Thanks for the responses to my question. I’ve also done some memory-refreshing on the net.
The half life of U238 is 4.5 billion years. This stuff is naturally occuring and is out there in nature. Sounds dangerous!
P239, one of the most notable waste products has a half life of 24,100 years. It is more intensely radiocative than U238, though.
I think it must be true that the total nuclear energy in the waste products must be less than the nuclear energy in the mined uranium. Is that true?
If so, the nuclear plant process could be viewed as a sort of toxic waste cleanup program.
Why don’t people ever take into account the dangerous effects of naturally occuring uranium? If they really believe that naturally occuring uranium is not a problem then couldn’t we dispose of nuclear power plant waste by scattering it across the country side? Of course, everyone would be totally opposed to this!
Someone will be along soon with numbers to explain it properly, but it is kind of like this:
The naturally occuring isotopes break down slowly. The amount of radiation thus released in any given second is low.
The isotopes that come out of the reactor have a much shorter half-life, and thus release more energy per second - this makes them more hazardous.
Along with that is that the release of neutrons from radioactive material can break down the nucleus of otherwise stable isotopes and turn them into unstable isotopes of other elements.
Scattered as the naturally occuring isotopes are, they are no real hazard. Concentrated, they become a hazard and even more so when they’ve been used in a reactor.
The kiddie version, from memories of high school physics.
Perhaps Chronos or Nuke would be so kind as to give a more detailed description.
Mort Furd – no I know it isn’t that simple as evidenced by OliverH’s response to my question. BUT, the bottom line seems still to favor my interpretation. We are taking a lot of widespread low-level radiation (which ISN’T without danger – I’ve read that cancer deaths in states that have uranium deposits are significantly higher than in other states – don’t ask me for a cite – I read that a couple of years ago. (But we also know that simple radon gas is dangerous.)) with a super-long half life and converting it to highly concentrated, more radioactive products, some of which have shorter half lives. That COULD be viewed as a positive thing.
I have a feeling that many of the opponents of nuclear power have never thought about the fact that radiation is “natural” and have some skewed vision about nature and its beneficence.
Absolutely not!
One thing is, that Uranium is mined. So if we wouldn’t dig it up, it would stay far away underground.
Secondly, why should we view moving from low-level radiation to high-level as a positive thing?
Tell me about people not thinking about natural radiation being dangerous.
If you’d like, I can get you reservations at a hotel in Bad Kreuznach (Germany) and you can go down into their special basement rooms and breath natural radon gas. This is supposed to be good for you - in particular your lungs.
This is part of the city’s “health resort” offerings. Any town in Germany that starts “Bad” means that it is a health resort. “Bad” means “Bath,” and connects to the fact that many of these places have hot springs and stuff.
Any takers?
Sorry, TWO, but you overlook several simple facts. There is different kinds of radiation. Depending on what kind we’re talking about, the range by which it can penetrate material is quite limited.
There’s radioactive compounds the radiation of which is stopped by a plastic box (depending on exact material and thickness).
There’s other compounds that will send a Geiger counter screaming two feet away from inside the same plastic box.
Something buried 200 yards underground as a solid block is something completely different than something carted around your frontyard, or as a pressurized hot liquid.
That’s some selective reading there. You missed that whole part I quoted from Zoidberg referring to the US, huh?
Let’s start again, right from the first thing YOU said:
OK? I explained why your statement was wrong in the context of Dr. Zoidberg holding it out as a reason (acid rain) that the “policy” as-stated might not work in the US.
Your response there was an overgeneralization at best. I explained why it was incorrect. Your response was:
Which is factually correct, but did not address the point. You were not listening to what Dr. Zoidberg was trying to say.
I said also that “much fewer plants have SCR, SNCR, or other post-combustion systems to remove NOx.”. Your response was another sample size of one (also known as the “I am the World” fallacy), which was:
Thus, your “rebuttal” to my factual statement regarding the propensity of SCR and SNCR systems on coal power plants was to say that your home-town’s plant had an SCR.
That’s factual as well, but not on point, nor is it a proper reponse.
Then I said this:
To which your response was:
OK…are you with me? I said that using an SCR entials shipping large amounts of ammonia to the plant. Whether it’s anhydrous, aqueous, urea-based, or whatever, that is a simple fact, as the plant uses the ammonia.
I also said you have to outfit residents nearby with gas masks and/or environment suits when you have an SCR installation. I work with plants who have residents living less than a quarter mile from them - I work with plants that have people whose front yard is 200 feet from the coal pile. And I work with implementation plans for SCR systems. Not only do State regulators often require distribution of gas masks and other protective gear to residents within a certain area, if they don’t the residents themselves often protest over it.
Because a lot of coal plants in the US are remotely located, this typically does not come up w.r.t. the residents. However, when I go to a plant with a liquid-based ammonia system, and see equipment lockers full of gas masks near the SCR and ammonia handling/storage systems, that’s a clear sign that someone thinks it’s dangerous…
Your point about lowering the chance of gas release IS factual and accurate, but ignores my point of the actual implementation and use of the chemicals involved.
Now, is aqueous ammonia dangerous enough to require breathing apparatus in case of accidental release? You seem to think not. Whether or not it is, that is irrelvant to my point that it may be required by regulatory safety concerns, or by simple safety concerns sans regulations.
Let’s look at an MSDS for aqueous ammonia, shall we?
And, of course, the permissable exposure limit is actually fairly low - the OSHA PEL (permissable exposure limit) is only 50ppm vapour after all. That’s not that much - coal flyash that is collected from an SCR-equipped coal power plant can have as much as 200ppm ammonia residue in it (which makes it unsuitable for some human-contact concrete use, due to outgasing of ammonia).
Then, I made a mistake, by typing the following:
It did not, in fact, use anhydrous - it used aqueous. This was a mistake in posting, not analysis. I did actually review this, but when you re-read something so many times, sometimes you still read what you’re thinking of writing, rather than what you actually wrote. It’s why managers have proofreaders.
So, you were CORRECT in saying this part:
Free free to gloat over it, as you deserve it due to my screw-up. But you are INCORRECT in saying this part:
and THAT is what I take issue with, and I still think that telling people there is “little use” in gas masks when dealing with a liquid - especially a volatile one like the topic matter, ammonia - is factually incorrect and dangerous. We’re not talking about normal handling procedures here, which should have been evident since the whole topic was non-plant personnel (who aren’t normally handling ammonia for SCRs, as skilled as they may otherwise be) - the topic was protection in case of accidental spill. You surely don’t think that 100,000 gallons of acqeous ammonia spilled on a Summer day is going to all stay liquid? How many ppm of vapour does it take to injure or kill someone?
Now, ordinarily, me making a dumbass mistake on wording like I did (which did change the argument) would result in me owning up to it, and the discussion continuing politely. However, when you say things like this:
Then there really can be no meeting of the minds here.
Lying and “slander” (BTW, it’s “libel” if it’s written, not “slander”. See the dictionary if you dispute this; I’m not going to argue that point with you.) are pretty big words and accusations, and I expect you to show exactly where I was “lying” and “slander”(ing) you, or else make a retraction. Otherwise, I can’t see, from a Member standpoint, how your current tone of discussion belongs in this forum any more - I think you’d better take it to the Pit.
MSDSs are for people working with the stuff. A lot of this is likely founded in the different attitude towards risks in the US vs. Germany. Here, we expect measures to be taken that nothing happens, and be fined rightaway if they don’t, and don’t wait for it to happen to then sue the company.
And you INSISTED you were right, even when called on it. That’s careful review?
On a Summer day? Maybe more, when the firefighters are partially on vacation and it takes a little bit longer to assemble a large enough team to keep the vapors down with water spray. But generally, you don’t stand around and let the stuff vaporize. And to that end possibly install automated systems to keep the extent of the spill low and possibly allow high-risk areas to be sprayed automatically.
The local power plant had their SCR and tanks surveyed by a neutral technical surveillance agency. The conclusion: “No serious hazard to the health of local residents is expectable from conceivable accidents, though a severe annoyance by smell and irritation of eyes and mucosa is possible, depending on the distance. A danger to the environment is excluded through the safety measures taken.”
Extensive plans as well as regular drills with together with the municipal firefighters exist to react to any accidents in a quick and efficient fashion.
As for having to ship ammonia: Ammonia is constantly shipped for various reasons all across the country.
Every major cooling system needs ammonia. Do you suggest letting people on an ice rink only in full body protection and with gas masks?
Except you didn’t own up to it. You DENIED it even when called on it.
That’s a very misleading thing to say. Since some reading this might not be familiar with them, I’ll explain: the MSDS gives a listing of the chemical makeup, hazards, hazard abatement, properties, handling issues, and other important characteristics of a chemical substance which may impact the health and welfare of people who manufacture said chemical, transport it, and employ it in end-uses. But the MSDS, especially sections on the hazards associated with leaks and spills, affect everyone who comes in contact with said chemical, not just the people who “work with it”. The MSDS contains factual data which supported my argument, which you have not even bothered to try to refute - instead, trying to brush it aside as being unimportant. I suggest you read the OSHA site for a while and brush up on them.
And I said I made a mistake. Your point?
As to the rest of what you said, it’s not relevant. You are bringing up examples in Germany, for one instance, uncited, with no mitigating factors explained (such as quantity stored on-site, distance and location of the residents to the plant, etc.)
You also have not backed down one bit on your blanket statement that “There is little use in gas masks when you are dealing with a liquid.” Why is that, exactly? You’re going to defend that argument to the end, as it erroneously stands, rather than admit you made a mistake?
Nor did you address why you used the strawman of your “hometown plant”, which was irrelevant to the discussion. Why do you feel sample sizes of one that you use are somehow exempt from criticism? Nor have you even admitted once that there was in this thread a comparison being made between the policy of the US versus that of Germany on this subject. What was written is right here in the thread, for everyone to see.
Your ice rink case is yet another strawman, as the quantity involved is not nearly at the level as stored at a power plant, nor are the utiltzation systems anywhere near close. Nor is a refrigeration system in general close in design to a system designed to release ammonia under and controlled setting for NOx abatement. Surely you will admit to that?
OliverH, do you have some sort of problem with tense? Is English not your first language? I said exactly this:
and then I used examples of nasty sorts of things you said that showed why I thought this would not be so. What is sad is you proved me entirely correct, with your very next post here - I did own up to making the mistake, and you’re still being a jerk here in this forum. I said I made a mistake. YOU’VE made mistakes too, and overgeneralizations. And YOU’VE refused to own up on them, even when I’ve detailed exactly what you said.
Oh, and for the second time, I want you to show exactly how and where I “lied”, which by my dictionary and most everyone else’s generally means that I “intentionally tried to deceive” on this issue, or retract the accusation completely. Two choices, pick one.
A couple of additional comments, since I was at work earlier and had to run for the bus.
Dr. Zoidberg raised general concerns about the use of fossil fuels, and doubted that the raw policy would work in the US. I replied that those general concerns are inapplicable to the specific case at issue. I did not comment on the applicability of the raw policy to the US because it is silly to compare applicability of individual policies while disregarding the context of auxilliary policies in which it is made. The policy as stated relies on German emission guidelines, safety standards etc. Tearing it out of that context would make it inapplicable anywhere, US or elsewhere, but it doesn’t make sense to do so. As-is transfers of policy are nothing that anyone would seriously consider, rather, they have to be transposed into the local context, and flanked with the necessary legislative framework.
I frankly don’t think YOU were listening to what either of us was saying.
It is very much to the point I was adressing all along. YOU were the only one talking about general, worldwide issues. Even Dr. Zoidberg was still talking about the German connection. As you point out yourself, the Dr. was talking about transferability to the US. That issue by necessity requires comparing equipment of plants in both countries.
That is all good and fine, but you can’t attribute validity to this sermon while criticising my pointing at my local plant. What State regulators in the US require, or residents demand, is of no consequence of what actually has to be done to ensure safety.
No, it doesn’t. Because your reference to equipment lockers AT THE FACILITY is completely irrelevant to the issue of protection of RESIDENTS.
These are guidelines for work-related standards, i.e. exposure limits not on an incidental, but a regular basis.
I think that a)there should be measure to prevent such a large spill and b)measures to contain it on the plant.
In any case, use of aqueous solution will reduce the probability of release, since it has to vaporize before being in the air. As such, there is a gradual release, rather than an immediate. Which leaves time to engage countermeasures. As for being factually incorrect and dangerous, I have personally handled lab-sized bottles of concentrated ammonia solutions, and had my nose pretty close to the bottleneck while I was young and foolish. That was hardly the most dangerous moment of my life. I consider a panicked fear of anything toxic as far more dangerous as thoughtful measures of disaster prevention and realistic assessment of risks.
At the point the residents in the US NEED those gas masks and protection suits, things have already been getting out of hand BIG time. If that can happen without terrorist attack, an earthquake or a meteorite hitting the plant, I would have some serious issues about the plant being operational at all.
Sorry, but I can return that suggestion. You claimed I had a)suggested to people to handle ammonia products without proper safety equipment in an industrial setting, when I in fact never talked about the exposure in an industrial setting, but exposure OUTSIDE the plant. And you claimed I was suggesting to violate OSHA standards, which is bogus since a)I again was not talking about occupational settings and b)OSHA standards are completely irrelevant outside the US.
You also suggested that I have no real world experience with handling ammonia products -despite the fact that I mentioned earlier in this thread that I hold a degree in chemistry. Now, I don’t know about your area, but over here, it is pretty much impossible to get such a degree and NOT handle aqueous ammonia.
On top of that, by the way, I am licensed to handle and trade hazardous materials in Germany. To get that license, I had to demonstrate proper knowledge of the properties and mechanisms of action of hazardous materials, including basic toxicology.
As such, I have a pretty good grasp of what poses a serious health risk.
Maybe think twice in future before leveling such accusations, and re-read the posts you are replying to a bit more.
I suggest you stop being so condescending, and actually read this thread thoroughly. You claimed you had reviewed my posts, but obviously, you haven’t. Otherwise, you would know very well that I know what MSDS are. And you are wrong, the sections dealing with leaks and spills are primarily adressed at workers on location working to contain the spill, i.e. in direct contact with the source of the substance.
It’s not relevant because you would like it not to be relevant. I mentioned several times in this thread that I am talking about municipal plants used for combined heat and power. And if you would consult a map, you would find that it is an impossibility to construct power plants hundreds of miles away from any major settlement, because Germany isn’t Nevada. And it frankly takes a lot of gall to claim I would bring examples uncited when I just posted a link to a safety publication by one power company and cite another such publication. I could link to that one, too. I just doubt that it would be of much use. Because such publications are not generally written in languages other than German. The company in Karlsruhe did, but they are a big company, not an individual plant.
Yes, and obviously, you didn’t follow it very closely. Otherwise you would know that municipal combined heat and power plants are representative for Germany. I was providing an example of one. Talking about a small sample size of one is disingeneous to the extreme. Ever heard of the concept of ‘representative example’?
It is your counterargument that is a strawman, since storage quantities are only relevant when they are released entirely. Do you claim that 100,000 gallons being STORED at a site means 100,000 gallons are being released in case of an accident?
sigh
I would suggest you consult a regular geography textbook. You might find a map in there which languages are generally spoken where. It would also provide some enlightenment to you why I don’t provide a website for every statement on German policy, technical equipment of power plants or whatever.
Sorry, but I think it is ridiculous for people who throw baseless accusations with serious legal and health implications to claim other people are being a jerk. Once you retract your ad hominems, you might see my mood change. As long as you uphold them, don’t expect any more respect from me than you show yourself. It is highly disingenous of you to demand that I retract my accusations while not retracting yours.
Not at the moment and probably not in the foreseeable future. As, for instance, this outline history of the UK nuclear industry from the Department of Trade and Industry (dti) explains, the UK did indeed concentrate on AGRs until the 1980s, when a decision was taken to build a PWR at Sizewell. Between that decision being controversial and the Conservative government’s failed initial attempt at privatisation, the industry effectively stagnated. Then
The assumption in the period was thus that no further nuclear power stations would built and the industry would gradually die as existing stations reached the end of their lives over the coming decades.
Elsewhere on the dti site, the current policy is summarised as follows:
What that doesn’t refect yet is that the most recent Energy White Paper proposes options to produce a “low carbon economy”. It accepts that some expansion of nuclear power might be required to attain this, but that’s not taken as obvious.
And you know what? If you had said as much, then I never would have commented in the first place. But your off-the cuff overgeneralized statment did not say those things, and anyone here in the thread can read that.
You’re not answering my direct questions to you, and I’m the one not listening?
It’s true that I was talking about transferability to other countries, as well as the world. If your overgeneralized statement would have been clear, I never would have commented on that, either.
My original reference was to residents nearby. My comment on the equipment at the plant was in reference to cases even when there are no non-workers or residents nearby. READ the THREAD - it’s right there!
So if a breathing apparatus is required for standard operating exposure, where the exposure is only 10 times the PEL, then of course a spill or accidental release, which could have a far greater ambient level, would somehow require less protection? No, that’s not how it works. It of course is going to vary entirely depending on the spill level, conditions, and proximity.
What does this have to do with anything? Of course there should be measures to prevent spills!
This has nothing to do with the dispute. And a lot of other people have had exposure to laboratory chemicals. I’ve had exposure to 15M ammonium hydroxide myself, right from the reagent bottle. I’ve personally made up 5-gallon carboys of aqua regia too (yes, before you make another off-point remark, I know aqua regia does not contain ammonia). It’s not relevant to this discussion.
And even still, after all these words, you refuse to retract this general statment you made - must I quote it for you the third time?
This is a misleading statement that is dangerous in any context involving hazardous chemicals which have the possibility of volatizing and being inhaled. Do you actually dispute that point?
Handling in a lab does not equal industrial handling. You should know that. I would say everyone in the US who took General Chem 1 can claim that they “handled aqueous ammonia” at one time. So, are you saying you do have experience handling ammonia products in an industrial setting? As you yourself have emphasized many times here, that is the setting we are talking about. You can’t have it both ways as suits you just to try to win an argument.
Thus, my question was not meant to be demeaning to you, it was to ask if you had had experience handling ammonia products. I don’t consider College Chem labs to be on the same order as industrial experience and practice. I certainly wouldn’t put down on a resume that I had experience with nuclear chemicals, just because I used them in physics labs.
Do I need to re-post the accusations you’ve made about me? Yet again? Do you think that no one can read this thread? I’ve quoted you again and again here, where you’ve made overgeneralizations and only ex post facto clarified them. I’ve demanded that you show where I “lied”, and you refuse to show that. You tell me I’m condescending, yet seemingly are not even reading what you’re writing. :dubious:
And you’re changing the definition again. It’s not relevant to what we were discussing in the thread at that point.
Are you kidding me? More quantity means the potential for a much, much more catastrophic spill. When engineers and scientists come up with emergency reponse plans, we don’t assume that a 5-gallon tank of ammonia is going to have the same risk as a 50,000 gallon tank. This is so fundamental that anyone should understand it. Do you think the regulations are the same for a 5-gallon propane tank as a 500,000 gallon one? It’s NOT a strawman because you’re comparing the small amount of ammonia used at an ice rink with that at an SCR system at a power plant.
What was that about “being so condescending” again? Did you actually read what you wrote in your own post?
You know, a lot of people read and post on the SDMB, and sometimes some serious miscommunications happen between otherwise friendly people, due to a language barrier or difference in dialect. This can even be seen in the difference between US and UK English. Even if you say you live in the US, or were born there, that does not mean that there might not yet be a language barrier. I asked because I wanted to make sure I wasn’t just horribly misunderstanding you, not to demean, mock, or poke fun at you.
I did not make “ad hominems” and I explained that two cases where you felt that way (re: experience with ammonia and English language) were honest questions, made in an attempt to clarify the situation.
You, on the other hand, have refused again to back up your accusation that I “lied” and committed “slander”, and have refused to retract it. I ask you for the third time now - back up your accusation that I “lied”, or else retract unconditionally your accusation. Or does your “mood” have to change before you’ll admit you were wrong?
The small amount in an ice rink isn’t filled in there via a hand canister. And sorry, but if your tanks are so fragile that the entire contents can spill out at once, without safety valves sealing a part of it, then, sorry, close the plant.
Claiming I was giving dangerous advice and in doing that attacking my professional qualifications is NOT an ad hominem for you?
No, you have to actually read a post, because I specified explicitly to what I was referring. But obviously, it is too much to ask of you to read the posts you are replying to.
I specified the false accusations already. You even replied to that post. You repeated demands only serve to underscore that you are unwilling to admit you were grossly out of line.
The fact that you tear individual comments out of context doesn’t mean it was not plain evident from what I said. I am not reponsible for your desire to object out of principle.
I think it was quite clear except for people who were desperately searching for reasons to object.
I am not responsible for your constant switching what you are talking about. I was referring to residents nearby at every instant, and explicitly so.
The proximity of nearby residents is by definition not as close as that of workers at the plant. And the local air is an awfully big space to fill for greater ambient levels to develop compared to closed rooms.
Ah, I see. When you claim I have no real world experience with ammonia, it is relevant, but when I demonstrate that is bogus, it isn’t.
Did you mean to demonstrate you are a hypocrite who will define any rebuttal as irrelevant to avoid admitting an accusation was wrong?
I dispute that your panicked generalizations make for greater safety than mine. Spreading paranoia was never beneficial for safety. But it is evident from your entire line of argumentation that you reserve rights for yourself you do not grant to others.
I know you will probably be aghast at such practice, but chemists tend NOT to wear gloves with many hazardous aggressive chemicals. Why? Because certain chemicals can dissolve into the rubber and affect your hands over the entire area when the glove prevents you from feeling that you spilled a little drop. When you have the choice of wearing a glove and potentially will pull your skin off when you take it off, and potentially risking a small scar as you realize you spilled a droplet, and go to wash it off, guess what people chose?
You remind me of the pharmacist at our university who spilled sulfurous acid all over his shoe. But of course, he kept his shoe on, because after all, it served as a protective shell, right? Too bad the doctor stripped off the skin from his foot when he took off the sock.
The knowledge to take a measures response at the right time is far safer than being given equipment the use of which you are not entirely sure about, just to FEEL safe.
But feel free to march in sandals through the run-off of the water curtain the fire brigade throws over the ammonia spill, while feeling safe with your gas mask. Which, do you think presents the greater threat? The air, or the liquid you are standing in?
But YOU can, huh? YOU are the one constantly redefining what you are talking about, jumping from residents to workers and back again. Your claim was that I had NO REAL WORLD EXPERIENCE period. No specifics.
Well, perhaps you wouldn’t. I am not responsible for you killing your job prospects. Using nuclear chemicals in a physics lab is very much relevant when applying for a research position. And, sorry to say, there are no colleges here yet. While the universities are switching to a bachelor and master scheme, there was no way to finish with a bachelor here until very recently. Coincidentally, I hold two graduate degrees in natural sciences, one german, one from the US,and I don’t think that ‘college labs’ are any issue here.
And if you want to tell me that a chemist with a graduate degree has less idea about ammonia than a worker taught to push some buttons at a machine, sorry if I laugh. Coincidentally, the largest chemical plant in Europe is right across the river, with ammonia being a heavily used reagent there. Guess what, they don’t distribute gas masks, either. They didn’t even do so when they were still using large quantities of phosgen.
I refuse to show that? You just replied to where I did it.
Textbook strawman argument - worthy of Websters. Yes, we always assume that “safety valves” will be there to stop the leak, regardless of what happens (weld failure, valve blowout, gauge hole stress fracture, head loss). :rolleyes: This is the final proof that you’re either screwing around with me on purpose, or else completely ignorant of how things work IRL for ammonia storage.
Not if you WERE giving dangerous advice. Your statement was re-posted numerous times by me; pretending like it’s not there isn’t going to make it vanish.
First, you didn’t say “false accusations”, you said “lies” and “slander”. Thankfully, what you wrote is there to see, so stop the revisionist thread history. So I demand of you now - post the “lies” and “slander”. Oh, and remember, just because someone disagrees with you or has a different viewpoint or opinion does not make it a “lie”. Just in case you were unclear on that.
Second, every time I rebut you successfully here, you pretend like it never happened, repeating your mantra of “read the post”.
Third, here is what you said:
Yes, you did, when you said “There is little use in gas masks when you are dealing with a liquid.” I explined in detail why it was wrong, and why you were wrong. I’ve posted this numerous times, and you categorically refuse to respond to it, repeating “read the thread”. You could have just admitted that you overgeneralized, but you have categorically refused to do that - instead, standing behind the statement as-written. Well, I’m sorry, but your statement is wrong and misleading.
Your statement above, “There is little use in gas masks when you are dealing with a liquid”, applied to an industrial setting (which you keep insist, is what we’re talking about) and hazardous, volatile ammonia products (which was the subject here, in case you’re unclear on that point too) is not in fact in line with OSHA safety precautions around ammonia products, including aqueous ones.
You refused to respond as to whether you had any “real world” experience with ammonia outside of a Chem Lab. I’ll take your refusal to answer to be that you do not, or cannot recall. In any event, I explained why I asked. READ the POST.
In short, I’ve responded in-full to your points, giving the reasons why you and you shown no proof whatsoever of me writing “lies” and “slander”. Please show me the deliberate lies and damaging slander at once.
I’m inclined to support the German Govt on this one. Tentatively.
---- The energy companies are allowed to produce another 2623.3 Terrawatthours alltogether in their nuclear plants. According to my source this is as much Energy as has been produced in Germany since 1968!
It’s up to the companies how and in which plant they do this.
It sounds like their plan isn’t very far away from a Moratorium on current construction. (Those who wish to challenge this WAG are encouraged to do so.) (Thank you T Mehr)
My understanding is that the nuclear industry, at least in the US, would not exist without federal subsidies. Certainly no new plants would be built. I have no problem with choosing not to invest in a form of power which fails both the market’s cost/benefit tests and cost/benefit tests that include various externalities.
<<Those wishing to challenge that last sentence are encouraged to do so. Please distinguish between critiques of my framework (which I am comfortable with) and critiques of my empirical assessment (of which I am less sure).>>