Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant (should)

[Thekdog]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Lol. Not if it IS scary.

Well nuclear is in fact not scary. Speeding is actually scary judging from traffic deaths, yet people speed more than they hang out around nuclear plants

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by Thekdog

Well nuclear is in fact not scary. Speeding is actually scary judging from traffic deaths, yet people speed more than they hang out around nuclear plants

As I have pointed out all along: if nuclear wasn’t a scary proposition it wouldn’t need to be regulated as it is nor would nuclear scientists and engineers deal with it as they do: with extreme caution, care, redundancies and more redundancies of safety systems.

That you can’t grasp the seriousness of nuclear risks simply demonstrates your lack of knowledge.

Your conflations with other unrelated issues are hilarious. Speeding

[Thekdog]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

As I have pointed out all along: if nuclear wasn’t a scary proposition it wouldn’t need to be regulated as it is nor would nuclear scientists and engineers deal with it as they do: with extreme caution, care, redundancies and more redundancies of safety systems.

That you can’t grasp the seriousness of nuclear risks simply demonstrates your lack of knowledge.

Your conflations with other unrelated issues are hilarious. Speeding

It doesn't need to be regulated as it is. France is almost entirely powered by nuclear. Even Russia is still building and hasn't had any issues since Chernobyl. Asian countries use and build nuclear

[wac_432]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

As I wrote earlier, I don’t approve of any industrial energy production.

That said, the side of the debate you present relies on precedents… as opposed to potentials.

Every event of any kind, anywhere, any time, was once without precedent.

The potential damages from nuclear are not irrational. If they were, the IAEA and all of the nuclear energy scientists and engineers would have long ago indeed been able to develop and install nuclear plants around the world since the 1960s. Instead, the entire industry is burdened heavily by regulation out of caution.

So no, those scientists and engineers don’t “lack critical thinking or analytical skills” … and they aren’t one bit “irrational”. The fears are real and not exaggerated.

And we still don’t know how to dispose of the waste beyond stockpiling it.

Nuclear regulatory agencies are not what is preventing nuclear power from widespread adoption. In fact, the nuclear scientists and engineers are the biggest proponents of more widespread adoption of nuclear power.

Diablo Canyon is being shut down early due to politics. SONGS was shuttered early due to politics. The failed hardware could have been replaced, the plant could have been refurbished and expanded, but for politics.

Yes, the fears of laypersons are real, but the scenarios of nuclear disaster causing those fears are greatly exaggerated. Chernobyl was the world's worst nuclear disaster, caused by incredibly careless operators, in a facility with almost malicious design, yet the contaminated area and disease/death caused by the disaster is relatively minor.

Storing nuclear waste on site in concrete casks is adequate--especially if the nuclear plants continue to operate and are maintained by a skilled and motivated workforce. That's why there's no great push to complete Yucca mountain. It is a solution looking for a problem.

I would worry more about mothballed nuke plants with "forgotten" casks. SONGS still has on-site storage, but since the plant is decommissioned, you've got minimum-wage security guards watching football instead of checking to make sure the casks aren't leaking. Are they adequately trained in what to do and who to notify in the case of an earthquake, tsunami, or terrorist?

In a more-perfect world, we would be building the new generation of safer reactor design in the USA (like the Chinese), reprocessing spent fuel in breeder reactors (like the French), and be running enough nuke plants to dramatically reduce our carbon footprint AND make Yucca Mountain (or some similar central repository) economically and politically viable.

[Bill the Butcher]

I heard it is now staying open till 2030. It was supposed to close in 2025. My money is on the plant staying in operation much longer than 2030.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by wac_432

Nuclear regulatory agencies are not what is preventing nuclear power from widespread adoption. In fact, the nuclear scientists and engineers are the biggest proponents of more widespread adoption of nuclear power.

Diablo Canyon is being shut down early due to politics. SONGS was shuttered early due to politics. The failed hardware could have been replaced, the plant could have been refurbished and expanded, but for politics.

Yes, the fears of laypersons are real, but the scenarios of nuclear disaster causing those fears are greatly exaggerated. Chernobyl was the world's worst nuclear disaster, caused by incredibly careless operators, in a facility with almost malicious design, yet the contaminated area and disease/death caused by the disaster is relatively minor.

Storing nuclear waste on site in concrete casks is adequate--especially if the nuclear plants continue to operate and are maintained by a skilled and motivated workforce. That's why there's no great push to complete Yucca mountain. It is a solution looking for a problem.

I would worry more about mothballed nuke plants with "forgotten" casks. SONGS still has on-site storage, but since the plant is decommissioned, you've got minimum-wage security guards watching football instead of checking to make sure the casks aren't leaking. Are they adequately trained in what to do and who to notify in the case of an earthquake, tsunami, or terrorist?

In a more-perfect world, we would be building the new generation of safer reactor design in the USA (like the Chinese), reprocessing spent fuel in breeder reactors (like the French), and be running enough nuke plants to dramatically reduce our carbon footprint AND make Yucca Mountain (or some similar central repository) economically and politically viable.

Um. I never said regulatory agencies are preventing widespread adoption of nuclear power. I said regulatory policies exist precisely because nuclear power is so inherently dangerous.

I am also fully aware that the majority of nuclear scientists and engineers are great proponents of developments (although about ⅓ of AAAS scientists oppose nuclear energy development… not an insignificant number). It’s become trendy for even many environmentalists to embrace nuclear power development.

I don’t agree that the scenarios of nuclear disaster causing those fears are greatly exaggerated. Nor do I consider Chernobyl and Fukushima to have left “relatively minor” footprints.

Fact is - I simply hate the very idea of nuclear power. But then again, I hate fossil fuels too. And large scale hydroelectric dams/generation. Furthermore, I don’t much care for solar. I do soften over little, personal generators like farmyard windmills that pump water though

Humanity’s arrogance both amuses me and irritates me. We are quite the narcissistic species, thinking we are entitled to ravage the environment that created and supports us. It’s ultimately suicidal. The environment doesn’t care … it’s impersonal. We’re just blindly stupid with all our bells, whistles, geegaws and gimcracks that we have convinced ourselves to be necessary to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. We have no sustainable end game. Just *more growth* perpetually … despite the reality that infinite growth cannot occur in finite paradigms.

Primitive peoples were at least as happy as modern mankind. Anthropology is very illuminating. We are destroying ourselves in our odyssey of consumption … including energy consumption.

This latest series of posts started because a poster questioned the rationality of environmentalists who oppose nuclear power. I have merely pointed out that those who oppose have perfectly rational concerns. Perhaps the *lesser of evils* path supports nuclear energy development. But that doesn’t mean concerns are foolish.

[Thekdog]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Primitive peoples were at least as happy as modern mankind. .

That is an epically hot take

[Thekdog]

Originally Posted by Bill the Butcher

I heard it is now staying open till 2030. It was supposed to close in 2025. My money is on the plant staying in operation much longer than 2030.

That's what the legislature passed (at the last possible second) before people who call themselves "friends" of the earth sued to block it

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by Thekdog

That is an epically hot take

I have no idea what you mean.

[Thekdog]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

I have no idea what you mean.

It means provocative