# Has Commercial Nuclear Power been "Regulated" Out of Existence in the U.S.?



## DGS49 (May 12, 2020)

While it is never acknowledged by the political Left, the American Commercial Nuclear Power industry has the best safety record of any industry in all of human history.  Since its inception in the early 1950's there has not been a single radiation-related fatality - or even sickness - in the entire industry.  The safety precautions that are mandated and followed in nuclear power stations are SO thorough and SO all-encompassing that the cancer rate for nuclear power employees is lower than for the general population (same for the Nuclear Navy).

You might ask, "What about THREE MILE ISLAND???"  Well, what about it?  Not a single injury or fatality, not even a mild case of radiation sickness.  Nothing.  Just a lot of hysteria, largely fueled by the unfortunate coincidence of this relatively insignificant accident with the film, "The China Syndrome."

There is no doubt that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission takes great pride in this accomplishment, and in a sense it should.  Many of the precautions that maintain this incredible safety record come directly from that august body.

But the NRC has, in its neurotic enthusiasm, created a situation where a new nuclear power plant is, for all practical purposes, *infinitely expensive*.  Permitting alone can take ten years.  Manufacturing and construction are so restrictively managed that they are at least 2-3 times more costly than would be building exactly the same facilities for some other normally-regulated purpose.

I worked in Purchasing for a nuclear power company for a few years, and imagine the cost impact of buying a normal commercial item - say a large industrial valve or pump - for which *the warranty will not start for three or four years*, and even that date is highly speculative, given the regulatory environment.  We were paying 3-5 times the Catalog Price of standard commercial equipment, mainly so that the manufacturer could cover the expected warranty risk.

But this regulatory micro-management is not necessary.  Even though the current designs are "new," they are all based on proven designs, and the improvements simply make them safer than the existing plants that have been in service - some of them - for more than thirty years.  The latest major innovations render "meltdown" impossible, as the cooling water continues to flow even when the reactor is dormant (but still hot).

Having virtually given up on building a safe, proven nuclear power plant of conventional size, the industry pins its hopes on Small Modular Reactors ("SMR's") which can be pre-manufactured and delivered to a site, and combined with other similar reactors to meet the needs of that utility.  Good luck with that.

But it represents the Industry just throwing up its hands and acknowledging that the regulatory framework makes building a nuclear power plant impossible, even though we have the technology to do it in an economically feasible manner - even with natural gas breathing down its figurative neck.  The actual cost of nuclear power is microscopic; you are simply controlling a natural phenomenon and siphoning off the heat that it generates.

Mark it well: we have foolishly and neurotically regulated this industry out of existence at a time when "we" claim to need sources of energy that do not generate greenhouse gases.

We have met the enemy and...well, you know the rest.


----------



## evenflow1969 (May 12, 2020)

DGS49 said:


> While it is never acknowledged by the political Left, the American Commercial Nuclear Power industry has the best safety record of any industry in all of human history.  Since its inception in the early 1950's there has not been a single radiation-related fatality - or even sickness - in the entire industry.  The safety precautions that are mandated and followed in nuclear power stations are SO thorough and SO all-encompassing that the cancer rate for nuclear power employees is lower than for the general population (same for the Nuclear Navy).
> 
> You might ask, "What about THREE MILE ISLAND???"  Well, what about it?  Not a single injury or fatality, not even a mild case of radiation sickness.  Nothing.  Just a lot of hysteria, largely fueled by the unfortunate coincidence of this relatively insignificant accident with the film, "The China Syndrome."
> 
> ...


 it has not. I  pay to subsidize Davis Bessy all the time. It was extended this year. It should not have to be subsidized.


----------



## martybegan (May 12, 2020)

DGS49 said:


> While it is never acknowledged by the political Left, the American Commercial Nuclear Power industry has the best safety record of any industry in all of human history.  Since its inception in the early 1950's there has not been a single radiation-related fatality - or even sickness - in the entire industry.  The safety precautions that are mandated and followed in nuclear power stations are SO thorough and SO all-encompassing that the cancer rate for nuclear power employees is lower than for the general population (same for the Nuclear Navy).
> 
> You might ask, "What about THREE MILE ISLAND???"  Well, what about it?  Not a single injury or fatality, not even a mild case of radiation sickness.  Nothing.  Just a lot of hysteria, largely fueled by the unfortunate coincidence of this relatively insignificant accident with the film, "The China Syndrome."
> 
> ...



The issue with Fission based power is that the first big accident in the US would be the last, because every plant would be shut down in days or weeks due to the incredible spike in liability costs. 

I know some regulations are merely paperwork producers, but the stellar safety record on the Nuclear Industry in the US is based on heavy regulation, and adherence to those regulations. Any reducing of those regulations, while helping with the cost of design, development, and operation of said plants, risks lowering the safety margin these plants rely on.


----------



## Maxdeath (May 12, 2020)

DGS49 said:


> While it is never acknowledged by the political Left, the American Commercial Nuclear Power industry has the best safety record of any industry in all of human history.  Since its inception in the early 1950's there has not been a single radiation-related fatality - or even sickness - in the entire industry.  The safety precautions that are mandated and followed in nuclear power stations are SO thorough and SO all-encompassing that the cancer rate for nuclear power employees is lower than for the general population (same for the Nuclear Navy).
> 
> You might ask, "What about THREE MILE ISLAND???"  Well, what about it?  Not a single injury or fatality, not even a mild case of radiation sickness.  Nothing.  Just a lot of hysteria, largely fueled by the unfortunate coincidence of this relatively insignificant accident with the film, "The China Syndrome."
> 
> ...


The biggest problem with nuclear is the waste. You can not go near it for thousands of years. We are leaving a trap for our prodigy. Will they have any idea not to enter an area so full of nuclear waste? We have no idea.


----------



## martybegan (May 12, 2020)

Maxdeath said:


> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> > While it is never acknowledged by the political Left, the American Commercial Nuclear Power industry has the best safety record of any industry in all of human history.  Since its inception in the early 1950's there has not been a single radiation-related fatality - or even sickness - in the entire industry.  The safety precautions that are mandated and followed in nuclear power stations are SO thorough and SO all-encompassing that the cancer rate for nuclear power employees is lower than for the general population (same for the Nuclear Navy).
> ...



The waste is usually manageable, and what is created per unit power generated is miniscule compared to other waste streams for other power sources. (remember combustion products from fossil fuel power generation is a waste stream). 

The key is proper labelling, design of containment, and location of containment. If we get to a point where the labels aren't maintained or understood we are probably looking at a planet of the apes level collapse of civilization anyway.


----------



## Maxdeath (May 12, 2020)

martybegan said:


> Maxdeath said:
> 
> 
> > DGS49 said:
> ...


Look back a couple thousand years what language was spoken here? What language was spoken in Italy? I don't seem to remember a planet of the apes style collapse in my history books.
Perhaps you would be so kind as to point out my lack of education on that matter? 
How many cities have been discovered over the last hundred years that were unknown to us? Care to guess that it was more then one? If we can forget the location of even one city than how would it be such a stretch of the imagination to forget the location of even one depository?


----------



## martybegan (May 12, 2020)

Maxdeath said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Maxdeath said:
> ...



They didn't have the level of technological ability we have, both with regards to the storage of, and dissemination of, information. Also you are talking about cities, not intentionally designed isolation facilities for nuclear waste. Waste Depositories would be placed in the middle of nowhere, probably buried deep inside a  mountain, then re-enforced with tons of concrete and steel. Access would be limited, and multiple layers of warnings and control methods would be used for any access. 

In a few thousand years one would hope anyone "stumbling" into something like this would still have the cognitive ability to recognize warning signs and giant radiation symbols all over the place if they decided to dig into one of these repositories.


----------



## ReinyDays (May 12, 2020)

January 3rd, 1961 ...
Stationary Low-Power Reactor Number One, Idaho Falls, Idaho ...

RIP:
John A. Byrnes
Richard Leroy McKinley
Richard C. Legg

These three are the only _immediate_ deaths from a nuclear power plant ...
All the other deaths in the USA seem to be from radiation poisoning ...

U.S. Nuclear Accidents --- Allen Lutins --- Aug 12th, 2019
Never heard of this guy ... but I confirmed the SL-1 information I posted against Wikipedia and it's accurate ...

*"Since its inception in the early 1950's there has not been a single radiation-related fatality - or even sickness - in the entire industry.*"

I'm sorry ... that's not true ... not even close ... 

*HOWEVER* ... I agree with your points, the nuclear industry has an extremely good safety record ... right up there with the airline industry ... but like the airline industry ... the smallest of mishaps can lead to a massive catastrophe ... again just like the airline industry ... 90% of these mishaps are *operator error* ... 

TMI reactor #1 was shut down for maintenance and seemed a good time to do some preventive maintenance on TMI #2 even though #2 was still up and running, what harm could come of that? ... human error ...

"Geez, the core isn't producing enough heat, let's pull the control rods _completely out_ and see if we can't pick it a bit" ... human error ...

There hadn't been a destructive tsunami on the east coast of Japan in 75 years, must be physically impossible to happen anymore ... human error ...

Underground we can pack nuclear waste as tightly as we can without a worry ... human error ...

We can build a nuclear power plant that's perfectly safe ... *if and only if* we never allow humans in ...


----------



## there4eyeM (May 12, 2020)

There are any number of shortcomings about nukes. Waste is a big one. That they maintain centralization of power is another. Their operation and maintenance is dependent upon a small 'priesthood' of engineers and highly trained technicians. If anything happens to them (like, for instance, a major plague of other health mishap), what would happen?
The very best hope for the future is solar power and other renewables. This is so obvious that even saying it seems ridiculous, yet we see so many people so dedicatedly opposed to the independence and self sufficiency this would mean.


----------



## Maxdeath (May 12, 2020)

martybegan said:


> Maxdeath said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


So did recognize any of the languages spoken two thousand years ago at first sight? A lot of waste is being stored in an old salt mine. Remember the Washington state spill a few years back. If you really want to learn do a quick search of nuclear waste accidents.


----------



## Maxdeath (May 12, 2020)

there4eyeM said:


> There are any number of shortcomings about nukes. Waste is a big one. That they maintain centralization of power is another. Their operation and maintenance is dependent upon a small 'priesthood' of engineers and highly trained technicians. If anything happens to them (like, for instance, a major plague of other health mishap), what would happen?
> The very best hope for the future is solar power and other renewables. This is so obvious that even saying it seems ridiculous, yet we see so many people so dedicatedly opposed to the independence and self sufficiency this would mean.


Actually I tend to believe that nuclear fusion is the way we will end up going. Renewables is a nice cottage industry.


----------



## jwoodie (May 12, 2020)

Maxdeath said:


> The biggest problem with nuclear is the waste. You can not go near it for thousands of years. We are leaving a trap for our prodigy. Will they have any idea not to enter an area so full of nuclear waste? We have no idea.



According to the Climate Nazis, we will all be toasted by Global Warming from fossil fuels before that happens.


----------



## martybegan (May 12, 2020)

Maxdeath said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Maxdeath said:
> ...



If in 1000 years they are too dumb to ignore the visual warnings, and the fact they have to dig/cut/burn through several containment structures and vessels, i say fuck em.


----------



## martybegan (May 12, 2020)

there4eyeM said:


> There are any number of shortcomings about nukes. Waste is a big one. That they maintain centralization of power is another. Their operation and maintenance is dependent upon a small 'priesthood' of engineers and highly trained technicians. If anything happens to them (like, for instance, a major plague of other health mishap), what would happen?
> The very best hope for the future is solar power and other renewables. This is so obvious that even saying it seems ridiculous, yet we see so many people so dedicatedly opposed to the independence and self sufficiency this would mean.



Renewables require those same engineers and technicians if you want to keep power going when it is dark or raining. Batteries don't grow on trees, especially ones that can handle a base load for a house for 3-5 days.


----------



## there4eyeM (May 12, 2020)

Cue the naysayers.


----------



## ReinyDays (May 12, 2020)

We need to start from scratch with our nuclear designs ... first getting rid of water as the primary coolant ... molten sodium has the advantage of not vaporizing at reactor core temperatures ... second we need to go with the "breeder" design, I don't know the details, only that these types of plants are very expensive to build but produce far less waste ...

Fossil fuels won't last forever ... and we'll run out of inexpensive fossil fuels first ... either we severely reduce our energy use, or start building nuclear power plants ... solar/wind/hydro are great where these resources are abundant, elsewhere not so good ... I'm on BPA, so it's the rest of you who have a problem ...


----------



## Maxdeath (May 12, 2020)

martybegan said:


> Maxdeath said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


That's assuming some one never makes a mistake or we don't have a leak into the ground water.


----------



## martybegan (May 12, 2020)

Maxdeath said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Maxdeath said:
> ...



If you create impossible conditions for something you make it impossible. The concept is risk mitigation, not risk elimination. 

The idea is to layer the defenses so just one or two mistakes or incidents don't lead to total failure. 

If you look at most disasters, one bad thing isn't usually enough, it requires a sequence of bad events for the worst to happen.


----------



## Maxdeath (May 12, 2020)

martybegan said:


> Maxdeath said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


Sometimes it isn't just layered defenses. 
Love canal comes to mind.
The release of chemical gases in India.
Chernobyl, three mile island. Fukushima.
Numerous leaks of radioactive waste.
We have been lucky. Can we hope that we can continue with luck? 
Even if it is not completely man made, nature has shown us that we are not masters of this world no matter what we think.


----------



## EvilCat Breath (May 12, 2020)

We are not going to have nuclear power in this country.  Those countries that have it are moving away.  Italy, France and Germany are all closing their nuclear power plants.


----------



## martybegan (May 12, 2020)

Maxdeath said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Maxdeath said:
> ...



TMI doesn't belong with the other two, hell even Fukishima doesn't belong with chernobyl.

In all the cases, multiple mistakes had to be made before anything really bad happened.

If you are that afraid of everything I suggest you find some place in the woods and build a concrete cabin with 4 ft thick walls and hide until you die of old age.


----------



## martybegan (May 12, 2020)

Tipsycatlover said:


> We are not going to have nuclear power in this country.  Those countries that have it are moving away.  Italy, France and Germany are all closing their nuclear power plants.



France is closing their plants? Evidence please.


----------



## Maxdeath (May 12, 2020)

martybegan said:


> Maxdeath said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


The funny thing is you can argue until you are blue in the face but they were all problems at nuclear facilities or man made problems as in love canal. 
Lol. Actually I am not afraid of much at all. I understand that you want to believe that you understand things but I think you are going to find out that there are others in the world that will put a halt to nuclear energy.


----------



## martybegan (May 12, 2020)

Maxdeath said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Maxdeath said:
> ...



1 catastrophic accident caused by a shitty design, shitty management, and shitty culture. 1 bad accident caused by a 40 ft tall wall of water and incompetence, and one overblown accident caused by poor operational awareness. 

I'll put my engineering degree up against whatever basketweaving education you have any day of the week.


----------



## Maxdeath (May 12, 2020)

martybegan said:


> Maxdeath said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


And yet all three of those were nuclear accidents. Unless you want to try and call them home accidents. 
So how do you think that the next accident will go? Will we be lucky or unlucky?
Glad to see you are so upset. Do things always upset you when everyone doesn't bow down and fall in line with your way of thinking?


----------



## martybegan (May 12, 2020)

Maxdeath said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Maxdeath said:
> ...



The thing with accidents is you learn from each one. It's why air travel becomes safer every year. 

And to me Chernobyl wasn't an accident, it was willful negligence from design to operation.


----------



## Maxdeath (May 12, 2020)

martybegan said:


> Maxdeath said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


Ok so what did we learn from Fukushima? Not to build nuclear reactors where they come in contact with nature. There are how many areas that could be hit by nature?


----------



## martybegan (May 13, 2020)

Maxdeath said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Maxdeath said:
> ...



Place your emergency generators somewhere where they can't be flooded out. Place the fuel for them likewise. Increase your emergency fuel supply. 

We also learned that a containment structure will keep most of the core material in place.


----------



## petro (May 13, 2020)

martybegan said:


> Maxdeath said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


I would think by that time we would have a safer way to reach orbit. Put the waste on the moon, or set it on a trajectory to the sun.


----------



## martybegan (May 13, 2020)

petro said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Maxdeath said:
> ...



Both are more risky then just burying it or storing it in some nice thick rock formation well above the water table.


----------



## Maxdeath (May 13, 2020)

martybegan said:


> Maxdeath said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


Place them where they can't be flooded out. On top of a mountain?
Yes indeed most of the core material. Got to love the most part of that. In other words loss of some is acceptable.


----------



## martybegan (May 13, 2020)

Maxdeath said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Maxdeath said:
> ...



Or build a better sea-wall, another plant in Japan had a bigger one and came out just fine. 

The containment worked for the most part, as opposed to no containment at Chernobyl. The only hotspot really remaining at Fukushima is the plant itself, similar to TMI, but larger in scope.


----------



## Maxdeath (May 13, 2020)

martybegan said:


> Maxdeath said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


So we just need to fiqure out how to build something that nature can't tear down. Right... Again for the most part. So of course after two or three thousand years both will be safe. 
We don't need to worry. We just need to build things that nature or man can't get into or destroy. Then if we don't we can be very happy and celebrate that only a potion of the core material is gone. Because only a portion is now considered acceptable. Then all we have to do is again try to build something that can withstand nature and humans for two or three thousand years.

Do you remember what was said about doing the same thing over and over again?


----------



## martybegan (May 13, 2020)

Maxdeath said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Maxdeath said:
> ...



So The Nuclear Industry is the only one you want to apply a Zero Risk principle towards, while other energy generation methods are allowed a lesser standard?


----------



## martybegan (May 13, 2020)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Maxdeath said:
> ...



"stream" not "steam".  

Flue gas is a waste stream, even if energy recovery methods can be used to get some value out of them.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (May 13, 2020)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Maxdeath said:
> ...



My mistake.  I guess I should clean my glasses!


----------



## Dick Foster (May 13, 2020)

DGS49 said:


> While it is never acknowledged by the political Left, the American Commercial Nuclear Power industry has the best safety record of any industry in all of human history.  Since its inception in the early 1950's there has not been a single radiation-related fatality - or even sickness - in the entire industry.  The safety precautions that are mandated and followed in nuclear power stations are SO thorough and SO all-encompassing that the cancer rate for nuclear power employees is lower than for the general population (same for the Nuclear Navy).
> 
> You might ask, "What about THREE MILE ISLAND???"  Well, what about it?  Not a single injury or fatality, not even a mild case of radiation sickness.  Nothing.  Just a lot of hysteria, largely fueled by the unfortunate coincidence of this relatively insignificant accident with the film, "The China Syndrome."
> 
> ...


We would do well to sit down and reevaluate our approach as well as our collective resistance toward nuclear energy. There just happens to be a better alternative at hand in thorium fueled liquid fluoride cooled nuclear fission reactors. They answer many of the shortcomings involved with uranium fueled light water cooled reactors common throughout the industry today. So called LFTRs were sucessfully developed in the late 50s and early 60s and only need to be implements in large part, there are no problems with physics to overcome. Oddly enough one of the attractive features with LFTRs is why the NRC and others stifled it's development and implementation. That is its inability to create weapons grade fissionable products  for use in nuclear weapons. Today that would seem a huge benefit. There are other very attractive features compared to today's nuclear technology and it's all well documented and easy to bone up on via the internet. One need only search on thorium or LFTR.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (May 13, 2020)

Dick Foster said:


> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> > While it is never acknowledged by the political Left, the American Commercial Nuclear Power industry has the best safety record of any industry in all of human history.  Since its inception in the early 1950's there has not been a single radiation-related fatality - or even sickness - in the entire industry.  The safety precautions that are mandated and followed in nuclear power stations are SO thorough and SO all-encompassing that the cancer rate for nuclear power employees is lower than for the general population (same for the Nuclear Navy).
> ...



Regular nuclear power plants do not create plutonium.  The reason those reactors are not used is that they do not work efficiently, cost vs. power produced.  If it did, the Air Force would have nuclear powered aircraft for the past 50 years.

Look at what happened with Russia's nuclear powered cruise missile that led to a nuclear disaster at one of its facilities.


----------



## Maxdeath (May 13, 2020)

martybegan said:


> Maxdeath said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


No I would love it if everything man did was zero risk. But  no matter what he does there will never be zero risk. We have had fire for centuries yet it is not zero risk.
The only thing is if you blow up and completely level a natural gas electrical generation plant there is little to no risk of the ground being uninhabitable for generations. There is no risk of wind blowing hazardous radiation to other areas.

Man is an inherently risk taking animal. If he were not he would never have done more the eat, sleep and shit. Every time we get on a plane, car or even walk across the street we take risks. We risked many times going into space or going to the moon. We risk many lives every time a submarine leaves port. But as I pointed out if an aircraft fails only those immediately affected are lost. And yes that takes into account anyone hit by it.
If a nuclear reactor fails how many are affected? What would be an acceptable loss? For how many years are we going to hope that the area affected won't be used, traveled or visited?


----------



## martybegan (May 13, 2020)

Maxdeath said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Maxdeath said:
> ...



It depends on the level of failure. Based on US experience with our one accident, the affected area is the reactor itself. For Fukushima the long term impact is the reactor complex itself. Only Chernobyl has had quantifiable long term impacts over a wide area, and even those appear to be mitigating faster than we expected.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (May 13, 2020)

martybegan said:


> Maxdeath said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



I guess you are unfamiliar with the radioactive water leaking from Fukushima.


----------



## Maxdeath (May 13, 2020)

martybegan said:


> Maxdeath said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


So we are always going to have success. There will never be a natural or man made disaster? No foreign or domestic terrorism successful cause of catastrophic failure? 
I have no doubt that  the Titanic, Apollo 13 and others felt the same way. No chance that anything could go wrong. I have no doubt that the most of the people that boarded and flew the planes that hit the World Trade Center felt that there was nothing that could go wrong.

The simple matter is things do go wrong. Hiding from that fact or trying to gloss over it does not make it go away.


----------



## martybegan (May 13, 2020)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Maxdeath said:
> ...



How much is still leaving the plant? The Wiki article only has a number for 2013, tells about containment procedures, and then doesn't say anything.


----------



## martybegan (May 13, 2020)

Maxdeath said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Maxdeath said:
> ...



After Titanic did we stop using Ocean Liners? 

After Apollo 13 we never went into space again?

Where did I say things never go wrong? You are the one trying to apply a zero risk standard to one particular thing you don't like while being evasive about it.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (May 13, 2020)

martybegan said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



No one knows.  That is the scary part!  The area of leakage is still flooded.


----------



## martybegan (May 13, 2020)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> ...



Is it no one knows, or is it the amount getting out to the environment is not something to worry about?

CS-137 is one of the most measured for isotopes out there, and any large concentration would be pretty easy to find and monitor. 

If a small amount is getting out into the Ocean, dilution and dispersion might be reducing the signature to background levels within a short distance of the leak source.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (May 13, 2020)

martybegan said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



That would be great if the radiation was not found along the waters of the west coast of the US.


----------



## martybegan (May 13, 2020)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> ...



How long ago? How much above background levels? you do realize that radiation will ALWAYS be found pretty much everywhere, due to things like cosmic rays, decay of naturally occurring radioactive soils/rock, and even the residues of previous atomic tests?

The question is if these values exceed background in sufficent amounts to be harmful.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (May 13, 2020)

martybegan said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



What we consider less than harmful is often very harmful. My doctor is concerned because of my radiation exposure in the military leading to my current health issues.

Also, since when is Cesium naturally occuring?


----------



## martybegan (May 13, 2020)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> ...



CS-137 isn't, but at the same time it isn't some magical isotope that produces super duper radiation different from the natural (and bomb test related) background dosing always going on. If only present in small amounts it can get lost in the natural background dosing we experience every year. 

And as for your first statement, there is no concrete evidence either way regarding the effects of low but higher than baseline doses of ionizing radiation over time.


----------



## 22lcidw (May 13, 2020)

Maxdeath said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Maxdeath said:
> ...


Was it possible to build a wall around the buildings that needed it? The costs would not have been so much.


----------



## Maxdeath (May 13, 2020)

22lcidw said:


> Maxdeath said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


And a wall does what as far as containing radiation? A wall stops an earthquake exactly how? A wall stops a terrorist, it might slow them down.


----------



## martybegan (May 13, 2020)

22lcidw said:


> Maxdeath said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



They had a seawall around the facility, it just wasn't big enough. The design was for a 20ft Tsunami and they got a 40ft tsunami.

Another facility had a wall that protected itself adequately.


----------



## Maxdeath (May 13, 2020)

martybegan said:


> Maxdeath said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


No I am just being realistic you are claiming we have had three problems which were no big deal.
Here is a list of known problems. List of nuclear and radiation accidents by death toll - Wikipedia
I really want to know what do you consider acceptable losses just to have nuclear reactors? Where do we say that it might be too dangerous? When a whole area is uninhabitable.? 
You do realize that Chernobyl is not the only reactor based on that design?


----------



## candycorn (May 14, 2020)

DGS49 said:


> While it is never acknowledged by the political Left, the American Commercial Nuclear Power industry has the best safety record of any industry in all of human history.  Since its inception in the early 1950's there has not been a single radiation-related fatality - or even sickness - in the entire industry.  The safety precautions that are mandated and followed in nuclear power stations are SO thorough and SO all-encompassing that the cancer rate for nuclear power employees is lower than for the general population (same for the Nuclear Navy).
> 
> You might ask, "What about THREE MILE ISLAND???"  Well, what about it?  Not a single injury or fatality, not even a mild case of radiation sickness.  Nothing.  Just a lot of hysteria, largely fueled by the unfortunate coincidence of this relatively insignificant accident with the film, "The China Syndrome."
> 
> ...



Agreed. 

They've been in the navy for about 60 years now with an excellent safety record in very hazardous conditions. However that is due to the stringent safeguards and training that Navy personnel undergo.  So I say relax the regulations but have the Navy manage the plants that get built. They've proven they can do it as well as can be expected.


----------



## DGS49 (May 15, 2020)

The "problem" of nuclear waste (spent fuel) is self-imposed and largely political.  Spent fuel can be reprocessed and re-used indefinitely.  We have CHOSEN, for political reasons not to re-process spent fuel, because the process can also be used to produce weapons-grade material (as the Iranians are currently doing - or threatening to do).

Nobody will ever build a nuclear power plant in an active seismic zone again.

Nuclear waste can safely be stored "forever" in underground salt deposits such as WIPP.  Last I checked, WIPP was closed to additional  storage due a "marx brothers" type episode due to storage of materials in the wrong type of kitty litter. (which spontaneously combusts).

We are all aware - are we not? - that we are all surrounded by nuclear radiation ALL THE TIME, more in airplanes, more in certain geographical areas, etc.  As with all poisons (1) it's completely harmless until it isn't, (2) it may be beneficial at certain levels, and (3) too much will kill you.


----------



## Silver Cat (May 15, 2020)

Maxdeath said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Maxdeath said:
> ...


Thats what we call "risk management". Chernobyl is at the one of the last places in the list of Ukrainian problems. 
So if we have a choice - to raise nuclear industry, be wealthy and powerful, and have one another accident; or to be powerless and poor, lost Alaska but live in the "green" environment - what would you choose?


----------



## Silver Cat (May 15, 2020)

Maxdeath said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Maxdeath said:
> ...


Things can really go wrong. For example, Russians can invade Alaska. No nuclear power means no military industry, no military power means the possibility of the foreign invasion.


----------



## HenryBHough (May 16, 2020)

We wouldn't need nearly so much power if all the liberal trolls on this board just kept their rants to maximum two (2, liberals) lines.


----------



## Maxdeath (May 16, 2020)

Silver Cat said:


> Maxdeath said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


So give me an exact number of lives that your " risk management " is willing to sacrifice. A hundred, a thousand, a hundred thousand, a million? Give me a number.


----------



## Maxdeath (May 16, 2020)

Silver Cat said:


> Maxdeath said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


No unicorns might mean that hill trolls might invade.


----------



## Silver Cat (May 16, 2020)

Maxdeath said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> > Maxdeath said:
> ...


How many lives we can lost in a big war against China and Russia? Tens of millions.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (May 16, 2020)

DGS49 said:


> The "problem" of nuclear waste (spent fuel) is self-imposed and largely political.  Spent fuel can be reprocessed and re-used indefinitely.  We have CHOSEN, for political reasons not to re-process spent fuel, because the process can also be used to produce weapons-grade material (as the Iranians are currently doing - or threatening to do).
> 
> Nobody will ever build a nuclear power plant in an active seismic zone again.
> 
> ...



Where on earth is there NOT an active seismic zone?


----------



## Silver Cat (May 16, 2020)

Maxdeath said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> > Maxdeath said:
> ...


You're beggining to understand. If we don't demonstrate the progress in the bioengeneering, our enemies might do it. Any decision have its own risks.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (May 16, 2020)

Silver Cat said:


> Maxdeath said:
> 
> 
> > Silver Cat said:
> ...


A big war with China and Russia will eradicate almost all of human life.
That is why the prospect is unthinkable.


----------



## Silver Cat (May 16, 2020)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> > Maxdeath said:
> ...


It's just another environmentalistic nonsense and nucleophobia.
Even if both sides will play "Mad butcher" plan,  both sides ABD is blinded, it means death of 200-500 millions. Less than 10% of the world population. In more realistic and useful scenarios the first nuclear exchange takes away much less lives.


----------



## Silver Cat (May 16, 2020)

And yes: less weapon we can make - more chances to be attacked.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (May 16, 2020)

Silver Cat said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> > Silver Cat said:
> ...


Where did you come up with this bullshit?  I served on several nuclear capable ships during my time and nukes are no joke.


----------



## Silver Cat (May 16, 2020)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> > Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> ...


I don't say that millions of killed can be a joke. 
But you can count it by yourself.


----------



## Andylusion (May 16, 2020)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Maxdeath said:
> ...


 insignificant.


----------



## Andylusion (May 16, 2020)

Maxdeath said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Maxdeath said:
> ...



I don't see anyone here, suggesting we blindly forest gump our way into nuclear power.

I don't see anyone saying that if we just do X then nothing will ever go wrong ever again.

What I do see people suggesting is that, Nuclear power is the future, because it is.   It simply is.   There is no other source of nearly unlimited consistent power.   And the sooner the older generation with their backward beliefs about how horrible nuclear power is, the sooner life will improve for the world.

Will there be accidents?  Sure.

Again, this like Corona.  Yeah we can all live in the basements until we all commit suicide from isolation and depression... but at least no one will die of Corona.

Yeah, we can all live like we're in the Congo, and be backward people living in wood heated huts.

But that isn't what most people want, or are willing to put up with.  People need power.   And if you want power that does not pollute or have smoke stacks, then nuclear power is the viable option.

Renewables are a failure.  Anyone can see this, if they look at how things are playing out.   With hundreds of billions spent, if not trillions world wide, all renewable energy sources combined, is barely 6% of world wide energy production.

Nuclear is the magic source of power.  There is nothing else.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (May 16, 2020)

Andylusion said:


> Maxdeath said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



I don't think there is much need for heat in the mud huts of the Congo.  Just saying!

Otherwise, you are spot on!


----------



## Silver Cat (May 16, 2020)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > Maxdeath said:
> ...


They need heat to melt metals.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (May 16, 2020)

Silver Cat said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> > Andylusion said:
> ...


Do you melt metals in your house, dumbass!


----------



## Silver Cat (May 16, 2020)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> > Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> ...


Sometimes yes (not steel, of course). But a mud hut can be not only a house, it can be a smithy too.


----------



## Maxdeath (May 16, 2020)

Silver Cat said:


> Maxdeath said:
> 
> 
> > Silver Cat said:
> ...


And yet you have not placed a number on how many you are willing to sacrifice?
We could also go to war against Switzerland. So why bother with the idea that war is a be all end all?


----------



## Maxdeath (May 16, 2020)

Andylusion said:


> Maxdeath said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


So I will ask you how many are you willing to sacrifice for nuclear power?
If you had kept up you would have seen that I said that renewables were a cottage industry. You would also see what I proposed in stead of our current nuclear program. 
But I guess that is too much for a short attention span. 
But I am not going to repeat myself just for you.


----------



## Andylusion (May 16, 2020)

Silver Cat said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> > Silver Cat said:
> ...



Well right, I was watching a video from the Congo, where the government banned the use of gas powered generators, because that causes pollution.

So this local doctors office, again, funded by the government, had a set of solar panels.

The result was, they could either plug in their doctor equipment, or they could plug in the refrigerator, that held the medications.  But they couldn't do both.

Additionally, if it wasn't sunny out that day, sometimes fridge would run out of power at night, since the battery didn't charge during the day.

Otherwise they had no lights.  So at night, they either lit candles, or....  the doctors office was closed.  Don't get sick at night.

My point is, if you want to backward in time, then we don't need nuclear power.

But if you want anything resembling modern civilization, then we need nuclear power.  There is no known alternative.


----------



## Maxdeath (May 16, 2020)

Silver Cat said:


> Maxdeath said:
> 
> 
> > Silver Cat said:
> ...


So you actually think that there are unicorns and hill trolls? 
I have read funny but that is extremely funny


----------



## Andylusion (May 16, 2020)

Maxdeath said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > Maxdeath said:
> ...



No one in the US has died from nuclear power yet.  I see no reason, anyone must die.

In fact, more people have died from conventional power, than nuclear power world wide.

The better question is, how many millions are you willing sacrifice to avoid using nuclear power?

Again, there is no alternative.   We either use nuclear power, or million will die.

So, how many millions do you not give a crap about, and are willing to sacrifice on your alter of anti-nuclear bigotry?


----------



## Silver Cat (May 16, 2020)

Maxdeath said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> > Maxdeath said:
> ...


No. They don't exist yet. But if we'll refuse to research biotechnology (that can give us unicorns), our enemies will produce hill trolls or something more dangerous.


----------



## Silver Cat (May 16, 2020)

Maxdeath said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > Maxdeath said:
> ...


I'm ready to sacrifice up to 50 millions of environmentalistic cultists for nuclear power.


----------



## martybegan (May 16, 2020)

Maxdeath said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> > Maxdeath said:
> ...



How many lives do we risk each day letting people drive cars?


----------



## Maxdeath (May 16, 2020)

Andylusion said:


> Maxdeath said:
> 
> 
> > Andylusion said:
> ...


Check out past post or do a simple google search just to see how many nuclear problems there have been. 
Exactly how many people have died due to cancer and other problems due to radiation.

Get a bit of an education before you start claimed ng that you understand


----------



## Maxdeath (May 16, 2020)

Silver Cat said:


> Maxdeath said:
> 
> 
> > Andylusion said:
> ...


Well nice that deaths don't bother you. Unfortunately for you others actually have a a moral character that doesn't allow them to want people dead and they abhor those who do.


----------



## Maxdeath (May 16, 2020)

martybegan said:


> Maxdeath said:
> 
> 
> > Silver Cat said:
> ...


Well there you have me. The problem is there again we have human error involved


----------



## Silver Cat (May 16, 2020)

Maxdeath said:


> Well nice that deaths don't bother you. Unfortunately for you others actually have a a moral character that doesn't allow them to want people dead and they abhor those who do.


Yes. I don't want our people dead, too. But rejection of nuclear power can kill much more. It is just a risk management and "less evil".


----------



## martybegan (May 16, 2020)

Maxdeath said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Maxdeath said:
> ...



Unless we give everything we do over to robots (and that leads to terminator levels of risk) there will always be human error as a risk.

The question in the thread is why would we apply harder standards to human risk to nuclear power issues than other endeavors.


----------



## Silver Cat (May 17, 2020)

__





						Domestic Uranium Production Report - Quarterly -
					






					www.eia.gov
				







We really need some kind of deregulation and the invisible hand of the market.


----------



## Maxdeath (May 17, 2020)

Silver Cat said:


> Maxdeath said:
> 
> 
> > Well nice that deaths don't bother you. Unfortunately for you others actually have a a moral character that doesn't allow them to want people dead and they abhor those who do.
> ...


Earlier you stated you wanted a million dead no you you claim not to want any. Is it any wonder I have a problem with your credibility?


----------



## Maxdeath (May 17, 2020)

martybegan said:


> Maxdeath said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


Let me put it this way. I am thinking that I need to make this extremely simple so that it is understood by you and others. 

If a person wrecks a car that is human error. What is the maximum that can be killed in that single car accident. One, two or however many are in the car. How many can be killed if someone wrecks a nuclear power plant a hundred, a thousand perhaps more depending on where and the prevailing winds.
There is already evedince to suggest that incidents of cancer are higher for those in close proximity to reactors.


----------



## Silver Cat (May 17, 2020)

Maxdeath said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Maxdeath said:
> ...


 Ban cars and millions will die because of hunger. Ban nuclear power and hundreds of millions will die because of hunger and foreign invasion.


----------



## Silver Cat (May 17, 2020)

Maxdeath said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> > Maxdeath said:
> ...


No. I said, that even 50 millions of deaths in nuclear accidents will be better than hundreds of millions of deaths because of deindustrialisation, hunger and foreign invasions. Sure, nuclear accident that will cause 50 millions of deaths is unrealistic and almost impossible.


----------



## Maxdeath (May 17, 2020)

Silver Cat said:


> Maxdeath said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


And your numbers are from where? Blue sky predictions?


----------



## Maxdeath (May 17, 2020)

Silver Cat said:


> Maxdeath said:
> 
> 
> > Silver Cat said:
> ...


And again you are basing these numbers on something you pulled out of thin air or were they predictions by the same fools that did the origanal calculations on the virus that was completely wrong?


----------



## Jarlaxle (May 17, 2020)

Maxdeath said:


> So did recognize any of the languages spoken two thousand years ago at first sight? A lot of waste is being stored in an old salt mine. Remember the Washington state spill a few years back. If you really want to learn do a quick search of nuclear waste accidents.



Languages spoken 2000 years ago? You mean like...*Latin?*


----------



## Maxdeath (May 17, 2020)

Jarlaxle said:


> Maxdeath said:
> 
> 
> > So did recognize any of the languages spoken two thousand years ago at first sight? A lot of waste is being stored in an old salt mine. Remember the Washington state spill a few years back. If you really want to learn do a quick search of nuclear waste accidents.
> ...


Or Aztec, inca. We could go a little bit more and play with hydrography. We have people now who can't make heads or tales out of Shakespeare. How many know Ancient Greek or true Latin.


----------



## Andylusion (May 17, 2020)

Maxdeath said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > Maxdeath said:
> ...



So I looked it up, AGAIN.... and sure enough, everything I said was dead on right.  Maybe you should be intellectually honest, before you start claiming that you understand things.


----------



## Silver Cat (May 17, 2020)

Maxdeath said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> > Maxdeath said:
> ...


Nobody ask you to read anything sophisticated. Can you understand the sign:
"NON INTRARE
VENENUM"
And yes, I don't care about descendants of foreign invaders.


----------



## Silver Cat (May 17, 2020)

Maxdeath said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> > Maxdeath said:
> ...


My numbers are from our experience. Wars kill much more than nuclear accidents.


----------



## Andylusion (May 17, 2020)

Silver Cat said:


> __
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Exactly.  I would support a nearly full deregulation, plus incentives for alternative nuclear power system.

Thorium would be a fantastic, safer alternative to PWR or BWR.   Moreover, we should immediately build and run a MOX reactor, and start reprocessing spent fuel rods, to be reused in existing reactors.

Most estimates suggest we could re-use over 90% of existing spent fuel rods. Logically this means reducing our actual waste products by existing reactors by as much.

This isn't even a leap of technology.  France and Russia have been reprocessing their spent fuel rods for decades.  The only reason we don't, is because that mindless left-wing fool Carter, banned reprocessing spent fuel, because "it could lead to nuclear proliferation!".   So instead we have radioactive spent fuel rods everywhere, no one knows what to do with.

There is so much we could do with nuclear power, if only the ideological caveman of this era would die off.


----------



## martybegan (May 17, 2020)

Maxdeath said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Maxdeath said:
> ...



I noticed you didn't link that evidence. 

You are misinterpreting the concept of risk, and the balance between high probability low damage, and low probability, high damage. You also don't really differentiate between risk at a personal level and risk at a regional level.


----------



## Dick Foster (May 17, 2020)

I d


Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> > DGS49 said:
> ...


I didn't say that did dumbass! However it's funny you mentioned the Air Force because that's how Thorium fueled LFTRs got their start. Bombs away LeMay being extremely jealous of Admiral Richovers nuclear navy that was so popular at the time, got a hankering for nuclear powered air craft. Well of course the nuclear research crowd recognized the idea on its face for the silly idea it was however they realized the opportunity to get some big buck funding research dollars so jump on the idea and took LeMay for everything he was worth and used the money to develop two fully operational LFTR reactors. This of course eliminates any worries as far as physics is concerned. It's an interesting story and the science is all there for anyone to digging in as deep as they want. 
You may even want to take the opportunity to school yourself on the subject instead of taking your usual stance of an ignorant, loud mouthed, know it all for a change. Search LFTR or Thorium and dig in. There is pleanty of top level material for non technical types or if you're technically savvy, you can dig as deep as your level of physics and math understanding allows.


----------



## Maxdeath (May 17, 2020)

Andylusion said:


> Maxdeath said:
> 
> 
> > Andylusion said:
> ...


Obviously you still don't know anything. Look up stationary low power reactor number one. It had a steam failure and meltdown in 1961. 
I could also point to the fact that there is evidence to show that there are higher incidents of cancer of those around nuclear reactors.


----------



## Maxdeath (May 17, 2020)

Silver Cat said:


> Maxdeath said:
> 
> 
> > Jarlaxle said:
> ...


So those that spoke the language of Shakespeare are foreign invaders? I doubt that the language we speak today will even be recognized in two hundred years. How many people would have understood the meaning of that's dope?


----------



## Maxdeath (May 17, 2020)

martybegan said:


> Maxdeath said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


Lol. So you want to pretend that risk is less depending on how many are hurt.


----------



## Maxdeath (May 17, 2020)

Silver Cat said:


> Maxdeath said:
> 
> 
> > Silver Cat said:
> ...


And wars and nuclear power have what in common? Unless you are trying to say that nuclear reactors would be great targets during a war.


----------



## Rye Catcher (May 17, 2020)

DGS49 said:


> While it is never acknowledged by the political Left, the American Commercial Nuclear Power industry has the best safety record of any industry in all of human history.  Since its inception in the early 1950's there has not been a single radiation-related fatality - or even sickness - in the entire industry.  The safety precautions that are mandated and followed in nuclear power stations are SO thorough and SO all-encompassing that the cancer rate for nuclear power employees is lower than for the general population (same for the Nuclear Navy).
> 
> You might ask, "What about THREE MILE ISLAND???"  Well, what about it?  Not a single injury or fatality, not even a mild case of radiation sickness.  Nothing.  Just a lot of hysteria, largely fueled by the unfortunate coincidence of this relatively insignificant accident with the film, "The China Syndrome."
> 
> ...



Who on the Right is advocating for more Nuclear Power Plants to be built?  I agree, the fear from Chernobyl & Three-Mile Island, followed by Japan's Earthquake and Tsunami concerned Pols and the public.  I believe Nuclear Plants will be our future, but there needs to be an effort for the Federal Government to honestly explain the benefits and pitfalls of Nuclear Power.   

I found an article in Scientific America describing the next generation of nuclear reactors which I read years ago and didn't make a dent into the issue of the fear of nuclear power:









						Next Generation Nuclear Power
					

New, safer and more economical nuclear reactors could not only satisfy many of our future energy needs but could combat global warming as well




					www.scientificamerican.com


----------



## JoeB131 (May 17, 2020)

DGS49 said:


> Mark it well: we have foolishly and neurotically regulated this industry out of existence at a time when "we" claim to need sources of energy that do not generate greenhouse gases.
> 
> We have met the enemy and...well, you know the rest.



Here's the thing.  Nobody wants one of these things in their neighborhood...  that's why we aren't building new ones.  

yes, there have been no accidents here that have been that bad, but as we've seen from Chernobyl and Fukushima, they have been really bad in other places.


----------



## Jarlaxle (May 17, 2020)

Maxdeath said:


> So those that spoke the language of Shakespeare are foreign invaders? I doubt that the language we speak today will even be recognized in two hundred years. How many people would have understood the meaning of that's dope?



Are you on some sort of drugs?


----------



## Andylusion (May 17, 2020)

​


Maxdeath said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > Maxdeath said:
> ...



I believe I said nuclear power.  If that was not clear enough, there have been no deaths due to commercial nuclear electricity production, in the US.

I am well aware of a government run experimental reactor that killed someone in 1961.

Moreover, I've already read up on many of the, I believe faulty reports about supposed increases in cancer near nuclear power plants.

Depending on which source you pick, some are honest enough to admit there is no empirical connection at all.

In the late 1980 s and early 1990 s, increased incidence of childhood leukemia were reported near United Kingdom nuclear facilities *but the cause or causes remained unknown because it was estimated that the radiation doses from these facilities were too low to explain the increased leukemia*​​








						Cancer in children residing near nuclear power plants: an open question
					

Global warming and the established responsibility of the anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases represent a strong push towards the construction of new nuclear power plants (NPPs) to cope with the growing energy needs. The toxicity of nuclear waste ...




					www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov


----------



## Andylusion (May 17, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> > Mark it well: we have foolishly and neurotically regulated this industry out of existence at a time when "we" claim to need sources of energy that do not generate greenhouse gases.
> ...



And I'm fine with that.  I understand people don't want a nuclear power plant right built five feet from their child's elementary school.

Fine.   However, here's the reality... as the population of the world goes up, as technology advanced, we will need more power.

As things stand right now.... NOW.... green energy is a pathetic, but expensively pathetic joke.

After hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars spent here in Ohio on renewable power.... if you combine all renewable power from all sources across the state, the total combined power out put of all of them, is less than half the power output of one single nuclear power plant.

Renewable is not a solution.  And it won't be a solution for the foreseeable future.

So you have basically 3 total options.   Natural gas, which is fine, but will only go so far.   Coal when the left-wing seems to be against.   And Nuclear.

That's it.  Or we can all have mass deaths from the chaos of having our cities max out the power grids and going black.


----------



## JoeB131 (May 17, 2020)

Andylusion said:


> And I'm fine with that. I understand people don't want a nuclear power plant right built five feet from their child's elementary school.
> 
> Fine. However, here's the reality... as the population of the world goes up, as technology advanced, we will need more power.
> 
> As things stand right now.... NOW.... green energy is a pathetic, but expensively pathetic joke.



Only because the people who profit off of dirty energy don't want to invest the money into it.  If we did a crash program of developing green energy, on the scale of lets say, WWII, we'd be able to get there.  



Andylusion said:


> So you have basically 3 total options. Natural gas, which is fine, but will only go so far. Coal when the left-wing seems to be against. And Nuclear.
> 
> That's it. Or we can all have mass deaths from the chaos of having our cities max out the power grids and going black.



You use a false analogy. Those are not the only choices.   Clearly, we have options of biofuels, solar, wind, hydro electric, etc.    

The problem with nuclear power is that we still don't have a way to safely dispose of the byproducts, which stay toxic for thousands of years.   And if there is an accident like Fukushima, we're kind of screwed.  

The Chernobyl exclusion zone covers 2600 square kilometers.  The Soviet Union is gone now, but the exclusion zone is never going away.


----------



## Silver Cat (May 17, 2020)

Maxdeath said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> > Maxdeath said:
> ...


Energy means industry, industry means weapon. We have nuclear power - we have weapon. We don't have nuclear power - we don't have weapon. Less weapon we have - higher risk of a big war.


----------



## Silver Cat (May 17, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> The Chernobyl exclusion zone covers 2600 square kilometers.  The Soviet Union is gone now, but the exclusion zone is never going away.


In fact, it is already used. Actually, Belorussia starts the state program (including building railroads) of the land development in the zone.
Money talks, BS walks, you know.


----------



## Maxdeath (May 17, 2020)

Jarlaxle said:


> Maxdeath said:
> 
> 
> > So those that spoke the language of Shakespeare are foreign invaders? I doubt that the language we speak today will even be recognized in two hundred years. How many people would have understood the meaning of that's dope?
> ...


No but I think you might be


----------



## Maxdeath (May 17, 2020)

Andylusion said:


> ​
> 
> 
> Maxdeath said:
> ...


So now you want to move the goal posts? Ok that still does not account for the three fuel rods that have never been found at the humbolt PG&E plant. The whole compliment of fuel rods from the decommissioned plant are stored on site in dry casks that are not scheduled to be moved and as far as anyone knows are only considered good for sixty years.
As you have stated there is a chance of increased cancer.  In Great Britian it is unknown because it was "estimated" that the levels were to low. Key word there being estimated.


----------



## Maxdeath (May 17, 2020)

Silver Cat said:


> Maxdeath said:
> 
> 
> > Silver Cat said:
> ...


So you don't think that being able to completely destroy the earth is enough of a deterrent? We need what to destroy it two or thre times over?


----------



## Maxdeath (May 17, 2020)

Andylusion said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > DGS49 said:
> ...


You mean like California is doing now? Without maxing out the power grid.


----------



## Andylusion (May 17, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > And I'm fine with that. I understand people don't want a nuclear power plant right built five feet from their child's elementary school.
> ...



*Only because the people who profit off of dirty energy don't want to invest the money into it.  If we did a crash program of developing green energy, on the scale of lets say, WWII, we'd be able to get there.*

Once again, the left-wing has to embraces myths and legends, to support their garbage ideology.









						BP Solar - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				











						Renewables and Energy Solutions | Shell Global
					

Shell provides more and more renewable and low-carbon power helping customers to switch to these options through energy solutions and decarbonisation services.




					www.shell.com
				











						Climate Change Initiatives
					

Chevron shares the concerns of governments and the public about climate change.




					www.chevron.com
				











						Solar and wind: our ambition in renewable energies
					

Confident of the opportunities afforded by renewable energies, TotalEnergies aims to achieve a production capacity of approximately 100 gigawatts by 2030 through the development of solar and wind energy resources.




					www.total.com
				











						Renewable Energy Position
					

We are leveraging our expertise, intellectual property and physical assets in pursuit of economically viable, renewable energy business opportunities.




					www.conocophillips.com
				




Nearly every single major energy company, has investments in so-called 'green energy'.

The reason left-wingers blindly deny that they do this, is because they live under the ridiculous notion that if you only had investment, then magically renewables would be practical and profitable.   If only people would pour billions of dollars in this money pit, the pit would magically fill in.

No, you are wrong.  People have investment hundreds of billions into renewables, and they still suck.  

Sorry, but the laws of physics does not magically change because you demand it does so, so that your renewable dogma will make sense.

The left-wings only answer to absolutely everything is "throw money at it!"  Obama did that, and none of those programs made a difference, and some like Sylondra got the money, and split.

No, you are wrong.

*You use a false analogy. Those are not the only choices.   Clearly, we have options of biofuels, solar, wind, hydro electric, etc.  *

Hydroelectric power, is considered conventional power.  Further, none of the dams of the past, would be built today, thanks to the environment regulations the left-wing has put in place.

So you can stop it with the whole hydro power, when your side is the biggest opponent of hydro power.

Again....  as I have said numerous times.   We have spent billions on billions on Solar, Wind and Biofuels, and they all suck.   If you combined all the power created by all of those sources totaled together in Ohio, it wouldn't even be half the power created by one single nuclear reactor in Ohio.

We've spent hundreds on hundreds of billions, and still it's a tiny fraction of power created.

Even Germany, which supposedly has the most renewable power in the world, shows us that Renewable are total failure.






Now according to this, you would think that almost 50% of German power comes from reneweables.   And this is what the morons on the left-wing want you to believe.

The difference between a rational thinking human being, and a mindless parrot, can easily be determined by if you believe that ridiculous crap above.

The key to that graph above, is that they are measuring installed capacity.  Not if it is actually producing that much power.

If you look at real time power generation, you'll notice a completely different story.





Notices the grey is conventional power production.  Green is wind power.  Yellow is solar power.

You know what we can see from this?   On an average day, all renewable power combined barely covered 1/5th of the power produced.

Yes, there was one day where wind power was able to produce a significant portion of the power.  But you can't count on that.  You can't count on the wind blowing at optimal speeds high enough to actually offset conventional power.

What this means for the left-wing ideologues, is that if the city needs 40 GWs of power, you need 40 GWs of conventional power, no matter how many billions you wasted on renewable sources.

And if you need to build a conventional plant anyway... then all those renewable sources are literally just a waste.  Which is what they are.   They are not a solution, and never will be in the foreseeable future.

That's not option, that's empirically based fact.  You guys need to grow up and actually learn some science.


----------



## Andylusion (May 17, 2020)

Maxdeath said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> > Maxdeath said:
> ...



I think what he is saying is that if we eliminated all nuclear reactors, we wouldn't have that deterrent.  

I would not think that.  I don't believe the US military will ever not have nuclear weapons, even if it means building a secret reactor to make plutonium.

I think it's simply a matter of, do we want to have mass black outs and see civilization crumble, or do we want nuclear power.


----------



## Andylusion (May 17, 2020)

Maxdeath said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Are you kidding?  California is exactly the example I would point to.   They completely wrecked their power production, put all their energy sources into nat.gas, and when the price spiked, the public utilities were all on the verge of bankruptcy, prompting rolling black outs, which forced the state to assume the cost, which tanked their credit rating.

California's bonds have been downgraded 3 times since the start of 2019, and part of that is the massive cost they are still paying to keep the electricity on.

You can't possibly point to California as a model to follow, if you are rational.  Their energy plan has been terrible.


----------



## Maxdeath (May 17, 2020)

Andylusion said:


> Maxdeath said:
> 
> 
> > Silver Cat said:
> ...


We all ready have more then enough nuclear weapons. Why would we need more? I get that there are people that really want war, they think it is the answer to everything.


----------



## Maxdeath (May 17, 2020)

Andylusion said:


> Maxdeath said:
> 
> 
> > Andylusion said:
> ...


Their biggest problem has been the fact they have almost two trillion in state backed retirement that they have failed to even attempt to fund. But that is for another discussion.

I was only pointing it out as the fact that they shut off electricity when the wind blows. They decommissioned a nuclear reactor and can not find some of the fuel rods. The fuel rods are still sitting on site. Waiting for something to happen to them.

And yet they worry more about plastic and straws more then they do about nuclear fuel rods. As you pointed out their taxes of public utilities have bankrupted PG&E. I believe that the state has since taken them over in at least part. So that means that IF they were to build more nuclear power plants. We would have a company that has proven they don't have a plan for housing spent fuel rods. They have proven that they can not properly track them. They would be building ing a known unstable area. And they are either on the edge of bankruptcy or they actually are. So that may mean that they would be willing to cut costs or might be willing to forgo proper maintenance.

What exactly in all that inspires confidence?


----------



## Silver Cat (May 18, 2020)

Maxdeath said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > Maxdeath said:
> ...


May be, we have enough nukes for deterrence (in the normal situation), but we clearly don't have enough nukes for the total extermination of all our potentional enemies. 
Also, nuclear power allow us to produce conventional weapons, ships and vehicles, too.


----------



## justinacolmena (May 18, 2020)

DGS49 said:


> But this regulatory micro-management is not necessary.


Our friendly felons, educated gentlemen and esteemed doctors from the medical establishment, got tort reform for medical malpractice, and they still have access to nuclear medicine for cancer treatment.






						Health Care Fraud News — FBI
					

Press releases, stories, and other information on FBI health care fraud investigations.




					www.fbi.gov
				




The docs probably have enough nukes to run a power generation plant right in the cancer ward of your local hospital, if no elective surgeries are scheduled for the next few months.


----------



## JoeB131 (May 18, 2020)

Silver Cat said:


> In fact, it is already used. Actually, Belorussia starts the state program (including building railroads) of the land development in the zone.
> Money talks, BS walks, you know.



Okay, let me know when you move there...


----------



## JoeB131 (May 18, 2020)

Andylusion said:


> Are you kidding? California is exactly the example I would point to. They completely wrecked their power production, put all their energy sources into nat.gas, and when the price spiked, the public utilities were all on the verge of bankruptcy, prompting rolling black outs, which forced the state to assume the cost, which tanked their credit rating.



yeah, did you miss the part where Enron totally screwed up the electrical grid in CA?


----------



## Maxdeath (May 18, 2020)

Silver Cat said:


> Maxdeath said:
> 
> 
> > Andylusion said:
> ...


Roflol. Do you really think that they are not going to throw nuclear weapons around if we do? There is a term called assured mutual destruction, it means that any country that starts a nuclear war will be hurt as bad or worse. Even If enough people survive the initial blasts they would have to live through the fallout then the nuclear winter. IF those remaining cared after that they would be more worried about simply surviving then anything else. 
Are you like still in grade school?
We are able to build cars now. You might have heard that Elon Musk just started his car factory up in spite of California telling him not to. You might have also heard that is looking to produce his trucks in a factory in possibly Texas.
I could go on and list every manufacturer of things in the U.S. but I don't think that you would understand or care.


----------



## martybegan (May 18, 2020)

Maxdeath said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Maxdeath said:
> ...



The risk is less because of the level of regulation found in the Nuclear industry.


----------



## Maxdeath (May 18, 2020)

martybegan said:


> Maxdeath said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


And yet again we deal with the word less. Is less meaning zero? Is it meaning a thousand? Is less meaning ten thousand?
Just because we have managed to only kill three people with nuclear power directly. And a possibly unknown number indirectly so far. Does not mean that we won't do it at some point. 
Let me put it this way. If you have one car on a road the chance for that car having an accident is very low. You add another the chances go up. Add more and they go up exponentially. Add enough and you guarentee an accident.


----------



## martybegan (May 18, 2020)

Maxdeath said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Maxdeath said:
> ...



Cars aren't designed like nuclear reactors are.

The equivalent car would be a 10 x 10 block of solid concrete encasing the driver in a foam suspension, and the car could only go 10 MPH.


----------



## Maxdeath (May 18, 2020)

martybegan said:


> Maxdeath said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


I gather you really don't understand the word analogy.
Let's for one moment look at some of the engineering marvels that were touted as safe. 
The titanic unsinkable.
Self driving cars. Driving under semi's.
Self driving taxi in a wreck within an hour of service.
To name just a few.
I know you don't want to talk about other nuclear disasters but there are plenty of them. Then we can add things like subs.
You talk about requlations how well did those work out for the missing fuel rods and the fuel rods that siting in casks still at the humbolt site? The rods have never been found but are "assumed" to be in the casks.

Look I get it that you think any amount of risk is acceptable. Any amount of problems is fine. But the simple fact of the matter is most are not as willing to have those risks sitting in their neighborhood, in geologically unstable areas, in areas which may be hit by natural disasters. Which pretty much says no where.


----------



## martybegan (May 18, 2020)

Maxdeath said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Maxdeath said:
> ...



You apply more stringent risk management requirements only to Nuclear power because you are scared of it/don't like it. You ignore the many regulatory controls in place, the technological advances made from the examples of the previous accidents and incidents, and the proven track record of the US and Western European Nuclear Industries. 

And Titanic was more of a failure in the handling of the results of the accident then in the accident itself. 

Having lifeboat capacity for the entire ship's complement would have changed it from a disaster to a heroic rescue story.


----------



## Maxdeath (May 18, 2020)

martybegan said:


> Maxdeath said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


So you are wanting to claim that a ship that was considered unsinkable and did not need lifeboats at all could have been great if there had been life boats.
Going by that logic imagine if nuclear reactors never had fuel rods added into them.  Man would they be safe.

I am a realist. If nuclear reactors were perfectly safe there would be no need of requlations calling for fuel rods to be accounted for. There would be no need for dosage meters. There would be no need for emergency procedures.


----------



## martybegan (May 18, 2020)

Maxdeath said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Maxdeath said:
> ...



They still required 1/2 lifeboats on the "unsinkable" ship, and you do realize the whole "unsinkable" thing has been blown out of proportion over the decades due to the whole "Titanic legend" thing?

Your allusion does not apply. 

And the soviets showed us what happens when a reactor doesn't have containment, which all US reactors have not because of a RESPONSE to an accident, but due to proactive regulatory requirements.


----------



## Silver Cat (May 18, 2020)

Maxdeath said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> > Maxdeath said:
> ...


May be. If we destroy it first. Or they can use nuclear weapon if treasonouse leftists destroy our nuclear weapon (or make it obsolete). 



> There is a term called assured mutual destruction, it means that any country that starts a nuclear war will be hurt as bad or worse. Even If enough people survive the initial blasts they would have to live through the fallout then the nuclear winter. IF those remaining cared after that they would be more worried about simply surviving then anything else.


Just another environmentalistic nonsense. Something like "Global warming".


----------



## Andylusion (May 18, 2020)

Maxdeath said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > Maxdeath said:
> ...



So we're back to toddler level arguments.  Instead of debating the topic, you are going to engage in toddlerism, and just make up what other people didn't say, and then argue that?

Really?  I just searched through the entire thread.  Not a single person said they want war... not a single person said war was the answer to everything.

So... you are lying worthless trash, too childish to be on a debate with adults.  Remove yourself from this discussion for the sake of all the adults here, that want a real discussion.

We don't toddlers.   Can I say "Well I know you think being utterly weak and disarmed, in the face of tyrants around the world, is the solution to all things.  I know you support appeasement, since refusing to confront Russia in the Ukraine has worked so well...."









						Atlantic Council - Shaping the global future together
					

Shaping the global future together. Renewing the Atlantic Community for global challenges.




					atlanticcouncil.org
				




Right?  Can I just make up crap you didn't say, and claim that is what you believe?

That's why we're better people than you.  Take your toddler arguments and leave.


----------



## Andylusion (May 18, 2020)

Maxdeath said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > Maxdeath said:
> ...



*What exactly in all that inspires confidence?*

Again, it doesn't matter.    The demand for power will continue to rise, with population.  Without energy, millions will die.

So the question isn't "What inspires confidence?"... the question is "How are we going to meet the energy needs of the future?"

As I said before, renewables are not a viable option. All the clear documented evidence, shows that Solar, Wind, and Biofuels, are simply not going to fill the need for energy.

That leaves us with Coal, Nat.Gas and Nuclear.

We already covered Hydro, it doesn't provide enough power, and due to left-wing regulations, it is nearly impossible to build a dam anyway.   All the dams of the past, would never have been built under today's regulations.

Now, last I checked we had about 200 years worth of coal in the US, and that's just known coal reserves.   But people don't want that, because supposedly we're destroying the entire planet with coal.

So that leaves us with Nat.Gas, and Nuclear.   Nat.Gas is fine, but there are limits.

As best I can determine, we simply can't get all the power we need from Natural Gas alone.  If that changes in the future, great.

But the only viable option for nearly unlimited relatively cheap power, is nuclear.

*They decommissioned a nuclear reactor and can not find some of the fuel rods. The fuel rods are still sitting on site. Waiting for something to happen to them.*

So to start with, I flat out don't believe that.  Yes, I believe that someone might have mis-counted how many fuel rods there were to begin with, or mis-counted how many fuel rods were shipped to a storage facility.

But to say they are still sitting around on the site?  Do you have evidence of that? Or are you making assumptions?

When a spent fuel rod is removed from a reactor, it goes into a cooling pool, and then goes to dry storage.






Does it seem even remotely likely, that a 12 foot tall stack of fuel rods in pool only this big, is going to be somehow missed by inspectors?   No.  It does not.

After removed from the cooling pool, they are put in dry storage.





Again, does it seem likely that a container that large, which still has low levels of detectable radiation, is somehow going to be 'lost'?   No, it does not.

And lastly, if there is a fuel rod that is neither in the cooling pool, nor in dry storage, then it would be leaking enough radiation to be detectable from space, if I remember right.   And you are saying they wouldn't be able to find it? 

No, I don't believe that.  Could I be wrong?  Sure.  But you need to prove it.  You need to prove there are fuel rods laying around a site, that magically no one can find.  More likely, someone with a public education failed a math test, and was assigned to count the number of fuel rods on hand.

*Waiting for something to happen to them*?   Like what?  Uranium is a solid.  Not only it is it a solid, but it is encased in zirconium.  Not only that, but it is air sealed with helium.  Not only that, but it encased in concrete.

You guys have been watching too many movies, with Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles and green glowing ooze that leaks out and wreaks havoc across the world.

That's not how things really are.

*We would have a company that has proven they don't have a plan for housing spent fuel rods. They have proven that they can not properly track them. They would be building ing a known unstable area. And they are either on the edge of bankruptcy or they actually are. So that may mean that they would be willing to cut costs or might be willing to forgo proper maintenance.*

So there is a bunch of stuff here.

*First*, deregulate the energy industry in California.   All of the problems you list with the power companies in California, can be traced back to regulations.

The regulations are what caused the utilities to be incompetent and bankrupt.

There is a reason, the power companies in Ohio and elsewhere, have never had the problems the power companies in California have.   It's basically the failure of Democracy in action.  That's why the founding fathers were against Democracy.

*Second*, there is a more specific reason companies have no plans for dealing with nuclear waste.

Government.   Federal Government is the reason.   The left-wingers hate it when you say the cause of the problem is government, but the vast majority of the time, that's the truth.

In one of the few policies of Ronald Reagan that I completely disagree with, the Federal Government under the Democrats, signed into law by Reagan, was the The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982.









						Nuclear Waste Policy Act - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				











						The steep costs of nuclear waste in the U.S.
					

Expert Rodney C. Ewing discusses how failure to implement a permanent solution for nuclear waste storage and disposal is costing Americans billions of dollars per year.




					earth.stanford.edu
				




In short, very. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 created a tax on electricity generated by nuclear power plants. This tax would accumulate into the Nuclear Waste Fund for us to build a geologic repository — a mined facility deep within the earth — to safely dispose of the waste. What’s happened to that?​​The fund has a balance of more than $40 billion. It’s controlled by Congress on an annual basis, and congressional budget rules make it very difficult to use those funds. It’s not a lockbox where the money goes and waits to be spent. Instead, it’s been applied against our national debt, so even though the fees have been collected, they haven’t been used for their intended purpose.​​This again, is why I am against regulations.  Regulations cause problems, rather than solve them.

In this case, the Federal Government specifically told nuclear plant operators that they didn't have to worry about nuclear waste.   That rather the Federal government would handle dealing with nuclear waste.

The Federal Government caused the entire problem.

*SOLUTION:*

As I have said on this thread before, the solution is rather simple, even if difficult.

All we have to do, is repeal the law that bans the reprocessing of spent fuel rods.

Then.... reprocess all those spent fuel rods.

So if you don't know how this works, I'll explain.   Uranium when used in a reactor becomes 'polluted' with non-fissile material.  As the inert material grows in the Uranium,  the production of heat declines until it is no longer efficient.   We call those fuel rods "spent".

However, what we can do is reprocess them.  Removing the inert non-fissile material, will make the Uranium 'burnable' again.    We can use it again.

Now there is one catch, and that is that you end up with a mix of fissile metals, like Americium, Plutonium, and Curium and a bunch of other 'iums'.    So you can't burn these in a regular Uranium reactor, because it isn't just Uranium you are burning.

You need a MOX, or Mixed Oxides reactor.   Then you can burn these reprocessed fuel rods, and produce more power.

Again, the French and Russians have been doing this for decades.   We haven't... because we're stupid.   De-regulate the nuclear power industry, and we can eliminate 90% of the "waste" by reprocessing them into usable power producing fuel again.

In fact, I've read that reprocessing will actually reduce waste by 97%.

Lastly, I have also read that the newer generation of MOX reactors, can reduce the radioactive waste to such a low level, that after just a day, you can handle the spent fuel with your hands.

But even if not, we could very easily eliminate the vast majority of spent fuel rods, and produce usable power with them.   It's just a matter of government not strangling the industry with regulations anymore, that will fix this.


----------



## Andylusion (May 18, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > Are you kidding? California is exactly the example I would point to. They completely wrecked their power production, put all their energy sources into nat.gas, and when the price spiked, the public utilities were all on the verge of bankruptcy, prompting rolling black outs, which forced the state to assume the cost, which tanked their credit rating.
> ...



Yeah, because they didn't.  That's BS crap by politicians to dupe the stupid, so they can avoid blame for their screw ups.


----------



## Maxdeath (May 18, 2020)

martybegan said:


> Maxdeath said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


So they never claimed it was unsinkable and the latest in technology? You do realize that you are wrong?

The Japanese also showed us that you can design a reactor to be fully enclosed and still be taken out by nature.

Look I get that no matter how many are sacrificed you think that anything can be made to take all the problems out. The only problem is no one wants one in their neighborhood nor in areas that are affected by nature. Most don't trust that with continued rolling of the dice nothing will go wrong. So you can sit here and pretend that everything and everyone should be happy. But Only two are currently under construction while something like 37 have been shut down.


----------



## Maxdeath (May 18, 2020)

Andylusion said:


> Maxdeath said:
> 
> 
> > Andylusion said:
> ...


Lol. 44 was the worst thing to happen to this country.


----------



## Maxdeath (May 18, 2020)

Andylusion said:


> Maxdeath said:
> 
> 
> > Andylusion said:
> ...


Lol. Let me just point out that no one wants these built in their neighborhood nor in areas that are affected by nature. That leaves very little places to put them. 
We can pretend that rolling the dice will never come up with a bad result but the truth is it could. 
You can set there pretending that it is the only way forward but the truth of the matter is onlt two reactors are being built while something like 37 are no longer in use. 
We might look at that and say that not many people are excited with your idea.


----------



## martybegan (May 18, 2020)

Maxdeath said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Maxdeath said:
> ...



It was a claim, it was the latest in tech, but the attention paid to the unsinkable mantra is part of the legend of the accident. 

Fukishima was taken out, but the core material remained in the containment vessel. And it took a 40 ft high wall of water to do it. 

That happened after TMI and manufacturing came back. I'm sure newer generations of reactor with even more passive safety features will be approved as lefties realize they need fission power to reduce fossil fuel use.


----------



## martybegan (May 18, 2020)

Maxdeath said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > Maxdeath said:
> ...



Do you really think people want wind farms, solar farms, or fossil fuel plants built in their neighborhoods?


----------



## Andylusion (May 18, 2020)

Maxdeath said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Maxdeath said:
> ...



That will change.
The moment we have more brown outs, or black outs, and people are faced with either nuclear or reverting to living in caves, they'll accept nuclear power.


----------



## Andylusion (May 18, 2020)

Maxdeath said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > Maxdeath said:
> ...



When the power went out across California, people went insane.  They demanded government do whatever it had to, to keep the lights on again.

If the government of California had said to the public, the only way to do that is to open some nuclear power plants, they would have opened some nuclear power plants.

We've seen where your ideology leads.   Venezuela had the most green power grid in the world, and they had nation wide power outages, some that last days or months.

Our public will embrace nuclear power, when the time comes.  I guarantee it.   No question in my mind.

Anyone who denies that, is just a science denier, that wants to go back to living in caves.   As soon as that generation of incompetence dies off, we'll have nuclear power.









						How fear of nuclear power is hurting the environment
					

"We're not in a clean energy revolution; we're in a clean energy crisis," says climate policy expert Michael Shellenberger. His surprising solution: nuclear. In this passionate talk, he explains why it's time to overcome longstanding fears of the technology, and why he and other...




					www.ted.com
				




Thankfully not everyone is so backward thinking.


----------



## Maxdeath (May 18, 2020)

Andylusion said:


> Maxdeath said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


Good luck on convincing everyone.


----------



## Maxdeath (May 18, 2020)

Andylusion said:


> Maxdeath said:
> 
> 
> > Andylusion said:
> ...


Lol good for you rah rah rah.


----------



## Maxdeath (May 18, 2020)

martybegan said:


> Maxdeath said:
> 
> 
> > Andylusion said:
> ...


Have lived right next to all three at one time or another. Not one person claimed they were moving because they were worried about safety. In fact live les then a mile from one of the largest wind farms in this state. There has never been one complaint


----------



## Maxdeath (May 18, 2020)

martybegan said:


> Maxdeath said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


Yet it was heralded as being unsinkable or we can play down the whole thing and say it was practically unsinkable.

And yet there was still radiation leaking into the ocean.

I think you are going to have to convince a lot more then a few lefties. I have been called almost everything under the sun but never a lefty.


----------



## Andylusion (May 18, 2020)

Maxdeath said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > Maxdeath said:
> ...



I don't need to convince them.
When the power goes out, they'll convince themselves.


----------



## Andylusion (May 18, 2020)

Maxdeath said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Maxdeath said:
> ...







__





						Wind Turbine Noise: Real Impacts on Neighbors - Master Resource
					

“ When neighbors complain of disturbed sleep, [wind noise models] might cite a predicted level of 40 dBA, when the actual noise that triggered awakening was a 50+ dBA spike, making turbine noise the problem.” “Hessler & Associates agreed ‘that a wind turbine is indeed a unique source with ultra...




					www.masterresource.org
				








__





						Complaints Put Focus on Solar Farms in Minnesota Communities
					

While solar farms can be placed anywhere if there are power lines, many of the solar arrays have been placed relatively close to electric substations, meaning neighbors in the area can feel surrounded by them.




					www.govtech.com
				




There have been more than a few complaints against solar and wind farms.


----------



## Maxdeath (May 18, 2020)

Andylusion said:


> Maxdeath said:
> 
> 
> > Andylusion said:
> ...


The only power that has gone out other then bad weather has been in California because they have decided it makes more sense to cut power then clear brush. 
Unless you are talking storms that take down power lines.

It has been many years since the nation has faced rolling brown outs or black outs.


----------



## Andylusion (May 18, 2020)

Maxdeath said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > Maxdeath said:
> ...



Grow up.   If you are going to make up crap about others, then I'll just put you on ignore.  People who can't make an argument without inventing fiction about the other person, are too childish to talk to.


----------



## Andylusion (May 18, 2020)

Maxdeath said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > Maxdeath said:
> ...



Only because they were able to provide enough natural gas power, to make up the difference.  

What happens when they can't produce enough power from natural gas?  Rolling black outs.

Especially if they fully intend to reduce emissions... it's not going work.


----------



## Maxdeath (May 18, 2020)

Andylusion said:


> Maxdeath said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


Yeah everyone feels hemed in. I think that far out weighs people worrying that they might get cancer or die of radiation.

If nuclear power plants had to pass on the cost of insurance the cost of nuclear power would be prohibitive. But they don't actually have to because no private insurance company will touch them. So the government would have to step up.


----------



## Maxdeath (May 18, 2020)

Andylusion said:


> Maxdeath said:
> 
> 
> > Andylusion said:
> ...


If you don't like to talk politics then find another forum. Beside I only made a comment on a past president. I think you will find many that feel the same.


----------



## Andylusion (May 18, 2020)

Maxdeath said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > Maxdeath said:
> ...



Debatable.

First, as I stated before, our entire nuclear energy industry is already hemmed in, by regulations, that make it overly expensive to innovate and improve the safety and efficient operations, of nuclear power plants.

A perfect example of this, is that people are still building pressurized water reactors.

The basic design was created in 1954, and we're still using it today in 2020.

This is because of government regulations.   The design inherently has safety flaws, which admittedly they have compensated for with improved revisions of the same basic design.

But there are numerous other reactor designs, that by any estimate should be drastically safer, and more immune to fault.

How about a reactor core, that is impossible to have a melt down?

One design I looked at, had the core sitting on a cold cap of salt.  If the core even started to overheat, the cap would melt, and the core would fall into a poll of heavy water, which would both shut down any reactions, and keep the core cool and safe, for up to a week un-powered.

That assumes power is cut at all.  If power is not lost, then it can remain there until the end of time.

I've also seen designs for entirely passive cooling.  Where if the entire plant was cut off, the entire system would remain cooled through passive systems alone.

Then you have new designs for Thorium reactors, that don't even have a core to be melted down.

The list goes on.

Moreover, I'm doubtful that your statement is even correct.   You claim that *If nuclear power plants had to pass on the cost of insurance the cost of nuclear power would be prohibitive*

Well my understanding is that they already pass on the cost of insurance.





__





						Insurance coverage for nuclear accidents | III
					





					www.iii.org
				




*Nuclear insurance consists of two tiers. The first tier is private liability insurance coverage made available by a pool of U.S. insurance companies, called American Nuclear Insurers. The second tier is made up of an assessment on nuclear power plant operators.*​​*Currently, owners of nuclear power plants pay premiums for $375 million in private liability coverage for each nuclear reactor they own. If there is an incident at a nuclear plant, and the $375 million in coverage is not sufficient, the owner’s coverage is supplemented by the second layer of protection, which is supplied by the nuclear power industry as a whole. Under the Price-Anderson Act, all reactor owners are committed to paying their share of any damages that exceed the incident reactor owner’s first tier limit of $375 million—up to $111.9 million per reactor. Since are currently 104 reactors in operation, the amount that would be available in the industry pool to pay claims totals $12.6 billion (2011). *​
So they are already paying for $375 Million liability.  Then all reactor owners collectively, are required to pitch in to cover costs that exceed the $375 Million cap, by about $111 Million per reactor.

So no government money comes into play, unless the liabilities exceed $13 Billion.

The total cost of Three Mile Island, from start to finish, was just $973 Million.   And that was the worst nuclear accident in the entire US history.

So.... I think they are able to pass on the cost of insurance.


----------



## Andylusion (May 18, 2020)

Maxdeath said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > Maxdeath said:
> ...



No one cares what you think about past presidents.
You said:
*
"I get that there are people that really want war, they think it is the answer to everything."*

That was a childish, pathetic, and cowardly attempt to attribute to other people, positions they don't have.

If you can't talk like an adult on a forum for adults... then get off the forum, and come back when you have the balls to discuss things like a man.


----------



## Andylusion (May 18, 2020)

Maxdeath said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > Maxdeath said:
> ...





Maxdeath said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > Maxdeath said:
> ...



You seem oblivious to the fact, that support for nuclear power has dramatically grown already.






Already, the support for nuclear power is overwhelmingly in favor.





Even more telling, is that people who live near nuclear power plants, actually have a higher favorable view of nuclear power, than the people who do not live near nuclear power plants.

Your ideology is already losing this battle.  It's just a matter of time now.


----------



## JoeB131 (May 19, 2020)

Andylusion said:


> Yeah, because they didn't. That's BS crap by politicians to dupe the stupid, so they can avoid blame for their screw ups.



Did you miss the part where Enron caused blackouts to jack up prices?   Gramdma Millie sitting in the dark the Enron guys would chuckle...   The rest of us remember that.


----------



## Andylusion (May 19, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, because they didn't. That's BS crap by politicians to dupe the stupid, so they can avoid blame for their screw ups.
> ...



Sorry, you can repeat unsupportable lies all you want, but you are still just repeating lies.

Enron did not cause the problems in California.   That BS crap, made up by politicians to dupe stupid people into blaming someone else.

You can repeat that garbage as many times as you want, but you can't support it, or prove it, because it's not true.  You cite others that claim it's true, but you can't actually provide direct evidence that it is true.

Even the public utilities of California, did not blame Enron.  Only the blame shifting politicians did.

And here's the other side of this...  Hey sparky... how did Enron even get control of the only source of energy in California?

Because of California's government.   They shut down all their coal burning power plants, making Natural Gas the only source of energy.

They locked down the building of new gas pipelines from alternative suppliers.  They could have had pipelines for natural gas going to Canada even, or elsewhere.  Instead only (if I remember right) three pipelines coming from Texas.

So it's still the California governments fault.

If you deny that, then you are just denying reality, to live in your socialist bubble of stupidity.   Just another duped loser left-winger, blindly following the elites in power, that know you are too stupid to think for yourself.


----------



## JoeB131 (May 20, 2020)

Andylusion said:


> Sorry, you can repeat unsupportable lies all you want, but you are still just repeating lies.
> 
> Enron did not cause the problems in California. That BS crap, made up by politicians to dupe stupid people into blaming someone else.
> 
> ...



Of course, they didn't blame Enron, they'd be admitting their own criminal culpability.  But funny thing.  Lay, Skilling and Fastow were all convicted...  



Andylusion said:


> And here's the other side of this... Hey sparky... how did Enron even get control of the only source of energy in California?
> 
> Because of California's government. They shut down all their coal burning power plants, making Natural Gas the only source of energy.



Um, yeah... California needed to control air quality... that's why they did that.   Heellllllooooo.  Remember when LA was covered in blankets of smog?  

Point was, Enron abused the system, not government.


----------



## elektra (Jul 8, 2020)

No deaths from making electricity, that is a good moral standard. Today we must shutdown all Solar Power and Wind Power to achieve that goal. There are deaths every year attributed directly to Green Energy.


----------



## elektra (Jul 8, 2020)

Ignorance is great. How come none of you are educated enough on this subject to point out there have been 3 commercial Nuclear Reactor accidents in the USA?


----------



## elektra (Jul 8, 2020)

Or, how come nobody is pointing out that are navy runs on nuclear reactors. Reactors that are fueled once and then run 30 years without refueling?


----------



## elektra (Jul 8, 2020)

And, our commercial Nuclear Power plants produce more electricity today then they did years ago.


----------



## elektra (Jul 8, 2020)

The USA's commercial nuclear power plants also require less maintenance today then they did years ago. Before they needed maintenance once a year. Now they will operate two years or more, without shutting down for maintenance. 2 years of continuous electricity. Pretty incredible. 693 days is the record.


----------



## elektra (Jul 8, 2020)

Yesterday's Nuclear technology is incredible. Tomorrow's is beyond belief.


----------



## Picaro (Jul 12, 2020)

Improvements in battery tech is making nuclear obsolete.  With power plants, some 75%-80% of the costs of electricity is in the construction and maintenance of the transmission lines, so even if the power plants are free you save at best maybe 15%-25% off the total costs of producing and getting it someplace useful. 

There is no 'solution' to future problems that don't end up in having to rely on war and disease to reduce strain on infrastructures; the best alternative for the U.S. is shutting down the vast majority of immigation and reducing population levels back down to around 180 million or so, a nice sustainable number, and stop stripping off our own topsoil just to feed the likes of countries like Red China. Let the rest of the world choke on itself.


----------



## Picaro (Jul 12, 2020)

If we do decide to build nuclear plants, use French or German companies; American ones are too corrupt and sleazy to be trusted to do the job right and safely.

We can also note that American oil companies are burning off so much over-production of natural gas we could power several cities a year from the 'waste', another example of mismanagement by 'private' industry that will lead to serious problems down the road.


----------



## elektra (Jul 13, 2020)

Picaro said:


> Improvements in battery tech is making nuclear obsolete.


You are very ignorant.


----------



## elektra (Jul 13, 2020)

In World War Ii, it was a hard decision, drop two nuclear bombs or batteries.


----------



## Picaro (Jul 13, 2020)

elektra said:


> In World War Ii, it was a hard decision, drop two nuclear bombs or batteries.



You probably are stupid enough to think that's a point .


----------



## elektra (Jul 13, 2020)

Picaro said:


> You probably are stupid enough to think that's a point .


You are the one who stated they are making batteries that are as powerful as a nuclear power plant. So the question to you is, how many batteries would it have taken to destroy nagasaki or hiroshima.


----------

