In article ,
"DGDevin" wrote:

wrote in message
...

About what I'd expect from the Huffington Post. A smear of the
design of
the GE reactors containment vessel design without ever mentioning that
from everything I've heard so far, the vessel itself has NOT been
compromised.

There is ample evidence that the GE reactors were sold as cheaper than
competing designs, that there were warnings going back to the 70s about the
potential for just such failures as we are now seeing, and that the design
of the plant in question was shockingly vulnerable. To suggest that
questioning the safety of the design is a left-wing smear is not a position
supported by the facts.

http://www.boston.com/news/world/asi...g_was_issued_i
n_70s_on_ge_designed_reactors/?rss_id=Boston+Globe+--+Today%27s+paper+A+to+Z

GE began making the Mark 1 boiling-water reactors in the 1960s, marketing
them as cheaper and easier to build €” in part because they used a
comparatively smaller and less expensive containment structure.

US regulators began identifying weaknesses very early on.

In 1972, Stephen Hanauer, then a safety official with the Atomic Energy
Commission, recommended that the Mark 1 system be discontinued because it
presented unacceptable safety risks. Among the concerns cited was the
smaller containment design, which was more susceptible to explosion and
rupture from a buildup in hydrogen €” a situation that may have unfolded at
the Fukushima Daiichi plant.

Later that same year, Joseph Hendrie, who would later become chairman of the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, a successor agency to the atomic commission,
said the idea of a ban on such systems was attractive. But the technology
had been so widely accepted by the industry and regulatory officials, he
said, that €œreversal of this hallowed policy, particularly at this time,
could well be the end of nuclear power.

Seems to me it would be better to wait for a full investigation to
understand
exactly what happened and learn from it. In the end, I would not be
surprised to find out that after an earthquake
and sunami ranking in the top 5 of the last century, while the plants
were
wrecked the total radiation released beyond the plant boundaries could
turn out to be minimal and not a serious threat.

"Minimal" and "not a serious threat" would no longer seem to be appropriate
terms to use in this disaster. I bet if you lived a couple of hundred miles
downwind from that plant your opinion would be very different.

What if every roof top had a solar panel? we wouldn't need a single
nuklar device. and Wars for Oil could be eliminated too. Sound good?
--
Karma, What a concept!

Karen Silkwood wrote:
In article ,
"DGDevin" wrote:

wrote in message
...

About what I'd expect from the Huffington Post. A smear of the
design of
the GE reactors containment vessel design without ever mentioning
that from everything I've heard so far, the vessel itself has NOT
been compromised.

There is ample evidence that the GE reactors were sold as cheaper
than competing designs, that there were warnings going back to the
70s about the potential for just such failures as we are now seeing,
and that the design of the plant in question was shockingly
vulnerable. To suggest that questioning the safety of the design is
a left-wing smear is not a position supported by the facts.

http://www.boston.com/news/world/asi...g_was_issued_i
n_70s_on_ge_designed_reactors/?rss_id=Boston+Globe+--+Today%27s+paper+A+to+Z

GE began making the Mark 1 boiling-water reactors in the 1960s,
marketing them as cheaper and easier to build €” in part because
they used a comparatively smaller and less expensive containment
structure.

US regulators began identifying weaknesses very early on.

In 1972, Stephen Hanauer, then a safety official with the Atomic
Energy Commission, recommended that the Mark 1 system be
discontinued because it presented unacceptable safety risks. Among
the concerns cited was the smaller containment design, which was
more susceptible to explosion and rupture from a buildup in hydrogen
€” a situation that may have unfolded at the Fukushima Daiichi
plant.

Later that same year, Joseph Hendrie, who would later become
chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, a successor agency to
the atomic commission, said the idea of a ban on such systems was
attractive. But the technology had been so widely accepted by the
industry and regulatory officials, he said, that €œreversal of this
hallowed policy, particularly at this time, could well be the end of
nuclear power.

Seems to me it would be better to wait for a full investigation to
understand
exactly what happened and learn from it. In the end, I would not
be surprised to find out that after an earthquake
and sunami ranking in the top 5 of the last century, while the
plants were
wrecked the total radiation released beyond the plant boundaries
could turn out to be minimal and not a serious threat.

"Minimal" and "not a serious threat" would no longer seem to be
appropriate terms to use in this disaster. I bet if you lived a
couple of hundred miles downwind from that plant your opinion would
be very different.

What if every roof top had a solar panel? we wouldn't need a single
nuklar device. and Wars for Oil could be eliminated too. Sound good?

how much energy would it take to MAKE all those rooftop solar panels?

chaniarts wrote:
What if every roof top had a solar panel? we wouldn't need a single
nuklar device. and Wars for Oil could be eliminated too. Sound good?

how much energy would it take to MAKE all those rooftop solar panels?

Less than it would cost to pay for them.

Karen Silkwood wrote:

What if every roof top had a solar panel? we wouldn't need a single
nuklar device. and Wars for Oil could be eliminated too. Sound good?

No, it doesn't sound good.

* First, there is the horrendous expense of making, buying, and installing
them.
* Second, one of the most common causes of visits to the emergency room is
"falls." Imagine the cost to society when, literally, millions of
middle-aged men start cavorting on their roofs to remove leaves, dirt, and
snow.
* Third, there probably are not enough rooftops in Las Vegas to power a
single casino, let alone the strip. Point is, one aluminum smelting plant,
alfalfa dryer, or other commercial customer consumes enough electricity to
add the word "silly" to the notion of universal solar panels.

Bob F wrote:
chaniarts wrote:
What if every roof top had a solar panel? we wouldn't need a single
nuklar device. and Wars for Oil could be eliminated too. Sound good?

how much energy would it take to MAKE all those rooftop solar panels?

Less than it would cost to pay for them.

Not if the government (i.e., you, me, and everyone else) subsidizes the
project.

On 3/18/2011 1:15 PM, Karen Silkwood wrote:
In articlePqydnbFgCLrqPhzQnZ2dnUVZ_jKdnZ2d@earthlink .com,
wrote:

wrote in message
...

About what I'd expect from the Huffington Post. A smear of the
design of
the GE reactors containment vessel design without ever mentioning that
from everything I've heard so far, the vessel itself has NOT been
compromised.

There is ample evidence that the GE reactors were sold as cheaper than
competing designs, that there were warnings going back to the 70s about the
potential for just such failures as we are now seeing, and that the design
of the plant in question was shockingly vulnerable. To suggest that
questioning the safety of the design is a left-wing smear is not a position
supported by the facts.

http://www.boston.com/news/world/asi...g_was_issued_i
n_70s_on_ge_designed_reactors/?rss_id=Boston+Globe+--+Today%27s+paper+A+to+Z

GE began making the Mark 1 boiling-water reactors in the 1960s, marketing
them as cheaper and easier to build €” in part because they used a
comparatively smaller and less expensive containment structure.

US regulators began identifying weaknesses very early on.

In 1972, Stephen Hanauer, then a safety official with the Atomic Energy
Commission, recommended that the Mark 1 system be discontinued because it
presented unacceptable safety risks. Among the concerns cited was the
smaller containment design, which was more susceptible to explosion and
rupture from a buildup in hydrogen €” a situation that may have unfolded at
the Fukushima Daiichi plant.

Later that same year, Joseph Hendrie, who would later become chairman of the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, a successor agency to the atomic commission,
said the idea of a ban on such systems was attractive. But the technology
had been so widely accepted by the industry and regulatory officials, he
said, that €œreversal of this hallowed policy, particularly at this time,
could well be the end of nuclear power.

Seems to me it would be better to wait for a full investigation to
understand
exactly what happened and learn from it. In the end, I would not be
surprised to find out that after an earthquake
and sunami ranking in the top 5 of the last century, while the plants
were
wrecked the total radiation released beyond the plant boundaries could
turn out to be minimal and not a serious threat.

"Minimal" and "not a serious threat" would no longer seem to be appropriate
terms to use in this disaster. I bet if you lived a couple of hundred miles
downwind from that plant your opinion would be very different.

What if every roof top had a solar panel? we wouldn't need a single
nuklar device. and Wars for Oil could be eliminated too. Sound good?

Dang Karen, no wonder you were assassinated! ^_^

TDD

Karen Silkwood wrote:
In article ,
"DGDevin" wrote:

wrote in message
...

About what I'd expect from the Huffington Post. A smear of the
design of
the GE reactors containment vessel design without ever mentioning
that from everything I've heard so far, the vessel itself has NOT
been compromised.

There is ample evidence that the GE reactors were sold as cheaper
than competing designs, that there were warnings going back to the
70s about the potential for just such failures as we are now seeing,
and that the design of the plant in question was shockingly
vulnerable. To suggest that questioning the safety of the design is
a left-wing smear is not a position supported by the facts.

http://www.boston.com/news/world/asi...g_was_issued_i
n_70s_on_ge_designed_reactors/?rss_id=Boston+Globe+--+Today%27s+paper+A+to+Z

GE began making the Mark 1 boiling-water reactors in the 1960s,
marketing them as cheaper and easier to build €” in part because
they used a comparatively smaller and less expensive containment
structure.

US regulators began identifying weaknesses very early on.

In 1972, Stephen Hanauer, then a safety official with the Atomic
Energy Commission, recommended that the Mark 1 system be
discontinued because it presented unacceptable safety risks. Among
the concerns cited was the smaller containment design, which was
more susceptible to explosion and rupture from a buildup in hydrogen
€” a situation that may have unfolded at the Fukushima Daiichi
plant.

Later that same year, Joseph Hendrie, who would later become
chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, a successor agency to
the atomic commission, said the idea of a ban on such systems was
attractive. But the technology had been so widely accepted by the
industry and regulatory officials, he said, that €œreversal of this
hallowed policy, particularly at this time, could well be the end of
nuclear power.

Seems to me it would be better to wait for a full investigation to
understand
exactly what happened and learn from it. In the end, I would not
be surprised to find out that after an earthquake
and sunami ranking in the top 5 of the last century, while the
plants were
wrecked the total radiation released beyond the plant boundaries
could turn out to be minimal and not a serious threat.

"Minimal" and "not a serious threat" would no longer seem to be
appropriate terms to use in this disaster. I bet if you lived a
couple of hundred miles downwind from that plant your opinion would
be very different.

What if every roof top had a solar panel?

Taint enough for heating and cooling alone.

we wouldn't need a single nuklar device.

You'd certainly need more than that.

and Wars for Oil could be eliminated too.

Nope, you cant drive you car with a solar panel on it.

Try doing a 747 like that. Doesnt work too well.

Sound good?

Nope, mindlessly superficial, actually.

On 3/18/2011 2:23 PM, chaniarts wrote:
Karen Silkwood wrote:
In articlePqydnbFgCLrqPhzQnZ2dnUVZ_jKdnZ2d@earthlink .com,
wrote:

wrote in message
...

About what I'd expect from the Huffington Post. A smear of the
design of
the GE reactors containment vessel design without ever mentioning
that from everything I've heard so far, the vessel itself has NOT
been compromised.

There is ample evidence that the GE reactors were sold as cheaper
than competing designs, that there were warnings going back to the
70s about the potential for just such failures as we are now seeing,
and that the design of the plant in question was shockingly
vulnerable. To suggest that questioning the safety of the design is
a left-wing smear is not a position supported by the facts.

http://www.boston.com/news/world/asi...g_was_issued_i
n_70s_on_ge_designed_reactors/?rss_id=Boston+Globe+--+Today%27s+paper+A+to+Z

GE began making the Mark 1 boiling-water reactors in the 1960s,
marketing them as cheaper and easier to build €” in part because
they used a comparatively smaller and less expensive containment
structure.

US regulators began identifying weaknesses very early on.

In 1972, Stephen Hanauer, then a safety official with the Atomic
Energy Commission, recommended that the Mark 1 system be
discontinued because it presented unacceptable safety risks. Among
the concerns cited was the smaller containment design, which was
more susceptible to explosion and rupture from a buildup in hydrogen
€” a situation that may have unfolded at the Fukushima Daiichi
plant.

Later that same year, Joseph Hendrie, who would later become
chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, a successor agency to
the atomic commission, said the idea of a ban on such systems was
attractive. But the technology had been so widely accepted by the
industry and regulatory officials, he said, that €œreversal of this
hallowed policy, particularly at this time, could well be the end of
nuclear power.

Seems to me it would be better to wait for a full investigation to
understand
exactly what happened and learn from it. In the end, I would not
be surprised to find out that after an earthquake
and sunami ranking in the top 5 of the last century, while the
plants were
wrecked the total radiation released beyond the plant boundaries
could turn out to be minimal and not a serious threat.

"Minimal" and "not a serious threat" would no longer seem to be
appropriate terms to use in this disaster. I bet if you lived a
couple of hundred miles downwind from that plant your opinion would
be very different.

What if every roof top had a solar panel? we wouldn't need a single
nuklar device. and Wars for Oil could be It varies widel eliminated too. Sound good?

how much energy would it take to MAKE all those rooftop solar panels?

It depends on the technology for PV, those costs are reflected in the
cost/watt. Some day if you need a watt you may be able to print it:

http://www.konarka.com/index.php/sit...ed_solar_cells

Thermal is a much better return for now. Both for hot water and space
heating.

Jeff