Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Discussion Forum' started by Crni Vuk, Nov 27, 2018.
I prefer SAFE to CHEAP.
Lolwhat? The world of nuclear energy industry achieved unbelievable heights of safety level since 1980s.
Saying "it's not a failure of the plant" doesnt help the simple fact that it blew up and caused a mess for years to come. Also chernobyl hasn't blown due to communist inefficency, but thru simply not operating it correctly during the test. And the same issue could have happened elsewhere too, because graphite wasnt only used by the soviet'S RBMK reactors, but by western NPPs too. In the end the control-rods first intensify the chain-reaction before killing it off. This caused major issues in NPPs in the UK(windscale fire), France(saint-llaurent) and spain(vandellos), or instance.
Financial and technical mismanagement of NPP can also happen in western countries, Tepco in Japan was running their plants too cheaply, skipping on stress-tests and such. In Europe there's Doel and Tihange in Belgium which have several thousand micro-fissures in their pressure vessels (!!), they even need to warm up their cooling water to above 40°C to not put too much stress to the materials. And they're both still running. Why? Cause it saves money.
Current-Gen NPP can't save us, we'd need types. And possibilities to have breeder-like waste-disposal capabilities without being able to create weapons-grade plutonium in them. Otherwise it wont happen.
It's all good until this one quoted. I think for bigger safety, we should have weapon-grade plutonium available to develop nuclear weapon, any competent country should since danger of using the WMD is stopping us all from another world war.
Bad cooling rods design played its role as well, construction flaw removed from modern design long ago.
Sure nuclear isn't perfect, but I didn't say perfect. I said nuclear is the best CURRENT alternative, when we include factors like efficiency, cost to the customer, and being cleaner than most other alternatives.
Well you got me there. I really don't know how much one can prepare for any kind of natural disaster but I will assume they could have done a better job on the contingency side.
Sure YOU do. But I would say most of the population would prefer cheaper sources of power. Not everyone is wealthy enough to have those kinds of standards. And as 0wing has said, nothing is perfect but nuclear is pretty damned safe.
Your average electric bill over here in my state is roughly $200 already. I am not paying the same amount to deal with brown outs to boot.
GE's subcontractor named after funny russian swearing built coastal power plant with eight-point japanese earthquakes (number shifts one point down against Richter) in mind in a region where nine-point earthquakes and 20 meters tall tsunamis are not something out of ordinary.
The difference between the RBMK design and most western designs is that the RBMK has a positive void coefficient, which, coupled with the graphite moderator, is inherently unsafe.
We should have invested in Gen IV reactors much earlier. You have inherent passive safety, much higher efficiency, and quite a few designs that can get rid of current nuclear waste (disclaimer: It will not actually totally get rid of the nuclear waste. What it will do is take the low radioactivity/super long half life waste products that currently have to be safely stored for thousands of years and breed them into usable fuel, leaving highly radioactive waste with very short half lifes, which only have to be stored for a few decades). With that nuclear power can be very useful for a very long time.
Fukushima was the classic example of a Super-GAU. So many things going wrong that almost no amount of engineering can help against that. The only solution would have been not to build a nuclear power plant there, or only one with passive safety features that don't rely on external power to keep the cooling of the cores intact. BWRs are not exactly the greatest designs when it comes to that, I'd say a PWR would have been much better in Fukushima. On the other hand, the earthquake could have potentially damaged the pressure vessel, but that's something that can be controlled when building the reactor, I think.
Big problem that I see with nuclear power plants at the moment is that they're operated waaaaay too profit-driven with waaaay too much government interference to be actually operated properly like that. It led to companies cheating and cutting corners. They should have been operated non-profit with maximum emphasis on safety and efficiency.
The current rise of nationalism is, in my opinion, a direct response to past decades' political efforts to endanger and loosen up the tribes. A conscious effort to introduce multiculturalism was made, and it turned out that the way this was handled did not sit too well with people. Roundabout the past decade paved the way for the current state of the world, and continued efforts to just ignore this and double down on this will only make it worse. As annoying as it is, humans are tribal in nature, and you can't force it away. Yes, we will have to learn to overcome this, but it is not done by preachy academics sending their children to private schools while the rest goes to shit.
We could have happily carried on, with the people currently in the neo-nationalist movements being happy in the classic conservative spectrum. But all over the place, the conservative parties somehow managed to combine harsh neoliberal fiscal politics with progressive social politics, basically fucking up everything. It created a sense of constant fiscal pressure while at the same time creating the feeling that the "home" was changing rapidly, destroying the part that made people calm and happy.
I'm so sick of our shit, I'm not even trying to be gothy or anything, but how goddamn sweet wouldn't it be if we just died out. No space exploration, no epic future with shiny clothes, just *burp, gone*
And to emphasize I'm not just being edgy - I do worry about people I care about, and I even worry about the comfy status quo of everywhere that is comfy.
But man... the thought of humanity becoming a faintly dissipating whisper of an echo in the cosmos, it is sweeter every dreary year that drags by
The current rise in nationalism, like Haas said, happened because of fear mongering. PC culture, virtue signalling, etc.
Rise of nationalism also coincides with refugees actions. If all they wanted was safety, like they claim, then they would have stayed in Greece, or Spain. But nooooo, these two countries do not offer the kind of benefits Germany does, so Fuck You Greece. Fuck You Spain. These guys are OPPORTUNISTIC, plain and simple. Just like the migrant caravan. Mexico is encouraging them to stay in Mexico, ask for asylum, become Mexican citizens, but fuck no, Mexico isn't good enough.
Rise of nationalism is cause, for once, the nanny states of Europe are now actually showing signs of cracking due to the free shit they give out. All of a sudden, the people realize just how hard it is to give free shit to people and how too many mouths to feed might actually fuck a good thing up.
If we want this shit to stop, then we have to be honest. They are ILLEGAL immigrants, stop lumping them in with lawful immigrants. Stop calling everyone who disagrees a fascist, homophone, transphobic, etc. Stop it with the race baiting. Call people for what they are, which they are often economic/opportunity migrants, people who are turning safe places down for economic reasons.
I tend to agree after reading that global selfie stick market revenue in next five years has been estimated at $6.4 billion.
Please, don't turn this in to another refuguees - nationalism topic. It's ok to broaden the discussion, but it has been relatively civil so far, we should try to keep it that way. As soon nationalism and refugees/asylumseekers/migrants get thrown in, things become ugly very fast.
Sure. As long no one is throwing the waste in our gardens, everything is fine I guess, but as usually, once the issue starts to hit us, things look a bit different. Regardless how much I think that nuclear energy will remain an option and that we should be more open to the use, we have to deal with the issue of nuclear waste. If I think about Germany alone, this is not a small and simple issue! It's pretty expensive as well. Now imagine if we double or even triple the number of reactors.
I believe something that will become very important in the future, and I have zero doubts about it, will be the idea of less is more. In other words, getting rid of nedless consumerism, unlimited economic growth and finding new ways to spend less energy and resources - without amplifying effects, for example introducing a new car engine which safes you about 30% in fuel consumption trough efficiency, isn't helpfull when you triple the amount of cars in use. It will be very important in the future, we have to somehow tell or convince people that you don't have to get a car to be happy or to feel free or to gain some status or what ever. The kind of consumerism we have today, has a lot do with making people happy, or at least selling them the idea of not just buying a product, but also emotions associated with the product, which are often not real. Something, that will require a very different kind of marketing-ideology and approach by corporations selling their goods, because a large number of products is sold with a certain tonality applied to it, buy a cigarett and feel like a cowboy, buy a car and get freedom, chocolate with sensation and so on. However, as we know from some studies, the kind of happyness you receive from buying such products, is very short lived and the emotions are often fake.
One thing that makes this climate crisis so devastating and a huge issue, is that we're not facing just one issue, but a multidue of issues which require not only complex solution, but also a global effort to change it. Just as example. The CO2 polution by Germany is somewhere around 4%, so if only Germany is doing something, it won't be enough - that should stop us from doing something however. The other issue is, that we're talking about many goods which can't be simply replaced by new technologies. - There is no green capitalism. What we have to face, is the simple reality, that we have to change our habits, that we might have to face the fact that if we want to have a future on this planet as a species, that we have to achieve a kind of balance, some equilibrium were we really don't waste more resources, as the planet can actually regenerate. Even if we could achieve a CO2 neutrality, we would still have the issue that our need for energy is growing exponentially, same as the economy right now.
What gives me a bit of hope, is that we havn't even started to talk about real alternatives though, like the blue economy, cradle-to-cradle, economy for the common good, free economy and hundrets of different ideas for a post-growth-economy. I am not saying that all of those alternatives work, but maybe if the preasure on humanity, particuarly in the developed world is increasing, we will see an actuall real global efffort to change things. Who knows.
Someone brought up nationalism so I ran with it.
But yea, I don't think that anyone disagrees with you in regards to finding a need to help mitigate our consumption, like finding more efficient engines or fuels.
We just need to be able to compromise without letting tribalism get in the way. I think it just takes time, that is all. I mean look at how bad things were just 100 years ago, in regards to workers rights, pollution, war, etc.
i'm sure its a thing. it used to snow around here in the winter starting in like november. dry as shit outside right now. not sure i'd call lack of snow a climate "crisis" though
I've seen leftists blamed for climate change on Twitter, so - I'm glad we're finally ALL on board that it IS indeed a thing
To be fair, I know it's been considered "a thing" among both political spectrums for quite a while, it's just fun to see the first instances of leftists being blamed for it: Leftists are human = leftists causing climate change = man made = leftists win
Actually it was a thing for the 'other' side till Obama came in to office. Then it suddenly was a 'leftist-hoax'.
I mean: Who will die first? What's the age of the average voter? Where's the incentive to stop it?
I don't know, the incentive is to not live on a garbage dump of a planet witihout animals? 1/3 of the wild animals are either extinct or facing extinction. That alone, should pretty much make ALL the news out there. But it seems that no one cares.
They would only care if the cows, pigs and chicken would disappear. No more burgers, ham, cheese, eggs, fried chicken, etc.
The people would revolt right away.
But we do grow those almost like we grow lettuces...