Why I advocate for Nuclear Power

[fromderinside]

You are right, exactly and distressingly right. I say distressing because you went right over the main reason nuclear will not ever be our way out. In spite of everything you've presented countries Like Japan are considering getting off nuclear because they are afraid it can serve as a basis for remilitarization of Japanese war mentality and because japanes fear what another tsunami, or a dozen, will do to their economy.

The problem is human fear which is beyond reason. It is why europe is now moving toward populism out of fear of being muslimized or browned out of existence. You get a little bit of fear into the system add a demagogue or two and you have the makings of another Feich or Monolithic Whatever state.

Is the eurozone poison or destructive to europeans? No. Are brown people destroying America? No. Is it even possible either will happen? No. Yet, there you are losing the common union and losing the melting pot of the world all because of a little tribalistic fear.

The war, if you want to call it that, with nuclear power in the US is over We may become green or solar beut we will never become nuclear because of a few incidents and a few lies in the fifties and sixties. My neighbor and friend, just passed, David Pesonen appointed by Jerry Brown during his first CA governorship, as Director of Forestry of CA (http://theforcesofnature.com/movies/david-pesonen/), lead the CA revolt against the nuclear reactor at Bodega bay on the CA coast in the late fifties to early sixties that just happened to be located over two very large faults. This event may say was the beginning of the end of nuclear energy in the US. Bright articulate, well placed, liberal, Pesonen brought down the nuclear lobby through getting people to be afraid.

Fear of Earthquakes were used to spew fear of nuclear among Californians, not because it was true, but, because those that assured us CA nuclear was safe lied about the faults at the location the location of the reactor. A place chosen for its access to water and cheap and in proximity to large population centers.

So when next someone claims as link between reactors commercial nuclear electrical power and reactors producing weaponized fissionable material, take them seriously because they don't need much for their view to tilt the fear meter.

Everybody can use fear to either permanently or at least for an extended time to halt good things. Some might argue we'd have had a scientific world view in the time of Archimedes had not the religious and those bent on keeping control not drowned him out with "Aristotle Aristotle, Aristotle". Simple is good. Easy to say is good. Showing take a lot of small audiences.

In conclusion I suggest we all get back to our cell phones engage on instagram, twitter, and Facebook, keep shaming and bullying at the top of the list of ways to assure people control.

Now that is something I bleieve is actually going to happen.

I think I'm hearing Aristotle, Aristotle, Aristotle, aren't you?

I know you are right and I know educating us about things isn't going to happen.

Come up with something simple like a working celestual model or even the rediscovery of cement. More seriously double down in fusion use for power generation. Tough to achieve but simple to explain. And who doesn't want to inhale a bit of helium and become the life of the party.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

When you come up with a properly regulated environment, one not distorted by payoffs, bribes, fraud, seconds, cheap faile quick designs, or any other form of power or money interference then you can say whatever you want about government, on the record, programs.

Why was storage at Fukushima on the ocean protected by an unsatisfactory barrier wall. Can you say chiseling, cheating, corner cutting, etc. Why wa s the damn thing sitting astride a tsunami causing fault line in a low property value area? refer back to pervious reason string.

You realize the only appreciable threat from Fukushima was the evacuation?

Got anything on valves, inspections, monitoring circuit design to mitigate TMI?

Proper regulation. TMI happened because some NRC guys were on site and intervened in a very minor issue and turned it into a much bigger issue. It was still more dangerous to walk across the street once than remain at the TMI fence line.

 

[steve_bank]

When you come up with a properly regulated environment, one not distorted by payoffs, bribes, fraud, seconds, cheap faile quick designs, or any other form of power or money interference then you can say whatever you want about government, on the record, programs.

Why was storage at Fukushima on the ocean protected by an unsatisfactory barrier wall. Can you say chiseling, cheating, corner cutting, etc. Why wa s the damn thing sitting astride a tsunami causing fault line in a low property value area? refer back to pervious reason string.

You realize the only appreciable threat from Fukushima was the evacuation?

Got anything on valves, inspections, monitoring circuit design to mitigate TMI?

Proper regulation. TMI happened because some NRC guys were on site and intervened in a very minor issue and turned it into a much bigger issue. It was still more dangerous to walk across the street once than remain at the TMI fence line.

Not quite true. Contaminated material from Japan washed up om out west coast.

 

[steve_bank]

bilby, wake up and smell the electrons.

If your main argument is remoteness, it fails for reasons ststed. Here in the USA el4ctricity can come from anywhere, and public utilities regularly swith suppliers basd on price which fluctuates with energy costs.

The USA power grid refutes your claim. Along with thatnthere is research into low tremperature superconductors for electric power trasmission.

Also, nukes need a source of colant water.

As to cost in our Southwest utilities have built working solar staions using off the shelf small inexpensive inverters in parallel. The elctrical equipment to connect to the grid is off the shelf catalog items. Here in Washington as I posted before, a partialy completed abandoned nuke plant can be seen driving to the coast. It was too expemsive to show a return on investment. Same with a wind farm, electtricity was too cheap to keep it going.

The semiconductor company Texas Instruments developd integrated circuits to support high reliability parralell redundant power inverters to enable easy to construct large scale solar plants. You are waymout of your depth on energy technology.

I have desined DC to AC inverters. I am well familiar with power technology and the grid.

For 24/7 coverage nukes have a place, but are third behind natuaral gas and solar.

 

[fromderinside]

You realize the only appreciable threat from Fukushima was the evacuation?

Proper regulation. TMI happened because some NRC guys were on site and intervened in a very minor issue and turned it into a much bigger issue. It was still more dangerous to walk across the street once than remain at the TMI fence line.

So material on US shores radiation contaminated are not a problem because they only impact fish over the seven thousand mile trip here and radioactve leaks into the ocean are also not a problem because ..... choose appropriate gloves then wave hands and promise you'll never try to fudge or cheat - finger crossed hands behind legion of sales and promotional persons working in nuclear poser industry - or make a quick buck off reactors ever ever again.
.

 

[bilby]

You realize the only appreciable threat from Fukushima was the evacuation?



Proper regulation. TMI happened because some NRC guys were on site and intervened in a very minor issue and turned it into a much bigger issue. It was still more dangerous to walk across the street once than remain at the TMI fence line.

Not quite true. Contaminated material from Japan washed up om out west coast.

'Contaminated' as in 'possible to detect'. Detecting minuscule amounts of radioactive material is easy.

The ability to detect that material demonstrates just how incredibly sensitive our detection equipment is; It is many billions of times lower than any concentration worthy of the slightest concern.

 

[Juma]

bilby, wake up and smell the electrons.

If your main argument is remoteness, it fails for reasons ststed. Here in the USA el4ctricity can come from anywhere, and public utilities regularly swith suppliers basd on price which fluctuates with energy costs.

The USA power grid refutes your claim. Along with thatnthere is research into low tremperature superconductors for electric power trasmission.

Also, nukes need a source of colant water.

As to cost in our Southwest utilities have built working solar staions using off the shelf small inexpensive inverters in parallel. The elctrical equipment to connect to the grid is off the shelf catalog items. Here in Washington as I posted before, a partialy completed abandoned nuke plant can be seen driving to the coast. It was too expemsive to show a return on investment. Same with a wind farm, electtricity was too cheap to keep it going.

The semiconductor company Texas Instruments developd integrated circuits to support high reliability parralell redundant power inverters to enable easy to construct large scale solar plants. You are waymout of your depth on energy technology.

I have desined DC to AC inverters. I am well familiar with power technology and the grid.

For 24/7 coverage nukes have a place, but are third behind natuaral gas and solar.

Natural gas??? You know that natural gas is a just another fossile fuel? We must immidetaly stop using it!

 

[bilby]

bilby, wake up and smell the electrons.

If your main argument is remoteness

My 'main argument' is not, and never has been 'remoteness'.

, it fails for reasons ststed. Here in the USA el4ctricity can come from anywhere, and public utilities regularly swith suppliers basd on price which fluctuates with energy costs.

The USA power grid refutes your claim. Along with thatnthere is research into low tremperature superconductors for electric power trasmission.

I am aware of the existence of power grids; And no such grid refutes any claim I am making.

Also, nukes need a source of colant water

I know.

I have no idea what you think you are arguing against; Certainly it's not my OP. Perhaps you should try reading it?

As to cost in our Southwest utilities have built working solar staions using off the shelf small inexpensive inverters in parallel. The elctrical equipment to connect to the grid is off the shelf catalog items. Here in Washington as I posted before, a partialy completed abandoned nuke plant can be seen driving to the coast. It was too expemsive to show a return on investment. Same with a wind farm, electtricity was too cheap to keep it going.

The semiconductor company Texas Instruments developd integrated circuits to support high reliability parralell redundant power inverters to enable easy to construct large scale solar plants. You are waymout of your depth on energy technology.

...and yet I am supporting my claims (which you appear not to comprehend in the slightest) with links to evidence; While all I get from you are anecdotes and misplaced condescension.

I have desined DC to AC inverters. I am well familiar with power technology and the grid.

For 24/7 coverage nukes have a place, but are third behind natuaral gas and solar.

Shove your opinions back up the orifice you pulled them from, and take a look at the carbon emissions caused by natural gas, and the enormous cost both environmental and financial of gas and solar power.

http://www.sightline.org/2018/06/25/small-town-silicon-smelter-plan-tees-up-big-questions/

 

[bilby]

You realize the only appreciable threat from Fukushima was the evacuation?

Proper regulation. TMI happened because some NRC guys were on site and intervened in a very minor issue and turned it into a much bigger issue. It was still more dangerous to walk across the street once than remain at the TMI fence line.

So material on US shores radiation contaminated are not a problem because they only impact fish over the seven thousand mile trip here and radioactve leaks into the ocean are also not a problem because ..... choose appropriate gloves then wave hands and promise you'll never try to fudge or cheat - finger crossed hands behind legion of sales and promotional persons working in nuclear poser industry - or make a quick buck off reactors ever ever again.
.

No hand waving required; Radioactivity in the oceans (and the fish that live there) due to human activities is detectable, but utterly negligible.

This is not a problem because it's not a problem. Not for people, not for fish, not for anything.

If you think that radioactivity in the Pacific due to Fukushima is a problem of any kind for anything, then that's a powerful indication of the effectiveness of lying propaganda and hysteria.

 

[bilby]

 

[fromderinside]

You realize the only appreciable threat from Fukushima was the evacuation?

Proper regulation. TMI happened because some NRC guys were on site and intervened in a very minor issue and turned it into a much bigger issue. It was still more dangerous to walk across the street once than remain at the TMI fence line.

So material on US shores radiation contaminated are not a problem because they only impact fish over the seven thousand mile trip here and radioactve leaks into the ocean are also not a problem because ..... choose appropriate gloves then wave hands and promise you'll never try to fudge or cheat - finger crossed hands behind legion of sales and promotional persons working in nuclear poser industry - or make a quick buck off reactors ever ever again.
.

View attachment 16378

No hand waving required; Radioactivity in the oceans (and the fish that live there) due to human activities is detectable, but utterly negligible.

This is not a problem because it's not a problem. Not for people, not for fish, not for anything.

If you think that radioactivity in the Pacific due to Fukushima is a problem of any kind for anything, then that's a powerful indication of the effectiveness of lying propaganda and hysteria.

Two things. First you are right. When looking at radiation in the ocean taken all reiation over the whole ocean the change in radioactivity from'normal' is negligible. When you take the radioactivity near the coast of Japan near Fukushima one would recommend to neither fish nor buy fish gathered from there because of high radioactivity in those one catches.

Second you make my point about fear and the future for nuclear power.

 

[Peez]

View attachment 16378

No hand waving required; Radioactivity in the oceans (and the fish that live there) due to human activities is detectable, but utterly negligible.

This is not a problem because it's not a problem. Not for people, not for fish, not for anything.

If you think that radioactivity in the Pacific due to Fukushima is a problem of any kind for anything, then that's a powerful indication of the effectiveness of lying propaganda and hysteria.

Two things. First you are right. When looking at radiation in the ocean taken all reiation over the whole ocean the change in radioactivity from'normal' is negligible. When you take the radioactivity near the coast of Japan near Fukushima one would recommend to neither fish nor buy fish gathered from there because of high radioactivity in those one catches.

Second you make my point about fear and the future for nuclear power.

How high is "high" in this context? What radioactivity was/is detected in fish captured near Fukushima?

Peez

 

[steve_bank]

bilby, wake up and smell the electrons.

If your main argument is remoteness, it fails for reasons ststed. Here in the USA el4ctricity can come from anywhere, and public utilities regularly swith suppliers basd on price which fluctuates with energy costs.

The USA power grid refutes your claim. Along with thatnthere is research into low tremperature superconductors for electric power trasmission.

Also, nukes need a source of colant water.

As to cost in our Southwest utilities have built working solar staions using off the shelf small inexpensive inverters in parallel. The elctrical equipment to connect to the grid is off the shelf catalog items. Here in Washington as I posted before, a partialy completed abandoned nuke plant can be seen driving to the coast. It was too expemsive to show a return on investment. Same with a wind farm, electtricity was too cheap to keep it going.

The semiconductor company Texas Instruments developd integrated circuits to support high reliability parralell redundant power inverters to enable easy to construct large scale solar plants. You are waymout of your depth on energy technology.

I have desined DC to AC inverters. I am well familiar with power technology and the grid.

For 24/7 coverage nukes have a place, but are third behind natuaral gas and solar.

Natural gas??? You know that natural gas is a just another fossile fuel? We must immidetaly stop using it!

Yes, it is cleaner than coal. Replacing all energy production with nuclear is problematic, history shows that.

Another problem is that nuclear plant design is very small in numbers. There is no long term trial and error leading to a good design. Gas operated turbines are routine.

Every new nuclear plant becomes a one off design. In terms of engineering that leads to problems. I believe the US Navy is moving away from nuclear propulsion for smaller ships.

 

[steve_bank]

From the link I posted on bilby's other thread, in the USA percentage of renewable energy is increasing.

Renewable, cleaner fossil, and then nuclear. The total cost of nuclear over generations is high, which is why it is not happening.

 

[bilby]

View attachment 16378

No hand waving required; Radioactivity in the oceans (and the fish that live there) due to human activities is detectable, but utterly negligible.

This is not a problem because it's not a problem. Not for people, not for fish, not for anything.

If you think that radioactivity in the Pacific due to Fukushima is a problem of any kind for anything, then that's a powerful indication of the effectiveness of lying propaganda and hysteria.

Two things. First you are right. When looking at radiation in the ocean taken all reiation over the whole ocean the change in radioactivity from'normal' is negligible. When you take the radioactivity near the coast of Japan near Fukushima one would recommend to neither fish nor buy fish gathered from there because of high radioactivity in those one catches.

One might recommend that, but only if one were badly misinformed and needlessly fearful of a non-risk.

Second you make my point about fear and the future for nuclear power.

You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that I am unaware that such groundless fears both exist and are widespread. I can assure you that it is completely unnecessary for you to try to persuade me of this fact; I am already painfully aware of it.

 

[bilby]

bilby, wake up and smell the electrons.

If your main argument is remoteness, it fails for reasons ststed. Here in the USA el4ctricity can come from anywhere, and public utilities regularly swith suppliers basd on price which fluctuates with energy costs.

The USA power grid refutes your claim. Along with thatnthere is research into low tremperature superconductors for electric power trasmission.

Also, nukes need a source of colant water.

As to cost in our Southwest utilities have built working solar staions using off the shelf small inexpensive inverters in parallel. The elctrical equipment to connect to the grid is off the shelf catalog items. Here in Washington as I posted before, a partialy completed abandoned nuke plant can be seen driving to the coast. It was too expemsive to show a return on investment. Same with a wind farm, electtricity was too cheap to keep it going.

The semiconductor company Texas Instruments developd integrated circuits to support high reliability parralell redundant power inverters to enable easy to construct large scale solar plants. You are waymout of your depth on energy technology.

I have desined DC to AC inverters. I am well familiar with power technology and the grid.

For 24/7 coverage nukes have a place, but are third behind natuaral gas and solar.

Natural gas??? You know that natural gas is a just another fossile fuel? We must immidetaly stop using it!

Yes, it is cleaner than coal. Replacing all energy production with nuclear is problematic, history shows that.

Another problem is that nuclear plant design is very small in numbers. There is no long term trial and error leading to a good design. Gas operated turbines are routine.

Every new nuclear plant becomes a one off design. In terms of engineering that leads to problems. I believe the US Navy is moving away from nuclear propulsion for smaller ships.

Natural gas is not significantly 'cleaner' than coal; Methane is a far more potent greenhouse gas than Carbon Dioxide, and it is never completely contained.

https://www.edf.org/climate-impacts-methane-emissions

 

[bilby]

From the link I posted on bilby's other thread, in the USA percentage of renewable energy is increasing.

Renewable, cleaner fossil, and then nuclear. The total cost of nuclear over generations is high, which is why it is not happening.

That depends what price you put on pollution. Just because nobody makes companies pay for dumping their shit into our environment, that doesn't imply that it's without cost.

And nobody gives a shit about 'over generations' - although they really should start doing so. One of the largest obstacles to nuclear power is that it looks expensive over short term planning horizons. A twenty year view has nuclear somewhat more expensive than other options; But longer accounting horizons show it to be far cheaper, as operating costs are tiny compared to capital costs, and nuclear plants can easily be run for sixty years.

Nuclear plants are only expensive if you needlessly close them down well before the end of their working life for political reasons. To shut down a perfectly good nuclear plant in our current situation you would have to be a fucking moron, (or a Californian "environmentalist", but I repeat myself).

'Over generations' nuclear power is cheapest by far.

 

[fromderinside]

One might recommend that, but only if one were badly misinformed and needlessly fearful of a non-risk.

Second you make my point about fear and the future for nuclear power.

You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that I am unaware that such groundless fears both exist and are widespread. I can assure you that it is completely unnecessary for you to try to persuade me of this fact; I am already painfully aware of it.

Actually I'm pretty sure you are very aware of those political positions, which I'm trying to tell you are at this time facts you need to adjust your petition toward overcoming. I don't want you to fail. I want you to change your insistence that this is merely a communication issue or an education issue. Those of us who keep shouting at you are not idiots. Rather we are partisans who've tired of pitching the real world in a dispassionate way at the unwashed who are easily frightened by simple minded lies.

I'd rather you use your knowledge of human behavior to construct a case and approach that will disarm those troglodytes ot there. I dd hint at one. Pinker noted that when the elites in great britain got tired of knifings at their parties and of their friends so they moved sought to make knife wearing unfashionable with great success.

What is needed is trusted institutions getting behind a sexy alternative to bullies and bully behavior that favors green attitudes. Confrontation isn't working. I'd be in favor ofd much lower use of radiation to examine people, much more elites getting upset with the problems that the mere thought that nuclear bombs can and is associated with nuclear energy production. The lesson of AEC is instructive. Because it covered both weapons production and power development it began to come under fire when military and civilian power entities had dogs in the hunt. The AEC was eliminated primarily because of this wrong headed administrative binding of atomic energy. it was one thing to fight off anti bomb and nuclear disarmament bandwagons, but, when bad decisions were made on the civilian side that opposition was multiplied by the addition af the fearful low information crowd.

I think we can get ahead of the game if we concentrate on much lower use devices for radiation in medicine, efforts to reduce background chemical and radiation efforts as priorities, and a renewed concentration of becoming more like France, and Japan in the dependence on nuclear power for defense. We don't need to disarm. We just need to lay out a proportionate level of power needed to defence the US and our allies together and drive those who would be enemies to be at the negotiating table all the time publicly and loudly. Those would be starters IMHO.

I'm even in favor of putting WOMPR in the hands of kiddies demonstrating the futility of TGNW or even LRNW.

 

[steve_bank]

The root cause of environmental problems is unrestrained population and econom ic demand.

 

[bilby]

The root cause of environmental problems is unrestrained population and econom ic demand.

Don't you ever get bored of repeating mindless and unsupported nonsense?

Population is not 'unrestrained'; But that discussion is off topic for this thread, and has been done to death elsewhere so many times. Economic demand is another way of saying 'wealth', and is very obviously negatively correlated with population growth rates.

As we have reduced poverty, so we have reduced population growth - to the point that it will level off in about 2050.

As for economic demand, it is only a problem if we don't have environmentally friendly sources for our primary energy - which is EXACTLY the point of this thread. It is NOT the root cause of environmental problems, the root causes of environmental problems are the use of fossil fuels to do tasks that could be done with clean energy; And the externalization of resource recycling and pollution cleanup tasks.

If you feel like spouting a knee-jerk one-line response that has no support or basis in fact, please try to refrain from so doing. Adding to your post count is really no substitute for contributing usefully to the discussion - an activity that requires evidence, reason, and thought.