Yeah, fuck what all those engineers and scientists think. Debbie has it all figured out 

https://physicsworld.com/a/how-green-is-nuclear-energy/

https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy

https://sciencing.com/about-6134607-nucl...-fuel.html

What's his solution again? oh yeah something that's been debunked since the early 19th century 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/artic...ill-wrong/

(September 12, 2021 at 2:02 pm)onlinebiker Wrote: It is fucking unbelievable that someone is so concerned about the future environment because of the byproducts of burning fossil fuels and finds nuclear power as a suitable answer.

Jesus H Christ - you have 60 YEARS worth of reactor waste - and NONE OF IT has been moved to a " permanent safe storage facility" NONE OF IT. Got that? Promises we get - " Yeah don' t worry - we' ll take care of it" and NONE OF THE WASTE IS IN LONG TERM STORAGE. Hell - nobody has even figured out exactly what that is.... "We' re working on it"....

Yeah sure... The check is in the mail....

That’s a political issue (the permanent storage sites), not a scientific one. Nuclear waste is actually pretty easy to store, it’s not as hazardous as many people think, and there’s not that much of it.

Boru

(September 12, 2021 at 3:17 pm)onlinebiker Wrote: Nuclear fusion power plant - the atheist version of "I'll pray for you".

Gee that' s nice - but I really don' t expect to see any results....

Yeah, just keep it up, asshole.  Nobody ever got anywhere trying anything new.

---

(September 12, 2021 at 5:56 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(September 12, 2021 at 2:02 pm)onlinebiker Wrote: It is fucking unbelievable that someone is so concerned about the future environment because of the byproducts of burning fossil fuels and finds nuclear power as a suitable answer.

Jesus H Christ - you have 60 YEARS worth of reactor waste - and NONE OF IT has been moved to a " permanent safe storage facility" NONE OF IT. Got that? Promises we get - " Yeah don' t worry - we' ll take care of it" and NONE OF THE WASTE IS IN LONG TERM STORAGE. Hell - nobody has even figured out exactly what that is.... "We' re working on it"....

Yeah sure... The check is in the mail....

That’s a political issue (the permanent storage sites), not a scientific one. Nuclear waste is actually pretty easy to store, it’s not as hazardous as many people think, and there’s not that much of it.

Boru

Not only that but please list me the times that waste has been an actual threat to anyone.  You fail again, WLB.

And given that the storage problem for oil and coal waste is even worse, since they go straight into our atmosphere, it'd look like even with our multiple temporary storage facilities for nuclear waste, it's still doing better. At least that waste is being contained.

(September 12, 2021 at 2:07 pm)Paleophyte Wrote: All three disasters had profit and cost-cutting as major contributors:
 - Three Mile Island had a poor design and poor training because the alternatives would have cost money.
 - Fukushima was built in where they knew tsunami was a serious risk because it offered cheap access to coolant water. Various design flaws were flagged decades before the incident but never fixed because it would have cost money. Both TEPCO and the Japanese government has admitted their failings in this respect.
 - Chernobyl is the epitome of cost-cutting leading to disaster. Corners were cut so ridiculously that the reactor lacked primary containment and had graphite moderators wed to the control rods. It was designed to fail.

Ostensibly, these things could be argued, but they are not the direct cause of any of those issues.  The designs used were the industry standard at the time.  You can't argue that a design was used to save money when it's the RAGAGEP, Recognized And Generally Accepted Good Engineering Practices.  Fukushima's issue was NOT where it was located; it was the emergency cooling system design.  It was designed such that if the pumps were flooded, they would fail and emergency cooling water would fail to flow.  Since the plant was built, there have been passive cooling systems designed.  These don't require power to dump cooling water.  You could argue it was because of costs that they didn't retrofit the plant with new technology, but then you are just arguing everything in the world is based on money.  And no, Chernobyl was not due to cost cutting.  Read about it.  It was a procedural mistake.  Basically you're just arguing that if a plant is not always fitted with the most recent technology that it's because of costs and that's not a realistic way of looking at it.

---

(September 12, 2021 at 2:12 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote:

(September 12, 2021 at 1:32 pm)Spongebob Wrote: But nuclear fusion has far more potential to provide clean energy if we can ever get it past the vapor ware stage.

Probably not what you wanted to focus on in your thread, but if we can get fusion to work-- that's it. Our energy problems are solved for at least dozens of generations. It might even be solved indefinitely provided we keep an eye on the global population.

But fusion itself is a big "if"...

Yes, fusion is the holy grail of energy production.  Despite it being beyond our grasp, it's potential makes it worth trying, despite what some bozos here seem to believe.

Not that I'll ever see it, but I believe there are even greater sources of energy that we've yet to discover, but that's for generations far in the future to discuss.

I read a lot about geothermal back when I was a teenager, but for some reason it hasn't risen above niche supply.  Not sure why this is so.  That is a very clean and steady source of energy.  Little to no environmental impact.  Also, I've seen numerous designs for harnessing air power that don't involve giant spinning blades.  I'm quite interested in these because they can be small and each home could have it's own.

---

(September 12, 2021 at 4:49 pm)Helios Wrote: Yeah, fuck what all those engineers and scientists think. Debbie has it all figured out 

https://physicsworld.com/a/how-green-is-nuclear-energy/

https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy

https://sciencing.com/about-6134607-nucl...-fuel.html

What's his solution again? oh yeah something that's been debunked since the early 19th century 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/artic...ill-wrong/

But don't you know, all those scientists types are just part of the child porn shadow government.  Their primary goal is to feed us all Soylent Green!

(September 12, 2021 at 6:13 pm)Rev. Rye Wrote: And given that the storage problem for oil and coal waste is even worse, since they go straight into our atmosphere, it'd look like even with our multiple temporary storage facilities for nuclear waste, it's still doing better. At least that waste is being contained.

Indeed this is a tailing pond full of toxic runoff from the Alberta oil sands. Now tell me this is healthy 










It's going to take billions to clean all this up

(September 12, 2021 at 6:39 pm)Helios Wrote:

(September 12, 2021 at 6:13 pm)Rev. Rye Wrote: And given that the storage problem for oil and coal waste is even worse, since they go straight into our atmosphere, it'd look like even with our multiple temporary storage facilities for nuclear waste, it's still doing better. At least that waste is being contained.

Indeed this is a tailing pond full of toxic runoff from the Alberta oil sands. Noe tell me this is healthy 

OK, I can relate to this.  I'm currently working on a project cleaning up such a site and the cost is in the tens of millions.  The lake has wildlife in it but it isn't suitable for eating because of a lot of toxic materials in the water and soil beneath.  It's currently expected to take 5 - 6 years to complete the cleanup.  Yeah, fossil fuel is clean as a whistle.

Most sources agree that all nuclear power plants in the US produce an estimated 2000 metric tonnes of waste per year, total. Compared to other industries, that’s a doddle. Just cast it into glass bricks, sort by half-life, stack it in some unused piece of desert, and post guards.

This ain’t rocket surgery.

Boru

(September 12, 2021 at 7:12 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Most sources agree that all nuclear power plants in the US produce an estimated 2000 metric tonnes of waste per year, total. Compared to other industries, that’s a doddle. Just cast it into glass bricks, sort by half-life, stack it in some unused piece of desert, and post guards.

This ain’t rocket surgery.

Boru

Uh huh.....

And WHY hasn' t ANY of it been done in 60 damned years? 60 YEARS....


Because - it COSTS MONEY.


And the people running these plamts make a.profit by virtue of you believing that they' ll do the right thing and take care of it.....any day now.....


Bwaaaaahahahaha

....

Jesus - the things some people will believe.....

Not nearly as much money as the waste from fossil fuels has cost us in 60 years. Hell the cost for cleaning up after coal alone in the US will cost Trillions not counting for inflation. Oil Leaks cost billions and as pointed Tailing ponds will cost billions to remove. Is Debbie honestly arguing  nuclear waste will cost more ?

So year keep up the denial