m0ar quakes

[tp4tissue]

today @ Fukushima

You know, where they're still leaking radiation,

Reactor core is in contact with ground water,  BEFORE today, we had ~ 300Tons of irradiated water leak into the ocean per day, this already accounts for what they manage to pump and capture,  AFTER today, who knows.

Will keep y'allz updatez.

[fohat.digs]

Diablo Canyon is within half a decade of being shut down. No worries.

[noisyturtle]

Building your civilization on a thin island is a mistake. I've played plenty of Civ to know floods and tsunamis will destroy your walls and crops every 20 turns.

[tp4tissue]

Diablo Canyon is within half a decade of being shut down. No worries.

This is the problem with regulatory capture.

The for profit industry, has free reign to regulate itself, the NRC is just their lapdog.

Look what happened to Boeing when they said they could self regulate 737 max, errrrrrrmmmgh Poooghfffff..

Then there's the case, Nooqular is the MOST Expensive, MOST Dangerous, LEAST efficient,  Second most polluting form of power, only ~6% lower emission than Coal Fire.

[Coreda]

Then there's the case, Nooqular is the MOST Expensive, MOST Dangerous, LEAST efficient,  Second most polluting form of power, only ~6% lower emission than Coal Fire.

Where are you getting that figure btw? It's like the opposite of what I can find: coal outputting far more waste (in quantity), though nuclear's periodic radioactive waste disposal obviously has its own considerations. Nuclear is said to not have anything close to coal's emissions. NASA suggests it'd be worth expanding usage of to reduce anthropogenic climate change since coal's effect is so harmful in comparison, despite even acknowledging such disasters as Fukishima.

Wikipedia cites '9 grams per kilowatt hour compared with 790–1017 grams per kilowatt hour for coal' of carbon dioxide emissions, while a standalone page placing its climate change potential around that of wind.

[noisyturtle]

Then there's the case, Nooqular is the MOST Expensive, MOST Dangerous, LEAST efficient,  Second most polluting form of power, only ~6% lower emission than Coal Fire.
[/size][/color]

this is not correct information

[suicidal_orange]

I have no idea what the figures are but surely some of the environmental impact is not during running.  How much machinery is needed to mine uranium, is it under forests, how much fuel is used transporting heavy lead boxes full of the stuff to the reactor, are the walls way thicker needing more deliveries of cement...

CO2 emmisions are not the full picture and the few who do know everything make money off it so will surely lie.

Like zero emissions cars because you charge them at home - coal was still burned to make the electricity but the marketing department spin the facts and people believe it.

[tp4tissue]

I have no idea what the figures are but surely some of the environmental impact is not during running.  How much machinery is needed to mine uranium, is it under forests, how much fuel is used transporting heavy lead boxes full of the stuff to the reactor, are the walls way thicker needing more deliveries of cement...

CO2 emmisions are not the full picture and the few who do know everything make money off it so will surely lie.

Like zero emissions cars because you charge them at home - coal was still burned to make the electricity but the marketing department spin the facts and people believe it.

Exactly right S_Orang

You have to count MINING, Transport, Storage, Clean up (Decomissioning),  NOT just operational emmission.

Our government and including weapons industry runs the whole chain, this is why they can continue misleading propaganda.

Then the impossible problem, LONG TERM Waste.

Spent fuel spends years and years in wet storage pools. This uses power. and it's VERY VERY dangerous.

After the pools, they go in dry casks, but these containers (which are themselves super expensive) will become embrittled by the radiation over time, and you have this never ending cost.

The storage has to continue for 1000-3000 years minimum, and upwards of 100,000 years.  AND THEY HAVE TO BE WATCHED/ Monitored/GUARDED,    That makes the Power cost of n00q power a NET NEGATIVE for society.


The economics of it never worked out. All existing reactors are losing money, the largest nooq nation, France's nooq industry is completely bankrupt.   Both major American players westinghouse and GE-nooq went bankrupt.

[Coreda]

You have to count MINING, Transport, Storage, Clean up (Decomissioning),  NOT just operational emmission.

Our government and including weapons industry runs the whole chain, this is why they can continue misleading propaganda.

Well, this would be why posting the source for figures which paint a different picture would be useful 

[tp4tissue]

You have to count MINING, Transport, Storage, Clean up (Decomissioning),  NOT just operational emmission.

Our government and including weapons industry runs the whole chain, this is why they can continue misleading propaganda.

Well, this would be why posting the source for figures which paint a different picture would be useful 

This article gives a small sum-up.

https://theecologist.org/2015/feb/05/false-solution-nuclear-power-not-low-carbon

MORE IMPORTANTLY in general, theses number alone does not even begin to cover the cost of WASTE STORAGE.

Understand,  It is impossible to Generate enough power to COVER the amount of energy and resources it will take to STORE the waste,   We're 10s of orders of magnitude out.   Spent fuel has to be watched over for 100,000 years.


We've only had 10,000 years of blurry recorded history,  only ~150 years with reliable power.

[Coreda]

This article gives a small sum-up.

https://theecologist.org/2015/feb/05/false-solution-nuclear-power-not-low-carbon

That article covers carbon dioxide emissions and ironically in the figures it discusses confirms that nuclear produces far lower CO2 per kWh than coal, with the range between 3 to 200 and 66 on average. The Wikipedia pages I linked cite a median of 12 and max of 110 but either way it's nowhere near coal so not sure where the 6% figure you quoted earlier came from but anyway.

I recognize there's also the areas of construction/decommissioning/etc but haven't seen figures put to these that I could find. Proper management of waste is obviously a separate concern/risk, though I'm curious how well we handle the 300,000 tons pear year of polluting waste produced by coal plants that was cited in another of the links from my post. Seems like we're in pretty deep 

[tp4tissue]

I recognize there's also the areas of construction/decommissioning/etc but haven't seen figures put to these that I could find. Proper management of waste is obviously a separate concern/risk, though I'm curious how well we handle the 300,000 tons pear year of polluting waste produced by coal plants that was cited in another of the links from my post. Seems like we're in pretty deep 

No structure / facility man made can survive  the time it'd take to watch over radio active waste.

That waste is also INCOMPARABLE with coal waste in terms of danger.

1_ nooq waste is weaponable, making it a target
2_ nooq waste requires ACTIVE cooling for 10s of years
3_ MUCH of our existing waste sits on above ground storage pools, a target, and impossible to seriously defend.

The economics of it is a through failure.   If you can not even generate enough power to offset what it will cost to STOP using the plant/material, then  the entire endeavor is a NET LOSS.   In this case a MAJOR net loss.

Radiation knows no borders. It's Invisible, and the most toxic substance in existence.

Germany who are decommissioning, have proven that Concentric rings drawn around power plants correlates with rise in leukemia cases.

The Tritiated water is impossible to fully filter, and when it gets into the environment, it wrecks havok on marine life as it bio-accumulates in that system's food chain.

[Lanrefni]

I recognize there's also the areas of construction/decommissioning/etc but haven't seen figures put to these that I could find. Proper management of waste is obviously a separate concern/risk, though I'm curious how well we handle the 300,000 tons pear year of polluting waste produced by coal plants that was cited in another of the links from my post. Seems like we're in pretty deep 

No structure / facility man made can survive  the time it'd take to watch over radio active waste.

That waste is also INCOMPARABLE with coal waste in terms of danger.

1_ nooq waste is weaponable, making it a target
2_ nooq waste requires ACTIVE cooling for 10s of years
3_ MUCH of our existing waste sits on above ground storage pools, a target, and impossible to seriously defend.

The economics of it is a through failure.   If you can not even generate enough power to offset what it will cost to STOP using the plant/material, then  the entire endeavor is a NET LOSS.   In this case a MAJOR net loss.

Radiation knows no borders. It's Invisible, and the most toxic substance in existence.

Germany who are decommissioning, have proven that Concentric rings drawn around power plants correlates with rise in leukemia cases.

The Tritiated water is impossible to fully filter, and when it gets into the environment, it wrecks havok on marine life as it bio-accumulates in that system's food chain.

Try wandering around a fly ash pile with a geiger counter some time- https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/

[tp4tissue]

Try wandering around a fly ash pile with a geiger counter some time- https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/

Friend Larefni, gotta read the footnotes. That is a bull**** propoganda article paid for by the industry.

footnote-
"As a general clarification, ounce for ounce, coal ash released from a power plant delivers more radiation than nuclear waste shielded via water or dry cask storage." --


They're saying, oh, if you Cover up the radioactive waste with an active containment system,  ie storage pool, which is just a giant pool of Actively cooled water,   or  Vulcanize the reactorwaste to store in expensive Steel+ Cement casing (dry cask),  it will emit less radiation  than Completely unshielded coal ash.

WELL NO DUH.   That doesn't change the fact that nuclear waste is BILLIONS of Times more radioactive than Coal Ash.  That's why it needs the active containment in the first place.

What if the Power to the Cooling pool fails, Power goes out all the time even under the best circumstances, what happens when the Dry Casks breach , Again, remember ALL containment for radioactive waste are Active containment, and degrade and embrittle due to Neutron damage, They have to be done again and Again, basically FOREVER up to 100,000 years.