If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(WorldNetDaily)   Great news, everybody. Pat Boone has solved our energy problems by inventing controlled fusion   (wnd.com) divider line 173
    More: Hero, Pat Boone, Daniel Boone, hydrogen bombs, Soviet government, Ethel Rosenberg, End of World War II in Europe  
•       •       •

5174 clicks; posted to Politics » on 21 Apr 2012 at 3:52 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



173 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-04-21 05:12:37 PM  
Wake me up when Sarah Palin is Preznit, everything else is Communistic.
 
2012-04-21 05:22:04 PM  
Debbie Boone did light up my life!
 
2012-04-21 05:25:52 PM  

Ringshadow: /You know what I love guys? People talking about the industry I work in professionally when they know nothing about it. I love that.
//know what I also love? Cold medicine. Trippin balls over here


Quick question if I might.

WASHINGTON, Feb 9, 2012 (AFP) - The US government gave the final green light Thursday for the construction of the first new nuclear power reactors in the country since 1978.

Link

Do you know anything about the 2 Westinghouse-Toshiba A1000 pressurized water reactors being added to the Southern Co's Vogtle, Georgia facility?

Are they a significant improvement (in terms of safety and energy production) over the older models still in use?

No snark. I'm a long time green with long held suspicions of nuclear power (specifically the 'Where do you put the waste?' issue aligned with the 'Making DU ammunition is NOT a good way to get rid of nuclear waste' thing) but the more I learn of the extant safety issues in play with all other forms of energy production the more I grudgingly come to agree with idea that nuke may well be the safer option and necessary in order to wean ourselves off of non-renewables before they go the way of the dodo.

So, aside from the relative pollution production thing what's the single biggest reason for re-investing big time into nuclear power production?

Sell me a nuke plant.
 
2012-04-21 05:27:27 PM  
Okay Pat, here's a simple answer to you and your right-wing friends at WND how to get fusion energy, FUND THE DAMNED RESEARCH! (sorry for yelling). Inflation adjusted research funding for the last decade has been flat because of Republican control to the purse strings. DOE, the agency that performs much of our fusion research, has become a target for soft-headed Republican candidates that can't envision, yet even propose alternative models for future energy production. You denigrate the scientists and engineers that look at these system as pointy-headed elitists that just don't get your awe-shucks, gut-feeling approach to a complex world and all its problems.

We already have one major site for this kind of research built (the National Ignition Facility in California) and one we're helping to fund (ITER in France) but more could be done. That takes money and a devotion to research and education. Don't get me wrong, its good to read this stuff on WND (an unexpected), but don't blame the broad-based approach that looks at all available alternatives, look at the one that looks at none of them.
 
2012-04-21 05:27:48 PM  

Ringshadow: /you want proof our American plants can weather untold shiat? Look at Waterford 3
//it took a direct strike during Katrina, ran a whole month only on diesel generators, and came out of it fine


What you say? Look at the water?
upload.wikimedia.org
Hey, good advice!
/go on, tell me how many of our nuclear powered aircraft carriers or submarines have suffered catastrophic meltdowns, despite being on self-mobile, inherently unstable platforms. I reckon there were more cancer cases from the asbestos in the pipe lagging than from the radiation, as well.
//fortunately, we never had to test their survival skills vs. direct attack, such as a torpedo hit
 
2012-04-21 05:28:22 PM  

TheBigJerk: Hey Ringshadow, if you're not too busy being high as balls I got a big dumb layman question from a big dumb layman, what's the deal with Fukushima? I hear these things about the reactor running too hot because the water levels are too low and fission chain-reactions run like a fully-loaded freight train (i.e. slooooooow rate of acceleration/deceleration) but the thing I don't get is why the water levels are an issue. The water's going down, you can't pump more in with, like, a farking firehose if that's all you got? The (perhaps wildly inaccurate) descriptions I hear imply the steam is venting out just fine.


Alright, first off: I am no expert in the Fukushima situation, which is still an ongoing recovery. That being said, from what little I know..

All a reactor wants is water. Lots of it. Covered in it, preferably at some given PSI reactor model depending. When you remove that is when shiat goes pearshaped, which is why there are multiple ways to ensure that you always can keep water on the reactor. This is the crux of Chernobyl, TMI2, and yes, Fukushima. They all lost reactor coverage, in radically different ways. Chernobyl was conducting a test in a known-dangerous power level, TMI2 had (long technical blarg about the steam that was supposed to be in the pressurizer somehow ending up in the reactor due to a malfunctioning light/valve), Fukushima had.. several things happen at once. System damage, power loss..

Generally speaking the end be all accident that reactors are designed on is the Double Ended Guillotine Sheer, AKA "all water falls out of the reactor right now." There's multiple tanks, multiple pump systems, multiple power sources all designed to ensure water will stay on the reactor given this particular accident.

So when Fukushima hit the first OHFARK, namely the earthquake, they went to backup power sources and kept the water hammering in. It was later figured out that yes they had some pipe breakage but we're not talking level eleven farkupery here. The thing is, the earthquake shut the plant down (of course) and cut off the external power lines. So you're shut down for two reasons and there's no power coming from off site. That means you're on diesel generators.

And then the tsunami took the diesel generators away.

Which is the second OHFARK because now they're totally power free. If you think back, right in the beginning there was mentions of them having like eight hours before they knew shiat would get bad or something. Those few hours were until they hit reactor boil off. When you're shut down you have 7% (or so) decay heat right at the start. 7% decay heat on a commercial reactor is MORE than a navy reactor at full bore. For serious. That 7% decay heat took out TMI2. And that's where the farkery started with Fukushima. With no pumps, and no water sources, they said FARK IT and started pumping sea water.

This means the reactors were scrap. There is no recovery. Sea water in a BWR? Kiss the system goodbye. You may shut it down but they will never run again. Now do note that these units were slated for shut down soon anyway. Within a few refuels of it. So they probably just said FARK IT and pumped anyway. They did this with the knowledge that loading salt water in that sort of system would end up with hydrogen gas. The hydrogen gas was vented through an existing emergency system. This is why the TOP DECKS of the units all exploded out. You'll notice that one is a perfect frame. This is a system working like it's supposed to. Well, sorta.

The situation as I know it now is they have water where it's supposed to be and now they're in a long cleanup operation. I guess background around there can be as high as 40 MR an hour or some crap. I haven't looked at the maps recently. That's nearly an Rem a day assuming you stayed in that dose rate the whole time. This isn't acute exposure though and acute exposure is what will kill you. Long running exposure is generally not nearly as dangerous. Ramsar Iran has a natural background dose of about 20 rem a year. So to make a crappy comparison every month in the Fukushima immediate area is about one year of living in Ramsar.

It's going to be interesting to see long term implications because the whole "radiation always causes damage" theory we work on is complete bullshiat with no actual basis. It's just assumed. And when you look at long term exposure it might actually be completely wrong. Depends what theories you believe in.

/I.. have no idea if I answered your question!
//*eats handful of vitamins
 
2012-04-21 05:39:38 PM  

Bungles: Solar power isn't unpredictable.

We're less than 10 years away from domestic solar panels converting enough energy for domestic use, even on rainy, cloudy days in northern Europe. Batteries are equally on track to easy cover overnight.

We will be solar across the Western world by 2030, on a domestic level.


Yup. Unfortunately, all those sweet batteries that will make it possible, while being designed in the US, are being built in China. That's what we get for spending the 80s dismantling large parts of our industrial base :/
 
2012-04-21 05:41:56 PM  

udhq: Nuclear power is statistically the safest form of power generation we have


what? lol that's a load of bullshiat. safer than wind or solar or hydroelectric? bwhahaaha
 
2012-04-21 05:42:22 PM  
t3.gstatic.com
born with a high iq and is very intelligent?
I see.
 
2012-04-21 05:44:18 PM  

LeroyBourne: [t3.gstatic.com image 226x223]
born with a high iq and is very intelligent?
I see.


that's why he believe Jesus will fix everything.
 
2012-04-21 05:44:23 PM  

udhq: Garble: Is is one of the new, super awesome forms of nuclear power that create no waist, are toats safe, and would solve all energy problems forever if the big mean government would just abolish the EPA, provide even more free insurance to the plants, and tell homeowners that don't want giant glowing bombs in their backyard to suck it?

Nuclear power is statistically the safest form of power generation we have. Radiation derangement is based on myths spread by the fossil fuel industry in their continued war on science.

More people are killed EVERY DAY along the fossil fuel supply chain than have EVER been killed by nuclear power.

You will be exposed to more radiation over the course of a 4 hour flight than you would be spending a lifetime living next door to a modern nuclear facility.


Fukushima.
 
2012-04-21 05:48:18 PM  

quatchi: Quick question if I might.

WASHINGTON, Feb 9, 2012 (AFP) - The US government gave the final green light Thursday for the construction of the first new nuclear power reactors in the country since 1978.

Link

Do you know anything about the 2 Westinghouse-Toshiba A1000 pressurized water reactors being added to the Southern Co's Vogtle, Georgia facility?

Are they a significant improvement (in terms of safety and energy production) over the older models still in use?

No snark. I'm a long time green with long held suspicions of nuclear power (specifically the 'Where do you put the waste?' issue aligned with the 'Making DU ammunition is NOT a good way to get rid of nuclear waste' thing) but the more I learn of the extant safety issues in play with all other forms of energy production the more I grudgingly come to agree with idea that nuke may well be the safer option and necessary in order to wean ourselves off of non-renewables before they go the way of the dodo.

So, aside from the relative pollution production thing what's the single biggest reason for re-investing big time into nuclear power production?

Sell me a nuke plant.


OH OH OH THE AP1000

ladygeekgirl.files.wordpress.com

MY FAVORITE REACTOR DESIGN ZOMG.
2.bp.blogspot.com
LOOK AT THIS SEXY BEAST

But seriously I had to write a paper when I graduated and I had to touch on the AP 1000 more than a bit. That was a few years ago but I still am totally in love with this design and the implications to the industry. To address your questions.

Are they a significant improvement (in terms of safety and energy production) over the older models still in use?

Okay, without digging into Generations I, II, and III, Generation III+ is an improvement across the board. Addressing the AP 1000, what makes it so amazing is that it's almost entirely passively safe. Every default equipment position is its safe position. You know how semi truck brakes are always on and its only air pressure holding them off? So the default position of the truck is stopped? That's the idea we're working with here. Air pressure systems and gravity will put the plant in an entirely safe position on power loss, without any assistance from human operators. It'll make itself safe.

And one of the reasons why it's so safe is because it's less complicated! Less complicated means less dose, easier maintenance, and less problems in general. The less shiat you have, the less shiat you have to break.
A good example of this is after TMI2, the NRC said "hey, add this emergency system everyone" and everyone did. All these years later, the system was found to be a huge dose problem and a pain in the ass in general. It did nothing for the long term. The NRC has now said "okay, uh, forget it" and plants are cutting the system out in entirety. A plant I was at did that and had to sink a LOT of rem in person dose to get it out because when you have water stagnate in a nuclear plant, you have dose accumulate. When you have pipes bend, you have dose accumulate.

In other words, less pipe, less pipe bends, less dose. And here's some numbers for the AP 1000.

i39.tinypic.com

And what's really awesome is that these plants don't have the alloy growing pains that Gen I, II, and III did, like the stellite in valves problem that is STILL ongoing across the board. Goddamn cobalt.

The single biggest reason to invest in nuclear power is COST. When you look at long term on any large steam driven plant, nuclear power is cheaper than fossil, even figuring in waste and fuel cost.
And these new plants will have lower construction cost, faster construction, AND they're a standard design so they can be popped up like goddamn suburban houses. They will all follow the same blueprint set as approved by the NRC, which is the French way of doing it.
They're designed for longer life. See that sixty years? Reactors make a million dollars a day when operational, ballpark. They're down between a month and two months every two years, assuming a two year fuel cycle.
The release nearly no waste, gaseous or water. And what they do release is strictly monitored and conforms to government regulation.

As for the big turkey, that of fuel waste, if we recycled nuclear fuel we could reduce fuel waste by over eighty percent.

/we're just waiting
//did that answer your question or do I need to get more in depth?
 
2012-04-21 05:53:40 PM  

Ishidan: Ringshadow: /you want proof our American plants can weather untold shiat? Look at Waterford 3
//it took a direct strike during Katrina, ran a whole month only on diesel generators, and came out of it fine

What you say? Look at the water?
[upload.wikimedia.org image 640x473]
Hey, good advice!
/go on, tell me how many of our nuclear powered aircraft carriers or submarines have suffered catastrophic meltdowns, despite being on self-mobile, inherently unstable platforms. I reckon there were more cancer cases from the asbestos in the pipe lagging than from the radiation, as well.
//fortunately, we never had to test their survival skills vs. direct attack, such as a torpedo hit


wtifamIreading.jpg ?

Seriously, I work in nuclear power. I was never nuke navy so I wouldn't say much about military nuke except to say that military nuke is VERY different from commercial nuke, much like a semi truck is different from a Volkswagen beetle.

And I seriously have no idea if you're arguing with me or agreeing with me. Elucidate?

HeartBurnKid: Fukushima.


"Chemical plants are statistically safe."

Bhopal.

"Fossil plants are safer than nuclear power."

Coal and gas plant explosions, mine collapses, oil rig explosions.

Seriously Fukushima was crippled by a natural disaster and so far seems to be working through it. Meanwhile other industries have killed thousands and haven't been nearly so vilified.

/your bias is showing
 
2012-04-21 05:57:41 PM  

mongbiohazard: I could provide for all of my own energy needs - including charging an electric vehicle - and have excess generation capacity to spare from just the surface area on my roof. And I live in a small house.


Not *that* small a house, or you're going to be covering part of the yard with panels, too. Plus, the $100K buy-in cost of an array big enough to charge up an EV over the course of a single day is a big hurdle.
 
2012-04-21 06:00:22 PM  
cdnimg.visualizeus.com

/hot like 20,000 volts of love fusion
 
2012-04-21 06:02:12 PM  

Coelacanth: jebusfreak: A WND article that makes scientific sense, without 14 billion links to join Sheriff Joe's anti-Obama "posse" in the text? Is this secretly a clever Onion spoof?

I don't even want to think of Sheriff Joe having any connections with fusion on any level.


I'd be plenty happy with Sheriff Joe being connected to fusion in several ways. Like, say if he was in the core of the Sun.
 
2012-04-21 06:09:44 PM  

Heron: Bungles: Solar power isn't unpredictable.

We're less than 10 years away from domestic solar panels converting enough energy for domestic use, even on rainy, cloudy days in northern Europe. Batteries are equally on track to easy cover overnight.

We will be solar across the Western world by 2030, on a domestic level.

Yup. Unfortunately, all those sweet batteries that will make it possible, while being designed in the US, are being built in China. That's what we get for spending the 80s dismantling large parts of our industrial base :/


Well, China *does* have that whole, "our weather sucks because of smog" issue. And Solar is always going to be stop-gap compared to our consumption rate because, well, we consume a lot.

Thing is, there are a lot of things that "we" in the international sense need to do. Energy efficiency is important for a host of reasons, including
-less waste heat
-less energy needed
-less bleed doing shiat like this
-just a better mindset in a world of finite resources.

But we also need to have a more adult look at nuclear power. Rinshadow may not be selling it well, partly due to seeming so very grumpy at "green" energy, but fission is actually a good thing. Waste is less of an issue than people think and a lot of it is actually useful in one form or another, major accidents and problems are always traceable, usually to someone being an irresponsible dickhole, and while plenty of people make the mistake of not fearing/respecting nuclear power enough and paying the price for it, that doesn't make absolute terror and refusal to have anything to do with it RIGHT.

We need to keep trying to crack cold fusion, fool's errand or no, there's only so much fissionable material available, and a lot more hydrogen out there. Long term, it's not just a hope but a necessity.

And we need to do it all NOW, not later.
 
2012-04-21 06:15:10 PM  
Boone's exclamation points really tied the whole thing together.
 
2012-04-21 06:17:03 PM  

TheBigJerk: But we also need to have a more adult look at nuclear power. Rinshadow may not be selling it well, partly due to seeming so very grumpy at "green" energy, but fission is actually a good thing.


I stopped being nice when people kept beating me like a dead horse during the Fukushima accident when I was trying desperately to break the information down into usable bits and discard the obviously wrong or badly translated bits. My patience is very short now.
Also, I'd be less grumpy if people would explain to me IF WE HAVE SOLVED THE FACT THAT SOLAR CELLS ARE TOXIC. Because people in this thread keep banging on about a "green" power source that is MIXED FARKING WASTE and in spite of my repeated arm waving in this thread no one is farking answering me! And I'm not doing your research! Defend your position! Solar isn't goddamn green if the cells and batteries can turn a landfill into a goddamn superfund!

Waste is less of an issue than people think and a lot of it is actually useful in one form or another, major accidents and problems are always traceable, usually to someone being an irresponsible dickhole, and while plenty of people make the mistake of not fearing/respecting nuclear power enough and paying the price for it, that doesn't make absolute terror and refusal to have anything to do with it RIGHT.

This statement is nice. I like it.

We need to keep trying to crack cold fusion, fool's errand or no, there's only so much fissionable material available, and a lot more hydrogen out there. Long term, it's not just a hope but a necessity.

And we need to do it all NOW, not later.


Or how about thorium reactors? Given thorium is common? Instead of chasing the foxfire that is fusion?
 
2012-04-21 06:18:07 PM  

Captain Steroid: PFFT! Japan's been working on it since the early '90s!

images.wikia.com


And you guys claim MLP is gay.
 
2012-04-21 06:20:22 PM  
I knew he would eventually
 
2012-04-21 06:21:51 PM  

Garble: Is is one of the new, super awesome forms of nuclear power that create no waist, are toats safe, and would solve all energy problems forever if the big mean government would just abolish the EPA, provide even more free insurance to the plants, and tell homeowners that don't want giant glowing bombs in their backyard to suck it?


No, it's just a smokescreen that "environmentalists" use to hide the fact that they want some of that sweet, sweet crude, too.
 
2012-04-21 06:22:41 PM  
Is this the same Pat Boone that has those commercials that spouts lies about Obamacare to scare old people.
 
2012-04-21 06:24:00 PM  
Pat Boone. Uncontrolled Stupidity.
 
2012-04-21 06:25:28 PM  
Rely on solar power? Are you insane?

Look at this, it's coming right at us!

3.bp.blogspot.com

Fools, bloody damn dirty ape FOOLS!
 
2012-04-21 06:26:28 PM  

udhq: Chernobyl had no containment unit, and Fukushima was built on a fault line with pre-climate change estimates of climate events. Both were fundamental failures of planning, not of technology.


Yes, and when the next reactor goes, it too will have some unique attribute that will be its undoing. You're missing the point: nuclear has a good safety record right up until it doesn't. Joe Bob dies in that mining accident, and yeah, that is unfortunate for him and his family, but life goes on. When that nuclear reactor half a state away goes up because of [insert previously unforeseen or outlier event here], you're talking about the potential death or illness of tens of thousands, maybe millions of people. Animals will suffer and die as well. Arable land will be lost, and future generations may suffer from various defects and illnesses due to the radiation. You're also looking at a potentially sizeable area that will be uninhabitable for generations. You keep touting those safety records all you want, or planning vs. technology. It doesn't matter. Ask Japan.
 
2012-04-21 06:33:00 PM  
We wouldn't have energy concerns if we just listened to the word of God
www.myconfinedspace.com
 
2012-04-21 06:33:45 PM  

Evil Kirk vs Bad Ash: HMS_Blinkin: "Hey everybody, I found this great new method of propulsion for interstellar space travel! It's called warp drive!"

"Hey everybody, I found this great new method to deal with global hunger, they're called food replicators."



"Hey everybody, I found this great new way to combat aging! It's called an Elixir of Youth."
 
2012-04-21 06:34:59 PM  

Chagrin: udhq: You will be exposed to more radiation over the course of a 4 hour flight than you would be spending a lifetime living next door to a modern nuclear facility.

Unless that plant is Fukushima or Chernobyl.

The stakes in failure for a nuclear plant are extremely high. We have no technology to recover from a nuclear error.


Not to mention, any solution at all for the waste... aside from putting it in a hole in the ground. Anyone want to calculate maintenance costs for the Yucca mountain facility over the next 1,000 years?
 
2012-04-21 06:37:17 PM  

Sun Worshiping Dog Launcher: udhq: Chernobyl had no containment unit, and Fukushima was built on a fault line with pre-climate change estimates of climate events. Both were fundamental failures of planning, not of technology.

Yes, and when the next reactor goes, it too will have some unique attribute that will be its undoing. You're missing the point: nuclear has a good safety record right up until it doesn't. Joe Bob dies in that mining accident, and yeah, that is unfortunate for him and his family, but life goes on. When that nuclear reactor half a state away goes up because of [insert previously unforeseen or outlier event here], you're talking about the potential death or illness of tens of thousands, maybe millions of people. Animals will suffer and die as well. Arable land will be lost, and future generations may suffer from various defects and illnesses due to the radiation. You're also looking at a potentially sizeable area that will be uninhabitable for generations. You keep touting those safety records all you want, or planning vs. technology. It doesn't matter. Ask Japan.


Do you have any farking clue what damage a coal mine does to the environment when it's operating as it should? I'm not even talking about a collapse or a fire or anything else. I'm talking about day-to-day operations.
 
2012-04-21 06:37:38 PM  
Wall Street abandoned nuclear even before Three Mile Island proved them right when a $1 billion asset turning into a $2 billion liability overnight. The private insurance industry came to the same conclusion decades earlier.
Nuclear's a socialist energy system for socialist societies, like France. (Somehow the French forgot they have no domestic uranium supply so some day they'll have to send their army to Africa to get it. That should be fun to watch.)
 
2012-04-21 06:38:54 PM  

karmaceutical: Chagrin: udhq: You will be exposed to more radiation over the course of a 4 hour flight than you would be spending a lifetime living next door to a modern nuclear facility.

Unless that plant is Fukushima or Chernobyl.

The stakes in failure for a nuclear plant are extremely high. We have no technology to recover from a nuclear error.

Not to mention, any solution at all for the waste... aside from putting it in a hole in the ground. Anyone want to calculate maintenance costs for the Yucca mountain facility over the next 1,000 years?


We do have the technology to deal with the waste. We just can't legally use it. We're not allowed to recycle the waste beyond a certain point so we store it in the ground.
 
2012-04-21 06:39:12 PM  
So all this time the only thing stopping fusion reactors from becoming a reality was the approval of Pat Boone?
 
2012-04-21 06:41:42 PM  

Ringshadow: .//did that answer your question or do I need to get more in depth?


That was a wonderful explanation, thank you for taking the time.

I'll take two!

/Also ty for including a Ponypic. ^_^

I'm intrigued by your assertion that recycling nuclear waste could reduce that waste by as much as 80%. A quick google on the subject shows a Harvard published study that shows that the industry still considers the move a non starter due to a projected 80% higher costs in spent fuel management compared with traditional dumping methods.

At a uranium price of $40/kgU (comparable to current prices), reprocessing and recycling at a reprocessing price of $1000/kgHM would increase the cost of nuclear electricity by 1.3 mills/kWh. Since the total back-end cost for the direct disposal is in the range of 1.5 mills/kgWh, this represents more than an 80% increase in the costs attributable to spent fuel management (after taking account of appropriate credits or charges for recovered plutonium and uranium from reprocessing).

Linky
 
2012-04-21 06:42:33 PM  

Sun Worshiping Dog Launcher: udhq: Chernobyl had no containment unit, and Fukushima was built on a fault line with pre-climate change estimates of climate events. Both were fundamental failures of planning, not of technology.

Yes, and when the next reactor goes, it too will have some unique attribute that will be its undoing. You're missing the point: nuclear has a good safety record right up until it doesn't. Joe Bob dies in that mining accident, and yeah, that is unfortunate for him and his family, but life goes on. When that nuclear reactor half a state away goes up because of [insert previously unforeseen or outlier event here], you're talking about the potential death or illness of tens of thousands, maybe millions of people. Animals will suffer and die as well. Arable land will be lost, and future generations may suffer from various defects and illnesses due to the radiation. You're also looking at a potentially sizeable area that will be uninhabitable for generations. You keep touting those safety records all you want, or planning vs. technology. It doesn't matter. Ask Japan.


This statement is solid derp and I've refuted it letter by letter in this thread, twice, I think. But hey! Let's go again!

Joe Bob dies in that mining accident, and yeah, that is unfortunate for him and his family, but life goes on.

Joe Bob dies in a mining accident along with the entire mine because they were refusing to follow federal regulations. This happened a few years ago. The entire. Goddamn. Mine. Died. This was in the USA. There were hundreds of outstanding safety violations. Why are you okay with this? WHY IS THIS OKAY. WHY ARE YOU OKAY WITH AN INDUSTRY KILLING PEOPLE?!
NOT OKAY. Not okay at all!

When that nuclear reactor half a state away goes up because of [insert previously unforeseen or outlier event here], you're talking about the potential death or illness of tens of thousands, maybe millions of people.

This has never happened. Hell, TMI2 resulted in no overexposure of the public and it was a contained meltdown. Chernobyl resulted in the evacuation of a single city. Fukushima is evacuated but hey so was a lot of Japan. And a lot of Japan is still evacuated, while Fukushima's issues have totally silenced the other HUGE disasters that the earthquake/tsunami caused and all of the earthquake/tsunami caused deaths.
In fact, has Fukushima actually killed anyone? I think one guy's died in the plant, from heat exhaustion or a heart attack. Which is.. kind of indirect...
There have been health problems downwind from Chernobyl but again it might have something to do with the heavy metals and graphite smoke, considering those health problems spread far, far away from any area of significant dose. Chemistry will give you cancer and birth defects FAR FASTER than radiation.

Animals will suffer and die as well. Arable land will be lost, and future generations may suffer from various defects and illnesses due to the radiation. You're also looking at a potentially sizeable area that will be uninhabitable for generations.

Chernobyl is a wildlife refuge. And is opening for tourism of Pripyat.

/let me guess, you don't know the LD 50/50 of radiation do you?
 
2012-04-21 06:43:21 PM  

Ed Grubermann: karmaceutical: Chagrin: udhq: You will be exposed to more radiation over the course of a 4 hour flight than you would be spending a lifetime living next door to a modern nuclear facility.

Unless that plant is Fukushima or Chernobyl.

The stakes in failure for a nuclear plant are extremely high. We have no technology to recover from a nuclear error.

Not to mention, any solution at all for the waste... aside from putting it in a hole in the ground. Anyone want to calculate maintenance costs for the Yucca mountain facility over the next 1,000 years?

We do have the technology to deal with the waste. We just can't legally use it. We're not allowed to recycle the waste beyond a certain point so we store it in the ground.


Reprocessing doesn't just make it go away either.
 
2012-04-21 06:46:22 PM  
Okay, stupid question here, I"m sure: if nuclear reactors have the obvious safety liability of poisoning the environment for hundreds/thousands of years if they have a catastrophic failure; why don't we simply build them underground? Put them a mile or so underground with giant NORAD-style safety doors that slam shut in case of said failure and we just go on with our lives after an appropriate memorial service for the brave technicians we lost?
 
2012-04-21 06:46:53 PM  

JAYoung: Wall Street abandoned nuclear even before Three Mile Island proved them right when a $1 billion asset turning into a $2 billion liability overnight. The private insurance industry came to the same conclusion decades earlier.
Nuclear's a socialist energy system for socialist societies, like France. (Somehow the French forgot they have no domestic uranium supply so some day they'll have to send their army to Africa to get it. That should be fun to watch.)


The French recycle their fuel. Just saying.

quatchi: Ringshadow: .//did that answer your question or do I need to get more in depth?

That was a wonderful explanation, thank you for taking the time.

I'll take two!

/Also ty for including a Ponypic. ^_^

I'm intrigued by your assertion that recycling nuclear waste could reduce that waste by as much as 80%. A quick google on the subject shows a Harvard published study that shows that the industry still considers the move a non starter due to a projected 80% higher costs in spent fuel management compared with traditional dumping methods.

At a uranium price of $40/kgU (comparable to current prices), reprocessing and recycling at a reprocessing price of $1000/kgHM would increase the cost of nuclear electricity by 1.3 mills/kWh. Since the total back-end cost for the direct disposal is in the range of 1.5 mills/kgWh, this represents more than an 80% increase in the costs attributable to spent fuel management (after taking account of appropriate credits or charges for recovered plutonium and uranium from reprocessing).
Linky


I'm quoting numbers from class a few years ago. I might be off. Also I'm not all here right now, my apologies. I'm glad my explanation was useful though.
And I'm hesitant to believe ANY study done in the United States. I'll believe what comes out of France and Japan, thanks. France recycles and they don't seem to have any issue with it.
 
2012-04-21 06:50:43 PM  

Karac: Solar power is too unpredictable to use? Damn, I guess Obama does make things uncertain!


Just because the sun rises today doesn't mean it will tomorrow. We don't know how long it will continue to orbit our tiny planet.
 
2012-04-21 06:52:08 PM  

karmaceutical: Reprocessing doesn't just make it go away either.


No, but it strongly reduces the waste and makes it more manageable.

AdrienVeidt: Okay, stupid question here, I"m sure: if nuclear reactors have the obvious safety liability of poisoning the environment for hundreds/thousands of years if they have a catastrophic failure; why don't we simply build them underground? Put them a mile or so underground with giant NORAD-style safety doors that slam shut in case of said failure and we just go on with our lives after an appropriate memorial service for the brave technicians we lost?


This sounds like a wonderful idea until you think about the fact that each plant has several hundred employees and putting a plant underground makes the entire plant a permit required confined space or something. Remember: the plants have to be habitable by humans, and has to have a lot of material in and out during outage.

Also, this is Pripyat now:
www.activeukraine.com
Clearly, nuclear power accidents turn everything into a wasteland.

/those trees seem to like it
 
2012-04-21 06:53:26 PM  

Coelacanth: jebusfreak: A WND article that makes scientific sense, without 14 billion links to join Sheriff Joe's anti-Obama "posse" in the text? Is this secretly a clever Onion spoof?

I don't even want to think of Sheriff Joe having any connections with fusion on any level.


Somewhere near the Mexican border...

i.imgur.com

A few years later...

i.imgur.com

So it might not be *all* bad.
 
2012-04-21 06:53:28 PM  

Ringshadow: And I'm hesitant to believe ANY study done in the United States. I'll believe what comes out of France and Japan, thanks. France recycles and they don't seem to have any issue with it.


Point taken.
 
2012-04-21 06:56:50 PM  

Ringshadow: HeartBurnKid: Fukushima.

"Chemical plants are statistically safe."

Bhopal.

"Fossil plants are safer than nuclear power."

Coal and gas plant explosions, mine collapses, oil rig explosions.

Seriously Fukushima was crippled by a natural disaster and so far seems to be working through it. Meanwhile other industries have killed thousands and haven't been nearly so vilified.

/your bias is showing


My bias? Really? Because I can smell your bias a mile away.

Do you not realize that the land around the Fukushima plant is going to be uninhabitable for at least the next 20 years? It's all well and good to sit here and talk about the normal operating parameters of a plant, but in the real world, abnormal situations happen. Natural disasters. Terrorist attacks. Corporate negligence. You can't just plan for normal daily operations; you must plan for the worst case scenario. And the worst case scenario for nuclear is bad.

I'd say the better way forward lies in renewables. Solar, wind, etc. Maybe it doesn't work in China, but we're not China. We have a huge amount of land where nobody lives, and it's mostly very hot, very flat, and very windy. We can use that.
 
2012-04-21 06:57:26 PM  

Ringshadow: Also, this is Pripyat now:
[www.activeukraine.com image 605x404]
Clearly, nuclear power accidents turn everything into a wasteland.

/those trees seem to like it


MAXIMUM TROLLING
 
2012-04-21 06:57:29 PM  

whatsupchuck: [cdnimg.visualizeus.com image 335x500]

/hot like 20,000 volts of love fusion


Goddam Caesar's Legion...
 
2012-04-21 06:57:48 PM  

Ringshadow: Or how about thorium reactors? Given thorium is common? Instead of chasing the foxfire that is fusion?


Man, Thorium has WAY to many syllables, and it sounds pagan. That would just be ungodly.

Yes, Thorium good too, as is further study and improvements in fission (which I assume you are, you know, a part of, I'm just the "GED in nuclear science" type) but Fusion is the one everyone recognizes the name of.

Also, we all want ramscoop spaceships because ohmygodohmygodohmygodSPAAAAAAAAAAACE!
 
2012-04-21 06:58:39 PM  

Bennie Crabtree: Karac: Solar power is too unpredictable to use? Damn, I guess Obama does make things uncertain!

Just because the sun rises today doesn't mean it will tomorrow. We don't know how long it will continue to orbit our tiny planet.


Sun comes up, sun comes down. You can't explain that. Moon comes up, moon comes down. Tide goes in, tide goes out, you can't explain that!
 
2012-04-21 06:59:49 PM  

Parthenogenetic: Coelacanth: jebusfreak: A WND article that makes scientific sense, without 14 billion links to join Sheriff Joe's anti-Obama "posse" in the text? Is this secretly a clever Onion spoof?

I don't even want to think of Sheriff Joe having any connections with fusion on any level.

Somewhere near the Mexican border...

[i.imgur.com image 415x332]

A few years later...

[i.imgur.com image 280x204]

So it might not be *all* bad.


retro
 
2012-04-21 07:03:32 PM  

spongeboob: udhq: Garble: Is is one of the new, super awesome forms of nuclear power that create no waist, are toats safe, and would solve all energy problems forever if the big mean government would just abolish the EPA, provide even more free insurance to the plants, and tell homeowners that don't want giant glowing bombs in their backyard to suck it?

Nuclear power is statistically the safest form of power generation we have. Radiation derangement is based on myths spread by the fossil fuel industry in their continued war on science.

More people are killed EVERY DAY along the fossil fuel supply chain than have EVER been killed by nuclear power.

You will be exposed to more radiation over the course of a 4 hour flight than you would be spending a lifetime living next door to a modern nuclear facility.

As long as there is no melt down or radiation leak. And that has never happened has it?


A coal power plant will willing release more radioactive material into the environment (through its smokestacks) in a year than a nuclear power plant will in a lifetime, if you average across the fleet.
 
2012-04-21 07:04:10 PM  

Ringshadow: I work in nuclear power so I'm getting a headdesk out of this while home sick from an outage I've now been stuck at over sixty days.

Chagrin: udhq: You will be exposed to more radiation over the course of a 4 hour flight than you would be spending a lifetime living next door to a modern nuclear facility.

Unless that plant is Fukushima or Chernobyl.

The stakes in failure for a nuclear plant are extremely high. We have no technology to recover from a nuclear error.

Do you know how I know you don't know what you're talking about? YOU USED FUKUSHIMA AND CHERNOBYL IN THE SAME SENTENCE.

Also, we somehow recovered from several hundred nuclear non-errors, namely bomb tests and TWO bomb drops on huge cities. Your point?

/putting an early gen BWR and a RBMK1000 in the same sentence? For real?


Nuclear power makes people furries and tentacle lovers.

Your move chief!

/just kidding. I like nuclear power far more than fossil fuels.
 
Displayed 50 of 173 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report