Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 76

Thread: The People of Vermont vs. Nuclear Power

  1. #1
    Iconoclast
    DaveFagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    wny
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:08 AM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,309

    The People of Vermont vs. Nuclear Power

    Vermonters Exercise Their Nuclear Option -- In These Times

    How is it possible that the Nuke power companies and Nuclear Regulator agencies could cause citizens to be stuck with a metaphorical radioactive time bomb. Is this more sock puppets and Corporatism? Is this struggle an example of the citizens loss of power in this Nation. Perhaps we are a Corporatocracy?

  2. #2
    Defender of the Faith
    ludahai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate City
    Last Seen
    07-03-13 @ 02:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    10,320

    Re: The People of Vermont vs. Nuclear Power

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveFagan View Post
    Vermonters Exercise Their Nuclear Option -- In These Times

    How is it possible that the Nuke power companies and Nuclear Regulator agencies could cause citizens to be stuck with a metaphorical radioactive time bomb. Is this more sock puppets and Corporatism? Is this struggle an example of the citizens loss of power in this Nation. Perhaps we are a Corporatocracy?
    Yeah, because we know that getting power from coal and oil is SO MUCH better...

    The article compares Vermont Yankee to Chernobyl and Fukushima #1. Chernobyl was a very different plant in the USSR while Fukushima #1 (and #2 BTW) were affected by a natural event that will NEVER occur in Vermont unless we have a 2012-style tsunami...
    Semper Paratus
    Boston = City of Champions: Bruins 2011; Celtics 2008; Red Sox 2004, 2007; Patriots 2002, 2004, 2005
    Jon Huntsman for President

  3. #3
    Iconoclast
    DaveFagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    wny
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:08 AM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,309

    Re: The People of Vermont vs. Nuclear Power

    Quote Originally Posted by ludahai View Post
    Yeah, because we know that getting power from coal and oil is SO MUCH better...

    The article compares Vermont Yankee to Chernobyl and Fukushima #1. Chernobyl was a very different plant in the USSR while Fukushima #1 (and #2 BTW) were affected by a natural event that will NEVER occur in Vermont unless we have a 2012-style tsunami...
    So we should trust those engineers. Fukushima was designed to the max and did not include design consideration of this "never happen" event. Murphy's Law. The event at Fukushima was natural, but the nuke plant was not. It is a blatant advertisement of "design failure."

  4. #4
    Defender of the Faith
    ludahai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate City
    Last Seen
    07-03-13 @ 02:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    10,320

    Re: The People of Vermont vs. Nuclear Power

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveFagan View Post
    So we should trust those engineers. Fukushima was designed to the max and did not include design consideration of this "never happen" event. Murphy's Law. The event at Fukushima was natural, but the nuke plant was not. It is a blatant advertisement of "design failure."
    Both Fukushima #1 and #2 were designed to withstand an 8.0 magnitude quake. In reality, they withstood the mag NINE quake. It was the resultant tsunami that caused the power loss in #1 that was so catestrophic and the lesser problems in the #2 plant. That isn't design failure... the design was adequate to withstand anything from known Japanese history. This event exceeded anything that had ever happened in the country.

    Now, even considering the kind of event that would happen once in ONE THOUSAND YEARS or more, what threat is faced in Vermont that would cause the same problems as faced at Fukushima #1. And, given that, how does that compare to the CONTINUOUS reality of emissions from oil and coal powered electrical plants on a 24/7/365 basis?
    Semper Paratus
    Boston = City of Champions: Bruins 2011; Celtics 2008; Red Sox 2004, 2007; Patriots 2002, 2004, 2005
    Jon Huntsman for President

  5. #5
    Iconoclast
    DaveFagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    wny
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:08 AM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,309

    Re: The People of Vermont vs. Nuclear Power

    QUOTE"Now, even considering the kind of event that would happen once in ONE THOUSAND YEARS or more, what threat is faced in Vermont that would cause the same problems as faced at Fukushima #1. And, given that, how does that compare to the CONTINUOUS reality of emissions from oil and coal powered electrical plants on a 24/7/365 basis?" End QUOTE

    I have never supported oil, coal, natural gas, nor Megawatt windmills. I don't now. Alternatives and renewables are the answer. It is the Centralized Distribution Network that is the fly in the ointment. This worked wonderfully until we realized the future costs. It is past time for change. Power must be made in-house. Eliminate the multiplying inefficiencies of the Centralized Distribution Network that is the reason we have nukes in the first place. It is actually Centralized Collection of Monies and the raison d'etra. In-home solar. In-home windmill. In-home electric generator with collection of waste heat. Installation makes jobs. Repair makes jobs. Energy and dollar savings are likely spent in the local marketplace, making more jobs. We exported our manufacturing base so we have to restart somewhere. What better place than to make jobs by actually solving problems. You sock puppet is being paid by the Corporate hand to not do this. So what would we change?

  6. #6
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    12-16-17 @ 11:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,849

    Re: The People of Vermont vs. Nuclear Power

    The average coal plant spits more radioactive material into the atmosphere than a nuclear plant generates in its entirety, and that's when things are going well.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  7. #7
    Defender of the Faith
    ludahai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate City
    Last Seen
    07-03-13 @ 02:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    10,320

    Re: The People of Vermont vs. Nuclear Power

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveFagan View Post
    QUOTE"Now, even considering the kind of event that would happen once in ONE THOUSAND YEARS or more, what threat is faced in Vermont that would cause the same problems as faced at Fukushima #1. And, given that, how does that compare to the CONTINUOUS reality of emissions from oil and coal powered electrical plants on a 24/7/365 basis?" End QUOTE

    I have never supported oil, coal, natural gas, nor Megawatt windmills. I don't now. Alternatives and renewables are the answer. It is the Centralized Distribution Network that is the fly in the ointment. This worked wonderfully until we realized the future costs. It is past time for change. Power must be made in-house. Eliminate the multiplying inefficiencies of the Centralized Distribution Network that is the reason we have nukes in the first place. It is actually Centralized Collection of Monies and the raison d'etra. In-home solar. In-home windmill. In-home electric generator with collection of waste heat. Installation makes jobs. Repair makes jobs. Energy and dollar savings are likely spent in the local marketplace, making more jobs. We exported our manufacturing base so we have to restart somewhere. What better place than to make jobs by actually solving problems. You sock puppet is being paid by the Corporate hand to not do this. So what would we change?
    I also support the development of renewables. However, at this point, we do not have the technical ability to fund our energy needs entirely from rewnewables. Hopefully, one hundred years from now, this will not be the case. Also, renewables are prohibitively expensive, especially for LEDCs... nuclear (at least in Taiwan) is far less expensive than the dirtier coal and oil alternatives. Even Germany, which has a very aggressive alternative energy program, will only be up to 40% of alternative energy use (if they meet their targets) by 2020.

    We are still many decades away from sole reliance on alternative clean energy like solar, geothermal, wind and tidal. In the meantime, nuclear is a FAR better option than oil and coal powered generation plants.
    Semper Paratus
    Boston = City of Champions: Bruins 2011; Celtics 2008; Red Sox 2004, 2007; Patriots 2002, 2004, 2005
    Jon Huntsman for President

  8. #8
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: The People of Vermont vs. Nuclear Power

    DaveFagan, that article is pretty bad.

    First of all, it makes no distinction between types of reactor. This is absolutely key. Chernobyl had no containment systems. Fukushima used an active cooling system. Both are mistakes and have been corrected in newer designs. Furthermore, there are newer designs being tested that cannot meltdown even with complete loss of cooling.

    Second, reprocessing like France would eliminate much of the storage problem. furthermore, a theoretical modification to thorium reactors currently under discussion at I believe MIT would produce energy from nuclear waste in such an efficient manner that only something like 10% of the waste would remain.

    Just because ONE type of nuclear reactor had a real problem does not mean nuclear as a whole should be rejected.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  9. #9
    Iconoclast
    DaveFagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    wny
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:08 AM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,309

    Re: The People of Vermont vs. Nuclear Power

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    DaveFagan, that article is pretty bad.

    First of all, it makes no distinction between types of reactor. This is absolutely key. Chernobyl had no containment systems. Fukushima used an active cooling system. Both are mistakes and have been corrected in newer designs. Furthermore, there are newer designs being tested that cannot meltdown even with complete loss of cooling.

    Second, reprocessing like France would eliminate much of the storage problem. furthermore, a theoretical modification to thorium reactors currently under discussion at I believe MIT would produce energy from nuclear waste in such an efficient manner that only something like 10% of the waste would remain.

    Just because ONE type of nuclear reactor had a real problem does not mean nuclear as a whole should be rejected.
    Oh yeh! and nuclear fusion is just six months away, and if, maybe, woulda, coulda, and the moon is made of green cheese. I repeat myself. " It is the Centralized Distribution Network that is the fly in the ointment. This worked wonderfully until we realized the future costs. It is past time for change. Power must be made in-house. Eliminate the multiplying inefficiencies of the Centralized Distribution Network that is the reason we have nukes in the first place. It is actually Centralized Collection of Monies and the raison d'etra. In-home solar. In-home windmill. In-home electric generator with collection of waste heat. Installation makes jobs. Repair makes jobs. Energy and dollar savings are likely spent in the local marketplace, making more jobs. We exported our manufacturing base so we have to restart somewhere. What better place than to make jobs by actually solving problems. You sock puppet is being paid by the Corporate hand to not do this. So what would we change?"

  10. #10
    User
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    United States of America
    Last Seen
    04-04-17 @ 01:00 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    121

    Re: The People of Vermont vs. Nuclear Power

    The Daichi Fukushima power plants exceeded its design specifications in that it was able to withstand a 8.0M when it was designed to withstand much lower earthquakes. The problem was not the earthquake, but the tsunami which destroyed their cooling systems since all the pumps/systems got wet. (Water and electricity don't mix) So, it was not a "design failure." The reactors did not crack from the earthquake, but the pressure from the fuel rods which were shut down due to the early warning system japan had, which gave them less than a minute to shut down power production before the earthquake hits. Fuel rods are still active and need to be cooled continuously even after the reactor is "off". So before you start spouting off the "design flaw," there was no way someone could assume a 50 ft tsunami is going to hit them. If we build 100-ft tsunami walls, then mind as well everyone build inland, but Japan doesn't have that luxury, so they have to build with what they have.

    And as a voter, if you all don't like it, petition and add it to the bill. Stop being sue-happy and be active in getting things done for your state. If your local politician likes nuclear power and you don't, then don't vote for him next time.
    We the People of the United States,... provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare....
    Where did it ever say, promote for the common defence, and provide the general Welfare..... Please don't mix up the two....

Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •