Fukushima disaster; 10yrs on and millions of tonnes of radioactive rubble.

Cypress said:
Your implication that we have only two choices. - new coal plants or new nuclear plants - is a false choice, and not supported by the facts.
Click to expand...

I never said we only had two choices, that's you. I don't know where you come up with that :rolleyes: Of course there's Natural Gas, a lot of coal fired plants are switching from coal.
You sarcastically mention Fukishima as the gold standard response... I just said they should build coal plants as an alternative. Nowhere did I indicate coal was the only alternative. Sheezz :|
 
RB 60 said:
I never said we only had two choices, that's you. I don't know where you come up with that :rolleyes: Of course there's Natural Gas, a lot of coal fired plants are switching from coal.
You sarcastically mention Fukishima as the gold standard response... I just said they should build coal plants as an alternative. Nowhere did I indicate coal was the only alternative. Sheezz :|
Click to expand...

Fair enough
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
God, has it been 10 years already?

I hope that mankind doesn't build a single nuclear plant ever again, but we don't seem very good at remembering history.
Click to expand...

I hope we build lots of new ones to prevailing current standards. As accidents go, Fukushima proves the safety of nuclear power rather than its dangers. Even as poorly constructed as that plant was (there was no secondary containment for example) the number of people injured or dead as a result is far lower than in many conventional industrial accidents. Radioactive materials can be cleaned up and disposed of safely.

It is only ignorance and fear mongering that keeps nuclear power from being the thing that fixes Gorebal Warming cheaply and efficiently.

Owl Woman, a question or three. Do you even know how a nuclear power plant works? How about the dangers of radiation? Can you even name the types of radiation there are?
 
T. A. Gardner said:
I hope we build lots of new ones to prevailing current standards. As accidents go, Fukushima proves the safety of nuclear power rather than its dangers. Even as poorly constructed as that plant was (there was no secondary containment for example) the number of people injured or dead as a result is far lower than in many conventional industrial accidents. Radioactive materials can be cleaned up and disposed of safely.

It is only ignorance and fear mongering that keeps nuclear power from being the thing that fixes Gorebal Warming cheaply and efficiently.

Owl Woman, a question or three. Do you even know how a nuclear power plant works? How about the dangers of radiation? Can you even name the types of radiation there are?
Click to expand...

My son is a senior nuclear plant engineer. Yes, I know how it "works." Now go toddle off and read about the half-life of transuranic waste byproducts such as plutonium.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
My son is a senior nuclear plant engineer. Yes, I know how it "works." Now go toddle off and read about the half-life of transuranic waste byproducts such as plutonium.
Click to expand...

Actually, you don't get plutonium as a biproduct of BWR and PWR reactor operations in recoverable quantity. You do with graphite moderated reactors like the one at Chernobyl.

If your son is in fact a nuclear plant engineer, have him explain how they work to you sometime because he'll tell you what I'm telling you. They are safe, and cleaner to operate than most conventional energy production sources. Because right now, I'm not buying your shtick. Your claim at the end is obviously wrong and just something you're parroting from somewhere.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
He's just another typical low-info Reichtard voter who thinks that nuclear power is perfectly safe. Just the cost of cleanup for the disaster is staggering.

"Dismantling the Fukushima nuclear plant will take at least another 30 years."

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/371/6533/983
Click to expand...

So, TMI got cleaned up and is finished now. Nobody died from that one. Nobody got cancer from it. Fukushima will too.

As an aside, solar is going to hit a major disposal disaster in about 20 to 30 years as the boom in their use sees those today hitting the end of their usable lifetime.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
As an aside, solar is going to hit a major disposal disaster in about 20 to 30 years as the boom in their use sees those today hitting the end of their usable lifetime.
Click to expand...

The storage problem will be solved long before that- and you'll be parroting your pro-radioactive horseshit piffle in the rubber room.
 
moon said:
The storage problem will be solved long before that- and you'll be parroting your pro-radioactive horseshit piffle in the rubber room.
Click to expand...

The long term storage problem for spent nuclear fuel is already solved, it's only retards like you that can barely spell "nuclear" and haven't got a clue how things work that are keeping it from being implemented.
 
moon said:
The storage problem will be solved long before that- and you'll be parroting your pro-radioactive horseshit piffle in the rubber room.
Click to expand...

In 20 or 30 years alternate energy technologies will have evolved so that the contards' fake issues with them will be moot. Nuclear though? In 30 years Fukushima will still be hot, and the Japanese government (and people) will still be paying for the clean-up. Despite the condescending nonsense Gardner spews, nuke energy is neither clean nor cost-efficient. It also takes an inordinate amount of time to build and bring a new plant on line (at least five years, sometimes longer depending on type). We have yet to solve the problem of safely containing waste. Oil, gas, solar, and wind are faster and more cost effective. All energy production comes at a price. A 1000-year contamination in the event of a nuke disaster is not a price many of us feel worth it.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
The long term storage problem for spent nuclear fuel is already solved, it's only retards like you that can barely spell "nuclear" and haven't got a clue how things work that are keeping it from being implemented.
Click to expand...

Retard, eh, nukenuts.


Haw, haw...............................haw.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top