|
Greggster posted:20 metric tons sounds like a lot of waste, wouldn't it be possible to use that depleted poo poo some other way?
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 01:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 21:05 |
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Remember that it's 20 metric tons of one of the densest metals there is. Volume-wise it isn't that much really. A cubic meter of uranium weighs 20 metric tons but the waste is a combination of materials and is heavily mixed with lighter materials like ceramics and glass. If I had to take a stab at it I would guess the density of most waste around the density of glass or something like 3 metric tons per cubic meter.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 02:10
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:A cubic meter of uranium weighs 20 metric tons but the waste is a combination of materials and is heavily mixed with lighter materials like ceramics and glass. If I had to take a stab at it I would guess the density of most waste around the density of glass or something like 3 metric tons per cubic meter. Which compared to the shear amount of coal ash waste coal plants generate makes nuclear looks like a squeaky clean solution.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 02:19
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Remember that it's 20 metric tons of one of the densest metals there is. Volume-wise it isn't that much really. Not only that but that's really the only thing that nuclear plants poo poo out. It's actually very easy to store cleanly and safely as soon as you get past NIMBYism and find a good site. Compare that to the voluminous amount of poo poo that any burning plant vomits out all day every day. Nuclear plants do not, for example, spew out gently caress loads of the atmospheric mercury that is loving up fish as a food source. A significant amount of the mercury present in ocean fish actually originates in coal plants.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 03:40
|
|
|
Our current nuclear waste problem is also a product of us using a pretty stupid system. Most of the nuclear "waste" we generate could be refined and reused.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 04:13
|
|
|
Friendly Tumour posted:The demise of public science has been long time coming. Maybe China will pick up the slack haha I heard an NPR piece the other day where Al Gore did a training of young activists in India. Takeaways: 1) Ridiculously articulate and energetic Punjabi 15-year-olds are the future 2) Climate skeptics are somewhat rare in India because of that whole "600 million people having their life expectancy reduced by 3 years or more as a result of climate change" thing
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 04:15
|
|
|
Evil_Greven posted:In recent news, scientists have confirmed CO2 as a greenhouse gas in the wild: To be honest, there have been people who have been arguing this for some years now. I think it was even mentioned in an episode of Penn & Teller: Bullshit. While it is true that the CO2 that we produce is small compared to decaying plants, volcanoes and what not, it's just enough to upset the delicately balanced system which ensures a comfortable environment for the human race. So the argument is still absolute bollocks. Uranium Phoenix posted:Our current nuclear waste problem is also a product of us using a pretty stupid system. Most of the nuclear "waste" we generate could be refined and reused. This, a hundred times.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 13:50
|
|
|
why is Al gore ridiculed so much? My very first exposure to climate change problems was his movie. He won a nobel prize for his efforts. As far as predictions of things that "could" happen Im glad the worst case scenarios didn't come to pass yet. Am I missing more of what people ridicule him for? Did he really say he invented the internet? Or is that an exaggeration of what he really said. Because my understanding is that he was a big part of its funding or something like that
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 20:42
|
|
|
logosanatic posted:why is Al gore ridiculed so much? My very first exposure to climate change problems was his movie. He won a nobel prize for his efforts. As far as predictions of things that "could" happen Im glad the worst case scenarios didn't come to pass yet. Am I missing more of what people ridicule him for? Mostly the Right ridiculing him, but in cases of debating about Climate Change, he is invariably brought up. He tends to be used as a scapegoat by the right for "See, Al Gore's predictions didn't come true" about as often as they point to a cold winter as proof that climate change is false. When people do harp on him, I tend to just point out that Al Gore isn't actually a scientist, and none of what he says his held to any scientific standards, nor does he count as a valid source for Climatology.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 20:51
|
|
|
I get why the right would ridicule him. But their so crazy about so much that its not something I noticed. But then on this forum I see people putting him down. Not that I feel sorry for him hes had plenty of success in his life and as a celebrity getting bad publicity is part of the lifestyle. Im just wondering why the left has a negative opinion of him. I assume that anything he has warned people about regarding climate change is what was handed to him by scientific studies. When he said the poles could be gone by 2014 that was based on a real possibility. Im sure many real, honest to goodness scientific studies have been revised in the past 40 years. That doesnt make those scientists hacks, it doesnt change that climate change is a real problem. And it doesnt make Al gore someone I feel deserves condemnation. it just means we need to accept that predictions/possibilities were made by scientists. They were wrong. the ones we have now are probably wrong too regarding time frame. But the events themselves will most likely happen...eventually. And it will be bad Unless theres more to the Al gore hate
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 21:54
|
|
|
logosanatic posted:I get why the right would ridicule him. But their so crazy about so much that its not something I noticed. But then on this forum I see people putting him down. Not that I feel sorry for him hes had plenty of success in his life and as a celebrity getting bad publicity is part of the lifestyle. Im just wondering why the left has a negative opinion of him. He doesn't deserve the hate he gets, no. But the fact that the Right is so willing to use him as a way to disprove climate change just further shows how under prepared they are to actually debate on scientific topics.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 22:00
|
|
|
logosanatic posted:it just means we need to accept that predictions/possibilities were made by scientists. They were wrong. the ones we have now are probably wrong too regarding time frame. But the events themselves will most likely happen...eventually. And it will be bad Well no, there's the consensus in an area of science and then there's "some studies" that might predict another scenario which may be useful for a politician to push his or her agenda. Of course drawing attention to climate change is a good thing but cherry picking data or studies for sensationalism/alarmism leads the whole movement to lose credibility because the focus shifts to debunking those claims instead of addressing the actual issue. It may not have been deliberate and we shouldn't really care what Gore has to say about climate change anyway but... unfortunately people do.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 22:10
|
|
|
Anosmoman posted:Well no, there's the consensus in an area of science and then there's "some studies" that might predict another scenario which may be useful for a politician to push his or her agenda. Of course drawing attention to climate change is a good thing but cherry picking data or studies for sensationalism/alarmism leads the whole movement to lose credibility because the focus shifts to debunking those claims instead of addressing the actual issue. It may not have been deliberate and we shouldn't really care what Gore has to say about climate change anyway but... unfortunately people do. So the moral of the Al gore story is that using worst case scenarios to grab the publics attention is bad? Because I disagree. Considering the size and seriousness of the problem. The publics apathy. I support all gores movie approach. It certainly left an impression on me. By the time I learned that it probably wont be that bad I had learned enough to fear the problem anyways. If the movie had pulled its punches perhaps I wouldnt have gone to see it...or taken the issue as seriously. The only thing I might adjust is being more vague about dates. But thats hindsight 20/20. when the movie was released it definitely pushed the subject in the direction it needed to go. And for that Al gore deserves accolades(which he got) rather than condemnation, which surprisingly he has gotten even in this thread logosanatic fucked around with this message at 22:25 on Feb 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 22:23
|
|
|
A lot of Centrist Liberals shat on Gore to prove they were above the partisan fray, "savvy" and very serious people. Maureen Dowd being a prime example.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 22:27
|
|
|
Maureen Dowd is such an irredeemable piece of poo poo - has she ever put out anything worth reading?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 22:49
|
|
|
logosanatic posted:why is Al gore ridiculed so much? My very first exposure to climate change problems was his movie. He won a nobel prize for his efforts. As far as predictions of things that "could" happen Im glad the worst case scenarios didn't come to pass yet. Am I missing more of what people ridicule him for? Al Gore was the poster child for "Global Warming", a term that is a punchline today. Our understanding of the Global climate was (and may still be) very limited. He made some worst case predictions, based on what they thought would happen at the time, and they turned out to be less than accurate. In 1999 he made some statements about pushing an initiative in congress that invented the internet. He was in campaign mode, and his opponents used this very poorly worded, slightly ignorant statement to their advantage.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 23:43
|
|
|
bpower posted:A lot of Centrist Liberals shat on Gore to prove they were above the partisan fray, "savvy" and very serious people. Maureen Dowd being a prime example. thats too bad. This is a little dramatic but it kind of puts me in mind of making GBS threads on newton because einstein proved better math.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 23:47
|
|
|
logosanatic posted:So the moral of the Al gore story is that using worst case scenarios to grab the publics attention is bad? Because I disagree. Considering the size and seriousness of the problem. The publics apathy. I support all gores movie approach. It certainly left an impression on me. By the time I learned that it probably wont be that bad I had learned enough to fear the problem anyways. If the movie had pulled its punches perhaps I wouldnt have gone to see it...or taken the issue as seriously. Well we can't know if he could have made a movie that was more factual while still having a big impact. However, after the presidential campaign and the way he lost it he was arguably one of the most respected and prolific political figures around and he was probably the first of that standing to focus so singularly on climate change. It was bound to get attention and the movie would have made a splash either way. I'd argue it was less the content of the movie and more that it was someone very respected and famous that drew attention to a subject that was previously mostly the domain of the occasional expert talking head TV.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 00:12
|
|
|
Anosmoman posted:Well we can't know if he could have made a movie that was more factual while still having a big impact. Probably, yeah. The critical thing is to have an effective means of taking action while the public's mind is focused on that particular topic (per Kingdon's Policy Streams model; the increased public focus on climate change, and the desire to "take action," is the policy window). To quote from a paper about the impact of Day After Tomorrow: quote:If stark images and words are to be used to inform the public and communicate risks associated with climate change, it is important to capitalize upon public reactions. As our study has shown, the effects upon the public psyche may be brief and quickly overtaken by more pressing day-to-day issues and we know that some forms of communication eclipse others in their ability to produce vicarious experiences (Bostrom, 2003). Thus, a more focused message in response to major news items and attention grabbing headlines is necessary. By understanding the characteristics of risk information, knowing what is important within that information and conveying these messages through the media of choice, a more efficient and effective use can be made of communication tools, either planned or opportune. Of equal importance, however, are systems to implement change following a successful communication strategy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 00:15
|
|
|
I don't think the left particularly hates Al Gore. I mean he was certainly a third way type of guy and took many ridiculous positions over the years, but he has stepped out on his own after leaving politics. I think while he was running for office, he felt constrained and so he ended up projecting an uncharismatic image. But he has earned more praise from environmentalists than any other politician at his level and he certainly deserves it. e: an inconvenient truth was also exciting because it showed that he had fixed his charisma problem. Of course, then we found out that he seemed to have no interest in running for office anymore. woke wedding drone fucked around with this message at 00:25 on Feb 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 00:23
|
|
|
Uranium Phoenix posted:Our current nuclear waste problem is also a product of us using a pretty stupid system. Most of the nuclear "waste" we generate could be refined and reused. I think it is a stretch to call it stupid. The kind of reactors you need to build, and the kind of reprocessing infrastructure you need to have, in order to make more efficient use of Uranium, are the same reactors and reprocessing infrastructure you need to make plutonium for weapons. "Wasteful" light water technology that uses uranium much less efficiently is much more proliferation resistant. While it is true that the U-235 enrichment requirements of light water reactors also carry some proliferation risk, this is really offset by A.) the fact that there is already a huge stockpile of U235, and so for the foreseeable future, reactor fuel manufacturing does more to eliminate existing weapons material than it does to create new material, and B.) the enrichment requirement for power reactors is so small, that a small number of internationally observed enrichment facilities operating in a manner unsuitable for rapid break-out can meet the demand for U235. In contrast, a single breeder or heavy water reactor with suitable reprocessing infrastructure can be used to produce weapon's material in a short time, and in a way that is difficult to distinguish from normal operation. You can argue the pros and cons of the tradeoff between proliferation resiliency and efficient use of uranium / minimization of waste. But the bottom line is that the only real barrier to the production of nuclear weapons is the production of suitable nuclear material, and nuclear weapons are very manifestly a threat to humanity. So its a bit naive to dismiss the current preference for light water thermal reactors as "stupid". Then there is the fact that, whether you agree with it or not, light water thermal neutron reactors are the most mature and proven reactor technology today, and are therefore the only realistic candidate for an expansion of nuclear power that would be large enough and rapid enough to make the urgent reductions in CO2 emissions that are needed to make any kind of difference. It is impossible today for anyone in the world to quickly build, in large numbers, anything but light water thermal neutron reactors, without really changing and/or compromising the existing regulatory framework. Barring some kind of massive technological breakthrough, if you realistically want nuclear power to put any kind of dent in climate change soon enough to matter, then it is full speed ahead with light water thermal reactors or nothing. The waste can, and in many cases is, simply stored on site for the lifetime of the reactor. If you want to move it to some central location 40+ years later, go ahead and do that. Or just leave it there, decommission the old reactors, and build new ones on the same site, and store it's waste there too. It is not some super urgent concern.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 01:25
|
|
|
logosanatic posted:why is Al gore ridiculed so much? My very first exposure to climate change problems was his movie. He won a nobel prize for his efforts. As far as predictions of things that "could" happen Im glad the worst case scenarios didn't come to pass yet. Am I missing more of what people ridicule him for? Gore is the conjoinment of two things conservatives hate. He's a democrat politician, and 2IC to bill clinton (Black helicopters! New world order!) and an adamantly pro science advocate. He also shares something in common with something with micheal moore in that the right love to claim his doco was entirely fabricated but with the caveat that nobody seems to be able to come up with anything that was actually untrue, or at least knowingly so (Both have had a few factual cock ups, and in all cases they seem to have come from insufficient information or are just hamless minor details that nobody cares about except point scoring talking heads) Theres a bit of sniping on the left about Gore but its usually from some more disgruntled of the radical left who, well if your not waving a red or black flag and proposing burning down the white house your a "liberal" and yeah, you can pretty safely ignore it as juvenile more righteous than thou nonsense. I mean of course he's a loving liberal, its right there on the box, whats the grievence here? duck monster fucked around with this message at 04:07 on Feb 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 04:04
|
|
|
Morbus posted:I think it is a stretch to call it stupid. The kind of reactors you need to build, and the kind of reprocessing infrastructure you need to have, in order to make more efficient use of Uranium, are the same reactors and reprocessing infrastructure you need to make plutonium for weapons. "Wasteful" light water technology that uses uranium much less efficiently is much more proliferation resistant. The stupid part I'm primarily alluding to is that the majority of the "waste" is that 96% of the mass of the radioactive waste is U-238, the stuff with the multi-billion year half life that is essentially harmless as far as radioactivity goes, and useless as far as bomb making goes. France has been able to reprocess their nuclear fuel quite effectively. There's no reason the US couldn't do the same. I'm not sure where you're getting "light water reactors are less efficient so they can be more proliferation resistant" from, since from my understanding, the entire reason the US wanted to build light water reactors is because they wanted plutonium for weapons (and it was compatible with their nuclear submarines and carriers). U-238 in a light water reactor is what's used to make Pu-239 for bombs. If you really want proliferation resistance and efficiency, the thorium fuel cycle (which uses U-233) does both splendidly, and the LFTR reactor design can also use "waste" from other reactors as fuel. Edit: I guess certain breeder reactors are better at making Pu-239, but they're using it as fuel in the reactor. The most secure place for fuel to be is in the reactor. Proliferation is especially a non-issue in places like the US, which still has enough bombs to blow up the world a few times over anyways. Of course politicians would have a hissy fit of countries like Iran ever used that reactor type, but even that can be regulated by routine international inspection. Stopping a reactor and opening it up isn't exactly something you can do stealthily. Uranium Phoenix fucked around with this message at 10:04 on Feb 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 09:53
|
|
|
http://crooksandliars.com/2015/02/senator-whitehouse-rips-senator-snowball?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter Senator Whitehouse took Senator Inhofe to the wood shed: quote:WHITEHOUSE: I'd just like to complete my remarks with regard to the Senator from Oklahoma and his snowball. I'd like to ask unanimous consent that I show the Earth Now website on the iPad device that I have. Morbus posted:I think it is a stretch to call it stupid. The kind of reactors you need to build, and the kind of reprocessing infrastructure you need to have, in order to make more efficient use of Uranium, are the same reactors and reprocessing infrastructure you need to make plutonium for weapons. "Wasteful" light water technology that uses uranium much less efficiently is much more proliferation resistant. If we were willing to look into Thorium Salt reactors and other alternative reactors, even the waste would be viable fuel, and would produce far less of the long lived waste isotopes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 18:43
|
|
|
Isn't the relative scarcity of Uranium the primary problem with rapidly expanding LWTR plants? Unless things have changed I understood that we'd run out of the correct isotopes within about 40 years if we built enough to fully power North America, let alone China and India.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 21:56
|
|
|
Morbus posted:In contrast, a single breeder or heavy water reactor with suitable reprocessing infrastructure can be used to produce weapon's material in a short time, and in a way that is difficult to distinguish from normal operation. The bolded portion isn't really true - because too much Pu-240 will ruin your bomb, you have to have a significantly different operational cycle to produce weapons-usable plutonium (short cycles) than if you're just operating the reactor for power (long cycles). To avoid producing too much Pu-240 with your Pu-239, you have to power down and cycle out the plutonium much more often than in normal operation, which from a commercial standpoint would dramatically increase costs; commercial reactors aim to minimize downtime since they lose ~$1m/day that they don't operate. While it's targeted towards LWRs, the WATCHMAN project is an example of how there are non-proliferation efforts to remotely monitor the on-off cycles of reactors specifically to know whether they're trying to make weapons-grade plutonium. The same principle applies to breeders as well - the cycle is different when producing weapons-grade plutonium instead of producing power. If you can monitor the cycle (and since I think we're talking about the US here, that'd be a given) then it would be really obvious if someone were trying to breed weapons material. Potential material proliferation is really not a good argument against employing breeder reactors - and really this is the wrong terminology, since if we wanted to burn U-238, we would use fast reactors, which while similar have a different purpose and would have a slightly different design for economic reasons - in the US (obviously that changes depending on which country you're talking about). Rime posted:Isn't the relative scarcity of Uranium the primary problem with rapidly expanding LWTR plants? Unless things have changed I understood that we'd run out of the correct isotopes within about 40 years if we built enough to fully power North America, let alone China and India. This isn't really a pressing concern, as mentioned by Morbus: Morbus posted:A.) the fact that there is already a huge stockpile of U235, and so for the foreseeable future, reactor fuel manufacturing does more to eliminate existing weapons material than it does to create new material To give some perspective, the last time I toured Y-12 the guide said that if we were to keep our ~100 nuclear reactors, and add 100 more right now, Y-12 alone has enough U-235 leftover from its enrichment program to fuel all 200 of these reactors for the next 100 years. This is just using the current LWR model of 3-5% U-235 enrichment. If we actually built reactors to burn the U-238, we'd extend the usefulness of our supply of uranium by hundreds, maybe thousands of years. With the amount of U-238 we already have in the spent fuel from our current commercial fleet (~100,000 tons including the assemblies), if we built reactors to burn it, we would have fuel for decades without digging up a single gram of uranium. Edit: Morbus posted:It is impossible today for anyone in the world to quickly build, in large numbers, anything but light water thermal neutron reactors, without really changing and/or compromising the existing regulatory framework. Barring some kind of massive technological breakthrough, if you realistically want nuclear power to put any kind of dent in climate change soon enough to matter, then it is full speed ahead with light water thermal reactors or nothing. Agreed, and this is why NuScale's SMR design uses basically the same LWR we currently use (the fuel rods are the same except a little shorter if I remember correctly) scaled down, except with more safety features. Morbus posted:The waste can, and in many cases is, simply stored on site for the lifetime of the reactor. If you want to move it to some central location 40+ years later, go ahead and do that. Or just leave it there, decommission the old reactors, and build new ones on the same site, and store it's waste there too. It is not some super urgent concern. While on-site storage "works," it's still problematic for two big reasons: 1) it's not a long term solution, and 2) it increases operating costs. Spent fuel casks aren't free; buying and maintaining them (and keeping them in accordance with potential new regulations), along with the infrastructure that goes with them, costs money and ultimately increases the cost of nuclear energy. Our lack of reprocessing and long-term storage also adds uncertainty for anyone wanting to build a new plant, because we don't know how long they'll have to hold on to their spent fuel, which means utilities don't know whether they'll have to periodically expand the size of the dry cask storage space and further invest in that infrastructure. So while it's not super urgent in that we have to solve this problem right now, having to account for an indefinite amount of on-site storage makes reactors more expensive and to some extent discourages investment/new plant construction. Phayray fucked around with this message at 01:10 on Feb 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 23:36
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:http://crooksandliars.com/2015/02/senator-whitehouse-rips-senator-snowball?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter The senator with the snowball lol. Inhofe is such trash.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 02:41
|
|
|
Rime posted:Isn't the relative scarcity of Uranium the primary problem with rapidly expanding LWTR plants? Unless things have changed I understood that we'd run out of the correct isotopes within about 40 years if we built enough to fully power North America, let alone China and India. Yeah that is one of the reason thorium reactors are a good idea. With current energy usage levels the thorium on the planet should suffice for at least a millennium.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 16:25
|
|
|
All this talk about nuclear energy is good and all, but you'll first need to convince most "green" parties that nuclear energy isn't the spawn of satan.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 06:15
|
|
|
Batham posted:All this talk about nuclear energy is good and all, but you'll first need to convince most "green" parties that nuclear energy isn't the spawn of satan. Why would we need to convince a tiny minority of the electorate?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 06:32
|
|
|
slogsdon posted:Why would we need to convince a tiny minority of the electorate? They're extremely vocal and a lot of people hearing that message get "nuclear = bad" in their heads.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 07:02
|
|
|
Batham posted:All this talk about nuclear energy is good and all, but you'll first need to convince most "green" parties that nuclear energy isn't the spawn of satan. Yes, let's rehash this point for the twenty-thousandth time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 07:08
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:They're extremely vocal and a lot of people hearing that message get "nuclear = bad" in their heads. You're not going to convince extremely vocal greens of anything.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 07:17
|
|
|
slogsdon posted:You're not going to convince extremely vocal greens of anything. No you aren't. The goal is to convince the people the vocal greens are convincing. It's like Bill Nye debating the creationists. He wasn't trying to convert or beat the creationists. It was about people watching the debate.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 07:59
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:No you aren't. The goal is to convince the people the vocal greens are convincing. It's like Bill Nye debating the creationists. He wasn't trying to convert or beat the creationists. It was about people watching the debate. The original post I was addressing didn't say this.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 08:20
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:They're extremely vocal and a lot of people hearing that message get "nuclear = bad" in their heads. Nuclear? You mean nuclear BOMBS?! THE PLANT IS GOING TO GO NUCLEAR! 
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 16:18
|
|
|
I can't imagine how a reactor of any kind would achieve the conditions necessary for a "nuclear bomb" type explosion. I would imagine Chernobyl was the closest to that and it didn't even level the building, let alone the plant complex.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 03:22
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:I can't imagine how a reactor of any kind would achieve the conditions necessary for a "nuclear bomb" type explosion. I would imagine Chernobyl was the closest to that and it didn't even level the building, let alone the plant complex. When you look at the environmental contamination that came from Kyshtym or Chernobyl, I don't really understand why people are so worried about "bomb" type explosions anyways. They'd probably be cleaner than the reality of what happens. It's also a pretty naive standpoint to take when you consider that we effectively engaged in a nuclear war for over forty years, which saw us set off well over 2000 warheads and permanently altered the planet. That genie was out of the bottle before most of today's anti-nuclear activists were even born.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 03:34
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:I can't imagine how a reactor of any kind would achieve the conditions necessary for a "nuclear bomb" type explosion. I would imagine Chernobyl was the closest to that and it didn't even level the building, let alone the plant complex. The other dumb thing is look at the number of plants in the world that have not exploded compared to the ones that have. Last I heard modern designs are stupidly safe and an explosion on the level of Chernobyl can only really happen thanks to outright insane levels of negligence.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 03:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 21:05 |
|
|
FAUXTON posted:I can't imagine how a reactor of any kind would achieve the conditions necessary for a "nuclear bomb" type explosion. I would imagine Chernobyl was the closest to that and it didn't even level the building, let alone the plant complex. Its impossible, nearly every explosion in a reactor has been a result of hydrogen gas build up. ToxicSlurpee posted:The other dumb thing is look at the number of plants in the world that have not exploded compared to the ones that have. Last I heard modern designs are stupidly safe and an explosion on the level of Chernobyl can only really happen thanks to outright insane levels of negligence. Exactly. Anti-Nuclear groups love hammering over and over again about how dangerous nuclear is, despite the fact nuclear's track record is actually incredibly good considering.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 03:36
|
|