Posted on 03/17/2011 7:09:20 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Bookmarked.
Great article! Thanks!
The real problem is you just can’t replace nuke plants like you do old cars. Just because a new model comes out you can’t afford to buy one every time.
An excellent article.
The science and technology looks great. It’s the humans that are flawed.
Has anyone seen a breakdown in the cost of a nuclear power plant?
Comparing Design cost, Construction costs, Regulatory costs & Legal Challenge delay costs?
RE: The real problem is you just can’t replace nuke plants like you do old cars.
___________________________________________________________________________
Of course the analogy isn’t exactly 100% apt.
We also don’t have earthquakes of above 8.0 occuring everyday the way car accidents on the highways occur on a daily basis.
The question is this — do CURRENT designs TAKE INTO ACCOUNT earthquake intensities of magnitude >= 9.0 and do they take into account the ability to gracefully shut down the plant should such mishaps occur without endangering people and the surrounding environment ? Do we have the ability to safely store nuclear waste without endangering anyone?
If so, there’s no reason why we should not build them.
How about some robots that do something useful - like save the lives of people forced to work in hell... you know - they could “stand in” for those brave souls being sacrificed.
It wasn’t the earthquake that took out those plants, it was the tsunami that came after. The plants survived the quake, they were designed and built for that. I doubt if a tsunami would hit Kansas :)
Find later ping
There come a point where your car becomes a hazard. I don’t think we want to replace our reactors each year.
It’s a good article.
I said last week that quite a few commercial passenger planes crashed in the 50s and 60s with significant loss of life.
With today’s MSM/liberal mentality, we would have stopped flying and stuck to trains and ships.
We have more robust designs today.But we still have a the same byproduct problem,so much for new and improved.
RE: we would have stopped flying and stuck to trains and ships.
And there are no accidents for trains and ships? Hey, more people die from car accidents than airplanes or wars for that matter ( or even nuclear accidents for that matter ).
According to Wikipedia, 45,800 people died and 2.4 million were injured in 2005 in the USA alone ( now add up this statistic in every country in the world and we’re talking catastrophic yearly numbers ).
Yet, I don’t hear anyone agitating to ban cars on the roads.
Is there such a thing as a risk free world ? What are insurance companies in existence for?
That's true. You can be driving the speed limit, stone cold sober, wearing your seat belt, in the safest car on the road, and be struck and killed by a part falling off an airplane.
A nuke guy on Rush the other day said it was the tsunami that took out those plants, not the quake. They’re designed to handle more than what they were hit with. They didn’t tumble down.
Deep down in their hearts, a lot of liberals would dearly love that. But they're likely afraid to voice it. Socialists love public transportation because it's much easier to control the movement of the populace.
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.