People living near Japan - Are you ok?

[LVUER]

Just in case no one noticing, don't forget that renewable green power plant also do (some) harm. Perhaps it's not a big problem if you turn entire desert into solar power plant. But how about country with no big place like Japan? Or like Indonesia that majority of them are mountains or forest (meaning those forest must be cleared to make some space).

Also, wind turbine (or whatever they are called) are harming humans so they couldn't be built near human population. They make everything vibrates even in 20km (if I'm not mistaken) radius. Humans also effected and lots of them fallen ill after long time of exposures to the vibration. But placing them in middle of nowhere means additional cost to transport those energy to places that need them.

I think right now we're still stuck with whatever we have... namely nuclear power. I wish we could harvest thunder/lightning or tornado/typhoon power and convert them into electricity.

[Elenakiara]

D: It's on days like these that I am happy to live in a province with so much water that most of the plants are hydroelectric plants. >.< Nuclear plants had always made me nervous... xD

Like in Angels and Demons, where Vittoria said something along the lines of "A small amount of this could power a city for x amount of time... or destroy it in one day.". I feel bad not remembering it exactly. xD

[jack_norton]

Just in case no one noticing, don't forget that renewable green power plant also do (some) harm. Perhaps it's not a big problem if you turn entire desert into solar power plant. But how about country with no big place like Japan? Or like Indonesia that majority of them are mountains or forest (meaning those forest must be cleared to make some space).

Well, the main idea behind renewable sources is that each building/house is self-sufficient. There's a building built in Switzerland at 3000m of altitude (forgot the name) that is entirely powered by solar panels, and obviously super-insulated. When outside is -30°C inside have 20°C and warm water. In Austria, one of the more green countries on Earth, there are whole public schools completely green (zero impact on the environment). So it can surely be done, the tech is here already.

If we start converting all the old houses/buildings like that, we won't need to consume anymore such high amount of energy at all.

[Avaible]

As for solar energy, physicist have proven over the years that 4-5 hours of noon sun full harvest produces more than 0.5 Zettajoules (which as far as I know it's the current world energy usage.) Also, a report made by the MIT (same year 2006) about Geothermal energy stated it could produce 2000zj, which is almost 4.000 years of planetary energy. Those are old news, although for geothermal energy it is true it needed more technological development, do we have it now? I can't tell for sure. Same could be said with the so called "infinite batteries" and perpetual motion machines, but it keeps going, on and on, and on.

ust in case no one noticing, don't forget that renewable green power plant also do (some) harm. Perhaps it's not a big problem if you turn entire desert into solar power plant. But how about country with no big place like Japan? Or like Indonesia that majority of them are mountains or forest (meaning those forest must be cleared to make some space).

It is proven that the world could produce more than enough energy, even if we only take the sun into account, so technically there is no problem if some areas don't produce energy by themselfs (e.g. whole countries like Japan).
The hurdle is that people feel the need to limit their ressources in order to make money of them.
Nobody wants to lose the profit energy makes when sold.

The same goes for food, the world could produce enough for everyone, but there are those companies that want to make money out of it.

It's possible to fulfill those basic needs - it won't happen as long as money is involved, though.

I'm not against capitalism, but I think everyone would profit more in the end if things like energy were free for all.

[PyTom]

It's possible to fulfill those basic needs - it won't happen as long as money is involved, though.

Money is actually a pretty good tool to help people fulfill their basic needs. I mean, the countries that have famines are usually the ones where a government attempts to control things - not the other way around.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5Gppi-O3a8 talks about how pencils are made, and more importantly, how the price system helps organize people to do thing. Food works similarly.

[Avaible]

Money is actually a pretty good tool to help people fulfill their basic needs. I mean, the countries that have famines are usually the ones where a government attempts to control things - not the other way around.

I'm not saying money is something bad in general, I'm glad there is such a thing as money because it makes many things easier or even possible.

My opinion is simply that those advantages turn into disadvantages from time to time, and that's where the benefit of the money-system stops.
Thus, the need for an alternative, for which I suggested the example to share power freely.

[LVUER]

Self-sufficient... that sound nice, really. But I think it could happen only in advanced country. It's only a dream in developing country, let alone under-developed country. Though right now we're talking about Japan, the 3rd most advanced country in the world...

[Chrizine]

if things like energy were free for all.

... then many many people wouldn't feel the need to be sparing with energy. Then we would need much more... (Of course the same goes for food or else. People would waste it, if it wasn't for their money.) - Of course, not everyone. (Please don't all jump at me like "I would never..."). But many people are selfish. (As Avaible already pointed out I think.)

[Tachyglossus]

From concerns over the safety of those suffering in earthquakes to debates on energy... I just adore watching conversations evolve and develop.

Evolution and development. These are important factors in our energy needs. We are complex organisms living in a complicated world, thus making fulfilling our needs a greater labour.

I am not a scientist. I do not know much about energy, politics, or economy. I'm an ignorant idealist missing the facts, sans what I have gleaned here today. I could rifle through websites for information, but to be honest, how can I know that anything I read is true? What is propaganda, what is truth? I feel lost in such a discussion, yet... after reading it, I just WANT to say something!

I do not doubt there is a safer solution to our energy requirements. We simply have not yet found it. Until then, I agree with LVUER, in that we have what we have, and we must make due and suffer the consequences.

Just as in the past we had limited understanding of hygiene, and suffered the consequences. The consequences pushed us to improve matters.

And thus I will not say alternate energies are a waste of investment or time, because there is so much more we could learn and develop about them! One day, they may replace nuclear, or, one day, we may discover a way of better dealing with the biohazard waste from nuclear plants as well as containing radiation. I don't know if repairing split atoms is possible, but I also don't know that it is impossible.

I'm not saying to stop complaining; these concerns are what move people to discovery and invention... however I don't think it's a matter of which energy source is right or wrong (as previously stated by someone, I forgot who because I read all five pages of this discussion just now) but how we utilize what we have.

Think of Nuclear plants; we've made leaps and bounds in better safety precautions, but we aren't there yet. It produces a enough energy to supply its locality and a surplus to sell. I think that we are doing fine combining different sources of energy, but perhaps more care should be taken into where to build nuclear plants. Heck, even reduce them, but do not completely stop using them. They cause a lot of damage when they meltdown, but the chance is very small. Thus reducing them reduces the chance of it happening, but you are still garnering a decent amount of energy from them. Take up the losses of building no more, or closing down some plants in high risk areas (I'm sure already care was taken into where to build them; I do not know - but some risks that weren't know when they were built might be known now) with alternate power sources suited to your location. Unfortunately, hazardous energy sources like coal or nuclear may be the only options available to some places that don't have enough sun, wind, water, or simply not enough space to build alternate methods. Not to mention building any sort of plant to produce energy will require harming the environment in some way by removing natural habitats.

As it is... I'm one of those people who is not absolute, but a wishy-washy middle-ground seeker... but is it so impossible? It's not about removing dangers, but rather about damage control, or in other words, reducing risk rather than trying to eliminate it (which is impossible).

Alright... now I said something. I'm satisfied.

Oooh by the way, Elenakira, do you live in BC?

[Elenakiara]

Nah, on the other side of the country... xD Quebec!

And yeah, the whole topic about energy production is so complicated. >.< Especially since the more people exist, the more place we take up. We need more energy and the world's geographically limited in habitability. Since there is so much water in the world, maybe it would be the next area that people could go and make certain kinds of underwater cities. xD But then the danger of something breaking and the whole city being flooded is a problem, letalone on where they would get fresh water...
But, I'm rambling now. xD I just try to stay optimistic and think that we would be able to get on top of any problem eventually. >.<

[LVUER]

OOT a little, while we're talking about nuclear and energy.

I'm not that good at chemistry or physics, but I think I read somewhere that it's (theoretically) possible to make (almost) infinite energy source though it's definitely impossible to build one with our current technology.

If I'm not wrong, basically it's like this: Nuclear gains its power from splitting atoms. And it's possible to fuse already split atoms, but we need an extremely hot temperature (equaling sun temperature). With this, we could make endless cycle of splitting and fusing in a completely controlled environment. We use nuclear power to generate energy, use the heat generated from it to fuse atoms, and then split them again to generate power, and then repeats...

[Junker-Kun]

And then just kill ourselves. No seriously, do you really think this method would be safier?
Though yes, that would create almost endless circle.

[Avaible]

He didn't state his own opinion to it anywhere, did he?
It was just a neat little information on an aspect of nuclear power technology.

I do not doubt there is a safer solution to our energy requirements. We simply have not yet found it. Until then, I agree with LVUER, in that we have what we have, and we must make due and suffer the consequences.

I'm not satisfied with that reasoning, though I understand what you mean and I don't disagree.

It's not about removing dangers, but rather about damage control, or in other words, reducing risk rather than trying to eliminate it (which is impossible).

Is it so impossible to remove risk at all? Maybe, but I would like to be able to completely control all the risks involved in any way. As long as I control the risks, I don't have to worry about how high they are.
Does that make sense?

That aside;
yesterday I heard in the news that the water lines in Tokyo (I think) got contaminated and that the Japanese government advised for little children to not to drink that water.
Then I thought about it for a moment.
They measured 210Becquerel of some radioactive stuff per liter in the water; that's about five kilo tobacco, isn't it?
So, basically, a smoker would die within a very short time frame if 210Becquerel per liter was all that much as the news make it sound like.

I'm glad I'm no smoker, I would probably die of radiation ...

[Tachyglossus]

What I am trying to say about removing risk being impossible is that lanything in life can never be entirely safe; there will always be that chaotic unknown element. Lief, in short, is risky, no matter how much you know, or how much you prepare.

Complete control of a risk... what exactly do you mean? Knowing the odds down to a complete art? Knowing the signs of something turning bad in advance long enough to do something about it?

As for infinite energy, one can only dream.

In the end, however, the hysteria over energy is not one of my major concerns. I am known to not have an opinion on things, so I try to push myself when I see these sorts of discussions to actually think and form one, but even now, I know that I waffle a lot. Yet, if I do not practice, how can I get anywhere?

I guess I am just the sort of useless optimist that knows things are, somehow, someway, going to work out. Thus I don't worry over things far beyond my own control. I'm no genius, so I cannot contribute to the world in a large scale. All I can do is be prudent with what resources I do have and leave the thinking to the scientists and politicians. They can have their massive intellects, ingenuity, and skills at manipulation. That sort of responsibility is too much for me.

[Junker-Kun]

They measured 210Becquerel of some radioactive stuff per liter in the water; that's about five kilo tobacco, isn't it?
So, basically, a smoker would die within a very short time frame if 210Becquerel per liter was all that much as the news make it sound like.

I'm glad I'm no smoker, I would probably die of radiation ...

Not necessary I think. Smoking person's life time of course will be shortened, but not too much as most part of smoke isn't going in his lungs. BTW, we too have NPP near, so I have more chanses to die from radiation than from smoking. Lol.