Vermont just replaced its only only nuclear reactor with fossil fuels obtained from fracking

[Jarlaxle]

--- yeah until you get to the waste left behind.

Oopsie.

Even after that. Liberal paranoia doesn't mean nuclear waste is actually an insoluble problem. Liberals simply don't want it to be solved.

shoot it into outer space....

Build a few new-generation reactors...not only do they generate no waste, they actually CONSUME it!

 

[BluesLegend]

--- yeah until you get to the waste left behind.

Oopsie.

Even after that. Liberal paranoia doesn't mean nuclear waste is actually an insoluble problem. Liberals simply don't want it to be solved.

shoot it into outer space....

Build a few new-generation reactors...not only do they generate no waste, they actually CONSUME it!

Interesting, its amazing to me just how much energy is locked away in an atom. A few years ago the science channel had a story on several efforts to develop fusion reactors it sounded like some were getting close.

 

[bripat9643]

Very stupid move. Nuclear is probably the cleanest and greenest source of energy that put source the most.

Until it blows up and takes out 1/4th of all your agricultural production like chernobyl.

I'm mixed on nuclear power. Yes it's highly effective but only the French have designed safe reactors.

And the psychotic US govt will never allow them to be built in the US because they cannot be used to produce weapons grade plutonium.

Chernobyl didn't blow up. It caught on fire because the core was made of graphite, a highly combustible substance. American reactors cannot catch on fire. They're made of stainless steel and concrete.

 

[IDNeon]

Very stupid move. Nuclear is probably the cleanest and greenest source of energy that put source the most.

Until it blows up and takes out 1/4th of all your agricultural production like chernobyl.

I'm mixed on nuclear power. Yes it's highly effective but only the French have designed safe reactors.

And the psychotic US govt will never allow them to be built in the US because they cannot be used to produce weapons grade plutonium.

Chernobyl didn't blow up. It caught on fire because the core was made of graphite, a highly combustible substance. American reactors cannot catch on fire. They're made of stainless steel and concrete.

Graphite-moderated reactor - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Why is nuclear grade graphite used as a moderator and is better than other moderator and why is it more economical than others

US has plenty of graphite reactors you dumb shit bag.

SUCK ON A NUTTY PIECE OF SHIT, full of undigested corn you nasty mother fucker of ignorance.

 

[bripat9643]

Very stupid move. Nuclear is probably the cleanest and greenest source of energy that put source the most.

Until it blows up and takes out 1/4th of all your agricultural production like chernobyl.

I'm mixed on nuclear power. Yes it's highly effective but only the French have designed safe reactors.

And the psychotic US govt will never allow them to be built in the US because they cannot be used to produce weapons grade plutonium.

Chernobyl didn't blow up. It caught on fire because the core was made of graphite, a highly combustible substance. American reactors cannot catch on fire. They're made of stainless steel and concrete.

Graphite-moderated reactor - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

US has plenty of graphite reactors you dumb shit bag.

SUCK ON A NUTTY PIECE OF SHIT, full of undigested corn you nasty mother fucker of ignorance.

Really? Aside from the experimental reactor at Oakridge, can you name one?

I know it sucks being wrong all the time, but that's no reason for being so nasty.

 

[IDNeon]

Very stupid move. Nuclear is probably the cleanest and greenest source of energy that put source the most.

Until it blows up and takes out 1/4th of all your agricultural production like chernobyl.

I'm mixed on nuclear power. Yes it's highly effective but only the French have designed safe reactors.

And the psychotic US govt will never allow them to be built in the US because they cannot be used to produce weapons grade plutonium.

Chernobyl didn't blow up. It caught on fire because the core was made of graphite, a highly combustible substance. American reactors cannot catch on fire. They're made of stainless steel and concrete.

Graphite-moderated reactor - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

US has plenty of graphite reactors you dumb shit bag.

SUCK ON A NUTTY PIECE OF SHIT, full of undigested corn you nasty mother fucker of ignorance.

Really? Aside from the experimental reactor at Oakridge, can you name one?

I know it sucks being wrong all the time, but that's no reason for being so nasty.

Most all of them which rely upon prismatic graphite moderators.

You know NOTHING.

The basic technology for inert gas-cooled HTGR design is well established from the early graphite piles of the 1940s to the fully commercial reactor designs operating in the 1980s. These past designs represent the two primary core configurations commercially favored for gas reactors; the solid-block prismatic or the pebble-bed graphite core. While the USA has focused on a prismatic design,

 

[Jarlaxle]

Very stupid move. Nuclear is probably the cleanest and greenest source of energy that put source the most.

Until it blows up and takes out 1/4th of all your agricultural production like chernobyl.

Stupid premise. Anyone drawing ANY comparison between Chornobyl and ANY western reactor is ignorant, stupid, or dishonest. Chornobyl was a poorly-designed, poorly-maintained graphite core reactor. It had no containment building, the people running it actually didn't know exactly how it worked (seriously), and in a display of stunning idiocy, many safety systems were disabled and safety procedures were ignored.

I'm mixed on nuclear power. Yes it's highly effective but only the French have designed safe reactors.

Pablum.

And the psychotic US govt will never allow them to be built in the US because they cannot be used to produce weapons grade plutonium.

Are you stoned?

 

[IDNeon]

Very stupid move. Nuclear is probably the cleanest and greenest source of energy that put source the most.

Until it blows up and takes out 1/4th of all your agricultural production like chernobyl.

Stupid premise. Anyone drawing ANY comparison between Chornobyl and ANY western reactor is ignorant, stupid, or dishonest. Chornobyl was a poorly-designed, poorly-maintained graphite core reactor. It had no containment building, the people running it actually didn't know exactly how it worked (seriously), and in a display of stunning idiocy, many safety systems were disabled and safety procedures were ignored.

I'm mixed on nuclear power. Yes it's highly effective but only the French have designed safe reactors.

Pablum.

And the psychotic US govt will never allow them to be built in the US because they cannot be used to produce weapons grade plutonium.

Are you stoned?

Are you a nuclear physicist who specializes in Nuclear power plant architecture?

No?

Then no one gives a fuck what you think about Chernobyl's supposed design flaws. I wish I had a picture of shit I could post on here and call it you.

 

[Freewill]

Very stupid move. Nuclear is probably the cleanest and greenest source of energy that put source the most.

Until it blows up and takes out 1/4th of all your agricultural production like chernobyl.

I'm mixed on nuclear power. Yes it's highly effective but only the French have designed safe reactors.

And the psychotic US govt will never allow them to be built in the US because they cannot be used to produce weapons grade plutonium.

Why do you say that the French have safe reactors implying that the US does not? Not one person has died in an accident related to commercial nuclear power accident.

Not "one", true.... thousands.

Wood River, Rhode Island 1964 (1)
Chernobyl, Ukraine 1986 (50 killed directly, up to 4000 indirectly from exposure)
Mihama, Japan 2004 (5)

None of which, except for the WHO Chernobyl estimate, along with the long litany of lesser "events" that happen almost daily, counts those including innocent civilians exposed to radiation downwind/downstream --- including TMI and recently Fukushima.

I still see seafood in the store that was canned in Poland. I still won't buy it. Way too close to Ukraine. But somebody is selling it.

Then of course there are the oxymoronically-called "near misses":

We won't count Idaho Falls (1961) as you did qualify "commercial". But it's the same technology; the fact that some entity does or doesn't make money on it doesn't affect that.


"Hey, you got a storage space? I tell ya what, I've got this waste product here, would you mind storing it? It's only gonna be lethal for a period of time longer than humans have existed on earth. What could possibly go wrong?"

 

[Freewill]

Very stupid move. Nuclear is probably the cleanest and greenest source of energy that put source the most.

Until it blows up and takes out 1/4th of all your agricultural production like chernobyl.

I'm mixed on nuclear power. Yes it's highly effective but only the French have designed safe reactors.

And the psychotic US govt will never allow them to be built in the US because they cannot be used to produce weapons grade plutonium.

Why do you say that the French have safe reactors implying that the US does not? Not one person has died in an accident related to commercial nuclear power accident.

Not "one", true.... thousands.

Wood River, Rhode Island 1964 (1)
Chernobyl, Ukraine 1986 (50 killed directly, up to 4000 indirectly from exposure)
Mihama, Japan 2004 (5)

None of which, except for the WHO Chernobyl estimate, along with the long litany of lesser "events" that happen almost daily, counts those including innocent civilians exposed to radiation downwind/downstream --- including TMI and recently Fukushima.

I still see seafood in the store that was canned in Poland. I still won't buy it. Way too close to Ukraine. But somebody is selling it.

Then of course there are the oxymoronically-called "near misses":

We won't count Idaho Falls (1961) as you did qualify "commercial". But it's the same technology; the fact that some entity does or doesn't make money on it doesn't affect that.


"Hey, you got a storage space? I tell ya what, I've got this waste product here, would you mind storing it? It's only gonna be lethal for a period of time longer than humans have existed on earth. What could possibly go wrong?"

The comparison was made between the US and France not Russia.

The accident I think you are referring to in Idaho was SL-1. Not exactly a commerical design both in function or form. The accident happened because the main control rod was suddeningly MANUALLY pulled from the core. The resultant heating of the water caused the explosion that killed the man.

It has nothing to do with commercial nuclear power except to point out the vast amount of power within.

Hey, you got an arid desert that is remote so I can bury some nuclear waste? I sure don't want to keep it anywhere near population areas.

 

[bripat9643]

Very stupid move. Nuclear is probably the cleanest and greenest source of energy that put source the most.

Until it blows up and takes out 1/4th of all your agricultural production like chernobyl.

I'm mixed on nuclear power. Yes it's highly effective but only the French have designed safe reactors.

And the psychotic US govt will never allow them to be built in the US because they cannot be used to produce weapons grade plutonium.

Chernobyl didn't blow up. It caught on fire because the core was made of graphite, a highly combustible substance. American reactors cannot catch on fire. They're made of stainless steel and concrete.

Graphite-moderated reactor - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

US has plenty of graphite reactors you dumb shit bag.

SUCK ON A NUTTY PIECE OF SHIT, full of undigested corn you nasty mother fucker of ignorance.

Really? Aside from the experimental reactor at Oakridge, can you name one?

I know it sucks being wrong all the time, but that's no reason for being so nasty.

Most all of them which rely upon prismatic graphite moderators.

You know NOTHING.

The basic technology for inert gas-cooled HTGR design is well established from the early graphite piles of the 1940s to the fully commercial reactor designs operating in the 1980s. These past designs represent the two primary core configurations commercially favored for gas reactors; the solid-block prismatic or the pebble-bed graphite core. While the USA has focused on a prismatic design,

Name a U.S. Reactor that uses this technology.

 

[Pogo]

Very stupid move. Nuclear is probably the cleanest and greenest source of energy that put source the most.

Until it blows up and takes out 1/4th of all your agricultural production like chernobyl.

I'm mixed on nuclear power. Yes it's highly effective but only the French have designed safe reactors.

And the psychotic US govt will never allow them to be built in the US because they cannot be used to produce weapons grade plutonium.

Why do you say that the French have safe reactors implying that the US does not? Not one person has died in an accident related to commercial nuclear power accident.

Not "one", true.... thousands.

Wood River, Rhode Island 1964 (1)
Chernobyl, Ukraine 1986 (50 killed directly, up to 4000 indirectly from exposure)
Mihama, Japan 2004 (5)

None of which, except for the WHO Chernobyl estimate, along with the long litany of lesser "events" that happen almost daily, counts those including innocent civilians exposed to radiation downwind/downstream --- including TMI and recently Fukushima.

I still see seafood in the store that was canned in Poland. I still won't buy it. Way too close to Ukraine. But somebody is selling it.

Then of course there are the oxymoronically-called "near misses":

We won't count Idaho Falls (1961) as you did qualify "commercial". But it's the same technology; the fact that some entity does or doesn't make money on it doesn't affect that.


"Hey, you got a storage space? I tell ya what, I've got this waste product here, would you mind storing it? It's only gonna be lethal for a period of time longer than humans have existed on earth. What could possibly go wrong?"

The comparison was made between the US and France not Russia.

The accident I think you are referring to in Idaho was SL-1. Not exactly a commerical design both in function or form. The accident happened because the main control rod was suddeningly MANUALLY pulled from the core. The resultant heating of the water caused the explosion that killed the man.

It has nothing to do with commercial nuclear power except to point out the vast amount of power within.

Hey, you got an arid desert that is remote so I can bury some nuclear waste? I sure don't want to keep it anywhere near population areas.

Sure. Because everybody knows over thousands of years all climate stays the same and that arid desert will always be arid desert. Just as everybody knows humans will never develop stuff like irrigation and aquifiers to make a California, or stuff like bombs that blow things up. Nor is there any such thing as wind or flooding or erosion in a desert, ever, so considering all of that yup the desert is the perfect place to store Forever Death. What could possibly go wrong.

 

[IDNeon]

Until it blows up and takes out 1/4th of all your agricultural production like chernobyl.

I'm mixed on nuclear power. Yes it's highly effective but only the French have designed safe reactors.

And the psychotic US govt will never allow them to be built in the US because they cannot be used to produce weapons grade plutonium.

Chernobyl didn't blow up. It caught on fire because the core was made of graphite, a highly combustible substance. American reactors cannot catch on fire. They're made of stainless steel and concrete.

Graphite-moderated reactor - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

US has plenty of graphite reactors you dumb shit bag.

SUCK ON A NUTTY PIECE OF SHIT, full of undigested corn you nasty mother fucker of ignorance.

Really? Aside from the experimental reactor at Oakridge, can you name one?

I know it sucks being wrong all the time, but that's no reason for being so nasty.

Most all of them which rely upon prismatic graphite moderators.

You know NOTHING.

The basic technology for inert gas-cooled HTGR design is well established from the early graphite piles of the 1940s to the fully commercial reactor designs operating in the 1980s. These past designs represent the two primary core configurations commercially favored for gas reactors; the solid-block prismatic or the pebble-bed graphite core. While the USA has focused on a prismatic design,

Name a U.S. Reactor that uses this technology.

Almost every Nuclear Reactor on Earth uses Graphite moderators.

Synthetic Graphite Powder Nuclear Grade from READE

Are you really this stupid?

I gave several sources that just stated the US uses prismatic Graphite moderators in their reactors.

 

[bripat9643]

Chernobyl didn't blow up. It caught on fire because the core was made of graphite, a highly combustible substance. American reactors cannot catch on fire. They're made of stainless steel and concrete.

Graphite-moderated reactor - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

US has plenty of graphite reactors you dumb shit bag.

SUCK ON A NUTTY PIECE OF SHIT, full of undigested corn you nasty mother fucker of ignorance.

Really? Aside from the experimental reactor at Oakridge, can you name one?

I know it sucks being wrong all the time, but that's no reason for being so nasty.

Most all of them which rely upon prismatic graphite moderators.

You know NOTHING.

The basic technology for inert gas-cooled HTGR design is well established from the early graphite piles of the 1940s to the fully commercial reactor designs operating in the 1980s. These past designs represent the two primary core configurations commercially favored for gas reactors; the solid-block prismatic or the pebble-bed graphite core. While the USA has focused on a prismatic design,

Name a U.S. Reactor that uses this technology.

Almost every Nuclear Reactor on Earth uses Graphite moderators.

Synthetic Graphite Powder Nuclear Grade from READE

Are you really this stupid?

I gave several sources that just stated the US uses prismatic Graphite moderators in their reactors.

They use graphite control rods. The cores are not built out of graphite in most reactors.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Very stupid move. Nuclear is probably the cleanest and greenest source of energy that put source the most.

Until it blows up and takes out 1/4th of all your agricultural production like chernobyl.

I'm mixed on nuclear power. Yes it's highly effective but only the French have designed safe reactors.

And the psychotic US govt will never allow them to be built in the US because they cannot be used to produce weapons grade plutonium.

Chernobyl didn't blow up. It caught on fire because the core was made of graphite, a highly combustible substance. American reactors cannot catch on fire. They're made of stainless steel and concrete.

It did blow up, twice: the reactor overpressurized with steam and exploded. A few seconds later, the core itself exploded.

 

[IDNeon]

Graphite-moderated reactor - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

US has plenty of graphite reactors you dumb shit bag.

SUCK ON A NUTTY PIECE OF SHIT, full of undigested corn you nasty mother fucker of ignorance.

Really? Aside from the experimental reactor at Oakridge, can you name one?

I know it sucks being wrong all the time, but that's no reason for being so nasty.

Most all of them which rely upon prismatic graphite moderators.

You know NOTHING.

The basic technology for inert gas-cooled HTGR design is well established from the early graphite piles of the 1940s to the fully commercial reactor designs operating in the 1980s. These past designs represent the two primary core configurations commercially favored for gas reactors; the solid-block prismatic or the pebble-bed graphite core. While the USA has focused on a prismatic design,

Name a U.S. Reactor that uses this technology.

Almost every Nuclear Reactor on Earth uses Graphite moderators.

Synthetic Graphite Powder Nuclear Grade from READE

Are you really this stupid?

I gave several sources that just stated the US uses prismatic Graphite moderators in their reactors.

They use graphite control rods. The cores are not built out of graphite in most reactors.

The Chernobyl reactor isn't built out of graphite either you moron it was MODERATED by graphite.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Very stupid move. Nuclear is probably the cleanest and greenest source of energy that put source the most.

Until it blows up and takes out 1/4th of all your agricultural production like chernobyl.

Stupid premise. Anyone drawing ANY comparison between Chornobyl and ANY western reactor is ignorant, stupid, or dishonest. Chornobyl was a poorly-designed, poorly-maintained graphite core reactor. It had no containment building, the people running it actually didn't know exactly how it worked (seriously), and in a display of stunning idiocy, many safety systems were disabled and safety procedures were ignored.

I'm mixed on nuclear power. Yes it's highly effective but only the French have designed safe reactors.

Pablum.

And the psychotic US govt will never allow them to be built in the US because they cannot be used to produce weapons grade plutonium.

Are you stoned?

Are you a nuclear physicist who specializes in Nuclear power plant architecture?

No?

Then no one gives a fuck what you think about Chernobyl's supposed design flaws. I wish I had a picture of shit I could post on here and call it you.

Never claimed to be....though the people who described Chernobyl's design and maintenance as "poor" were, dickhead!

Were you born stupid, or is it a side effect of your drug habit?

 

[Jarlaxle]

They use graphite control rods. The cores are not built out of graphite in most reactors.

Actually, Chernobyl's graphite-tipped control rods (and the system's slow insertion speed) were the trigger for the disaster. Rather than slow the reaction, the graphite ACCELERATED it.

 

[IDNeon]

Very stupid move. Nuclear is probably the cleanest and greenest source of energy that put source the most.

Until it blows up and takes out 1/4th of all your agricultural production like chernobyl.

Stupid premise. Anyone drawing ANY comparison between Chornobyl and ANY western reactor is ignorant, stupid, or dishonest. Chornobyl was a poorly-designed, poorly-maintained graphite core reactor. It had no containment building, the people running it actually didn't know exactly how it worked (seriously), and in a display of stunning idiocy, many safety systems were disabled and safety procedures were ignored.

I'm mixed on nuclear power. Yes it's highly effective but only the French have designed safe reactors.

Pablum.

And the psychotic US govt will never allow them to be built in the US because they cannot be used to produce weapons grade plutonium.

Are you stoned?

Are you a nuclear physicist who specializes in Nuclear power plant architecture?

No?

Then no one gives a fuck what you think about Chernobyl's supposed design flaws. I wish I had a picture of shit I could post on here and call it you.

Never claimed to be....though the people who described Chernobyl's design and maintenance as "poor" were, dickhead!

Were you born stupid, or is it a side effect of your drug habit?

I'm just blasting you with too much knowledge.

 

[Jarlaxle]

You wouldn't know "knowledge" if it bit you on the scrotum.