Prometheus fire..

[fgcason]

Prometheus they say brought gods fire down to man...
And we've caught it, tamed it, trained it,
Since our history began...

(Some stories should not be missed. This is definitely one of them)

...but the gods do not give lightly of the powers that they have made...

http://www.angelfire.com/extreme4/kiddofspeed/chapter1.html



For more of Elena's stories:
http://www.elenafilatova.com/

 

[Flyboy]

Phew, you had me worried. I thought Star Gate Command was losing one of it's front line ships.

 

[Maverick]

Al I can say is Wow, what a site and story. Many times I've wondered what became of that region. She is certainly a brave and curious woman.

Jeannie

 

[silver-eagle]

It goes along with a thread started by Toby regarding risks. It seems she understands the risk quite well and is willing to take it. Quite a remarkable story.

 

[Maverick]

The mortality rate may be somewhat overstated

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/chernobyl/inf07.htm

but people believe what they want to believe...:yinyang:

According to this statement taken from the World Nuclear Association web site:

"The World Nuclear Association is the global organisation that seeks to promote the peaceful worldwide use of nuclear power as a sustainable energy resource for the coming centuries."

So, I wonder how much of what they are saying is accurate and complete.

People tend find what they are looking for and this often invalidates research findings. I don't know if we will ever know the true effects of that disaster.

Jeannie

 

[The Old Man]

According to this statement taken from the World Nuclear Association web site:

"The World Nuclear Association is the global organisation that seeks to promote the peaceful worldwide use of nuclear power as a sustainable energy resource for the coming centuries."

So, I wonder how much of what they are saying is accurate and complete.

People tend find what they are looking for and this often invalidates research findings. I don't know if we will ever know the true effects of that disaster.

Jeannie

Don't be too quick to dismiss this organization. Yes, they do promote the use of nuclear power, but.....

Considering the large number of groups putting out negative information which contains only a grain of truth per carload, be prepared to give this organization the benefit of the doubt. The Chernobyl article does reference many other sources and some of them are or at least should be more neutral.

 

[Maverick]

Don't be too quick to dismiss this organization. Yes, they do promote the use of nuclear power, but.....

Considering the large number of groups putting out negative information which contains only a grain of truth per carload, be prepared to give this organization the benefit of the doubt. The Chernobyl article does reference many other sources and some of them are or at least should be more neutral.

I'm not passing any judgement on the organization. I personally don't know if the risks in the use of nuclear power are worth the potential rewards. We've had a couple of nuclear accidents closer to home that were not the disaster that Chernobyl was but scary just the same. One of those accidents was at the Fermi plant here in Michigan. A man I knew was an engineer who worked on the shutdown of the Fermi 1 reactor after it's accident. He developed leukemia as a direct result of his work there and eventually died.

The costs of all the safeguards that have to be put in place are staggering compared to other forms of generating power.

Jeannie

 

[poadeleted3]

I'm not passing any judgement on the organization. I personally don't know if the risks in the use of nuclear power are worth the potential rewards. We've had a couple of nuclear accidents closer to home that were not the disaster that Chernobyl was but scary just the same. One of those accidents was at the Fermi plant here in Michigan. A man I knew was an engineer who worked on the shutdown of the Fermi 1 reactor after it's accident. He developed leukemia as a direct result of his work there and eventually died.

The costs of all the safeguards that have to be put in place are staggering compared to other forms of generating power.

Jeannie

Something to bear in mind when comparing the safety of nuclear power to other forms is how many people die to bring us those other forms. Nuclear accidents are spectacular, but not a year goes by without mulitple deaths in the coal fields of West Virginia and other mining states, and an even higher number of deaths by disease among the miners. There are a lot more deaths caused by other forms of energy generation, but they don't generate the news ratings that the most minor of incidents at a nuke plant will.

 

[Henning]

I'm not passing any judgement on the organization. I personally don't know if the risks in the use of nuclear power are worth the potential rewards. We've had a couple of nuclear accidents closer to home that were not the disaster that Chernobyl was but scary just the same. One of those accidents was at the Fermi plant here in Michigan. A man I knew was an engineer who worked on the shutdown of the Fermi 1 reactor after it's accident. He developed leukemia as a direct result of his work there and eventually died.

The costs of all the safeguards that have to be put in place are staggering compared to other forms of generating power.

Jeannie

Personally, I don't see an option at this time. It's becoming quite obvious that we need to get away from hydrocaron/fossil fuels for several and various reasons. Solar and wind take energy from the atmosphere and if we take out enough to meet the worlds needs for electricity, it will have incalculable effects on the environment. One of the few things I consider the French have done right is thier nuclear energy program. They took one good reactor design, and built all their plants to it. That IMO is one of the keys to safety since it allows a person from any plant the relieve his counterpart from any other plant. It also allows the best of the best people to be at one plant, and everyone goes through training at that plant so there is a controlled high quality training program. There is also the advantage that when problems do pop up, they can then be dealt with fleetwide.
There is no failsafe form of energy, and more people die from coal mining alone (we won't bring up pollution from burning it and the health effects therefrom) every year, many times more if you include black lung, than have died in the history of nuclear energy.

 

[Henning]

Something to bear in mind when comparing the safety of nuclear power to other forms is how many people die to bring us those other forms. Nuclear accidents are spectacular, but not a year goes by without mulitple deaths in the coal fields of West Virginia and other mining states, and an even higher number of deaths by disease among the miners. There are a lot more deaths caused by other forms of energy generation, but they don't generate the news ratings that the most minor of incidents at a nuke plant will.

Yep. The problem is that everyones first association with nuclear energy is with The Bomb. The media outlets know this, and combined with the fact that the media outlets are typically controlled by the no nuke type crowd anyway, these associations are rarely corrected but rather used to run up ratings. Coal mining accidents aren't as sexy unless it's a biggie. Black Lung is even less sexy. Besides if they say "No Coal!" where does that leave us for power production? Heck, we wouldn't be able to watch TV, they won't do that.

 

[Maverick]

Yep. The problem is that everyone's first association with nuclear energy is with The Bomb. The media outlets know this, and combined with the fact that the media outlets are typically controlled by the no nuke type crowd anyway, these associations are rarely corrected but rather used to run up ratings. Coal mining accidents aren't as sexy unless it's a biggie. Black Lung is even less sexy. Besides if they say "No Coal!" where does that leave us for power production? Heck, we wouldn't be able to watch TV, they won't do that.

My first thought has nothing to do with the bomb and nuclear energy sounds great because it is sustainable and clean as long as there are no accidents. However, it does generate spent fuel that has to be dealt with.

I agree there have been many more deaths from coal mining and that coal is not exactly a clean energy source. In regard to the deaths you have to consider the fact that worker safety has not been a priority until recent years. In past years when workers died they just buried the dead and recruited more workers. During the depression years it sure wasn't very hard to replace entire crews. This mentality was surely driven by the greed factor.

Guys, if I had all the answers I wouldn't be designing plastic components for the auto industry. But I do have questions, like what ever came of the talk of energy from fusion and what about hydrogen fuel cells and such. What about the American public's appetite for more and more bigger and more powerful SUVs and trucks. What good did it do for us to downsize cars when everyone now needs to drive a truck with a 5.7 liter hemi engine. When are we all going to wake up to the fact that these things all have consequences. When it comes to oil, as long as there is a supply we'll keep using it at record rates and there will be little incentive to replace it with another energy source.

Just my humble opinion.

Jeannie

 

[Henning]

My first thought has nothing to do with the bomb and nuclear energy sounds great because it is sustainable and clean as long as there are no accidents. However, it does generate spent fuel that has to be dealt with.

Best way I see is they already encase spent fuel in these lead-glass bullets. Now Drill holes 30,000' deep (we already do this), the NORM (naturally occurring radioactive material) at these depths is pretty high already. Next drop 10,000' worth of these bullets downhole, cap with 15,000' of concrete and then top off with dirt. They are done and gone and aren't going to hurt anything.

I agree there have been many more deaths from coal mining and that coal is not exactly a clean energy source. In regard to the deaths you have to consider the fact the worker safety has not been a priority until recent years. In past years when workers died they just buried the dead recruited more workers. During the depression years it sure wasn't very hard to replace entire crews. This mentality was surely driven by the greed factor.

Guys, if I had all the answers I wouldn't be designing plastic components for the auto industry.

But I do have questions, like what ever came of the talk of energy from fusion and what about hydrogen fuel cells and such. What about the American public's appetite for more and more bigger and more powerful SUVs and trucks. What good did it do for us to downsize cars when everyone now needs to drive a truck with a 5.7 liter hemi engine. When are we all going to wake up to the fact that these things all have consequences. When it comes to oil, as long as there is a supply we'll keep using it at record rates and there will be little incentive to replace it with another energy source.

Just my humble opinion.

Jeannie

Fusion energy just isn't here yet, and won't be for awhile. As for fuel cells, that's why we need the Nuclear energy. We need cheap and abundant electricity to electrolysize water into oxygen and hydrogen. This is the technology that shows a huge potential. This method also allows going to hydrogen fuel with out having to change our energy infrastructure, as every fuel depot (gas station) can electrolisize water on sight as long as they can get water and electricity. Our national pipeline network can ship sea water throughout the country if necessary (although this will bring up a salt & mineral disposal situation).

 

[grattonja]

A fascinating story, she writes compellingly and sparsely, and what she says really suits and highlights what the pictures show. I also went to her website on the digging in the battlefields around Kiev, and it too is compelling.

The power debate will rage on in this country into the future, and I certainly am not one to want to sit in the dark without my television. And coal and other forms of energy are surly as dangerous and deadly as nukes.

But... It is understandable why matters like Chernobyl get so much attention. This young lady's pictures certainly brought home to me the enormity of damage that was wrought by this event. Lots of immediate deaths and just a huge chunk of real estate that will not be able to be safely inhabited for MANY generations. It is hard to imagine the extent of this damage, even seeing the pictures and realizing that she had a day's hard riding to get through just part of the contaminated space.

Heaven help us for these sorts of events.

Jim G

 

[fgcason]

A fascinating story, she writes compellingly and sparsely, and what she says really suits and highlights what the pictures show. I also went to her website on the digging in the battlefields around Kiev, and it too is compelling.

But... It is understandable why matters like Chernobyl get so much attention. This young lady's pictures certainly brought home to me the enormity of damage that was wrought by this event. Lots of immediate deaths and just a huge chunk of real estate that will not be able to be safely inhabited for MANY generations. It is hard to imagine the extent of this damage, even seeing the pictures and realizing that she had a day's hard riding to get through just part of the contaminated space.

I think that's what I like most about her stories. She shows the human and natural side of the disaster in a way that hits home. It's not just cold facts you find in reports or history books and it's not the one pitiful picture that some reporter spends 45 minutes shoving down your throat. She lets the story tell itself with no needless embellishment for what it really is from a point of view that you can truly understand personally. That could be your home so easily type thing. She's good.

I remember watching that disaster on TV live while it was going on. Those forever parked helicopters in her pictures are very likely the same exact ones I saw video, from the ground and above them, while hovering over the exposed burning core dropping sand to try to contain it. (I distinctly recall thinking those crews so close over the open roof are already dead, they just haven't stopped moving yet) I have also rode my motorcycle past farms that look just like the ones in her pictures. The only difference between her farms and mine is that I just didn't have to worry about glowing in the dark if I stepped off the pavement. When you make that connection, it becomes real even from the other side of the planet.

Frank.

P.S. Henning, I really like your 30,000ft hole idea. I can't see the shallow desert burial grounds for that stuff being anywhere near as effective for long term storage. And stuff that toxic really needs truly actual long term permanent storage.

 

[PoAdeleted5]

Nuke power is about the only way to go. I'm not afraid of it and I understand it pretty well.

The thing though, that bugs me, is the potential for harm is pretty high with it in a mishap. That and Homer Simpson works at a nuclear power plant. Yeah, it is a cartoon, but it should make one pause and think. The technology has to be foolproof and forgiving enough for fools to operate in a typically human and sloppy manner and not hurt anyone or make a (big) mess.

Helium cooled reactors are even more intriguing, since the primary coolant is an inert gas, which does not become radioactive from being inside the reactor vessel.

But yeah, we are going to have build them and operate them and dispose of the waste.

 

[gismo]

P.S. Henning, I really like your 30,000ft hole idea. I can't see the shallow desert burial grounds for that stuff being anywhere near as effective for long term storage. And stuff that toxic really needs truly actual long term permanent storage.

The biggest issue IMO with deep burial as Henning suggests is that there's no easy way to deal with any problems that arise if any do occur. Ten thousand years is a mighty long time.

 

[Henning]

The biggest issue IMO with deep burial as Henning suggests is that there's no easy way to deal with any problems that arise if any do occur. Ten thousand years is a mighty long time.

What problems can you foresee with this system? It's deep, we blow off bombs much shallower than 20,000-30,000ft, and it is already in lead-glass bullets.

 

[Maverick]

What problems can you foresee with this system? It's deep, we blow off bombs much shallower than 20,000-30,000ft, and it is already in lead-glass bullets.

Well, before it gets to be 30,000 feet under ground it has to be removed from the reactor and transported to the storage site. Handling and transport have their own associated risks. In this day and age there are also risks of sabotage. The potential for widespread disaster is very real and cannot be dismissed lightly.

Jeannie

 

[gismo]

What problems can you foresee with this system? It's deep, we blow off bombs much shallower than 20,000-30,000ft, and it is already in lead-glass bullets.

While that sounds deep, it's only a few miles down. Let's say that maybe 8000 years into the future tidal stresses cause a fault to develop in the vicinity and the stuff comes bubbling up mixed with molten lava. Or maybe it turns out that there's a rich field of some raw material the world needs badly another 10,000 ft below that and in the process of mining it the radioactive waste gets loose.

I don't profess to know with any certainty that either is possible, just that it's got to be awfully difficult to predict what's going to happen in the next 10,000 years. One must also keep in mind that almost any "simple" solution to the nuclear waste issue is very likely to involve some difficulties that are hard to see at the start.

That's not to say I'm opposed to the development of nuclear power, just that I think a better solution to waste storage involves some means of monitoring and adapting to future conditions.

 

[Ken Ibold]

What about the American public's appetite for more and more bigger and more powerful SUVs and trucks. What good did it do for us to downsize cars when everyone now needs to drive a truck with a 5.7 liter hemi engine. When are we all going to wake up to the fact that these things all have consequences.

The same could be said of our Lycomings and Continentals. Small airplanes are not exactly the most fuel-efficient mode of transportation, to say nothing of recreational flight. My airplane gets about 13 smpg. My Honda Pilot SUV gets more than 20.

 

[Maverick]

The same could be said of our Lycomings and Continentals. Small airplanes are not exactly the most fuel-efficient mode of transportation, to say nothing of recreational flight. My airplane gets about 13 smpg. My Honda Pilot SUV gets more than 20.

True enough but in the grand scheme of things, all the light aircraft in service today burn only a small fraction the amount of fuel burned by the driving public. I figure my Cardinal gets between 15 and 18 smpg depending on altitude and air density. My car gets 22 mpg and our Explorer gets 17 mpg. Yes I also have an SUV. With our winters and the need for some utility it was a good fit.

I don't have the figures handy but I think we American's burn by far the largest percentage of fuel in our cars and trucks. We keep making them bigger and bigger. In 2004 the Dodge Durango was quite a bit bigger than it's predecessor and they started putting the 5.7 liter hemi engine in it. The new Jeep Grand Cherokee is also larger and has the 5.7 liter hemi engine available as does the Chrysler 300C, the Dodge Magnum and the Ram pickup truck. I wonder when they will offer it in the Liberty.

I can't help wondering if and when this business model will back fire due to the rising fuel costs.

In aviation we aren't looking for bigger and bigger engines unless there is a definite purpose because we all realize that everything in aviation is a trade off. The bigger the airplane and engine, the more we pay for fuel, maintenance and insurance. Generally we consider all these aspects and then we pick what is right for our use and within our budget.

I still can't forget the Chrysler advertising for the Durango with the hemi engine. The father and mother with the small child. The mother talking to the child about all the safety features and the father butting in by lifting the hood and looking at the child and saying "Can you say Hemi?" that's all you need to know. It's clear the DaimlerChrysler is selling the muscle car/truck image. Same thing with the Dodge Magnum.

Jeannie

 

[Ken Ibold]

True enough but in the grand scheme of things, all the light aircraft in service today burn only a small fraction the amount of fuel burned by the driving public.

Oh, I agree with all of the points you make here. (And as a former Durango owner I was shocked at how crappy that vehicle's gas mileage was BEFORE the Hemi.) It just seems to me that criticizing anyone for inefficient use of fuel sounds a little insincere coming from a GA pilot. I mean, when was the last time you saw someone take the Hummer for a few spins around the grocery store parking lot on a nice Saturday morning.

And before you think I'm picking on you, I am at least equally guilty. I bemoan other people's gas-wasting choices in driving styles/vehicles/lifestyle, yet I'll go burn 10 gallons through the airplane just cuz it's a fun thing to do.

 

[Maverick]

And before you think I'm picking on you, I am at least equally guilty. I bemoan other people's gas-wasting choices in driving styles/vehicles/lifestyle, yet I'll go burn 10 gallons through the airplane just cuz it's a fun thing to do.

I agree with you, I'm sure very few GA pilots could ever demonstrate a need for the flying we do unless it's commercial flying. I'm not criticizing anyone for gas wasting choices but I think we need some leadership in this area. This sort of reminds me of a discussion I had a while back with an engineer I know. He is of the opinion that in this country we do not really engineer the vehicles we produce. The direction starts with styling and marketing, they determine what a vehicle will look like and what they think the public wants in the vehicle. From that point forward, it's engineering's job to package the vehicle. To stuff it, so to speak with all the things they think people want in it. In his opinion more emphasis is placed on engineering rather than styling in countries such as Germany than it is here.

I really think we as a country need some leadership in this area. It would be hugely unpopular to say that leadership should come from our government and I'm sure I would invite someone's wrath if I were to suggest that. The problem is we're not getting it from the private sector either and we won't until it's in vogue.

Again I'll say that I don't have all the answers but it sure would be nice if we were using less foreign oil. I for one would like to see much less of our money going to countries who have people that want us dead.

Jeannie