Stay on topic in your discussions, and avoid making off-topic or irrelevant posts. If you want to discuss a different topic, it is okay provided you mark the subject starting 'OT:', and also consider posting on a different board.
- Manlobbi
Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy
No. of Recommendations: 0
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/12/04/us-leads-coalition..."U.S. leads coalition to triple nuclear power by 2050 in effort to address climate change"
Liberals in the Sky, with Nuclear bah -bah- bah ba-h-bah
Don't remember too many pro nuclear Liberals posts on TMF......
But hey, good job.
More DRILLING for Fossil Fuels.
Cheaper GAS so BIG AMERICAN FAMILIES can load up their BIG TRUCKS and enjoy life.
And more nuclear.
Biden-Enviro-Nomics? Ok by me
No. of Recommendations: 5
Don't remember too many pro nuclear Liberals posts on TMF......
There were a bunch. I remember we used to get into discussions about nuclear power from time to time. There was one poster (I think jaagu?) who was staunchly against nuclear power - and most of the rest of the posters would disagree, pointing out that nuclear power was an alternative to fossil fuels.
It's an issue that divides Greens....but there's a fair number of liberals that think nukes are worth building as part of our effort to reduce carbon emissions.
No. of Recommendations: 0
Well here's to those Pro Nuclear Liberals.
It'll be *one* more issue that the more "Progressive" putzery loses.
No. of Recommendations: 3
There were a bunch. I remember we used to get into discussions about nuclear power from time to time. There was one poster (I think jaagu?) who was staunchly against nuclear power - and most of the rest of the posters would disagree, pointing out that nuclear power was an alternative to fossil fuels.
When Fukushima happened on PA there was a TON of resistance, a lot of it coming from the "these things aren't safe" chorus.
No. of Recommendations: 1
There was one poster (I think jaagu?) who was staunchly against nuclear power - and most of the rest of the posters would disagree, pointing out that nuclear power was an alternative to fossil fuels.
I'm thinking salaryguru. But maybe you're right. He had worked in some capacity for someone concerned about nuclear waste. He used to bring up the point that the waste can last for thousands of years, and any marking we make indicating "danger" or "radioactive" -if the marking lasts that long- may not be understood by whomever is there in several thousand years. A skull and crossbones may mean nothing to the people at that time, for example.
And it's a legit point. I'm still in favor of nuclear power. France (in particular) has shown how it can be done. For example, adopt one design and build several of them; as opposed to in the US every reactor has a different design...one of a kind.
The former head of Greenpeace (forget his name) a few years ago came out in favor of nuclear power. As I recall, he was prioritizing anthropogenic climate change as among the greatest threats to humanity, and wanted all fossil-burners retired in favor of nuclear.
No. of Recommendations: 0
Google Jockey Inc, is very selective and slick.
Either way, they have come to LOVE Fossil Fuels.
And now nuclear.
LOL
No. of Recommendations: 2
When Fukushima happened on PA there was a TON of resistance, a lot of it coming from the "these things aren't safe" chorus.
As you might expect, in the immediate aftermath of one of the worst nuclear disasters ever.
But as a general matter, there were a bunch of us on PA (and elsewhere) who argued against the anti-nuke crowd, and that it didn't make sense for Greens to fight nuclear while simultaneously pointing out the existential threats of carbon emissions. Especially when Germany started closing down its nukes.
No. of Recommendations: 1
There were a bunch. I remember we used to get into discussions about nuclear power from time to time. There was one poster (I think jaagu?) who was staunchly against nuclear power - and most of the rest of the posters would disagree, pointing out that nuclear power was an alternative to fossil fuels.
Yes. I have always supported nuclear power in climate discussions. It's a no brainer to me. I remember Advocatus Diablo was willing to lose a little bit of land every now and then and considered it a bargain. I didn't think we need to lose any land at all, just be prudent, and take advantage in advances in tech that help prevent problems.
No. of Recommendations: 0
When Fukushima happened on PA there was a TON of resistance, a lot of it coming from the "these things aren't safe" chorus.
Not from me. I just catalogued the mistakes and said, those are easily not done again, no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater. But I don't think my analysis convinced anyone to change their minds. Now we look to China, whose ambitious program is waaay behind. China only made an about face when it became apparent China was going to get blamed for all the emissions though.
No. of Recommendations: 1
As you might expect, in the immediate aftermath of one of the worst nuclear disasters ever.
Except that when presented with the evidence that Fukushima had a seriously outdated design (it didn't fail to safe and scram the reactor when the power failed) and that its backup power was so poorly sited so as to defy description (they put the backup generator on the beach, so it was the first thing the tsunami took out), they still lost their minds.
The movie The China Syndrome stuck a little too firmly in some people's minds.
But as a general matter, there were a bunch of us on PA (and elsewhere) who argued against the anti-nuke crowd, and that it didn't make sense for Greens to fight nuclear while simultaneously pointing out the existential threats of carbon emissions. Especially when Germany started closing down its nukes.
Nope. There a very few carbon neutral or very tiny carbon emitting power sources on the planet but for some reason (Gee, wonder what...) the Greens don't want to get behind
Nuclear
Tidal
Geothermal
Hydroelectric
Can't figure out why.
No. of Recommendations: 1
Except that when presented with the evidence that Fukushima had a seriously outdated design (it didn't fail to safe and scram the reactor when the power failed) and that its backup power was so poorly sited so as to defy description (they put the backup generator on the beach, so it was the first thing the tsunami took out), they still lost their minds.
Except that off the top of my head this is factually incorrect. They went down to the bedrock and built up from there. They designed the protective walls for the height and type of wave they thought would come. The quake that set of the tsunami actually lowered the reactor site 3 feet, then the wave incoming wave was larger. So it overpowered that barrier wall. The backup generators were inside the wall but at almost inside ground level, so they got knocked out, with one operational.
It did shut down the reactor on detection of the quake, it couldn't maintain cooling the hot reactors.
No. of Recommendations: 2
I'll bow to your vast expertise at designing failsafe systems for nuclear reactors.
PS. What I said had zero to do with the wall.
No. of Recommendations: 5
PS. What I said had zero to do with the wall.
It had everything to do with the wall.
Except that when presented with the evidence that Fukushima had a seriously outdated design (it didn't fail to safe and scram the reactor when the power failed) and that its backup power was so poorly sited so as to defy description (they put the backup generator on the beach, so it was the first thing the tsunami took out), they still lost their minds.
The backup power was inside the reactor area behind a 10 meter barrier, not "on the beach". The tsunami was 14 meters high. In addition the quake lowered the reactor area a meter. The backup generators got knocked out inside the 10 meter barrier.
No. of Recommendations: 2
I can’t believe you want to bother arguing this, and continue to miss the point.
https://carnegieendowment.org/2012/03/06/why-fukus...Protecting emergency power supplies, including diesel generators and batteries, by moving them to higher ground or by placing them in watertight bunkers;
This is only tangential to the point.
Boiling water reactors don’t need pumped cooling water, they boil water and use natural convection for heat transfer.
