Merged nuclear power safe?

[Christian Klippel]

I can understand why you have no counter to what I said. There is no counter, and you know it. So you avoid answering, and consider yourself wise. That is truly nuts.

Again: Hahahaha!

There is nothing to counter stupid, except to point it that it is stupid.

But speaking of countering things: Did you read my post with the simple, easy to follow calculations about using wind energy? Can you show any errors in that? Or are you again willfully ignoring these pesky "little" facts of reality?

See, you guys are all talk and all dream, as long as you can use fantasy numbers and fantasy realities. There must be a reason why you guys avoid hard reality at all costs. In my book that makes these guys dishonest, willfully deceiving people.

As the saying goes: put up or shut up. But i'm pretty confident that you will do neither of the two things, but instead keep on supplying with material to have a laugh at.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

I can understand why you have no counter to what I said.

wut.
We've been over this a thousand times in this thread alone!

25 years after a meltdown/fire at Chernobyl the solution is to build another building over it. Because there isn't any solution. You build these incredibly dangerous devices, and store 40 years worth of dangerous radioactive fuel right next to it, and have zero solutions, much less a plan, for what to do when it goes horribly horribly wrong.

What's your plan when things go horribly wrong with skyscrapers or airliners or huge hydroelectric dams? Do you remember how we had no backup plan when the Twin Towers were hit by airplanes?

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

The fact is, we do have a radioactive waste issue that is all but overpowering. The United States produces more than 120 million tons of this highly radioactive waste every year. While slightly more than 40% of this waste is recycled, more than 70 million tons per year is simply dumped into open pits or yards and allowed to leak into the soil and water table.

A working-class village of about 800 living in the divide between the Indiana Dunes and the steel belt that spans from Indiana to Chicago, the Town of Pines is home to the nation’s shortest highway and more than 100 million tons of coal ash. Deposited in an unlined landfill, the coal ash mixed with the groundwater, sending a toxic plume of heavy metals into residents’ wells.

Though it is one of the largest coal ash piles in the Great Lakes basin, Yard 520 nevertheless is just one example of the trail of some 600 impoundments, landfills, and storage ponds for coal wastes that are scattered across the Midwest and other regions of the United States, according to the EPA. Some 63 are toxic and leaking. Most have grown to huge dimensions, in part because neither the federal nor state governments required the same stringent health and environmental safeguards that apply to municipal landfills or chemical toxic waste sites.

There are more than 500 power plants across the United States that burn coal, producing more than 100 million tons of coal ash annually — enough to fill a million railroad cars. Some ash finds its way into industry products, but more than half of it is dumped into landfills like Yard 520 or into holding ponds like those in Tennessee.​

Yes, it's coal ash. And this waste, according to Scientific American and scientists at Oak Ridge National Laboratory literally is 100 times more radioactive than the output of a modern nuclear power plant.

Over the past few decades, however, a series of studies has called these stereotypes into question. Among the surprising conclusions: the waste produced by coal plants is actually more radioactive than that generated by their nuclear counterparts. In fact, the fly ash emitted by a power plant—a by-product from burning coal for electricity—carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy.

The result: estimated radiation doses ingested by people living near the coal plants were equal to or higher than doses for people living around the nuclear facilities. At one extreme, the scientists estimated fly ash radiation in individuals' bones at around 18 millirems (thousandths of a rem, a unit for measuring doses of ionizing radiation) a year. Doses for the two nuclear plants, by contrast, ranged from between three and six millirems for the same period. And when all food was grown in the area, radiation doses were 50 to 200 percent higher around the coal plants.​

Nuclear waste is not a problem. It's a solution to the dangerous buildup of radioactive waste from existing fossil fuel use.

 

[Christian Klippel]

Your feeble protest are equivalent to YOU pointing out at an accident 30 years ago with a very old car using 60'-70's security standard, and the driver experimenting arround suddenly acceleration and braking on a busy road, and then saying today's car security are as bad.

That make no sense on so many level, which is why Christian keep telling to educate yourself, but no you choose to flaunt your lack of knowledge even more.

Carry on. That's funny.

Yeah, facts are too scary for those living in fantasy worlds. They have to resort to such tactics, because sticking to reality would leave them with nothing to complain about. Heck, sticking to reality would even force them to admit their errors, which is a big no-no in these circles. See, green nutters must always be right, because they are soooo green!

Oh boy, i could fill pages with stuff that they got so awfully wrong that it isn't even fun anymore. Like, for example, taking the peak capacity of installed solar panels in Germany and then say "hey, presto, our solar panels can already supply the same amount of energy that the nukes we are about to shut down are delivering!"

What do you say? Peak capacity is not available 24/7, like with a nuclear power plant? Aww, come on, who cares about such little details!

Or telling people how many billions of "subsidies" have gone to nuke operators. Well, sure, if i add together every penny that was spent on research, testing, prototypes, etc. during the past 60+ years, then i surely get a really big number. What you say? Part of that went into research, etc? Only a fraction of that was used in, you know, actually building and operating NPP's? Ahh, again, who cares about these unimportant details!

Hu? Wind and solar is so heavily subsidized that no one would ever build such things out of their own pockets? What, you get 3 times and more the money per kWh for solar generated electricity than what the end consumer has to pay for a kWh, which the companies are _forced_ to buy from you for that price for the next 20 years? Awww, unimportant little details! Look over there, the nuke guys just got a few bucks! That is way more nasty!

Hypocrisy wherever you look at these green nutters.

I'm pretty sure he will come up with something even more stupid in his next post. Of course, again a post with absolutely no substance.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[Belz...]

What annoys me about those who support nuclear energy is that, when you point out that they have no solutions, like for waste storage, meltdowns, contamination of the planet, they expect the uncertain future to solve their problems ("But they might find a solution in a few years!"). Like that's a good argument for anything.

You'll notice that this strawperson of yours was never seen in this thread. Instead you have people telling you that these things HAVE solutions, and r-j plugging his ears and chanting "la la la".

If you're going to turn what I post against me, at least do it competently.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Yes, which is especially funny given the fact that if we point out that things like TWR's, transmutation, etc. could be done, they themselves complain that all this is technology that doesn't really exist yet.

Hypocrisy at it's best.

The transmutation of one element into another at the level of atomic nuclei is a proven technology. We've been doing it since the 1940s. All of what has been suggested to deal with nuclear waste is simply variations on things we've been doing for more than sixty years.

It boggles my mind that we can't seem to bring peoples knowledge up to what was considered "state of the art" before television was invented.

Every time I see one of these people spewing their ignorance that these thungs haven't been done yet, I keep thinking to myself "this guy is totally going to poop his pants when he finds out airplanes don't need propellers anymore and that men have landed on the moon".

 

[Belz...]

Nuclear nutters keep promising 'in the future' somehow solutions will be found to problems like melted reactors. Incredibly dangerous situations which at present the answer is to cover it up. Literally, that is the solution to the problem, cover it up.

Yeah... covering up the ONE reactor that requires that.

Build a cover over it. (They are doing just that at Fukushima right now)

No, that's just not what they're doing at all. Can't you just know a single fact about a subject before you chime in ?

You build these incredibly dangerous devices

As opposed to other incredibly dangerous devices you keep using, like cars, planes, hydroelectric dams, coal plants, wind turbines, space shuttles, knives and toasters ?

Then you have the audacity to claim it's safe, and attack clean safe renewable power gathering as dangerous.

Yes, because it's true. Continuing to chant "la la la" won't help.

 

[Christian Klippel]

Oh, and while we are at it, lets take a look at how green that wind energy is, shall we?

It's so green that in China a 100 feet high sea of highly toxic waste is rising by 3 feet each year.

But hey, who cares about the Chinese, as long as our own backyard is all nice and green, right?

This points to another problem as well. Currently, China is the main exporter of these materials, over 90% come from there. The current supply is barely enough to satisfy the demand. After all, these materials are used in a lot of things. But China plans to reduce its exports of these materials quite heavily.

So, how are we going to build all these windmills then, if we do not have enough resources available right now?

But i'm sure that in the green fantasy land, all these things grow on trees. Just hug them often enough!

Greetings,

Chris

 

[Christian Klippel]

The transmutation of one element into another at the level of atomic nuclei is a proven technology. We've been doing it since the 1940s. All of what has been suggested to deal with nuclear waste is simply variations on things we've been doing for more than sixty years.

It boggles my mind that we can't seem to bring peoples knowledge up to what was considered "state of the art" before television was invented.

Every time I see one of these people spewing their ignorance that these thungs haven't been done yet, I keep thinking to myself "this guy is totally going to poop his pants when he finds out airplanes don't need propellers anymore and that men have landed on the moon".

True. I should have clarified that i was referring to do all that in a very large scale, which simply is not being done right now. And for good reason: After all, we still have enough "normal" fuel to power our NPP's, so we simply do not have the big need to do these thing at a very large scale.

But you are right, the technology exists and it is "old news" at that too.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[Belz...]

Again: Hahahaha!

There is nothing to counter stupid, except to point it that it is stupid.

But speaking of countering things: Did you read my post with the simple, easy to follow calculations about using wind energy? Can you show any errors in that? Or are you again willfully ignoring these pesky "little" facts of reality?

So far, r-j has done nothing but call people who disagree with him liars, and plug his ears. Remember in this very thread how he reacted to people pointing out that there was radioactive stuff in milk ? Here's a sample:

You just made that up.

Especially something important, like Cesium137 in food.

If this is the attitude of the officials trying to tell everyone that things are safe, it's really disgusting.

I'm disgusted that anyone would make up something, on this kind of a forum, and then lie about it.

It's as if somebody claimed that all food contains raw human feces, in very small amounts. That is how disgusting it sounds.

Then you want to question me? You have zero credibility now. Understand?

I don't respond to anyone acting like they can question me. Certainly not from anyone who thinks there is cesium in all milk. That is crazy. I challenged your false claim, and of course you have no source to back it up.

I know you had to make it up, because it's not true.

Anyone who isn't also challenging that false claim, I consider you just as bad. Disgusting really, that anyone would promote such a terrible lie about milk.

Healthy food does not contain any of the dangerous nuclides from reactors. You might as well say milk contains traces of Strontium 90 and Plutonium 239. That is so disgusting.

 

[Belz...]

Yes, it's coal ash. And this waste, according to Scientific American and scientists at Oak Ridge National Laboratory literally is 100 times more radioactive than the output of a modern nuclear power plant.

 

[Christian Klippel]

So far, r-j has done nothing but call people who disagree with him liars, and plug his ears. Remember in this very thread how he reacted to people pointing out that there was radioactive stuff in milk ? Here's a sample:

Oh yes, i do. What a good laugh i had.

As i said, to them these are just pesky little details, too unimportant to recognize them. After all, it's for the greater good of everything being green.

Funny thing is that this type of behavior can be observed everywhere. No matter which country or which social environment. All over the world throughout the whole population: The green nutters are completely ignorant to any facts that would scratch on their green dreams. And in case you try to educate them, you are instantly labeled a shill for the nuke industry or something similar.

Just sit back and watch what happens if you tell them that even the founder of Greenpeace, who left them because they went way too nutty even for him, is now pro-nuke. Don't forget to replenish your popcorn stock before doing so!

Greetings,

Chris

 

[Belz...]

As i said, to them these are just pesky little details, too unimportant to recognize them. After all, it's for the greater good of everything being green.

What's both funny and tragic about "green" is that, if brought to its logical conclusion, the "solution" will be far worse than the "problem". A common theme for human politics, really.

 

[r-j]

Solar, wind, growing plants, all so horribly dangerous in the mind of a nuclear nutter. But clean safe nuclear reactors, even when three of them meltdown and spread radioactivity all over the world, into the oceans, onto the Japanese motherland, they look at that and it's no problem.

There simply isn't any way to find common ground with that level of crazy.

 

[Christian Klippel]

What's both funny and tragic about "green" is that, if brought to its logical conclusion, the "solution" will be far worse than the "problem". A common theme for human politics, really.

To be fair, this basically only applies to their version of "green". The universe, and for that matter the nature, doesn't give a damn about humans. It's completely irrelevant to it if we are here or not, and what we are doing. It existed long before we came to be, and it will continue exist long after we are gone. We are nothing more than just one species that happened to come into existence, and some day we will go extinct, as is the fate of every other species.

Just take a look at Tchernobyl, the most loved example they have. While humans can't live there anymore, nature thriving. One could go so far and say that while it was a horrible accident, something really good came out of it. In fact, it made the situation better than it was before. I mean, hey, being green is all about nature, isn't it? So they should be really, really happy about it.

But they are so preoccupied with things like saving that one bird over there in that garden that they completely ignore that >90% of all species that ever existed are already extinct, and that without us having anything to do with it. Such is the nature of life, something they also completely fail to grasp.

Oh well, reality must be a really annoying thing to them.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[Christian Klippel]

Solar, wind, growing plants, all so horribly dangerous in the mind of a nuclear nutter. But clean safe nuclear reactors, even when three of them meltdown and spread radioactivity all over the world, into the oceans, onto the Japanese motherland, they look at that and it's no problem.

There simply isn't any way to find common ground with that level of crazy.

See, as i have predicted. No matter what, he will come up with even more stupid.

Hey, r-j! Really, educate yourself first, then start talking about it. try it, you will be surprised what a relief it can be to have the proper knowledge about things before talking about them.

About growing plants. Do you mean, growing plants to produce bio-fuels from them? Really? Like, literally burning food sources while very, very many people on this world are literally starving to death? Don't you think that such an idea is just extremely perverse?

 

[Belz...]

Solar, wind, growing plants, all so horribly dangerous in the mind of a nuclear nutter.

Did you not read the statistics posted IN THIS THREAD ? Those kill more people than nuclear.

But clean safe nuclear reactors, even when three of them meltdown and spread radioactivity all over the world, into the oceans, onto the Japanese motherland, they look at that and it's no problem.

Of course it's a problem, which is why there are such tight regulations about nuclear. But aside from Chernobyl, the fact that you can't name a single deadly nuclear event is quite telling of nuclear's safety record.

There simply isn't any way to find common ground with that level of crazy.

Thanks for proving my point, mister "there is no radioactive stuff in food !"

 

[r-j]

After some thought, I would bet we agree that burning coal for power is a terrible idea. It's polluting, it's changing the balance of CO2 in the world, and it sickens and kills people, but in a way that those who profit from coal don't ever have to pay a dime.

 

[Ziggurat]

After some thought, I would bet we agree that burning coal for power is a terrible idea. It's polluting, it's changing the balance of CO2 in the world, and it sickens and kills people, but in a way that those who profit from coal don't ever have to pay a dime.

So you don't like coal, and you don't like nuclear. Which do you like less? Because you're sure as hell not going to get rid of both.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Solar, wind, growing plants, all so horribly dangerous in the mind of a nuclear nutter. But clean safe nuclear reactors, even when three of them meltdown and spread radioactivity all over the world, into the oceans, onto the Japanese motherland, they look at that and it's no problem.