Political Discussion

User190425 said:
Nuclear produces very little waste contrary to the general perception. It isn’t like The Simpsons opening with truckload after truckload of radioactive sludge being hauled out on the daily. That amount of waste can be further reduced by recycling methods that have been around for a while now that also significantly reduces the amount of time that it remains radioactive. The opposition to nuclear energy and storage of the waste is almost entirely political in nature and not due to legitimate scientifically based safety concerns.


So too modify my earlier statement, there is a third category of people who are opposed to nuclear energy. It is likely the majority of the opposed. Those who have been sold and believed the lies of malicious actors and useful idiots. Natural gas industry and petro-state actors don’t fund anti-nuclear and pro wind/solar efforts out of a sense of altruism. Their inefficiency and lack of scalability requires backups to meet demand surges. The number one choice for that is natural gas.
Click to expand...
Legitimately curious about what your sources are on this.
 
epyon415 said:


this seems to give some explanations for nuclear waste management. I still honestly don’t know enough about it all.

My biggest concerns are all about human ineptitude and what might come of it.
Click to expand...

I read through that thread and it seems like they just encase the stuff in concrete and leave it out as a tourist attraction? That must be some seriously heavy-duty concrete and I WOULD LOVE to know the mix design on that stuff. Not sarcasm.

So it's not a spent fuel problem, it's the threat of catastrophic environmental disasters that can NEVER be truly safely contained because anyone who goes in to try and clean it up is microwaved alive.
 
Indymisanthrope said:
C'mon guys. Name three dangerous nuclear incid--

Oh shit that was fast. Okay, name FIVE dangerous nuclear incidents.
Click to expand...
Like, not only is there a catchy kraftwerk song about it, but they updated it after Fukushima.

Hey remember when the Russian army was shelling the Ukrainian nuclear plant and people were like oh that's bad because the fallout would contaminate half of Europe. You remember, it was all the way back in....April?

I kid, I kid, they're still doing it Using Nuclear Reactors for Cover, Russians Lob Rockets at Ukrainians
 
folsom_lives said:
I read through that thread and it seems like they just encase the stuff in concrete and leave it out as a tourist attraction? That must be some seriously heavy-duty concrete and I WOULD LOVE to know the mix design on that stuff. Not sarcasm.

So it's not a spent fuel problem, it's the threat of catastrophic environmental disasters that can NEVER be truly safely contained because anyone who goes in to try and clean it up is microwaved alive.
Click to expand...

For millennia to come. They encased Chernoble in a concrete sarcophagus larger than the Statue of Liberty in 2019. Providing the Russians don’t bomb it out of spite it will last 100 years. Then they’ll have to decide how to dismantle and dispose of said sarcophagus and how to deal with it next. Repeat for an amount of time longer than human civilisation.

Also yes the majority of waste isn’t high level but that still leaves 90,000 cubic meters of high level waste a year from the US’s 97 reactors across 50 odd plants. That’s a lot of the really nasty stuff with the really long half life.
 
Joe Mac said:
For millennia to come. They encased Chernoble in a concrete sarcophagus larger than the Statue of Liberty in 2019. Providing the Russians don’t bomb it out of spite it will last 100 years. Then they’ll have to decide how to dismantle and dispose of said sarcophagus and how to deal with it next. Repeat for an amount of time longer than human civilisation.

Also yes the majority of waste isn’t high level but that still leaves 90,000 cubic meters of high level waste a year from the US’s 97 reactors across 50 odd plants. That’s a lot of the really nasty stuff with the really long half life.
Click to expand...
Right? The argument that "it only makes a football sized pitch of waste 50 feet deep". But they don't say anything about how long that mass will be harmful to human life. The half life graph is cool and all and shows a really nice exponential decline, BUT that shit could still cause cancer even at the level where is goes asymptotic. Christ there is a whole industry in the Midwest based on background levels of radiation in basements just from THE SOIL. It brings up the whole "the dose makes the poison" argument.

As for containment, if I know one thing about concrete it's that it cracks. That's the one guarantee you can make about it. The upkeep on the sarcophagus is already dubious given the corruption of the contractors that installed it.

Anywho, the problem with energy consumption on the whole is that something/someone will have to lose. Whether the consequences are big now or big later we will get our comeuppance for pillaging the planet.
 
mrjoshuamccormack said:
Wow. I worked at this back in 2000, and remember it being pretty freaking huge.

2022 Music Midtown festival canceled; decision linked to state gun laws
Click to expand...
I'm so happy this happened. It's absolutely bonkers that this is an issue. The right of randos to be able to carry firearms to a public park should not be protected by the city. And I hope losing this staple event and future events like it is a wake up call. I hope bands and promoters stick to their proverbial "guns."
 
epyon415 said:


this seems to give some explanations for nuclear waste management. I still honestly don’t know enough about it all.

My biggest concerns are all about human ineptitude and what might come of it.
Click to expand...

That’s a great thread that explains the issues around storage much more eloquently, concisely and from a much more knowledgeable perspective than I ever could.

Regarding the other part, this is a legitimate concern as each of the three nuclear plant incidents at the only plants that most people actually know the names of were due to ineptitude or malfeasance. Even the one with the least amount of human liability was at a plant that should have already been replaced due to age.

Is nuclear a perfect option, no. Not at all. Nothing is. However it is the best option with the highest efficiency, rapid scalability for demand surges and the lowest carbon footprint per KWh.
folsom_lives said:
Legitimately curious about what your sources are on this.
Click to expand...
I grant that I don’t have individual sources for every statement I’ve made at hand. Much of it is information I’ve learned over an extended period of time looking into the issue at varying intervals. Plus, I hold zero credibility to you or likely anyone here, so what I would offer are the questions to ask that would point you in the right directions to find the answers if you choose to look into it further. Or you can choose to believe I am talking out my ass, makes no difference to me.

What is the amount of time in solar and wind facilities actually generate electricity and compare that to a nuclear plant. Also, what it actually takes in carbon impact to produce solar cells and windmills.

The use of natural gas as a backstop to non-nuke renewables and replacement for decommissioned nuke plants is easily verifiable. So I doubt that was the controversial statement.

Not a question but something to look into. Russia had been accused for years of subsidizing anti-fossil fuel/nuclear movements and the more extreme environmental groups in the US and Europe for years. If you question to what end this would accomplish, maybe consider the leverage they are currently exerting over Germany and other European nations? I’ll leave it up to you to determine if find the folks making those assertions as trustworthy.


Indymisanthrope said:
Ah, now I feel seen.
Click to expand...
I don’t see why it should be now, I don’t find you especially useful. Never have. To be honest, I find you fairly repugnant. You and a few others are why I left before. I don’t belong here, never have.

So yes, you pegged who I was immediately. I’m not hiding or pretending, that account was disabled at my request when I left and I no longer have access to it.

I didn’t intend to get involved in a deep discussion or jump back into the pugilistic arguments with you and others like I used to, but I’m an idiot who is compelled occasionally to check in on the goings on here. When I created this new account I meant to just provide a hopefully useful fact regarding firearms law. Then, as always, I find myself drawn like a moth to a flame and getting into it with folks like you or Joe Mac because I have low impulse control.

Are you happy now?
 
User190425 said:
....because I have low impulse control.
Click to expand...

It's never too late to smooth our rough edges and grow as people. I believe in you and that's the Diaper Baby® Guarantee!

You probably have some great knowledge to share and points to make. Unfortunately, your delivery and quarrelsome attitude turns people off from hearing the message you may be trying to deliver.
 
User190425 said:
That’s a great thread that explains the issues around storage much more eloquently, concisely and from a much more knowledgeable perspective than I ever could.

Regarding the other part, this is a legitimate concern as each of the three nuclear plant incidents at the only plants that most people actually know the names of were due to ineptitude or malfeasance. Even the one with the least amount of human liability was at a plant that should have already been replaced due to age.

Is nuclear a perfect option, no. Not at all. Nothing is. However it is the best option with the highest efficiency, rapid scalability for demand surges and the lowest carbon footprint per KWh.

I grant that I don’t have individual sources for every statement I’ve made at hand. Much of it is information I’ve learned over an extended period of time looking into the issue at varying intervals. Plus, I hold zero credibility to you or likely anyone here, so what I would offer are the questions to ask that would point you in the right directions to find the answers if you choose to look into it further. Or you can choose to believe I am talking out my ass, makes no difference to me.

What is the amount of time in solar and wind facilities actually generate electricity and compare that to a nuclear plant. Also, what it actually takes in carbon impact to produce solar cells and windmills.

The use of natural gas as a backstop to non-nuke renewables and replacement for decommissioned nuke plants is easily verifiable. So I doubt that was the controversial statement.

Not a question but something to look into. Russia had been accused for years of subsidizing anti-fossil fuel/nuclear movements and the more extreme environmental groups in the US and Europe for years. If you question to what end this would accomplish, maybe consider the leverage they are currently exerting over Germany and other European nations? I’ll leave it up to you to determine if find the folks making those assertions as trustworthy.



I don’t see why it should be now, I don’t find you especially useful. Never have. To be honest, I find you fairly repugnant. You and a few others are why I left before. I don’t belong here, never have.

So yes, you pegged who I was immediately. I’m not hiding or pretending, that account was disabled at my request when I left and I no longer have access to it.

I didn’t intend to get involved in a deep discussion or jump back into the pugilistic arguments with you and others like I used to, but I’m an idiot who is compelled occasionally to check in on the goings on here. When I created this new account I meant to just provide a hopefully useful fact regarding firearms law. Then, as always, I find myself drawn like a moth to a flame and getting into it with folks like you or Joe Mac because I have low impulse control.

Are you happy now?
Click to expand...
I agree that nuclear power needs to be seriously considered (though as more of a stop gap measure) to wean us off fossil fuels. We are not going to be able to generate enough power to replace fossil fuels 1:1 without it. However, I think that we need to consider our consumption as a society and talk about what needs to stay and what needs to go (cryptocurrency and private jets, I’m looking at you). Maybe we don’t need fast fashion as much as we need local sustainable farming and all that jazz.

Now what I do not agree with is insults.

This is to *everyone* on this thread. If you don’t have something nice to say to others, don’t say anything at all. Make Thumper’s mother proud.
 
Big Diaper Energy said:
It's never too late to smooth our rough edges and grow as people. I believe in you and that's the Diaper Baby® Guarantee!

You probably have some great knowledge to share and points to make. Unfortunately, your delivery and quarrelsome attitude turns people off from hearing the message you may be trying to deliver.
Click to expand...
While I like the energy, there are years of old fights, resentments and hard feelings behind the antipathy on display here between myself and some other parties. It is what it is and there is no getting beyond it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top