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.

(Journal News)   Nuclear plants have to close because it would take 5+ hours to evacuate if 20 loons overran a larger force of heavily-armed guards on a snowy Wednesday in February after the tsunami hit and before you moved your clothes to the lower peg   (lohud.com) divider line 51
    More: Stupid, plants, nuclear plant, Entergy, emergency evacuation, tsunamis, emergency response, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, personnel  
•       •       •

3145 clicks; posted to Geek » on 17 Feb 2013 at 4:18 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-17 12:02:50 AM
Sir? My younger brother's going out with Dibble this weekend, sir, but I'm not having my hair cut today, sir. So...
 
2013-02-17 01:13:54 AM
20 loons? Cheapest bribe ever.

i212.photobucket.com
 
2013-02-17 01:28:01 AM
Subby may need to lay off the bottle for a few weeks to detox, since he's arguing against an anti-nuclear argument that is nonexistent in the article.

/LIBS! LIBS! LIIIIIIBS!
 
2013-02-17 01:37:52 AM
You know, I'd actually like someone to try and make a case against nuclear power. Even if they're just a troll. I'm feeling up for a challenge.

That's right, biatches. Post!
 
2013-02-17 01:43:32 AM

omnibus_necanda_sunt: You know, I'd actually like someone to try and make a case against nuclear power. Even if they're just a troll. I'm feeling up for a challenge.

That's right, biatches. Post!


Fission or Fusion?
 
2013-02-17 01:50:05 AM

omnibus_necanda_sunt: You know, I'd actually like someone to try and make a case against nuclear power. Even if they're just a troll. I'm feeling up for a challenge.

That's right, biatches. Post!


Well for one, while nuclear power generation is one of the statistically safest methods around, although when it does malfunction, it poisons the land, food, and people surrounding it for tens of thousands of years. It's like saying that airplane travel is one of the statistically safest around, although when a plane crashes it makes the surrounding area uninhabitable for the next ten-thousand years. If the risks of nuclear power were small (say, cement in the plant itself and everything else is fine) then nobody would have a problem with it. However the minor price reduction that nuclear power plants provide in no way accounts for the thousands of years of lost productivity that  will happen if said plant has a meltdown.

Were the federal government not picking up the tab for nuclear insurance, nobody would be building any plants at all.
 
2013-02-17 01:59:29 AM

omnibus_necanda_sunt: You know, I'd actually like someone to try and make a case against nuclear power. Even if they're just a troll. I'm feeling up for a challenge.

That's right, biatches. Post!


Sure thing. Uranium reactors produce plutonium and other highly toxic materials that have to be stored for thousands of years, and man doesn't even have 100 years of storage history since we as a species split the atom.

Uranium, both bomb quality and power quality, is expensive, rare, and produces lots of nasty side effects. A few years back, there was a TED speech about how Thorium reactions could be optimized with salt formations, but that it didn't produce weapons grade anything as a consequence. I'm very radical, so I'd be all for dropping current nuclear power after researching Thorium's potential.
 
2013-02-17 02:14:32 AM

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: omnibus_necanda_sunt: You know, I'd actually like someone to try and make a case against nuclear power. Even if they're just a troll. I'm feeling up for a challenge.

That's right, biatches. Post!

Sure thing. Uranium reactors produce plutonium and other highly toxic materials that have to be stored for thousands of years, and man doesn't even have 100 years of storage history since we as a species split the atom.

Uranium, both bomb quality and power quality, is expensive, rare, and produces lots of nasty side effects. A few years back, there was a TED speech about how Thorium reactions could be optimized with salt formations, but that it didn't produce weapons grade anything as a consequence. I'm very radical, so I'd be all for dropping current nuclear power after researching Thorium's potential.


Thorium power is still nuclear power.
 
2013-02-17 03:46:36 AM

SnarfVader: Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: omnibus_necanda_sunt: You know, I'd actually like someone to try and make a case against nuclear power. Even if they're just a troll. I'm feeling up for a challenge.

That's right, biatches. Post!

Sure thing. Uranium reactors produce plutonium and other highly toxic materials that have to be stored for thousands of years, and man doesn't even have 100 years of storage history since we as a species split the atom.

Uranium, both bomb quality and power quality, is expensive, rare, and produces lots of nasty side effects. A few years back, there was a TED speech about how Thorium reactions could be optimized with salt formations, but that it didn't produce weapons grade anything as a consequence. I'm very radical, so I'd be all for dropping current nuclear power after researching Thorium's potential.

Thorium power is still nuclear power.


Given the challenge of the original comment, wouldn't the idea be to debate nuclear power in its present form (at the time of writing)?
 
2013-02-17 03:48:05 AM
Jeez, who thinks this shiat up? Oh, wait, maybe it's an obscure "engineering firm" looking for some name recognition.
 
2013-02-17 04:53:41 AM

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: although when it does malfunction, it poisons the land, food, and people surrounding it for tens of thousands of years.


Actually, nuclear power plants malfunction all the time, part of most of them being old as heck.  99.999% of the time the malfunctions are minor, safety features work as intended and it doesn't make the news; or when it does it's a single scare article that is quickly buried as nothing else happens.

TMI was one of the first generations of nuclear power plants; we put a lot more safety features in afterwords.  Fukushima was actually built about the same time, it lasted far beyond it's design time, it took an earthquake and tsunami to take it out.  A Nuclear plant far closer to the center survived just fine - it's seawall was higher, and was of a newer, safer design.  Chernobyl didn't have a containment dome, a positive void co-efficient, and they were doing some really stupid 'tests'.

Plus, the whole 'poisons the land' is a bit complicated - it's a reducing danger thing; it's going to be statistically unnoticable before a thousand years is up, much less 10k.  Plus, nearby industrial towns cause more cancer cases from chemical means.  Coal causes more cancer from it's pollution.

I'd love to build a lot of new nuke plants - shut down the coal ones, then the older nuclear ones.  Save a lot of lives that way.
 
2013-02-17 04:56:24 AM
Whenever I read or hear the word 'loon', my mind hears the loon sound from Powwow.

/remember Powwow?
 
2013-02-17 05:02:43 AM

omnibus_necanda_sunt: You know, I'd actually like someone to try and make a case against nuclear power. Even if they're just a troll. I'm feeling up for a challenge.

That's right, biatches. Post!


Not sure if serious.

I'm a TMI baby that grew up to find a significant (but benign) thyroid growth of a type usually linked with radiation exposure. I know plenty of families from Harrisburg from back then. Those that lived in the immediate evac zone have plenty of stories about friends and relatives that ended up with odd cancers (but who knows? lots of people have cancer that didn't live next to a nuke plant)

Then there are the letters. For about 25 years we got letters from PA asking about our health and such.
They found us no matter where we moved, and if we didn't answer they'd call. Awfully ~concerned~ for such a non-event eh?

I allegedly had it my whole life. When I beat lymphoma they thought I wasn't beating it because there was a persistent hot spot (hyper-metabolic mass) on the scans no matter how much chemo I'd been through. They went in for a piece to confirm and came back with the answer.

/csb
//nuke plants are still better than coal by a country mile
 
2013-02-17 05:03:02 AM

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: Subby may need to lay off the bottle for a few weeks to detox, since he's arguing against an anti-nuclear argument that is nonexistent in the article.

/LIBS! LIBS! LIIIIIIBS!



The anti-nuclear argument against Indian Point isn't liberal per se, it's more a bunch of suburban helicopter-parent dipshiats who haven't the faintest idea how to calculate risk and think that any risk whatsoever that crosses their minds is unacceptable...although the far greater risks that DON'T cross their minds are just fine. So they think there's a Mohammed Atta lurking on every flight they take, but scream down 684 at 85mph on their way to the airport while jabbering on their phones. And they think that the small faults that crisscross the region carry the same seismic risk as the subduction zone off the coast of Japan, and thus tsunamis can spontaneously form a few miles outside New York Harbor and charge up the Hudson -- completely missing all of New York City and lower Westchester -- to go 20 miles further inland than any tsunami has ever gone, to damage the one piece of infrastructure that -is- at least somewhat ready for the kind of event that has never happened in New York in all of recorded history.

Yes, that -is- what they really believe. It's what Andrew Cuomo really believes. But I'll allow that maybe he's just pandering, because he's not a dumb man, and by and large he hasn't been as pants-on-head incompetent/sleazy as Spitzer or Pataki or his dad.
 
2013-02-17 05:03:45 AM

Firethorn: I'd love to build a lot of new nuke plants - shut down the coal ones, then the older nuclear ones. Save a lot of lives that way.


indeed
 
2013-02-17 06:06:06 AM
After we settle the nuclear power discussion can the professor instruct us on how to get the vaginal juices flowing before I mount his good lady wife?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=PqI-28meTZ8&feature=endscreen
 
2013-02-17 06:12:22 AM
Remember. The reason we have 40 year old boiling water reactors still is because these same people didn't want a safe new nuclear power plant in their back yards. They wanted to keep the old one.

/Fark em, let em glow.
 
2013-02-17 06:14:36 AM

MurphyMurphy: omnibus_necanda_sunt: You know, I'd actually like someone to try and make a case against nuclear power. Even if they're just a troll. I'm feeling up for a challenge.

That's right, biatches. Post!

Not sure if serious.

I'm a TMI baby that grew up to find a significant (but benign) thyroid growth of a type usually linked with radiation exposure. I know plenty of families from Harrisburg from back then. Those that lived in the immediate evac zone have plenty of stories about friends and relatives that ended up with odd cancers (but who knows? lots of people have cancer that didn't live next to a nuke plant)

Then there are the letters. For about 25 years we got letters from PA asking about our health and such.
They found us no matter where we moved, and if we didn't answer they'd call. Awfully ~concerned~ for such a non-event eh?

I allegedly had it my whole life. When I beat lymphoma they thought I wasn't beating it because there was a persistent hot spot (hyper-metabolic mass) on the scans no matter how much chemo I'd been through. They went in for a piece to confirm and came back with the answer.

/csb
//nuke plants are still better than coal by a country mile


This is simply an argument for not using 40 year old nuclear plants. We have reactor designs with better failure modes now (and more then one phone line to the control room).
 
2013-02-17 06:30:14 AM

AdolfOliverPanties: Sir? My younger brother's going out with Dibble this weekend, sir, but I'm not having my hair cut today, sir. So...


I do wish you'd listen Adolph it's perfectly simple...
 
2013-02-17 06:44:56 AM

fluffy2097: This is simply an argument for not using 40 year old nuclear plants. We have reactor designs with better failure modes now (and more then one phone line to the control room).


I agree completely.
 
2013-02-17 06:52:05 AM
Remember, citizens: nuclear energy is clean, cheap and safe. Gubbmint is our enemy. Gubbmint is evil. Gubbmint does everything wrong. Look at how long it takes me to get home, farking construction lazy gubbmint union workers just standing there and traffic *crawls*.

But if anything happened at the gubbmint-regulated plant, which it *can't*, because nuclear energy is clean, cheap and safe, evacuation on gubbmint-built would be swift and orderly, no problems whatsoever would occur or could occur.

Clean, cheap and safe, stupid LIIIIIIIIIIIBS.
 
2013-02-17 08:16:29 AM
We won't build any new nuke plants in the US until China has powered their whole country in the cheap with Thorium and the like.
 
2013-02-17 08:17:11 AM

Firethorn: Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: although when it does malfunction, it poisons the land, food, and people surrounding it for tens of thousands of years.

Actually, nuclear power plants malfunction all the time, part of most of them being old as heck.  99.999% of the time the malfunctions are minor, safety features work as intended and it doesn't make the news; or when it does it's a single scare article that is quickly buried as nothing else happens.

TMI was one of the first generations of nuclear power plants; we put a lot more safety features in afterwords.  Fukushima was actually built about the same time, it lasted far beyond it's design time, it took an earthquake and tsunami to take it out.  A Nuclear plant far closer to the center survived just fine - it's seawall was higher, and was of a newer, safer design.  Chernobyl didn't have a containment dome, a positive void co-efficient, and they were doing some really stupid 'tests'.

Plus, the whole 'poisons the land' is a bit complicated - it's a reducing danger thing; it's going to be statistically unnoticable before a thousand years is up, much less 10k.  Plus, nearby industrial towns cause more cancer cases from chemical means.  Coal causes more cancer from it's pollution.

I'd love to build a lot of new nuke plants - shut down the coal ones, then the older nuclear ones.  Save a lot of lives that way.


Because clearly he was talking about a 'malfunction' in the sense of a technician spilled coffee on a keyboard, and not in the 'plant went into meltdown' mode, let's obscure the topic?  It's pretty damned obvious that when someone says 'when these things malfunction....' they mean TMI or Chernobyl or Fukushima level of 'woops', not 'oh, the heaters are out again'.
 
2013-02-17 08:41:29 AM
Nuclear power is safe, affordable and cheap. When we divide the pollution, risk and cost over eons, it really is the best way to boil water. Besides, if a national emergency or natural disaster happens, they can shut down. They can never blow sky high spreading radiation across the country.

And the industry will get a round TUIT on a repository for spent fuel.

Here is your haunted mansion nuclear power cheerleader of death. Link
 
2013-02-17 09:08:45 AM

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: it poisons the land, food, and people surrounding it


Coal plants do this when functioning correctly. And that's not even counting all the CO2 they release.
 
2013-02-17 09:23:50 AM

profplump: Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: it poisons the land, food, and people surrounding it

Coal plants do this when functioning correctly. And that's not even counting all the CO2 they release.


Next up:  Why wind, solar, geothermal, in fact every form of power other than nuclear is dirty, expensive and dangerous.  Nuclear power:  the only option.  Because the next generation of plants will be completely different from all those bad, older designs, totally safe, cheap to build, no worries.

But wind turbines kill birds.
 
2013-02-17 09:29:59 AM

MurphyMurphy: Then there are the letters. For about 25 years we got letters from PA asking about our health and such.
They found us no matter where we moved, and if we didn't answer they'd call. Awfully ~concerned~ for such a non-event eh?


They were specifically trying to check things like whether or not there were any statistically significant differences in cancer rates/etc. in relation to your potential exposure. None of the studies conducted thus far have found any such difference.

At the edge of the reactor grounds the exposure was less than 100 millirem over background, and the estimated average dose for the surrounding population was 1 millirem, which is like 15% of a single chest x-ray. That doesn't affirmatively rule out all possibility of harm, but it's pretty good evidence that the harm, if any, was small and isolated.

Honestly I think TMI is a great example of a nuclear containment system working as intended to keep everyone safe. There were a whole slew of failures over a fairly long period, including a number of human errors, and the thing released very little radiation. I don't understand why people classify TMI as a disaster -- sure, we lost some capital investment in the reactor and had to deal with some cleanup, but to the best of our knowledge no one was injured or killed, and we learned useful things about how to build and operate reactors more safely in the future.
 
2013-02-17 09:30:24 AM

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: omnibus_necanda_sunt: You know, I'd actually like someone to try and make a case against nuclear power. Even if they're just a troll. I'm feeling up for a challenge.

That's right, biatches. Post!

Well for one, while nuclear power generation is one of the statistically safest methods around, although when it does malfunction, it poisons the land, food, and people surrounding it for tens of thousands of years. It's like saying that airplane travel is one of the statistically safest around, although when a plane crashes it makes the surrounding area uninhabitable for the next ten-thousand years. If the risks of nuclear power were small (say, cement in the plant itself and everything else is fine) then nobody would have a problem with it. However the minor price reduction that nuclear power plants provide in no way accounts for the thousands of years of lost productivity that  will happen if said plant has a meltdown.

Were the federal government not picking up the tab for nuclear insurance, nobody would be building any plants at all.


You know, it's kind of ironic that the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone, the area too radioactive to allow people to resettle, has seen an increase in wildlife including rare species such as bears and wild horses due to the absence of humans. This obviously means one thing: nuclear disasters are good for the enviorment. It's just those hippies don't really want to do anything to help the enviorment because then they wouldn't have anything to biatch about.
 
2013-02-17 09:36:02 AM

Kibbler: Next up:  Why wind, solar, geothermal, in fact every form of power other than nuclear is dirty, expensive and dangerous.


There are lots of options. And probably good value in diversity.

But as it stands today we accept large amounts of environmental damage to generate power, and suggesting that nuclear is somehow fundamentally different in this respect is inaccurate and will lead to bad decisions.
 
2013-02-17 09:45:04 AM

Kibbler: profplump: Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: it poisons the land, food, and people surrounding it

Coal plants do this when functioning correctly. And that's not even counting all the CO2 they release.

Next up:  Why wind, solar, geothermal, in fact every form of power other than nuclear is dirty, expensive and dangerous.  Nuclear power:  the only option.  Because the next generation of plants will be completely different from all those bad, older designs, totally safe, cheap to build, no worries.

But wind turbines kill birds.


Coal plants aren't natures BFF, but you really need to look up modern scrubber systems. They're not the 1930s monsters you seem to be pushing.  The emissions are mostly water vapor and Co2 now.  The really dangerous bit is the heavy metals emissions. They're low, but when a plant opperates in-place for 50-100 years, it builds up, and unfortunately we don't have a way to detoxify the entire state.  But if it was as critical and massive as it's presented, we wouldn't have any wildlife in those areas any more either.

/studied it so not unbiased
 
2013-02-17 10:14:42 AM
Nuclear power sucks, radiations kills.

Now let me finish cooking this microwave dinner before I have to call the doctor on my cell phone about those chest x-rays.
 
2013-02-17 10:20:07 AM
I'm not sure about more modern systems, but a study I had read in the past determined that coal plants release more heavy metals than nuclear plants, given the average amount of heavy metal impurities in coal and the frequency of occurance and amount of release during nuclear power disasters.

I doubt the statistic has improved much, as nuclear power has matured significantly since then, where as coal was already fairly mature.  Though the environmental aspect may not have been mature.

That said, unlike coal, nuclear still has a long way to go to becoming what it could be.  Thorium or hydrogen-3 would be excellent energy sources.  Fission would also be quite nice, if we could get it working efficiently.  Frankly, organic or chemical energy may be reliable, but it can't match the longevity or energy density of nuclear energy.

Natural renewable systems are nice as well, but there simply isn't enough.  David MacKay did some fairly good research on this in his book, which is freely available here:  http://www.withouthotair.com/download.html
 
2013-02-17 10:26:48 AM
Nuclear power would far safer if it weren't run for profit by lazy dishonest idiots. Same goes for coal power, commercial airlines, Wall Street, Washington DC, etc. etc.

In other news, anti-nuke protesters who chain themselves to the fence around a nuclear plant will now be "terrorists."
 
2013-02-17 10:51:10 AM

Gunderson: Nuclear power sucks, radiations kills.

Now let me finish cooking this microwave dinner before I have to call the doctor on my cell phone about those chest x-rays.


:)
 
2013-02-17 10:57:42 AM
So it'd take 5.5 hours to completely evacuate people from the 'the danger zone' around that plant, how long would it take to just evacuate the valuable people though?  Infirmed granny, shut-in playing WoW with his headphones on?  Sorry but you are very expendable.

/Lana!
///Lana!
////LANA!
//
//...the danger zone
 
2013-02-17 11:14:27 AM

macadamnut: Nuclear power would far safer if it weren't run for profit by lazy dishonest idiots. Same goes for coal power, commercial airlines, Wall Street, Washington DC, etc. etc.

In other news, anti-nuke protesters who chain themselves to the fence around a nuclear plant will now be "terrorists."


So we make it an arm of the Navy?  Sounds good.
 
2013-02-17 11:29:18 AM

omnibus_necanda_sunt: You know, I'd actually like someone to try and make a case against nuclear power. Even if they're just a troll. I'm feeling up for a challenge.

That's right, biatches. Post!


Lotta good points coming up...feel like debating any of 'em?

/biatch
 
2013-02-17 11:53:54 AM
FTFA: Riverkeeper has "longstanding, major concerns about emergency planning" for Indian Point, including the Tappan Zee Bridge, often a traffic bottleneck, being overlooked because it is outside the 10-mile zone.

My question is, if there was a nuclear disaster, why not just bike out instead of taking a car? If you take your car you would end up stuck in traffic with a thousand other people, a problem that could be avoided by biking.
 
2013-02-17 12:05:42 PM

Richard C Stanford: FTFA: Riverkeeper has "longstanding, major concerns about emergency planning" for Indian Point, including the Tappan Zee Bridge, often a traffic bottleneck, being overlooked because it is outside the 10-mile zone.

My question is, if there was a nuclear disaster, why not just bike out instead of taking a car? If you take your car you would end up stuck in traffic with a thousand other people, a problem that could be avoided by biking.


Maybe because many people can't bike more than a few miles before getting tired and winded. Not to mention elderly, infirm, infants, those with leg injuries and so on.

Remember, any solution for anything that starts out with "people should just..." is usually flawed at the outset.
 
2013-02-17 12:58:42 PM

lewismarktwo: macadamnut: Nuclear power would far safer if it weren't run for profit by lazy dishonest idiots. Same goes for coal power, commercial airlines, Wall Street, Washington DC, etc. etc.

In other news, anti-nuke protesters who chain themselves to the fence around a nuclear plant will now be "terrorists."

So we make it an arm of the Navy?  Sounds good.


Seems good to me. The Navy has a good track record with nuclear power and they certainly could handle the security aspects just fine. It'll never happen, but I'd be down with it.
 
2013-02-17 01:15:54 PM

Firethorn: Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: although when it does malfunction, it poisons the land, food, and people surrounding it for tens of thousands of years.

Actually, nuclear power plants malfunction all the time, part of most of them being old as heck.  99.999% of the time the malfunctions are minor, safety features work as intended and it doesn't make the news; or when it does it's a single scare article that is quickly buried as nothing else happens.

TMI was one of the first generations of nuclear power plants; we put a lot more safety features in afterwords.  Fukushima was actually built about the same time, it lasted far beyond it's design time, it took an earthquake and tsunami to take it out.  A Nuclear plant far closer to the center survived just fine - it's seawall was higher, and was of a newer, safer design.  Chernobyl didn't have a containment dome, a positive void co-efficient, and they were doing some really stupid 'tests'.


OK, let's redefine the question then--how best to defend nuclear power plants against the general incompetence of beancounters for whom cost is king (since that apparently seems to be the big issue on why plants are kept around far beyond their service life, why stupid tests get run that cause meltdowns, and so on)?

Difficulty: We really haven't figured out how to keep said beancounters from wrecking economies and countries yet (cref: the economy)...
 
2013-02-17 01:23:37 PM
I'm all for nuclear power.

Old nuclear power in one of the most densely populated sections of the country, that constantly runs into evacuation and warning system issues?  Not so much.
 
2013-02-17 01:23:55 PM
We just have to invoke the Knope Protocol.

www.esquire.com

/Not valid in the case of a tornado-quake
 
2013-02-17 01:59:06 PM

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: omnibus_necanda_sunt: You know, I'd actually like someone to try and make a case against nuclear power. Even if they're just a troll. I'm feeling up for a challenge.

That's right, biatches. Post!

Sure thing. Uranium reactors produce plutonium and other highly toxic materials that have to be stored for thousands of years, and man doesn't even have 100 years of storage history since we as a species split the atom.

Uranium, both bomb quality and power quality, is expensive, rare, and produces lots of nasty side effects. A few years back, there was a TED speech about how Thorium reactions could be optimized with salt formations, but that it didn't produce weapons grade anything as a consequence. I'm very radical, so I'd be all for dropping current nuclear power after researching Thorium's potential.


it's people like you that decimated the whale oil industry.
 
2013-02-17 06:44:27 PM

Tymast: Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: omnibus_necanda_sunt: You know, I'd actually like someone to try and make a case against nuclear power. Even if they're just a troll. I'm feeling up for a challenge.

That's right, biatches. Post!

Sure thing. Uranium reactors produce plutonium and other highly toxic materials that have to be stored for thousands of years, and man doesn't even have 100 years of storage history since we as a species split the atom.

Uranium, both bomb quality and power quality, is expensive, rare, and produces lots of nasty side effects. A few years back, there was a TED speech about how Thorium reactions could be optimized with salt formations, but that it didn't produce weapons grade anything as a consequence. I'm very radical, so I'd be all for dropping current nuclear power after researching Thorium's potential.

it's people like you that decimated the whale oil industry.


Gorramit, I'm sick and tired and pissed and cranky and flabbergasted and get the farking vapors every gotdamn time somebody incorrectly uses "decimated" when they mean "destroyed ". Decimated means only one tenth gotfarkingdamnit!
 
2013-02-17 07:35:04 PM

kroonermanblack: Because clearly he was talking about a 'malfunction' in the sense of a technician spilled coffee on a keyboard, and not in the 'plant went into meltdown' mode, let's obscure the topic? It's pretty damned obvious that when someone says 'when these things malfunction....' they mean TMI or Chernobyl or Fukushima level of 'woops', not 'oh, the heaters are out again'.


Then why did he say 'malfunction' instead of 'has an accident' or 'melts down'?  Because it takes a lot of work to get a nuclear reactor to spill it's guts; especially if it has a containment dome.

Kibbler: Next up: Why wind, solar, geothermal, in fact every form of power other than nuclear is dirty, expensive and dangerous. Nuclear power: the only option. Because the next generation of plants will be completely different from all those bad, older designs, totally safe, cheap to build, no worries.


How about this one:  Let's not put all of our eggs in one basket.  My 'ideal' carbon-neutral mix of power is about 40% nuclear, 20% solar, 20% wind, and 20% other(Hydro, geothermal, etc...).

My reasonings:  20% solar:  Power demand tends to be about 50% higher in the day.  1.5(day)+1(night)=2.5.  .5=increased power amount during the day.  .5/2.5=20%.
20% wind:  It's a bit more complex, but 20% is around what we can cover via voluntary shut-offs like having certain industries shut off during peak demand, home level high-energy devices like AC, water heating, etc...
40% nuclear - This is basically the low baseload; demand never goes below this level.
20% other - the remainder.  Hydro is pretty much maxed out in the USA, but is often a good source of peak/emergency power.  There's limited areas where geothermal, tidal, and such are viable.  They tend to be expensive.

kroonermanblack: Coal plants aren't natures BFF, but you really need to look up modern scrubber systems.


My concern is that once you've built one of those modern scrubber systems suddenly the nuke plant is actually cheaper to build - and it's fuel is a whole lot cheaper.

macadamnut: Nuclear power would far safer if it weren't run for profit by lazy dishonest idiots. Same goes for coal power, commercial airlines, Wall Street, Washington DC, etc. etc.


Heh.  Let's see:
TMI - very little radiation released - Owned by a publicly traded company
Chernobyl - actual core breach, meltdown, dozens dead of radiation exposure - Run by a communist government organization.
Fukushima - 2 radiation burns, 37 with physical injuries.  Publicly traded company

On the whole, I'd say that the record is about equal.  Remember, those running a nuclear plant for profit know that if any screw ups happen the plant shuts down and <i>they make no money</i>.  If an accident occurs, they end up shutting down and again - LOSE MONEY.  There's lots of incentives to stay safe with nuclear power, especially if you're looking to make money by it.

Great Porn Dragon: OK, let's redefine the question then--how best to defend nuclear power plants against the general incompetence of beancounters for whom cost is king (since that apparently seems to be the big issue on why plants are kept around far beyond their service life, why stupid tests get run that cause meltdowns, and so on)?


That's the thing, going by the current records you <i>don't need to</i>.  You apply proper risk management, and it might sound crazy, but we've got the 'safety' part nailed per risk management.  Per the rules I've been taught, I'd examine the costs and dangers associated with other power sources and most likely streamline the rules for nuclear plants tremendously.

The goal is that while we might technically/theoretically be able to build a 99.9999999% safe plant today, the fact is that the old coal plants are only 90% safe, new ones 99%, and the old nuclear plants are 99.9%.  If we relax rules enough to get 99.99% nuclear plants built, we'd still be saving lives/resources on average.  Then, when those plants start approaching EOL, you have them build 99.999% safe plants, etc...
 
2013-02-17 07:45:10 PM

Firethorn: Then why did he say 'malfunction' instead of 'has an accident' or 'melts down'? Because it takes a lot of work to get a nuclear reactor to spill it's guts; especially if it has a containment dome.


Because people farking use words. This isn't debate class and no one gives a shiat about your fine pointed semantics. Everyone but the guy who was looking for stupid things to poke holes in knew what he meant. So you're either thick or playing it.

Firethorn: My concern is that once you've built one of those modern scrubber systems suddenly the nuke plant is actually cheaper to build - and it's fuel is a whole lot cheaper.


Not really. You are installing modern scrubbers on top of 50-100 year old plants usually. You're not building them from the ground up, and even if you are, they STILL tend to be cheaper because nuke plants get a massive outpouring of nimby, to the point where you couldn't get funding or insurance to build a nuke facility for decades because every time one of them started up, it got shut out by protests, and other acts of population, to the point of being shut down.

If we're just going to look at pure theory, nuke plants could be cheaper to build and run, except for that whole 'storing highly radioactive toxic waste for thousands of years' bit.
 
2013-02-17 07:59:39 PM

kroonermanblack: Because people farking use words. This isn't debate class and no one gives a shiat about your fine pointed semantics. Everyone but the guy who was looking for stupid things to poke holes in knew what he meant. So you're either thick or playing it.


Or maybe I'm just normally precise with my usage of said words?  Look, malfunction has a precise meaning to me.  It means something didn't do precisely what it was supposed to do.  You're probably going to have to fix something.  It does not typically mean a worst case failure.  People don't typically use the word 'malfunction' when a car catches fire and burns to a husk.

Not really. You are installing modern scrubbers on top of 50-100 year old plants usually. You're not building them from the ground up, and even if you are, they STILL tend to be cheaper because nuke plants get a massive outpouring of nimby, to the point where you couldn't get funding or insurance to build a nuke facility for decades because every time one of them started up, it got shut out by protests, and other acts of population, to the point of being shut down.

I'm sorry, wasn't precise enough here.  I was thinking about new build plants, not just upgrades.  It now costs essentially the same to build a new coal plant that meets all EPA rules as it does to build a nuke plant of the same power.

As for NIMBY- going by Texas a few years ago, even putting in new coal plants will encounter tremendous amounts of it, and they've changes processes some so that it's harder to shut down nuclear plants purely by protest.
 
2013-02-18 10:01:09 AM

omnibus_necanda_sunt: You know, I'd actually like someone to try and make a case against nuclear power. Even if they're just a troll. I'm feeling up for a challenge.

That's right, biatches. Post!



So far I've seen two arguments against nuclear - waste containment and disaster management. Both have been answered reasonably well by Firethorn. I've seen a few other strawman arguments, but nothing with any real substance.

So I think it's back to you (or anyone else who would like to defend the anti-nuke position). Any arguments against building a bunch of nuclear power plants today?
 
2013-02-18 04:30:00 PM
What's wrong with akiss,boy? Hmm? Why not start her off with a nicekiss?
 
Displayed 50 of 51 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report