San Ofre Reactor

[repoman0]

Like mothers give a shit about what you think is logical reasoning. Solar is the safest nuclear power because the reactor is 93 million miles away and has a run time of sever billion more years.

Engineers have slide rules for ethics.

Are you interested in an actual discussion or just disparaging those who disagree with you? I like a lot of your posts but have to disagree with you here. Brovane pointed out an interesting reactor design that can actually help eliminate our stockpile of nuclear waste, and has fail-safes built in to prevent meltdowns similar to the couple that have happened in the past, and it is somehow unethical because ... reasons?

The reality is no energy production is completely safe. I found an interesting article that discusses in detail the economics and safety of many forms of power production, but focuses on solar and nuclear. The author's main point is that there is only one realistic way to reduce our carbon footprint. Can you refute or argue against it without attacks on his ethics? If you disagree with his idea of ethics, perhaps point out where he is wrong?

http://energyrealityproject.com/lets-run-the-numbers-nuclear-energy-vs-wind-and-solar/

 

[Moonbeam]

repoman0: Are you interested in an actual discussion or just disparaging those who disagree with you?

M: I'm not interested in either. I'm interested in debussing people of their insanity. The problem is that you're not going to like it because you don't see the limits and dangers of reason. You don't see how you can think of a million good reasons to do the wrong thing.

r: I like a lot of your posts but have to disagree with you here.

M: Disagree with what. Do you imagine I can't see all those good things you will argue for. The problem is that in my opinion I see far more, the hopelessness of reason, the utter frustration that logic has no real world effect when it comes to creating toxins that last for thousands and thousands of years.

r: Brovane pointed out an interesting reactor design that can actually help eliminate our stockpile of nuclear waste, and has fail-safes built in to prevent meltdowns similar to the couple that have happened in the past, and it is somehow unethical because ... reasons?

M: Try to understand that the notion we will ever clean up our nuclear mess is a joke. Just look at the problems shoving it down the throats of a few rattlesnakes in Nevada. All ten people who live within a 100 miles of there don't want it and won't let it happen. And you aren't going to drive a fucking nuclear waste carrying truck down my street. What is the definition of insanity, is it we will clean up the mess we have made before we produce any more or is it we will produce more and in the process we will clean up. You need to wake up. It costs money and a huge political capital that does not exist to clean up nuclear waste, because it is in somebody else's back yard and not mine. That is the rules of sliding ethics, I cross my fingers and tell you I will make more and clean up when clean up will never happen. You have been mesmerized and fallen asleep, and have had dangled before you promises that we will never keep. Wake up and smell the radiation.

r: The reality is no energy production is completely safe.

M: Irrelevant garbage. Compare Fukushima o getting shocked by a solar panel.

M: I found an interesting article that discusses in detail the economics and safety of many forms of power production, but focuses on solar and nuclear. The author's main point is that there is only one realistic way to reduce our carbon footprint. Can you refute or argue against it without attacks on his ethics? If you disagree with his idea of ethics, perhaps point out where he is wrong?

I am not interested in proving him wrong. I say that the innate nature of human beings is to abhor the production of toxins that last thousands of years for any reason at all. Do you really imagine if we all decided the atom shouldn't be split that we'd all go extinct?

And besides, nobody will build nuclear power plants without government guarantees. Nobody would take the risk. Do you want your tax dollars paying for some nuclear meltdown in some in some other place so long as it doesn't happen next door to you. Is that what you would call ethics? "I will build your nuclear power plants for a tidy profit so long as you cover my ass if anything goes wrong?" Right, that's some ethics.

Nuclear is a terrific idea that nobody would finance without a guarantee they would be free from consequences. As long as people have children they feel they would like to be healthy, you are barking up the wrong tree. You go play Russian roulette out in the desert all by yourself far away from people's kids and even the desert will kick you out. [/QUOTE]

 

[Blue_Max]

Moonbeam, solar power isn't currently the be-all-end-all solution you're hoping for:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2014/11/141111-solar-panel-manufacturing-sustainability-ranking/
http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5650
http://spectrum.ieee.org/green-tech/solar/solar-energy-isnt-always-as-green-as-you-think
http://business.financialpost.com/news/energy/solar-panel-makers-grapple-with-hazardous-waste-problem?__lsa=94ea-a49e

There is a lot of pollution involved in the creation of those solar cells, so it's not the solution you seem to insist it is. At least currently. We also don't have the large-scale power storage required to continue powering the grid when that big nuclear ball is no longer in view.

I'd like to see more development in that area though. There was one particularly neat design in use now that used mirrors to heat an oil-filled pipe in the center of its concave and that oil was used to boil water for a turbine. Sounds good to me! :thumbsup:

 

[repoman0]

repoman0: Are you interested in an actual discussion or just disparaging those who disagree with you?

M: I'm not interested in either. I'm interested in debussing people of their insanity. The problem is that you're not going to like it because you don't see the limits and dangers of reason. You don't see how you can think of a million good reasons to do the wrong thing.

r: I like a lot of your posts but have to disagree with you here.

M: Disagree with what. Do you imagine I can't see all those good things you will argue for. The problem is that in my opinion I see far more, the hopelessness of reason, the utter frustration that logic has no real world effect when it comes to creating toxins that last for thousands and thousands of years.

r: Brovane pointed out an interesting reactor design that can actually help eliminate our stockpile of nuclear waste, and has fail-safes built in to prevent meltdowns similar to the couple that have happened in the past, and it is somehow unethical because ... reasons?

M: Try to understand that the notion we will ever clean up our nuclear mess is a joke. Just look at the problems shoving it down the throats of a few rattlesnakes in Nevada. All ten people who live within a 100 miles of there don't want it and won't let it happen. And you aren't going to drive a fucking nuclear waste carrying truck down my street. What is the definition of insanity, is it we will clean up the mess we have made before we produce any more or is it we will produce more and in the process we will clean up. You need to wake up. It costs money and a huge political capital that does not exist to clean up nuclear waste, because it is in somebody else's back yard and not mine. That is the rules of sliding ethics, I cross my fingers and tell you I will make more and clean up when clean up will never happen. You have been mesmerized and fallen asleep, and have had dangled before you promises that we will never keep. Wake up and smell the radiation.

r: The reality is no energy production is completely safe.

M: Irrelevant garbage. Compare Fukushima o getting shocked by a solar panel.

M: I found an interesting article that discusses in detail the economics and safety of many forms of power production, but focuses on solar and nuclear. The author's main point is that there is only one realistic way to reduce our carbon footprint. Can you refute or argue against it without attacks on his ethics? If you disagree with his idea of ethics, perhaps point out where he is wrong?

I am not interested in proving him wrong. I say that the innate nature of human beings is to abhor the production of toxins that last thousands of years for any reason at all. Do you really imagine if we all decided the atom shouldn't be split that we'd all go extinct?

And besides, nobody will build nuclear power plants without government guarantees. Nobody would take the risk. Do you want your tax dollars paying for some nuclear meltdown in some in some other place so long as it doesn't happen next door to you. Is that what you would call ethics? "I will build your nuclear power plants for a tidy profit so long as you cover my ass if anything goes wrong?" Right, that's some ethics.

Nuclear is a terrific idea that nobody would finance without a guarantee they would be free from consequences. As long as people have children they feel they would like to be healthy, you are barking up the wrong tree. You go play Russian roulette out in the desert all by yourself far away from people's kids and even the desert will kick you out.

[/QUOTE]

Fact is you don't see all the good things I will argue for. Gen IV reactors produce nuclear waste that lasts for a couple hundred years, so you have your facts wrong already with the thousands comment. Not to mention many of the designs are implicitly self-limit and shut down in the event of a meltdown. They also produce hundreds of times the energy per fuel that current designs do.

I'm saying we can solve the problems you're concerned about with new designs, but you're only interested in the same old fear-mongering, as if we have unlocked the ultimate in safety and efficiency within half a century of developing nuclear power

In the meantime, let's just keep burning fossil fuels, melting ice caps, warming oceans and setting record warm temperature after record warm temperature, and killing tens of thousands of species while we wait eternally for solar to become viable.

 

[Moonbeam]

repoman0: Fact is you don't see all the good things I will argue for. Gen IV reactors produce nuclear waste that lasts for a couple hundred years, so you have your facts wrong already with the thousands comment. Not to mention many of the designs are implicitly self-limit and shut down in the event of a meltdown. They also produce hundreds of times the energy per fuel that current designs do.

M: I already explained why good arguments for something mean nothing. They won't be built unless somebody is able to unfairly pass off his or her personal liability onto unwilling people.

r: I'm saying we can solve the problems you're concerned about with new designs, but you're only interested in the same old fear-mongering, as if we have unlocked the ultimate in safety and efficiency within half a century of developing nuclear power

M: I'm saying you are too emotionally immature to deal with reality, your fault, not mine. This has nothing at all to do with me.

r: In the meantime, let's just keep burning fossil fuels, melting ice caps, warming oceans and setting record warm temperature after record warm temperature, and killing tens of thousands of species while we wait eternally for solar to become viable.

M: Better yet stick your hands over your ears and your eyes and scream nuclear power till you're blue in the face. It makes no difference at all if you are right. A cat can be skinned many ways but you have to start somewhere people can support emotionally. You are not going to get people with emotional intelligence to support nuclear power. Solar is becoming more viable as we speak. For example, I am waiting right now for a final building inspection so I can turn mine on.

 

[MrA79]

I grew up in NorCal when the Rancho Seco controversy\issue\whatever was absolutely dominating the news. Californians have had pretty much zero tolerance for nuclear power since then.