deaths, I was just talking about economical cost. There was no emotion or sensationalism, just numbers that we need to take into account. In my first post I talk about death, And I mention the WHO value of 4000 and the other estimations from different sources. And I said that WHO is the most serious source. But guess what.. WHO upgrade the 4000 death estimation to 9000. Apparently subsequent reports with higher numbers and evidence give WHO new data. But you said that is only 45? Then you said that I cherrypick? If you really believe that the chernobyl death cost it would be only 45. Then is all said.. You are complete blind. Read this if you really wanna know and understand the reports.. Real all! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_the_Chernobyl_disaster#Chernobyl_Forum_report_and_criticisms So your answer was just diverting words and facts and ignoring the evidence and conclusion. My stand was clear with real numbers, if you add decommissioning, waste, and possible accidents cost. You end with much higher cost than renowables+storage. Can you refute that? No.. you cant! Diverting. Your conclusion is damm silly. Your main goal is remplace coal sources. Ok.. but you also are saying that if you have 100 billions to invest, you need spend a % in nuclear. Why you can not invest 100% in renowables +smart grid and storage? If I prove you that if you add the decommissioning cost then is equal to wind or solar plus storage. Ok. your stand may be "[PUPPIES] the future, let other people in charge 30 years later worry about cost." Of course you need to worry of paid the decommisiioning of old nuclear plants left it by the ancient rulers. The decommissioning cost is 1.5 times the original plant price as minumun. It can cost a lot more. damm that is so diverting that I am not sure if I understand your point. First that image was from 2011, the cost of renowable energy now decrease to almost half in these years. Second.. you want to buy extra clean energy sources for the 30% of the popullation? Of course it would not be cheap, investments and changes takes time. Now tell me how much it would cost provide the same energy with nuclear plants?? I would tell you, a lot more. See how do you divert? we need to talk about costs, what is more cost effective. You can not escape from numbers. But like we already stand, citys produce a lot of noice just from traffic, and live besides a nuclear plants is not much pleasurable. I said that is silly to not use the already nuclear plants which we have. They are better than fossil plants. Nobody denied that. But if you have a new investment, why make a new nuclear plants when you can just add by lower cost renowable. I already explain many times why the base load is not an issue. I give you links.. you ignore them? Things are very well designed until a problem show the contrary. I am sure that when fukushima was build they thoght that was secure enoght. After all many safe mechanism fails at the same time. The same happen with the malaysia airplane. Airplanes had 9 independent computers, tons of safe mechanism and backup measures. Nonetheless it completely disappeared and yet nothing is known. In your link, it said : total cancer mortality might increase by up to a few per cent owing to Chernobyl related radiation exposure. Such an increase could mean eventually up to several thousand fatal cancers in addition to perhaps one hundred thousand cancer deaths expected in these populations from all other causes. An increase of that magnitude it would be very difficult detect. Popullation grow, old nuclear plants remains; new nuclear plants are considered more safe (until new accidents prove they are not, then people would said, no.. it was not secure enoght for problems in its desing.. now they would be safe) The things is that you can not play with this things, more when you have cheaper and safety alternatives. Who are you to choose which are milintant and biased sources? Becouse they disagree with you? Lets compare them to see which seems more seriuos. Even with smart grid integrations and extra storage, renowable energy is cheaper than nuclear. In the next 5 years PV cost would decrease a 50% or more. Storage prices would decrease a 30%. This will put at end to nuclear as viable option, of course it will be always exeptions where due to condintions and locations a nuclear plant can be still a good alternative. No, you can see that you had 2 extremes, the most benevolent case, and the most destructive case. Values oscillate between €760 billion to €5.8 trillion. Even if its the most benevolent case, is still discouraging enoght. Is not a failing.You said we learned.. and what about the things that we still not learned? As I said, something is safe until a problem shows the opposite. And not all our active nuclear plants are new. Many of those are very old with old technologies. They really are in big risk. What if a terrorist sabotage the france plant? What if an enemy said, I dont need a nuclear bomb, I will just drop a missille to this nuclear plant. Or.. and oldest nuclear worked that is unhappy with its life, finds a hole in the secure procedures that allow him to produce a meltdown. Then after france falls. In other part of the world somebody would said... noo! that was a issue in its design, now its safe. But you had accidents. But lets put thing in perspective. You dont have any major natural disaster, not volcanos, earthquake, tornado, tsunamis, hurricane, etc. You also are very serious and responsible. Your country has low levels of corruption. You dont have enemies. So before encourage nuclear as a real safe alternative just basing in the Canada case (that is still uncertain), first take a look to the real world outside Canada. I will continue answer later.

It looks like the world war 2. I am looking something more similar to our time.

No radioactivity released? Maybe in a perfect world, but accidents happens. Mining the only negative impact? Why the wastes and disasters are not? Use old wastes in new nuclear plants sounds great, but as I said, this not decrease the waste risk, becouse you still need to transport them. China has 17 nuclear reactors and 30 are under construction. The model in construction is AP1000 (new model of nuclear plant that cost 5.1 billon with 1.1 GW) This may sound like they are nuclear fans, but the true is that all their energy consumption is growing as hell so they are building anything that generate power. http://www.usfunds.com/media/images/frank-talk-images/2013_ft/FT_Jul-Dec/chinas-energy-use-could-double-FT-08072013-lg.gif This include more coal plants, wind, solar, hydro, etc. The % of each technology is similar to its price. But the techonology with more grow is Wind followed of solar. The renowable investment was 298 billions in 5 years, at the end of this year they would got 100GW of wind energy and 35 GW from solar, in which a 55% is wind, a 30% is solar, plus other sources. Of course there is places where the wind does not blow, so is logical to find other alternatives, one is solar, but its price is not competive yet with nuclear. This can change is just 5 years, since PV is the technology with higher grow. They also invest 7 Billion in smart grid. Take your time If I am wrong in something just point it. I will correct it with pleasure.

Sounds great, mothership ballon with quadcopter.. something to test in ksp. damm I forget that in ksp we dont have electric propeller This green guys are very silly with their technology.

Lol, so the only thing that you can reply is something that I dint said and something that you dint read? I never said that human life has a value.. (Of course it has, but I dint said it! haha joke xd) I was just mention that an economic collapse has consequences too. And I also said that there is not point to compare fossil vs nuclear becouse we dont need nuclear to remplace fossil, we can just use renowable, even with storage is by far more cheaper if you count all nuclear costs. Read the link of the scientific american that is explained why load base is not an issue for renowable. I can not explain all, that post was large enoght. And all the things that you said "production, infrastructure, etc etc.." why you mention ?? is already included in the cost. And wind is cheaper! What? you dont need production, infrastructure or space to set nuclear plants? You can place a nuclear plant in a city or urban area? No! you cant. The problem is that urban areas expand and some end being very close to nuclear plants, that is the reason why some of them needs military protection all the time. Becouse the risk with all that people so close increase. And I am not saying "lets stop to use all our nuclear plants" that is silly. I am just saying "if we have the money to remplace a coal plant or to invest in more energy, lets choose a renowable option instead a new nuclear plant).

FINAL STRIKE FOR THE NUCLEAR OPTION I cant asnwer reply by reply, becouse many of you ask the same things, so I would answer all in one. Including the facts and numbers that all Nuclear fans refuse to see. First let's talk about cost. If we take the Levelized Energy Cost, that calculate the price at which electricity must be generated from a specific source to break even over the lifetime which include: initial investment, operations, maintenance, cost of fuel, cost of capital and MW generated by year. We get that wind is cheaper in all cases. Please study these values yourself. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/electricity_generation.cfm http://gallery.mailchimp.com/ce17780900c3d223633ecfa59/files/Lazard_Levelized_Cost_of_Energy_v7.0.1.pdf Thats not all, there are more nuclear cost that should be taken into account to see how profit real is, here are some: Nuclear decommissioning: The price of energy inputs and the environmental costs of every nuclear power plant continue long after the facility has finished generating its last useful electricity. Both nuclear reactors and uranium enrichment facilities must be decommissioned, returning the facility and its parts to a safe enough level to be entrusted for other uses. After a cooling-off period that may last as long as a century, reactors must be dismantled and cut into small pieces to be packed in containers for final disposal. The process is very expensive, time-consuming, dangerous for workers, hazardous to the natural environment, and presents new opportunities for human error, accidents or sabotage. The total energy required for decommissioning can be as much as 50% more than the energy needed for the original construction. In most cases, the decommissioning process costs between US $300 million to US$5.6 billion. Decommissioning at nuclear sites which have experienced a serious accident are the most expensive and time-consuming. In the U.S. there are 13 reactors that have permanently shut down and are in some phase of decommissioning, and none of them have completed the process. Current UK plants are expected to exceed £73bn in decommissioning costs. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power Waste management cost including accidents by leaks:These threats include the problems of processing, transport and storage of radioactive nuclear waste, the risk of nuclear weapons proliferation and terrorism, as well as health risks and environmental damage from uranium mining. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power I dont have estimations cost values, just use your imagination. Disaster cost: Chernobyl was 235 Billions. Fukushima is estimated from 200 to 500 Billions, Japan already borrow 35 Billions to start with the clean operations. I remember to anyone that fukushima had 3 fully reactor meltdowns. The good news is that in those moments the wind blow toward the ocean, so the 80% of the radiation was out of japan. If the wind in those moments would be toward Tokio, Japan economy would collapse. This image, only takes into account the cost already approved to start the cleanups and excludes the cost of shutting down the actual reactor units, which is projected to take several decades and cost the government around $150 billion. Then we have to add all the lawsuit in progress. France did a case study to simul the consequences of a full meltdown in one of their plants. The report was kept it in secret by many years due to how serious was. It evaluated a range of disaster scenarios that might occur at the Dampierre plant. In the best-case scenario, costs came to €760 billionâ€â€more than a third of France’s GDP. At the other end of the spectrum: €5.8 trillion! Over three times France’s GDP. A devastating amount. So large that France could not possibly deal with it. Financially, France would cease to exist as we know it. http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/France-Predict-Cost-of-Nuclear-Disaster-to-be-Over-Three-Times-their-GDP.html ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Nuclear defenders said that the death caused by fossil plants it has not comparison against nuclear death. But this is not a way to defend Nuclear. First Co2 death would not collapse a country economy, if this happen many people will starve and other consequences arise. Replacing all thermo fossil plants with nuclear, is like remplace Co2 with Radioactivity, why follow the wrong path again? if we can make the things right from the begining this time, we have better alternatives to nuclear. With radioactivity is only matter of time, today or tomorrow, but you would need to deal with that eventually. China is already making 30 new nuclear plants. Even if the new nuclear plants are more safe, the cost is still a lot higher than any renowable alternatives. Even if their use the actual nuclear wastes to power the new ones, the risk of an accidents due to waste management and transportation increase. They also said that is the only way to deal with load base generation if fossil plants are remplaced. But that is not true either. The renowable cost decrease so much these last years that in some places that is even more cheap that the fossil option. If we include the cost of storage, is still cheaper than Nuclear in many cases. See the LAZARD study already linked. This link also explain why even without storage, solar and wind energies are most cost effective than nuclear with base load. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/wind-and-solar-harvest-enough-energy-now-to-pay-back-manufacture-plus-add-storage/ Is important that if you would read an article about cost and technologie about renowables, try to find studies made it in the last year. Becouse the grow of these technologies is stunning. So the question now is... Nuclear fans would reconsider their standing with these numbers? Or just they would look to other side ignoring or diverting the facts. Nuclear energy is considered for many as symbol of country status and development, I hope to see this trend over in the same way as once was considered cool to smoke. Germany, one of the smartest countries in the world, did the first step to end this.

Said wherever you want, the Solar Tower is already 100% funded. The construction begins at the end of this year in Arizona. The tower would had 800 Mts with a capacity of 200Mw. They are also trying to close other deals for Texas, China and Chile.

First, the noice issue with a gas generator is many times more than a wind turbine. The efficiency of a small generator it has no comparison with a big one.. A fossil thermo plant is close to 75% of efficiency, a small gas/oil otto generator is close to 35%. Then you always need to paid for the gas to produce energy (the cost rise all years). How your energy is not renowable, the sale cost (price/Kw is low, that take away any advantage of produccing in the main hours.) About the payback cost of wind it was like I said. From 2 to 4 years the new models. (Search in google in this last year: wind turbines payback cost), wind turbines pay its manufacture energy cost in just 5 month. Now read this, it would clear you up many doubts: It also explain why the time-load is not an issue against any other technology. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/wind-and-solar-harvest-enough-energy-now-to-pay-back-manufacture-plus-add-storage/ The payback cost also depends on the country policies and the winds locations of course, if you dont have wind, PV then.. http://www.enerpower.ie/page/wind/wind-turbine-payback-period I saw this 2 years back but I dont remember the name so I can not find it, of course it was not constructed yet, they was in the materials selection phase. For example kevlar with CNT semi rigid structures would work but the cost is still high. If you have valves to manage how much air you release in a crash and how much you keep. You can absorb most of the energy and avoid any damage to the driver. Depending from what direction the crash is, air mechanism activated using the same energy from the crash helping to keep the driver save. You can fall from a high hill with this car and be totally ok. In fact the car would not get almost any damage. You can also run over people and it would be impossible to kill them. If nuclear plants would be cost efficient, then maybe I would not be so against. But their are not, and the risk that any of our already nuclear plants had an accidenct with their facilities or wastes in the next 20 years is too high. So why to add more future problems even if the new nuclear plants are more safe? What if this plant has a issue? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Point_Energy_Center How many people from New York you need to move? Who paid that cost? About the load issue is explained in the first link that I gave to you. Smarted grid technologies would solve many of the power distribution and load problems. I think that you are totally our of context, read our replys history to verify that. I am saying that battery develpment funded can not be compare with fussion, becouse fussion never had any comercial payback yet. I already did with many examples in my previous post. And not always procedures and things go out like they are planned. Is not a theorical world. **** HAPPENS Your replys 1-2 are already answered. If you only way to continue with this discussion is giving fake facts and nonsense then is over. First, there is no way to make something super safe, or it has a super cost, or is not super safe. Mostly all important accidents are just a a chain of unfortunate events. Not becouse is earthquake safe means that nothing can happen. First, a natural disaster is just a natural disaster, there is nothing that we can do. But when an eartquake or tsunami strike, then with the time you can rebuild the town, but if remains radioactive then is other issue. Fukushima and Chernobyl are labeled as the 2 most expensive/damage industrial accidennts from all time. And you want thoudsand of them before said that Nuclear is unsafe.. Take a min and try to think what are you saying... Your nuclear fanatism makes you blind. http://www.wreckedexotics.com/articles/011.shtml http://agreenroad.blogspot.com.ar/2012/06/fukushima-crisis-total-cost-up-to-10.html So even if nuclear is the most cost ineficient technology out there, with biggest investment cost, with he higher operational and maintaince cost, with the waste management cost, with the other cost that are not included as decommissioning or accidents. You still believe that it worth it just becouse you can produce electricity in the main hours? WTF? XD 2 cars only is enoght to 1 night? The cars in your example are toy cars? 1 car, is sufficient to supply 2 houses a whole day (24 hrs). Everybody leaves at different times to work even if everybody enters at 8:00 am becouse not everyone takes the same time to get to work. The cars has an average parking time of 95%, and if all people is traveling to work at the same time, this mean that nobody is in house so there is no need to get energy from the batteries. Of course this never happen

I would answer this now becouse I see that many of you had the wrong ideas of how this system works. The use of electric car batteries to storage energy is already in use in some Nordic countries, USA and Canada are very interested in this too. The system works like this: First, the amount of energy that cars batteries can storage is a lot. This is becouse a car consume a lot of energy (think in this way, how much energy takes to move a payload of 1300kg, 200km). Cars owners are paid for this service depeding how much energy from their batteries they sell. You can set what is the minimun % of charge that your car may had. You also set the hours which is more probably that you would need a full charge (lets said that you go to work all days at 7:30 am and you leave work at 6:00 pm, so in those times your car would have the amount of charge that you want.) With those settings you can assure that you would have charge always that you needed, and you can increase your profits the most possible making use of your battery. You can also set to sell energy in the times where is most valuable. You would have a cellphone app to change your charge plan or to get a fast charge in case of emergy (batteries that are comming has not problem with fast charges or exhaustion by hard use) You can search this by Vehicle-to-grid or Smarter Grid

Half not, becouse you already use them to storage renowable energy. In case you need energy you take it from the parked cars and owners get paid for the service. This make the electric cars more profitable increasing even more the storage capacity to renowables. You type an extra zero there, but I understand, of course public transport or the other mentioned are the way to go. But in some societies this demand a major change. I am half agree, is true than buy an electric car to day in some places does not worth too much from the ecologic point of view. Prices are a good measure to estimate their pollution cost (energy, resources and delivery) to build the car. But doing this, you are encouraging other people to do the same, meanwhile more electric cars are sold, the prices lower, they can be manufacture in different countries which reduce the cost a lot more. The lithium batteries had much lower pollution than old batteries. Electric cars made extra km with less money reducing co2 emissions. I know people who do these things but in certain place where it worth it without using fuel, lets said that someone leaves in a place with high winds, he/she has some money save and invest in a big wind turbine, selling energy to the grid recovers the investment 2 or 4 years, But try to do the same thing using gas at that scale, I dont see much profit. Yeah I had the solutions. People common said that they dont like small cars-cycles becouse are unsafe (and they had right), so all the small cars that we see, they need to had a lot of things plus extra airbags, structure, etc. When you weight the car (even the small ones) weight 800kg and cost a lot. With electric motors, you dont need to have a heavy structure to carry the engine.. You can have in-wheels motors 4x4 with torque controlled by software. Instead of having a structure of metal, you can have a cover of a strong kind of fabric with elastic reinforcements of another more rigid material to had shape. The same air inside the car is your air-bag, in a crash you release some of the air inside to absorb the energy in safe way. Of course it needs a paradigm shift, new components to make it sealed and new design for windows and doors. But then you have a very light car and safe. More light it is, lighter the structure is, lighter the engines would be. This mean less batteries and materials --> equals a cheap car. Yeah, thats why I ignore him. Yeah, that is the Michio Kaku analogy Ok, lets said that you can build a "safe" nuclear plant. This mean you need to make it sure against all kind of possible accidents that may have, you also need to take into account the cost to manage the wastes with the same safe.If you said to me that after so hard work keeping this thing safe, you get the ultimate prize (a lot of energy), then I would said.. Ok. Do it. But is not like that. The investment cost is higher, also the operation cost, the maintenance cost. Is the only technologic which if has a fail, the company owner it does not paid the damages. Then all waste issues and risk that it takes. Why for? Just to solve the load from renowable? But is not the same! Batteries are used in comercial way since those times! So they give their money back. The same with wind turbines.. It would not be Holland if it were not for the windmills. But fusion never was used in a comercial way, so all the money was introduce since those dates. Who made the contribution? Many countries. Now when they finish after so many years, you think that an external country which do not cooperate with the development can ask: -Hey! I want a fusion reactor too, can I have it just for the build cost?? The answer would be a nuclear bomb in its ass. No, they would never could build the ITER without the data collected from the low scale tokamaks.THey used the low scale tokamaks to understand different approachs to improve the efficiency (it does not matter if it was only a second or less) the important was the method used and the magnetic field values. Once you have all the data, then you know what is the most efficient way to build a big scale tokamak to try acomplish larg period fusion. But the ITER is still a experiment reactor, with variable magnetic fields, and instruments to discover the ideal recipe to get fusion. Ok, if you said that new nuclear reactors can use old wastes helping to deal with the tons that we already had.Tell me how.. Is similar to the Bill gates approach? There is a site where I can study this approach? How safe they would be? It will generate new wastes? They last so much time that anything can happen, we use Fission since few years and we already had montains of waste, now imagine that we increase the reactors number and we use this for 100 years more.. We are exchanging co2 by radioaction. The radiation would kill us more slowly. That is the danger.

The solution for me, is encourage even more the new renowable technologies (their development cost is a lot cheaper than fusion or new nuclear fission reactors becouse of their simplicity). Then encourage even more electric cars, and reduce its weight. Is silly that a car needs to weight 1300 kg to move a payload average of 80kg. If we just manage to try to focus the transportation in what we really need to move, our Co2 footprint is reduce by a lot. If you need to move 200 kg instead 1300, you reduce the energy consumption in a factor of 3 times at least. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Nuclear is also not due cost, and the fact that you are replacing one risk for another. Right now all storage energy technologies are growing a lot faster than any other. I can show you more than 20 approachs of prototype batteries that already double, triple or four-fold the storage capacity of old lithion batteries. Some of them can be fully charged in 5 to 10 minutes. Once these batteries enter in the market, the electric car production would have a big jump. There is already in many world parts policies to encourage this solution. That would come in perfect time to manage the storage problem for the growing of renowable options. In fact people get paid to allow their car battery to be used as storage, this reduce a lot more the cost of electric cars. I dont know even when to start to reply this, it does not have any sense. If instead fukushima power plant it would be a new model reactor, the problem it would be the same. There is no Nuclear plant who can stand a 9.0 earthquake and tsunami. But well, there is still a lot of old reactors as fukushima still in use in the world. What we need to do with them? Is the endless excuse, "no that happend becouse the design was not safe, now we learn..." few years later you had another disaster, and you hear the same excuse again. I always read everything unlike you. I dint answer becouse I already answer that many times since this discussion started, I hate write over and over the same thing. There is not nuclear plant that withstand such earthquake. And there is old nuclear plants in all the world, what you would do with them? Who has to paid the price to remove them from service or for future disasters? You dont understand, is the people that always paid for that! Is not included in the already high cost which them had. I know to add.. and you? This technology is in development since 50 years already, and 20 years or more are needed.. That is equal to 70 years. Or what? You think that these last 50 years of resources expended in this technology came from heaven? That only counts the last 20 remaning? Well they said that since 50 years back. Ok that way to think shows a lot of you. First, we Humans need food and energy to live. We use our lands to get that.. Farms, and wind turbines. It has nothing to do with mess up the only virgin places that we still had. That is the proff that you dont care nothing about the world, the nature, the climate change.. You are only a nuclear fan who thoght that nuclear was cheap, safe (no more than 50 death in history). Now you realize that is not safe, is not cheap, it has huge cost which only people paid, but you still defend it in the same way like if nothing of this matter. Sorry, but this is a clear sing that you are not using reason or logic in your arguments. But you said that today wastes are storage in places that are designed to last one hundred years, but today wastes last thousand years. So we have a problem. But is not the same. Going so deep has a cost, a cost that it is cost-efficient to extract oil, but not to a 200MW geothermal plant. How do you rise all that heat from the deeps without lose heat? Geothermal power plants are located on land. Hawaii has a lot of potential which is not already exploit it.

I don't use air conditioning. It's too expensive. I have a fan and I'm sweating like a pig. AC is one of the major energy consumptions, and you need 19C!! Are you joinking? If outside there is 40C degrees, I am content if the AC reach to 29C. We dont need much potence for that, The house is very well insulated. Becouse like all major disasters, are not easy to buried. I know, but the strong force is where the energy really come from. Well nevermind, I already change it, happy now? But we need the comercial use, not the prototype. You know how these things are, is a very complex technology, before enter in comercial phase, they need to be sure that a new easy efficiency improvements is not around the corner that would make absolute the first reactors. And after 50 or 70 years of development, they would love to have some payment back, so the cost would not be very competitive. You are not very good processing info dont you? Becouse we already give you hundred of examples and facts explaning why is not safe (not matter how many secure systems you use) and you keep repeating the same thing. Besides, what you mean by tremendous amount of power?? It only matters one thing, how much cost 1GW of nuclear against 1GW of Solar or Wind. And Nuclear always lost from any point of view less the storage. But is a national park. You can not put geothermal plants in such places. It would be a crime. The corium lave in the upper levels seems to be cold, its know that the corium lave reach lower levels and is unknown its state. They are still planning seal the plant with a new concrete dome. Sensationalist? The Japaneses said that the problem was in part into control, they said INES 5, but Michio Kaku said the truth from the begining, he said INES lv 7, In fact 3 INES lv 7 (three complete meltdown). If you had been there, lessen the Kaku alert would have saved your life. Is amazing the faith that you put in nuclear managers and workers. If we were so cautious and responsible, we would not be talking about global warming. If you buried something and it leaks, it goes down due gravity, with the time can reach an aquifer, then the water moves horizontal until reach a "well", then town people drink the water (with low radioactive levels), with the time many cancer cases appear, it takes a time to alert doctors that something is wrong, eventually they discover the cause but is already too late. That is just one example, it can be hundreds of different ways. Only hundreds? But the radiactive decay last thoudsens... well... who cares the future people. How deep they are? I saw the video... I wish him good luck, but I am good in Poker.. I know when somebody is keeping something for them. I dont know this technology, but just analizing his face in the last presentation minutes, mmm I would bet half of my money that this project still need to solve some biggest issues.

I fix the nuclear plant source category, sorry by that. My favorite technology is Wind Kite Power, but is still in development. You can use this aplication to see how strong the jet streams are: http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/250hPa/orthographic=-25.30,4.32,363 This aplication is amazing to see the weather in the whole world, you can see winds at different altitudes, pressure, temperature, ocean currents, all. Many times you sure hear how much energy there is in the wind in comparison with the world consume. Well that measure is just take into account surface wind in the best spots. Now if we add jet streams, that is a huge volume of energy and is pretty constant. Some approachs are: Google new acquisition: Different approach This picture is not in scale or with the good angles. But is another approach. But wind energy it does not need to be safe against terrorist. What they would do? Joint 2 shoes and drop it into the blades? It does not need to bann a fly zone to avoid airplane collisions. It does not need to be worry against natural disaster, in the worst case you would lose some wind turbines in a earthquake or tornado. You can remplace them with easy without interrupt the energy production. Like Michio Kaku said, Nuclear plants has also a hidden cost, the ensure cost that is paid by civilians in 2 ways, being victims and using its tax contributions to paid the damage. And that cost is not only limited to the Nuclear owner; rivers, sea, wind, animals spread the consequences to other countries who has nothing to do. So their also paid the cost of your selfish choice. For example the Nuclear plant of Indian Point http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Point_Energy_Center That nuclear plant is one with the higher risk to had an accident. By natural disaster like earthquake or by bad management or terrorism. Is very close to new york, in case of a fail you need to move million of people. They wastes management is very poor. There is examples like these in all the world. Who would paid the cost if something happen? I am agree with that, the same happen with nuclear facilities, they need to be far of populated zones. SO you considered him correct in everything and a good guy, but in this case becouse he disagree with your point of view, you said he is full of crap? He is not given his single opinion about ****ushima, he was invited like a member in a comite of selected people to analize the fukushima case in USA, he was chosen to explain the circustances becouse is a media person. But if you think that he is talking crap or giving wrong information, can you point what is wrong with sources? There are many coutries that still are very far to acomplish the 10 % of renowable energy, and we already see many countries with almost half of solar or wind energy without big problems in load managements. When these countries achieve the 25%, elerctric cars would be already a good option taken into account the advance on batteries technology, in that case you dont have much problems to storage it. Biofuels is not a solution, the defenders said like you are not using accumulative co2, that you are using it only the co2 that was enclose for the same plants that you grow, meaning that you are not increasing the co2 level. But you are. You are burning co2 that it may be keep enclose if you use it for other things like food. And if this bussness grows up then we have another problem, people using virgin terrains to cultivate proper crops for biofuels. We are discussing wind vs nuclear in this case, so is pointless mention coal ash wastes. Not all nuclear plants manage so well their wastes. There always would be Nuclear plants directors who prefer keep so money in their pockets instead secure wastes. There is no technology advance which can solve that problem. Deal with nuclear wastes is like generate danger criminals to kill your enemy, and every time that your criminal finish the job, you put them in jail. The criminal number in jail increase over time, is just matter of time to many of them achieve to escape.. And they had time.. Dont try to look up the cost becouse nuclear always lost, wind energy is cheaper in the initial investment, the investment recover is faster (for a nuclear plant you need to wait to is finished, with a wind farm you make 1 turbine and its already producing energy), the maintaince cost is lower, the dont need fuel or trained operator or security.

I create a new topic to continue the discussion of wind vs nuclear or the best alternatives to deal with climate change. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/83102-Best-energy-alternatives-to-stop-global-warming?p=1213312#post1213312

This is a continuation of that started discucion of Nuclear vs Renowables which started in the Solar Freakin Roadway Topic. First I would give a list of posssible alternatives: Source SUN (Fusion) 1-Solar Photovoltaics 2-Solar Thermal (Heat salt cycles using mirrors) 3-Wind turbines IN-OUT shore. 4-Wind Kite Power using high altitude wings. (in development) 5-Hydroelectricity 6-Sea Waves or currents (few spots to choose in the world) Source Moon´s gravity. 1-Tidal power (few spots but with huge potential) Source Weak Nuclear Force (Radioactive decay) 1-Geothermal Energy Source Fossil fuels (nonrenewable energy accumulated by the sun) -All these with new Co2 capture systems and higher efficiency technologies- 1-Coal Thermal Plants 2-Oil Thermal Plants 3-Gas Thermal Plants 4-Biodiesel Thermal Plants 5-Other chemical options. Source Nuclear 1-Thermal Fission Nuclear Plants 2-Thermal Fusion Nuclear Plants (20 or "who knows" years away) When we talk about energy, its also very important to talk about how to storage it. There is hundred of ways, Kinetic, batteries, air pressure, chemical, gravity, etc. If I forget something important please let me know. What is your favorite and why? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In responce to previus answers of Wind turbines vs Nuclear: And how many old reactors there is still in use? What you would do with those? After Chernobyl all nuclear sociaty said: yes, it was a disaster, but we learn from that, It would not happen again. Well many other issues happen after chernobyl, and ****ushima was worst in many levels. Even Michio Kaku is against Nuclear, and he is a nuclear physicist. http://youtu.be/STSmFZeE50E?t=11m21s Another explanation (not from michio kaku) why nuclear even with new designs is unsafe: http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/curiosity/topics/michio-kaku-nuclear-power.htm What you would said if somebody tells you that universe has 6000 years old or that a manned trip to mars would cost less than 10 millons. I just answer what I think is wrong. Compare a house with a nuclear plant is wrong. Said that due to chernobyl only 40 people die is wrong. Said that Nuclear energy is cheaper than Wind is also wrong. I am just standing to support facts. Of course that would be true if we dint have any other alternative. But we have others alternatives.Wind is cheaper, clean and safe. Of course if you rise too much the Wind % you need to deal with storage. But that is very easy to solveable if electric cars gain popullarity and the new batteries technologies arrive. Also solar is a good alternative. That is also my position. The risk is high, the cost too, and we have already too many other nuclear plants to be worry about.

Is not higher! Why nobody reads? Here there is the same source.. Read. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_by_death_toll It said more than 4000 by WHO source, and the Torch report (the last report made in 2006) it said 15000 confirmed death, and a future estimation of 60000. http://www.chernobylreport.org/?p=summary Safe my ass!! But this is not a house! Is a nuclear plant! It needs to be safe against any natural disaster, terrorism, or other causes. You can not leave it at chance! The risk is too much. And all the other accidennts in different nuclear plants? Was due to natural disaster too??? No. I already explain this, there is 470 nuclear plants in the world, 16 of them had INES>4 Disasters, and 99 of them if you count from INES 2. This mean that 430/16 = 1 in 27 Or 430/99 = 1 in 5 I quote WHO and you quote michigan. Michigan is one of the states with less renowable energy, but they had 5 nuclear plants.. I wonder if some bills dint fall by chance in the pocket of one professor. Becouse he skip to mention WHO report and all negative effects. Also people states that at night, wind turbines come to live and behead people and **** girls. They are here with a single purpose; electrocute people with clean energy. I know about irrigation systems. You can have wind which modify the sprinklers area. But each sprinklers is affected in the same way, so you end with a similar layout. The same happens with Wind turbines, they modify the area with the same patron so the layout remains. But well, I guess that release radiation pollution, paid a major price and risk people worth the effort. And the view of a Nuclear plant between the montains is so much nice than an ogly Windmill in the hill. --------------------------------------------- For those who see a problem with the wind turbines view. Why not use Kite instead? The energy that you get is similar becouse is the same concept but in different perspective, but the benefic of kite is in the height. If you reach the jet streams which are pretty constant with 5 or 6 times more wind speed, you get a lot of energy with just an small kite.

As I said in the begining, I was a nuclear defender 5 years ago, then I saw the true numbers in price against other renewable energies and the risk which present. I change my mind, Its clear that some of you dint knew the true values when this disccussion start, but now you know them and remain in "negation mode", this is for pride or lack of understanding? if someone does not want to be convinced, there is no words or facts to change that. Sorry for the late, But I just see this reply. First in your example I am not sure if they took all the energy cost or just a part from the developing process. But even if its right, where you want to go with this example? I said that a normal PV in normal circustances takes 2 years (sure less with the new ones) to recover the energy waste in its manufacturing. You said 10 years and with only the main component in low irradiance place. Your example just validate mine. This brick is not just a PV, it weight a lot more with a complext structure and several materials. Why is not common sense to said that the pollution in its manufacture would not be less efficiency than normal PV? Yeah I realize that after link the current prices of the different technologies. I was keep focus in the PV growing efficiency over the years but no so much in their cost. For that reason I keep the old data from Solar Thermal vs PV. You can use the adjective that you want, still counts like a disaster. Of course is not a global disaster.. Lucky us.... You dont have shame to post this comment? You dont read your own sources??? The first source said the same that I said. That the numbers of confirmed death of chernobyl is more than 4000, with some reports which mention more than 100000. Your second source come from this page! http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk Are you serius???? They produce radiation waste that it takes thousands of years to decompose, you can not buried and shield this radiation in a 100%, there is also risk of an breakage or leakage caused by natural disasters or just for poor procedures in their buried. The maintenance of a nuclear plant is a lot higher than a complete farm of wind turbines of the same potence (you can get this information even from nuclear sites sources). And that maintenance takes more lives than a wind farm.Is like when somebody mentions the birds killed by wind turbines, the fact is that fossil and nuclear plants kill more birds for the same energy. You take a time to think before write? My scientist? My values comes from international organizations which results are also corroborated and monitored by small organism. Even if chernobyl was not close to a city, they need to relocate 350000 people. http://earthshots.usgs.gov/earthshots/sites/all/files/earthshots/earthshot/chernobyl/2000px-Chernobyl_radiation_.png Hahaha, the funy joke is that you are using this comment to defend nuclear plants against wind turbines. What is wrong with you? What are the odds of a nuclear plants being hit by a meteorite? Close to 1/10000000. What are the odds of a nuclear plants having a disaster? 1/20 Are these odds the same for you? Least efficient?? 22,8 trillons??? what are you talking about?? you dont have a clue dont you? They dont need to predict nothing, just follow the graphic and its tendency. Is already happen. And these studies was made to advise world investors (and these investors paid for that information), they need to trust in your word instead? Lol, poor of you, So you always produce electricity in the worst moments and you always need electricity when you are not produccing? Then you are the less lucky country in the world. I wonder how a meteorite did not erase you from the map already. So this is mean that you dont know how predict wheather, consumptions times, or when to activate or not fossil plants? I can not believe that being true. Lucky for you I am sure that there is smartest people managing that. You are exporting coal becouse you not longer needed, becouse you are using free energy resources, so you can sell that coal instead using it. When the electric cars number increase, you would not have any issue with the storage of energy.

I already discuss the savatier process in the previus topics, so I knew about that, but it does not change the fact that get water is not so easy. And you dont want only to survive there, you wanna grow up as civilization. For that you need resources, hidrogen-water are very important for many process. So if is not so easy to get water, all those process cost rise. After the huge discussion and reasearch that I had about Venus. All places has pros and coss, I believe that Venus has more pross than cons that any other place in the solar system. SO when I said that the biggest issue on Venus is the Water cost and the buoyancy cost, I am not saying that we can not live there. I am saying that those are the main problems that any Venus colonization project needs to focus. If the water % in the atmophere would be 70% instead 1%, we would have enoght water to make all much simple, we can even seed the atmosphere with celled floating plants to convert part of the Co2 into oxigen, we can reduce the atmosphere pressure and heat in the surfuce. And it would not be so lethal for someone without mask. Yeah. Also each time the extraction cost of resources grow up here at heart. We need to go each time more deep. It reach a point where is not more cost efficient. No, the reaction is co2 to co. Winds are pretty constant, there is not evidence data that show vertical wind currents, is all horizontal. Temperature between day and night is exactly the same. There is no problem with the winds, becouse you move with them. In fact that is something good, becouse instead had a day-cycle of 140 days, you reduce it to 4. You can get energy from the winds too with a very simple method. You can use them to sail, moving your city wherever you want in latitude.

There is 435 Nuclear reactors in the world, 99 of them had an accident. This mean 1 each 5. If you only take into account the major disasters with INES>4 is 16. This mean 1 each 27 had a major disaster. Now lets compare it with other activities that are considered dangerous like oil transportation by sea. There was 7600 considerable accidentes in history, so if we take that number and we figure out how possible is that 1 ship had an accident in its life-span is a lot lower than the nuclear plant example. What you would said next? That war is safe? So you are saying that if we add wind generators to remplace coal plants we are adding more pollution than remplace the coal plant with a new nuclear reactor??? I already told you, wind generators cost the half of a nuclear reactor for the same power output. Also the cost is a good guide to measure the pollution produced in the manufacture process. About predict future taxation, I refused to explain something so simple again. Noice?? That is your last card? And why you would had trouble to sleep? Someone would install a wind turbine in your house roof? You dont have any road or car in from of your house? If someone wants to put a wind turbine in your farm, they paid you 3000 U$S each for month. Seems a really good deal. I never hear nobody being paided for live close to a traffic road. What about the kitegen approach, they produce noice too? How my link videos show, you are correct. I can show you many videos of "scientist" that give prof that Global Warming is a myth. What is that mean? It means that someone paid them money or they are dumb. Every time that I post data, it was from International Organizations, what are yours sources? Tabloids, bloogers, solitary researchers? And even if now is habitable, what was the cost to relocate an entire city? Without count the multiple death. OMG, I really need to explain this? Nobody is saying that a single wind generator produce as a nuclear reactor! I am saying that 1GW Wind Farm cost less money than 1GW nuclear plant. There is no country in the world where Nuclear energy cost less than Wind. In some places is HALF the price of nuclear. Is clear enoght? I can give you the link of the world nuclear sociaty (they promote nuclear of course), in that page they show that wind energy cost a 15% more than nuclear, but in small letters they also said that all external cost as operation, uranium and wastes, maintenance are not in included in the cost. And their use wind prices from 5 years old. I already publish all different energy cost from trusted sources. HAHAHAHAHAHA LOL X3 I do not know whether to laugh or mourn. How can you be so naive? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_by_death_toll "4,000 fatalities[1][2] – Chernobyl disaster, Ukraine, April 26, 1986. 56 direct deaths (47 accident workers and nine children with thyroid cancer) and it is estimated that there were 4,000 extra cancer deaths among the approximately 600,000 most highly exposed people.[3] The World Health Organization (WHO) suggests it could reach 4,000 civilian deaths, a figure which does not include military clean-up worker casualties.[5] A 2006 report predicted 30,000 to 60,000 cancer deaths as a result of Chernobyl fallout.[6] A Greenpeace report puts this figure at 200,000 or more.[7] A disputed Russian publication, Chernobyl, concludes that 985,000 premature cancer deaths occurred worldwide between 1986 and 2004 as a result of radioactive contamination from Chernobyl.[8]" Only 28 years have passed since the accident, so the list is not complete. How can you prof if someone die by natural cancer or by chernobyl causes? Easy, you had statistics from the average of cancer death in some location, if that average increase drastically there is only one explanation. That is the total system cost from OFF SHORE. What about ON SHORE? is always less like I SAID. In fact you can see more values down when it said that the cost of mw/h is less than half in Wind.

Agree, but we still new in the laser approximation, you know how these things are. First you get an prototype that it works ( generating 5% more energy that you waste in few min). Then you get something that generate 10% in 1 hr, then years pass and you get something that generate 80% 12 hrs. You build a comercial model, but its still very complex and expensive. So many years pass until you find a new shorcut to produce fusion using nanotec. I hope being wrong. But we dont need to let all our hope in 1 technology that we dont know for sure how hard is to achieve. How it must be, the danger is real and it can be measure it.The fact that you dont know for sure if you will be ok or not (also your family) is not something that worth to risk when renewable energy is cheaper and inexhaustible. What experiments you want to make there? I do not think that a lizard has had time to become godzillla I dont know what is the right translate. When I chosse the word Pole I mean "guidepost" to transport the wires in height.. Second, how often a guidepost fall? But you dont need them. The best its if you keep your wind generator close to the grid, in the border of fields or roads. You dont need to have a wind farm. Is more efficient if you have them in different location to save in transmission losses. Look, before you misunderstand me, let me clear you that I know what kind of country Canada is. In fact it was always my favorite place to live since kid. But what I want to said, is that accidents happens in all the world; secure measures are skipped. No country is exempt of flaws or human error. The benefic of Canada and Germany is that you dont have many natural disasters. They are still a time bomb, you can have the detonator well insulated, but it is still a bomb.You need to deal with radiation waste, mine and enrich the uranium, it needs many workers all with high salary due to risk, > cost than renewable, etc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-04-16/new-wind-solar-power-cheaper-than-nuclear-option-study-shows.html http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/wind-and-solar-generation-half-the-cost-of-nuclear-95493 http://www.agora-energiewende.org/topics/optimisation-of-the-overall-system/detail-view/article/klimaschutz-wird-mit-erneuerbaren-deutlich-preiswerter-als-mit-atomkraft/ All my arguments are detailed, if you dint find nothing to correct or reply is the proof of that. First, Thermal solar produce energy day and night. Wind blows at all times in different locations, so if wind does not blow in one place, for sure would blow in another one. Electric cars can help to storage energy when you dont needed. Many countries like Sweden, Australia, Switzerland, Denmark and Norway had almost the 50% of their energy consumption using renowable. They had complex software to predict energy consumption by zone and time, wind conditions in the whole country, etc. Wind generator cost half than nuclear, they are renowable and safe. So fukushima and chernobyl or other accidents are not good arguments against? What else you need? Blow up half planet? This is stupid. That would not happen becouse nobody will invest in something like this. Is clearly a joke.

Lol, WTF? What lives? How a Fission reactor may save lives against renowable energy? With common sense, green technologies start to have benefics in many countries, there is an added value to the energy that is produced with renowable resources. It has to be take it into account in the price when you sell that energy. The same happens with organic food. The study that I am talking about is the main study that is delivery to all invesors in that ruble. I guess it has its central in Harvard. THere is 2 kinds of geothermal, one is with a close circuit that only takes the heat from the earth, the second method is injecting water in the ground at great pressure, this heat up, increase the pressure and you move a turvine. The first one it does not have any issues. The second one can produce very small earthquake but without danger. We need to take into account the amount of energy that we get from these plants and the amount of energy release in a real earthquake. There is not comparison. ??? What are you saying? That you can not remplace coal power plants by wind or solar plants? Why? Forget about pollution added in the manufacturing, all that is include in some way in the cost of everything. The cost of any product is a good base to determine the pollution and energy waste in its manufacturing. So we just need to compare cost. And how many wind generator you thing that are needed to remplace a normal fossil plant? Ehh? A 100Km diameter hole has an area of 7853 km2, now calculate all blue area, add also the sea area and tell me how many km2 are? How many years is then? Who are you to said what is safe and what is not??? And the limit that you are talking about is for nuclear workers!! The legal limit for a common citizen is 1 mSV!!! Ten times less. IF you dont find problems with those values, then go there and live all your live at 40km distance. Then go to the beach, eat some fish with corn of those fields. Then married, had 2 kids and slept in peace. Is the World Health Organization and other organism who decide what is safety or not. Not you. And my sources come from those organism.

I am agree.With respect to fusion, that would be of great help if some day we can overpass the 20 years prediction, more than 50 years past and we still have the same prediction. All what I said is TRUE. But first some geometric lessons and clarifications for some of you. When I said 100km of diameter, is the same thing that 50km of radius. http://www.rferl.org/content/fukushima_what_is_a_dafe_distance/3550373.html Japan said 30 km, but their are lying, the safe margin is 50 km, Canada, USA and Britain said that it needs to be 80km (RADIUS). And the SEA area in the radius also counts! They used those waters to fish. In fact they found some fishes with 2500 times the legal safe margin for consumption. So.. I'm exaggerating? NO. Astronauts get high levels of radiation because they have no other option, is the risk that they take. For 18 month in space the risk of death is 3%. But what if you LIVE inside the 30KM radius of fukushima? If you dont know choose your sources is not my fault, of course in those distances and air volume the amount of radiation would be very low. The inverse square law has something to do.But we are not talking about 6000 km away. We are talking of 50km. That is a very different story. First, it does not said nothing about canser or other issues that the animals may have. Is talking only about birds.And it is easy to said when it is not you who has to walk or swim out there. You can buried at 1 mts like all street wires or just put some poles until you reach the closest grid wire. How you can know if they obey the regulations? Becouse there is a law? And who control those laws?In all the world all is ok until an accident occurs and then you realize in the investigations that the company skip many safety measures. I dont have info about Canada on nuclear, but I know that they dont care much about the oil extraction from the earth in their forest. I live in Argentina and we have Nuclear plants too, we dint buy the technology, it was develpement here since 1980. Even so, the cost per MW of the last plant made it last year is higher than our renowable competitors. So there were a few accusations of corruption. But is not my only source. What is the cost for deal with the radiation wastes? Maybe is not so high if you sell the waste to poor countries. So you dont have to pay much, but someone will.