Mounting evidence nuclear power is needed to curb emissions...

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

Yes, you have been consistent about that. They just need to make better choices about WHERE they build them...but I think its a moot point. The green Nazis won't allow another plant to be built in my lifetime.

MSRs and pebble bed reactors are worth a serious effort.

The solution to our energy issues isn't producing more energy; a new grid is where the money should be invested before anything having to do with production. You'd think more R&D would be directed toward figuring a way to move energy from space to ground.

Tesla did it 100 years ago

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[houndawg]

Scorpion? Thresher? Exceptions that prove the rule?

Read a history book FFS. Neither one of those suffered a reactor accident.

Several theories and explanations have been given as the cause of the loss, but none are conclusive. Some have suggested that attack by a Soviet submarine caused Scorpion’s loss. However, the most likely cause was the activation of a torpedo by mistake at the time of inspection. The torpedo, in a fully ready condition and without a propeller guard, then began a live run within the tube.

After a thorough examination of photographs, objects recovered from the bottom, and records of the sub’s construction and maintenance, a Court of Inquiry concluded that THRESHER’s troubles likely began with the joints in her saltwater piping system, many of which had been brazed rather than welded. (Welding involves the heating to melting and direct joining of two pieces of metal, whereas brazing uses another material, one that melts at a lower temperature, to “glue” two pieces of metal together. In THRESHER’s case, a silver alloy was used as “glue.”) It has been theorized that at least one of those joints failed, permitting seawater to leak into the boat and short out an electrical panel which in turn triggered a scram, or shutdown, of the reactor. Without a means of propulsion, THRESHER, gaining weight as water flooded in through the failed joint, began to sink.

Nobody cares about squid shit.

[CID1990]

Yes they did. in those days our policy was to keep our fissile material in huge caches... and our nuke plants were massive

the idea being that it was easier to protect fewer sites. So we put all our eggs in a few very large baskets. those large plants are especially vulnerable to natural disaster (see Fukushima)

We have had the answer since the 1950s and we have refused to acknowledge it - ADM Rickover’s Navy. We had so many of these accident free nuke plants traveling around the world freely- with NO accidents, ever. And the tech has advanced so far since then

It is not a half measure or a second best option...it is THE option

Our successful descendants are completely energy independent for the next 1000 years on nuclear fission and they will populate the entire solar system

Our unsuccessful descendants are mucking about 200 years fro
now, refusing nuke power and trying to figure out how to feed 12 billion people who cant get a man outside the orbit of our own moon


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Scorpion? Thresher? Exceptions that prove the rule?

Neither of those were nuclear accidents - and yes, they serve to prove that the Rickover Navy reactors were and are the safest in the world.

In fact, both reactors are intact, and Thresher’s scrammed automatically - as designed


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AZGrizFan]

Read a history book FFS. Neither one of those suffered a reactor accident.

Nobody cares about squid shit.

Retardation noted.

[Chizzang]

Everybody that's "in the know" already knows...
Our global emissions issues are just a Chinese hoax

That's straight from the President of the United States mouth
So you know it's true

It isn't a Chinese hoax but it is certainly a Chinese problem.

Occasior Cloretz said that since she's the only person offering solutions to climate Armageddon that makes her "the boss".

But I have a solution too - nuke China! (It is about as practical as the Green New Deal, but it is certainly more do-able and lower cost.We already have the nukes.)

with my solution to climate change - I guess that makes me the co-boss.

I don't believe China sees it as their problem...
In that light its not their problem then

side note
No real human problem gets solved until its everybody's problem on earth
By which I mean global mega corps

Until climate change starts hitting them in the wallet
nothing of significance is going to happen to change anything

We'll see sweeping change when it hits the global markets profitability
That will be the day we see actual change

[Pwns]

It isn't a Chinese hoax but it is certainly a Chinese problem.

Occasior Cloretz said that since she's the only person offering solutions to climate Armageddon that makes her "the boss".

But I have a solution too - nuke China! (It is about as practical as the Green New Deal, but it is certainly more do-able and lower cost.We already have the nukes.)

with my solution to climate change - I guess that makes me the co-boss.

I don't believe China sees it as their problem...
In that light its not their problem then

side note
No real human problem gets solved until its everybody's problem on earth
By which I mean global mega corps

Until climate change starts hitting them in the wallet
nothing of significance is going to happen to change anything

We'll see sweeping change when it hits the global markets profitability
That will be the day we see actual change

What's needed is a president that will spend enthusiastically on next-gen nuclear reactors as Obama did on renewable energy. Somehow people like Al Gore think more investment in renewables will bring their cost down but the same principle somehow doesn't apply to nuke plants.

Anyways, not holding my breath for either major party to do that.

[CID1990]

It isn't a Chinese hoax but it is certainly a Chinese problem.

Occasior Cloretz said that since she's the only person offering solutions to climate Armageddon that makes her "the boss".

But I have a solution too - nuke China! (It is about as practical as the Green New Deal, but it is certainly more do-able and lower cost.We already have the nukes.)

with my solution to climate change - I guess that makes me the co-boss.

I don't believe China sees it as their problem...
In that light its not their problem then

side note
No real human problem gets solved until its everybody's problem on earth
By which I mean global mega corps

Until climate change starts hitting them in the wallet
nothing of significance is going to happen to change anything

We'll see sweeping change when it hits the global markets profitability
That will be the day we see actual change

I’m not saying it is a problem for the Chinese... I’m saying the Chinese are the problem

And nuking China is just as practical as a solution to climate change as the New Green Dealio is

And it’s cheaper, too!

[AZGrizFan]

I don't believe China sees it as their problem...
In that light its not their problem then

side note
No real human problem gets solved until its everybody's problem on earth
By which I mean global mega corps

Until climate change starts hitting them in the wallet
nothing of significance is going to happen to change anything

We'll see sweeping change when it hits the global markets profitability
That will be the day we see actual change

I’m not saying it is a problem for the Chinese... I’m saying the Chinese are the problem

And nuking China is just as practical as a solution to climate change as the New Green Dealio is

And it’s cheaper, too!

And given what it would do to world population, waaaaaay more effective in the long run.

[css75]

It works great at the INEL in Idaho,


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Pwns]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... 754e1b230c

Rick Perry: Expansion of nuclear power is the "real green new deal". Rick Perry of all people one-upping the leftist greenies.

[AZGrizFan]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... 754e1b230c

Rick Perry: Expansion of nuclear power is the "real green new deal". Rick Perry of all people one-upping the leftist greenies.

In your face, @AOC! #dumberthanaboxofrocks

[CID1990]

People who believe climate change is an imminent existential crisis also generally oppose nuke power:

https://hotair.com/archives/2019/03/27/ ... wer-42-57/

Party of science, indeed


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HI54UNI]

People who believe climate change is an imminent existential crisis also generally oppose nuke power:

https://hotair.com/archives/2019/03/27/ ... wer-42-57/

Party of science, indeed


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We don't need nuclear. We need windmills and solar panels. Cover the flyover states with both and transmission lines to get the energy to the coastal elites. And we'll use unicorn farts to cover when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing.

[Pwns]

I'll put on my partisan hat and say it...I think part of the reason that some leftists oppose nuclear power is because they see the climate issue as a battering ram to make economic and social changes that could never be made without a crisis to justify them and nuclear power ruins that.

Let's see, do we want to tax carbon or build more nuclear and gradually phase in electric vehicles? One of them is an ultra-regressive tax scheme that will just make gas prices more expensive for poor people in rural areas with no public transportation and probably won't even reduce emissions, while the other one one is empirically proven to reduce emissions. Guess which idea leftists are more likely to support?

And yes, I do know some progressives support nuclear. Good for them. Direct the rage you have at cultural appropriators to people like Al Gore who have luddite ideas for energy.

[CID1990]

I'll put on my partisan hat and say it...I think part of the reason that some leftists oppose nuclear power is because they see the climate issue as a battering ram to make economic and social changes that could never be made without a crisis to justify them and nuclear power ruins that.

Let's see, do we want to tax carbon or build more nuclear and gradually phase in electric vehicles? One of them is an ultra-regressive tax scheme that will just make gas prices more expensive for poor people in rural areas with no public transportation and probably won't even reduce emissions, while the other one one is empirically proven to reduce emissions. Guess which idea leftists are more likely to support?

And yes, I do know some progressives support nuclear. Good for them. Direct the rage you have at cultural appropriators to people like Al Gore who have luddite ideas for energy.

The old guard of Western environmentalists were staunchly anti-nuke. Those were the days when nuke power wasn’t as safe, and of course nuclear weapons contributed to the overall anti-nuke sentiments. I like to call these earlier enviros the Jackson Browne wing of the left.

The problem with the younger new vanguard of progressives is that they aren’t as well educated in the sciences and so they don’t have the tools to fully understand how nuke power is in fact the golden key to the environmental goals they want to achieve

Agreed that there are a few who see it as a vehicle to transformation away from a capitalistic system, but that crowd isn’t prevalent.

Mostly they are just ignorant and angry


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[UNI88]

Mostly they are just ignorant and angry

An accurate description of the extremes on both the left and the right.

[CID1990]

Mostly they are just ignorant and angry

An accurate description of the extremes on both the left and the right.

And they both think its the other side only...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Gil Dobie]

I'll put on my partisan hat and say it...I think part of the reason that some leftists oppose nuclear power is because they see the climate issue as a battering ram to make economic and social changes that could never be made without a crisis to justify them and nuclear power ruins that.

Let's see, do we want to tax carbon or build more nuclear and gradually phase in electric vehicles? One of them is an ultra-regressive tax scheme that will just make gas prices more expensive for poor people in rural areas with no public transportation and probably won't even reduce emissions, while the other one one is empirically proven to reduce emissions. Guess which idea leftists are more likely to support?

And yes, I do know some progressives support nuclear. Good for them. Direct the rage you have at cultural appropriators to people like Al Gore who have luddite ideas for energy.

The old guard of Western environmentalists were staunchly anti-nuke. Those were the days when nuke power wasn’t as safe, and of course nuclear weapons contributed to the overall anti-nuke sentiments. I like to call these earlier enviros the Jackson Browne wing of the left.

The problem with the younger new vanguard of progressives is that they aren’t as well educated in the sciences and so they don’t have the tools to fully understand how nuke power is in fact the golden key to the environmental goals they want to achieve

Agreed that there are a few who see it as a vehicle to transformation away from a capitalistic system, but that crowd isn’t prevalent.

Mostly they are just ignorant and angry


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Jimmy Carter knew better, but followed the anti-nuke party line. My buddy that works at a Nuke plant, tells me about that every time we talk about his work.

[CID1990]

The old guard of Western environmentalists were staunchly anti-nuke. Those were the days when nuke power wasn’t as safe, and of course nuclear weapons contributed to the overall anti-nuke sentiments. I like to call these earlier enviros the Jackson Browne wing of the left.

The problem with the younger new vanguard of progressives is that they aren’t as well educated in the sciences and so they don’t have the tools to fully understand how nuke power is in fact the golden key to the environmental goals they want to achieve

Agreed that there are a few who see it as a vehicle to transformation away from a capitalistic system, but that crowd isn’t prevalent.

Mostly they are just ignorant and angry


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Jimmy Carter knew better, but followed the anti-nuke party line. My buddy that works at a Nuke plant, tells me about that every time we talk about his work.

Of course he knew better - the guy was in RADM Rickover’s navy- he worshipped the guy

But he also was involved in the Chalk River cleanup so he also had a firsthand look at the dangers


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[UNI88]

An accurate description of the extremes on both the left and the right.

And they both think its the other side only...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

True. That's what happens when you get your information from echo chamber circle jerks.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

[GannonFan]

Jimmy Carter knew better, but followed the anti-nuke party line. My buddy that works at a Nuke plant, tells me about that every time we talk about his work.

Of course he knew better - the guy was in RADM Rickover’s navy- he worshipped the guy

But he also was involved in the Chalk River cleanup so he also had a firsthand look at the dangers


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What was true almost 50 years ago (i.e. that nuclear power had some glaring safety concerns) is no longer the case today, at least here in America. We can do it safely, and we could start doing it tomorrow and have a significant impact on greenhouse gases and climate change right now. I understand why eco-warriors were against it in the 70's, and to a large extent they were correct, but to apply the same anti-nuke fervor today is decidedly incorrect and anti-science.

[Pwns]

The old guard of Western environmentalists were staunchly anti-nuke. Those were the days when nuke power wasn’t as safe, and of course nuclear weapons contributed to the overall anti-nuke sentiments. I like to call these earlier enviros the Jackson Browne wing of the left.

The problem with the younger new vanguard of progressives is that they aren’t as well educated in the sciences and so they don’t have the tools to fully understand how nuke power is in fact the golden key to the environmental goals they want to achieve

Agreed that there are a few who see it as a vehicle to transformation away from a capitalistic system, but that crowd isn’t prevalent.

Mostly they are just ignorant and angry


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well, I'm not just talking about socialists, but people in environmental movement who are giddy about having policy that basically boils down to "everyone consumes less and have fewer babies", which not only won't work to reduce emissions, there's less than zero chance of getting countries with emerging middle classes like China and India on board. Those countries are going to need a lot of new power in the coming decades, and if even Germany's efforts with renewables aren't gaining any ground on reducing emissions then how the hell are India and China going to keep up? Answer: You either burn fossil fuels or start cracking fissile materials.

[dbackjon]

Of course he knew better - the guy was in RADM Rickover’s navy- he worshipped the guy

But he also was involved in the Chalk River cleanup so he also had a firsthand look at the dangers


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What was true almost 50 years ago (i.e. that nuclear power had some glaring safety concerns) is no longer the case today, at least here in America. We can do it safely, and we could start doing it tomorrow and have a significant impact on greenhouse gases and climate change right now. I understand why eco-warriors were against it in the 70's, and to a large extent they were correct, but to apply the same anti-nuke fervor today is decidedly incorrect and anti-science.

What many don't understand is the safety record of a well-designed nuclear plant. Everything that could go wrong with Three Mile Island did, and even then, the amount of radiation released was tiny - half of a chest x-ray, 40 times less than living in Denver for a year. Even 40 years out, no bump in cancers or any other health effect noted (Yes, some people in the area got cancer, but the rate is no different than unaffected areas, so no connection to TMI).


Yes, there were safety and environmental issues with the uranium mining in the 50's (it was considered a "National Emergency" back then, so cleanup and mining waste effects were ignored - lesson for today), but that is a solvable issue with the right Administration.

[Chizzang]

The old guard of Western environmentalists were staunchly anti-nuke. Those were the days when nuke power wasn’t as safe, and of course nuclear weapons contributed to the overall anti-nuke sentiments. I like to call these earlier enviros the Jackson Browne wing of the left.

The problem with the younger new vanguard of progressives is that they aren’t as well educated in the sciences and so they don’t have the tools to fully understand how nuke power is in fact the golden key to the environmental goals they want to achieve

Agreed that there are a few who see it as a vehicle to transformation away from a capitalistic system, but that crowd isn’t prevalent.

Mostly they are just ignorant and angry


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well, I'm not just talking about socialists, but people in environmental movement who are giddy about having policy that basically boils down to "everyone consumes less and have fewer babies", which not only won't work to reduce emissions, there's less than zero chance of getting countries with emerging middle classes like China and India from getting on board. Those countries are going to need a lot of new power in the coming decades, and if even Germany's efforts with renewables aren't gaining any ground on reducing emissions then how the hell are India and China going to keep up? Answer: You either burn fossil fuels or start cracking fissile materials.

Where do you meet these people you describe..?

[CID1990]

Well, I'm not just talking about socialists, but people in environmental movement who are giddy about having policy that basically boils down to "everyone consumes less and have fewer babies", which not only won't work to reduce emissions, there's less than zero chance of getting countries with emerging middle classes like China and India from getting on board. Those countries are going to need a lot of new power in the coming decades, and if even Germany's efforts with renewables aren't gaining any ground on reducing emissions then how the hell are India and China going to keep up? Answer: You either burn fossil fuels or start cracking fissile materials.

Where do you meet these people you describe..?

I spot them from afar and then go the other way


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk