"If you do not believe in climate change, you should not be allowed to hold public office"

zeddd

zeddd

Well-Known Member
The real reason for nuclear power stations is the manufacture of exotic isotopes to make mostly weapons. There is no case for them as energy producers going forward. All reactors leak high energy neutrons continuously, a corollary of the physics that governs them.
They are for bombs, Trumpbombs, "why don't we use nukes" has to be the apogee of nuclear stupid imo
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
ginjawarrior said:
yes theres plenty of room as i said arizona on its own completley covered with concentrating solar will power the usa

fuck nature..

http://www.withouthotair.com

why dont you read that and understand the complexities of it all...
Click to expand...
Dam, you don't read very well. In October you posted that very same link. I went through it and I appreciate that. His analysis pertains to UK, not the US. The UK might very well need to depend on some nuclear power to provide their needs. US very different case.

So I think you are a nuclear power hawk. You could be right. I'd like to see a comprehensive analysis of the options. Nuclear has a great track record for safety. Regulations and enforcement of safety regulations have kept nuclear power safe, slow to bring on line and priced out of the market.

Wilderness deserts are amazing ecosystems and I value them. They are also very delicate and take a long time to heal when damaged. And so, I agree that environmental impact will need to be considered along with safety.

There is no technical reason why the US could be 100% powered by renewables, solar, wind, geothermal and biofuel. And so, the case for nuclear is a hard one to make. IMO
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
zeddd said:
The real reason for nuclear power stations is the manufacture of exotic isotopes to make mostly weapons. There is no case for them as energy producers going forward. All reactors leak high energy neutrons continuously, a corollary of the physics that governs them.
They are for bombs, Trumpbombs, "why don't we use nukes" has to be the apogee of nuclear stupid imo
Click to expand...
You're as stupid as you are irritating.

Making weapons grade materials is done in highly secure facilities, using equipment that has nothing at all to do with civilian power generation.
 
zeddd

zeddd

Well-Known Member
The spent fuel rods are reprocessed in weapons facilities, the isotopes are made in the fuel rods in the reactors
 
ginjawarrior

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
Dam, you don't read very well. In October you posted that very same link. I went through it and I appreciate that. His analysis pertains to UK, not the US. The UK might very well need to depend on some nuclear power to provide their needs. US very different case.

So I think you are a nuclear power hawk. You could be right. I'd like to see a comprehensive analysis of the options. Nuclear has a great track record for safety. Regulations and enforcement of safety regulations have kept nuclear power safe, slow to bring on line and priced out of the market.

Wilderness deserts are amazing ecosystems and I value them. They are also very delicate and take a long time to heal when damaged. And so, I agree that environmental impact will need to be considered along with safety.

There is no technical reason why the US could be 100% powered by renewables, solar, wind, geothermal and biofuel. And so, the case for nuclear is a hard one to make. IMO
Click to expand...
energy is energy it doesnt matter which side of the pond you are on. Its rather short sighted to assume that you have nothing to learn from it because he uses the uk as example.....

"no technical reason" is a weasely way to say it as it ignores social, enviromental, economic

nuclear was always a long term investment high up front costs and low running costs. it needs government support and most polititians
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
ginjawarrior said:
energy is energy it doesnt matter which side of the pond you are on. Its rather short sighted to assume that you have nothing to learn from it because he uses the uk as example.....

"no technical reason" is a weasely way to say it as it ignores social, enviromental, economic

nuclear was always a long term investment high up front costs and low running costs. it needs government support and most polititians
Click to expand...
Energy is energy but Britain's geography and energy map is drastically different from that of the US.

Nuclear power's promise was energy 'too cheap to meter', but it simply hasn't borne out. Operating costs never dropped as expected and the consequences of things going badly wrong are incalculable, because humans simply don't know how to account for 'forever'. It has turned out to be a dangerous boondoggle whose risks aren't worth the rewards, and never will be.

If humans were as resistant to radiation as cockroaches I'd have no problem with it.

Wind, solar, biomass, tides and hydro are all renewable energy sources that don't pose such high risks to the environment. It's high time we got rather more serious about using them.
 
zeddd

zeddd

Well-Known Member
The problem with nuclear on this tiny island is just that, 80 million people on a landmass half the size of Cali with a bunch of old leaky reactors is less than salubrious imo, on top of which we have a nuclear reprocessing facility cos we need the Pu 239 and 241
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
zeddd said:
The problem with nuclear on this tiny island is just that, 80 million people on a landmass half the size of Cali with a bunch of old leaky reactors is less than salubrious imo, on top of which we have a nuclear reprocessing facility cos we need the Pu 239 and 241
Click to expand...
From Wikipedia;
"Plutonium consisting of more than about 90% Pu-239 is called weapons-grade plutonium; plutonium from spent nuclear fuel from commercial power reactors generally contains at least 20% Pu-240 and is called reactor-grade plutonium."

As I said above, making weapons grade materials requires different processes and conditions than those found in nuclear power generation.

Great Britain and Israel have both received weapons grade material from the US.
 
zeddd

zeddd

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
From Wikipedia;
"Plutonium consisting of more than about 90% Pu-239 is called weapons-grade plutonium; plutonium from spent nuclear fuel from commercial power reactors generally contains at least 20% Pu-240 and is called reactor-grade plutonium."

As I said above, making weapons grade materials requires different processes and conditions than those found in nuclear power generation.

Great Britain and Israel have both received weapons grade material from the US.
Click to expand...
Lol Pt 240 is undesireable for either its 239 and 241 but you would know that right?
 
SneekyNinja

SneekyNinja

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
From Wikipedia;
"Plutonium consisting of more than about 90% Pu-239 is called weapons-grade plutonium; plutonium from spent nuclear fuel from commercial power reactors generally contains at least 20% Pu-240 and is called reactor-grade plutonium."

As I said above, making weapons grade materials requires different processes and conditions than those found in nuclear power generation.

Great Britain and Israel have both received weapons grade material from the US.
Click to expand...
He is correct, you can use a reactor to "breed" weapons grade material.
 
SneekyNinja

SneekyNinja

Well-Known Member
ginjawarrior said:
what has sheilding got to do with fuck all?

we're talking about not leaving waste for hundreds of thousands of years or even thousand of years....

i linked to wiki for clownshoes like yourself

http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-power-reactors/generation-iv-nuclear-reactors.aspx

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-lived_fission_product
Click to expand...
Well you're protected from Alpha radiation by something as simple as the dead cells in your skin or by a single piece of paper.

Beta only requires a thin layer of glass or metal to block, or about an inch or two of water.

By contrast, gamma rays need 6.5ft of concrete, 1.5ft of lead or 14ft of water.
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
SneekyNinja said:
Well you're protected from Alpha radiation by something as simple as the dead cells in your skin or by a single piece of paper.

Beta only requires a thin layer of glass or metal to block, or about an inch or two of water.

By contrast, gamma rays need 6.5ft of concrete, 1.5ft of lead or 14ft of water.
Click to expand...
Alpha particles are very nasty if ingested, however.
 
ginjawarrior

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
esh dov ets said:
dude your belated citation of a wikipedia page already proved you wrong. shut up. i got go shine my shoes
Click to expand...
SneekyNinja said:
Well you're protected from Alpha radiation by something as simple as the dead cells in your skin or by a single piece of paper.

Beta only requires a thin layer of glass or metal to block, or about an inch or two of water.

By contrast, gamma rays need 6.5ft of concrete, 1.5ft of lead or 14ft of water.
Click to expand...
yes but in the discussion of leaving waste for future generations thousands of years down the line????

i asked you to cite a 200year half life like you presumed...

what happens if an alpha emmiter is absorbed into your body numbnuts?
 
SneekyNinja

SneekyNinja

Well-Known Member
ginjawarrior said:
yes but in the discussion of leaving waste for future generations thousands of years down the line????

i asked you to cite a 200year half life like you presumed...

what happens if an alpha emmiter is absorbed into your body numbnuts?
Click to expand...
Yes, it does.

Your citation was nothing, you're the one who made the claim of two hundred years instead of thousands and I checked your source and it's bullshit.

It's ironic that the guy asking for citations provides a bullshit citation himself.

Clown shoes indeed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top