I susspect this is something the manufacturer does to get people to buy née cars/. I highly doubt the car manufacturer pays for the repairs, they only coordinate the program for the dealers. Repairs are probably handled through some third party repair insurance company.
Don’t y9u think a new car company would want to sell new cars where they make the most money? I high;y doubt they would wan to mess around with used cars and all f the problems that go along with them.
In 60 years of using nuclear power total number of deaths is less than 100. Last major nuclear power disaster there were no deaths.
In 60 years of using nuclear power total number of deaths is less than 100. Last major nuclear power disaster there were no deaths.That's not true, most estimates range from 3'000-30'000 premature deaths after Chernobyl from the radiation. Although it was less than 100 that died in direct relation to the accident. Still peanuts compared to air pollution and many other things.
Yup. We could have a Chernobyl accident every year and it would cause less harm to human health than air pollution does, and we haven't even considered climate change yet!
People are very irrational when it comes to risk. People like what is familiar to them, like a cosy wood (or coal) fire, but in reality that is far more dangerous than nuclear power.
I can only think of two nuclear power accidents in the past 60 years. Now compare that to oil/fossil fuel related spills/accidents I can think of over two dozen which have occurred in the same time frame.
There have only been two major accidents at civilian nuclear power stations that have caused harm to people or the environment. Chernobyl and Fukushima. There are a few other military related accidents though, not to mention all the nukes they blew up in the atmosphere.
I can only think of two nuclear power accidents in the past 60 years. Now compare that to oil/fossil fuel related spills/accidents I can think of over two dozen which have occurred in the same time frame.While the number of nuclear accidents is low, if you can only think of two you aren't really trying.
There have only been two major accidents at civilian nuclear power stations that have caused harm to people or the environment. Chernobyl and Fukushima. There are a few other military related accidents though, not to mention all the nukes they blew up in the atmosphere.Dounreay was probably as bad as Chernobyl, but the coverups mean we'll never really know. Three Mile Island let stuff out, but it remains unclear just how much. As I said, not many accidents, but its not as low as 2. You also have places like Sellafield with a long history of poor control, yet only one event that came close to a real disaster.
There have only been two major accidents at civilian nuclear power stations that have caused harm to people or the environment. Chernobyl and Fukushima. There are a few other military related accidents though, not to mention all the nukes they blew up in the atmosphere.Dounreay was probably as bad as Chernobyl, but the coverups mean we'll never really know. Three Mile Island let stuff out, but it remains unclear just how much. As I said, not many accidents, but its not as low as 2. You also have places like Sellafield with a long history of poor control, yet only one event that came close to a real disaster.
Meanwhile I've found an interesting article from June 2018 which sums up the status on 3rd generation bio-fuels:
http://www.ethanolproducer.com/articles/15344/zero-to-10-million-in-5-years
Appearantly it is commercially viable to make 3d generation bio-fuels:
Yancey predicts corn fiber-to-ethanol will be the first cellulosic fuel to top 1 billion gallons, with multiple starch plants adopting one of the new technologies well before there will be multiple standalone, dedicated biomass plants. “It could be adopted as fast as corn oil was, because it is so profitable,” he says. The projected return on investment for D3Max is at one year with a 40 percent equity investment.
And the leftovers may even serve as food for animals:
The distillers grains left after the fiber is converted to ethanol tests at 50 percent crude protein on a dry weight basis. Feed trials will be conducted this fall to establish its performance in poultry, swine and dairy.
The problem with fission reactors, is that the accidents can have terrible effects in any part of the world. An explosion causes heavily contaminated material to be released at high altitude, where the winds can transport them pretty much anywhere. The melt rods eat tru any material and reach and contaminate subterranean waters. That's why everyone was so scared about Chernobyl, and Fukushima (not so long ago).
The problem with fission reactors, is that the accidents can have terrible effects in any part of the world. An explosion causes heavily contaminated material to be released at high altitude, where the winds can transport them pretty much anywhere. The melt rods eat tru any material and reach and contaminate subterranean waters. That's why everyone was so scared about Chernobyl, and Fukushima (not so long ago).Its the concentration that seriously matters, not what happens when the stuff is thinly spread far from the event. If that mattered we'd have to shut down all the coal power stations, as they put out an enormous amount of radioactive waste.
The problem with fission reactors, is that the accidents can have terrible effects in any part of the world. An explosion causes heavily contaminated material to be released at high altitude, where the winds can transport them pretty much anywhere. The melt rods eat tru any material and reach and contaminate subterranean waters. That's why everyone was so scared about Chernobyl, and Fukushima (not so long ago).
How do you convert waste plant material to bio fuel?
I know there are many ideas out there, but is there any factories doing this commercially? (please provide links if so).
Otherwise I don't see how that is any different than solar storage solutions (better batteries, etc).
See poet-dsm.com (the DSM part is Dutch) but there are other companies as well who have a working process.
https://www.energy.gov/eere/bioenergy/poet-dsm-project-libertyHow many liters/m^2 of bio fuel do they produce in a year?From this link: https://www.energy.gov/eere/bioenergy/poet-dsm-project-liberty 20 to 25 million gallons. And I assume this is the goal for 2018 so we'll probably know how much they produced soon.That doesn't answer the question.Oh, I didn't see you wanted to know per surface area. This images says it all:Very good. Thanks
Assume 80 gal/acre
I drive 12,000 mi/year
Assume 25 mi/gallon
So that's 480 gal/year
So I need 6 acres of corn land.
I checked US Energy Information Admin for fuel consumption in the US
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=23&t=10
Quote from the web site
"How much gasoline does the United States consume?
In 2017, about 142.98 billion gallons (or about 3.40 billion barrels1) of finished motor gasoline were consumed in the United States, a daily average of about 391.71 million gallons (or about 9.33 million barrels per day)."
So that is 1.8E9 acres of corn to produce this fuel based on 80 gal/acre.
Now Wikepedia tells me that there are 9.6E7 acres of corn in production in the USA.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corn_production_in_the_United_States
So the 96 million acres could produce 0.7% of the fuel for the us.
That does not include aircraft or ships.
People visits chernobyl, but in organized tours. You cannot wander in any place you want, because radiation isn't absorbed the same in different materials. The roads don't have much radiation, and that explains how they can reach the place, but the forest is contaminated, and so are the animals living there. You can read about mutations in them in several websites, such as newspapers, and the like.
but just what are we going to do with the nuclear waste? Just how much of this thing are we going to stockpile?
This junk is so bad, that if some terrorist group get this hands on this, they could easily make a dirty bomb. With enough resources and the correct nuclear waste, even a nuclear bomb.
How do you convert waste plant material to bio fuel?
I know there are many ideas out there, but is there any factories doing this commercially? (please provide links if so).
Otherwise I don't see how that is any different than solar storage solutions (better batteries, etc).
See poet-dsm.com (the DSM part is Dutch) but there are other companies as well who have a working process.
https://www.energy.gov/eere/bioenergy/poet-dsm-project-libertyHow many liters/m^2 of bio fuel do they produce in a year?From this link: https://www.energy.gov/eere/bioenergy/poet-dsm-project-liberty 20 to 25 million gallons. And I assume this is the goal for 2018 so we'll probably know how much they produced soon.That doesn't answer the question.Oh, I didn't see you wanted to know per surface area. This images says it all:Very good. Thanks
Assume 80 gal/acre
I drive 12,000 mi/year
Assume 25 mi/gallon
So that's 480 gal/year
So I need 6 acres of corn land.
I checked US Energy Information Admin for fuel consumption in the US
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=23&t=10
Quote from the web site
"How much gasoline does the United States consume?
In 2017, about 142.98 billion gallons (or about 3.40 billion barrels1) of finished motor gasoline were consumed in the United States, a daily average of about 391.71 million gallons (or about 9.33 million barrels per day)."
So that is 1.8E9 acres of corn to produce this fuel based on 80 gal/acre.
Now Wikepedia tells me that there are 9.6E7 acres of corn in production in the USA.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corn_production_in_the_United_States
So the 96 million acres could produce 0.7% of the fuel for the us.
That does not include aircraft or ships.Did you remember to compensate for the fact that one gallon of etanol only contains about 45% of the energy of one gallon of gasoline?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density#Energy_densities_of_common_energy_storage_materials
The problem with fission reactors, is that the accidents can have terrible effects in any part of the world. An explosion causes heavily contaminated material to be released at high altitude, where the winds can transport them pretty much anywhere. The melt rods eat tru any material and reach and contaminate subterranean waters. That's why everyone was so scared about Chernobyl, and Fukushima (not so long ago).The Chernobyl accident has been studied in detail for over 30 years now, and we have a lot of scientific data on what actually happened. Worst case estimates say that about a total of 30'000 might die prematurely in Europe because of radioactive particles from Chernobyl (many others like the IAEA and the WHO says it's 4'000). Thankfully such accidents happens very seldom; since the first nuclear reactors were built in the 1940s it has only happened twice (and Fukushima is believed to have less of an health impact than Chernobyl).
That still sounds really bad! But what many forget is that the alternatives are not without risk either.
For example, the worst hydro electric dam accident killed ~171000 people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam
That did only affect the country that built the dam though, so you could say it was more local.
But what about wood stoves? You posted a link before:
https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2018/overview/
It says that: "In 2016, household and outdoor air pollution led to some 7 million deaths worldwide." (!)
That air pollution comes from burning and it's killing millions every year. If you replaced that burning with electric power from nuclear we will literally save millions of lives every year all around the world.
Wood stoves also spread their air-pollution around the world. So does any form of burning, it causes air-pollution which is spread with the wind around the world in the same way the Chernobyl accident spread radioactive particles with the wind.
That UN page doesn't say how many of the 7 million deaths are cause by wood stoves, but I know a Swedish report that estimate that 900 died prematurely in Sweden because of wood burning. (We have a population of about 10 million). That means that only in Sweden wood burning causes more deaths in 4 - 35 years than the biggest nuclear disaster did worldwide over all time. The same report says that a total of 7600 die every year from air pollution here, and that 3600 of them are caused by air pollution that comes from outside of Sweden (e.g. coal power plants).
http://naturvardsverket.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1242584/FULLTEXT01.pdf
And then we haven't even considered all the other toxins from coal power plants, like mercury and other heavy metals. Or the problem with ocean acidification (caused by SO2 as well as CO2 from coal power plants). Those effects are also global; it's the reason why ocean tuna contains so much mercury for example, or why the great barrier reef is dying. And then there is climate change, which also affects the entire planet...
So yes, a nuclear accident can cause pollution in other countries but it is nothing compared to what air pollution from burning does.
People visits chernobyl, but in organized tours. You cannot wander in any place you want, because radiation isn't absorbed the same in different materials. The roads don't have much radiation, and that explains how they can reach the place, but the forest is contaminated, and so are the animals living there. You can read about mutations in them in several websites, such as newspapers, and the like.You can't go into the reactor that exploded of course, but you can go mostly everywhere else. There are people that are living permanently in the exclusion zone, some never left. The wildlife in the exclusion zone is thriving anyone who says otherwise is dishonest at best. Those pictures of mutations are just scaremongering. Mutations occurs naturally everywhere, it is not any more common around Chernobyl than elsewhere. Directly after the accident there was a part of a pine forest close to the reactor that were damaged (the needles turned red) but it has long since recovered. They kept operating the other three reactors at the Chernobyl power plant for over a decade after the accident. People went to work there every day (and still do). And yes it is now officially a tourist attraction in the Ukraine I believe.but just what are we going to do with the nuclear waste? Just how much of this thing are we going to stockpile?We will store it in deep geological deposits, they are building one in Finland now.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repository
There is so little nuclear waste produced that all of the nuclear waste that's been produced in the Netherlands can be stored in a single building:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a1/Covra_het_gebouw.JPGThis junk is so bad, that if some terrorist group get this hands on this, they could easily make a dirty bomb. With enough resources and the correct nuclear waste, even a nuclear bomb.People deal with poisonous and dangerous substances at factories all the time.
Terrorists have much better options than dirty bombs, like flying an airliner into a building.
Dirty bombs are just more scaremongering. It would be a pain in the *** for the terrorists to get hold of and to deal with it without killing themselves before they even built the bomb. And if they manage to detonate a dirty bomb do you know what would happen? There would be a poof from the explosives, a dust cloud, then nothing. The small area where the dust lands would be evacuated and a people in radiation suits would come and vacuum up most of the dust. No one would die from the small dose you get from the spred out, low concentration dust, (except the terrorist who has been driving around with a truckload of it). Maybe the risk of cancer for a handfull of people increase the next 30 years, but that isn't the kind of damage terrorists want, they want massive instant damage. Like a building full of people collapsing.
And no, they can't make a bomb. Ask Iran how they are doing with their nuclear weapons program.
There is so much bullshit when it comes to nuclear power it's ridiculous.
Nuclear is safer and cleaner than coal power, than wood stoves and water power. We can't replace everything with renewable, we need power also when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow. We need either coal or nuclear, and nuclear is way better than coal in every aspect.