Posted on 03/30/2021 7:13:55 AM PDT by DIRTYSECRET
There goes Vegas. It probably uses more electricity than NK all by itself. Solar ain’t gonna power the strip and the AC.
Possibly one of the stupidest articles I’ve read in a while.
Start here: “The film, however, depicts the tremendous dangers when something goes wrong.” Yeah, because HBO films are based on science and not pushing a political agenda. /sarcasm
Modern nuclear reactors are nothing like Chernobyl. That kind of accident simply cannot happen anymore.
Also, you’d have to cover an area over 300 km by 300 km, or 90,000 square km, with solar panels to provide enough power to replace every other power source. And that’s ignoring transmission losses, some areas not getting full sunlight, little things like night, etc. The actual area needed is probably closer to 250,000 square km. Doing so would in itself consume a massive amount of power and other resources. Solar panels don’t magically appear.
And that’s just for starters.
PS Yup, this guy clearly isn’t a real scientist.
Chernobyl was caused by an experimental reactor with a high positive void coefficient (i.e. unsafe by design) being pushed too far. Nobody in the world runs reactors like that anymore (all existing RBMK-1000 reactors have been retrofitted to make them passively safe). Any newly built nuclear reactors are designed to be passively safe.
Fukushima was an example of an irresponsible company with a regulator asleep at the wheel. The cooling system design was known to have major design issues, but nobody made TEPCO fix it. They had all sorts of other regulatory non-compliance issues that nobody made them fix either. The culture in their nuclear regulatory space is extremely lax, from what I understand. They’re all pals hanging out together, rather than anyone providing real oversight.
I’m generally against a lot of regulation, but there are a few places where I see its value. Nuclear power can absolutely be done very safely and effectively, but there needs to be real motivation to do it correctly on the part of the plant designers and operators and there needs to be real ongoing oversight to ensure things are continuing down a safe path. If the design is good at the start, there’s not much you can do to screw it up down the road from a safety standpoint, but you can definitely have availability problems.
Building it in a tsunami area is fine if your design is built correctly (Fukushima had well known and documented design flaws) and if your regulator is ensuring you’re fixing problems (TEPCO had/has a very cozy relationship with Japanese nuclear regulators essentially giving them a free pass).
Well they better figure it out since our legislators put it in the NevaDUH Revised Statutes. SMDH! I’d like to know who THE guy that managed to sell this BS to so many people is. One can be a good steward without having to live in a mud or stone hut.
A brother-in-law built the wall. The one that was to protect the power plant and the one built too short that the water went right over.
I suppose they could simply have said they watched the movie “The China Syndrome” and made the same finding. For the folks that “TRULY” care, I suggest they divest themselves of any and all items that were produced or contain anything related in anyway to petroleum products. EVERYTHNG! Double dog dare them. Or they could be dropped naked and afraid in the middle of the Amazon. No, not THAT ‘amazon’, the other one.
Flooding isn’t a safety issue in a passively safe nuclear reactor design. Their ancient and flawed GE design had many problems with it. The emergency cooling system was known to be flawed. Nobody made TEPCO fix that. Any number of other known issues contributed to it.
If you stuck a CANDU power plant at the same address at the Fukushima Daiichi plant, it would have been fine. It would have shut down and stayed that way until somebody showed back up to turn it on again. There may be some damage to the fuel rods during that time, but you simply swap them out (you can recycle the old ones, but they have to be rebuilt), run through the restart checklist, and bring the plant back online.
It all begins with plant design. And one of the consequences of the stupid environmentalist movement blocking all new nuclear plant construction (either by injunction or by making it too expensive to litigate out in court) is that none of the existing plants can be shut down and replaced with newer designs.
I’m a survivor of the recent Texas wind farm failure. I’m one of the lucky ones. More people were by this than were killed in the Chernobyl disaster. There are a lot of fools writing about green energy schemes. This one is in the winner’s circle (of fools).
Is this guy naive?
True, but consider using it to convert water to hydrogen to power your vehicles. Link to FR story -
link to FR story
Coal and nuclear are dead.
Over the past 15 years virtually all new base load power plants are natural gas. Gas fired plants are much cheaper both to build and operate than nuclear and substantially cheaper than coal. Building a coal plant costs more than 4 times what a gas plant costs. For nuclear its 12 times.
One built, the gas plants are cheaper to run. They need less operations and maintnenace A 1000 megawatt gas plant needs 30 employees, coal needs 150 employees, nuclear needs 500. The fuel costs is generally cheaper the same, largely because gas plants are so much more efficient, at 60 percent versus 40 percent for coal and 34% for nuclear..
BINGO! Newsmax is 90% clickbait. Why anybody pays any attention to them baffles me.
Nuclear is clean and safe. We are dictating the future on two incredibly rare events. A poorly run Russian plant and Fukashima which was hit with a once in millennia event. We are all still alive. People live around them still. We do what we always do. Adapt and change the technology. Isn’t it convenient how much waste and toxic sludge is produced in the manufacture of windmills and solar panels?
The best path to the future is decentralized power generation, and small modular reactors (SMRs) are a definite part of that future. The idea of a global grid, with the devastation of the world environment to produce the power this fool is describing, would be a catastrophic nightmare.
1. “But that’s not the play here, to make abundant and cheap energy.” It isn’t? Because?
2. Nuscale is not the only design in production or in contention. There are others in the manner of downsizing with also improving safety.
I’m fine with decentralized generation with those evil “fossil” fuels.
Nope; neither are dead. Opus?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.