Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Good article on Quillette:
So nuclear is not only objectively the safest energy source there is in deaths per unit of energy produced, but it's also the only one proven to reduce emissions and doesn't lead to price increases that renewables seem to. In fact, if Germany and California had used all the money wasted on renewables on nuclear, they'd already be at 100 clean power.

Oh yeah, and investment in nuclear power is something 54 percent of Republicans support, compared with 30 percent of the party of science.

Environmentalism can either be about feeling good or doing good. If you want to do good, then people need to stop the diaper-wetting over nuclear power.

We'll bury the rods under your house.....or better yet under the homes of your future grandchildren.

Coming from a guy that buries his rod in anything.

It sounds like a fair deal

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

mainejeff wrote:We'll bury the rods under your house.....or better yet under the homes of your future grandchildren.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshe ... ed8f37562e

This argument has been shot down as well.

It's a very energy-dense fuel.

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:Coming from a guy that buries his rod in anything.

It sounds like a fair deal

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

STFU closet case.

I have always been pro nuclear power.

dbackjon wrote:I have always been pro nuclear power.

dbackjon wrote:I have always been pro nuclear power.

Yes, you have been consistent about that. They just need to make better choices about WHERE they build them...but I think its a moot point. The green Nazis won't allow another plant to be built in my lifetime.

I come from a nuclear family, so I am very supportive of this effort.

Should've been building these things for the last 10-20 years. If you are worried about climate change then you also have to be pro-nuclear - anything other than that and you're just tilting windmills.

The ability to build plants with a design that does not produce large amounts of spent fuel are out there. The pebble bed reactor design come to mind.

Instead of having massive transmission lines and the loses that come with transmitting power over long distances, a smaller power plant could be built near the areas of highest demand. Save on energy and maybe costs as you don't have large transmission lines running through peoples back yard. Plus it makes the grid much more robust.

AZGrizFan wrote:

dbackjon wrote:I have always been pro nuclear power.

Yes, you have been consistent about that. They just need to make better choices about WHERE they build them...but I think its a moot point. The green Nazis won't allow another plant to be built in my lifetime.

Just build it anyway fuck those anti progress MFers

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Winterborn wrote:The ability to build plants with a design that does not produce large amounts of spent fuel are out there. The pebble bed reactor design come to mind.

Instead of having massive transmission lines and the loses that come with transmitting power over long distances, a smaller power plant could be built near the areas of highest demand. Save on energy and maybe costs as you don't have large transmission lines running through peoples back yard. Plus it makes the grid much more robust.

yup - many of the fires in the West have been caused by transmission lines.

Dispersed generation solves a lot of those issues - when doing solar, the large projects don't make much sense - just emphasis rooftop/parking lot solar.

I’ve talked about a robust nuclear grid supported by hundreds of small, compact reactors (instead of a few huge vulnerable ones) until I was blue in the face. I won’t repeat all that again (but board archivist and historian Jelly might do me a solid and link some of my posts)

The days of unthinking Jackson Browne nuclear activism need to end. It’s time to solve our emissions and energy problems in one big sweep


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

CID and Jon are on the same page, Armageddon is nigh ...

I'm fine with nuclear power generation but at some point our species is going to have to find a way to rely on renewable energy sources. If it's not a renewable energy source that means if we use it we're eventually going to run out of it.

Everybody that's "in the know" already knows...
Our global emissions issues are just a Chinese hoax

That's straight from the President of the United States mouth
So you know it's true

Chizzang wrote:Everybody that's "in the know" already knows...
Our global emissions issues are just a Chinese hoax

That's straight from the President of the United States mouth
So you know it's true

Speaking of China (and India), how will the Green New Deal impact them?

Will they also reduce their CO2 outputs to neutral (well, India wil not kill their fart machines because the Hindus worship them)...

And, yes, I support nuclear power and the idea of building small units to power metro and surrounding areas is good, because the logistician in me says to do that, they have to crank out a cookie-cutter model...

One thing that has been an albatross around the nuclear power industries neck is the fact that almost every current nuclear power plant is a new design...no standardized models...

Chizzang wrote:Everybody that's "in the know" already knows...
Our global emissions issues are just a Chinese hoax

That's straight from the President of the United States mouth
So you know it's true

It isn't a Chinese hoax but it is certainly a Chinese problem.

Occasior Cloretz said that since she's the only person offering solutions to climate Armageddon that makes her "the boss".

But I have a solution too - nuke China! (It is about as practical as the Green New Deal, but it is certainly more do-able and lower cost.We already have the nukes.)

with my solution to climate change - I guess that makes me the co-boss.

AZGrizFan wrote:

dbackjon wrote:I have always been pro nuclear power.

Yes, you have been consistent about that. They just need to make better choices about WHERE they build them...but I think its a moot point. The green Nazis won't allow another plant to be built in my lifetime.

MSRs and pebble bed reactors are worth a serious effort.

The solution to our energy issues isn't producing more energy; a new grid is where the money should be invested before anything having to do with production. You'd think more R&D would be directed toward figuring a way to move energy from space to ground.

CID1990 wrote:I’ve talked about a robust nuclear grid supported by hundreds of small, compact reactors (instead of a few huge vulnerable ones) until I was blue in the face. I won’t repeat all that again (but board archivist and historian Jelly might do me a solid and link some of my posts)

The days of unthinking Jackson Browne nuclear activism need to end. It’s time to solve our emissions and energy problems in one big sweep


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They did have their place when we were trying to site plants on earthquake faults and hiring contractors that couldn't read blueprints, but things have evolved and its time for a fresh look since we'll never be capable of the real big picture solution.

Col Hogan wrote:

Chizzang wrote:Everybody that's "in the know" already knows...
Our global emissions issues are just a Chinese hoax

That's straight from the President of the United States mouth
So you know it's true

Speaking of China (and India), how will the Green New Deal impact them?

Will they also reduce their CO2 outputs to neutral (well, India wil not kill their fart machines because the Hindus worship them)...

And, yes, I support nuclear power and the idea of building small units to power metro and surrounding areas is good, because the logistician in me says to do that, they have to crank out a cookie-cutter model...

One thing that has been an albatross around the nuclear power industries neck is the fact that almost every current nuclear power plant is a new design...no standardized models...

In his book Planet China, travel writer J. Maarten Troost, (Sex Lives of Cannibals, Getting Stoned With Savages), reports that the Chinese are fully aware of the environmental impact they are having and will continue to have. They consider it the unfortunate price they have to pay as they assume their rightful place as the leader of the world.

houndawg wrote:

CID1990 wrote:I’ve talked about a robust nuclear grid supported by hundreds of small, compact reactors (instead of a few huge vulnerable ones) until I was blue in the face. I won’t repeat all that again (but board archivist and historian Jelly might do me a solid and link some of my posts)

The days of unthinking Jackson Browne nuclear activism need to end. It’s time to solve our emissions and energy problems in one big sweep


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They did have their place when we were trying to site plants on earthquake faults and hiring contractors that couldn't read blueprints, but things have evolved and its time for a fresh look since we'll never be capable of the real big picture solution.

Yes they did. in those days our policy was to keep our fissile material in huge caches... and our nuke plants were massive

the idea being that it was easier to protect fewer sites. So we put all our eggs in a few very large baskets. those large plants are especially vulnerable to natural disaster (see Fukushima)

We have had the answer since the 1950s and we have refused to acknowledge it - ADM Rickover’s Navy. We had so many of these accident free nuke plants traveling around the world freely- with NO accidents, ever. And the tech has advanced so far since then

It is not a half measure or a second best option...it is THE option

Our successful descendants are completely energy independent for the next 1000 years on nuclear fission and they will populate the entire solar system

Our unsuccessful descendants are mucking about 200 years fro
now, refusing nuke power and trying to figure out how to feed 12 billion people who cant get a man outside the orbit of our own moon


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

CID1990 wrote:

houndawg wrote:
They did have their place when we were trying to site plants on earthquake faults and hiring contractors that couldn't read blueprints, but things have evolved and its time for a fresh look since we'll never be capable of the real big picture solution.

Yes they did. in those days our policy was to keep our fissile material in huge caches... and our nuke plants were massive

the idea being that it was easier to protect fewer sites. So we put all our eggs in a few very large baskets. those large plants are especially vulnerable to natural disaster (see Fukushima)

We have had the answer since the 1950s and we have refused to acknowledge it - ADM Rickover’s Navy. We had so many of these accident free nuke plants traveling around the world freely- with NO accidents, ever. And the tech has advanced so far since then

It is not a half measure or a second best option...it is THE option

Our successful descendants are completely energy independent for the next 1000 years on nuclear fission and they will populate the entire solar system

Our unsuccessful descendants are mucking about 200 years fro
now, refusing nuke power and trying to figure out how to feed 12 billion people who cant get a man outside the orbit of our own moon


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Scorpion? Thresher? Exceptions that prove the rule?

houndawg wrote: Scorpion? Thresher? Exceptions that prove the rule?

Read a history book FFS. Neither one of those suffered a reactor accident.

Several theories and explanations have been given as the cause of the loss, but none are conclusive. Some have suggested that attack by a Soviet submarine caused Scorpion’s loss. However, the most likely cause was the activation of a torpedo by mistake at the time of inspection. The torpedo, in a fully ready condition and without a propeller guard, then began a live run within the tube.

After a thorough examination of photographs, objects recovered from the bottom, and records of the sub’s construction and maintenance, a Court of Inquiry concluded that THRESHER’s troubles likely began with the joints in her saltwater piping system, many of which had been brazed rather than welded. (Welding involves the heating to melting and direct joining of two pieces of metal, whereas brazing uses another material, one that melts at a lower temperature, to “glue” two pieces of metal together. In THRESHER’s case, a silver alloy was used as “glue.”) It has been theorized that at least one of those joints failed, permitting seawater to leak into the boat and short out an electrical panel which in turn triggered a scram, or shutdown, of the reactor. Without a means of propulsion, THRESHER, gaining weight as water flooded in through the failed joint, began to sink.