Nuclear - The cheapest way to decarbonize power
- Thread starter OVERKILL
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: Toaster_Jer
Fast reactors also create all sorts of daughter product [censored] that is both dangerous and unstable. More stupids from the nuke weapons people. They want those products. It permits their current premier to puff his chest out more often. Why can't we play it safe with Thorium U233. Other countries are using it safely. Can't tell me they don't want to use them later for weapons. IMO
Really? I thought that fast reactors are able to burn away dangerous fission products from slow neutron reactors, so there would be no need to build storage for nuclear waste.
Fast reactors also create all sorts of daughter product [censored] that is both dangerous and unstable. More stupids from the nuke weapons people. They want those products. It permits their current premier to puff his chest out more often. Why can't we play it safe with Thorium U233. Other countries are using it safely. Can't tell me they don't want to use them later for weapons. IMO
Really? I thought that fast reactors are able to burn away dangerous fission products from slow neutron reactors, so there would be no need to build storage for nuclear waste.
Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
Originally Posted By: Kiwi_ME
Originally Posted By: Ducked
...Ok, a couple of selected nuclear highlights...
I noticed you only "selected" the examples that failed?
You could add 3-Mile Island and have an amazing choice of awful cars to associate with that.
With today's engineering and technology rather than that of the 1950s we could build a pretty reliable plant.
And even an occasional accident will pale in comparison to the permanent environmental damage we have already caused with fossil fuels, much of it yet to be witnessed.
Yes, Three Mile Island was terrible. It is so bad that...the plant's other reactor is STILL RUNNING! Yes, 35 years after TMI-2 melted down, TMI-1 is still operating!
IIRC, the other reactors at Chernobyl operated until about 2000, so they made it to 14 years. Don't think that proves Chernobyl was OK.
"Permanent" environmental damage is a relative term in this context, but its probably fair to say the timescales are geological both for a full-scale nuclear accident (which we havn't yet had, we've been lucky) and for carbon-driven climate change.
My point was the absurdity of trying to separate nuclear safety in the abstract from concrete human fallibility. Slagging off the Soviets or the Japanese (see above) may be justified, even comforting, but that comfort is a self-deception.
Nuclear stupidity, like plutonium, is an internationally distributed renewable resource, and there's a historically high concentration of both in the UK.
Nuclear power does not exist in the abstract, so its safety is inherently and logically inseparable from human fallibility.
There are reasons to expect the Japanese to be better at this than most people, so if they [censored] up, anyone is likely to [censored] up, and others demonstrably have.
As the perception of carbon-driven climate change moves from theoretical future danger to present emergency, its likely there'll be a crash-expansion of nuclear power, and there seems a risk that a crash expansion will use established PWR technology, which people (even the JAPANESE, FFS!) simply can't be trusted to run.
Originally Posted By: Kiwi_ME
Originally Posted By: Ducked
...Ok, a couple of selected nuclear highlights...
I noticed you only "selected" the examples that failed?
You could add 3-Mile Island and have an amazing choice of awful cars to associate with that.
With today's engineering and technology rather than that of the 1950s we could build a pretty reliable plant.
And even an occasional accident will pale in comparison to the permanent environmental damage we have already caused with fossil fuels, much of it yet to be witnessed.
Yes, Three Mile Island was terrible. It is so bad that...the plant's other reactor is STILL RUNNING! Yes, 35 years after TMI-2 melted down, TMI-1 is still operating!
IIRC, the other reactors at Chernobyl operated until about 2000, so they made it to 14 years. Don't think that proves Chernobyl was OK.
"Permanent" environmental damage is a relative term in this context, but its probably fair to say the timescales are geological both for a full-scale nuclear accident (which we havn't yet had, we've been lucky) and for carbon-driven climate change.
My point was the absurdity of trying to separate nuclear safety in the abstract from concrete human fallibility. Slagging off the Soviets or the Japanese (see above) may be justified, even comforting, but that comfort is a self-deception.
Nuclear stupidity, like plutonium, is an internationally distributed renewable resource, and there's a historically high concentration of both in the UK.
Nuclear power does not exist in the abstract, so its safety is inherently and logically inseparable from human fallibility.
There are reasons to expect the Japanese to be better at this than most people, so if they [censored] up, anyone is likely to [censored] up, and others demonstrably have.
As the perception of carbon-driven climate change moves from theoretical future danger to present emergency, its likely there'll be a crash-expansion of nuclear power, and there seems a risk that a crash expansion will use established PWR technology, which people (even the JAPANESE, FFS!) simply can't be trusted to run.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
Originally Posted By: Kiwi_ME
Originally Posted By: Ducked
...Ok, a couple of selected nuclear highlights...
I noticed you only "selected" the examples that failed?
You could add 3-Mile Island and have an amazing choice of awful cars to associate with that.
With today's engineering and technology rather than that of the 1950s we could build a pretty reliable plant.
And even an occasional accident will pale in comparison to the permanent environmental damage we have already caused with fossil fuels, much of it yet to be witnessed.
Yes, Three Mile Island was terrible. It is so bad that...the plant's other reactor is STILL RUNNING! Yes, 35 years after TMI-2 melted down, TMI-1 is still operating!
Unfortunately that's not a great example, Chernobyl was kept operational as well with the last reactor finally shut down in 2000.
EDIT: See I was beaten to it.
Originally Posted By: Kiwi_ME
Originally Posted By: Ducked
...Ok, a couple of selected nuclear highlights...
I noticed you only "selected" the examples that failed?
You could add 3-Mile Island and have an amazing choice of awful cars to associate with that.
With today's engineering and technology rather than that of the 1950s we could build a pretty reliable plant.
And even an occasional accident will pale in comparison to the permanent environmental damage we have already caused with fossil fuels, much of it yet to be witnessed.
Yes, Three Mile Island was terrible. It is so bad that...the plant's other reactor is STILL RUNNING! Yes, 35 years after TMI-2 melted down, TMI-1 is still operating!
Unfortunately that's not a great example, Chernobyl was kept operational as well with the last reactor finally shut down in 2000.
EDIT: See I was beaten to it.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
