TED Conversations

Jah Kable

Thinker ready to be unleashed upon the world,

This conversation is closed.

Why are the alternate power sources not being implemented on a world-wide scale? There is a tipping point and we must be close by now!!!

Solar panels
Wind Turbines
Hydro-Elecric

We all see the signs of the world changing. Ice caps disappearing, mega storms, tempature rise, ect.
Yet we are more concerned with royal babies, wars, and profits.
We will have none of that if this planet stops supporting life as we know it.
This is a back burner issue always used for politics but never solved by politics.
Turn the heat up on this, the Earth is!

Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Aug 24 2013: Nadav Tropp,

    I agree that nuclear compares very favorably to fossil fuel, even so it is a very hard sell and for good reason. The people living near fukushima have lost everything, likewise Chernobyl. No one ever considered the Japanese to be sloppy engineers.

    Also, the fact that you could use the money saved using coal or natural gas to clean up the disaster they cause is irrelevant, the fact is they don't use that money to do that.

    My mother lives in an area that was in the midst of a debate over whether to have fracking or not. Every day I was emailed one point of the contract. Never once did it say anything to the effect that they would clean up their mess. Once the water supply is poisoned the land is ruined. Who cares if you are getting royalty checks from the natural gas if your land is now ruined.

    An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. The potential money from fracking and the protections the company was willing to agree for up front was woefully short of what would be fair compensation for the possible damage.
    • thumb
      Aug 24 2013: in bhopal, a chemical plant released a gas that killed and injured thousands. in derweze, turkmenistan, a natural gas well burns for 40 years now, releasing sulphuric acid contaminated carbon dioxide. it is not dangerous to humans nearby only because there are no humans nearby.

      unless you want to stop all chemical plants and all fossil mining too, lamenting about fukushima is not rational. it is a very minor accident that is merely an inconvenience for those that had to move.

      and about japanese engineers. i assume you don't know too much details about the accident itself. i'm an engineer, and i followed the events in detail. fukushima was a mindbogglingly sloppy design, with at least 5 design decisions that i could not believe. i still don't understand how can anyone come up with such a design, or approve it.
      • Comment deleted

      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Aug 25 2013: expected number of deaths is zero.

          if you would kind enough to actually read what other people write, you would have understood already that all industrial activities pose some risk. the people of a village had to move: this is not so terrible. i can repeat it many times, but it is getting boring.

          or you say we need to stop all industry right away? also motorized traffic?

          or you just don't understand probabilities. what is your education btw?
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Aug 25 2013: this is the case when i don't need to read the article, even this little excerpt stinks. how can an ongoing study have results? how can 12 confirmed case out of a few tens of thousands local inhabitants a "minor increase"? how could fukushima cause any effects worldwide if the radiation released were negligible at a distance?

          you can cherry pick media attention whoreisms from all around the world if you so desire. it does not make you look particularly well informed in the matter.
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Aug 25 2013: maybe you should educate yourself on how radiation works. 99.999% of the human population got less radiation from fukushima than from eating a banana.

          i don't have to be an expert. it is enough if i read the experts. which i did. i followed 3 expert blogs, one of them was a leading hungarian nuclear physicist.

          health effects of fukushima are negligible. i'm not wasting more words on that, the material is out there, this is not up to debate.
        • thumb
          Aug 26 2013: You realise the 985000 is projected deaths that might possibly be attributable to Chernobyl up to 2056. That many people die because of natural disasters several times each year. I wonder how many deaths will occur due to wind turbine construction and operation in the same time frame.
          http://www.strahlentelex.de/Yablokov%20Chernobyl%20book.pdf
          This is a link to the actual paper to which your link is referring, rather inaccurately.
      • Comment deleted

      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Aug 25 2013: "Chernobyl was much more contained on land and the spread of contamination was limited to the surrounding areas"

          o_O

          i'm out
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Aug 26 2013: i want your self confidence. you have the audacity to educate me on nuclear accidents after i clearly explained to you that i'm an engineer and i specifically followed up on both cases. listen, i don't know how to break through the wall of chosen ignorance. so let me be brief. this is a message for you to carry with you everywhere, and remember. remember that i told you: your knowledge seems to come from new age / wildlife protecting websites, and it has no resemblance with reality. my job is over. you have been warned.
      • Comment deleted

      • Comment deleted

      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Aug 27 2013: "You are aware that it is almost impossible to know how many deaths occur from a nuclear disaster because many of the people exposed may not develop a cancer for 10 years and may not die from that cancer and may die 20 years later."
          It's not impossible you just need to do some science and compare cancer rates between equivalent populations. Even accepting the number from your new link 25000 deaths from the whole industry isn't that many. How many deaths do you think have occurred in agriculture in the same time period? Or in Mining?
      • Comment deleted

      • Comment deleted

      • Comment deleted

      • Comment deleted

      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Aug 27 2013: You can get some information from his profile. I notice yours is blocked.
        • thumb
          Aug 27 2013: Pinter also said "i'm an engineer and i specifically followed up on both cases"

          which somewhat proves that you don't read what i write. why would you? you are not here to read. you are here to feed your personality disorder.
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Aug 27 2013: On his profile it says he has a chemical engineering degree. I don't know if he does but I know what a degree in chemical engineering is. What exactly is a Health Education Specialist?
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Aug 27 2013: You don't need to track individuals to do statistical analyses. You compare cancer rates in exposed areas to cancer rates in similar populations that weren't exposed. Samples from the more densly populated parts of Australia would make a good control group
          Radiation poisoning 101
          Other than strontium radiation poisoning occurs as the accute effects of exposure to gamma and beta radiation. Damage to DNA may cause development of cancer susequent to acute exposure but the chances diminish with time as long as further exposure is avoided. Strontium is a special case as its chemical similarity to calcium causes deposition in bone tissue so exposure to strontium radio-isotopes must be monitored in the long term as it is hard to remove the strontium once deposited.
          Thats from my own Physice text.
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Aug 27 2013: What about all the people that die each year from respiratory diseaes due to exposure to dust from agricultural land, how many people die from malaria from mosquitos that breed in irrigation ditches?. By isolating chernobyl you are cherry picking the one tragedy from an industry with an otherwise good safety record. The stakes sre high with nuclear as a single incident has dire consequences but you must balance that against the fact that incidents are rare. What your doing statistically is the same as claiming planes are dangerous because one crash kills so many people.
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Aug 28 2013: I have a combined science/education degree from the University of Newcastle with a major in chemistry and a minor in physics and have spent the last 13 years teaching both chem and phys in high school. I spent last year wriring a physics text for the NSW department of education. The study of electricity generation is one of the major topics in the course and another major topic is nuclear physics so I have a great deal of understanding of both sides of nuclear power generation and the effects of radiation.
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Aug 28 2013: A similar list for any industry would be just as bad. Coal mining kills around a thousand people a year directly and many thousands more from emphysema, from prolonged exposure to coal dust in areas around mines.
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Aug 28 2013: If you're tracking individuals you are doing case studies not statistical analysis. Case studies are of less scientific use as there are too many variables that cannot be controlled. That's why we do large study statistical analyses.
          They are tracking the radiation from Fukushima. You just do a survey of the background radiation in the pacific and observe any variations from the expected readings or you could monitor the radiation in a particular species of fish and track the progress of contaminated water that way.
        • thumb
          Aug 28 2013: BTW caesium is a bad example because it doesn't bio accumulate as there is a biological mechanism for it's removal, it being a group I element.
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Aug 28 2013: Your own post below states that caesium doesn't accumulate
      • Comment deleted

      • Comment deleted

      • Comment deleted

      • Comment deleted

      • Comment deleted

      • Comment deleted

      • Comment deleted

      • Comment deleted

      • Comment deleted

    • Aug 24 2013: Actually, Fukushima was badly engineered. It wasn't obvious until after the fact (mostly because no one was looking for problems too hard--after the fact examination shows the signs and even a warning or two were all there), but in retrospect, it had some serious design flaws, like the emergency generators being vulnerable to flooding.
      Reactor design has come a long way since the 60's however.

      Realistically though, I don't see most of the world adopting nuclear. Its an easy target for fear mongering politicians and the media, environmentalists hate it, and perhaps most importantly once the Fukushima scare had died down, it requires a very significant initial investment to construct.
      Not to mention all those countries not allowed nuclear power because of politics.

      This basically means that we're stuck with fossil fuels and renewables. Renewables are impractical aside from a few niche roles, so we better not run out of fossil fuels anytime soon.
      Maybe some new technological development will change everything in a few years, but you can't count on those to come to your rescue at your convenience.
      • Comment deleted

        • Aug 25 2013: Hah, I wish. If you know where I can contact them though, I'd love to get paid for going on random forums and arguing with people. Sure beats some of the other jobs I've had.
          Never mind that I'm backing nuclear as much as fossil fuel... They must both have me on payroll then. Apparently, I'm making more money then I knew.

          Seriously though, its not about land. It never was about land--most countries have more useless land than they know what to do with, no one's trying to save it for anything, not should using it be a priority.
          Saying we should switch to solar because we have useless land is like saying that I have a spare tire, so I should buy a car to install it in.

          Same for the side of buildings. Covering a house with solar panels dramatically increases the house's cost, and takes a few good years to pay for itself. Add to that decreased solar output the farther away you are from the equator, and you're basically throwing money at an unproductive project.
          Seeing as you need for everyone to have electricity on cloudy days, you still need all the non-solar infrastructure in place anyway, so you've basically installed twice the infrastructure.
          Solar is good for heating bath water, not for making electricity. If you want to install a solar panel, I'm not stopping you, but don't except me to throw my good oil/nuclear spokesperson money at the problem--there are better solutions.

          Its purely about cost per unit of energy.
          If the price of energy goes up, the price of everything goes up, and everyone's quality of life deteriorates. Never mind all those the other things the money could have been used for: infrastructure, healthcare, defense, education...
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Aug 25 2013: calling for more education sounds incredibly ironic from your mouth :)
        • thumb
          Aug 25 2013: Aren't you lucky. I live in the best areas of the US for residential solar panels, but for me, in my circumstances, I could not meet the ROI. Just to the south of town is one of the largest solar farms in the country. Southeast of here is one of the largest nuclear plants in the country.
          Northeast of here is a maze of windpower farms. I spent 4 years as a chief of utilities for a small town, 40K pop, including recycling, environmental programs, etc. I hold the appropriate academic credentials.
          So, I think you are the one needing the education, I am qualified to do so, but you are not a worthy student.
        • Aug 25 2013: That's not what I've said. At all--the points I've made aren't the ones addressed.
          I think I'll just stop arguing at this stage, seeing as we're long past rational discussion.

          Maybe if I was actually paid for it like insinuated, but alas, its not the case.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.