Originally Posted by Pulgasari (Post 3339143)

the generators they had got flooded(11/12) and failed but i don't see a reality where we can deliver enough portable generators to supply a nuclear plant. just scale.

Originally Posted by reznor_ (Post 3339145)

In the 24 hours that batteries supplied aux power, you could have helicoptered and daisy chained diesel jennys.

Originally Posted by Pulgasari (Post 3339147)

I doubt your power calculations but here's an image macro anyway

https://i.imgur.com/gBVGct6_d.webp?m...&fidelity=high

Originally Posted by reznor_ (Post 3339139)

Yucca mountain was perfect, but Harry Reid made a deal with Barack Obama (tinfoil-ish, I know) to give him the electoral votes if Obama supported the closure of Yucca mountain.

Originally Posted by reznor_ (Post 3339139)

I will never agree that other power sources are as safe and effective as nuclear.

Originally Posted by reznor_ (Post 3339139)

I will chime in on Chernobyl, since every anti-nuke in this thread uses it as scapegoat.

Originally Posted by reznor_ (Post 3339139)

The brass tacks are: the design was flawed from the outset. The Soviets made a terrible design using POSITIVE VOID COEFFICIENTS, which are different (and bad) from NEGATIVE VOID COEFFICIENTS. What this means is: in a normal (well designed) nuclear reactor, as the fuel heats up, the fuel becomes less reactive, meaning that if there is some power excursion, the fuel's physics are leveraged to stop it from fissioning, and help mitigate any kind of accident. These are the PWR (pressurized water reactor) and BWR (boiling water reactor). Chernobyl was an RBMK model, and had POSITIVE VOID COEFFICIENTS. Every other reactor has NEGATIVE VOID COEFFICIENTS, which help safely shut it down in the event of an accident scenario. Chernobyl went into a catastrophic accident phase because as the fuel heated up and the cooling water evaporated, the fuel became more and more reactive. This led to the accident.

Originally Posted by reznor_ (Post 3339139)

You don't hear about the direct deaths from coal and gas and wind, but they're there. They just aren't as sexy as direct deaths from nuclear.

Originally Posted by Jibartik (Post 3339344)

We're not talking about miners trapped in caves. Coal-fired power plants and other sources of fossil fuel air pollution cause an estimated 8.7 million deaths worldwide in 2018, a new study finds: https://www.marketplace.org/2021/02/...ar-study-says/

Those deaths are caused by jane fonda and other hippies that convinced flower loving americans that nuke power is bad because they hated the man and war.

Originally Posted by Pulgasari (Post 3339363)

Satsop is a sad monument to go past

Originally Posted by Jibartik (Post 3339344)

We're not talking about miners trapped in caves. Coal-fired power plants and other sources of fossil fuel air pollution cause an estimated 8.7 million deaths worldwide in 2018, a new study finds: https://www.marketplace.org/2021/02/...ar-study-says/

Those deaths are caused by jane fonda and other hippies that convinced flower loving americans that nuke power is bad because they hated the man and war.

Originally Posted by Ennewi (Post 3339389)

Pointing a finger at them without indicating any culpability on the part of the actual companies is an interesting choice, unless that is just to be assumed. But the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and pointer fingers.