UK now wants to reclassify nuclear as "sustainable energy"

[Helix]

That didn't work out so well for the US Army. The US Army built a nuclear reactor at Ft. Greely, Alaska, in 1960. Then the March 1964 magnitude 9.2 earthquake hit Prince William Sound, and cracked the nuclear reactor. It took the US Army until 1972 before they had that mess cleaned up.

If you are going to build nuclear reactors, don't do it stupidly by building them in earthquake prone areas. Like California has already done.

It isn't currently 1960.

 

[ralfy]

I remember someone pointing out all sources of energy will have to be used in order to avoid the effects of a resource crunch, which means environmental damage is inevitable. But all sources of energy have sustainability issues (outside the environmental) due to diminishing returns. What might help is using all of them supplemented more by wave energy and geothermal using new drilling tech. However, they have other problems, like energy storage, removing ash from the drilling process, etc.

 

[VanceMack]

Its hilarious watching the greenie dumbasses tha6t spent the 70s 80s and 90s prtoesting AGAINST nuclear energy now touting it as their green savior.

 

[fallenturtle]

Its hilarious watching the greenie dumbasses tha6t spent the 70s 80s and 90s prtoesting AGAINST nuclear energy now touting it as their green savior.

Why? Is it a weakness to change one's opinion over time?

 

[Gatsby]

Jeremy Hunt wants nuclear power classed as ‘sustainable’: is it?

UK chancellor has launched consultation to classify nuclear as ‘environmentally sustainable’

www.theguardian.com

LMAO! So they're finally admitting that wind and solar cant hack it after all. I told you so. Moronic hypocrites.

Nuclear is sustainable energy. What does this have to do with solar and wind "hacking it"? Why not have all three?

 

[ataraxia]

USA could learn a lesson here..but the greeniacs will shout it down

So then surely you applauded president Obama in 2017 when he said:

"With or without this Congress, I will continue to do whatever I can to develop every source of American energy so our future isn’t controlled by events on the other side of the world. "

 

[Glitch]

Nuclear is sustainable energy. What does this have to do with solar and wind "hacking it"? Why not have all three?

Nuclear power is far less sustainable than power from fossil fuels. However, unlike wind and solar, nuclear is at least a reliable power source. Nuclear is also more cost effective than either wind or solar, and therefore improves the standard of living rather than degrading it by making energy more expensive.

 

[Glitch]

So then surely you applauded president Obama in 2017 when he said:

"With or without this Congress, I will continue to do whatever I can to develop every source of American energy so our future isn’t controlled by events on the other side of the world. "

Except that Obama lied his ass off, as is typical with leftist filth. Obama illegally imposed an off-shore oil drilling moratorium nationwide in 2010, which the courts held to be unconstitutional, and opposed all oil development. Obama should have been impeached for his many crimes, including this one.

 

[Glitch]

It isn't currently 1960.

Not overly burdened with intelligence I see.

 

[ataraxia]

Except that Obama lied his ass off, as is typical with leftist filth. Obama illegally imposed an off-shore oil drilling moratorium nationwide in 2010, which the courts held to be unconstitutional, and opposed all oil development. Obama should have been impeached for his many crimes, including this one.

Because we were getting enough through other meetings at the time. It’s OK to consider demands as we make policy decisions, don’t you agree? Or should we just drill anywhere no matter what else is happening in the energy sector?

 

[Glitch]

Because we were getting enough through other meetings at the time. It’s OK to consider demands as we make policy decisions, don’t you agree? Or should we just drill anywhere no matter what else is happening in the energy sector?

Because you leftists are anti-fossil fuel and Obama did is best to utterly destroy the economy by making fossil fuels more difficult to obtain. It was Obama that gave us $9.20/gallon gasoline in Alaska. By 2016 Obama was proposing a $10/gallon tax on gasoline, such was his abject hatred for every American. Leftist filth have waged war on fossil fuels in the US, and it began with Obama. You clearly have no clue what you are talking about.

Obama Bans New Oil and Gas Drilling Off Alaska

The ban affects federal waters off Alaska in the Chukchi Sea and most of the Beaufort Sea and in the Atlantic from New England to Chesapeake Bay.

www.newsweek.com

 

[PoS]

The problem with nuclear is where to put the fuel. The problem with this thread is that the people who are not so arrogant that they think they can read some blogs and *just know* more than an entire scientific field and can in fact prove it all bunk with snotty posts on the internet are lying their asses off are the kind of people who typically make it. In a word, the thread is insincere.

I don't care about label wars - "omg they said sustainable rofl!", a third grade level 'thought'. I care about policy. And all sane policies have urged that we lean on nuclear and just sort of eat the waste problem as an aid to transition to cleaner energy overall, because the problem with the fuel is dwarfed by the problem of such heavy reliance on fossil fuels.

But like I say, this is not a sincere thread. It's just denier play-acting. The people he thinks he is disproving can't see what he posts because he makes sure not to do it in the places they'll see: peer-reviewed journals.




I wonder when the first denier will show up to demand that AGW be proven to him personally, here on DP, prepared to claim victory if nobody does and prepared to claim victory anyway if they do by announcing the proof insufficient.



It's not like these threads ever turn into anything but a prolonged derp show. After a while we'll get people with graphs they didn't understand. We'll have people grandly announcing what they personally feel we should see if AGW were real, and then saying they do not see it in some cherry-picked data they didn't understand and that therefore AGW must be false.

It's how we get posts about how AGW can't be real because it was really cold this one night in a UK town. Because - this has been said - because Everest would be under the sea (below Atlantis, specifically) if the number of times the thread creator saw articles about AGW is as high as it was. Yeah, exactly. That stupid. Enough of this stupidity. Stop trying to feel special.

AGW is not a hoax. They're not wrong. Things will get shittier in measurable ways. And hopefully enough sane people wake up before the very worst of it can be averted.

LOL another loopy neo luddite rant that's devoid of any intelligence, logic, and common sense. Hey, its Mr. P, so what else is new!

get off of your high horse. Your voice has no power to change. "I told you so"

LOL another one whose cult gets proven wrong and is now mad about it. Cope.

View attachment 67441413

Would you like a tissue?

Circumstances change.

Previously the hope was that renewables and cleaner energy would come through, so there was no need to tie us to nuclear energy en masse given the very real problem of waste storage. What lasts 100,000 years? Talk about kicking a can down the road. . .

But the will wasn't there, nor was the money. So, now that we have failed consistently to do what we need to do to avoid bad things a la humanity's way, it actually starts making proper sense to just eat the waste risks and lean heavily on nuclear rather than fossil fuels.



But this is a denier thread, so it can't recognize that context. It's got to pretend to be a vindication of fossil fuels, and some kind of damnation of green/renewable. Which... no. Those still need work. Lots of work. But it would be completely moronic to not put in that work, that time, that money, because hey we could just use nuclear.

That's just kicking bigger cans down the road. 20-40 years, yes. And we will have to figure out what to do what that waste, and that will be a massive fight. Yucca Mountain, anyone? We'll basically be planting time bombs. But we kinda need to because we can't keep doing what we're doing at the rate we're doing it unless we want a giant mess 20-40 years down the road anyway.

More Mr. P's moronic logic (or lack of it) on display. I love it!

Once again, you don't have a clue what you're talking about.
And you ought to be more careful about squandering IQ points like that.

LOL you dont even know what IQ is, much less the subject of this thread. Must be that Canuckistan education the beavers are raving about.

Nuclear is sustainable energy.

Not according to the climate cultists

What does this have to do with solar and wind "hacking it"? Why not have all three?

Because theyre intermittent and they cost more. Duh.

 

[VanceMack]

Why? Is it a weakness to change one's opinion over time?

Because it clearly demonstrates that their poutrage is and always has been one of convenience.

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

Nuclear is also more cost effective than either wind or solar, and therefore improves the standard of living rather than degrading it by making energy more expensive.

"You get what you pay for"

 

[Lord of Planar]

Jeremy Hunt wants nuclear power classed as ‘sustainable’: is it?

UK chancellor has launched consultation to classify nuclear as ‘environmentally sustainable’

www.theguardian.com

LMAO! So they're finally admitting that wind and solar cant hack it after all. I told you so. Moronic hypocrites.

They must be tired of buying electricity from France.

 

[Roadvirus]

Then let them build such reactors in the mid-west, where the ground is considerably more stable.

And where there are hundreds of tornadoes every year

 

[longview]

And where there are hundreds of tornadoes every year

Why a nuclear power plant would survive a 9/11-style airplane attack

In 2002, the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) undertook an advanced computer modeling study to determine if nuclear power plants could withstand the impact of an aircraft crash, similar to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. The Boeing 767 was selected as the crash aircraft in the study because its weight is more substantial than almost all commercial jet airliners flown in the U.S.

I think the US Nuclear power plants are safe against tornadoes.

 

[Roadvirus]

I think the US Nuclear power plants are safe against tornadoes.

Let's see one stand up to one like the 2013 El Reno, Oklahoma tornado and i'll take your word for it.

 

[longview]

Let's see one stand up to one like the 2013 El Reno, Oklahoma tornado and i'll take your word for it.

I think they have already simulated this.
TORNADO MISSILE DESIGN FOR NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS

Nuclear power plants are designed to be capable of safely shutting-down in case of a large design-basis tornado or
hurricane. The magnitude of the postulated design-basis tornado or hurricane is such that there is less than 1 in 10
million chance (1E-7) per year and per reactor that it would be exceeded.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Jeremy Hunt wants nuclear power classed as ‘sustainable’: is it?

UK chancellor has launched consultation to classify nuclear as ‘environmentally sustainable’

www.theguardian.com

LMAO! So they're finally admitting that wind and solar cant hack it after all. I told you so. Moronic hypocrites.

That isn't what they're admitting.
By the way, do you have a list of wind and solar promoters who are convinced that it can BE the ONLY source of sustainable energy and does that list offer indisputable proof that the overwhelming majority of wind and solar industry professionals share such an outlier view?
You seem to focus on a giant straw man, the idea that energy sources are somehow a binary argument, "you can only choose ONE source, and if you back wind and solar YOU somehow MUST be AGAINST all other sources."

I'll take em all, thanks.
If there's a hole that can be filled by wind and solar, fill it.
If there's still holes, fill them too, every source has a role to play.
The more wind and solar that can be pressed into service, the better but in the end the idea is to always keep a diverse portfolio of sustainable sources and, given that nuke design has grown and branched out into a plethora of different and much safer models, there is no reason why we should not mature our own outlook and accept new ideas from the nuclear side.

The last thing on Earth we should ever do is take the EITHER/OR and "You're either with us or you're against us" approach. (YOUR approach based on your constant posts)
The cleanest, safest, most efficient and most sustainable sources go to the top of the list but the list is very long.
I'll even go so far as to say we need to keep SOME coal and SOME natgas sources online as a backup, but that's the whole point of the endeavor, to make it possible to leave these as backups and not as
permanent monopoly sources.
We already made that mistake with GASOLINE in automotive engines and we're paying the price now.
Sole reliance on petroleum has distorted the world long enough.
At least with central electric utilities, being diverse is somewhat feasible, much more so than in the heavily politicized transport fuel sector.

Your entire posting history on this subject consists of you continuously politicizing energy sources.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Let's see one stand up to one like the 2013 El Reno, Oklahoma tornado and i'll take your word for it.

A General Dynamics assembly plant in Fort Worth TX took a direct hit from a tornado a few years ago and nothing happened to the building.
And that's just an aircraft assembly building, it's not even a nuke plant.

I think mankind knows how to build tornado resistant structures.
In the case of a nuke plant, it's designed to withstand MUCH more than some 300 mph winds.
It comes down to the costs and since cost cannot be an object when it comes to shielding a reactor, you can bet no cost is spared in the construction.

That General Dynamics building was designed to withstand BOMB blasts.

 

[uptower]

Didn't read the article again did you PoS?

Firstly it's not "The UK", its Jeremy Hunt. A conservative politician is leading the push because he wants to attract private investment using green energy permits and subsidies. In other words he's cheating on the definition, something you're quite familiar with.

Moreover the story points out such measures are being challenged in court, that it would take over a decade to build a new plant while renewables could be scaled up in the same time frame, and that nuclear waste is still an environmental threat and is difficult to dispose of.

Congratulations on sabotaging your own thread from the start...again

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

The Holy Grail of nuclear power is close. It's only a matter of time now.

Fusion? Yeah sure, it's only ten years away.
My old man used to joke about that.

The only "grail" is just continuing to develop smarter, safer, more efficient designs for fission.
Fusion is at the point where we were when we discovered how to make internal combustion work.
It was still a very long time we figured out to get a reasonable amount of power out of internal combustion.

 

[uptower]

That isn't what they're admitting.
By the way, do you have a list of wind and solar promoters who are convinced that it can BE the ONLY source of sustainable energy and does that list offer indisputable proof that the overwhelming majority of wind and solar industry professionals share such an outlier view?
You seem to focus on a giant straw man, the idea that energy sources are somehow a binary argument, "you can only choose ONE source, and if you back wind and solar YOU somehow MUST be AGAINST all other sources."

I'll take em all, thanks.
If there's a hole that can be filled by wind and solar, fill it.
If there's still holes, fill them too, every source has a role to play.
The more wind and solar that can be pressed into service, the better but in the end the idea is to always keep a diverse portfolio of sustainable sources and, given that nuke design has grown and branched out into a plethora of different and much safer models, there is no reason why we should not mature our own outlook and accept new ideas from the nuclear side.

The last thing on Earth we should ever do is take the EITHER/OR and "You're either with us or you're against us" approach. (YOUR approach based on your constant posts)
The cleanest, safest, most efficient and most sustainable sources go to the top of the list but the list is very long.
I'll even go so far as to say we need to keep SOME coal and SOME natgas sources online as a backup, but that's the whole point of the endeavor, to make it possible to leave these as backups and not as
permanent monopoly sources.
We already made that mistake with GASOLINE in automotive engines and we're paying the price now.
Sole reliance on petroleum has distorted the world long enough.
At least with central electric utilities, being diverse is somewhat feasible, much more so than in the heavily politicized transport fuel sector.

Your entire posting history on this subject consists of you continuously politicizing energy sources.

That's right, all or nothing. He likes to pretend because we are still transitioning from fossil fuel to renewables that renewables have failed, even though their share is increasing yearly.

 

[mrjurrs]

I have a theory about emoji use in these forums. Each one represents a ten percent drop in IQ, starting at 100.
What do you think?

I think you are incorrect.