• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged nuclear power safe?

"You lie !"
"No, YOU lie!"
"Nooo... You lie!"
"No, no, no !! You LIE!"

Etc...



Somehow the bit after the "but" makes me doubt the part prior to it.

next time i vote for nuclear energy i will post a scan of my voting documents before i send them in.....

we have not a single coal plant, we have almost 40% nuclear and 55% hydro.
while i would support building a new Nuclear poweplant, i would propably not vote for another hydro plant.

seems on JREF you have to whorship nuclear plants, downplay risks and have to believe Nukes are the solution to all our problems to be counted as pro nuclear.

why would i claim that it is the best technology we have to produce electricity in big quantities if i was anti nuke?

this is really getting silly
 
The operator of the troubled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant says it will inject nitrogen gas into the containment vessel of one of its reactors as early as Wednesday evening, to prevent a possible hydrogen explosion.

Tokyo Electric Power Company, or TEPCO, said on Wednesday that hydrogen gas appears to be accumulating inside the containment vessel of the Number one reactor.
http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/06_19.html
 
next time i vote for nuclear energy i will post a scan of my voting documents before i send them in.....

we have not a single coal plant, we have almost 40% nuclear and 55% hydro.
while i would support building a new Nuclear poweplant, i would propably not vote for another hydro plant.

seems on JREF you have to whorship nuclear plants, downplay risks and have to believe Nukes are the solution to all our problems to be counted as pro nuclear.

why would i claim that it is the best technology we have to produce electricity in big quantities if i was anti nuke?

this is really getting silly

What's getting silly is your contention that you're pro-nuke while everything you say says otherwise.

Personally, I'd drop nuclear power the second they find something better. I don't care about it one way or another. It's simply the best option we've got.
 
What's getting silly is your contention that you're pro-nuke while everything you say says otherwise.

Personally, I'd drop nuclear power the second they find something better. I don't care about it one way or another. It's simply the best option we've got.

which is exactly what i said. :rolleyes:


it is the best technology for energy production en mass we have

the part you sniped away from my post when you quoted it........
 
BTW, has anybody looked at the SCALE of the ITER fusion test plant?

Even if it works, those things are going to cost many billions each.

:confused: how many billions are you talking about? a nuclear plant also costs several billions.
 
ITER (which is an experiment station and so suffers from that additional cost) is 7.2 billion Euros and climbing.

mmh how much Mw is it suposed to give of? only 73 MW? then its pretty expensive already. i hope real reactors get cheaper per MW.
 
Mmmm, I think I'll be having some sushi for dinner :)

Worried about a radioactive ocean? A reality check
This week, workers at the stricken Japanese nuclear plant dumped radioactive water into the ocean to make room for storing even more highly contaminated water on the site. The water dumping came after earlier leaks of radioactive water that had already raised concerns about its effects in the ocean, raising questions about health and safety. Here are answers to some of those questions. ...

Warning: May contain actual, useful scientific information instead of the usual fear-mongering, alarmist claptrap from the media. You were warned.
 
Last edited:
You may not want to eat that particular fish...


There are already certain types of fish one should not eat too much of due to mercury levels... but I guess mercury contamination is just not as scary sounding as radiation contamination...
 
No power output. It's an experimental station. Power is dumped to a heat exchanger.
ITER (which is an experiment station and so suffers from that additional cost) is 7.2 billion Euros and climbing.

If the blessed day comes that they announce pumping 1,000,000,000 watts into ITER and getting 1,000,000,001 watts out, I will poop my panties and sing hallelujah. That day would probably replace the birth of Jesus as the central point of our calender.

As it is, this is unlikely at best.
 
Why, do you think radiation is contagious or something? You may not want to eat that particular fish, although as already explained the limits are so low that it's probably perfectly safe to eat anyway, but any offspring it might have had would have been perfectly safe.

I guess you've never heard of genetic mutation...?

Won't anyone think of the fishies ?
 
ITER (which is an experiment station and so suffers from that additional cost) is 7.2 billion Euros and climbing.

And an EPL plant costs around €6 billion at the moment. Even a coal plant costs something like a billion for a 1GW plant. Even assuming the cost doesn't come down as the technology becomes better developed, that doesn't seem too unreasonable an amount to pay for clean, unlimited energy.
 
And an EPL plant costs around €6 billion at the moment. Even a coal plant costs something like a billion for a 1GW plant. Even assuming the cost doesn't come down as the technology becomes better developed, that doesn't seem too unreasonable an amount to pay for clean, unlimited energy.

Remember that I started looking at what these things cost in the 70s, so it all seems astronomical to me now...
 

Back
Top Bottom