Red bull(shit) stratos record.

[wolfy 12]

Burning to produce the energy that would have otherwise been generated by nuclear power stations, which they are phasing out.

So , also in these cities there must be a coal/oil/gas power station just ready to go on line right?

[Brock Manson 0]

So , also in these cities there must be a coal/oil/gas power station just ready to go on line right?

 

I'll answer your question with another question; do you know what 'phasing out' means?

[rikko 20]

All power stations in the country are connected together via pylons and cables. The same ones that provide power to you house, office etc. this network of pylons ad cables is called the grid.

 

There is a constant requirement of electricity required called the baseload. Tis is typically provided by coal an nuclear stations as they take a long time to start up and shut down. The extra required at peak times (called the peak load) is typically provided by gas, hydro etc.

 

If a nuclear or coal station shuts down for whatever reason they turn on a gas station to keep the baseload provided. If a gas station cannot be brought online you get a power cut.

 

Not all nuclear and coal stations are on all the time. In this instance the spare coal stations would be fired up and some off the gas stations were switched to base load duty. They cut consumption at peak times so that the remaining gas power stations could supply enough to keep the essentials running.

[wolfy 12]

I'll answer your question with another question; do you know what 'phasing out' means?

Is it when a naughty man is bad and the police use them eleccy gun thingies to stop the bad man from causing more trouble?

 

 

Would phasing out mean that over time they will shut down something whilst bringing something else in it's place, meaning no disruption from whatever is being phased out?

[Brock Manson 0]

Is it when a naughty man is bad and the police use them eleccy gun thingies to stop the bad man from causing more trouble?

 

 

Would phasing out mean that over time they will shut down something whilst bringing something else in it's place, meaning no disruption from whatever is being phased out?

 

Yes and yes.

[wolfy 12]

All power stations in the country are connected together via pylons and cables. The same ones that provide power to you house, office etc. this network of pylons ad cables is called the grid.

 

There is a constant requirement of electricity required called the baseload. Tis is typically provided by coal an nuclear stations as they take a long time to start up and shut down. The extra required at peak times (called the peak load) is typically provided by gas, hydro etc.

 

If a nuclear or coal station shuts down for whatever reason they turn on a gas station to keep the baseload provided. If a gas station cannot be brought online you get a power cut.

 

Not all nuclear and coal stations are on all the time. In this instance the spare coal stations would be fired up and some off the gas stations were switched to base load duty. They cut consumption at peak times so that the remaining gas power stations could supply enough to keep the essentials running.

Oh ok then. So can you explain why Fukushima lost power when the back up diesel engines failed , leaving it with no power, if it's on a grid connected to other power stations or at least one that could be brought on line?

[rikko 20]

The large earthquake and tsunami knocked the power lines over severing the plants connection to grid.

[wolfy 12]

The large earthquake and tsunami knocked the power lines over severing the plants connection to grid.

There were 6 reactors, why didn't they all blow up. Why only 3 out of 6? Edited October 19, 2012 by wolfy

[wolfy 12]

All I'm doing Rikko is picking your brains as I have questions. I know it might feel like an interrogation but if you feel that way, I'll have the Sgt bring you a cup of tea and a smoke in and I will dim the bright lamp a bit.

[rikko 20]

Reactor 4 had no fuel in it.

Reactor 5&6 were offline for maintenance.

[ChezGiven 0]

Transcript of the Interview with Amy Goodman on Democracy Now: March 2, 2007:

 

http://www.democracynow.org/2007/3/2/gen_wesley_clark_weighs_presidential_bid

 

AMY GOODMAN: Do you see a replay in what happened in the lead-up to the war with Iraq—the allegations of the weapons of mass destruction, the media leaping onto the bandwagon?

GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Well, in a way. But, you know, history doesn’t repeat itself exactly twice. What I did warn about when I testified in front of Congress in 2002, I said if you want to worry about a state, it shouldn’t be Iraq, it should be Iran. But this government, our administration, wanted to worry about Iraq, not Iran.

I knew why, because I had been through the Pentagon right after 9/11. About ten days after 9/11, I went through the Pentagon and I saw Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz. I went downstairs just to say hello to some of the people on the Joint Staff who used to work for me, and one of the generals called me in. He said, "Sir, you’ve got to come in and talk to me a second." I said, "Well, you’re too busy." He said, "No, no." He says, "We’ve made the decision we’re going to war with Iraq." This was on or about the 20th of September. I said, "We’re going to war with Iraq? Why?" He said, "I don’t know." He said, "I guess they don’t know what else to do." So I said, "Well, did they find some information connecting Saddam to al-Qaeda?" He said, "No, no." He says, "There’s nothing new that way. They just made the decision to go to war with Iraq." He said, "I guess it’s like we don’t know what to do about terrorists, but we’ve got a good military and we can take down governments." And he said, "I guess if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem has to look like a nail."

 

So I came back to see him a few weeks later, and by that time we were bombing in Afghanistan. I said, "Are we still going to war with Iraq?" And he said, "Oh, it’s worse than that." He reached over on his desk. He picked up a piece of paper. And he said, "I just got this down from upstairs"—meaning the Secretary of Defense’s office—"today." And he said, "This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran." I said, "Is it classified?" He said, "Yes, sir." I said, "Well, don’t show it to me." And I saw him a year or so ago, and I said, "You remember that?" He said, "Sir, I didn’t show you that memo! I didn’t show it to you!"

 

http://www.salon.com/2011/11/26/wes_clark_and_the_neocon_dream/

 

In October, 2007, Gen. Wesley Clark gave a speech to the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco (seven-minute excerpt in the video below) in which he denounced what he called “a policy coup” engineered by neocons in the wake of 9/11. After recounting how a Pentagon source had told him weeks after 9/11 of the Pentagon’s plan to attack Iraq notwithstanding its non-involvement in 9/11, this is how Clark described the aspirations of the “coup” being plotted by Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and what he called “a half dozen other collaborators from the Project for the New American Century”:

[wolfy 12]

Reactor 4 had no fuel in it.

Reactor 5&6 were offline for maintenance.

Ok fair enough answer.

[wolfy 12]

Rikko:

About Fukushima Daichi.

 

As we seen on the TV, two of them blew up. (not that I believe the TV footage of it mind)

 

Anyway. There were two different explosions. One that looked a bit like what they show you of fake atom bombs going off and the other where it sort of explodes outwards.

 

We are told it was a build up of hydrogen and I'm trying to figure out why this would happen, can you shed any light on why this would happen?

I have many more questions, so be prepared, if you're interested in replying I mean.

[rikko 20]

The hydrogen was formed by a process called radiolysis. It happens where you get high energy radiation and water.

 

The mechanism behind it is very complex and not fully understood by science. But the jist is the radiation breaks down the bond between the hydrogen and oxygen in the water releasing them both.

 

When the concentration of hydrogen reaches 4% it is in danger of exploding. This is a huge problem across all nuclear sites.

[wolfy 12]

The hydrogen was formed by a process called radiolysis. It happens where you get high energy radiation and water.

 

The mechanism behind it is very complex and not fully understood by science. But the jist is the radiation breaks down the bond between the hydrogen and oxygen in the water releasing them both.

 

When the concentration of hydrogen reaches 4% it is in danger of exploding. This is a huge problem across all nuclear sites.

I noticed on the Fukushima site, they appear to have hydrogen stacks. Shouldn't this have vented the hydrogen?

[rikko 20]

They have normal ventilation stacks. There won't be any specifically for hydrogen as in normal operations it is controlled and not an issue.

 

The hydrogen initially built up inside the primary containment structure. When this reached dangerous levels it was vented to the secondary structure to buy more time. When the concentration built up to explosive levels in this secondary containment it went bang. After the explosion hydrogen was still being made but then had a clear vent path so the concentration couldn't build up any more.

 

In normal operations you would never vent it directly to the environment as you would release radiation with it.

[rikko 20]

Also this only happened as they were very old reactors. Newer ones had a small chemical reactor called a PAR inside the primary containment that converts the hydrogen and oxygen back to water before explosive concentrations are reached.

[wolfy 12]

I have a lot of problems believing this Fukushima carry on to be fair. I remember watching the footage when it happened and I was glued to the TV. This was when I believed nuclear power was real.

 

So far into it, I was watching the footage of the reactor buildings blowing up and I thought, ' why is this footage so shit and distorted,' it wasn't long after that, I viewed a bit more footage of the reactors and watched a pylon just sauntering along the beach as if it was on wheels.

 

I don;t know if I can find any footage on here but I'll have a look about to see if it's on.

[Park Life 71]

Most expensive way to boil water ever invented.

[Gemmill 44498]

I don;t know if I can find any footage on here but I'll have a look about to see if it's on.

 

Try cluesforum. I've got a sneaky suspicion you might get lucky.

[wolfy 12]

Try cluesforum. I've got a sneaky suspicion you might get lucky.

I doubt it. I saw it on the news when it first happened and I can't find footage of it anywhere despite typing it in.

Don't obsess yourself about clues forum, I simply read that and many others.

[wolfy 12]

I did however come across this on ABC news of aerial pictures before and after. Do these look real to anyone?

 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/specials/japan-quake-2011/

[Gemmill 44498]

I'm sure they're fake and that Japan looks absolutely fine. A conspiracy by the Japanese government to increase the price of hard drives and Nissan car parts.

[Brock Manson 0]

I did however come across this on ABC news of aerial pictures before and after. Do these look real to anyone?

 

http://www.abc.net.a...pan-quake-2011/

 

Are you using before & after pictures of the Japan earthquake to claim that the Fukushima incident was faked?

 

Or are you now trying to claim that the recent Japanese earthquake was fake?

[wolfy 12]

Are you using before & after pictures of the Japan earthquake to claim that the Fukushima incident was faked?

 

Or are you now trying to claim that the recent Japanese earthquake was fake?

Nope. I came across this whilst trying to look for the footage I saw on the news of the nuclear plant, so I had a look. Does it look real to you?