But the safeguards are not 100% effective. In fact Japan’s coastal settlements have led to the death of thousands of people even with the warning systems. See, a beach home is way more dangerous than a nuke plant.
I don’t know if you noticed but the area around the Fukushima plant was evacuated, and now the only people in danger from radiation are the brave souls working to fix the problem.
The Germans replaced nuclear with solar already. For a denier to say you can’t do this is extreme denial. And Germany isn’t the most sunny cloud free place either.
Of course a denier will dispute this. And not check out the facts. Deniers never want to debate facts.
[QUOTE=FXMastermind]
Why do the pro nukers always try to talk about other things? Instead of nuclear power, and the dangers, risks and costs associated with it?
[/QUOTE]
Because the Sky Is Falling variety of the anti-nuke movement (as always, amply represented in any GD thread on nuclear energy) seem incapable of grasping even the basics of relative risk, relative costs, risk assessment, etc etc. I mean, most people are terrible at risk assessment…but the anti-nuke crowd is practically pathologically bad at it.
So, what specifically do you want to talk about nuclear power and the dangers, risks and costs associated with it? What is your baseline premise, or what questions or assertions do you have or want to make?
Because beating your head against a stone wall gets old after a while. To me this is very much like a 9/11 Truth thread. As distasteful as it is to go over the same shit over and over, it’s necessary…otherwise the crackpots get their message out without any counter to their whack-nuttery.
-XT
International Nuclear Event Scale - Wikipedia Here is the international rating of nuclear events. Note the references toThree Mile Island and then as usual ,describe it as a rousing success.
Demonizing your opponents, that’s real mature.
[QUOTE=FXMastermind]
The Germans replaced nuclear with solar already. For a denier to say you can’t do this is extreme denial. And Germany isn’t the most sunny cloud free place either.
[/QUOTE]
Two things. First off, horseshit. Do you have a cite that the Germans replaced all of their nuclear energy with solar? How much capacity was actually replaced? Secondly, Germany’s power requirements are orders of magnitude less than that in the US. Our nuclear power industry most likely alone generates more power than Germany uses.
Anyone who thinks that solar could realistically replace all our nuclear energy (or even a large percentage of it) doesn’t know what they are talking about and has no idea of the scales we are talking about. IIRC, currently in the US I think solar accounts for something like 1-2% of our total generated energy…certainly less than 5%. Nuclear energy in the US, despite all protesting and foot dragging is over 20% of our generated energy. To get solar up to even 10% of our total energy would be a monumental task costing hundreds of billions or even trillions. And even if you managed to do that, the thing with solar is, well, it doesn’t work when the sun isn’t shining…and our grid is set up to require continuous energy. So, every night you are going to have to have a drop of whatever percentage you replace nuclear with solar. Today it’s no big deal, since it makes up such a relatively small percentage and we have coal, nuclear, hydro, etc to make up the difference. However, if you actually tried to rely on solar you are going to have a problem.
:rolleyes: So present your facts. Back up your claims about Germany with some context, and then present how you think solar could be scaled up from a few percentage points of generated electricity to over 20%. What would it cost? What would it entail? What would be the ecological impact? Is it even possible to manufacture everything you’d need? Where would you put it…and how would you get the power back to the grid?
Feel free to stop talking out your ass and to produce something to debate besides assertions that no ‘denier’ wants to debate you.
-XT
[QUOTE=FXMastermind]
Demonizing your opponents, that’s real mature.
[/QUOTE]
(why did you link to my account, btw?)
Dude, seriously…you are calling anyone who disagrees with you a ‘denier’ and flailing about with a load of horseshit about how no ‘denier’ will debate the ‘facts’ with you…and then completely failing to actually provide any fucking facts, just wild ass assertions with no basis in reality.
-XT
One Mexican Nuclear Power Plant: “The annual generation average for LVNPP in the last 5 years has been of 10,479 GWh, electric power sufficient to meet the demand of more than 4 million inhabitants.”
The sum total output of Germany’s solar power generators: “In 2009, Germany had 9.8 GW which generated **6,578 gigawatt-hours (GW·h) **of electricity”
Over time, my sense of humor will start to grow on you. And then you will want to apply a fungal creme or something.
“Your side” hasn’t demonstrated nuclear power is anything but ridiculously expensive and a huge waste of the public’s money. Please ask your side to come up with some nuclear power plant ideas that don’t really suck for taxpayers and utility customers.
According to the article, there is only one nuclear power plant project moving forward, and that’s only because the power company got legislation passed allowing them to charge customers’ for nuclear power before it’s even built. No refunds if it never gets built.
I just copied and pasted your user name, and it copied the link along with it. It means nothing, except I am so lazy I will copy something rather than type it out.
I see this game being played, where the proponents of something (nuclear power plants) are trying to flip the game. They demand the oppositions prove them wrong, rather than having to prove what they are claiming.
It’s a great move if you can get away with it.
For example, “Nuclear power is safe! If you don’t believe it, prove it!”
Most times, people who try this get their ass handed to them by skeptics and logic.
[QUOTE=FXMastermind]
I see this game being played, where the proponents of something (nuclear power plants) are trying to flip the game. They demand the oppositions prove them wrong, rather than having to prove what they are claiming.
[/QUOTE]
I asked you to back up your assertions about Germany. You have not done so, however Hank Beecher’s cite seems to indicate that you were, well, completely wrong and either you don’t understand the scale or you were trying to deceive people by saying something that, when the context is given really puts your assertion in perspective. And now you are trying to show (by deception) that I’m making unreasonable requests on you to prove your points. Let me know how that works out for you.
But, you see, I’m not letting you do so…and I seriously doubt that many posters participating or lurking in this thread are deceived by your obvious attempt to deflect. Perhaps one or two are, but my guess is the majority can smell the bullshit.
You asserted that it’s dangerous, so it’s up to you to prove your case. I asserted that it’s safe-ER than other risks we take every day, from a probability perspective, and I backed that up with at least logic. In 60+ years of nuclear power only a handful of people have died…even when you count in a total cluster fuck like Chernobyl. Counting in every person who will die or get sick in the current crisis you are talking at most a few hundred people to a few thousand affected or killed. Even if you scale that up to thousands dead and 10’s of thousands harmed it’s still way below the threshold of just the earthquake in Japan. Why you don’t seem able to grasp this is a mystery to me, to be honest.
The relative risk of nuclear power is vanishingly small. The catastrophic risk, if something really monumental happens is large, but it’s dwarfed by the catastrophic event that caused the problem in the first place. Yeah, the ongoing nuclear crisis is bad…but the aftermath of the earthquake that caused it is much, much worse. Over 10,000 deaths (so far). Millions affected. Many times more forced to leave their homes than were evacuated due to the threat from the nuke plant. The costs of the clean up of the reactor will be high…but the costs of the clean up from the earthquake will dwarf those costs. It will only be a small percentage of the overall cost of this disaster.
Which is why you are doing so poorly in this thread, except to the faithful.
-XT
Coal plants get canceled too.
[QUOTE=Hank Beecher]
Coal plants get canceled too.
[/QUOTE]
Definitely. And with nuke plants it’s sort of a catch 22. They don’t know if, after investing hundreds of millions (according to levdrakon cite they would have to pony up $300 million of their own money) whether the thing will ever get built. Why? Well, because the various anti-nuclear groups out there might rouse the local populace against it, stage protests, file endless law suits or requests for endless environmental impact studies, get endless inspections that find endless faults that endlessly need to be repaired, even lobby to change regulations and then lobby to require the plant to meet the new regulations. All of this of course costs money, but the biggest thing is that it extends the time for construction…and the time that the capital outlay is just on the books in red ink with no income coming in from the plant (it’s not finished after all).
It’s funny to me when the anti-nuclear types use this argument as it’s one of those examples of stacking the deck and then pointing to the failure (or the cost overruns) as if this proves that nuclear energy is a huge waste. What’s sad is that so many people can’t see through this.
-XT
There is utter irony that the coal fired power plant north of the reactors is the only source of power to the damaged nuclear facility. What if it was all nuclear reactors in japan? They would be seriously fucked.
You are aware that there are other nuclear power plants in Japan that are doing fine, right? 
-XT
Oh, dear, this is very complicated, XT, so pay close attention: “reactors” are not the same thing as “spent fuel”. In fact, they are entirely different things.
In the relevent quote, here…
..you specfied “spent fuel rods”. Not “reactors”. And they are not the same thing.
If you say “I am going to saddle up the duckie and ride”, you cannot claim you said “horsie”. Because you didn’t. Nor can you offer sources about riding horses as if it proves your point, because you didn’t say that, you said the other thing.
Besides, the radiation is coming from somewhere, yes? If the contanment is secure and uncompromised, then no signifiicant radiation is leaking from the reactor. If there is massive radiation, and there is, then it can only be coming from the spent fuel pools. There isn’t anything else to explain it.
Now, you have a nice serving of crow on the table. From my experience, I recommend ketchup. Choke it down like a man, and keep a feather to remind you that if you sneer at 'luc, get your facts straight first. Otherwise, you come across as someone who is very, very sure about something that he doesn’t know that much about.
Dude, they got hit by a 9.0 earthquake. They *are *seriously fucked and would have been no matter what they did.
[QUOTE=elucidator]
Oh, dear, this is very complicated, XT, so pay close attention: “reactors” are not the same thing as “spent fuel”. In fact, they are entirely different things.
[/QUOTE]
Oh dear, this IS awkward. I guess you were unaware that the spent fuel rods are in reactor 4.
The spent fuel rods that are in reactor 4. Yes, I can see where the confusion comes from if you were unaware of how the two are related.
So, due to your ignorance on this subject you feel I need to eat some crow here?
Here, let me help you out there 'luci:
-XT
What is your point?
Do you see ANY additions to the nation’s energy supply by nuke here? Which industries are growing faster, right now, this second? How fast is the nuclear power industry growing, right now, this second?