Practical Energy Discussion: Bring Back Nuclear To Abate Climate Change

[daveman]

And when one plant goes down, the entire city is out of power because the grid will have a hard time picking up the slack.

If generation is decentralized, and a neighborhood-sized plant goes down, the grid can pick it up easily.

right now the grid supplies power from phoenix, to los angelos, with no problem. How is that a problem if we power los angeles with Nuclear Power. Further, California imports power from coal burning plants in Wyoming, so again, how is the grid a problem? It is not. And, further, today, a Nuclear power plant built 30 years ago will operate for 500 days straight without going down! So again, the problem you invented, is not based on reality. Even when San Onofre Units 2 and 3 were shutdown, there was no interruption of power.

gee, that was not so hard to knock down your comment, maybe next time......

It's the All Your Eggs In One Basket theory.

 

[elektra]

It's the All Your Eggs In One Basket theory.

No, it is the Theory of Nuclear Power. The application of which is proven safe and reliable. India has a nuclear power plant run for 895 days straight. Canada has a reactor that operated for 894 days!

Today, we could build a reactor that would operate for 30 years.

Why do you have a problem with our current technology?

 

[daveman]

It's the All Your Eggs In One Basket theory.

No, it is the Theory of Nuclear Power. The application of which is proven safe and reliable. India has a nuclear power plant run for 895 days straight. Canada has a reactor that operated for 894 days!

Today, we could build a reactor that would operate for 30 years.

Why do you have a problem with our current technology?

I don't. But we can do even better. Do you have a problem with doing better?

 

[elektra]

I don't. But we can do even better. Do you have a problem with doing better?

With Nuclear Technology, we can do better? We are operating 30 year old Nuclear power plants with zero problems. We have technology today to replace all those old reactors with new reactors that can operate for years with maintenance. Technology ready and waiting to be built. Doing better does not require research. Doing better does not require new reactor technology. That is all done, we need to build, period. And what we need to build needs to be able to provide power to industry, not the households of Los Angeles.

Do you have a problem with our proven technology being built today so that early tomorrow our lives are better and do you prefer a 20 year plan to research something else?

 

[elektra]

It's the All Your Eggs In One Basket theory.

No, it is the Theory of Nuclear Power. The application of which is proven safe and reliable. India has a nuclear power plant run for 895 days straight. Canada has a reactor that operated for 894 days!

Today, we could build a reactor that would operate for 30 years.

Why do you have a problem with our current technology?

I don't. But we can do even better. Do you have a problem with doing better?

I think you are on the same page as me but are kind of missing the point. Point being we have great modern advanced designs that do not need to be scaled down to mini reactors that really wont provide the power industry needs.

Los Angeles and all of California needs large scale nuclear power. To pump water and to desalinize water. You wont do that with mini reactors. 90% of the power california uses pumps water.

 

[Weatherman2020]

New safer technologies are out there, including ones that use spent fuel rods for power. Nation could focus on a nuclear program similar to Eisenhower’s Interstate Highway System. The environmental impact of solar and wind is finally being considered. Energy density is the new buzzword. Listen to what a committed environmentalist says about our energy policy.

The Left knows manmade climate change is a hoax, that’s why they continue to hate nuclear power.

 

[daveman]

I don't. But we can do even better. Do you have a problem with doing better?

With Nuclear Technology, we can do better? We are operating 30 year old Nuclear power plants with zero problems. We have technology today to replace all those old reactors with new reactors that can operate for years with maintenance. Technology ready and waiting to be built. Doing better does not require research. Doing better does not require new reactor technology. That is all done, we need to build, period. And what we need to build needs to be able to provide power to industry, not the households of Los Angeles.

Do you have a problem with our proven technology being built today so that early tomorrow our lives are better and do you prefer a 20 year plan to research something else?

R&D should ALWAYS continue, because we can ALWAYS do better. State-of-the-art is a temporary condition.

Build plants with current technology. Definitely. But don't stop looking for new ways.

 

[daveman]

It's the All Your Eggs In One Basket theory.

No, it is the Theory of Nuclear Power. The application of which is proven safe and reliable. India has a nuclear power plant run for 895 days straight. Canada has a reactor that operated for 894 days!

Today, we could build a reactor that would operate for 30 years.

Why do you have a problem with our current technology?

I don't. But we can do even better. Do you have a problem with doing better?

I think you are on the same page as me but are kind of missing the point. Point being we have great modern advanced designs that do not need to be scaled down to mini reactors that really wont provide the power industry needs.

Los Angeles and all of California needs large scale nuclear power. To pump water and to desalinize water. You wont do that with mini reactors. 90% of the power california uses pumps water.

Los Angeles and all of California are not the entire nation. Mini reactors would be great for isolated towns in Alaska and the northern tier.

 

[elektra]

Los Angeles and all of California are not the entire nation. Mini reactors would be great for isolated towns in Alaska and the northern tier.

Let us not put all our eggs in one basket? By building egg like reactors everywhere.

 

[daveman]

Los Angeles and all of California are not the entire nation. Mini reactors would be great for isolated towns in Alaska and the northern tier.

Let us not put all our eggs in one basket? By building egg like reactors everywhere.

Why do you think a simpler, smaller design would be less safe?

 

[candycorn]

There have been several deaths in the US Civilian Nuclear Power industry.
Happy to assist you with factual evidence.

Using your criteria for deaths, it can be said the Navy's record is outright dismal.

Yet, your link explicitly states that there have zero deaths associated with a commercial nuclear power reactor? No deaths handling fuel. No deaths doing maintenance to the reactor. No deaths in the reactor building? No deaths as a result of radiation.

You do know that the navy does not do maintenance on their reactors?

That is performed by civilians. Same civilians that do the maintenance on commercial nuclear reactors.

Okay, civilians maintain Navy reactors. And the Navy writes the standards to which the work is to be performed. Regardless if the civilians are DoD civilians or contractors, the Navy writes the standards.

I’m always puzzled at those who applaud the professionalism of our soldiers and sailors then, when you suggest that they can play a bigger role (when legal), they trash our uniformed women and men.

None I think. Why?

Zero deaths doesn't sound incredibly unsafe.

Ok

Happy to help you with the facts.

Now if you can only address the safety record:

Nuclear reactor accidents in the United States - Wikipedia

PS: There have been several deaths in the US Civilian Nuclear Power industry.
Happy to assist you with factual evidence.

What's wrong with the safety record?
Something like 20% of our power generation with zero fatalities due to the "nuclear" portion of nuclear power.

You care to address any of the incidents and fatalities mentioned in the link?

Of course you don’t.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

There have been several deaths in the US Civilian Nuclear Power industry.
Happy to assist you with factual evidence.

Using your criteria for deaths, it can be said the Navy's record is outright dismal.

Yet, your link explicitly states that there have zero deaths associated with a commercial nuclear power reactor? No deaths handling fuel. No deaths doing maintenance to the reactor. No deaths in the reactor building? No deaths as a result of radiation.

You do know that the navy does not do maintenance on their reactors?

That is performed by civilians. Same civilians that do the maintenance on commercial nuclear reactors.

Okay, civilians maintain Navy reactors. And the Navy writes the standards to which the work is to be performed. Regardless if the civilians are DoD civilians or contractors, the Navy writes the standards.

I’m always puzzled at those who applaud the professionalism of our soldiers and sailors then, when you suggest that they can play a bigger role (when legal), they trash our uniformed women and men.

Zero deaths doesn't sound incredibly unsafe.

Ok

Happy to help you with the facts.

Now if you can only address the safety record:

Nuclear reactor accidents in the United States - Wikipedia

PS: There have been several deaths in the US Civilian Nuclear Power industry.
Happy to assist you with factual evidence.

What's wrong with the safety record?
Something like 20% of our power generation with zero fatalities due to the "nuclear" portion of nuclear power.

You care to address any of the incidents and fatalities mentioned in the link?

Of course you don’t.

Workers electrocuting themselves or falling off ladders or any of the other myriad industrial accidents that occur everyday, while tragic, aren't an indictment of "unsafe nuclear power" in America.

 

[candycorn]

There have been several deaths in the US Civilian Nuclear Power industry.
Happy to assist you with factual evidence.

Using your criteria for deaths, it can be said the Navy's record is outright dismal.

Yet, your link explicitly states that there have zero deaths associated with a commercial nuclear power reactor? No deaths handling fuel. No deaths doing maintenance to the reactor. No deaths in the reactor building? No deaths as a result of radiation.

You do know that the navy does not do maintenance on their reactors?

That is performed by civilians. Same civilians that do the maintenance on commercial nuclear reactors.

Okay, civilians maintain Navy reactors. And the Navy writes the standards to which the work is to be performed. Regardless if the civilians are DoD civilians or contractors, the Navy writes the standards.

I’m always puzzled at those who applaud the professionalism of our soldiers and sailors then, when you suggest that they can play a bigger role (when legal), they trash our uniformed women and men.

Ok

Happy to help you with the facts.

Now if you can only address the safety record:

Nuclear reactor accidents in the United States - Wikipedia

PS: There have been several deaths in the US Civilian Nuclear Power industry.
Happy to assist you with factual evidence.

What's wrong with the safety record?
Something like 20% of our power generation with zero fatalities due to the "nuclear" portion of nuclear power.

You care to address any of the incidents and fatalities mentioned in the link?

Of course you don’t.

Workers electrocuting themselves or falling off ladders or any of the other myriad industrial accidents that occur everyday, while tragic, aren't an indictment of "unsafe nuclear power" in America.

Oh brother

 

[elektra]

You care to address any of the incidents and fatalities mentioned in the link?

Of course you don’t.

Why should I? You did not and it is your link. You did not read your own link. No fatalities or incidents are mentioned relating to commercial nuclear power.

How about you quoting your own link, and then you can show us what fatality you are speaking of. Go ahead and try.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

There have been several deaths in the US Civilian Nuclear Power industry.
Happy to assist you with factual evidence.

Using your criteria for deaths, it can be said the Navy's record is outright dismal.

Yet, your link explicitly states that there have zero deaths associated with a commercial nuclear power reactor? No deaths handling fuel. No deaths doing maintenance to the reactor. No deaths in the reactor building? No deaths as a result of radiation.

You do know that the navy does not do maintenance on their reactors?

That is performed by civilians. Same civilians that do the maintenance on commercial nuclear reactors.

Okay, civilians maintain Navy reactors. And the Navy writes the standards to which the work is to be performed. Regardless if the civilians are DoD civilians or contractors, the Navy writes the standards.

I’m always puzzled at those who applaud the professionalism of our soldiers and sailors then, when you suggest that they can play a bigger role (when legal), they trash our uniformed women and men.

Happy to help you with the facts.

Now if you can only address the safety record:

Nuclear reactor accidents in the United States - Wikipedia

PS: There have been several deaths in the US Civilian Nuclear Power industry.
Happy to assist you with factual evidence.

What's wrong with the safety record?
Something like 20% of our power generation with zero fatalities due to the "nuclear" portion of nuclear power.

You care to address any of the incidents and fatalities mentioned in the link?

Of course you don’t.

Workers electrocuting themselves or falling off ladders or any of the other myriad industrial accidents that occur everyday, while tragic, aren't an indictment of "unsafe nuclear power" in America.

Oh brother

I agree, your claim, "Private industry has a spotty safety record at best"

Was spotty at best.

 

[daveman]

There have been several deaths in the US Civilian Nuclear Power industry.
Happy to assist you with factual evidence.

Using your criteria for deaths, it can be said the Navy's record is outright dismal.

Yet, your link explicitly states that there have zero deaths associated with a commercial nuclear power reactor? No deaths handling fuel. No deaths doing maintenance to the reactor. No deaths in the reactor building? No deaths as a result of radiation.

You do know that the navy does not do maintenance on their reactors?

That is performed by civilians. Same civilians that do the maintenance on commercial nuclear reactors.

Okay, civilians maintain Navy reactors. And the Navy writes the standards to which the work is to be performed. Regardless if the civilians are DoD civilians or contractors, the Navy writes the standards.

I’m always puzzled at those who applaud the professionalism of our soldiers and sailors then, when you suggest that they can play a bigger role (when legal), they trash our uniformed women and men.

The Navy's doing it the right way. You want experienced people maintaining critical equipment. Military members are fairly transitory. They separate from the service or get assignments elsewhere. And then their experience on that particular equipment is lost. That's just the way the military is, and it works for the military's mission.

DoD civilians and contractors provide long-term experience and continuity. I have no problem with state government-owned nuclear power plants with Navy oversight.

 

[elektra]

There have been several deaths in the US Civilian Nuclear Power industry.
Happy to assist you with factual evidence.

Using your criteria for deaths, it can be said the Navy's record is outright dismal.

Yet, your link explicitly states that there have zero deaths associated with a commercial nuclear power reactor? No deaths handling fuel. No deaths doing maintenance to the reactor. No deaths in the reactor building? No deaths as a result of radiation.

You do know that the navy does not do maintenance on their reactors?

That is performed by civilians. Same civilians that do the maintenance on commercial nuclear reactors.

Okay, civilians maintain Navy reactors. And the Navy writes the standards to which the work is to be performed. Regardless if the civilians are DoD civilians or contractors, the Navy writes the standards.

I’m always puzzled at those who applaud the professionalism of our soldiers and sailors then, when you suggest that they can play a bigger role (when legal), they trash our uniformed women and men.

The Navy's doing it the right way. You want experienced people maintaining critical equipment. Military members are fairly transitory. They separate from the service or get assignments elsewhere. And then their experience on that particular equipment is lost. That's just the way the military is, and it works for the military's mission.

DoD civilians and contractors provide long-term experience and continuity. I have no problem with state government-owned nuclear power plants with Navy oversight.

Ex navy personal already operate our civilian nukes.. either way, people are wrong thinking the navy would make it better.we have a great record of safety.

 

[candycorn]

There have been several deaths in the US Civilian Nuclear Power industry.
Happy to assist you with factual evidence.

Using your criteria for deaths, it can be said the Navy's record is outright dismal.

Yet, your link explicitly states that there have zero deaths associated with a commercial nuclear power reactor? No deaths handling fuel. No deaths doing maintenance to the reactor. No deaths in the reactor building? No deaths as a result of radiation.

You do know that the navy does not do maintenance on their reactors?

That is performed by civilians. Same civilians that do the maintenance on commercial nuclear reactors.

Okay, civilians maintain Navy reactors. And the Navy writes the standards to which the work is to be performed. Regardless if the civilians are DoD civilians or contractors, the Navy writes the standards.

I’m always puzzled at those who applaud the professionalism of our soldiers and sailors then, when you suggest that they can play a bigger role (when legal), they trash our uniformed women and men.

The Navy's doing it the right way. You want experienced people maintaining critical equipment. Military members are fairly transitory. They separate from the service or get assignments elsewhere. And then their experience on that particular equipment is lost. That's just the way the military is, and it works for the military's mission.

DoD civilians and contractors provide long-term experience and continuity. I have no problem with state government-owned nuclear power plants with Navy oversight.

Ex navy personal already operate our civilian nukes.. either way, people are wrong thinking the navy would make it better.we have a great record of safety.

They do? Every nuke plant is run by someone who is ex navy? Really?

 

[daveman]

There have been several deaths in the US Civilian Nuclear Power industry.
Happy to assist you with factual evidence.

Using your criteria for deaths, it can be said the Navy's record is outright dismal.

Yet, your link explicitly states that there have zero deaths associated with a commercial nuclear power reactor? No deaths handling fuel. No deaths doing maintenance to the reactor. No deaths in the reactor building? No deaths as a result of radiation.

You do know that the navy does not do maintenance on their reactors?

That is performed by civilians. Same civilians that do the maintenance on commercial nuclear reactors.

Okay, civilians maintain Navy reactors. And the Navy writes the standards to which the work is to be performed. Regardless if the civilians are DoD civilians or contractors, the Navy writes the standards.

I’m always puzzled at those who applaud the professionalism of our soldiers and sailors then, when you suggest that they can play a bigger role (when legal), they trash our uniformed women and men.

The Navy's doing it the right way. You want experienced people maintaining critical equipment. Military members are fairly transitory. They separate from the service or get assignments elsewhere. And then their experience on that particular equipment is lost. That's just the way the military is, and it works for the military's mission.

DoD civilians and contractors provide long-term experience and continuity. I have no problem with state government-owned nuclear power plants with Navy oversight.

Ex navy personal already operate our civilian nukes.. either way, people are wrong thinking the navy would make it better.we have a great record of safety.

I think we're done here.

 

[elektra]

They do? Every nuke plant is run by someone who is ex navy? Really?

You are a very special kind of stupid, aren't you.

Yes, Navy personal that leave or retire from the military apply for jobs, and get them, at our Commercial Nuclear Power Plants.

Where do you think ex-sailors with Nuclear experience go? 7/11 to sell you Slurpees?

Grow the fuck up!