Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Of course they might not allow them in Jersey because it probably
would blow up if they built it there.
*YOUR* "triple Product" is waining... wait.. You never got
there... It is a minus 3. You have a triple divide 'product'.
Would you mind translating that ?
Well that leaves wind and solar. Well we'll just peel off a few
more trillion for that.
Rick C wrote:
In many ways this is a straw man argument. While I'm sure there
are people who are opposed to both nukes and climate change, they
aren't the mainstream.
I didn't make it a big deal, I simply stated it. And the vast
majority of the global warming folks are opposed to nuclear power,
which obviously diminishes their credibility.
If global warming is going to screw the planet big time, then
clearly nuclear power, with it's track record, is an alternative
we should be pursuing. It's like having a fire that's started in
a corner of your house and having baking soda nearby to put it
out, but not using it because you claim baking soda is no good.
To do what exactly? Order the construction of uneconomical
nuclear plants? They aren't being built because they can't
produce electricity at a reasonable cost.
To cut through all the obstructionist BS that greatly increases
the cost of nuclear power plants. Who's going to spend hundreds
of millions to try to build a plant, unsure when the tree huggers
will succeed in blocking it?
...
You're so confused, you don't even know who you're replying to. I
didn't post that.
trader4@optonline.net wrote
Ad hominem. Do you ever discuss the facts rationally?
Like you with all of your retarded 'libs' remarks.
You are pure hypocrite.
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:
trader4@optonline.net wrote
Ad hominem. Do you ever discuss the facts rationally?
Like you with all of your retarded 'libs' remarks.
You are pure hypocrite.
You got the attribute wrong, AlwaysWrong.
What is your personal best day for being the most wrong?
When you strike the keyboard, do you aim or do you just jump
around like a monkey?
This Australian troll should should take note
of the interesting recent events in Australia...
whit3rd wrote:
Any construction, any industry, has hazards. Nuclear plants are
not notable for injuries or protection failures.
And, you have never noticed that. It's a PR thing, and keeps
a lot of politicians... twitchy.
The problem, is you; you see no data on hazards, just
characterizations of people that seem slightly... impure.
Purity tests are a variety of pass/fail test, a kind of fail/fail
test; meaningless but provide an excuse.
What you don't understand is that while the chances of an accident
at a nuclear power plant is slight, the resulting impact is
catastrophic.
The fact that the US has not had a significant nuclear accident
since Three Mile Island does in no way mean the risk of an
accident is so small as to be avoided.
X-Received: by 2002:a37:a5d1:: with SMTP id o200mr14170522qke.93.1562586671146; Mon, 08 Jul 2019 04:51:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:11a1:: with SMTP id c1mr14277277qkk.234.1562586670994; Mon, 08 Jul 2019 04:51:10 -0700 (PDT)
Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.dns-netz.com!news.freedyn.net!newsreader4.netcologne.de!news.netcologne.de!peer03.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer03.am4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!b26no706141qtq.0!news-out.google.com!g23ni710qtq.1!nntp.google.com!b26no706131qtq.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2019 04:51:10 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <vkh1iet4vs4tg705tnn5fntsuud8c7rgjg 4ax.com
Complaints-To: groups-abuse google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=192.87.79.65; posting-account=SJ46pgoAAABuUDuHc5uDiXN30ATE-zi-
NNTP-Posting-Host: 192.87.79.65
References: <qfm97b$l22$1 dont-email.me> <vkh1iet4vs4tg705tnn5fntsuud8c7rgjg 4ax.com
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <22275abc-1d2c-40b4-9e14-4cfb3144c3e6 googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: any chance to turn Nuclear reactors around with a safer Reactor
From: Bill Sloman <bill.sloman ieee.org
Injection-Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2019 11:51:11 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Received-Bytes: 2397
X-Received-Body-CRC: 928793251
Xref: reader01.eternal-september.org sci.electronics.design:556790
On Saturday, July 6, 2019 at 6:07:27 PM UTC+2, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 4 Jul 2019 20:30:17 -0500, amdx <nojunk knology.net> wrote:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/safer-nuclear-reactors-are-on-the-way/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ScientificAmerican-News+%28Content%3A+News%29
A decently engineered nuke is already safe. Greenies have made nukes
too expensive because they don't want the people to have affordable
energy.
A bizarre delusion, even for John Larkin. Greenies haven't got the political clout to make nuclear power plants even more expensive than they are now.
The politicians who insisted on stringent safety requirements were driven by general public anxiety which had reacted to events like the Windscale fire
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windscale_fire
not to mention Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukishima.
Nuclear reactors are potentially dangerous, like pretty much every power generating scheme, but the disasters do get publicised.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:
whit3rd wrote:
Any construction, any industry, has hazards. Nuclear plants are
not notable for injuries or protection failures.
And, you have never noticed that. It's a PR thing, and keeps
a lot of politicians... twitchy.
The problem, is you; you see no data on hazards, just
characterizations of people that seem slightly... impure.
Purity tests are a variety of pass/fail test, a kind of fail/fail
test; meaningless but provide an excuse.
What you don't understand is that while the chances of an accident
at a nuclear power plant is slight, the resulting impact is
catastrophic.
That's idiotic. The chance of catastrophic accident is not slight,
it is almost ZERO.
A nuclear reactor generates hundreds of
megawatts, so of course you cannot compare it to a solar panel.
Nuclear power has saved thousands of lives.
The fact that the US has not had a significant nuclear accident
since Three Mile Island does in no way mean the risk of an
accident is so small as to be avoided.
But of course it does, that's how it's been avoided. Not a single
person has been killed in the United States by a nuclear power
accident. Nuclear power has saved thousands of lives.
On Tuesday, July 9, 2019 at 6:58:21 AM UTC-4, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Monday, July 8, 2019 at 12:27:19 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
On Monday, July 8, 2019 at 11:12:14 AM UTC-4, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
Tell that to your howling lib friends, like AOC. She says the world
is going to end from global warming in ten years. Regardless of when
exactly a real crisis starts, all the global warming folks that I know
of say we need to act IMMEDIATELY, hence my point that if that's the
case, it's quite amusing that they don't want nukes as part of the solution.
In many ways this is a straw man argument. While I'm sure there are people who are opposed to both nukes and climate change, they aren't the mainstream. So why are you making this a big deal?
I didn't make it a big deal, I simply stated it. And the vast majority of
the global warming folks are opposed to nuclear power, which obviously
diminishes their credibility. If global warming is going to screw the planet
big time, then clearly nuclear power, with it's track record, is an alternative
we should be pursuing. It's like having a fire that's started in a corner
of your house and having baking soda nearby to put it out, but not using
it because you claim baking soda is no good.
This is your typical nonsense. You are perpetuating a lie with your misquote. That is making a "big deal" of it.
Tell that to your howling lib friends, like AOC. She says the world
is going to end from global warming in ten years.
What was the real quote? The full context?
jurb6006@gmail.com wrote in
news:edec368b-11ab-47d4-8d61-8d7a78180d9c@googlegroups.com:
Well that leaves wind and solar. Well we'll just peel off a few
more trillion for that.
So what? You think we should all still be twirling cotton gins?
We grow or die or be trampled by those that did grow.
WAKE UP, BOY.
And just so ya know... Trump is too stupid to do anything about
anything that he is not informed about by the dopes that simply want
to let him go rampant. Then, HE takes the blame for any of their
fucked up moves.
All the trade war bullshit was and is a fucked up move, boy.
We pay either way, and now we pay more either way. Thanks, Trump,
you fucking retard. It never affects the assholes at the top.
You want China to stop sending bullshit toys, then WE need to
reject them AT THE BORDER, and watch how fast they quit arriving when
they pay to ship them back.
We need to take steps, but the retarded steps Trump is taking are
just that... absolutely retarded!
You want China to stop sending bullshit toys, then WE need to
reject them AT THE BORDER, and watch how fast they quit arriving when
they pay to ship them back.
Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:
whit3rd wrote:
Any construction, any industry, has hazards. Nuclear plants are
not notable for injuries or protection failures.
And, you have never noticed that. It's a PR thing, and keeps
a lot of politicians... twitchy.
The problem, is you; you see no data on hazards, just
characterizations of people that seem slightly... impure.
Purity tests are a variety of pass/fail test, a kind of fail/fail
test; meaningless but provide an excuse.
What you don't understand is that while the chances of an accident
at a nuclear power plant is slight, the resulting impact is
catastrophic.
That's idiotic. The chance of catastrophic accident is not slight,
it is almost ZERO.
megawatts, so of course you cannot compare it to a solar panel.
Nuclear power has saved thousands of lives.
The fact that the US has not had a significant nuclear accident
since Three Mile Island does in no way mean the risk of an
accident is so small as to be avoided.
But of course it does, that's how it's been avoided. Not a single
person has been killed in the United States by a nuclear power
accident. Nuclear power has saved thousands of lives.
You want China to stop sending bullshit toys, then WE need to
reject them AT THE BORDER, and watch how fast they quit arriving
when they pay to ship them back.
is calling Trumps actions on trade with China retarded. ROFL.
trader4@optonline.net wrote:
Rick C wrote:
In many ways this is a straw man argument. While I'm sure there
are people who are opposed to both nukes and climate change, they
aren't the mainstream.
It's common among greenies.
I didn't make it a big deal, I simply stated it. And the vast
majority of the global warming folks are opposed to nuclear power,
which obviously diminishes their credibility.
If global warming is going to screw the planet big time, then
clearly nuclear power, with it's track record, is an alternative
we should be pursuing.
It's like having a fire that's started in
a corner of your house and having baking soda nearby to put it
out, but not using it because you claim baking soda is no good.
To do what exactly? Order the construction of uneconomical
nuclear plants? They aren't being built because they can't
produce electricity at a reasonable cost.
That's nonsense, apparently not coming from a scientist. Like China,
France is a shining example of putting nuclear reactors to good use.
They are led by science, and not blocked by tree-hugging greenies.
Ad hominem. Do you ever discuss the facts rationally?
Rational discussion with a chronic liar is impossible. There is no
end to the fiction, no matter how many times he is corrected.
They used to just say not a single person has been killed by nuclear power
period. That went out the window with Chernobyl,
jurb6006@gmail.com wrote in news:edec368b-11ab-47d4-8d61-
8d7a78180d9c@googlegroups.com:
that if one of those coils fails
That 'containment' is to keep it off the walls of the 'container'.
If one fails, the shutdown sequence would halt the reaction likely
way before a burn through event. But regardless such a failure would
probably trash the vessel, and require replacement.
Might be a better design to have a series of smaller vessels than
the current, single containment of fission method.
"It turns out that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has calculated the odds of an earthquake causing catastrophic failure to a nuclear plant here. Each year, at the typical nuclear reactor in the U.S., there's a 1 in 74,176 chance of an earthquake strong enough to cause damage to the reactor's core, which could expose the public to radiation. No tsunami required. That's 10 times more likely than you winning $10,000 by buying a single ticket in the Powerball multistate lottery, where the chance is 1 in 723,145."
Do a little math and you will find the total risk over the lifetime of the 100 or so nuclear plants in the US is not so small after all and a long way from "zero".
On Wednesday, July 10, 2019 at 4:05:27 PM UTC-7, Rick C wrote:
"It turns out that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has calculated the odds of an earthquake causing catastrophic failure to a nuclear plant here. Each year, at the typical nuclear reactor in the U.S., there's a 1 in 74,176 chance of an earthquake strong enough to cause damage to the reactor's core, which could expose the public to radiation. No tsunami required. That's 10 times more likely than you winning $10,000 by buying a single ticket in the Powerball multistate lottery, where the chance is 1 in 723,145."
Do a little math and you will find the total risk over the lifetime of the 100 or so nuclear plants in the US is not so small after all and a long way from "zero".
So what? In such a major earthquake the 'broken core' isn't going to be the killer, structural
and other damages will dominate. Such an event occurred a few centuries ago, and one native
village vanished beneath the salt water in that one (1700, Cascadia subduction zone).
The Hanford, WA waste/leakage (wartime rush nuclear promects)
a few hundred miles away will never do that much damage.
Then there is the issue of disposing of nuclear waste.
Not a safety problem, a political one. Dominated by fear, uncertainty, doubt, but NOT
by any hard data; with modern safeguards, burial should be safer than random (and
we don't see lots of movement of radioisotopes in naturally-occuring deposits).
Burial works; safety discussion dominated by politicians does not.