It's been something like 40 years since Jimmy Carter stopped this dead.
Carter stopped fuel reprocessing in relation to breeder nuclear reactors and a plutonium economy. All the new MSR type reactors this bill is targeting are burner type reactors, that much is written into the bill.
The thing that you are referring to was re-implemented by Reagan. Carter wasn't stupid, Reagan was dumb.
On a side note the bill is called "bipartisan" but is sponsored solely by a Republican. Funny how that got kind of lost in translation somewhere. There is handily no record of votes (voice vote) so no way to tell how bipartisan it really was... I suspect less rather than more.
It breaks down like this:
Sponsor: Sen. Crapo, Mike [R-ID]
Co-Sponsors:
Sen. Whitehouse, Sheldon [D-RI]* 01/11/2017
Sen. Booker, Cory A. [D-NJ]* 01/11/2017
Sen. Risch, James E. [R-ID]* 01/11/2017
Sen. Hatch, Orrin G. [R-UT]* 01/11/2017
Sen. Murkowski, Lisa [R-AK]* 01/11/2017
Sen. Durbin, Richard J. [D-IL]* 01/11/2017
Sen. Strange, Luther [R-AL] 05/25/2017
It looks pretty bi-partisan, obviously a Republican had to sponsor the bill before it was co-sponsored.
It's also relevant to point out the Idaho has appropriate geology (granite) and climate (arid and cool) for a high level nuclear waste storage facility however Sen. Crapo thinks that New Mexico and Texas, and wet South Carolina would be better. So a big payday for Idaho National Laboratories here.
Crapo also said "This vote recognizes the many contributions to technology and research from the experts at the INL and our other partner national laboratories. It demonstrates that, despite issues related to waste disposal which Congress can solve, nuclear energy is a vital part of a national, varied, approach to energy production" which is interesting because a political solution produced Yucca mountain, a facility totally inappropriate to contain nuclear waste because it is pumice.
Rather than politicians solving the problem, isn't that what INL is supposed to do?
And on the scale of dickishness, it's not like he's that far out on the tail end.
But now he sees it, and it's made him ask a really smart question: is this really how I want to be?
Everyone has to hit rock bottom before they do something about their assholiness. Pride comes before fall and perhaps Mr Torvalds saw that and decided that a bit of humility would be a prudent course of action.
If you humble yourself it doesn't matter if anyone else does.
Right and Left politics is obsolete. Whilst people might be complaining that CEO X said that or no-one likes politician Y the real issue is that we pay attention to these people at all instead of the office they hold. This is a major sign that Capitalism is breaking down.
Let's look at the real political systems that exist as there is only two Capitalism and Feudalism. What MrKaos where is Communism in this? Well the reality is Communism is a means to convert Capitalism into Feudalism and whilst I know what I am saying is really controversial and will probably get me modded down, Western culture has to adapt to survive because it is valuable and important. The other systems suck.
The only way to do that is to look at things, where we are, realistically instead of with the traditional Left and Right Idealism.
What is called "the Right" has been lapooning Liberals which, ironically, is a key component of driving Capitalism with creative thinking and entrepreneurial activities, like starting businesses, establishing them. Right wingers run those companies which is why they are conservative.
Cult of personality, static wage growth, low inflation, lack of social mobility, lack of immigration mobility, these are all signs of Feudalism and the collapse of Capitalism - this is not something I think is good at all and I'm only pointing it out because I hope people will pay attention.
Capitalism is optimized for the few based on the assumption that the capital they earn will be redistributed throughout the economy. However when that capital is hoarded the market gets vicious because less capital is available, people are terrified and switch to survival mode and Feudalism with its misery, is optimized for everyone and looks more inviting. Welcome back to the middle ages.
Don't believe me? Right now we hear discussions about Trump this or Brin that we ignore that this very discussion is a sign of Feudalism and how engaging in a such a polarized political debate with zero emphasis on economics is a sign that Capitalism is in its death throws.
I ran a copy up in a virtual machine and it worked without an issue. I went through some of the programs and tried to get used to the cli it uses IIRC. One of my colleagues gave it a go as well a few weeks ago.
I might go back and look at it again, you never know what jewels lie in there from such dedicated creation.
The lead-bismuth fast reactors are quite safe. In fact they are too safe. If you shut down the power it solidifies the reactor.
Do you have a link for the one you are referring to? It is one of two reactor technologies that appear interesting. However it is not just about the reactor it is about integration of facilities and their viability is directly attached to the expected service life of the reactor which relates back to materials technology.
The design of any of these facilities would take a systemic view with the reactor as just one part. However we can't have these discussion because in the Nuclear Ideologist's eyes nuclear is already perfect, which it isn't. They don't accept that it presents a clear threat to the human genome that needs to be handled with respect for the radioisotope products that are created. They don't care about if it is safe, has an energy return, can de-weaponize DU, how the reactors is disposed of, how it handles transuranics - any nuclear, even shit nuclear is ok and anyone who tries to be reasonable about it is labeled and then treated like they don't know what they're talking about.
Their ideology prevents them from even seeing the problems that have to be solved with nuclear. It's stupid.
Fukushima plant as a whole was rated for 7 magnitude earthquake. It took 9, survived it, and got destroyed by tsunami, not earthquake.
Measurements for seismic tolerance of Nuclear Reactors is expressed in Ground Acceleration, or Gal. Since you are unable to even communicate on this subject using appropriate measures it is unlikely that you have based your opinion on fact.
This disinformation campaign against nuclear is getting tiring,
The only disinformation campaign occurring is Nuclear Ideology based on ignorance of the subject.
with same talking points that were literally debunked weeks after the tsunami still being repeated ad nauseam by religious zealots.
P.S. Reactors didn't explode. What did explode was upper floors of the already destroyed containement buildings, many days after tsunami,
So what you are saying is the reactor facility exploded. You are drawing a somewhat pedantic distinction between the reactor exploding and the reactor facility exploding, however I can agree it is a correct distinction to make.
because TEPCO was so incompetent, they didn't know how to address the initial damage correctly.
Since we are being pedantic what caused the reactor facility to explode according to the report was a multitude of errors and willful negligence that left the Fukushima plant unprepared for the events of March 11 and serious deficiencies in the response to the accident by TEPCO, regulators and the government.
More importantly what the report highlights is the disaster was caused by the mindset that supported the negligence behind this disaster, the belief system that supported the errors in judgement that caused the facility to explode.
I do not see a valid argument there against nuclear power done right.
I never offered one. What I offered was that nuclear power done right involves it taking responsibility for its failures. I offered a plan of how to do Nuclear Power right almost a decade ago, right here. It is what I call Responsible Nuclear Advocacy. I'm not anti-nuclear, I'm anti-stupid and I refuse to participate in the massive circle jerk of fanbois, Nuclear Ideologist and Nuclear Justice Worriers that play loose with fact and don't respect the handling of materials that can effectively destroy our entire race from genetic damage to the germ line of our species. Call me Pro-Human.
I'll re-post my decade old post:
I think that the odds are short that we will *have* to control the radioisotope inventory we have and that the necessity to do so will be an infrastructure project so large it will change the very nature of the worlds economy. In the same way our generation is facing a carbon legacy from previous generations, future generations will face a radioistope legacy that they will be forced to solve.
Right now peer reviewed science shows us that the current Nuclear power industry does not provide a Net Energy return simply because of the energetic inputs from mining and the energetic inputs to decommission the reactor.
I support the development of a reactor that addresses the issue of 70,000 tons of Pu-239 currently stored in reactor sites around America, simply because it's irresponsible for our generation to foist this issue onto later generations.
Unfortunately, because there is no geologically sound Nuclear waste dump in operation it's totally inappropriate to discuss building a new reactor facility until a proper containment facility is available. Yucca mountain is not a suitable site because it is made of pumice and geologically active evidenced by recent aftershocks of 5.6 within ten miles of a repository that is supposed to be geologically stable for at least 500000 years. The DOE's own 1982 Nuclear Waste policy Act reported that the Yucca Mountain's geology is inappropriate to contain nuclear waste, and long term corrosion data on C22 (the material to contain the Pu-239 and mitigate the ingress of water - yet another Yucca problem) is just not available.
We need something made of granite. A human made structure with the potential to last 10000 years, so it has to be an engineering project of that scale, because the logistical problems of transferring the 70000 odd tons of Pu239 to the "waste repository" (in reality - containment facility) are so involved that you want to get it right the first time and only do it once.
Even doing that, just the infrastructure project will probably take 30 years to complete, but there is more to it than that.
I was a big fan of the Integral Fast Reactor, and in a way I still am. But the reality is 3rd and 4th generation reactors are a pipe dream because our material science is not advanced enough yet to produce a reactor design that will last thousands of years. If you are going to build reactors then do it properly and build a Terra-watt scale nuclear reactor facility the belly of a massive granite mountain with an attached waste facility that chomps up all your remaining plutonium or end all commercial nuclear activity altogether. As for the PBMR this reactor has some serious design flaws that, upon a closer examination of the design, makes them no better than RBMK as they age, especially when you are talking about a reactor design that lasts a inadequate 4-5 decades.
Nuclear power is energy intensive *after* the energy has been produced simply because our technology - especially material sciences - are not adequate to produce a Nuclear reactor (preferably a IFR style but sa
The thing you are missing is that the allocations are from the tax code and if you follow the chain of documents of where that is defined it leads back to SEC.1703 of 2005 US Energy Policy Act">2005 US Energy Policy Act. That made the provision for the ARRA Act that provided the additional subsidies not provided for in the Energy Policy ACT. A program that created a lot of jobs around the US for electricians and tradesmen. Subsidies that have already ended in 2016.
Also what is not mentioned is that Solar and Wind had 10 times the growth of Nuclear power. It also fails to mention - if you hadn't gone through the Policy act *BEFORE* reading the EIA report that Nuclear Power gets an input tax credit per kilowatt hour. NP also gets another source of funding that is not in the criteria of the EIA document in the form of contract construction delay subsidies.
So the Forbes article is based on an obsolete notion because the subsides ended 2 years ago and aren't part of core Energy policy according to the Act.
What is missing here is the mass of concrete used in base of the wind generators will be reused for the next generation of wind technology as they are being set up where the wind is. The Nacelle will be upgraded and the base re-used. The up front establishment of a new industry will have those costs the same way Nuclear Power does.
What differs is that the steel in the Nuclear plant can't be re-used as it is radio-activated. The concrete can't be used without a massive energetic cost.
Come to think of it using Uranium mine tailings as concrete bases for Wind Turbines might be a really good way of disposing of the Uranium mine tailings in a constructive way. Build more wind to clean up the nuclear industry.
I'll also say, I don't object to funding the research of nuclear reactors, what I object to is the flat out raiding of the ratepayers to keep the current failing nuclear power industry as a means for oil and coal interests to further rob taxpayers. At least the limited solar and wind subsidies are ending up in the pockets of ordinary people.
Hey, I am a fan of Nukes, but I think that we need to continue R&Ding the reactor designs.
What about developing some expertise on handling Nuclear waste? That doesn't seem to be a big spending area.
By now, all the ones being built should have been on 4th gen, if not 5th, should be failproof, and have little waste.
Well talk to the oil and coal industry and go and learn about IFR.
NuScale comes to mind.
Stupid idea, stupid concept, poorly thought out.
The reason we are still building 3rd gens is due to all the far left idiots that allow fear to replace logic/intelligence.
It has nothing to do with the defunding of the nuclear research programs by Clinton and Bush? That oil money buys a lot of lobbying. Were you to employ logic and intelligence you might find the story is a little different from the rhetoric.
As to the deaths in Chernobyl and Fukishima, it would be a lie to say that there were none.
Sure would be. However it hasn't stopped the nuclear industry from trying to minimize how many there are.
But, interestingly, it is still far less than what Coal does. Heck, just look at China, India, etc. Hell, look at America either from the 60s, OR look at us know but in different spectrum. Most of the pollution that the west has removed was visible. I will say that our current coal regs that filtered out lead and mercury, actually removed a lot of other pollution. Still, there is plenty emitted.
So why don't we have a highly advanced program that handles nuclear waste instead of it piling up at reactor sites around the world?
The argument for wind and solar subsidies was made on the same premise, that nothing drives development of a technology like shipping product.
What subsidies for wind and solar? From the 2005 U.S Energy Policy Act.
Solar and wind are covered under SEC.812, the two combined get one section . They have to raise 20% of their own funding for research and %50 of their own funding for Commercial with no other appropriations under the Energy Act. Instead they have to seek funding through the Small Business Act.
As opposed to Nuclear that has twenty five sections dedicated to it (SEC. 600 onwards), with funding allocations in various sections. Let's see:
$1662000000 from 2005-2020, that's the first section with 25 to go and nuclear already tramples solar and wind funding.
$10,000,000,000 in PERSONAL indemnities.
$500,000,000 indemnity for accident outside the US
One for EBR fans and sodium reactor fans $16,000,000 to destroy the technology - but keep blaming the Nimbys and greenies
$100,000,000 for *demonstration* hydrogen producing reactor That no one has utilized to replace oil
$500,000,000 to cover regulatory delays and another $250,000,000 for delays in the first 180 days PER CONTRACT
Solar and wind get nothing compared to this gross form of corporate welfare. Everything from R&D to commercial operations are covered and the US government bends over backwards to ensure nuclear power gets everything it needs.
That means Solar and Wind investments are being made on the basis that they make good business sense. If Solar and wind got the same generous funding that nuclear got it would see much greater advances.
You know all this already and are just pushing your false reality again.
Nuclear power doesn't live in a vacuum, if it's not nuclear power then it's something far more deadly.
Most of the Nuclear Ideologists I've seen pale in comparison to the false reality you constantly push, mere fanbois and useful idiots. If you aren't being paid for your shilling, you should be.
The people who enthusiastically support nuclear power now have a way to sincerely show their commitment to their cause by participating in the effort side by side with the workers who are cleaning it up.
Here is a documentary film on the history of the US Federal Reserve that may help you understand and see through the rhetoric surrounding the institution.
Slashdot Mirror
Yucca mountain, a facility totally inappropriate to contain nuclear waste because it is pumice.
What's wrong with pumice?
It is porous.
Never were truer words said.
It's been something like 40 years since Jimmy Carter stopped this dead.
Carter stopped fuel reprocessing in relation to breeder nuclear reactors and a plutonium economy. All the new MSR type reactors this bill is targeting are burner type reactors, that much is written into the bill.
The thing that you are referring to was re-implemented by Reagan. Carter wasn't stupid, Reagan was dumb.
On a side note the bill is called "bipartisan" but is sponsored solely by a Republican. Funny how that got kind of lost in translation somewhere. There is handily no record of votes (voice vote) so no way to tell how bipartisan it really was... I suspect less rather than more.
It breaks down like this:
It looks pretty bi-partisan, obviously a Republican had to sponsor the bill before it was co-sponsored.
It's also relevant to point out the Idaho has appropriate geology (granite) and climate (arid and cool) for a high level nuclear waste storage facility however Sen. Crapo thinks that New Mexico and Texas, and wet South Carolina would be better. So a big payday for Idaho National Laboratories here.
Crapo also said "This vote recognizes the many contributions to technology and research from the experts at the INL and our other partner national laboratories. It demonstrates that, despite issues related to waste disposal which Congress can solve, nuclear energy is a vital part of a national, varied, approach to energy production" which is interesting because a political solution produced Yucca mountain, a facility totally inappropriate to contain nuclear waste because it is pumice.
Rather than politicians solving the problem, isn't that what INL is supposed to do?
And on the scale of dickishness, it's not like he's that far out on the tail end.
But now he sees it, and it's made him ask a really smart question: is this really how I want to be?
Everyone has to hit rock bottom before they do something about their assholiness. Pride comes before fall and perhaps Mr Torvalds saw that and decided that a bit of humility would be a prudent course of action.
If you humble yourself it doesn't matter if anyone else does.
Right and Left politics is obsolete. Whilst people might be complaining that CEO X said that or no-one likes politician Y the real issue is that we pay attention to these people at all instead of the office they hold. This is a major sign that Capitalism is breaking down.
Let's look at the real political systems that exist as there is only two Capitalism and Feudalism. What MrKaos where is Communism in this? Well the reality is Communism is a means to convert Capitalism into Feudalism and whilst I know what I am saying is really controversial and will probably get me modded down, Western culture has to adapt to survive because it is valuable and important. The other systems suck.
The only way to do that is to look at things, where we are, realistically instead of with the traditional Left and Right Idealism.
What is called "the Right" has been lapooning Liberals which, ironically, is a key component of driving Capitalism with creative thinking and entrepreneurial activities, like starting businesses, establishing them. Right wingers run those companies which is why they are conservative.
Cult of personality, static wage growth, low inflation, lack of social mobility, lack of immigration mobility, these are all signs of Feudalism and the collapse of Capitalism - this is not something I think is good at all and I'm only pointing it out because I hope people will pay attention.
Capitalism is optimized for the few based on the assumption that the capital they earn will be redistributed throughout the economy. However when that capital is hoarded the market gets vicious because less capital is available, people are terrified and switch to survival mode and Feudalism with its misery, is optimized for everyone and looks more inviting. Welcome back to the middle ages.
Don't believe me? Right now we hear discussions about Trump this or Brin that we ignore that this very discussion is a sign of Feudalism and how engaging in a such a polarized political debate with zero emphasis on economics is a sign that Capitalism is in its death throws.
This is not a good thing.
Where are my mod points?
I ran a copy up in a virtual machine and it worked without an issue. I went through some of the programs and tried to get used to the cli it uses IIRC. One of my colleagues gave it a go as well a few weeks ago.
I might go back and look at it again, you never know what jewels lie in there from such dedicated creation.
R.I.P Terry, thank you for something interesting.
The lead-bismuth fast reactors are quite safe. In fact they are too safe. If you shut down the power it solidifies the reactor.
Do you have a link for the one you are referring to? It is one of two reactor technologies that appear interesting. However it is not just about the reactor it is about integration of facilities and their viability is directly attached to the expected service life of the reactor which relates back to materials technology.
The design of any of these facilities would take a systemic view with the reactor as just one part. However we can't have these discussion because in the Nuclear Ideologist's eyes nuclear is already perfect, which it isn't. They don't accept that it presents a clear threat to the human genome that needs to be handled with respect for the radioisotope products that are created. They don't care about if it is safe, has an energy return, can de-weaponize DU, how the reactors is disposed of, how it handles transuranics - any nuclear, even shit nuclear is ok and anyone who tries to be reasonable about it is labeled and then treated like they don't know what they're talking about.
Their ideology prevents them from even seeing the problems that have to be solved with nuclear. It's stupid.
You delusional comments aren't exactly high on my to do list. Your needs aren't special. You can wait until I stop laughing.
Or you can continue to demonstrate your lack of impulse control, fine by me either way.
That's one of the funniest nuclear fanboi rants I've seen in a while.
Fukushima plant as a whole was rated for 7 magnitude earthquake. It took 9, survived it, and got destroyed by tsunami, not earthquake.
Measurements for seismic tolerance of Nuclear Reactors is expressed in Ground Acceleration, or Gal. Since you are unable to even communicate on this subject using appropriate measures it is unlikely that you have based your opinion on fact.
This disinformation campaign against nuclear is getting tiring,
The only disinformation campaign occurring is Nuclear Ideology based on ignorance of the subject.
with same talking points that were literally debunked weeks after the tsunami still being repeated ad nauseam by religious zealots.
Funded by the Japanese Government, page 27 from the official report of The Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission refers to ground acceleration the facility experienced in Gal.
P.S. Reactors didn't explode. What did explode was upper floors of the already destroyed containement buildings, many days after tsunami,
So what you are saying is the reactor facility exploded. You are drawing a somewhat pedantic distinction between the reactor exploding and the reactor facility exploding, however I can agree it is a correct distinction to make.
because TEPCO was so incompetent, they didn't know how to address the initial damage correctly.
Since we are being pedantic what caused the reactor facility to explode according to the report was a multitude of errors and willful negligence that left the Fukushima plant unprepared for the events of March 11 and serious deficiencies in the response to the accident by TEPCO, regulators and the government.
More importantly what the report highlights is the disaster was caused by the mindset that supported the negligence behind this disaster, the belief system that supported the errors in judgement that caused the facility to explode.
This is the mindset of Nuclear Ideologists.
I do not see a valid argument there against nuclear power done right.
I never offered one. What I offered was that nuclear power done right involves it taking responsibility for its failures. I offered a plan of how to do Nuclear Power right almost a decade ago, right here. It is what I call Responsible Nuclear Advocacy. I'm not anti-nuclear, I'm anti-stupid and I refuse to participate in the massive circle jerk of fanbois, Nuclear Ideologist and Nuclear Justice Worriers that play loose with fact and don't respect the handling of materials that can effectively destroy our entire race from genetic damage to the germ line of our species. Call me Pro-Human.
I'll re-post my decade old post:
I think that the odds are short that we will *have* to control the radioisotope inventory we have and that the necessity to do so will be an infrastructure project so large it will change the very nature of the worlds economy. In the same way our generation is facing a carbon legacy from previous generations, future generations will face a radioistope legacy that they will be forced to solve.
Right now peer reviewed science shows us that the current Nuclear power industry does not provide a Net Energy return simply because of the energetic inputs from mining and the energetic inputs to decommission the reactor.
I support the development of a reactor that addresses the issue of 70,000 tons of Pu-239 currently stored in reactor sites around America, simply because it's irresponsible for our generation to foist this issue onto later generations.
Unfortunately, because there is no geologically sound Nuclear waste dump in operation it's totally inappropriate to discuss building a new reactor facility until a proper containment facility is available. Yucca mountain is not a suitable site because it is made of pumice and geologically active evidenced by recent aftershocks of 5.6 within ten miles of a repository that is supposed to be geologically stable for at least 500000 years. The DOE's own 1982 Nuclear Waste policy Act reported that the Yucca Mountain's geology is inappropriate to contain nuclear waste, and long term corrosion data on C22 (the material to contain the Pu-239 and mitigate the ingress of water - yet another Yucca problem) is just not available.
We need something made of granite. A human made structure with the potential to last 10000 years, so it has to be an engineering project of that scale, because the logistical problems of transferring the 70000 odd tons of Pu239 to the "waste repository" (in reality - containment facility) are so involved that you want to get it right the first time and only do it once.
Even doing that, just the infrastructure project will probably take 30 years to complete, but there is more to it than that.
I was a big fan of the Integral Fast Reactor, and in a way I still am. But the reality is 3rd and 4th generation reactors are a pipe dream because our material science is not advanced enough yet to produce a reactor design that will last thousands of years. If you are going to build reactors then do it properly and build a Terra-watt scale nuclear reactor facility the belly of a massive granite mountain with an attached waste facility that chomps up all your remaining plutonium or end all commercial nuclear activity altogether. As for the PBMR this reactor has some serious design flaws that, upon a closer examination of the design, makes them no better than RBMK as they age, especially when you are talking about a reactor design that lasts a inadequate 4-5 decades.
Nuclear power is energy intensive *after* the energy has been produced simply because our technology - especially material sciences - are not adequate to produce a Nuclear reactor (preferably a IFR style but sa
On a per kWh produced basis the subsidies for solar power is far greater.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/j...
The thing you are missing is that the allocations are from the tax code and if you follow the chain of documents of where that is defined it leads back to SEC.1703 of 2005 US Energy Policy Act">2005 US Energy Policy Act. That made the provision for the ARRA Act that provided the additional subsidies not provided for in the Energy Policy ACT. A program that created a lot of jobs around the US for electricians and tradesmen. Subsidies that have already ended in 2016.
Also what is not mentioned is that Solar and Wind had 10 times the growth of Nuclear power. It also fails to mention - if you hadn't gone through the Policy act *BEFORE* reading the EIA report that Nuclear Power gets an input tax credit per kilowatt hour. NP also gets another source of funding that is not in the criteria of the EIA document in the form of contract construction delay subsidies.
So the Forbes article is based on an obsolete notion because the subsides ended 2 years ago and aren't part of core Energy policy according to the Act.
Look at the pie chart here on where the USA gets it's electricity:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
.
What is missing here is the mass of concrete used in base of the wind generators will be reused for the next generation of wind technology as they are being set up where the wind is. The Nacelle will be upgraded and the base re-used. The up front establishment of a new industry will have those costs the same way Nuclear Power does.
What differs is that the steel in the Nuclear plant can't be re-used as it is radio-activated. The concrete can't be used without a massive energetic cost.
Come to think of it using Uranium mine tailings as concrete bases for Wind Turbines might be a really good way of disposing of the Uranium mine tailings in a constructive way. Build more wind to clean up the nuclear industry.
I'll also say, I don't object to funding the research of nuclear reactors, what I object to is the flat out raiding of the ratepayers to keep the current failing nuclear power industry as a means for oil and coal interests to further rob taxpayers. At least the limited solar and wind subsidies are ending up in the pockets of ordinary people.
For people interested in the facts that support the numbers in my previous post 2005 US Energy Policy Act.
You may find more Nuclear subsidies in SEC 600. onwards because I haven't included all of them. There is just enough references to make the point.
So many idiots will take you serious.
Ignorance is a fools intelligence.
Correction: Ignorance is a fool's intelligence.
This was a second gen reactor that took an earthquake that was a hundred times worse than one it was set up to outlive, and outlived it.
All the Fukushima reactors were rated to 600Gal and the site itself only experienced 150Gal.
So the real problem is corruption in companies that save money on seawalls in tsunami areas and ignore warnings about it.
Indeed, the thing that caused these reactors to explode was the criminal negligence of the TEPCO board.
Hey, I am a fan of Nukes, but I think that we need to continue R&Ding the reactor designs.
What about developing some expertise on handling Nuclear waste? That doesn't seem to be a big spending area.
By now, all the ones being built should have been on 4th gen, if not 5th, should be failproof, and have little waste.
Well talk to the oil and coal industry and go and learn about IFR.
NuScale comes to mind.
Stupid idea, stupid concept, poorly thought out.
The reason we are still building 3rd gens is due to all the far left idiots that allow fear to replace logic/intelligence.
It has nothing to do with the defunding of the nuclear research programs by Clinton and Bush? That oil money buys a lot of lobbying. Were you to employ logic and intelligence you might find the story is a little different from the rhetoric.
As to the deaths in Chernobyl and Fukishima, it would be a lie to say that there were none.
Sure would be. However it hasn't stopped the nuclear industry from trying to minimize how many there are.
But, interestingly, it is still far less than what Coal does. Heck, just look at China, India, etc. Hell, look at America either from the 60s, OR look at us know but in different spectrum. Most of the pollution that the west has removed was visible. I will say that our current coal regs that filtered out lead and mercury, actually removed a lot of other pollution. Still, there is plenty emitted.
So why don't we have a highly advanced program that handles nuclear waste instead of it piling up at reactor sites around the world?
The argument for wind and solar subsidies was made on the same premise, that nothing drives development of a technology like shipping product.
What subsidies for wind and solar? From the 2005 U.S Energy Policy Act.
Solar and wind are covered under SEC.812, the two combined get one section . They have to raise 20% of their own funding for research and %50 of their own funding for Commercial with no other appropriations under the Energy Act. Instead they have to seek funding through the Small Business Act.
As opposed to Nuclear that has twenty five sections dedicated to it (SEC. 600 onwards), with funding allocations in various sections. Let's see:
$1662000000 from 2005-2020, that's the first section with 25 to go and nuclear already tramples solar and wind funding.
$10,000,000,000 in PERSONAL indemnities.
$500,000,000 indemnity for accident outside the US
One for EBR fans and sodium reactor fans $16,000,000 to destroy the technology - but keep blaming the Nimbys and greenies
$100,000,000 for *demonstration* hydrogen producing reactor That no one has utilized to replace oil
$500,000,000 to cover regulatory delays and another $250,000,000 for delays in the first 180 days PER CONTRACT
Solar and wind get nothing compared to this gross form of corporate welfare. Everything from R&D to commercial operations are covered and the US government bends over backwards to ensure nuclear power gets everything it needs.
That means Solar and Wind investments are being made on the basis that they make good business sense. If Solar and wind got the same generous funding that nuclear got it would see much greater advances.
You know all this already and are just pushing your false reality again.
People falling off roofs? Well, it happens.
Maybe we could just have solar installers wear proper safety gear.
It's probably not a good idea to explain coal plants put out significantly more radiation than nuclear plants.
Please do, I'd be interested in how you explain that whilst including all of the facts.
Nuclear power doesn't live in a vacuum, if it's not nuclear power then it's something far more deadly.
Most of the Nuclear Ideologists I've seen pale in comparison to the false reality you constantly push, mere fanbois and useful idiots. If you aren't being paid for your shilling, you should be.
Blindseer, you are indeed a Nuclear Narcissist.
I mean, 3 humans, lives snuffed out by the horror of nuclear power - and what does it give us?
Well it provides employment for the homeless and workers from around the world in a high tech clean-up that proves the benevolence od the nuclear industry.
The people who enthusiastically support nuclear power now have a way to sincerely show their commitment to their cause by participating in the effort side by side with the workers who are cleaning it up.
So many idiots will take you serious.
Ignorance is a fools intelligence.
Did you watch it?
Here is a documentary film on the history of the US Federal Reserve that may help you understand and see through the rhetoric surrounding the institution.
All the best to you.