Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

FBaggins

(28,613 posts)
124. Changing the subject?
Tue Mar 15, 2022, 10:33 AM
Mar 2022

Think anyone on the thread can't guess why?

Slightly more logical an argument... but still not particularly logical. Why would the relative safety of a much older version of the technology have anything to do with whether the latest version should be looked at?

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Anyone who has a remote sense of reality would applaud this. NNadir Mar 2022 #1
Guess I don't have a remote sense of reality..... a kennedy Mar 2022 #5
I guess not. NNadir Mar 2022 #19
Correct, you don't correct! Nt USALiberal Mar 2022 #44
No. Act_of_Reparation Mar 2022 #150
It's okay. Every action has costs and benefits that change as Hortensis Mar 2022 #160
I agree with you. Buckeyeblue Mar 2022 #33
+1000 Freethinker65 Mar 2022 #34
I agree. Happy Hoosier Mar 2022 #46
Good luck with all the spent fuel. Kid Berwyn Mar 2022 #51
Anyone who is concerned about valuable used nuclear fuel when... NNadir Mar 2022 #58
So, you don't know what to do with the nuclear waste. Kid Berwyn Mar 2022 #61
Post removed Post removed Mar 2022 #64
Wow!!!! MarineCombatEngineer Mar 2022 #74
Damn, I missed it dumbcat Mar 2022 #80
It was pretty much to the point about what he thought of the other's MarineCombatEngineer Mar 2022 #82
Karen Silkwood was murdered trying to tell the truth about nuclear power. Kid Berwyn Mar 2022 #86
Dude or dudette, MarineCombatEngineer Mar 2022 #89
Right back at ya. Kid Berwyn Mar 2022 #94
+100 agree. MarineCombatEngineer Mar 2022 #97
Well hopefully the plant discussed in the OP isn't going to build using 1970s tech. Cuthbert Allgood Mar 2022 #96
Nuclear power will never be safe...not from accidents, attacks etc. We can do better. And while Demsrule86 Mar 2022 #77
Lift the ban on reprocessing Amishman Mar 2022 #92
The land mismanagement going on in the name of solar jeffreyi Mar 2022 #155
Exactly. Layzeebeaver Mar 2022 #83
I certainly do. This subject and our agreement on it is how we met on here. Celerity Mar 2022 #168
Reading Bill Gates latest book... WarGamer Mar 2022 #2
Gonna have to read his book...thanks a kennedy Mar 2022 #7
I know he's a weird dude... WarGamer Mar 2022 #11
I used to think no, but small scale seems feasible and I support it. Pobeka Mar 2022 #3
The article stated "the company's small-scale nuclear generating technology", multigraincracker Mar 2022 #24
Yep. I saw that. Thanks. Pobeka Mar 2022 #39
Its hardly a carbon free power source when the fuel must be mined and processed Blues Heron Mar 2022 #4
This story says about 1/100th exboyfil Mar 2022 #12
I looked it up the other day will try and find it. Blues Heron Mar 2022 #15
If the mining equipment is run off electricity exboyfil Mar 2022 #18
we are talking fuel here - like I said Blues Heron Mar 2022 #26
If we are dickering over 9g/kwh vs 11g/kwh RandomNumbers Mar 2022 #79
It's net positive over the years while FF is not, Nuke power is way beyond 3 Mile Island or Fukashim uponit7771 Mar 2022 #14
they just leave the rods in place -are you kidding? Blues Heron Mar 2022 #21
I'm sure you will point out regulations regarding transport... DiamondShark Mar 2022 #141
My point is they dismantled every last remnant of that nuke plant Blues Heron Mar 2022 #142
Do you know the regulations regarding transportation of spent fuel? DiamondShark Mar 2022 #143
You have a lot of questions - but do you have a point or an opinion? Blues Heron Mar 2022 #145
This message was self-deleted by its author DiamondShark Mar 2022 #161
There are regualtions in place regarding transportation of spent fuel. DiamondShark Mar 2022 #162
Wind and solar are hardly carbon free considering that they require fossil fuel backup... hunter Mar 2022 #87
fuel-wise they are 100 percent carbon free Blues Heron Mar 2022 #99
Why does that matter? FBaggins Mar 2022 #114
Is this gaslighting? Blues Heron Mar 2022 #115
Pretending that only fuel-related emissions matter? I suppose one could claim that. FBaggins Mar 2022 #119
Which nuke do you think will meltdown next? Blues Heron Mar 2022 #122
Changing the subject? FBaggins Mar 2022 #124
no answer? Blues Heron Mar 2022 #125
I guess that was a "yes" FBaggins Mar 2022 #129
So which one will melt down next? Blues Heron Mar 2022 #132
Which Ones Have Actually Melted Down? ProfessorGAC Mar 2022 #164
5 meltdowns and two exclusion zones Blues Heron Mar 2022 #165
Which ones would still have happened with the design under discussion in the OP? FBaggins Mar 2022 #166
Thats so comforting Blues Heron Mar 2022 #169
So, whenever the wind isn't blowing and the sun isn't shining we live without electricity. hunter Mar 2022 #131
You're assuming no storage. lagomorph777 Mar 2022 #117
When did storage become carbon-free? FBaggins Mar 2022 #128
Which magical storage system do you have in mind? hunter Mar 2022 #134
Multiple technologies are being developed right now. By engineers. Not magicians. lagomorph777 Mar 2022 #135
The unintended consequences of anti-nuclear activism Zeitghost Mar 2022 #6
yeah real safe - so safe you cant live in vast swaths of the earth now - Fukushima ring a bell? Blues Heron Mar 2022 #10
And coal plants are making the whole planet... Happy Hoosier Mar 2022 #47
Compared to the damage being caused by fossil fuels Zeitghost Mar 2022 #48
The problem with carbon pollution (fossil fuels) is the amount used, RandomNumbers Mar 2022 #85
It's over 40 years since Mile Island, come on people lets not be luddites. Atomic power is beyond... uponit7771 Mar 2022 #8
you are dreaming - its just as dangerous as ever. Fukushima was only ten years ago Blues Heron Mar 2022 #13
Fukushima was 60 years old and not supposed to be operating, your making the case for new uponit7771 Mar 2022 #16
Correction -it was 40 years old at the time of the multiple meltdowns Blues Heron Mar 2022 #69
The design started in the '50s and it was supposed to be shut down already uponit7771 Mar 2022 #102
nature shut it down for us Blues Heron Mar 2022 #105
Irrelevant point, enforce the rules nuclear works. Just like airliners. Not perfect but better than uponit7771 Mar 2022 #106
How close is your closest nuke? Blues Heron Mar 2022 #108
Not with 21st century tech, we all need to update ourselves on nuke power. Take down the old uponit7771 Mar 2022 #118
Just take them down, sounds so simple Blues Heron Mar 2022 #121
... and Build Back Better? right ? tia uponit7771 Mar 2022 #126
Company always cut corners so I am absolutely against nukes...there is no coming back from a Demsrule86 Mar 2022 #154
Same with airliners but they're fairly well regulated. uponit7771 Mar 2022 #163
"Nobody could have seen that coming"? betsuni Mar 2022 #109
pure folly Blues Heron Mar 2022 #112
Fukushima: old reactor built right on a coastal area with a long history of earthquakes/tsunamis. betsuni Mar 2022 #27
same uranium, same scam. Blues Heron Mar 2022 #28
Chernobyl and Fukushima, both seventies nuclear technology. betsuni Mar 2022 #49
Its inherently a bad idea, whatever new fangled XTRA SAFE!# tech they come up with Blues Heron Mar 2022 #50
Seventies nuclear technology makes it a bad idea? betsuni Mar 2022 #52
I think you are being deliberately obtuse here Blues Heron Mar 2022 #53
Seventies seventies seventies. It's 2022. betsuni Mar 2022 #59
The idea nuclear is carbon free is laughable Blues Heron Mar 2022 #60
Chernobyl SEVENTIES technology. betsuni Mar 2022 #62
instead of repeating yourself ad nauseum and posting silly emoticons Blues Heron Mar 2022 #63
Oh, now it's about me! betsuni Mar 2022 #65
make your argument if you have one Blues Heron Mar 2022 #67
Oh dear. All I ever said was that it's not the seventies. betsuni Mar 2022 #70
Thats compelling Blues Heron Mar 2022 #73
It's still not the seventies. betsuni Mar 2022 #76
Let's compare those track records you speak of... Zeitghost Mar 2022 #127
There are arguments for nuclear but... Renew Deal Mar 2022 #54
But no newdayneeded Mar 2022 #66
what is your point? Blues Heron Mar 2022 #68
Fukushima newdayneeded Mar 2022 #71
Was there a tsunami at Three Mile Island? Blues Heron Mar 2022 #75
Um, "Old corrupt conservative men in charge " RandomNumbers Mar 2022 #88
What do mean by "please turn on the news"? betsuni Mar 2022 #90
Fair point. Maybe I should say, look at recent history RandomNumbers Mar 2022 #91
50-50 senate. Gives each senator a veto. betsuni Mar 2022 #95
You are correct. But unfortunately it is reality. nt. RandomNumbers Mar 2022 #98
You literally just proved the point FOR clean nuclear obamanut2012 Mar 2022 #56
What on earth is clean nuclear - are you kidding? Blues Heron Mar 2022 #57
What about Japan. No to nukes...it will never be safe. Demsrule86 Mar 2022 #152
1950s design vs 2018 ... We can't be Luddite with nuke power uponit7771 Mar 2022 #153
They won't find it easy to obtain insurance nt Wicked Blue Mar 2022 #9
How come nobody ever worries about insurance for the seven million people who die each year... NNadir Mar 2022 #22
Good! Elessar Zappa Mar 2022 #17
sounds like a bumper sticker Blues Heron Mar 2022 #29
Montana did something similar last session. MontanaFarmer Mar 2022 #20
You don't need batteries. Gravity systems are coming along. Pobeka Mar 2022 #40
Better get used to the idea. Triloon Mar 2022 #23
Can be done but... zipplewrath Mar 2022 #25
but we are not handling the spent fuel rods Blues Heron Mar 2022 #31
You're not wrong zipplewrath Mar 2022 #41
The technology is supposedly vastly improved... VarryOn Mar 2022 #30
thats what they said about Chernobyl - now look Blues Heron Mar 2022 #32
I'm going to assume technology has improved since '72 when it was built... VarryOn Mar 2022 #36
It's the same uranium as it's always been, same uranium mines, same processing, same waste. Blues Heron Mar 2022 #38
The same uranium that powers our Navy? Cuthbert Allgood Mar 2022 #104
yes that shit is everywhere isnt it. Blues Heron Mar 2022 #107
How many reactor accidents has the Navy had since they started using them? Cuthbert Allgood Mar 2022 #137
good safety record - keep it up! Blues Heron Mar 2022 #138
The flaws in the Soviet RBMK reactors were known in the 70s. NutmegYankee Mar 2022 #43
Yeah, 60 years ago uponit7771 Mar 2022 #100
none of the nukes are getting any younger - which will be the next to blow? Blues Heron Mar 2022 #103
We could have a meltdown every decade Zeitghost Mar 2022 #130
interesting opinion Blues Heron Mar 2022 #136
They aren't getting younger Zeitghost Mar 2022 #146
the Chernobyl exclusion zone is 1000 square miles Blues Heron Mar 2022 #147
What is the square mileage Zeitghost Mar 2022 #149
check the news bro - they keep cutting power to it Blues Heron Mar 2022 #151
We will soon know who is wrong on that particular issue Zeitghost Mar 2022 #156
Nuclear has risks but continued fossil fuel use is certain suicide. femmedem Mar 2022 #35
Nuclear is the only source BGBD Mar 2022 #37
+1, and now the fuel can be recycled down to safe exposures up close uponit7771 Mar 2022 #101
Well...three significant accidents jmowreader Mar 2022 #120
Hard to say that TMI BGBD Mar 2022 #123
Aggressive renewable energy schemes in places like California, Denmark, and Germany have failed... hunter Mar 2022 #42
I hope it happens more Meowmee Mar 2022 #45
Good, we should have done this years ago obamanut2012 Mar 2022 #55
I think nuclear may be the lesser of two evils, at least until ... dawg Mar 2022 #72
I doubt renewable ever BGBD Mar 2022 #78
I think renewables will eventually get us there, but not soon. dawg Mar 2022 #81
At least it would diminish Manchin's hold on the Democratic party. I'm for it. Samrob Mar 2022 #93
Yes please! GoneOffShore Mar 2022 #84
See coal deaths per year!!!! USALiberal Mar 2022 #110
Anti-nuclear is just being pro-climate change Sympthsical Mar 2022 #111
Nuclear plants are needed to be green dsp3000 Mar 2022 #113
Not really comfortable with nukes and "out of the box" in the same paragraph... lagomorph777 Mar 2022 #116
Shit, are they going to bring back asbestos and lead paint while they're at it? Initech Mar 2022 #133
I am for nukes Chuuku Davis Mar 2022 #139
Modern fission nuclear power is a smart alternative energy choice dwayneb Mar 2022 #140
Just stop it. Economic de-growth is the only sane path to sustainable human life on earth. Ron Green Mar 2022 #144
"Economic de-growth" So live in yurts off the land somehow? EX500rider Mar 2022 #148
I'm doing the best I can (or the least I can), and so are a lot Ron Green Mar 2022 #158
Way Past Time to Do This TuskMoar Mar 2022 #157
To have this debate about nuclear is as silly to me as debating vaccinations rictofen Mar 2022 #159
Renewables do not have enough EROEI to be the sole energy sources atm. Nuclear is a must. Celerity Mar 2022 #167
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»A possible return to atom...»Reply #124