Actually I was talking of Fukushima which WAS built to withstand a Tsunami but just not one the size of what hit Japan. And this is the thing we cannot foresee all events and therefore accidents will happen
An easy solution. Do not construct them where a chance exists of a Tsunami. The quake never hurt the plant in Japan. Water did.
Leukemias and Lymphomas first. After about 5 - 10 years the solid organ malignancies start happening Check out what happened to so much of hold Hollywood who filmed The Conqueror with John Wayne in the mid fifties. Wayne, along with director Dick Powell, costars Susan Hayward, Pedro Armendariz, and Agnes Moorehead, and additional cast and crew members, lived in the shadow of this fallout for three months. The first signs of trouble cropped up in 1963 when Powell died of lymphoma and Armendariz killed himself after being diagnosed with terminal cancer. More cancer deaths followed: Moorehead in 1974, Hayward in 1975, and John Wayne in 1979. http://mentalfloss.com/article/19196/mistake-killed-john-wayne Okay not a reactor oopsy, but a good model. It doesn't matter why the oopsy tsunami, terrorist, etc. That the oopsy is so toxic is what matters.
http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear-power/cost-nuclear-power#.WXf1OyMo7qA According to this link nuclear power is very expensive. Costing more than the power generated.
And it is still very expensive. Forbes magazine calls nuclear power a management disaster costing taxpayers billions. If it is dangerous and cost more than energy produced why bother. It has failed to gain private financing and relies on government support. Just another example of the government ripping off the taxpayer to support a few.
Does that matter when there is no real way short of millions to billions of dollars to fix a problem? The BEST they can do for Chernobyl is to put a giant lid on the reactor and even that will not last forever. But the bottom line is nuclear is expensive
It doesn't matter the problem Get it! Tsunami. Design flaw. etc. Don't matter. What matters. <repeat> What matters is the oopsy. Not the why of the oopsy. Too bad the stuff isn't really glow in the dark, green like the Simpson's and more people might "get it". Moi r > g Hoarding the secret of Energy from Ice! Across an immense, unguarded, ethereal border, Canadians, cool and unsympathetic, regard our America with envious eyes and slowly and surely draw their plans against us.
BZZZT Wrong! They get $4 BILLION in subsidies each and every year! https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/06/...ed-4-billion-per-year-of-taxpayers-money.html
Every time global warming kills a bug the bug falls into a crack of the earth and creates more natural gas, thus the "natural" in natural gas.
Except that global warming event happened millions of years ago! Natural gas is a fossil fuel! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_gas
When you say you "save thousands of dollars" is that because the price of electricity is over priced, or because you're not paying for grid power. And if it's the latter, given the cost of the infra and installation, what is your capital recovery period for how long it will take you to break even compared to simply consuming form the grid?
So maybe Australia should export less to fix its problem. It should also diversity from just wind to use more solar, nuclear, and hydro. It should also keep some reserves of natural gas in case of a shortage. BTW there is no 18 year pause.
The question is if the Green Tech fails say ,fate preserve us, the Super Volcano goes off in Yellowstone and the result is the solar rays can't hit the panels and the ash clogs up wind mills what is your option to replace it when its half the power for the USA we are an energy hungry nation and there are few sources of power we use not petroleum (do you think people will just give up driving cars en mass now), nuclear (which needs R&D to get it safe), natural gas and coal fired power plants. If you say can store power in big batteries and in battery complexes first of all how clean and safe would they be, the power will eventually run out even if rationed and then your at and back to the same problems. Face it our civilization is built on cheap and easy to access power and your dreaming when you say replacing that to the point its going to matter when a nation like the US and our business interests, environmentalist and local communities will possibly fight large projects you find an endangered mouse on some development area your going to have a fight. China can do what they do because in the end the people can be ordered to comply at gunpoint look at the massive dam project a true wonder so lets see if you could build that here in the US in a hypothetical sense. Say ACME POWER came up with an awesome plan damn up the Grand Canyon and fill it up and use that water for a huge dam network to power five States and by setting up water pipes would pipe in and treat flood zone water to irrigate the West. Its doable and they want to do it and Congress green lite it removing the protected status for the good of half the nation now dry. Who would dare oppose this massive Green Project lets see environmentalists, land holders and communities impacted negatively, the rest of the world for defiling one of the great wonders, native people who your flooding the sacred sites of etc. China could go we are doing this, we will compensate you in a good way when you move, you environmentalists can shut up or risk going to prison as the native people we really don't care about you either and forge ahead doing the Massive Dam and Water Distribution Project (MDWDP).
This was hashed out long ago, where was OP? The perfect storm occurred, a heat wave creating larger than normal demand, lower winds so the wind turbines had lower capacity, one backup fossil fuel plant inoperable and the other was undergoing repairs at the time. Power outages occur, even in the US, when an unfortunate combination of events occur. Were the brown outs and blackouts of the US West Coast so long ago that you've forgotten them? Ever heard of ENRON? They are boosting capacity and adding battery storage for unusual surges. The one thing truly correct about the OP is that we can learn from those folks down under.
Ah, the "restated" data. How awesome. And yet, here's the raw. which well, basically begs the question of how much data manipulation did NOAA have to "smooth" to reach the above?
