Texas Chilly

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

It doesnt matter what you do, mistakes and accidents are inevitable in everything, if you build enough of them a percentage will blow up for a reason that will seem obvious afterwards but wasnt before, Chernobyl wasnt a poor reactor design before it blew up, in fact it was considered impossible to blow up, it was only after they discovered that in a very limited set of circumstances they could blow it up.
Fukishama was designed to be proof against tsunami's, Japan is the most tsunami prepared nation on earth, they took every precaution they could think of, they are a massively technically adept nation, easily as smart as we are, they thought they had thought of all the risks and it wasnt enough

Coal kills 100,000 people/TWh.

Natural gas kill 4,000 people/TWh.

Wind, 150 people/TWh.

Nuclear, 90 people/TWh.

Your take is baseless. We need to start having this debate on facts, not emotions.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

Coal kills 100,000 people/TWh.

Natural gas kill 4,000 people/TWh.

Wind, 150 people/TWh.

Nuclear, 90 people/TWh.

Your take is baseless. We need to start having this debate on facts, not emotions.

Chernobyl is estimated to have caused the premature deaths of almost a million people in Europe

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Chernobyl is estimated to have caused the premature deaths of almost a million people in Europe

Will you admit that Chernobyl was a one off that wouldn't happen in a modern plant, and is therefor not worth discussing as we look to the future?

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Chernobyl is estimated to have caused the premature deaths of almost a million people in Europe

That is a garbage Greenpeace number that has been rejected by basically everyone.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Will you admit that Chernobyl was a one off that wouldn't happen in a modern plant, and is therefor not worth discussing as we look to the future?

No because any and all nuclear plants will eventually have accidents if you build enough of them, at their heart they are all just steam turbines that operate under massive heat and pressure, the idea that a percentage of them wont go wrong is absurd

[PsYcNeT]

No one tell him there are already 63 nuclear plants running in North America.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

No because any and all nuclear plants will eventually have accidents if you build enough of them, at their heart they are all just steam turbines that operate under massive heat and pressure, the idea that a percentage of them wont go wrong is absurd

OK, well then will you just admit you don't know what you are talking about? Go do some research on modern nuclear power and their safety designs, and how the original RBMK reactor design had major flaws, then come back and join the conversation.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

No one tell him there are already 63 nuclear plants running in North America.

I'm perfectly aware there are plants all over the world, and that every few decades one of them goes wrong, sometimes in a small way that just kills the guys working at them, sometimes massively that irradiates vast swathes of land, its just the nature of all technology, everything we build occasionally fails, not just nuclear, everything

[afc wimbledon]

There have been three major nuclear crisis in my lifetime, that's 60 years x a couple of hundred plants worldwide, all three of the accidents, Three Mile Island Chernobyl and Fukishama were caused by human error despite the vast numbers of safety protocols in place to stop them, there was nothing inherently unsafe about any of the reactors designs, none of the reactors 'went wrong' they were all caused by the ineptness of the guys running them purposely causing the problem while thinking they were doing the right thing.

It doesnt matter what safety designs you use, the humans that run them will get tired and at 3am do something dumb, its what we do, if you build more plants then the chances of that happening increase, if they were several thousand plants over my life instead of a couple of hundred than we would have had an extra 5 or 10 Chernobyls or Fukishama's and vast areas of the planet would be uninhabitable, personally I would rather we learnt to use less power to do the things we do than risk that

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

There have been three major nuclear crisis in my lifetime, that's 60 years x a couple of hundred plants worldwide, all three of the accidents, Three Mile Island Chernobyl and Fukishama were caused by human error despite the vast numbers of safety protocols in place to stop them, there was nothing inherently unsafe about any of the reactors designs, none of the reactors 'went wrong' they were all caused by the ineptness of the guys running them purposely causing the problem while thinking they were doing the right thing.

It doesnt matter what safety designs you use, the humans that run them will get tired and at 3am do something dumb, its what we do, if you build more plants then the chances of that happening increase, if they were several thousand plants over my life instead of a couple of hundred than we would have had an extra 5 or 10 Chernobyls or Fukishama's and vast areas of the planet would be uninhabitable, personally I would rather we learnt to use less power to do the things we do than risk that

You're wrong, but you don't seem to concerned about letting that stop you.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001...95580035481822

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-...781-story.html

Again, go do some research before saying things.

[Bill Bumface]

And nothing goes wrong with other power generation methods... for which I already posted the not insignificant death tolls.

[Duruss]

It's like he's worried they will attract Godzilla.

[Flamenspiel]

I agree with AFC, the outcomes of nuclear events are typically understated very much like the negative effects of other fossil fuels. I believe there are few astroturfers on this site as well who work in the industry.

If you look hard enough there are those who even minimize the impact of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs as well. Nuclear is just the flavour of the month.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

You're wrong, but you don't seem to concerned about letting that stop you.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001...95580035481822

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-...781-story.html

Again, go do some research before saying things.

I'm aware of all of this, but the guys that built those reactors thought they were perfectly safe, and it was a human error that caused them to go wrong, nuclear plants like space rockets are some of the most technologically advanced things mankind has ever built, using the pinnacle of our technology and yet rockets have crashed regularly and supposedly safe power plants have failed to scram properly, it doesnt matter how you build them, they will at times fail, it will always be a human error that compounds a previously unseen design fault as almost everything that blows up or crashes out of the sky is caused by that.

There is no such thing as fool proof, the only question is what is the consequence when something inevitably goes wrong, I was condemned for saying I wasnt worried about deaths before but the sad truth is a whole bunch of people dying is sad, Covid is sad but we will always recover from that within a few generations where as there is no recovery from a catastrophic nuclear failure, it poisons the earth for centuries, as low as the risk of a failure is the vast long term negative effects of it just arent worth the cost of something that has and will continue to happen

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by Flamenspiel

I believe there are few astroturfers on this site as well who work in the industry.

If you're referring to me, not even close.

If GHGs are in fact a massive threat to the planet, nuclear is hands down a major component of the solution. We need base load, and hydro and nuclear are the best technologies we have, despite their drawbacks.

Even without considering GHGs, coal plants release more radiation per unit of generation in normal operation than has been released by nuclear plants in disasters. Nuclear is a clear improvement over coal from an environmental perspective.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Flamenspiel

I agree with AFC, the outcomes of nuclear events are typically understated very much like the negative effects of other fossil fuels. I believe there are few astroturfers on this site as well who work in the industry.

If you look hard enough there are those who even minimize the impact of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs as well. Nuclear is just the flavour of the month.

If you are referring to me, you are also incredibly wrong.

[afc wimbledon]

A question to you guys, as if we start building hundreds of plants the cost and need to sell the technology will come down, how comfortable are you with, say Mexico or Honduras operating 1 or 200 nuclear plants to solve their energy needs?

[CMPunk]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

A question to you guys, as if we start building hundreds of plants the cost and need to sell the technology will come down, how comfortable are you with, say Mexico or Honduras operating 1 or 200 nuclear plants to solve their energy needs?

You mean this one?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laguna..._Power_Station

[Fuzz]

We've sold CANDU reactors to China, Pakistan, India, Argentina, Romania and South Korea. Are you in a panic about any of those?

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by CMPunk

You mean this one?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laguna..._Power_Station

No I mean another 20 like that but the last 2 or 3 wont have the cream of Mexico's engineers running them, they will just get the guys who werent smart enough for the first 17 or 18, and once the construction is matter a fact then the pipe work and concrete work will be subject to the cost cutting corruption and shady business practices that everything in much of the world is subject too,