Quote:
investing in Upgrading current nuclear facilities and building new ones is the key right now to reduce our carbon footprint. Maybe in another 100 years more clean energies will be more practical. But in the meantime if we are serious in reducing our carbon footprint, the only realistic answer is nuclear.
Fukushima was an example of nuclear safety following an incident. It was an old outdated plant that had a major failure. The plant was successfully shut down. The loss of life associated with that event was due to public panic, not released radiation. Not a single person was harmed from the plant itself. The stampede of people trying to get away was another story. It should have never got to that stage, but the ability to shut down an outdated plant safely is an example of why we should be using it. Modern plants are far more efficient, produce less waste, and have more safeguards in place.Originally Posted by LoneStar32
Love this post right here. I’ve been saying for years that nuclear is the answer. There are some bad connotations associated with nuclear energy, some right fully deserved (like Futchuma). However technology of containing and disposing of nuclear waste has dramatically improved over the last couple decades (Futchuma was an old outdated plant that needed to be updated, current technologies would have prevented that disaster)investing in Upgrading current nuclear facilities and building new ones is the key right now to reduce our carbon footprint. Maybe in another 100 years more clean energies will be more practical. But in the meantime if we are serious in reducing our carbon footprint, the only realistic answer is nuclear.
Quote:
Yup, but it's probably too easy, doesn't involving tearing down and "rebuilding" our society and economy from scratch. Where's the fun in that?Originally Posted by LoneStar32
But in the meantime if we are serious in reducing our carbon footprint, the only realistic answer is nuclear.
Quote:
Yes. Most operational plants today are 727-era equipment. They can operated safely with care but new designs would be far, far safer (and far less subject to human error).Originally Posted by Itsajob
Fukushima was an example of nuclear safety following an incident. It was an old outdated plant that had a major failure. The plant was successfully shut down. The loss of life associated with that event was due to public panic, not released radiation. Not a single person was harmed from the plant itself. The stampede of people trying to get away was another story. It should have never got to that stage, but the ability to shut down an outdated plant safely is an example of why we should be using it. Modern plants are far more efficient, produce less waste, and have more safeguards in place.
Current anti-nukes are like people claiming airlines should be shut down because they're not safe... while citing statistics from the 1960's.
The biggest issue with Fukishima was having their backup generators on the ground and not on the roof...despite multiple warnings about it being a vulnerability.
Earthquake knocked out grid power and backuo generators worked as designed, then the tsunami from the earthquake swamped the backup generators.
It was a human leadership and management failure, not a technology failure.
Earthquake knocked out grid power and backuo generators worked as designed, then the tsunami from the earthquake swamped the backup generators.
It was a human leadership and management failure, not a technology failure.
Quote:
From windmills, you get a single digit percent of the rated power of the thing. Their rated lifespan is also a lie, the blades degrade in 1/3 of the time, and then to add the icing on the cake, they can't be recycled. Originally Posted by Longhornmaniac8
I don't follow.
The evidence is pretty clear that climate scientists don't believe themselves, otherwise they would suggest real solutions, like nuclear. Instead they care only about politics, and selling the green fraud products from the companies they get their funding from.
No one should listen to anyone in the climate science community until they expel the serious corruption.
Quote:
Earthquake knocked out grid power and backuo generators worked as designed, then the tsunami from the earthquake swamped the backup generators.
It was a human leadership and management failure, not a technology failure.
It's not only that, the Japanese government totally abandoned them in their time of need. The US would never do such a thing.Originally Posted by BoilerUP
The biggest issue with Fukishima was having their backup generators on the ground and not on the roof...despite multiple warnings about it being a vulnerability.Earthquake knocked out grid power and backuo generators worked as designed, then the tsunami from the earthquake swamped the backup generators.
It was a human leadership and management failure, not a technology failure.
Quote:
Occam's Razor. Is it more likely there is a vast conspiracy within scientific realms across multiple disciplines to shun the truth or is it more likely that the "few doctorate level Climatologists" are actually full of s#!t?
Yes, because the majority can never be wrong Originally Posted by Longhornmaniac8
Occam's Razor. Is it more likely there is a vast conspiracy within scientific realms across multiple disciplines to shun the truth or is it more likely that the "few doctorate level Climatologists" are actually full of s#!t?
How many centuries did the majority proclaim that the earth was flat, or that the sun revolved around the earth?
Also, most climatologists get their funding from the government. Money from the government has an agenda, always. And human beings, even scientists, don't like being on the outs of popular opinion.
Quote:
Earthquake knocked out grid power and backuo generators worked as designed, then the tsunami from the earthquake swamped the backup generators.
It was a human leadership and management failure, not a technology failure.
Yes, the backup gens were not only on the ground, they were in the basement, so susceptible to tsunami induced flooding.Originally Posted by BoilerUP
The biggest issue with Fukishima was having their backup generators on the ground and not on the roof...despite multiple warnings about it being a vulnerability.Earthquake knocked out grid power and backuo generators worked as designed, then the tsunami from the earthquake swamped the backup generators.
It was a human leadership and management failure, not a technology failure.
Engineers had told managers that was a bad idea.
Modern nuclear plant designs should ideally include convective (natural circulation) emergency cooling so that the core residual heat is removed by convective flow without any need for powered pumps... one less thing to go wrong.
Quote:
Doesn't save any cardboard though.
I figured a way to get rid of the cardboard and refuse. I put all my garbage in the Amazon labeled boxes and leave them on the porch.Originally Posted by rickair7777
Yeah I think it saves fuel and emissions, as well as traffic congestion.Doesn't save any cardboard though.
Quote:
That is also a good way to dispose of pet litter.Originally Posted by badflaps
I figured a way to get rid of the cardboard and refuse. I put all my garbage in the Amazon labeled boxes and leave them on the porch.
