Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 52 (9178 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,081 Year: 5,338/9,624 Month: 363/323 Week: 3/204 Day: 3/21 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Japan
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1574 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


(1)
Message 37 of 175 (608947)
03-15-2011 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Taq
03-15-2011 12:58 PM


Re: for Rahvin . . .
I will have to read more into how these reactors failed and what precautions could have been made before making any final conclusions.
Well, predominantly they failed by being subject to the 17th largest earthquake and tsunami in recorded history. I remain unconvinced that there's the requisite engineering experience with magnitude 9 earthquakes/tsunami to design rod-based reactor systems resistant to them. It certainly didn't exist when the basic technology of the rod reactor was developed. It's a bit like trying to plan for an alien invasion.
Pebble-bed reactors are far more resilient to this sort of thing, incidentally, and aren't subject to meltdowns due to passive (rather than active) safety systems. They literally "fail-safe", whereas rod reactors tend to fail dangerously.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Taq, posted 03-15-2011 12:58 PM Taq has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1574 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 39 of 175 (608949)
03-15-2011 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by dronestar
03-14-2011 9:55 AM


Re: for Rahvin . . .
In light of the potential catastrophic problem in Japan regarding their nuclear power-plants, are you still enamored with nuclear power?
Compared to what? Far more people have been exposed to airborne radioactive contamination as a result of burning coal than by the entire history of nuclear power generation. Extracting and burning coal has killed hundreds of thousands.
And besides natural disasters, what about potential terrorist attacks on nuclear power plants?
What about terrorist attacks on malls? What about terrorist attacks on airport security checkpoints?
Seems like being concerned about what terrorists might do, and making bad choices out of a fear of potential future terrorism, is not only something self-evidently stupid but something you've criticized the Obama administration for, in the past.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by dronestar, posted 03-14-2011 9:55 AM dronestar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Rahvin, posted 03-15-2011 2:15 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1574 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 51 of 175 (608991)
03-15-2011 6:30 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by fearandloathing
03-15-2011 5:25 PM


I don't oppose nuclear power,although I would like to see safer designs.
You should take a look at pebble bed technologies. Not perfect, but self-limiting if the reaction heads out of control.
If a coal plant had a worst case accident and the entire plant was lost then it could never compare to a worst case accident at a nuclear plant.
Well, I think you're wrong about the incredible destructive potential of coal power infrastructure. (You should read about coal seam fires, too.)
And that leaves out the fact that even when the coal power plant is running completely according to plan it's putting hundreds of thousands of people at risk, contributing to the inundation of coastal areas and intensity of cyclonic storms, to the pollution of aquifers and atmosphere with heavy metals and particulates, and so on.
But I will go out on a limb and say it is probably far fewer deaths simply because of how few there are compared to coal.
Well, but that's another advantage of nuclear: you need to mine far less material - and thus need far less mines and miners at risk - to generate the same amount of power.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by fearandloathing, posted 03-15-2011 5:25 PM fearandloathing has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1574 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 91 of 175 (609208)
03-17-2011 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by 1.61803
03-17-2011 10:40 AM


Look at Chernobyl today.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by 1.61803, posted 03-17-2011 10:40 AM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Rahvin, posted 03-17-2011 2:20 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 93 by 1.61803, posted 03-17-2011 2:41 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1574 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 111 of 175 (609239)
03-17-2011 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Rahvin
03-17-2011 2:20 PM


...but as soon as the word "nuclear" gets brought up, we have a media feeding frenzy, and everybody brings up Chernobyl as if the plant's surrounding area is now a glassed desert right out of a Captain Planet episode?
I think people have this notion of Chernobyl as being this post-apocalyptic wasteland of crumbling concrete and barren soil; denuded, dead trees and brown mud everywhere.
And, yeah, a lot of Chernobyl looks like that - because it's in Russia. Everything looks like that!
As an aside - glassed deserts? You must have seen way better Captain Planet episodes than I did. All I remember from that show is the little brown kid whose totemic element is "the heart". What the fuck?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Rahvin, posted 03-17-2011 2:20 PM Rahvin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Son, posted 03-17-2011 4:25 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1574 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 112 of 175 (609240)
03-17-2011 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by 1.61803
03-17-2011 2:41 PM


Re: pretty
very pretty, now go have a picnic there.
You think that grass mowed itself, maybe?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by 1.61803, posted 03-17-2011 2:41 PM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by 1.61803, posted 03-17-2011 4:15 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1574 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 121 of 175 (609265)
03-17-2011 8:16 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by Son
03-17-2011 4:25 PM


Small nitpick: actually Chernobyl is in Ukraine
Oops, fair cop. Ignorantly, I tend to think of all former USSR nations as "Russia." Stupid, I know.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Son, posted 03-17-2011 4:25 PM Son has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by anglagard, posted 03-18-2011 3:01 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1574 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 122 of 175 (609269)
03-17-2011 8:40 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by 1.61803
03-17-2011 5:36 PM


Re: Wrong.
But yet I sense hositlity and anger. Why?
What website do you think you're on where you can spew scientific ignorance and not get called on it, out of curiosity?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by 1.61803, posted 03-17-2011 5:36 PM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by 1.61803, posted 03-17-2011 11:15 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1574 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 124 of 175 (609279)
03-17-2011 11:59 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by 1.61803
03-17-2011 11:15 PM


Re: Wrong.
the evc coffee house forum.
Coffee House isn't a place for nonsense, actually. And even if it were - don't you think that a thinking person has an obligation to base their conclusions on facts, not fantasy?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by 1.61803, posted 03-17-2011 11:15 PM 1.61803 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024