I even got a lefty environmentalist friend of mine in the Northeast to finally admit the nuclear power is the best source of energy we have.
Yep, you have all these liberals complaining how dangerous it is, etc. I asked him to tell me times we’ve had major nuclear accidents. They have a tendency to cite Chernobyl and or Fukushima. I politely informed them that Chernobyl was a result of a poorly designed reactor, with no containment structure and a bunch of idiots doing Experimentswith it.
We have dozens of nuclear power plants that operate 24 seven across the United States and Canada without any major incident, and have done so for decades. I also point out that we’ve been using nuclear power onboard submarines an aircraft carriers even longer and have yet to have a single accident on any US flag ship.
Fukushima was also the result of multiple freakish extreme natural disasters happening at the same time, to a facility that was slated to be retired and replaced by one designed to handle not only that combination, but even more freakish occurrences.
It was an old facility that wasn't properly maintained and had no safeguards. The media reported that it shut down properly and all the safeguards kicked in when they didn't. Another reason I loved Shin Gojira is that it had a scene to reflect this.
As I recall they had several newer reactors on the same site that had little damage due to the new design with generators, pumps, controls, etc. all better protected and more redundancies.
What'll burn your ass is when you find out that they had plans to fix that, and it was tied up in Japanese courts for almost 6 years by the anti-nuke nuts there. People think the anti-nukers are crazy here in North America, there's a special kind of insane in Japan.
Yep. The Japanese were completely unprepared for what happened, and of course that is when disaster struck.
Hard to believe that they could fuck up so bad on safety. It is well known that first and second generation nuclear reactors are not immune to meltdowns.
Plus the most significant U.S. nuclear accident was Three Mile Island. Which only resulted in one section of the power plant being closed, while the rest was operational until 2019 and no one even received harmful amounts of radiation. Just shows the difference between U.S. and Soviet tech if you compare it to Chernobyl.
Yep. TMI had a meltdown, but the properly designed facility contained the material and radiation like it was designed to. Strange how a properly designed reactor is of almost no danger.
Brown’s Ferry in Alabama had near meltdowns twice, the most recent in 2011. Three Mile Island always gets the historic attention, but Brown’s Ferry had near catastrophic reactor meltdowns twice in it’s operating history. I’m all for nuclear energy, but we’ve got to modernize our nuclear plants and move away from water cooled nuclear piles.
Just locate the reactors in Detroit, Philadelphia and Atlanta. Apparently everything is 100000% secure in those cities. Plus if they do blow up, no real loss.
The 2011 issue with Brown's Ferry was caused by a tornado knocking out external power, not a near-meltdown. Had they not shut the reactor down, they likely would have had a near-meltdown due to the loss of outside power preventing them from moderating the fuel rods.
Plus Three Mile Island was exacerbated by human intervention. You had the reliance of an idiot light & auxiliary pump valves closed for maintenance with the reactor online; which is against NRC rule.
Keep in mind the REAL reason for suppressing nuclear is about CONTROL of the masses by restricting energy usage, not for "protection" of the environment. Nuclear only makes it easier for consumers, hence harder for the Deep State.
In the us there are only two I can think of 3mile island with no fatalities (reported), and the second wasn't exactly major but an interesting story. Blake stilwell is one of 3 people killed in that one.
Nuclear power is fundamentally same, just ask the US navy. Nuclear powered carriers and subs in high stress combat zones and not a single radiation loss event ever. Anyone who is an “environmentalist” and discounts nuclear is an idiots or a charlatan.
We do have unbelievable clean coals. But nuclear for its price is much cheaper. Nuclear power produces a lot of energy. And is much more environmentally friendly than solar farms and wind farms.
Wind farms are super loud and kill tons of birds, also they freeze over and degrade quickly.
Solar farms take up a lot of space, are environmentally unfriendly to produce to an extreme degree, don’t produce enough, need access to water for cleaning themselves of dirt and dust, and can’t run at night.
Solar has its usages for isolated areas with access to sunlight like on boats or in the middle of nowhere. Where you can also manually clean them.
Wind is just useless and a bad idea.
Coal is cheap and produces a lot of energy.
Oil is more expensive, but produces a lot more.
True cost of decommissioning, protecting against attack, and of storing waste virtually forever never adequately addressed in financial models.
Nuke plants are too dangerous to insure on the free market. Taxpayer takes that particular $trillion risk right in the shorts. Taxpayers subsidize construction as well.
Coal is a great source, that should always be around because it's easy. Certainly great for situations like this when newer energy like renewables still has many issues. That doesn't mean you shouldn't also expand other sources of making power. It's always good to have multiple redundancies from several sources.
I have no problem with putting up wind farms in places they make sense, but relying on them should never be something that is necessary. This is also a good reason why battery storage for renewables is important, most renewables like wind and solar are only effective when there's wind and sun (obviously), so being able to store what they can produce is important, but also good for situations like this when you know they're going to have to be down for a bit because of severe weather.
Coal is a great energy source because it's constant, readily available, and it's honestly a lot cleaner than they make it out to be. It should never be phased out, it's always good to have.
Overall, clean coal is the best. Very little pollution plus the US has enough coal to last until Kirk beams up to the Enterprise. It's cheap with zero chance of nuclear accidents.
Most of these people aren't environmentalists, they are far-left activists (communists). Anybody that truly thinks they want to help the environment is a moron.
When a western country builds a nuclear or coal power plants, they kick and scream. When China builds dozens of new coal and nuclear power plants, they say nothing. Absolutely nothing. Same goes for China's concentration camps.
Nuclear power is the way to go
I even got a lefty environmentalist friend of mine in the Northeast to finally admit the nuclear power is the best source of energy we have.
Yep, you have all these liberals complaining how dangerous it is, etc. I asked him to tell me times we’ve had major nuclear accidents. They have a tendency to cite Chernobyl and or Fukushima. I politely informed them that Chernobyl was a result of a poorly designed reactor, with no containment structure and a bunch of idiots doing Experimentswith it.
We have dozens of nuclear power plants that operate 24 seven across the United States and Canada without any major incident, and have done so for decades. I also point out that we’ve been using nuclear power onboard submarines an aircraft carriers even longer and have yet to have a single accident on any US flag ship.
Fukushima was also the result of multiple freakish extreme natural disasters happening at the same time, to a facility that was slated to be retired and replaced by one designed to handle not only that combination, but even more freakish occurrences.
And a myriad of failures on the part of the utility that operated the plant.
and decades all gen 2 reactor design
"Lets put the generators that are the last ditch effort in case something crazy happens right here in the basement"
"But aren't you on the shore? what if one of those crazy things that happens is a flood?"
"It's the Pacific Ocean man, it's never caused flooding anywhere ever before, don't be so stupid man"
It was an old facility that wasn't properly maintained and had no safeguards. The media reported that it shut down properly and all the safeguards kicked in when they didn't. Another reason I loved Shin Gojira is that it had a scene to reflect this.
As I recall they had several newer reactors on the same site that had little damage due to the new design with generators, pumps, controls, etc. all better protected and more redundancies.
The final straw with Fukushima was the stupidity of the backup generators diesel tank having vent pipes open to the surge wave.
Water in the diesel tanks, no generators, no pumps = reactor overheat.
What'll burn your ass is when you find out that they had plans to fix that, and it was tied up in Japanese courts for almost 6 years by the anti-nuke nuts there. People think the anti-nukers are crazy here in North America, there's a special kind of insane in Japan.
Yep. The Japanese were completely unprepared for what happened, and of course that is when disaster struck.
Hard to believe that they could fuck up so bad on safety. It is well known that first and second generation nuclear reactors are not immune to meltdowns.
Plus the most significant U.S. nuclear accident was Three Mile Island. Which only resulted in one section of the power plant being closed, while the rest was operational until 2019 and no one even received harmful amounts of radiation. Just shows the difference between U.S. and Soviet tech if you compare it to Chernobyl.
Yep. TMI had a meltdown, but the properly designed facility contained the material and radiation like it was designed to. Strange how a properly designed reactor is of almost no danger.
Brown’s Ferry in Alabama had near meltdowns twice, the most recent in 2011. Three Mile Island always gets the historic attention, but Brown’s Ferry had near catastrophic reactor meltdowns twice in it’s operating history. I’m all for nuclear energy, but we’ve got to modernize our nuclear plants and move away from water cooled nuclear piles.
Just locate the reactors in Detroit, Philadelphia and Atlanta. Apparently everything is 100000% secure in those cities. Plus if they do blow up, no real loss.
The 2011 issue with Brown's Ferry was caused by a tornado knocking out external power, not a near-meltdown. Had they not shut the reactor down, they likely would have had a near-meltdown due to the loss of outside power preventing them from moderating the fuel rods.
https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/event-status/event/2011/20110428en.html#en46793
There has been several problems with the plant (mostly fires), but no near-meltdowns.
There were literal meltdowns at Santa Susana Field Laboratory - they were experimental reactors with NO containment buildings either.
Very nasty and not widely known about.
Plus Three Mile Island was exacerbated by human intervention. You had the reliance of an idiot light & auxiliary pump valves closed for maintenance with the reactor online; which is against NRC rule.
Shows what happens when you install containment shields, unlike Chernobyl.
Keep in mind the REAL reason for suppressing nuclear is about CONTROL of the masses by restricting energy usage, not for "protection" of the environment. Nuclear only makes it easier for consumers, hence harder for the Deep State.
I read that in Dale Gribbles voice.
In the us there are only two I can think of 3mile island with no fatalities (reported), and the second wasn't exactly major but an interesting story. Blake stilwell is one of 3 people killed in that one.
Nuclear power is fundamentally same, just ask the US navy. Nuclear powered carriers and subs in high stress combat zones and not a single radiation loss event ever. Anyone who is an “environmentalist” and discounts nuclear is an idiots or a charlatan.
Coal power is also the way to go
We do have unbelievable clean coals. But nuclear for its price is much cheaper. Nuclear power produces a lot of energy. And is much more environmentally friendly than solar farms and wind farms.
Wind farms are super loud and kill tons of birds, also they freeze over and degrade quickly.
Solar farms take up a lot of space, are environmentally unfriendly to produce to an extreme degree, don’t produce enough, need access to water for cleaning themselves of dirt and dust, and can’t run at night.
Solar has its usages for isolated areas with access to sunlight like on boats or in the middle of nowhere. Where you can also manually clean them.
Wind is just useless and a bad idea.
Coal is cheap and produces a lot of energy. Oil is more expensive, but produces a lot more.
Nuclear only becomes cheaper after a decade or so due to the incredibly high initial investment required.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbeJIwF1pVY
True cost of decommissioning, protecting against attack, and of storing waste virtually forever never adequately addressed in financial models.
Nuke plants are too dangerous to insure on the free market. Taxpayer takes that particular $trillion risk right in the shorts. Taxpayers subsidize construction as well.
Or just leave the coal in the ground and mine uranium and thorium.
We have enough of that in the earth's crust and diluted in the oceans to power all of humanity for thousands if not hundreds of thousands of years.
Coal is a great source, that should always be around because it's easy. Certainly great for situations like this when newer energy like renewables still has many issues. That doesn't mean you shouldn't also expand other sources of making power. It's always good to have multiple redundancies from several sources.
I have no problem with putting up wind farms in places they make sense, but relying on them should never be something that is necessary. This is also a good reason why battery storage for renewables is important, most renewables like wind and solar are only effective when there's wind and sun (obviously), so being able to store what they can produce is important, but also good for situations like this when you know they're going to have to be down for a bit because of severe weather.
Coal is a great energy source because it's constant, readily available, and it's honestly a lot cleaner than they make it out to be. It should never be phased out, it's always good to have.
Overall, clean coal is the best. Very little pollution plus the US has enough coal to last until Kirk beams up to the Enterprise. It's cheap with zero chance of nuclear accidents.
Anyone for thorium ???
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power#Possible_benefits
It's indisputable. Deaths per KW/hr rate is lowest for nuke. Would be a LOT lower than that too if we were using modern reactors.
FUCK environmentalists. They are retards.
Most of these people aren't environmentalists, they are far-left activists (communists). Anybody that truly thinks they want to help the environment is a moron.
When a western country builds a nuclear or coal power plants, they kick and scream. When China builds dozens of new coal and nuclear power plants, they say nothing. Absolutely nothing. Same goes for China's concentration camps.
This is what I came here to post. NUCLEAR please