Select to expand quote

Kamikuza said..

holy guacamole said..

Mr Milk said..
None of the nuclear advocates in the room have mentioned the fact that uranium is a limited resource. There is enough economically recoverable uranium in the world for about 50 years at current usage

https://www.wiseinternational.org/nuclear-monitor/621-622/4-uranium-reserves

If we would decide to replace all electricity generated by burning fossil fuel with electricity from nuclear power today, there would be enough economically viable uranium to fuel the reactors for between 3 and 4 years (O'Rourke, 2004; Storm van Leeuwen & Smith, 2004). Even if we were to double world usage of nuclear energy, the life span of uranium reserves would be just 25 years. Therefore any potential benefits to the climate are extremely temporary.

Highlights the short term thinking of nuclear industrialists. I doubt those figures are accurate however nuclear power is definitely not sustainable long term.

Americas current fleet of nuclear power stations are 40 years old and are expected to run for another 50 to 70. www.scientificamerican.com/article/nuclear-power-plant-aging-reactor-replacement-/


PV panels -- 40 years life span but due to losses in generation recommend replacing in 20 to 25 years. thosesolarguys.com/how-often-do-you-have-to-replace-solar-panels/


Short-term thinking, you say.

Gee, you are wrong once again.

Many US nuclear plants are past useby date. They keep asking for and getting extensions.

www.google.com/amp/s/www.vice.com/amp/en_us/article/kbbx9z/u-s-nuclear-reactors-may-be-on-the-brink-of-death

Why? Because of the staggering costs of decommissioning and the fact that there is nothing to take up the gaps in supply.

Select to expand quote

Kamikuza said..

(190 tonnes in reactor 4. Don't believe everything you see in Netflix specials).

of 190 tonnes - 30% over many days was released in Chernobyl. NK will take care that you will release 100% content of your nuclear reactors instantly.
Just don't tell me I didn't warn you.
This example possibly illustrate why Greta is so important for our world.The people that decide about world future are already decaying and their life span is around 20 years at best,Some other that rise a voice on the subject ( like our Kamikaze) , have no knowledge and tunnel vision 5 -10 years ahead max. Why old craps should be bothered about twenty third century at all?
Contry like Japan withstood thousand of year Earthquekes, tsunamis, enemies army but now thank to short sighted ignorants - those whole land could become unlivable completely for next 2,000 years.
USA fraked their Earth crust and contaminated underground water supply that can not be decontaminated at all. Once may argue the thouse few barrels of black gold are not worth to sacrifice whole water table for 1000 generation after Greta.One may think that Australia with this dry harsh climate, poisonous creatures can not be any worse that already is. Kamikuze argue that can be done while we voluntary spray radioactive material over whole country .

Select to expand quote

Mr Milk said..
It's not so far fetched an idea.
I read a book a few months ago "The 2020 Commission Report on the North Korean Nuclear Attacks Against the United States"
Yes, it is a novel, but written by Dr Jeffrey Lewis, who is a USA strategic policy wonk. It essentially war games a scenario where a civilian accident spirals out of control over a few hours and days due to communications failures and NK launches against Japan, S Korea and the USA.
Chillingly possible

Japans's "Self Defense Force" has a navy that is larger and better equipped than the UKs. If NK was a naughty boy, they'd get a very smacked bottom. China is the one to worry about.

Select to expand quote

psychomub said..

Gee, you are wrong once again.

Many US nuclear plants are past useby date. They keep asking for and getting extensions.

www.vice.com/en_us/article/kbbx9z/u-s-nuclear-reactors-may-be-on-the-brink-of-death

Why? Because of the staggering costs of decommissioning and the fact that there is nothing to take up the gaps in supply.

Man, that's a hard-hitting opinion piece. You got me there LOL I especially like the citations to non-expert sources like the LA Times and Forbes.

Not wrong about the inability of solar/wind to "take up the gaps in supply" though? Huh.

Lets stick with the scientists who know what they're talking about, eh?

Select to expand quote

Mr Milk said..

Kamikuza said..
Americas current fleet of nuclear power stations are 40 years old and are expected to run for another 50 to 70. www.scientificamerican.com/article/nuclear-power-plant-aging-reactor-replacement-/

At which point they run out of gas.
The USA has a multi trillion $ backlog of deferred maintenance on its infrastructure. Why shouldn't they sweat the reactors too?

"Run out of gas"
Says who? The anti-nuclear people citing the criticized and debunked study? You need a new source.

Oh look heres one.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_uranium

So there's a range of predictions, everywhere from "we've already run out" to "8,500 years".

Stop being so intentionally and ideologically pessimistic.

Select to expand quote

Kamikuza said..

psychomub said..

Gee, you are wrong once again.

Many US nuclear plants are past useby date. They keep asking for and getting extensions.

www.vice.com/en_us/article/kbbx9z/u-s-nuclear-reactors-may-be-on-the-brink-of-death

Why? Because of the staggering costs of decommissioning and the fact that there is nothing to take up the gaps in supply.

Man, that's a hard-hitting opinion piece. You got me there LOL I especially like the citations to non-expert sources like the LA Times and Forbes.

Not wrong about the inability of solar/wind to "take up the gaps in supply" though? Huh.

Lets stick with the scientists who know what they're talking about, eh?

Opinion piece?

Right at the start it points out that it is the results of a year-long investigation into the dealings between the nuclear power industry and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Here's another one that shows how many are operating past their 40 year lifespan.

www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=19091

Select to expand quote

psychomub said..
There is heaps to store. Most American reactors have their spent fuel pools above the reactor and most are full. Why?

Because no one knows what to do with it. All storage options to date are not much use past a few centuries. This stuff has to be kept stable for much,much longer.

BTW, funds aren't the problem.

www.ocregister.com/2019/02/01/billions-pile-up-in-nuclear-waste-burial-fund-but-no-permanent-storage-solution-on-the-horizon/

Define "heaps" and provide citations for the rest of those ... points.

I mean, have you even read the wikipedia page on radioactive waste? I think not. I know it's a lot to process.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste

Whatever happened to your faith in engineering, that can solve the issues of transport and handling of volitive and explosive chemicals like petrol and hydrogen ... but suddenly can't figure out how to deal with nuclear waste.

Those whacky engineers...

Select to expand quote

psychomub said..
Opinion piece?

Right at the start it points out that it is the results of a year-long investigation into the dealings between the nuclear power industry and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Here's another one that shows how many are operating past their 40 year lifespan.

www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=19091

vice.com covering an AP story. Show me the experts.

So what?
Opportunity was designed to last 3 months and gave us almost 15 years.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity(rover)

Science (and engineering), bitches!

Select to expand quote

Kamikuza said..

Mr Milk said..
It's not so far fetched an idea.
I read a book a few months ago "The 2020 Commission Report on the North Korean Nuclear Attacks Against the United States"
Yes, it is a novel, but written by Dr Jeffrey Lewis, who is a USA strategic policy wonk. It essentially war games a scenario where a civilian accident spirals out of control over a few hours and days due to communications failures and NK launches against Japan, S Korea and the USA.
Chillingly possible

Japans's "Self Defense Force" has a navy that is larger and better equipped than the UKs. If NK was a naughty boy, they'd get a very smacked bottom. China is the one to worry about.

Don't worry about their smacked bottom. The book assumes that, but in a non nuclear response.
The problem is that, once launched, as a result of errors on both sides, the NK missiles cannot be stopped and a few of them hit Tokyo, S Korea and a couple land off target in the USA.

Select to expand quote

Macroscien said.

of 190 tonnes - 30% over many days was released in Chernobyl. NK will take care that you will release 100% content of your nuclear reactors instantly.
Just don't tell me I didn't warn you.
This example possibly illustrate why Greta is so important for our world.The people that decide about world future are already decaying and their life span is around 20 years at best,Some other that rise a voice on the subject ( like our Kamikaze) , have no knowledge and tunnel vision 5 -10 years ahead max. Why old craps should be bothered about twenty third century at all?
Contry like Japan withstood thousand of year Earthquekes, tsunamis, enemies army but now thank to short sighted ignorants - those whole land could become unlivable completely for next 2,000 years.
USA fraked their Earth crust and contaminated underground water supply that can not be decontaminated at all. Once may argue the thouse few barrels of black gold are not worth to sacrifice whole water table for 1000 generation after Greta.One may think that Australia with this dry harsh climate, poisonous creatures can not be any worse that already is. Kamikuze argue that can be done while we voluntary spray radioactive material over whole country .

Sigh.

Just ... stop. Stop the hyperoble and twaddle. You're not even wrong.

PS. dry climate is great for storing radioactive waste in steel barrels

Select to expand quote

Mr Milk said.
Don't worry about their smacked bottom. The book assumes that, but in a non nuclear response.
The problem is that, once launched, as a result of errors on both sides, the NK missiles cannot be stopped and a few of them hit Tokyo, S Korea and a couple land off target in the USA.

Japan has anti-ballistic missile systems for that very reason.
www.mod.go.jp/e/d_act/bmd/

NK doesn't seem to have the quality or quantity of delivery systems to drop anything anywhere they might actually want to. I'm still more concerned about China, and that level of concern is about the same as I have about the dose of radiation I get flying commercial.

You might like Ghost Fleet: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_Fleet(novel) Also written by guys in the know.
Part of the plot has come true in a minor way because of crappy Chinese Q&A

Select to expand quote

Kamikuza said..

psychomub said..
Opinion piece?

Right at the start it points out that it is the results of a year-long investigation into the dealings between the nuclear power industry and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Here's another one that shows how many are operating past their 40 year lifespan.

www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=19091

vice.com covering an AP story. Show me the experts.

So what?
Opportunity was designed to last 3 months and gave us almost 15 years.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity(rover)

Science (and engineering), bitches!

Opportunity is unlikely to malfunction and make a large area of the planet uninhabitable, so bad analogy.

There is still all the spent fuel that no one can safely dispose of.

Select to expand quote

Kamikuza said..

Mr Milk said.
Don't worry about their smacked bottom. The book assumes that, but in a non nuclear response.
The problem is that, once launched, as a result of errors on both sides, the NK missiles cannot be stopped and a few of them hit Tokyo, S Korea and a couple land off target in the USA.

Japan has anti-ballistic missile systems for that very reason.
www.mod.go.jp/e/d_act/bmd/

NK doesn't seem to have the quality or quantity of delivery systems to drop anything anywhere they might actually want to. I'm still more concerned about China, and that level of concern is about the same as I have about the dose of radiation I get flying commercial.

You might like Ghost Fleet: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_Fleet(novel) Also written by guys in the know.
Part of the plot has come true in a minor way because of crappy Chinese Q&A

And anti ballistic systems have never been shown to work against ICBMs. Probably better now, but a few Scuds got through Israel's batteries in Gulf War 2. I don't know what the success rate is against Hamas rockets from the Gaza strip.

Select to expand quote

Kamikuza said..

Mr Milk said..

Kamikuza said..
Americas current fleet of nuclear power stations are 40 years old and are expected to run for another 50 to 70. www.scientificamerican.com/article/nuclear-power-plant-aging-reactor-replacement-/

At which point they run out of gas.
The USA has a multi trillion $ backlog of deferred maintenance on its infrastructure. Why shouldn't they sweat the reactors too?

"Run out of gas"
Says who? The anti-nuclear people citing the criticized and debunked study? You need a new source.

Oh look heres one.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_uranium

So there's a range of predictions, everywhere from "we've already run out" to "8,500 years".

Stop being so intentionally and ideologically pessimistic.

Did you read the fine print where it points out that the energy cost of getting to the dilute uranium outweighs the energy that can be produced from it?
The 50 years figure comes from uranium that can be produced at close to the current price.

Select to expand quote

Kamikuza said..

I'm still more concerned about China,

China is possibly too smart to attack anybody military , knowing they could now buy everybody or everything. Then they could use western design law for their advantage, in the war against this western world.
Unfortunately it seems that australian governments ( and public behind) can not grasp the fact the buying submarines and fighter jet don't win you economic war. We are wasting billions on military equipment but almost nothing on preparation on economic invasion. How long it takes now to ruin smaller country economy by efficient market manipulation and rules? US is doing so so successfully that could almost ruin economically any country or whole block ( like UE) , superpowers with nuclear weapon, but only one country is standing still. Hopefully this country will never learn this strategy/tactics from the master and use now against other states.

^ End The Waste!

Select to expand quote

psychomub said..
Opportunity is unlikely to malfunction and make a large area of the planet uninhabitable, so bad analogy.

There is still all the spent fuel that no one can safely dispose of.

You're so unimpressed with the science and engineering that designed, built and deployed a large robot safely across a quarter billion kilometers to another planet and outlasted its design brief by 600%, that you don't think we can figure out how to put the uranium back in the ground where we got it from?

Select to expand quote

Mr Milk said..
And anti ballistic systems have never been shown to work against ICBMs. Probably better now, but a few Scuds got through Israel's batteries in Gulf War 2. I don't know what the success rate is against Hamas rockets from the Gaza strip.

That's not right.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-ballistic_missile#United_States

Select to expand quote

Mr Milk said..
Did you read the fine print where it points out that the energy cost of getting to the dilute uranium outweighs the energy that can be produced from it?
The 50 years figure comes from uranium that can be produced at close to the current price.

I did. Where's that then?
"range of estimates".

Select to expand quote

Macroscien said..
economic invasion

Too late, I'm afraid.

Select to expand quote

Kamikuza said..

Mr Milk said..
Did you read the fine print where it points out that the energy cost of getting to the dilute uranium outweighs the energy that can be produced from it?
The 50 years figure comes from uranium that can be produced at close to the current price.

I didn't (edit). Where's that then?
"range of estimates".

Ok I got it. Did you read the fine print criticizing Storm/Smith for the incorrect assumptions?

Select to expand quote

Kamikuza said..

psychomub said..
Opportunity is unlikely to malfunction and make a large area of the planet uninhabitable, so bad analogy.

There is still all the spent fuel that no one can safely dispose of.

You're so unimpressed with the science and engineering that designed, built and deployed a large robot safely across a quarter billion kilometers to another planet and outlasted its design brief by 600%, that you don't think we can figure out how to put the uranium back in the ground where we got it from?

So far, no solution....and none on the horizon.

There isnt even technology available to locate and recover the melted cores at ****ushima.

Nuclear power is too uncontrollable.

Select to expand quote

Kamikuza said..

Kamikuza said..

Mr Milk said..
Did you read the fine print where it points out that the energy cost of getting to the dilute uranium outweighs the energy that can be produced from it?
The 50 years figure comes from uranium that can be produced at close to the current price.

I didn't (edit). Where's that then?
"range of estimates".

Ok I got it. Did you read the fine print criticizing Storm/Smith for the incorrect assumptions?

Mate, yknow how boring it is to hear conservatives argue foe nuclear power. It's just a wedge against "the left" . You know it, we know it, everybody knows it , it's just dumb.

Select to expand quote

psychomub said..
So far, no solution....and none on the horizon.

There isnt even technology available to locate and recover the melted cores at ****ushima.

Nuclear power is too uncontrollable.

Tosh.

So what? It's not going to up-stakes and trot around the country side.

Load of crap. It's being done constantly, right now.

Select to expand quote

log man said..
Mate, yknow how boring it is to hear conservatives argue foe nuclear power. It's just a wedge against "the left" . You know it, we know it, everybody knows it , it's just dumb.

You are of course completely ignorant of the facts that the nation that built and deployed the largest nuclear weapon ever developed (Tsar Bombs) was ... about as far left as any nation has ever gone, and the current world-leading producer of nuclear power is ... the People's (Communist) Republic of China.

Take your ideological bias down to the bottom of the garden and put it out of it's misery, mate.

Select to expand quote

psychomub said..
Nuclear power is too uncontrollable.

Not true. The tech has come a long way. Small modular reactors are perfect for the job and very controllable.

They are in submarines and surface ships.

Select to expand quote

Kamikuza said..

log man said..
Mate, yknow how boring it is to hear conservatives argue foe nuclear power. It's just a wedge against "the left" . You know it, we know it, everybody knows it , it's just dumb.

You are of course completely ignorant of the facts that the nation that built and deployed the largest nuclear weapon ever developed (Tsar Bombs) was ... about as far left as any nation has ever gone, and the current world-leading producer of nuclear power is ... the People's (Communist) Republic of China.

Take your ideological bias down to the bottom of the garden and put it out of it's misery

the subtext of the whole nuclear power proposal is: "if you communists are really interested in reducing CO2 levels the you'll support nuclear.....and if you don't support nuclear then you're not really interested in CO2 so the whole thing is just a front for communism"

fricken yawn!!!!!

This is right up there with you're socialists are nazis theme

For goodness sake, leave the politics out of it and the money interests then look at the science.

Technology currently exists that can solve all the problems of the world except greed and egotistical desires for power.

Select to expand quote

cisco said..

psychomub said..
Nuclear power is too uncontrollable.

Not true. The tech has come a long way. Small modular reactors are perfect for the job and very controllable.

They are in submarines and surface ships.

What are your qualifications to judge this? Are you a nuclear engineer?
If nuclear propulsion was an economic option, wouldn't you expect commercial vessels to be using it?

Interesting that nuclear proponents implore us to embrace technology but when it comes to advancing truly sustainable technologies like renewable energy they balk and claim it's all too hard.

Hypocrisy.