RE: but but but Nuclear power is dangerous!

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

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

Message

thornhappy -> RE: but but but Nuclear power is dangerous! (2/7/2010 7:07:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rockspider I 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 It was a hopelessly outdated plant, run in a manner which can only be described as totally reckless and with no regard for any form of engineering standards as can only happen in a country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. 2 additional reactors were being built at the site and they were also RBMK-types. BTW, questions were raised before this type of reactor was built on the site - its first use was in weapons work, and it was notorious for leaking radiation. Politics overrode the decision.

DarkSteven -> RE: but but but Nuclear power is dangerous! (2/7/2010 8:06:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AnimusRex And the point of this is....? His point is that while nuclear is in fact dangerous to a degree, that its alternatives are risky as well. The safest alternative is conservation, but it only goes so far. We need energy sources.

InvisibleBlack -> RE: but but but Nuclear power is dangerous! (2/7/2010 8:23:12 PM)
There is no miracle perfect solution. Natural gas is a flammable explosive gas. This makes it difficult to store and transport and risky to work with. Oil is less risky, more plentiful but burns somewhat dirtier. Coal is plain filthy. That fly ash is nasty caustic stuff. I don't realistically see a "true" clean coal solution anytime on the horizon. You'd be better burning oil. Coal is, however, plentiful. Unfortunately, even mining it is a vile dirty business - not to mention storing the run-off in those coal slurries which occasionall breach and contaminate acres of countryside plus the water table. I don't see a big future for coal. Nuclear has the best potential in the short term. Somehow, as a technology, it's so okay that we gave it to dozens of third-world countries and they can run nuclear power plants for decades but we can't. For that matter, the military has been operating nuclear power plants (in submarines and carrieris) since the Sixties without incident. Chernobyl is not a good example. The power plant was an extremely bad design and poorly run and managed. I don't realistically see a way around relying on nuclear power for quite some time this century as the only viable alternative until new technologies are developed and brought to market. How long does it take to bring such a technology to market? Well, see ... the first oil well drilled in North America was in 1858 but oil consumption for power didn't surpass that of coal in the United States until 1950. That's 100 years. The first successful use of atomic energy was in 1945 and nuclear power plants are not the majority generation source in the U. S. now - but they could be so let's say that technology could have taken 40 or 50 years to bring to bear if it had been accepted. Depending on your alternative source, you're probably looking at 2030 at the earliest possible for a significant contribution and potentially much longer if an entirely new distribution system needs to be put into place (like for hydrogren, say). There just aren't a lot of options.

TheHeretic -> RE: but but but Nuclear power is dangerous! (2/7/2010 10:31:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania 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 There was no truth left in the message, Julia, only lies and an unrelated agenda. That's what having it hijacked means. Still only reading enough of the post to find something you can have a knee-jerk snark at, I see.

Sanity -> RE: but but but Nuclear power is dangerous! (2/8/2010 5:55:32 AM)
There's a chance that some day everything will be taken care of by magical fairies who will do everything for free because they love us. These fairies won't want any nasty profits. Thats because they'll never tire and they'll never hunger, and they won't sweat or poop or pee so they won't need houses or food. They won't even need clothing, because they're magical... [8\|] quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania 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

thompsonx -> RE: but but but Nuclear power is dangerous! (2/8/2010 7:41:10 AM)
quote: Natural gas is a flammable explosive gas. This makes it difficult to store and transport and risky to work with. The ignition point of natural gas is 1076 degrees f. The ignition point of wood is 572 degrees f. The ignition point of gasoline is 536 degrees f. The ignition point of diesel fuel is 496 degrees f. It would apear from the above table that there are common substances which are much more flamable than natural gas.

samboct -> RE: but but but Nuclear power is dangerous! (2/8/2010 7:52:25 AM)
"There is no miracle perfect solution. Natural gas is a flammable explosive gas. This makes it difficult to store and transport and risky to work with. Oil is less risky, more plentiful but burns somewhat dirtier. Coal is plain filthy. That fly ash is nasty caustic stuff. I don't realistically see a "true" clean coal solution anytime on the horizon. You'd be better burning oil. Coal is, however, plentiful. Unfortunately, even mining it is a vile dirty business - not to mention storing the run-off in those coal slurries which occasionall breach and contaminate acres of countryside plus the water table. I don't see a big future for coal. Nuclear has the best potential in the short term. Somehow, as a technology, it's so okay that we gave it to dozens of third-world countries and they can run nuclear power plants for decades but we can't. For that matter, the military has been operating nuclear power plants (in submarines and carrieris) since the Sixties without incident. (Not true- just not well publicized.) Chernobyl is not a good example. The power plant was an extremely bad design and poorly run and managed. I don't realistically see a way around relying on nuclear power for quite some time this century as the only viable alternative until new technologies are developed and brought to market." Sorry IB. While I respect your posts on economics, on this one, you've made some serious blunders (lets not get into a fuels discussion- it's a red herring.) Let's look at the problem from a different standpoint-The issue is NOT of generation- we can generate electricity reasonably cheaply with wind, and installations are relatively inexpensive and with limited environmental impact. If CO2 emissions are accurately priced- wind becomes the cheapest generating solution- most of the costs are up front, installation is quick, no fuel costs, and low decommissioning costs. No environmental costs, i.e. CO2, waste disposal etc. Insurance should be cheaper than for nuclear (which is tax payer subsidized anyhow.) Solar is much more expensive generation- at least 3x at this point- but generally happens when you need it most making it more valuable. (New geothermal appears to have some installation risks- i.e. earthquakes that may limit its utility.) The problem is transmission and storage. Both have different technical solutions than what's been used to date- and both can be implemented rapidly compared to building new nuke plants. 1) Transmission. Existing transmission lines use 1920s technology- steel cables. I took a few notes at a presentation by Composite Technology Cable Corp. (I did buy stock in this company.) New line materials. Conventional stuff is ACSR- new stuff is ACCCU. Uses a carbon fiber core. 100% increase in power capacity because it can go to higher amps with 25% more Aluminum (Aluminum is more conductive than steel) content. Runs cooler, reduces sag (CTE of carbon fiber is pretty low which allows the higher capacities)- 25% reduction in line losses. At 1600 amps, runs 60 C cooler than steel cable. For a 75 mile line at 200 kV, cost is 2x steel conductor. Cost of conductor on a new installation is 15-20%. Costs are about 50/50 for a rewire. Conductor weighs about 1 lb/ft.= uses 10k lbs per100 km. Example Duke Energy- 37 GW in generating capacity. 26B kW/hr per month. 25% reduction in line losses saves $336M/yr. That's for replacing existing lines. New long haul lines- should be DC and superconducting which means buried. This has advantages and disadvantages. Advantages- NIMBY problem lessened- people have fewer objections to buried power lines than overhead. Cost disadvantage- burying lines is an easy 10x greater installation cost than overhead. However, with a superconducting line, distance is no object- can transport power with few losses from OK or KS to the East Coast. Cost of cable will be several $ billion US according to American Superconductor (Danbury, CT - I plan on buying stock in this company if the price drops down to $10/share again.). Installation probably higher. Effectively you will need one cable in a modestly sized tunnel (less than 2 meters in diameter with cooling jacket of liquid N2), but can run several taps off for say Chicago, OH, other high demand regions. Already in use in CT in some substations. So really, one can reduce transmission losses by a quarter without a dramatic change in cost structure, and if you're willing to spring for the infrastructure, we can get power anywhere in the country cheaply. Analogy-There is no way you could have the current information economy using copper wire. Newer power transmission technology will enable a different generation paradigm which will allow very different economics. Storage- At this point we have roughly 2.5% of our current generating capacity in storage capacity. This is in the form of pumped hydro- a technology which has been around for decades. Improvement in pumps can increase efficiency slightly, but overall efficiency is in the 80% range. Most losses are due to evaporation- so that's not changing. Short term storage- flywheels- Beacon Power (I own a little stock in this company too.) Can handle transient spikes for about 15 minutes or so. Larger flywheels would allow cheaper installations. Need better composites. Longer term storage i.e. hours, may be battery if cost/MW can be decreased. Still an economics problem- storage needs a different cost structure than generation and I don't think we've got it. This is because there is no economics benefit to NOT building new generation technology. Conservation- The problem with conservation to date is that the benefits are distributed, while the costs are paid by a few in terms of either dollars or behavior modification. Lack of conservation is an economics, not a technical or political problem. Real time pricing may help- some data suggests that individual consumers try it for a bit, don't like it, and don't really change their behavior long term- they're willing to pay more instead. Real stimulus spending will involve projects like these which will put people back to work, restore the US manufacturing base, and allow us to compete globally on the basis of having cheap power with lessened environmental impact. Of course, this would require Obama to lead- and Congress to not throw screaming hissy fits. It would require all of us to put aside our differences and work together for a change. It becomes a political, rather than a technical problem But there are better technology solutions than simply building more nuke plants.... Sam

Arpig -> RE: but but but Nuclear power is dangerous! (2/8/2010 8:10:32 AM)
I am in favour of Nuclear energy. It is clean and has proven itself safe. 2 major accidents in however many years worldwide and one of those due pretty much to turning off the safety measures is satisfactory for me. Coal is nasty stuff, Oil is nasty stuff, and so is nuclear waste, but nuclear waste can be recycled and used for further energy production, unlike the leftovers of oil/coal. Wind, solar, tidal and geothermal are all technologies that should be used whenever and wherever pratical, but they just are not practical for large scale production. Another source that is often overlooked is small scale hydro generation. Rather than build a huge dam project one can install many smaller turbines in a river to each generate a small amount of energy. Enough of them and you have a major source...in countries like Canada where we have a shitload of rivers this approach could be useful (though freezing may be an issue. I guess my point is that it isn't an either/or thing...its an AND thing...we should be doing our best to develop any and all clean energy sources...and yes cheapness of the energy should be one of the aims as well as cleanness.

samboct -> RE: but but but Nuclear power is dangerous! (2/8/2010 8:37:48 AM)
"The ignition point of natural gas is 1076 degrees f. The ignition point of wood is 572 degrees f. The ignition point of gasoline is 536 degrees f. The ignition point of diesel fuel is 496 degrees f. It would apear from the above table that there are common substances which are much more flamable than natural gas." Actually, as a chemist, I'd worry about boiling point as well. How much of the liquid or solid transitions to a gas at room temperature? Liquids and solids are a lot harder to get to burn than a gas- last time I checked, pretty much everything we burn is actually is a gas. So looking at your list- Natural gas-boiling point very low. Wood- boiling point/sublimation temperature- high. Gasoline- boiling point low Diesel-bp moderately high. Doesn't mean that any of these fuels can't be safely handled- but anything that can burn, sooner or later will- with some unfortunate consequences. Arpig The nuclear industry has been ignoring the cost of disposal of spent fuel because it destroys their economics for years. See my earlier posts on the cost of reprocessing spent fuel. Sam

juliaoceania -> RE: but but but Nuclear power is dangerous! (2/8/2010 9:17:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania 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 There was no truth left in the message, Julia, only lies and an unrelated agenda. That's what having it hijacked means. Still only reading enough of the post to find something you can have a knee-jerk snark at, I see. I asked a question... where is the knee jerk and the snark in that?

juliaoceania -> RE: but but but Nuclear power is dangerous! (2/8/2010 9:18:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity There's a chance that some day everything will be taken care of by magical fairies who will do everything for free because they love us. These fairies won't want any nasty profits. Thats because they'll never tire and they'll never hunger, and they won't sweat or poop or pee so they won't need houses or food. They won't even need clothing, because they're magical... [8\|] quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania 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 And that was some sort of rational response to what I posted? If that is all ya got, you shouldn't have bothered

Politesub53 -> RE: but but but Nuclear power is dangerous! (2/8/2010 10:40:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AnimusRex And the point of this is....? Is it A) Anal. B) Point scoring with little regard for the casualties. C) Safer to live in Chernobyl. D) All of the above.

DomKen -> RE: but but but Nuclear power is dangerous! (2/8/2010 12:38:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rockspider Nuclear power has had 2 major incidents in its history. Please don't make claims without doing the research to back them up. If 3 Mile Island qualifies as a major incident then what do you label SL-1? How about Kyshtym?

InvisibleBlack -> RE: but but but Nuclear power is dangerous! (2/8/2010 2:05:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: samboct Let's look at the problem from a different standpoint-The issue is NOT of generation- we can generate electricity reasonably cheaply with wind, and installations are relatively inexpensive and with limited environmental impact. All the wind-based installations here in New York City have been utter abysmal failures. I suspect there's much more potential in large plains areas but even there - wind isn't exactly a "power on demand" technology. It's by nature (get it? get it?) limited. quote: ORIGINAL: samboct If CO2 emissions are accurately priced... Accurately priced by whom? Realistically, while pollution has a cost, the determination of that cost and how that determination is made will seriously skew the results of any study. I'd want to see detailed assumptions about how one rated the cost of pollutants for the various technologies. quote: ORIGINAL: samboct Transmission. Existing transmission lines use 1920s technology- steel cables... So really, one can reduce transmission losses by a quarter without a dramatic change in cost structure, and if you're willing to spring for the infrastructure, we can get power anywhere in the country cheaply. Transmission is a zero-sum game. It no more tilts the balance towards wind than it does any other technology. All electricity needs to be transmitted. The cheaper you make transmission costs, the more options for power plants of any type become available. I do agree with you that the power grid could use some serious upgrading. I disagree with you that it could happen as "quickly" as the backbone cutover from copper to fiber in the United States (and even that took years). quote: ORIGINAL: samboct Conservation- The problem with conservation to date is that the benefits are distributed, while the costs are paid by a few in terms of either dollars or behavior modification. Lack of conservation is an economics, not a technical or political problem. Real time pricing may help- some data suggests that individual consumers try it for a bit, don't like it, and don't really change their behavior long term- they're willing to pay more instead. The problem with conservation is that every generation people use exponentially more power, making conservation something of a joke. In 1940 the standard family has a car and at home, a radio. Then came the freezer. Then the toaster. Then the mixer. Then the television. Then the microwave. Then every household had two televisions. Then three. Then you had your computer. Then everyone in the family has a computer. Now you have your game console, your laptop, your cell phone, your television, your car ... and so does every member of your family. Most of the third world is only starting to develop into the industrial let alone the technological era - so their power usage is going to increase astronomically over the next several decades - something we (the Western world) has been encouraging for years. People are never going to use less electricity. I can't even fathom how anyone could consider it. Fifty years from now we'll be using ten or 100 times more. quote: ORIGINAL: samboct Real stimulus spending will involve projects like these which will put people back to work, restore the US manufacturing base, and allow us to compete globally on the basis of having cheap power with lessened environmental impact. This I agree with. I suspect a day will come when most households are net energy producers and sell their excess power back to the grid for high energy consumers to use. quote: ORIGINAL: samboct But there are better technology solutions than simply building more nuke plants.... So why hasn't someone invested heavily and marketed these solutions on a global scale? Previous high-value energy technologies were rapidly adopted.

thompsonx -> RE: but but but Nuclear power is dangerous! (2/8/2010 2:57:46 PM)
quote: "The ignition point of natural gas is 1076 degrees f. The ignition point of wood is 572 degrees f. The ignition point of gasoline is 536 degrees f. The ignition point of diesel fuel is 496 degrees f. It would apear from the above table that there are common substances which are much more flamable than natural gas." Actually, as a chemist, I'd worry about boiling point as well. How much of the liquid or solid transitions to a gas at room temperature? Liquids and solids are a lot harder to get to burn than a gas- last time I checked, pretty much everything we burn is actually is a gas. So looking at your list- Natural gas-boiling point very low. Wood- boiling point/sublimation temperature- high. Gasoline- boiling point low Diesel-bp moderately high. I do not disagree with your premis but if we look at the facts, natural gas boils at -258 degrees f but will not ignit until 1056 f. Gasoline boils between 400f (standard day) but ingites at 536 f. This is why propane which boils at -44 f and ignites at 842 f can be compressed in the intake air in a diesel engine and not ignite. Diesel fuel which boils at about 250 f will ignite in the approximately 600 f combustion chamber which will in turn ignite the propane. When the ignition temp and the boiling temp are fairly close together (gasoline 400n f =boiling 500 f = ignition) The margin for safety is much smaller. My point was that natural gas like any fuel has to be handled properly but that it is not any where near as dangerous as the OP would have us believe so that we might compare it unfavorably with nuclear power.

samboct -> RE: but but but Nuclear power is dangerous! (2/8/2010 3:20:40 PM)
"All the wind-based installations here in New York City have been utter abysmal failures. I suspect there's much more potential in large plains areas but even there - wind isn't exactly a "power on demand" technology. It's by nature (get it? get it?) limited." Not sure I see the relevance of NYC to wind based installations. The one which makes sense is going to be offshore- NJ I think. There have been a number of successful offshore installations in other countries UK for example, although the installation and maintenance costs are higher, the flow pattern of the wind is more predictable. Also as noted later in the post- the real issues are transmission and storage which negate the intermittent nature of wind. :Accurately priced by whom? Realistically, while pollution has a cost, the determination of that cost and how that determination is made will seriously skew the results of any study. I'd want to see detailed assumptions about how one rated the cost of pollutants for the various technologies." Point well taken- I don't want to come up with the pricing for CO2- I only know that at $15 a ton it's too small to have much effect, but $50 a ton starts looking like a game changer. "Transmission is a zero-sum game. It no more tilts the balance towards wind than it does any other technology. All electricity needs to be transmitted. The cheaper you make transmission costs, the more options for power plants of any type become available. Oh- not true at all! Current transmission losses from say OK to NYC exceed 50% (I suspect it's closer to 90%). This means that current generation power plants have to be relatively close to their customers. Remove this geographical constraint and there is far more flexibility in terms of what you can use for power generation. Bear in mind that existing coal and nuclear plants need large supplies of fresh water- wind and solar PV does not! Larger scale wind farms become more economical the further you can transmit their power- but better power transmission does very little for nuclear or coal, since they're already sited close by. "I do agree with you that the power grid could use some serious upgrading. I disagree with you that it could happen as "quickly" as the backbone cutover from copper to fiber in the United States (and even that took years)." The major stumbling blocks to grid transmission upgrades is the monopolistic nature of utilities. They don't make any money from doing so. I suspect it's going to take the EPA and court orders to force changes based on GHG emissions. However, technology changes such as seat belts can happen quickly. More on the copper--> fiber transition below. "The problem with conservation is that every generation people use exponentially more power, making conservation something of a joke. In 1940 the standard family has a car and at home, a radio. Then came the freezer. Then the toaster. Then the mixer. Then the television. Then the microwave. Then every household had two televisions. Then three. Then you had your computer. Then everyone in the family has a computer. Now you have your game console, your laptop, your cell phone, your television, your car ... and so does every member of your family." Sorry- this is grossly in error. There is no relationship between GDP and energy consumption in Europe and Japan- only in the US. Increased energy consumption in the US is due primarily to urban sprawl and larger houses- not electronics. Light bulbs chew up way more energy in a household compared to electronics such as computers- air conditioning is the biggest piece of consumption. Manufacturing has shifted to smaller components- the change from durable white goods as a quarter of the economy to chip production has greatly reduced manufacturings share of energy consumption. Since urban sprawl may be declining with increasing gas prices and reduced tolerance for traffic- its unlikely that energy consumption will rise dramatically in the US in the next century- absent greater demands for air conditioning due to global warming. "Most of the third world is only starting to develop into the industrial let alone the technological era - so their power usage is going to increase astronomically over the next several decades - something we (the Western world) has been encouraging for years. People are never going to use less electricity. I can't even fathom how anyone could consider it. Fifty years from now we'll be using ten or 100 times more." Increased energy efficiency often leads to increased productivity. I'll lay long odds that the generating technologies in two decades will be more efficient and cheaper than what we have today. In terms of consumption of electricity- to a first order approximation, humans consume less calories than they did a century ago- and yet we're still getting fatter due to less exercise. Energy consumption is like calories- once you get over a certain amount- more tends to just be wasted. In countries such as China and India- China's phone service managed to vault past ours because they didn't have a legacy copper network. Having the legacy copper network didn't make the transition to fiber/cellular any easier. There's nothing I know of that says that these countries are going to have to go through an inefficient fossil fuel burning phase of power generation to get to wind/solar (except that China is building a 500 MW coal plant/week....)- this is all scare tactics designed to keep the US citizens happy with their coal and nuclear burning dinosaurs. We can do better. If we don't- we're done in terms of the global economy as other countries will be far more efficient in terms of power generation- and we'll never be able to catch up. "So why hasn't someone invested heavily and marketed these solutions on a global scale? Previous high-value energy technologies were rapidly adopted." Marketing and political apathy. And nuke plants weren't rapidly adopted even with their BS marketing campaigns that "Power would soon be too cheap to meter...." Not to mention that there is NO federal energy policy worthy of mention and that the grid in this country consists of 5 separate fiefdoms. Basically, there's enormous inertia to change given the current monopolistic/oligopolistic nature of the grid. Who would benefit from improved transmission and storage? The utilities? Not with the current pricing systems. Only the consumer.....and the eternally screwed US taxpayer.... Sam

willbeurdaddy -> RE: but but but Nuclear power is dangerous! (2/8/2010 8:38:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thornhappy 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. that Everything in France is very highly subsidized, lol. What does that have to do with it being absolutely vital to US interests?

thompsonx -> RE: but but but Nuclear power is dangerous! (2/9/2010 6:20:53 AM)
quote: It speaks so clearly to the Greenies. I am still waiting for you to tell me just what this incident is saying to the greenies. Or is this just more of your ill informed bullshit?

samboct -> RE: but but but Nuclear power is dangerous! (2/9/2010 6:51:28 AM)
Hi Thompson Point well taken- I agree with you. One of the major problems of nuclear power is that the chemistry of the byproducts is very poorly understood due to the challenging requirements to work with them. Most labs do not have equipment that can handle compounds which emit strongly ionizing radiation safely, and its quite expensive to deal with the clean up if you have an accident. Probing the chemistry of this stuff is challenging as well, because most of the instrumentation would get fried- detectors give up the ghost when pummeled by emitters. Nuclear power supporters brush aside these objections, but since the industry doesn't have to pay for the disposal of waste- it's left to the taxpayer. And it strikes me as dumb to build more of these things when we can't clean up the mess from the ones we've already got. Sam

thompsonx -> RE: but but but Nuclear power is dangerous! (2/9/2010 7:36:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: samboct Hi Thompson Point well taken- I agree with you. One of the major problems of nuclear power is that the chemistry of the byproducts is very poorly understood due to the challenging requirements to work with them. Most labs do not have equipment that can handle compounds which emit strongly ionizing radiation safely, and its quite expensive to deal with the clean up if you have an accident. Probing the chemistry of this stuff is challenging as well, because most of the instrumentation would get fried- detectors give up the ghost when pummeled by emitters. Nuclear power supporters brush aside these objections, but since the industry doesn't have to pay for the disposal of waste- it's left to the taxpayer. And it strikes me as dumb to build more of these things when we can't clean up the mess from the ones we've already got. Sam I could not agree more. It is always refreshing to discuss your post with you. Your post are always filled with fact and reasoned conclussions.

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875