Has Nuke power just nukedthefridge, worse than 3 Mile Island?

Coach Comet

Have you even read the first 2 posts of this thread?
You think using some isolated stories in order to turn nuclear power into the boogey-man, while pretending/failing to research the relevant data, is not using straw-men for said purpose? If so - lol.

Also, don't think it's not obvious how you tried to avoid the substance of my previous post - the actual statistical data, as opposed to alarmistic anecdotes, showing nuclear power to be safer, by far, than all other energy generating methods.


PS - I see irrelevant semantic hair-splitting has been your hallmark throughout this thread.
So, do tell - what are your reasons for opposing nuclear power? Clearly, without irrelevant detours or attacking the other poster as replacements for actual arguments.

 

Focussing on one's priorities is not the same as making a straw man fallacy. Some people want to save lives, some people want to save money, some people want to maximize power production, some people want to maximize sustainability, some people don't want shit in their back yard, and so forth.

A straw man fallacy occurs when someone misrepresents an opponent's position and then erroneously claims that defeating the misrepresentation equals defeating the opponent's position. If it's not the case that all those things have occurred, then it's not the case that a straw man fallacy, as such, has been made.

People have different definitions of utility that they want to see maximized. Not agreeing on which utility function should be applied is part of the debate, and itself is far from evidence of a proliferation of straw men.

I'll keep it simple. Please name just one specific example of a straw man fallacy occurring in the first 2 posts of this thread. I want to see where you're coming from.

@ USS Triumphant: Contrary to your assertion, I am interested in discussion. I'd at least like to hear where you think I've made a straw man fallacy, because if I did that, then that deserves to be corrected.

Really, where did I do that?

Where did I say that I don't want any nuclear power at all?

Where have I gone down irrelevant detours, or attacked other posters, at all, and in particular in lieu of actual arguments?

 

Coach Comet

As said - lol.

Also - I see you still failed to tell what are your reasons for opposing nuclear power. Clearly, without irrelevant detours or attacking the other poster as replacements for actual arguments.
Indeed, your posts contain only obfuscating filler - mostly semantic hair-splitting.

And, of course, you keep staying well clear of any actual data.

 

Well, you've misrepresented my position, which is:

I don't oppose nuclear power; I oppose drastically increasing its production. I mean, I even said so right there.

 

Coach Comet

Fine.

What are your reasons for opposing increasing nuclear power use - opting, instead, for halting economic growth*, throwing or keeping hundreds of millions of humans in abject poverty?
State your reasons clearly, without irrelevant detours or attacking the other poster as replacements for actual arguments.

And do incorporate actual data into your posts.

*If that is still not your position - then, by all means, do tell exactly what your position is.

 

Every knew megawatt from a nuclear power plant removes the need for that megawatt to come from coal, gas, or a whirling bird chopper, and does so for the next forty years. After the 1973 oil crisis, France dedicated itself to going nuclear, and not long after that nuclear provided almost the entirety of France's electricity.

 

Well said.

Something to consider.

A failure in Japan or in Russia shows sub-standard design--that is what kills. Three- Mile was well contained and nothing compared to the other two. There are meltdown proof reactors like the self limiting TRIGA designs. Thorium is all the rage, as are pebble-bed designs, other designs that use less water.

To use previous disasters to attack nuclear energy as an overall concept is rather like saying Airbus shouldn't build an A-350 because a biplane broke up due to bailing wire snapping.

Right now, we have forests of ICBMs all over the planet. Fissile material is surrounded by high explosives for the purpose of implosion, and sitting atop solid fuel in the US, or worse, corrosive hypergolics in the USSR.

Now we are going to have to do something with this material anyway. Get it off the ICBMs, separate with rods to moderate neutrons, and store in other concrete and steel enclosures, and maybe put water on it to keep it cool.

Guess what--I have just described 90% or a typical nuclear power plant. So you might as well put the turbine on it to get some good out of it. Anti-nukes are causing the threat by not supporting newer reactor concepts to allow older ones to be phased out prior to an earthquake, tsunami, etc.

There is talk of earthquake cloaks. You build that into the design. Many buildings float on bearings. You do that with the whole reactor, so that cracks/leaks don't propagate, nixing any problems with spills.

Japans crisis was one of slow motion. Had they just put the generators higher up, or had some pumper trucks, the problem even with those antiquated designs would have been averted.

The worst was COZMO. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcM1QPhbjJM

When any combustable fuel plant is involved in a quake, there is instant explosion risk and immediate thermal radiation.We just had something similar here in Birmingham Alabama in the Gate City explosion:
http://www.alabamas13.com/story/24256731/13-investigates-gate-city-gas-explosion

Rational heads understand all this in Japan
http://nextbigfuture.com/2013/12/japan-politics-shifts-to-pro-nuclear.html

Right now, there are radioactive elements in smoke detectors. Now I guess if you broke one apart, taped it inside your underwear, and wore it close to your 'nads for 20 years, yes you may--or may not-get cancer.


But if you don't keep fresh batteries in your detector and there is a fire--a much greater risk--you are toast. Some detectors also serve to measure Carbon monoxide, like what killed Weird Al's parents.


Rickover's Nuclear Navy runs every day and mostly without incident--and atomic power combined with a mandate of all electric cars would drastically reduce CO2--and doesn't chop up birds.


Look, right now there are warheads all over. We have to do something with these things anyway. Well, right now, some of our cities are powered with what used to be warheads aimed at these cities:

http://www.dailyprogress.com/news/d...cle_da53826a-66cb-11e3-b724-0019bb30f31a.html


I think that is a good thing.

More:
http://xkcd.com/radiation/ http://what-if.xkcd.com/29/

 

If there is a silver lining to nuclear incidents such as Fukushima, it's that each event highlights areas that other existing plants can be improved, further reducing the chance of such things happening again. I know there were a lot of improvements made at plants in Ontario due to Fukushima, even though that particular situation is extremely unlikely to occur here.

This is true, but that's mainly due to the fact that the people that designed the plants originally didn't really know how long they would last, and they turned out to have under-estimated. It may in fact turn out to be the case that plants can last essentially indefinitely, as long as parts are continually replaced as they age. This process is just beginning here in Ontario, but results so far have been encouraging. 2 reactors have been refurbished to provide an additional 20 years of run time, and 10 more are planned to be upgraded over the next 15 years or so.

 

All US domestic electricity needs can be met with renewable sources. There is no need to take the risk of further expansion of nuclear energy and the burden of the waste products it produces.

 

What's kind of ironic is that a much earlier generation of engineers, if faced with the task of assuring power to an overheating reactor, would've naturally used the steam from the reactor to power the pumps, instead of the diesel generators used in that particular design. You couldn't imagine an engineer from 1890 standing next to a hissing high pressure steam pipe, scratching his head about where to get a source of power.

 

Expansion reduces the risk with newer better designed plants taking over for older ones. We already have waste from the Cold War. We can either bury it--or use it. We are going to have to deal with it anyway. I think leaving it atop solid fueled ICBMs surrounded by high explosives is more un-nerving. And breeder reactors mean renewable.

 

Don't trust TEPCO or the Japanese government

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaxCMsdYwcg[/yt]


[ yt ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaxCMsdYwcg[ /yt ]

 

TheMasterOfOrion

Have you even read the rest of my previous post?
Even with Chernobyl and Fukushima (which are becoming increasingly less likely), nuclear energy is FAR safer than any other. Which is proven with peer-reviewed papers:
http://www.trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=9053158&postcount=19

All you have are anecdotes and alarmistic hand-waving. Lol.

 

Navy Quartermasters Jamie Plime and Maurice Ennes tell their stories
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3wo_Xykg1E

 

As said - anecdotes and alarmistic hand-waving.

 

Supporters of nuclear energy can quote all of the stats they'd like about safety - but average people are programmed to fear radiation which is a invisibile, silent, and deadly killer. Moreover, no one wants a plant near their neighborhood.

Additionally the plants are extremely expensive to build and maintain and the US still doesn't have a long-term plan to store the waste.

IMO over the next 20 - 30 years the best choice in the US for electricity generation the most cost effectively and while limiting the affect of fossil fuel usage on the environemnt is natural gas. The US has discovered massive new natural gas reserves in just the past decade and it's estimated that with fracking trillions of more cubic metres can be inepxensively extracted.

North America Natural Gas

 

Discussion of nuclear power's safety usually ignores one of its huge externalities: waste storage. It's expensive, unreliable, and can have dire environmental consequences if not done properly.

 

^^ Additionally, the only serious location currently in the US is the Yucca Valley facility in the Nevada. Nevada residents for the most part are opposed to using it as the US primary repistory for nuclear waste and so long as Nevada is a key electoral state in Presidential elections - IMO that location is off the table.

 

Yeah, and as far as I know, that means most/all nuclear waste in the US is being stored on-site in conditions that aren't really long-term sustainable. We have to figure out something to do with it. It's a problem you can't just handwave away.

 

How many cities have had to be abandoned because a windmill broke down? Nuclear power isn't worth the risk when cleaner longer term alternatives are so readily available.