Nuclear vs Solar cost!

Deuce said:

If it reacts instantly with water, it finishes that reaction long before traveling across the ocean. This explosive reaction is not why cesium in your water supply is a risk.

Click to expand...

My point was an affinity with water. Please don't "water down" the danger of Cesium to mankind, after a nuclear accident. Cesium 137 is an extremely dangerous isotope. Just now reaching it's half-life at Chernobyl, it is one of the main isotopes that is responsible for the 1000 sq. mile Exclusion Zone (there are others). The releases at Fukushima have caused unsafe levels in fish in the area.

http://www.iaea.org/inis/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/30/022/30022671.pdf

In the case of severe fuel damage accidents, cesium tends to be released in the form of volatile
radioactive compounds (such as Csl and CsOH).
Most of the cesium compounds such as carbonates, nitrates, and sulfates decompose at relatively
low temperatures forming cesium oxide that, in the presence of water vapor, will hydrolyze and form
cesium hydroxides which vaporize. Even cesium iodide can vaporize with cesium hydroxide and form
aerosol particles that can move through the air. Cesium transport on aerosol particles is very complex
6-15
behavior that depends upon thermal-hydraulic conditions and specific geometry situations. Even if the
cesium becomes airborne in the form of aerosols, it tends to precipitate in cooler regions and falls to
earth with rain.

Media_Truth said:

My point was an affinity with water. Please don't "water down" the danger of Cesium to mankind, after a nuclear accident. Cesium 137 is an extremely dangerous isotope. Just now reaching it's half-life at Chernobyl, it is one of the main isotopes that is responsible for the 1000 sq. mile Exclusion Zone (there are others). The releases at Fukushima have caused unsafe levels in fish in the area.

http://www.iaea.org/inis/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/30/022/30022671.pdf

In the case of severe fuel damage accidents, cesium tends to be released in the form of volatile
radioactive compounds (such as Csl and CsOH).
Most of the cesium compounds such as carbonates, nitrates, and sulfates decompose at relatively
low temperatures forming cesium oxide that, in the presence of water vapor, will hydrolyze and form
cesium hydroxides which vaporize. Even cesium iodide can vaporize with cesium hydroxide and form
aerosol particles that can move through the air. Cesium transport on aerosol particles is very complex
6-15
behavior that depends upon thermal-hydraulic conditions and specific geometry situations. Even if the
cesium becomes airborne in the form of aerosols, it tends to precipitate in cooler regions and falls to
earth with rain.

Click to expand...

How about you not hype up issues with cesium that aren't actually issues, then? CESIUM EXPLODES YOUR WATER isn't useful to this conversation, agree?

As an addendum to this thread, I thought it might be interesting to see how wind stacks up against solar.
I found this site which goes into the size and capacities of wind farms,
Area Used by Wind Power Facilities [AWErg]
I will hedge the numbers a bit and say the average is 50 acres per MW instead of the articles 60 acres per MW.
I also hear that the newer output factors are closer to 50%, up from the earlier 25 to 35%.
1 MW X 24 hours X 365 days= 8760 Mwh X 50%= 4380 Mwh per year for 50 acres, or 4.380 Gwh
Solar claims 2.8 acres per Gwh per year, so 50/2.8=17.857 Gwh per year per 50 acres.
So wind power is .0876 Gwh per acre per year,
and solar is .3571 Gwh per acre per year.
It looks like for energy density solar is about 4 times better than wind, but there would still be a question
of how useful the land under the panels would be compared to the land under the windmills.