Solar hybrid gasoline generator, 7kw gas, 180 watts of solar, Morningstar 15 amp MPPT, group 31 AGM, 900 watt kisae inverter.
Solar roof top GMC suburban, a normal 3/4 ton suburban with 180 watts of panels on the roof and 10 amp genasun MPPT, 2000w samlex pure sine wave inverter, 12v gast and ARB air compressors.
BB. wrote: »
The US lost over 3,000 people (plus ~double that from 2 recent wars, not including the locals of the region many times over suffering the results of war/terrorism) from 9-11-01 by an act of ~19 people...the loss of life no matter the cause is sad and not very desirable.
Japan has possibly lost >10,000 people from a single act of nature (and ~several hundred thousand from a first hand view of nuclear war).yes, it was a risk that something big could do them harm, but it's not like they didn't know they were prone and they took some steps i'm sure.
Trying to be careful what I say here (non-political forum--plus I don't want to use anyone's suffering to score political points)--But the risks of human civilization are real. Nuclear power is part of that risk--but so is driving a car, coal mining, oil production, and even forestry...
i don't see what this has to do with politics at all. do know there isn't a comparison to a car accident and similar scenarios with small harm potentials with what has happened with nuclear power accidents. i see you are trying to head off my pms to you with my opinions on having nuclear reactors in earthquake prone areas as you feel it is worth the risk. it is not when a catastrophic failure occurs and it is a much higher risk akin to having a glass house with rocks randomly thrown at it from time to time. radioactivity is a different kind of accident in that one does not see the damage quickly or definitively except in very high doses and that radiation is often times spread via winds and waters. it's true this can thin out some of the radiation the farther it is spread out, but some you just can't shake as it stays with you to continue doing damage.
i for one would not deny anybody the ability to produce power, but nuclear is a different kind of risk. if they had, say, coal generators (not selling that they should have them) that the quake and subsequent tsunami would not have posed any further threats other than as in any other building in those zones.
old reactors i'm sure have had retrofits and upgrades as they knew that anything that they did would help if the big one hits. they did not pull many punches when it came to trying to make them safer and i'm certain their reactors were far safer than ours are. my hats off to them for that effort as they put aside some of the bottom-line thinking for safety. i'm quite sure that the result over there would have been many times worse had they not taken steps, but it was not enough and may never be enough for an earthquake prone area. no reactor is earthquake proof.
Fortunately, we do not have that many mass populations to collect data on from radiation exposure--And I certainly would hope that we never do (again).it is quite well known what the long-term as well as the short term effects of radioactivity are and they have had known accidents to confirm this even though you will not be given these results as you'd sue the you know what out of them and make it not a very cost effective way to produce power. believe it or not it is not a cost effective way to produce power and your tax dollars paid for most of our reactors even in the private sectors. talk about incentives.:roll:
solarvic wrote: »
Also a few years ago I saw a program on NHK about home power units. It is suposed to be good for areas that have lots of natural gas. Instead of the grid your home power unit makes energy for your home. It was about the size of a refrigerator and you could have it in a power room or outside. Somehow it converted nat gas to electric throug some kind of chemical reaction and didn,t use a primemover. Has anyone ever heard about it besides me. Sounds a little like what hardway was talking about but I don,t think it was nucular.
Fatawan wrote: »
http://bloomenergy.com/ maybe? Too big it looks like. Maybe this one http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/energy/stories/first-hydrogen-fuel-cell-for-the-home Or this http://clearedgepower.com/categories/home-owner/pages/faq
westbranch wrote: »
here is some interesting information on an alternative fuel / reactor designhttp://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/ff_new_nukes/