You say Nuclear is the safest thing ever, prove it.
I did. I'm defining "safety" as deaths per energy produced.
Your criteria is too narrow.
Based on that metric nuclear power is the safest energy source we have.
Of course it does, it's the "useful idiot" metric established so you can make that claim.
That safety record includes
but mainly excludes.
I merely assert that given the deaths from the nuclear power industry, compared to the useful energy produced, that nuclear power is far safer than the others based on that same calculation.
Not when measured in "Communities destroyed per hundred years" or numerous other metrics like tons of radio-isotope laden effluent per day.
The question of net energy return of Nuclear power is also in doubt.
Everything else you gave is speculation and strawmen.
You're projecting again.
If you don't argue for removal of the unnecessary Price Anderson Act then it proves all of your posts are a construct to annoy and frustrate people.
Your assertion that the Price Anderson Act "proves" anything does not follow. It proves nothing except that in 1957 the government wanted to see the nuclear power industry grow among public fears of an accident and since then few congresscritters had the guts to not vote for it's extension. That's politics for you. It only proves that they'd be pilloried by one side, the other, or both, if they allowed it to expire.
It proves that your argument has no credibility.
Status quo rules.
And so much of it supports the nuclear industry. It would appear you are unable to fulfill your convictions.
You are only repeating yourself, nothing you said refutes what I said. Prove to me that wind and solar are safer, with science, or you've lost this argument. You proved nothing.
Thank you for the troll mod on this post, it demonstrates that I am human. More importantly it demonstrates blindseers technique to lambast and frustrate people into this situation to discredit any arguments made on this important issue.
Essentially bs's manipulative techniques have nothing to do with support for nuclear power and more to do with his need to create this consternation within people. Simply put, if you are wondering why bs does this I suggest it is because he needs to to feel relevant.
In examining bs's arguments about nuclear power he cares less about that than the emotional reactions that he is provoking, you may recognize this when engaging in a conversation with him.
You claim we can make wind and solar safer with better safety practices. I agree. Then you must also agree that we can make nuclear safety with better safety practices, no?
No, the two have nothing to do with each other. The Nuclear industry *itself* produced over thirty recommendations to make nuclear safer, they weren't adopted because it is too expensive.
If you refute this then I refute your claims of wind and solar being able to be made safer and we are back where we started.
You make childlike arguments.
Can we make wind and solar safer?
Yes, with roofing harnesses and standard safety improvement processes used by industry.
If yes then we can make nuclear safer.
Yes, however it's so expensive that no one can afford to build them. Only the Europeans were smart enough to pick up the four trains feature and incorporate it into the EPR design but even that leaves another 26 improvements out. Just as an exercise go figure out where the only EPR in the US is being built if you want to see where political and economic power rests in the US.
Do you see nuclear reactors being built underground, where they should be? So yes, nuclear can be made safer however it is very very very expensive.
Since nuclear is already safer than wind and solar by an order of magnitude or more then wind and solar have a far higher hurdle than nuclear power.
Fallacious logic designed to lambast and exhaust opponents into submitting.
If nuclear was safe the Price Anderson act would not exist however, since it does exist it proves that nuclear is still considered unsafe by professional risk assessors. So basically you're saying that solar and wind are much safer than nuclear and we should deploy large scale solar and wind installations and decentralize our grid.
Prove nuclear is safe and lobby to have the P.A act repealed. Does solar and wind need special corporate welfare to be successful, no. All of the success of solar and wind deployment are because they are commercially viable without all of the billions of dollars thrown at the nuclear industry. Citation: 2005 US Energy Policy Act.
Oh and by the way the Energy Act does not define Nuclear power as "renewable".
Oh, and you want to bring up deaths from Chernobyl? That was 30+ years ago. How about we compare modern nuclear power to modern wind and solar power? Then let's compare safety. You won't though. You can't. There is no comparison.
Oh please do. AP1000 is so much worse than SNUPPS and much much worse design than Three Mile Island so compare away.
However how can I pass up you comparing wind and solar to an INES level 7 nuclear accident that required an international effort to build "New Safe Containment" so they could start to demolish the building as an example of how safe nuclear power is.
You demonstrate that you are completely divorced from reality, however your antics ar
More speculation and no data. Try again. With data this time.
No, there are enough key words to overcome your alloplastic reasoning.
You don't care about data, all you care about is being as frustrating and annoying as possible so that people express that and you claim some moral superiority that somehow makes you "right".
It is clear you don't even care about nuclear power, it's just what you use to get whatever emotional reactions you seek from people because people have very polarized opinions on the subject. You project your troll mannerisms onto others with your techniques so you can claim they are trolls.
You're skilled at it and I suggest that anyone who reads this is going to recognize what you do instantly.
Nuclear power is safer than anything else. We have the data. Show me otherwise.
All INES 5 or greater nuclear disasters. If you claim they did no harm, prove it and go to Fukushima and help with the cleanup. I hear properties in the area are being given away. Prove that nuclear is safe by going to Fukushima reactor sites otherwise you are saying that nuclear has no place in our energy supply.
The existence of the Price Anderson Act "proves" nothing. If it's there then nuclear power is "proven" unsafe.
If we make attempts to repeal it then the nuclear industry is "proving" it does not care for the public and would leave people homeless and penniless in the case of an accident.
You are so manipulative with your appeal to authority designed to produce an emotional reaction. Anyone who reacts to your subtle troll is called a troll and anyone who argues your point you continue to play your will full ignorance until they give up.
Repealing the P.A act simply means the most dangerous NPPs, like Indian Point and Palo Verde shut down immediately. Then the rest of them progressively close down because their insurance regimen is bought into line with the conditions the rest of industry.
After that there is a massive jobs boom as existing NPPs turbines are converted to natural gas and all of the energy subsidies previously required to keep the nuclear industry afloat are diverted into advancing massive wind, solar and geothermal energy projects.
Nuclear power is keeping America, and many other countries, in poverty because the nuclear industry cares more about existing than whether it is contributing to the public good. Shutting down Nuclear would create the largest economic boom we have seen in our lifetimes.
The only thing the existence of Price Anderson proves is that federal programs are the closest things we have to immortality, once created they never die, even if their need has long since passed.
Then lobby to have it removed. You say Nuclear is the safest thing ever, prove it. Your own reasoning suggests the PA act is not necessary, so commit to your own argument and lobby to repeal the Price Anderson Act because if you don't it just proves that *everything* you say is a complete fabrication designed to frustrate people who simply cannot fathom how deliberately and willfully ignorant you are determined to be.
If you don't argue for removal of the unnecessary Price Anderson Act then it proves all of your posts are a construct to annoy and frustrate people.
You are only repeating yourself, nothing you said refutes what I said. Prove to me that wind and solar are safer, with science, or you've lost this argument. You proved nothing.
Moooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
You claim we can make wind and solar safer with better safety practices. I agree. Then you must also agree that we can make nuclear safety with better safety practices, no?
No, the two have nothing to do with each other. The Nuclear industry *itself* produced over thirty recommendations to make nuclear safer, they weren't adopted
because it is too expensive.
If you refute this then I refute your claims of wind and solar being able to be made safer and we are back where we started.
You argue like a child.
Can we make wind and solar safer?
Yes, with roofing harnesses and standard safety improvement processes used by industry.
If yes then we can make nuclear safer.
Yes, however it's so expensive that no one can afford to build them. Only the Europeans were smart enough to pick up the four trains feature and incorporate it into the EPR design but even that leaves another 26 improvements out. Just as an exercise go figure out where the only EPR in the US is being built if you want to see where political and economic power rests in the US.
Do you see nuclear reactors being built underground, where they should be? So yes, nuclear can be made safer however it is very very very expensive.
Since nuclear is already safer than wind and solar by an order of magnitude or more then wind and solar have a far higher hurdle than nuclear power.
Fallacious logic designed to lambast and exhaust opponents into submitting.
If nuclear was safe the Price Anderson act would not exist however, since it does exist it proves that nuclear is still considered unsafe by professional risk assessors. So basically you're saying that solar and wind are much safer than nuclear and we should deploy large scale solar and wind installations and decentralize our grid.
Prove nuclear is safe and lobby to have the P.A act repealed. Does solar and wind need special corporate welfare to be successful, no. All of the success of solar and wind deployment are because they are commercially viable without all of the billions of dollars thrown at the nuclear industry. Citation: 2005 US Energy Policy Act.
Oh and by the way the Energy Act does not define Nuclear power as "renewable".
Oh, and you want to bring up deaths from Chernobyl? That was 30+ years ago. How about we compare modern nuclear power to modern wind and solar power? Then let's compare safety. You won't though. You can't. There is no comparison.
Oh please do. AP1000 is so much worse than SNUPPS and much much worse design than Three Mile Island so compare away and I hope the monkeys don;t hurt too much.
However how can I pass up you comparing wind and solar to an INES level 7 nuclear accident that required an international effort to build "New Safe Containment" so they could start to demolish the building as an example of how safe nuclear power is.
You demonstrate that you are completely divorced from reality, however your antics are completely hilarious so at least you haven't declined in how entertaining your mental gymnastics are. That really made me laugh.
Nuclear power has a very high safety record and you cannot show otherwise.
Of course not, otherwise the IAEA's useful idiots would not be able to make this argument.
If you could then you would not be discussing the equivalent of Unsafe at Any Speed when talking about automobile safety in 2019.
A car analogy, in 2019.
No one is going to build another RBMK. No one will bui
How about some data instead of grade school debate tactics?
You would do the Politburo proud.
Scaremonger all you want on nuclear power, it's still far safer than anything we have. If you deny that then you deny science. You are debating with emotion, not logic. How unscientific of you. Go outside and play, let the adults talk.
Looks like you're projecting again. You are the perfect Soviet blindseer.
I could also say that Chernobyl would not have been more than a short lived power outage if people used the correct safety equipment.
Or if they wern't trying to be good communists.
That includes the time vodka addled soviet bureaucrats decided it would be a good idea to bypass the safety systems to burn off some xenon that was poisoning the reactor core.
Do you taint everything with BS? Isn't the truth about the matter bad enough? They were running tests, they poisoned the reaction, changed shifts in the middle of the test to a crew with less experience. Same as the TEPCO board not bothering with safety upgrades. Both accidents prove nuclear can't be done safely because of human flaws from the control room all the way to the board.
Fortunately there are enough reasonable and sane people that can see what you are willfully ignorant to.
Again, prove solar and wind are safer than nuclear. I tried to find a better source for the numbers but they all point back to the same studies where nuclear beats them all.
No. There are politics to nuclear power structured into the law so you can have this argument. I get it, you see no place for solar, wind or geothermal so you believe we shouldn't even try and just do nuclear everything if everyone else wasn't so stupid. Even if we doubled current nuclear worldwide it would be 12% global electricity consumption, maybe, and impossible to fuel long term. Nuclear is simply a waste of resources. Awesome technology, ultimately pointless.
Every nuclear promise has come to naught, nuclear has already failed so instead of wasting our resources on something that provides no energy return it's time to try something different. You don't care what anyone else thinks when it comes to nuclear and I don't care what you think about renewable energy sources.
Everything else was speculation on what MIGHT happen. Well, lots of things might happen. A nuclear reactor might melt down.
Nuclear already has melted down.
Deaths from nuclear power don't happen all that often though, and when the safety systems are in place then it happens far less often.
IAEA has interdiction orders over all WHO publications about how many people actually died. That's why you get to say that. It doesn;t mean it's true, it doesn;t mean you are right all it means is you haven't read the IAEA charter to see how the propaganda is constructed.
I asked you to show me the science. What you have shown me is numbers from a expert in information theory, not energy systems, everything I read within it are extreme cases of consumption.
The most glaring factor is that you are talking about an industry that has had no support and less than ten years to develop technology. Whereas Nuclear has had all the support it needs and more that it doesn't use and in 60 years the technology has barely made any progress.
I look forward to seeing how many more misrepresentations I can find in this.
Nuclear is the best choice we have for the future.
Well it's the future now and in 60 or so years Nuclear power has been one failure after another.
Maybe some new technology will come along to change that
Yes, Solar PV, Solar thermal, wind, geothermal, wave power have all come along in the meantime and changed that. All without the gererous subsidies that nuclear power gets in SEC 600 of the 2005 US energy policy act.
What you will also find there is that nuclear costs less in materials consumed,
Well it would seem that investors disagree. The AP1000 total concrete usage was lowered to make the reactor more affordable. The EPR reactor is a much better designed reactor in terms of safety and longevity, including being resistance to missile attacks. Your assertion is false.
and lives lost, than anything else available to us.
Less than coal, probably. Not less than solar or wind when people use the correct safety equipment so they don't fall off roofs.
You've rolled this out again. First the "blog" misrepresents the paper it is based on which is originally about human health and not a comparison of carbon sources from energy systems.
Also the paper *itself* neglects to take into account the human health implications from mine tailings and radon released from mining that finds its way into the water table.
The only way the carbon claim for nuclear can be made is when uranium mining is done with in-situ acid leach mining, which happens to be illegal in teh US and Russia.
So modtrolls are out as there is nothing trollish in my post. You can't argue fact, all you can do is try to suppress truth.
Nuclear energy is a requirement of renewables because renewables are high risk with regard to extreme events,
The Fukushima Nuclear power plant was overwhelmed by an extreme natural event due to criminal negligence of the TEPCO board. We have seen that Nuclear power cannot be operated in very hot environments in France's heatwaves, floods for example and in the US. Pleanty of examples with a quick web search.
You would not be correct, but that's your opinion.
I think this paper supports your argument however it appears that some government web sites ( energy.gov) are still shutdown. You may find this article interesting.
What blindseer is saying is that solar, wind and geothermal are appropriate in civilian areas that aren't going to come under attack and they are an appropriate replacement for nuclear and coal. Blindseer is saying that "we don't need nuclear for civilian applications."
Nuclear energy is a requirement of renewables because renewables are high risk with regard to extreme events,
The Fukushima Nuclear power plant was overwhelmed by an extreme natural event due to criminal negligence of the TEPCO board. We have seen that Nuclear power cannot be operated in very hot environments in France's heatwaves, floods for example and in the US. Pleanty of examples with a quick web search.
Social media is starting to look like some sort of shared psychosis where people forget how to interact with other people and are only learning to interact with themselves. Especially because they only get attention in the form of likes which causes them to do ever more extreme things to get attention. This can't be a good thing for mental health.
I'm completely against censorship though because when people attempt to control the flow of ideas they are assuming a dictatorial role which, in and of itself, imbues the censor with a sense of power that corrupts them no matter how pure their intentions or morals are. Communism and fascism has shown us just how bad this can become.
So whilst picture of self harm are extreme images, that I personally would not like to view, they do serve as an indicator of the amount of mental sickness we have in society. In reality the images are people screaming for help that warns others and the censor becomes the enabler that allows the shared psychosis to go unchallenged in society.
This is the heavy burden of responsibility we all share for maintaining free speech no matter how ugly it becomes because the people who do this are the "canary in a cage" warning us that our society has a problem.
You're asserting that the NSA put the backdoor into D-Link products without proving the NSA did that, and frankly that's not credible given the sophistication level.
The backdoor could simply be one of many hard to find bugs in the functionality of anything. The NSA doesn't have to "put" them there, they have to find them.
There are 400 tons of radio isotope laden water being released into the Pacific everyday from the Fukushima NPP disaster. That's over one million tons and counting.
As radio isotopes propagates into the Pacific and through the foodchain anticipate a steady decline in the birthrate from failed pregnancies and an increased prevalence of transgenic disease from the pregnancies that are successful over the coming decades.
We need an international effort to bring the Fukushima nuclear disaster under control to stop it from releasing anything as part of our responsibility to future generations.
That implies that the hypervisor doing the monitoring is in the CPU scheduler and running on a core all the time. Wouldn't that introduce exactly the same performance penalty as just disabling the branch prediction in first place?
In Fukushima, the chain of events was something like this -
You forgot -1) TEPCO didn't move the back-up generators from a flood prone area and 0) TEPCO colluded so they wouldn't have to set aside budget for sea wall improvements.
The HPR1000 design addresses several of the issues.
The core, fundamental design flaw with the AP1000 is multifaceted. It employs a passive cooling system which converts the containment building into a pressure vessel. A feature that has never been tested with reactor experience on a smaller reactor. It has several areas that are prone to corrosion and inaccessible for inspection or maintenance. Finally its thermal containment ratio, the amount of energy vs concrete in the containment vessel, was reduced to make the AP1000 cheaper because less concrete was required to build it. It has much less concrete than Three Mile Island used.
Before launching into a explanation of the simulated tests what they don't account for is that neutron pulses from plutonium banging embrittles concrete so that it crumbles. No amount of "workarounds" are going to avoid that so it will work fine until it doesn't and then it is unpredictable.
Slashdot Mirror
You say Nuclear is the safest thing ever, prove it.
I did. I'm defining "safety" as deaths per energy produced.
Your criteria is too narrow.
Based on that metric nuclear power is the safest energy source we have.
Of course it does, it's the "useful idiot" metric established so you can make that claim.
That safety record includes
but mainly excludes.
I merely assert that given the deaths from the nuclear power industry, compared to the useful energy produced, that nuclear power is far safer than the others based on that same calculation.
Not when measured in "Communities destroyed per hundred years" or numerous other metrics like tons of radio-isotope laden effluent per day.
The question of net energy return of Nuclear power is also in doubt.
Everything else you gave is speculation and strawmen.
You're projecting again.
If you don't argue for removal of the unnecessary Price Anderson Act then it proves all of your posts are a construct to annoy and frustrate people.
Your assertion that the Price Anderson Act "proves" anything does not follow. It proves nothing except that in 1957 the government wanted to see the nuclear power industry grow among public fears of an accident and since then few congresscritters had the guts to not vote for it's extension. That's politics for you. It only proves that they'd be pilloried by one side, the other, or both, if they allowed it to expire.
It proves that your argument has no credibility.
Status quo rules.
And so much of it supports the nuclear industry. It would appear you are unable to fulfill your convictions.
You are only repeating yourself, nothing you said refutes what I said. Prove to me that wind and solar are safer, with science, or you've lost this argument. You proved nothing.
Thank you for the troll mod on this post, it demonstrates that I am human. More importantly it demonstrates blindseers technique to lambast and frustrate people into this situation to discredit any arguments made on this important issue.
Essentially bs's manipulative techniques have nothing to do with support for nuclear power and more to do with his need to create this consternation within people. Simply put, if you are wondering why bs does this I suggest it is because he needs to to feel relevant.
In examining bs's arguments about nuclear power he cares less about that than the emotional reactions that he is provoking, you may recognize this when engaging in a conversation with him.
You claim we can make wind and solar safer with better safety practices. I agree. Then you must also agree that we can make nuclear safety with better safety practices, no?
No, the two have nothing to do with each other. The Nuclear industry *itself* produced over thirty recommendations to make nuclear safer, they weren't adopted because it is too expensive.
If you refute this then I refute your claims of wind and solar being able to be made safer and we are back where we started.
You make childlike arguments.
Can we make wind and solar safer?
Yes, with roofing harnesses and standard safety improvement processes used by industry.
If yes then we can make nuclear safer.
Yes, however it's so expensive that no one can afford to build them. Only the Europeans were smart enough to pick up the four trains feature and incorporate it into the EPR design but even that leaves another 26 improvements out. Just as an exercise go figure out where the only EPR in the US is being built if you want to see where political and economic power rests in the US.
Do you see nuclear reactors being built underground, where they should be? So yes, nuclear can be made safer however it is very very very expensive.
Since nuclear is already safer than wind and solar by an order of magnitude or more then wind and solar have a far higher hurdle than nuclear power.
Fallacious logic designed to lambast and exhaust opponents into submitting.
If nuclear was safe the Price Anderson act would not exist however, since it does exist it proves that nuclear is still considered unsafe by professional risk assessors. So basically you're saying that solar and wind are much safer than nuclear and we should deploy large scale solar and wind installations and decentralize our grid.
Prove nuclear is safe and lobby to have the P.A act repealed. Does solar and wind need special corporate welfare to be successful, no. All of the success of solar and wind deployment are because they are commercially viable without all of the billions of dollars thrown at the nuclear industry. Citation: 2005 US Energy Policy Act.
Oh and by the way the Energy Act does not define Nuclear power as "renewable".
Oh, and you want to bring up deaths from Chernobyl? That was 30+ years ago. How about we compare modern nuclear power to modern wind and solar power? Then let's compare safety. You won't though. You can't. There is no comparison.
Oh please do. AP1000 is so much worse than SNUPPS and much much worse design than Three Mile Island so compare away.
However how can I pass up you comparing wind and solar to an INES level 7 nuclear accident that required an international effort to build "New Safe Containment" so they could start to demolish the building as an example of how safe nuclear power is.
You demonstrate that you are completely divorced from reality, however your antics ar
More speculation and no data. Try again. With data this time.
No, there are enough key words to overcome your alloplastic reasoning.
You don't care about data, all you care about is being as frustrating and annoying as possible so that people express that and you claim some moral superiority that somehow makes you "right".
It is clear you don't even care about nuclear power, it's just what you use to get whatever emotional reactions you seek from people because people have very polarized opinions on the subject. You project your troll mannerisms onto others with your techniques so you can claim they are trolls. You're skilled at it and I suggest that anyone who reads this is going to recognize what you do instantly.
Nuclear power is safer than anything else. We have the data. Show me otherwise.
Sure.
Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster
Chernobyl nuclear disaster
Windscale nuclear fire
Three_Mile_Island_accident
All INES 5 or greater nuclear disasters. If you claim they did no harm, prove it and go to Fukushima and help with the cleanup. I hear properties in the area are being given away. Prove that nuclear is safe by going to Fukushima reactor sites otherwise you are saying that nuclear has no place in our energy supply.
The existence of the Price Anderson Act "proves" nothing. If it's there then nuclear power is "proven" unsafe.
Yes, it is there and yes it proves that nuclear power is unsafe.
If we make attempts to repeal it then the nuclear industry is "proving" it does not care for the public and would leave people homeless and penniless in the case of an accident.
You are so manipulative with your appeal to authority designed to produce an emotional reaction. Anyone who reacts to your subtle troll is called a troll and anyone who argues your point you continue to play your will full ignorance until they give up.
Repealing the P.A act simply means the most dangerous NPPs, like Indian Point and Palo Verde shut down immediately. Then the rest of them progressively close down because their insurance regimen is bought into line with the conditions the rest of industry.
After that there is a massive jobs boom as existing NPPs turbines are converted to natural gas and all of the energy subsidies previously required to keep the nuclear industry afloat are diverted into advancing massive wind, solar and geothermal energy projects.
Nuclear power is keeping America, and many other countries, in poverty because the nuclear industry cares more about existing than whether it is contributing to the public good. Shutting down Nuclear would create the largest economic boom we have seen in our lifetimes.
The only thing the existence of Price Anderson proves is that federal programs are the closest things we have to immortality, once created they never die, even if their need has long since passed.
Then lobby to have it removed. You say Nuclear is the safest thing ever, prove it. Your own reasoning suggests the PA act is not necessary, so commit to your own argument and lobby to repeal the Price Anderson Act because if you don't it just proves that *everything* you say is a complete fabrication designed to frustrate people who simply cannot fathom how deliberately and willfully ignorant you are determined to be.
If you don't argue for removal of the unnecessary Price Anderson Act then it proves all of your posts are a construct to annoy and frustrate people.
You are only repeating yourself, nothing you said refutes what I said. Prove to me that wind and solar are safer, with science, or you've lost this argument. You proved nothing.
Moooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
You claim we can make wind and solar safer with better safety practices. I agree. Then you must also agree that we can make nuclear safety with better safety practices, no?
No, the two have nothing to do with each other. The Nuclear industry *itself* produced over thirty recommendations to make nuclear safer, they weren't adopted because it is too expensive.
If you refute this then I refute your claims of wind and solar being able to be made safer and we are back where we started.
You argue like a child.
Can we make wind and solar safer?
Yes, with roofing harnesses and standard safety improvement processes used by industry.
If yes then we can make nuclear safer.
Yes, however it's so expensive that no one can afford to build them. Only the Europeans were smart enough to pick up the four trains feature and incorporate it into the EPR design but even that leaves another 26 improvements out. Just as an exercise go figure out where the only EPR in the US is being built if you want to see where political and economic power rests in the US.
Do you see nuclear reactors being built underground, where they should be? So yes, nuclear can be made safer however it is very very very expensive.
Since nuclear is already safer than wind and solar by an order of magnitude or more then wind and solar have a far higher hurdle than nuclear power.
Fallacious logic designed to lambast and exhaust opponents into submitting.
If nuclear was safe the Price Anderson act would not exist however, since it does exist it proves that nuclear is still considered unsafe by professional risk assessors. So basically you're saying that solar and wind are much safer than nuclear and we should deploy large scale solar and wind installations and decentralize our grid.
Prove nuclear is safe and lobby to have the P.A act repealed. Does solar and wind need special corporate welfare to be successful, no. All of the success of solar and wind deployment are because they are commercially viable without all of the billions of dollars thrown at the nuclear industry. Citation: 2005 US Energy Policy Act.
Oh and by the way the Energy Act does not define Nuclear power as "renewable".
Oh, and you want to bring up deaths from Chernobyl? That was 30+ years ago. How about we compare modern nuclear power to modern wind and solar power? Then let's compare safety. You won't though. You can't. There is no comparison.
Oh please do. AP1000 is so much worse than SNUPPS and much much worse design than Three Mile Island so compare away and I hope the monkeys don;t hurt too much.
However how can I pass up you comparing wind and solar to an INES level 7 nuclear accident that required an international effort to build "New Safe Containment" so they could start to demolish the building as an example of how safe nuclear power is.
You demonstrate that you are completely divorced from reality, however your antics are completely hilarious so at least you haven't declined in how entertaining your mental gymnastics are. That really made me laugh.
Nuclear power has a very high safety record and you cannot show otherwise.
Of course not, otherwise the IAEA's useful idiots would not be able to make this argument.
If you could then you would not be discussing the equivalent of Unsafe at Any Speed when talking about automobile safety in 2019.
A car analogy, in 2019.
No one is going to build another RBMK. No one will bui
How about some data instead of grade school debate tactics?
You would do the Politburo proud.
Scaremonger all you want on nuclear power, it's still far safer than anything we have. If you deny that then you deny science. You are debating with emotion, not logic. How unscientific of you. Go outside and play, let the adults talk.
Looks like you're projecting again. You are the perfect Soviet blindseer.
I could also say that Chernobyl would not have been more than a short lived power outage if people used the correct safety equipment.
Or if they wern't trying to be good communists.
That includes the time vodka addled soviet bureaucrats decided it would be a good idea to bypass the safety systems to burn off some xenon that was poisoning the reactor core.
Do you taint everything with BS? Isn't the truth about the matter bad enough? They were running tests, they poisoned the reaction, changed shifts in the middle of the test to a crew with less experience. Same as the TEPCO board not bothering with safety upgrades. Both accidents prove nuclear can't be done safely because of human flaws from the control room all the way to the board.
Fortunately there are enough reasonable and sane people that can see what you are willfully ignorant to.
Again, prove solar and wind are safer than nuclear. I tried to find a better source for the numbers but they all point back to the same studies where nuclear beats them all.
No. There are politics to nuclear power structured into the law so you can have this argument. I get it, you see no place for solar, wind or geothermal so you believe we shouldn't even try and just do nuclear everything if everyone else wasn't so stupid. Even if we doubled current nuclear worldwide it would be 12% global electricity consumption, maybe, and impossible to fuel long term. Nuclear is simply a waste of resources. Awesome technology, ultimately pointless.
Every nuclear promise has come to naught, nuclear has already failed so instead of wasting our resources on something that provides no energy return it's time to try something different. You don't care what anyone else thinks when it comes to nuclear and I don't care what you think about renewable energy sources.
Everything else was speculation on what MIGHT happen. Well, lots of things might happen. A nuclear reactor might melt down.
Nuclear already has melted down.
Deaths from nuclear power don't happen all that often though, and when the safety systems are in place then it happens far less often.
IAEA has interdiction orders over all WHO publications about how many people actually died. That's why you get to say that. It doesn;t mean it's true, it doesn;t mean you are right all it means is you haven't read the IAEA charter to see how the propaganda is constructed.
Thanks for pointing that out.
Holy shit, dude! You had to post four replies? If I'm catching this kind of flak then I must be close to the target.
You're significantly overestimating your relevance.
Here's a couple more.
I asked you to show me the science. What you have shown me is numbers from a expert in information theory, not energy systems, everything I read within it are extreme cases of consumption.
The most glaring factor is that you are talking about an industry that has had no support and less than ten years to develop technology. Whereas Nuclear has had all the support it needs and more that it doesn't use and in 60 years the technology has barely made any progress.
I look forward to seeing how many more misrepresentations I can find in this.
but until then this "green new deal" is a bunch of nonsense from an ignorant bartender that happened to get elected to office.
They must be getting to you if you need to ad hom like that.
People tell me that "the science is settled". I agree, science tells us that without nuclear power we can look forward to poverty.
OK, where is it then? Show me the science that makes that ridiculous assertion.
Nuclear is the best choice we have for the future.
Well it's the future now and in 60 or so years Nuclear power has been one failure after another.
Maybe some new technology will come along to change that
Yes, Solar PV, Solar thermal, wind, geothermal, wave power have all come along in the meantime and changed that. All without the gererous subsidies that nuclear power gets in SEC 600 of the 2005 US energy policy act.
What you will also find there is that nuclear costs less in materials consumed,
Well it would seem that investors disagree. The AP1000 total concrete usage was lowered to make the reactor more affordable. The EPR reactor is a much better designed reactor in terms of safety and longevity, including being resistance to missile attacks. Your assertion is false.
and lives lost, than anything else available to us.
Less than coal, probably. Not less than solar or wind when people use the correct safety equipment so they don't fall off roofs.
If the goal is to reduce CO2 then we need nuclear power, as it has a lower carbon footprint than wind, solar, or geothermal.
Cite: http://cmo-ripu.blogspot.com/2...
You've rolled this out again. First the "blog" misrepresents the paper it is based on which is originally about human health and not a comparison of carbon sources from energy systems.
Also the paper *itself* neglects to take into account the human health implications from mine tailings and radon released from mining that finds its way into the water table.
The only way the carbon claim for nuclear can be made is when uranium mining is done with in-situ acid leach mining, which happens to be illegal in teh US and Russia.
Nuclear energy is a requirement of renewables because renewables are high risk with regard to extreme events,
The Fukushima Nuclear power plant was overwhelmed by an extreme natural event due to criminal negligence of the TEPCO board. We have seen that Nuclear power cannot be operated in very hot environments in France's heatwaves, floods for example and in the US. Pleanty of examples with a quick web search.
You would not be correct, but that's your opinion.
I think this paper supports your argument however it appears that some government web sites ( energy.gov) are still shutdown. You may find this article interesting.
What blindseer is saying is that solar, wind and geothermal are appropriate in civilian areas that aren't going to come under attack and they are an appropriate replacement for nuclear and coal. Blindseer is saying that "we don't need nuclear for civilian applications."
Nuclear energy is a requirement of renewables because renewables are high risk with regard to extreme events,
The Fukushima Nuclear power plant was overwhelmed by an extreme natural event due to criminal negligence of the TEPCO board. We have seen that Nuclear power cannot be operated in very hot environments in France's heatwaves, floods for example and in the US. Pleanty of examples with a quick web search.
Social media is starting to look like some sort of shared psychosis where people forget how to interact with other people and are only learning to interact with themselves. Especially because they only get attention in the form of likes which causes them to do ever more extreme things to get attention. This can't be a good thing for mental health.
I'm completely against censorship though because when people attempt to control the flow of ideas they are assuming a dictatorial role which, in and of itself, imbues the censor with a sense of power that corrupts them no matter how pure their intentions or morals are. Communism and fascism has shown us just how bad this can become.
So whilst picture of self harm are extreme images, that I personally would not like to view, they do serve as an indicator of the amount of mental sickness we have in society. In reality the images are people screaming for help that warns others and the censor becomes the enabler that allows the shared psychosis to go unchallenged in society.
This is the heavy burden of responsibility we all share for maintaining free speech no matter how ugly it becomes because the people who do this are the "canary in a cage" warning us that our society has a problem.
You're asserting that the NSA put the backdoor into D-Link products without proving the NSA did that, and frankly that's not credible given the sophistication level.
The backdoor could simply be one of many hard to find bugs in the functionality of anything. The NSA doesn't have to "put" them there, they have to find them.
There are 400 tons of radio isotope laden water being released into the Pacific everyday from the Fukushima NPP disaster. That's over one million tons and counting.
As radio isotopes propagates into the Pacific and through the foodchain anticipate a steady decline in the birthrate from failed pregnancies and an increased prevalence of transgenic disease from the pregnancies that are successful over the coming decades.
We need an international effort to bring the Fukushima nuclear disaster under control to stop it from releasing anything as part of our responsibility to future generations.
That implies that the hypervisor doing the monitoring is in the CPU scheduler and running on a core all the time. Wouldn't that introduce exactly the same performance penalty as just disabling the branch prediction in first place?
Nuclear Power is a dumb way to boil water.
Coal for the win! MAGA!
I don't support coal either.
So long as we don't use a reactor from sixty years ago, yes.
It is possible to make new designs that are worse.
They likely have.
I'll go with evidence over conjecture.
In Fukushima, the chain of events was something like this -
You forgot -1) TEPCO didn't move the back-up generators from a flood prone area and 0) TEPCO colluded so they wouldn't have to set aside budget for sea wall improvements.
The HPR1000 design addresses several of the issues.
The core, fundamental design flaw with the AP1000 is multifaceted. It employs a passive cooling system which converts the containment building into a pressure vessel. A feature that has never been tested with reactor experience on a smaller reactor. It has several areas that are prone to corrosion and inaccessible for inspection or maintenance. Finally its thermal containment ratio, the amount of energy vs concrete in the containment vessel, was reduced to make the AP1000 cheaper because less concrete was required to build it. It has much less concrete than Three Mile Island used.
Before launching into a explanation of the simulated tests what they don't account for is that neutron pulses from plutonium banging embrittles concrete so that it crumbles. No amount of "workarounds" are going to avoid that so it will work fine until it doesn't and then it is unpredictable.
Let's hope they have studied the the Fukupshima NPP and learned something.
They are very protective of their citizenry https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
This is one reason why Communism terrifies me.