|
|
We appreciate your help
in keeping this site going.
|
|
05-04-2016, 02:01 PM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Sonoma County, CA
Posts: 20,496
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by finnbow
Perhaps so, but far more have been killed over the years due to the use of coal from mining accidents and respiratory disease. The environmental impact of coal hasn't been exactly benign either from mountain-top removal to rivers polluted from mine drainage to acid rain killing lakes hundreds of miles from power plants to dirty air. Unfortunately, there is no free lunch.
|
Another one that needs to go. You're on a roll, Pat.
__________________
Smoke me a kipper. I'll be back for breakfast.
|
05-04-2016, 02:15 PM
|
|
Reformed Know-Nothing
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: MoCo, MD
Posts: 25,913
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boreas
Another one that needs to go. You're on a roll, Pat.
|
It's absolutely true. I'm not an absolute fan (nor foe) of nuclear power, but believe that at this point in time, it's still a viable component of the nation's power-generation capacity, as is coal, gas, wind, solar, hydropower and conservation. Other than conservation, all have a downside. Nuclear is low risk/high consequence whereas some other the others are high risk/low consequence. Pick your poison, as it were.
Your argument reminds me of criticism of the Green Party in Germany back about 35 years back. Roughly translated, it was that the Greens believed that their electricity came directly from the power receptacle (i.e., it was spontaneously generated in a pure fashion magically at the plug).
__________________
As long as the roots are not severed, all will be well in the garden.
Last edited by finnbow; 05-04-2016 at 02:20 PM.
|
05-04-2016, 02:23 PM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Sonoma County, CA
Posts: 20,496
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by finnbow
It's absolutely true. I'm not an absolute fan (nor foe) of nuclear power, but believe that at this point in time, it's still a viable component of the nation's power-generation capacity, as is coal, gas, wind, solar, hydropower and conservation. Other than conservation, all have a downside. Nuclear is low risk/high consequence whereas some other the others are high risk/low consequence. Pick your poison, as it were.
Your argument reminds me of criticism of the Green Party in Germany back about 35 years back. Roughly translated, it was that the Greens believed that their electricity came directly from the power receptacle (i.e., it was spontaneously generated in a pure fashion magically at the plug).
|
The risks of nuclear increase over time. This can't be said of your high risk technologies.
__________________
Smoke me a kipper. I'll be back for breakfast.
|
05-04-2016, 02:29 PM
|
|
Reformed Know-Nothing
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: MoCo, MD
Posts: 25,913
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boreas
The risks of nuclear increase over time. This can't be said of your high risk technologies.
|
Not really. A reactor built to the newest standards (i.e., modular reactor designs) are quite safe. Regardless, the stringency of existing NRC regulation and cheap, abundant natural gas have pretty much destroyed any appetite for new reactors in the power industry.
__________________
As long as the roots are not severed, all will be well in the garden.
|
05-04-2016, 02:43 PM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Sonoma County, CA
Posts: 20,496
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by finnbow
Not really. A reactor built to the newest standards (i.e., modular reactor designs) are quite safe. Regardless, the stringency of existing NRC regulation and cheap, abundant natural gas have pretty much destroyed any appetite for new reactors in the power industry.
|
You're forgetting the waste again.
__________________
Smoke me a kipper. I'll be back for breakfast.
|
05-04-2016, 03:17 PM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: NE Bamastan
Posts: 11,068
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by finnbow
It's absolutely true. I'm not an absolute fan (nor foe) of nuclear power, but believe that at this point in time, it's still a viable component of the nation's power-generation capacity, as is coal, gas, wind, solar, hydropower and conservation. Other than conservation, all have a downside. Nuclear is low risk/high consequence whereas some other the others are high risk/low consequence. Pick your poison, as it were.
Your argument reminds me of criticism of the Green Party in Germany back about 35 years back. Roughly translated, it was that the Greens believed that their electricity came directly from the power receptacle (i.e., it was spontaneously generated in a pure fashion magically at the plug).
|
It doesn't??
Something some of the electric car proponents seem to believe.
Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk
__________________
I'll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one.
|
05-04-2016, 03:25 PM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: NE Bamastan
Posts: 11,068
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by finnbow
Not really. A reactor built to the newest standards (i.e., modular reactor designs) are quite safe. Regardless, the stringency of existing NRC regulation and cheap, abundant natural gas have pretty much destroyed any appetite for new reactors in the power industry.
|
CANDU?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CANDU_reactor?wprov=sfla1
Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk
__________________
I'll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one.
|
05-04-2016, 04:07 PM
|
|
Reformed Know-Nothing
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: MoCo, MD
Posts: 25,913
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boreas
You're forgetting the waste again.
|
If Harry Reid hadn't effectively closed Yucca Mountain (that was built with financing from the civilian nuclear industry) or if we chose to recycle spent fuel, it wouldn't be an intractable issue.
That said, we have ~100 operating power reactors in the United States. What do you propose? Shutting them down before their operating licenses expire? What good would that do? You'd still have ~100 plants to decommission, lots of spent fuel to store or reprocess, 800 billion kilowatt-hours of power to replace, and untold billions to pay the utility companies for reneging on the operating licenses and pissing away their money on Yucca Mountain.
Other than that, you're right.
__________________
As long as the roots are not severed, all will be well in the garden.
|
05-04-2016, 04:17 PM
|
|
Rational Anarchist
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: DFW
Posts: 7,315
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boreas
You're forgetting the waste again.
|
You could stop bringing it up and concede.
__________________
"We have met the enemy and he is us."
Last edited by nailer; 05-04-2016 at 04:21 PM.
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:59 AM.
|