The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[All Darc]

I'm not being against all kinds of nuclear power, but just spoting Fukushima sh...t design and asking about the new tecnologies characteristics.
Fukushima was a dumb project, since it was in a area of tsunami danger, even than remote ifor the scala it happened at the time, and they hadn't any auxliar power to start the pumps and avoid the melt of core in case of problems in the main power system.
It was stupid, let's admit...

If a society so organized and smart like Japan can do a stupidity while building a nuclear power plant... I presume all countries can find some way to scrow-up somehow.
But if you say that AP100 it's completelly fools proof... But one thing still remains : The possibility of fools build or instal it, maybe like a hurry or not very well tested, like in Chernobyl (also a old reactor and not good) or even in maintenance.

I imagine someone tryiong it in my country (a disgrace) where inspectors are corrupt and all services are a crap.

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

If you want to shut down the reactor you don't want to be trying to generate power at all.
A reactor like an AP1000 is going to be putting off something like 1 megawatts or 34 million BTUs per hour worth of heat when you try to turn it off after the first time it's started. That's like the heat from burning around 40 or 50 pounds of propane per hour.

That heat can be moved away from the reactor very easy with even a tiny amount of coolant flow.

The tsunami wiped out the backup systems.
Passive systems like the gen 3 plus drown the reactor with a lake of water held above the reactor.
Just imagine a decent size wood pallet fire trying to boil an entire lake of water, it cant.
The huge lake is there incase a jammed control rod failure, which i dont think has happened since gen 1 reactors.
If it had been a gen 4 molten salt reactor nothing would have happened. If the reactor tried to melt down the freeze plugs melt out of the reactor core emptying the contents into a graphite containment vault.
Be we don't have those yet because all the ignorant people who are afraid of anything nuclear some how keep blocking funding.

[All Darc]

Great people don't reach power in politics !!!

It's like high schoool...

Even your beloved JFK, despite did good things, have a darik side, like demand girls to take of swin suit while in the swin pool and throw to hin.

Human species is nearly a garbage.

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

That's how you know it's all a steaming crock of organic fertilizer.
Building some nuclear power plants and taking some coal ones off line will do far more to save the world then all this garbage they tell us we should be doing.

[NeilBlanchard]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Flat Earthers are an extremely small and harmless group.

Denying or ignoring science is never harmless.

[NeilBlanchard]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Nuclear needs some subsidies. Stop wasting it on solar.

Nuclear was supposed to be "too cheap to meter".

[All Darc]

Exactly !
Like Van Helsing said in Dracula 1931 : "The strength of the vampire is that people will not believe in him."

So I say : "The danger of stupid people, the danger of ignorance, is that people think such things are harmless."

Witch hunter...
Inquisition...
Nazism acenssion..
All connected to ignorance.

But people think some ignorances are a virtue, like when it comes in the shape of faith.

Ignorant people are the weapons of sociopaths and dictators.

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

Denying or ignoring science is never harmless.

[freebeard]

Would that it were so simple.

I'm currently in the middle of [Episode 364 Scott Adams: RPOS, The Steel Barrier and Climate Persuasion]. He argues (starting at 10:20) that the objective truth is unknowable and you can only look at the persuasion on both sides. And both sides are equally persuasive.

So you get a rebuttal to the rebuttal to the rebuttal, and it's turtles all the way down.

[RedDevil]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

As long as coal is being burned to generate power subsidizing solar is a waste of money.
Once the base load is covered with nuclear and other power sources that work at night then add more solar power generation to cover peak load.
Or cover the peak load with solar then replace the base load with nuclear.
The United States could build 25 or so AP1000 reactors and put a nice dent in coals market share of electricity production.

This makes no sense at all.
Unless it is because the sun does not shine all the time, like at night, so you cannot completely rely on solar alone.

The funny thing is though that electrical usage is at its highest when the sun shines, A/C use and such. If you have a split meter you pay more per kWh per day than night. So instead of a downside, the ability to produce power when it is needed most is an upside.
Unless there's more solar power than the grid can take, on a regular base. Which isn't the case at all, but if it ever comes to that, that will be the time to stop subsidizing. If the cost of PV panels have not fallen so much by then that subsidizing is no longer required anyway.

Solar will never be a 100% solution. So it will never be needed to stop subsidizing it for the sole reason of overproduction.

[oil pan 4]

I didn't care much for JFK, I preferred LBJ.

[RedDevil]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

That's how you know it's all a steaming crock of organic fertilizer.
Building some nuclear power plants and taking some coal ones off line will do far more to save the world then all this garbage they tell us we should be doing.

Who'll be my role model now that my role model is gone, gone?
(Paul Simon - You Can Call Me Al)

[freebeard]

oil pan 4 —

http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/NTAwWDUwMA..._id=880000500F


RedDevil — You could start with Bucky Fuller.