(September 12, 2021 at 7:54 pm)onlinebiker Wrote: And WHY hasn' t ANY of it been done in 60 damned years? 60 YEARS....


Because - it COSTS MONEY.

Aren't there any other reasons you can think of? What you said (it costs money) is one reason, and I think you're right. This is one of the reasons. But aren't there other reasons too? What are those other reasons?

(September 12, 2021 at 8:30 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote:

(September 12, 2021 at 7:54 pm)onlinebiker Wrote: And WHY hasn' t ANY of it been done in 60 damned years? 60 YEARS....


Because - it COSTS MONEY.

Aren't there any other reasons you can think of? What you said (it costs money) is one reason, and I think you're right. This is one of the reasons. But aren't there other reasons too? What are those other reasons?

Also, it doesn't address the fact that there is no way in heck that building facilities to house nuclear waste could be more expensive than the billions and billions spent dealing with negative side effects of fossil fuels and no amount of population control is going to make a lick of difference as consumption is not equal to population. That was one of the many mistakes Thomas Malthus overlooked.

Also worth noting: it's almost certain that the level of population control required to reduce demand for carbon fuels to a reasonable level (in the absence of doing much of anything else) requires nothing short of a level of multicide that would put Pol "wiped out a third of Cambodia's population" Pot and Adolf "plunged the world into the biggest multicide in history" Hitler to shame. And this is somehow a more viable plan than pivoting from petroleum to nuclear power.

And, as I've mentioned before, the assumption that carbon emissions is directly proportional to population or population growth is fallacious and hinges on the assumption that every country has a comparably high standard of living, the 20 countries with the highest birth rates have a combined rate of carbon emissions at 4% of the US'. And, yes, this is coming from a fellow anti-natalist who acknowledges that this is, honestly a shit argument.

(September 12, 2021 at 9:51 pm)Rev. Rye Wrote: Also worth noting: it's almost certain that the level of population control required to reduce demand for carbon fuels to a reasonable level (in the absence of doing much of anything else) requires nothing short of a level of multicide that would put Pol "wiped out a third of Cambodia's population" Pot and Adolf "plunged the world into the biggest multicide in history" Hitler to shame. And this is somehow a more viable plan than pivoting from petroleum to nuclear power.

And, as I've mentioned before, the assumption that carbon emissions is directly proportional to population or population growth is fallacious and hinges on the assumption that every country has a comparably high standard of living, the 20 countries with the highest birth rates have a combined rate of carbon emissions at 4% of the US'. And, yes, this is coming from a fellow anti-natalist who acknowledges that this is, honestly a shit argument.

As I said Malthusian pipe dreams

(September 12, 2021 at 7:54 pm)onlinebiker Wrote:

(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.....

The money has nothing to do with it, or haven't you been paying attention?  I've been following this very topic for at least 30 years.  The solutions are known.  The cost is not significant, at least not compared to all the things we do spend money on.  The political will is nonexistent because people are fucking stupid and selfish, especially Americans.  And attitudes like yours don't help at all.  Its ignorance that stops progress, not designs or science or even money.  Just plain old ignorance.

---

(September 12, 2021 at 8:43 pm)Helios Wrote: Also, it doesn't address the fact that there is no way in heck that building facilities to house nuclear waste could be more expensive than the billions and billions spent dealing with negative side effects of fossil fuels and no amount of population control is going to make a lick of difference as consumption is not equal to population. That was one of the many mistakes Thomas Malthus overlooked.

How about billions to build a wall all the way across the southern border.  Talk about waste.

(September 12, 2021 at 6:14 pm)Spongebob Wrote:

(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.

It can be argued because it's factually accurate. All three incidents included critical design flaws that were bad engineering, cost saving measures that were proximal causes of the disasters.

Quote: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.

Like any good disaster Fukushima had a laundry list of things that went wrong. Building a reactor on the coast in a tsunami-prone area should have been easy to avoid. It wasn't because ocean water provided cheap coolant. Levelling the coast from 30 m high to 10 m high to allow for easier equipment installation during construction exacerbated the problem. TEPCO then ignored at least two internal studies that predicted exactly this type of disaster even after one of the emergency generators flooded and failed.

Quote:And no, Chernobyl was not due to cost cutting.  Read about it.  It was a procedural mistake.

I have read about it. Chernobyl was also a number of different problems that combined to produce disaster. One of those was a procedural mistake. Many of the rest were Soviet era cost cutting, sloppiness, and general disregard for safety. The RBMK design is regarded as one of the worst reactors ever built due to lack of primary containment, the use of graphite as a neutron moderator, positive void coefficient, and graphite accelerators at the ends of the control rods. Chernobyl was then rushed into operation before safety testing was completed, leading to the reactor being run at full power on the fateful night of the incident. Other egregious errors included a lack of proper training, a flammable tar roof on the reactor, and the lack of usable dosimeters at Chernobyl. That last meant that the Soviets grossly underestimated the seriousness of the disaster and were unaware that the reactor's core was exposed and burning.

Quote: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.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying hat they were rubbish for the era in which they were built. They have not improved with age.

(September 12, 2021 at 7:54 pm)onlinebiker Wrote:

(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.....

It's not a money issue. It's not a technical issue. It's not a safety issue. It's a political issue. 

Read up on Yucca Mountain. Stalled by NIMBY-thinking and people who don't understand basic science and are smug about it.

Boru

Oh bullshit.


This country has NEVER been hesitant to employ eminent domain.

If we want access or control over your property - we WILL take it. (Ask the Navaho, Cheyene, Hopi - ect.... They WILL agree with me)


But cut into profits?????

You think the money isn' t important?



Mate - you have not learned a thing about Americans or business.

(September 13, 2021 at 7:11 am)onlinebiker Wrote: Oh bullshit.


This country has NEVER been hesitant to employ eminent domain.

If we want access or control over your property - we WILL take it. (Ask the Navaho, Cheyene, Hopi - ect.... They WILL agree with me)


But cut into profits?????

You think the money isn' t important?



Mate - you have not learned a thing about Americans or business.

How can you pretend to have an informed opinion when you clearly haven’t informed yourself?

Boru

(September 13, 2021 at 7:47 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(September 13, 2021 at 7:11 am)onlinebiker Wrote: Oh bullshit.


This country has NEVER been hesitant to employ eminent domain.

If we want access or control over your property - we WILL take it. (Ask the Navaho, Cheyene, Hopi - ect.... They WILL agree with me)


But cut into profits?????

You think the money isn' t important?



Mate - you have not learned a thing about Americans or business.

How can you pretend to have an informed opinion when you clearly haven’t informed yourself?

Boru

And when are you going to realize you don' t know this country as well as the people who live here?

Bottom line with American businesses - is the bottom line. Money. Everything else sucks hind tit. 

They will spout ideals - give you a million plausable reasons - but ultimately it' s about the money.