Climate continues to change.

[gunthernehmen]

Yap on, little feller.

No worries. I have a macro for that.

 

[phrodeau]

As far as hydrogen fuel cell technology goes for the transportation sector, it's a mostly dead end. It would require massive new infrastructure at prohibitive cost. The fuel cells themselves are more expensive than batteries.

Be on the lookout for vehicle batteries that provide 1,000+ mile range in the next 3-5 years.

Hydrogen fuel cells are useful in urban settings like buses, commuter trains, taxis and other fleets.

 

[icanhelp1]

Sorry. I didn't mean to express it as my original idea!

Nuclear waste is a serious issue but if the laws were changed to allow us to do something about it, it's manageable.

My point is that in the court of public opinion there was no appetite for the use nuclear power generation. The documentary posed some dire points about the time it took for nuclear waste to become inert and the danger it posed in the event of an earthquake or the structural durability and integrady of the waste containers, or a nuclear strike from the Russians on that storage facility, also, the inability to repurpose used fuel as stockpiles grew. The documentary made this fact so evident that if tunnels 1 mile deep in the earth weren't safe then what could possibly convince people to trust it in their own back yard. The rallying cry was remember "3 mile island" along with the disaster of Chernobyl. Not enough info is out there today for americans to feel confident about the wholesale use of nuclear power and radiation exposure. Now we have the black mark of Fukushima.

 

[von_Bismarck]

Hydrogen fuel cells are useful in urban settings like buses, commuter trains, taxis and other fleets.

Oh sure, for the time being there are probably niche use cases. I can clarify. Hydrogen refueling stations are prohibitively expensive for the general population. Retrofitting existing gas stations for hydrogen would cost millions of dollars for each station. And there's the problem of producing hydrogen at scale. Since battery tech and price continue to improve, it's a better bet, in general.

 

[phrodeau]

My point is that in the court of public opinion there was no appetite for the use nuclear power generation. The documentary posed some dire points about the time it took for nuclear waste to become inert and the danger poised with an earthquake or the structural durability and integrady of the waste containers. The documentary made this fact so evident that if tunnels 1 mile deep in the earth wasn't safe then what could possibly convince people to trust it in their own back yard. The rallying cry was remember "3 mile island" along with the disaster of Chernobyl. Not enough info is out there today for americans to feel confident about the wholesale use of nuclear power and radiation exposure.

Three Mile Island - 1979
Chernobyl - 1986
Fukushima - 2011

Lesson not learned.

 

[icanhelp1]

Three Mile Island - 1979
Chernobyl - 1986
Fukushima - 2011

Lesson not learned.

No!!! just the opposite, two were containment and one was placement. The after action investigations were quite illuminating and technology upgrades and placement selection re-evaluated.

 

[gunthernehmen]

Oh sure, for the time being there are probably niche use cases. I can clarify. Hydrogen refueling stations are prohibitively expensive for the general population. Retrofitting existing gas stations for hydrogen would cost millions of dollars for each station. And there's the problem of producing hydrogen at scale. Since battery tech and price continue to improve, it's a better bet, in general.

Wow. We agree on something! LOL

Mostly, anyway. EVs vs Hydrogen cars, no contest. But the urban fleets Phro mentioned, maybe/probably.

Three Mile Island - 1979
Chernobyl - 1986
Fukushima - 2011

Lesson not learned.

TMI was built in 1968. Chernobyl in 1970. The accidents happened almost 20 years later. The plants were of very different design. Nothing learned from TMI would have been of much use at Chernobyl even if they had more than 7 years to apply the lessons. Fukushima was not technically a problem with the design but with the location. I strongly suspect they will take into account things like tidal waves next time.

 

[icanhelp1]

Wow. We agree on something! LOL

Mostly, anyway. EVs vs Hydrogen cars, no contest. But the urban fleets Phro mentioned, maybe/probably.





TMI was built in 1968. Chernobyl in 1970. The accidents happened almost 20 years later. The plants were of very different design. Nothing learned from TMI would have been of much use at Chernobyl even if they had more than 7 years to apply the lessons. Fukushima was not technically a problem with the design but with the location. I strongly suspect they will take into account things like tidal waves next time.

The point is!..... lessons were learned from all three!!!

 

[gunthernehmen]

The point is!..... lessons were learned from all three!!!

We definitely learned lessons!

Even the Russians will never build another reactor on Chernobyl's design. If we ever kick start nuclear in the US again, TMI's experience will come into play. I think we can safely ignore the Tsunami Factor, but we do have the odd tornado, earthquake or hurricane to deal with.

 

[icanhelp1]

We definitely learned lessons!

Even the Russians will never build another reactor on Chernobyl's design. If we ever kick start nuclear in the US again, TMI's experience will come into play. I think we can safely ignore the Tsunami Factor, but we do have the odd tornado, earthquake or hurricane to deal with.

You would think by now that we would have the tech savvy to build them underground and self contained. I know a water source is critical. More cost effected than a million solar panels in space.

 

[Que]

Three Mile Island - 1979
Chernobyl - 1986
Fukushima - 2011

Lesson not learned.

You certainly did not learn the correct lesson. That doesn't surprise me you seem to be incapable of learning. I've actively participated in this thread what three maybe four years and I have yet to see you learn anything.

You seem to think that hosting a thread where you regurgitate the standard talking points actually imbues you with expertise that you clearly don't have on subjects that you don't know anything about.

What we learn from the worst of the worst nuclear accidents (you left put the kursk) is that it does not lead to three-eyed fis, Ninja Turtles or giant ants.

We learned that at its worst the number of deaths and injuries per kilowatt-hour generated is lower than any other type of power generation.

You're no different than the idiot that points to a recent plane crash and announces that flying is far more dangerous than driving a car. It's empirically not true.

 

[Que]

NASA study: Human influence on global droughts goes back 100 years

Valid. You Californicators brought on your own droughts. And ot was not because of breathing out and cow flatulence.

 

[Luk]

Valid. You Californicators brought on your own droughts. And ot was not because of breathing out and cow flatulence.

We should rake the forests.

 

[Que]

We should rake the forests.

That's a tough one. In an ideal world you would let Wildfire run regularly so that it clears out the minimal amount of accumulating fuels and leaves the Big Trees. The problem is there's too many dwellings too close to those areas to do natural management.

 

[gunthernehmen]

That's a tough one. In an ideal world you would let Wildfire run regularly so that it clears out the minimal amount of accumulating fuels and leaves the Big Trees. The problem is there's too many dwellings too close to those areas to do natural management.

Some of those trees can't even germinate without those forest fires. Lodgepole Pine, for one.

 

[phrodeau]

Some of those trees can't even germinate without those forest fires. Lodgepole Pine, for one.

Who's the tree hugger now?

 

[gunthernehmen]

Who's the tree hugger now?

Dude, I love nature. Half the summer is camping and hiking. The fall is for hunting.

What I find ridiculous is the idea that humans are the sole (or even the primary) cause of climate change. I also find it ridiculous to think that people will ever come together to change things (except at gun point) and given the above, if they DID, it would be pointless.

 

[Que]

Who's the tree hugger now?

We have always been tree-huggers. You are the one that wants to deny them a breath of life-giving, rich air.

 

[phrodeau]

Dude, I love nature. Half the summer is camping and hiking. The fall is for hunting.

What I find ridiculous is the idea that humans are the sole (or even the primary) cause of climate change. I also find it ridiculous to think that people will ever come together to change things (except at gun point) and given the above, if they DID, it would be pointless.

Your fellow environmentalists came together, and managed to keep nuclear reactors out of harm's way of the trees.

 

[gunthernehmen]

Your fellow environmentalists came together, and managed to keep nuclear reactors out of harm's way of the trees.

The comprehending reader will find that I hold those cretins in the same regard with which I hold you.

 

[Klinkster]

In case you didn't notice, fro-doh has the IQ of a dill-doh, and is about as charming as watching leprosy spread.

The comprehending reader will find that I hold those cretins in the same regard with which I hold you.

 

[Hal9000_]

What we learn from the worst of the worst nuclear accidents (you left put the kursk) is that it does not lead to three-eyed fis, Ninja Turtles or giant ants.

We learned that at its worst the number of deaths and injuries per kilowatt-hour generated is lower than any other type of power generation.

You call this "active participation"?

Nuclear power plants are built for one sole reason.

You know what, and it ain't for "cheap, effecient, clean power".

This is why none have been built for some time, and active ones with plenty of remaining lifespans are being decommissioned.

 

[gunthernehmen]

You call this "active participation"?

Nuclear power plants are built for one sole reason.

You know what, and it ain't for "cheap, effecient, clean power".

This is why none have been built for some time, and active ones with plenty of remaining lifespans are being decommissioned.

And what reason is that? LOL

The costs and lack of ROI are completely artificial.

Folks, you want to see a genuine science denier? Look at Hal.

 

[Klinkster]

Let me take a shot at this 'why they do it' nuclear power thing....
To make money selling power?
How about coal fired plants?
To make money selling power?
Natural gas?
To make money selling power?
Solar?
To make money selling power?
Wind?
To make money selling power?
Hydroelectric?
Yes.....just a question....but is it to make money selling power?

Seems there is a common denominator.....but I could be wrong.

You call this "active participation"?

Nuclear power plants are built for one sole reason.

You know what, and it ain't for "cheap, effecient, clean power".

This is why none have been built for some time, and active ones with plenty of remaining lifespans are being decommissioned.

 

[Hal9000_]

And what reason is that? LOL

The costs and lack of ROI are completely artificial.

Folks, you want to see a genuine science denier? Look at Hal.

The costs of building a nuclear power plant are "artificial"?

Not to mention long term maintenance and eventual decommissioning?

What does one single shut down and refueling cost?

If it's all so easy and cheap the cost benefits would easily outweigh the NIMBY's and envrironazis.

The truth is that every nuclear power plant provides weapons material.

https://cnduk.org/resources/links-nuclear-power-nuclear-weapons/

Not only do you choose to ignore basic science, you also are ignorant of history.