Not understanding engineering doesn’t make it a “fool’s errand”. Maybe start here:
Nobody is asking about pricing. Nobody is asking about insurance claims. Deaths per TWh is not the basis by which we decide to expand capacity. But it is absolutely relevant when people are asking about the relative deaths associated with different generating methods.
:sigh:
I also did agree with the apparent more support the Republicans were giving, but you are still missing another point that was made. Normally when a proposal of a new Nuclear plant or a dump appears, polls come up declaring that:
A new poll from Morning Consult shows a pronounced majority of registered voters, 77 percent, said they would not live within 10 miles of a nuclear waste storage site; 63 percent said they would not live within a 100-mile radius, either.
The point was that while one can agree that there were more liberal groups opposed, the bottom line is that it is impossible that all the 77% did magically turn Democrat when polling time comes. The sad reality is that there is a big mess of conservatives that also follow NIMBY.
Has there ever been a case where a thread has been moved from the Pit to GD?
Probably a CANDU.
This isn’t engineering, it’s economics. I never said that you couldn’t get a number out of an analysis, given some metric for counting. Just that said number isn’t going to be very useful. Your very link notes the problems with system boundaries.
Well, they should be. Because even if people don’t like to hear it, dollars can be traded for lives. And will be traded for lives whether or not they take that into account. Any technology that costs too much–even if you can prove that not a single life was lost during the construction–still costs lives, because those resources would have been better spent on something else that saves lives.
And in the news:
There goes the neighbourhood. I’ve been pushing against that for half a dozen years.
Mining in the north is a big thing, and portable nukes will be save a lot of time and possibly some rivers provided there are no spills, so there are pros and cons that have been considered.
Where I have not been convinced is whether or not there will be minimal compliance in the field and what will be done with the waste.
Back on topic, something interesting has happened.
As reported in this thread: And now this - Trumps says, " I've declassified", White House says "No, he didn't""
" MikeFGuest
Pertaining to Trumps Tweets saying he has declassified, without redaction, all Muller/Russia documents. But the White House and Justice Department said this week those pronouncements didn’t declassify the records. Officials said they never received an order from the President or from Attorney General William Barr, who could also make public more information.
“It’s not the White House that declassifies information. It’s the President,” Judge Reggie Walton of the DC District Court in Washington said in a hearing Friday. Trump has been “unambiguous” in wanting declassification of more documents."
Come on, Trump-Declassify those documents and vindicate Sam_Stone!
Our big golden hope for dealing with waste – vitrification – has a serious weakness. If we cannot burn up the actinides in breeders and we cannot reliably cope with the waste (including the low-level structural garbage), nuclear power becomes somewhat-to-very problematic.
The core insanity against nuclear power is that it’s a problem that we can contain all the waste - all of the world’s waste created every decade could be stored in a container the size of a residential pool - and therefore needs to do something with the waste. But letting the waste go out in the environment, get into our air, our water, our land, poisoning us, well, hey, that’s not a problem, because we don’t have a puddle of waste left to deal with.
Storing it in a hole in the ground is a perfectly fine solution to nuclear power. We have no shortage of holes in the ground in the middle of nowhere. If I told you that we could take all the waste products of coal - the smoke, the coal ash, the CO2, the radioactive isotopes released into the envrionment, the slag, and all of it - and somehow contain that waste in a few dozen barrels every year, you’d think it was the most amazing miraculous thing that ever happened. But apply the exact same logic to nuclear waste and it’s suddenly such an insurmountable problem that we should poison the entire world instead.
And they aren’t being traded here. You may not care about, and the insurance companies sure as hell aren’t accounting for the people 1000s of miles away who die because of increased PM inhalation from the coal power that is used to generate electricity for amorphous silicon PECVD, but other people are allowed to care about them and ask about them.
Why are talking about Trump’s tweets in a thread about nuclear power?
Didn’t @Sam_Stone say he would admit he was wrong if that proved to be the case? Has he done that?
That would explain the density.
New generations of nuclear reactors may be able to burn up the actinides.
Can this nuclear talk be taken elsewhere, please?
Yes, he did say he would come back and admit he was wrong and, no, he hasn’t done it yet.
BTW, he can’t use the excuse that he doesn’t know about this thread-He has posted in it.
Well, you have to admit, Sam Stone does have a certain, uh, glow about him.
He’ll return to split hairs, but first he’s got to find a fine enough scalpel. Or perhaps he’s waiting for Barr to provide some tortured reasoning of Presidential Infallibility.