RE: but but but Nuclear power is dangerous! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


juliaoceania -> RE: but but but Nuclear power is dangerous! (2/7/2010 12:08:56 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeffff

Once again, disingenuous. I am not an anti nuclear energy guy. It most likely is the future.

Having said that, if a nuke plant goes, the potential damage is much greater than 2 deaths and 100 injured.

When you compare apples and oranges, you look like a douche.

More importantly, you seem to think that the rest of us are too stupid to see it.

Thats insulting


Jeff



I think most people are too stupid to understand insurance too, and that is clear from reading discussions about it. There are two components to insurance, probability and economic cost. the low probability of nuclear accidents dwarfs the potential economic risk.


Yes, all decisions must be made by calculating economic benefit instead of the risks... this is the ultimate destiny of mankind, making every decision about profitability instead of any other consideration[8|]

What a morally bankrupt world it is shaping up to be with the rampage of free market ideals




philosophy -> RE: but but but Nuclear power is dangerous! (2/7/2010 12:12:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

the low probability of nuclear accidents dwarfs the potential economic risk.


....however, as Chernobyl shows, despite a low probability of incidents, the death toll and numbers of injured are staggeringly high.

Not everything ought to be measured solely in economic terms.

Nuclear energy is an important part of the future of energy production, but to downplay the risks involved is disingenous.

Virtually all energy production technologies are potentially dangerous, nuclear tech also requires that we consider the long term effects in a way that we don't have to with, say, gas.

Doesn't mean we ought not to use these technologies, but it does mean we have to consider all the angles from production problems to waste management problems.




willbeurdaddy -> RE: but but but Nuclear power is dangerous! (2/7/2010 12:21:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeffff

Once again, disingenuous. I am not an anti nuclear energy guy. It most likely is the future.

Having said that, if a nuke plant goes, the potential damage is much greater than 2 deaths and 100 injured.

When you compare apples and oranges, you look like a douche.

More importantly, you seem to think that the rest of us are too stupid to see it.

Thats insulting


Jeff



I think most people are too stupid to understand insurance too, and that is clear from reading discussions about it. There are two components to insurance, probability and economic cost. the low probability of nuclear accidents dwarfs the potential economic risk.


Yes, all decisions must be made by calculating economic benefit instead of the risks... this is the ultimate destiny of mankind, making every decision about profitability instead of any other consideration[8|]

What a morally bankrupt world it is shaping up to be with the rampage of free market ideals



You do realize that economics encompasses more than financial considerations, right?




juliaoceania -> RE: but but but Nuclear power is dangerous! (2/7/2010 12:24:25 PM)

quote:

You do realize that economics encompasses more than financial considerations, right?


I realize in researching labor unions that economists use these equations to try to prove that anything that cuts into "profits" will somehow impact poor people negatively... here is the thing, it is easy to use numbers to lie, and many economists are very agile at playing tricky with their numbers and only paying attention to the numbers that bolster their predictive models of the universe...

Oh yes, I am well versed in those techniques from twicky economists...




Jeffff -> RE: but but but Nuclear power is dangerous! (2/7/2010 12:26:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeffff

Once again, disingenuous. I am not an anti nuclear energy guy. It most likely is the future.

Having said that, if a nuke plant goes, the potential damage is much greater than 2 deaths and 100 injured.

When you compare apples and oranges, you look like a douche.

More importantly, you seem to think that the rest of us are too stupid to see it.

Thats insulting


Jeff



I think most people are too stupid to understand insurance too, and that is clear from reading discussions about it. There are two components to insurance, probability and economic cost. the low probability of nuclear accidents dwarfs the potential economic risk.


Therein lies the problem. I see people as more than cogs in the economy. Granted, I don't like many of them but I still think they have a right to exist comparatively safely.

Jeff




domiguy -> RE: but but but Nuclear power is dangerous! (2/7/2010 12:42:42 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

So learn the lesson, and pick better spokesholes next time.  These guys damaged your message pretty badly.


Only to the closed minded that hated the messenger more than what was attempted to be relayed.  Says less about those that are incapable of recognizing a distinct truth only because it confronts a political agenda.

Sad really.




Brain -> RE: but but but Nuclear power is dangerous! (2/7/2010 1:08:44 PM)

People do stupid things, looks like Joe Lieberman disease is spreading in Connecticut.




rulemylife -> RE: but but but Nuclear power is dangerous! (2/7/2010 1:18:25 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeffff

Like your misinformed answer on uncertainty? Or perhaps your nonsense about supply side economics being successful 3 times in history?

And now your using a tragedy to further some silly nuclear power agenda?  What a guy!

Bla, bla, bla, bla, bla.


Jeff


In case you ever decide to read a history book, its tragedies that drive all social agendas.


Really?

Tragedies drive all social agendas.

Another supposed truism from Willbeur.

I think I'm going to start calling them Willbeurisms.




thompsonx -> RE: but but but Nuclear power is dangerous! (2/7/2010 1:24:33 PM)

quote:

It speaks so clearly to the Greenies.


What is it saying to the greenies?




flcouple2009 -> RE: but but but Nuclear power is dangerous! (2/7/2010 1:39:22 PM)

It doesn't matter how low it is Wilbur, it only takes once to make a huge disaster.  Not to mention the problem of the spent fuel which is coming up around the world not just here.

Wilbur, dear, what is the probability of a gas plant explosion, that's not really high either is it, but as you just pointed out it happens.




TheHeretic -> RE: but but but Nuclear power is dangerous! (2/7/2010 1:56:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: domiguy

Only to the closed minded that hated the messenger more than what was attempted to be relayed.  Says less about those that are incapable of recognizing a distinct truth only because it confronts a political agenda.

Sad really.



When the messenger is a power-mad hack who is obviously hijacking the message to suit his own completely unrelated agenda, you're damn right I'm going to hate the messenger, DG.  Actual committed environmentalist should hate him too, and be much more careful in who grabs their banner next time.




SL4V3M4YB3 -> RE: but but but Nuclear power is dangerous! (2/7/2010 2:04:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: flcouple2009
Wilbur, dear, what is the probability of a gas plant explosion, that's not really high either is it, but as you just pointed out it happens.

Gas plants aren’t designed to the same tolerances and with the same level of redundancy in design as nuclear plants are, so it's an inaccurate comparison in the first place. Strictly speaking.

What people also have to consider is that the probability of a risk being realised increases the more that you are exposed to it. So the more plants you have the more chance there is that one is neglected or not built with relevant safety features or a quirk in a design change may lead to inherent safety issues.

I tend to think you have to develop nuclear to enable us to improve the technology but it shouldn't ever be used as the majority power supply. Whatever happened to fusion, still in a lab? Coal is a good option especially with carbon capture and storage, I think this should be developed further primarily.




juliaoceania -> RE: but but but Nuclear power is dangerous! (2/7/2010 2:49:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

quote:

ORIGINAL: domiguy

Only to the closed minded that hated the messenger more than what was attempted to be relayed.  Says less about those that are incapable of recognizing a distinct truth only because it confronts a political agenda.

Sad really.



When the messenger is a power-mad hack who is obviously hijacking the message to suit his own completely unrelated agenda, you're damn right I'm going to hate the messenger, DG.  Actual committed environmentalist should hate him too, and be much more careful in who grabs their banner next time.


So you are admitting that you allow your common sense and decency to be hijacked by hating the messenger so much it blinds you to the truth of the message?... hmmmmm






willbeurdaddy -> RE: but but but Nuclear power is dangerous! (2/7/2010 2:52:05 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeffff

Like your misinformed answer on uncertainty? Or perhaps your nonsense about supply side economics being successful 3 times in history?

And now your using a tragedy to further some silly nuclear power agenda?  What a guy!

Bla, bla, bla, bla, bla.


Jeff


In case you ever decide to read a history book, its tragedies that drive all social agendas.


Really?

Tragedies drive all social agendas.

Another supposed truism from Willbeur.

I think I'm going to start calling them Willbeurisms.



Why don't you pick a few that weren't? Then you can go all semantic on what or what isn't a tragedy.




willbeurdaddy -> RE: but but but Nuclear power is dangerous! (2/7/2010 2:55:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SL4V3M4YB3



I tend to think you have to develop nuclear to enable us to improve the technology but it shouldn't ever be used as the majority power supply.


Tell that to France.






thornhappy -> RE: but but but Nuclear power is dangerous! (2/7/2010 3:35:12 PM)

How do you feel about government subsidies?  France's nuclear industry is very highly subsidized.

Now, as to redundancy, structures in a gas plant aren't subject to neutron bombardment and embrittlement, so you need more specs and tolerances than in a conventional plant.

Fusion will probably never achieve breakeven, and if a miracle happens to make it past breakeven, it's not clean.  Neutron bombardment will make the reactor housing radioactive over time, so the entire thing will have to be replaced and disposed of.




rockspider -> RE: but but but Nuclear power is dangerous! (2/7/2010 4:57:55 PM)

It is quite obvious that the posters here have no real experience in either the coal based or nuclear generating field.
Looking at the coalbased it is probably the biggest polutant on this planet. When it comes to personel safety issues it has killed more people than any other industri. In China alone over 2000 people gets killed in coalmining accidents annually. In South Africa it is over 1000 annually. This takes in to account only those directly killed, not those who die or have their health seriously impaired from diseases as the dreaded coallung. In the UK a few years back there was made a report over the health of ex coalminers and their health. Over ½ had their health serious impaired and that is in a country, who for many years have been quite safety conscious. I wonder how that report had been loking like if it was made in Poland, Russia, South Africa, China, Columbia or many other less developed countries with a coal mining industri.
Another thing about the coalmining and the use of coal is the enviromental impact. The asset rain, sulphur and phosfor fall out. I have seen hundreds of square kilometers of land who probably never recover from that in the Witbank - Middelburg area in South Africa. There is also lakes there who have an PH of 4, totally excluding any form of life in them. This is very concentrated as they have a great number of big powerstations in a very small area. But the effect is generally the same anywhere these stations is just more diluted. I invite anybody to go and take a look at the socalled stripmining methode of mining coal. It is a horendous view and also go and see what the ashproduction of a 4000 ton an hour looks like and what we can do with that in the future.
Nuclear power has had 2 major incidents in its history. Three Mile Island which was bad enough, but in reality the damage was contained in the plant and no one outside got hurt in any manner.
Chernobyl, if you read the accident report all the way you will find that it should never happen again. It was a hopelessly outdated plant, run in a manner which can only be described as totally reckless and with no regard for any form of engineering standards as can only happen in a country where corrupt politicians can override the responsible engineers (which was few and far between at Chernobyl). It was an extreme rude awakening call for the former eastblock and i think the rest of the world and i seriously doubt anybody, even in Russia, would want to go even cloose to that again. Besides that reactor dessign was abandoned over 25 years previous to the disaster happening. Modern reactor types can simply not have that kind of accident.




juliaoceania -> RE: but but but Nuclear power is dangerous! (2/7/2010 5:04:39 PM)

It is a false argument that just because one does not support nuke energy that they support fossils....

There could be another choice in a short amount of time that renders the entire argument moot




AnimusRex -> RE: but but but Nuclear power is dangerous! (2/7/2010 5:14:08 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SL4V3M4YB3
What people also have to consider is that the probability of a risk being realised increases the more that you are exposed to it. So the more plants you have the more chance there is that one is neglected or not built with relevant safety features or a quirk in a design change may lead to inherent safety issues.


Exactly- which is why comparing the number of people killed by nuclear plants to some other plant is inaccurate; its like comparing the number of people killed by hydrogen dirigibles to the number of people killed in jet airliners, and concluding that hydrogen dirigibles are safer.

One problem that dogs most of the debate over energy is the assumption that we should find a silver bullet solution that offers unlimited energy and a price too cheap to meter, so we can go about our lives consuming more, ever more electricity and heating.

The problem is that energy and natural resource supplies can only be supplied in limited amounts, constrained by supply and cost of extraction; but there is no natural ceiling of consumption that will satisfy people.

In other words, even if we built a nuclear power plant every 6 blocks, and rapaciously blew up every mountain in West Virginia, dammed every river with a hydroelectric plant, it wouldn't be enough for our needs. Because our needs are mostly desires, and our desires are infinite.

If you look at the long view, from 1900 to the 1970's, heating and lighting became steadily cheaper; yet during that same period, the efficiency of buildings and automobiles got worse and worse.

Making energy cheaper only means we will squander it more rapidly.




samboct -> RE: but but but Nuclear power is dangerous! (2/7/2010 6:53:23 PM)

"I tend to think you have to develop nuclear to enable us to improve the technology but it shouldn't ever be used as the majority power supply.


How much spending?  We've been working on nuclear power plants for over 50 years- and we haven't dented the waste disposal issue.  Costs of decomissioning are horrendous and increasing, and given the long lived nature of radionuclides and the lack of understanding of their chemistry, it's quite possible that we'll have further disasters. 

Anybody that thinks that nuke plants are well run or designed intelligently is sorely mistaken- and please let me show you a bridge in Brooklyn, available for purchase now- small bills only please.

Lack of information about the nuke industries failures doesn't mean that they don't exist.  Two examples-

1)  Nuke operators discovered that plants could be run longer and harder than originally designed because it turns out that the crystallization of metals which embrittled them was counteracted by a long term thermal annealing.  In other words, some of the materials in the plants should have been weakened- but weren't because people didn't understand relatively low temperature thermal annealing (the heat in the plant helped heal the metal.)  What if something goes the other way?  All the safety designs in the world don't work if the materials specified aren't up to snuff- and since it's very hard to monitor what goes on in a reactor core (electronics gets fried.), I suspect that there are elements which aren't inspected regularly but have been "computer modeled" to be safe.  No direct info one way or another - just a guess based on other industrial practice.

2)  Genius idea of the decade- take a stainless steel pipe through the core and run hydrogen through it.  For those of you who don't know much metallurgy- hydrogen embrittles metals- apparently a fact known to design engineers everywhere except at this particular nuke plant.  Can you say hydrogen explosion in a core?  Even a chemist like me knows that one....

Sorry- but the nuke industry has been losing billions of dollars per year for decades, and they're desperate for more nuke plants.  If they'd solved the waste issue- then people might be a lot more willing to discuss.  But it's crazy to build more of these contraptions when we really don't know how much it's going to cost to get rid of the spent fuel or to decommission the reactors safely. Oh Wilbur....France by the way- the estimated cost of reprocessing spent fuel- $3k/kg.  Cost of new fuel- $30/kg.  Great economic model there....

Whatever happened to fusion, still in a lab?  Yup-and it will be for decades.  Not even close....

Coal is a good option especially with carbon capture and storage, I think this should be developed further primarily."

Again, I have a bridge for sale in Brooklyn to anyone silly enough to believe this one.  Second law of thermodynamics- same reason you can't have a perpetual motion machine...There will be an energy cost for separating out the CO2- never mind the storage and containment issues.  It's likely that the energy cost will be around 25% or so- which basically makes the existing plants useless- you can't do a bolt on separator, because the generators aren't designed to run at 25% reduced input power efficiently- can't get to the voltage you need.

Sam




Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875