REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Greenpeace Cofounder Supports Nuclear Energy

POSTED BY: KIRKULES
UPDATED: Wednesday, April 16, 2008 09:22
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 724
PAGE 1 of 1

Tuesday, April 15, 2008 1:21 PM

KIRKULES


Newsweek April 21 2008 http://www.newsweek.com/id/131753

"Patrick Moore is a critic of the environmental movement—an unlikely one at that. He was one of the cofounders of Greenpeace, and sailed into the Aleutian Islands on the organization's inaugural mission in 1971, to protest U.S. nuclear tests taking place there. After leading the group for 15 years he left abruptly, and, in a controversial reversal, has become an outspoken advocate of some of the environmental movement's most detested causes, chief among them nuclear energy."

"That's why I left Greenpeace: I could see that my fellow directors, none of whom had any science education, were starting to deal with issues around chemicals and biology and genetics, which they had no formal training in, and they were taking the organization into what I call "pop environmentalism," which uses sensationalism, misinformation, fear tactics, etc., to deal with people on an emotional level rather than an intellectual level."


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 15, 2008 3:17 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


My biggest issue with nuclear energy is nuclear waste. And I don't mean the high-level stuff that fule rods are made of, I mean the "low-level" stuff- the million of tons of tubing, pumps, concrete etc that are irradiated through their working life and which become too contaminated to simply dispose, but too massive to bury securely.

We have a shitload of nuclear waste all over the nation already, and nobody seems to know how to safely decomission a nuclear reactor at the end of its useful life. But if somebody has an answer to that problem, I'm all ears.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 15, 2008 5:16 PM

VETERAN

Don't squat with your spurs on.


Does the US even know how to build a reactor anymore?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 15, 2008 7:06 PM

FLETCH2


Quote:

Originally posted by Veteran:
Does the US even know how to build a reactor anymore?



US pressurized water reactors used for generating power are based on work originally done for the US Navy when the Navy was designing the first of it's nuclear powered ships and submarines in the 1950's.

Commercial companies adopted the Navy design because it had already past certain certifications and thus was the quickest 9and cheapest) design to bring to market.

The irony here is that the various civilian agencies charged with developing nuclear power -- especially research labs like Saudia had developed far safer, and more easily disposed of reactor designs that were never actually used. These were designs where for example basic physics prevented a meltdown in the event of a coolant loss and mechanisms for annealing pipes weakened by radiation was built into the design.

There was a British documentary made by the BBC (possibly shown as a Nova program over here) that discussed this development back in the 1980's

It seems that work has continued

http://www.inl.gov/technicalpublications/Documents/2808490.pdf

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 15, 2008 10:31 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Well, had it been me, I woulda put Rickover in charge of ALL nuclear energy, in spite of the fact that he later came to dislike even the idea, if you were gonna mess with something like that, he was definately the guy you wanted in charge.

He was a tyrannical, tempermental, iron-fisted sumbitch, with zero mercy or tolerance for slackerhood when it came to nuclear operations, and due in great part to his efforts, the US Navy has an operational reactor safety record of 100%, which is even more amazing if you know anything about the reactor systems on the Nautilus, or even worse, the old clankers Halibut and Seawolf.

If THAT guy was in charge of the design, construction and operation of nuclear power systems, I wouldn't have a problem with it, but it seems we're long past the days of folks with that kind of integrity having any real authority, and thus...

No, I don't trust it, not in the hands that it's currently in - in effect the same dipwads who did for the Radium Girls.
(go on, look it up)

-Frem
About Rickover -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyman_G._Rickover

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 16, 2008 12:47 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

The Radium Girls saga holds an important place in the history of both the field of health physics and the labor rights movement. The U.S. Radium Corporation hired some 70 women to perform various tasks including the handling of radium, while the owners and their scientists — familiar with the effects of radium — carefully avoided any exposure to it themselves; chemists at the plant used lead screens, masks and tongs.[citation needed] An estimated 4,000 workers were hired by corporations in the U.S. and Canada to paint watch faces with radium.

For fun, the Radium Girls painted their nails, teeth and faces with the deadly paint produced at the factory, sometimes to surprise their boyfriends when the lights went out. They mixed glue, water and radium powder, and then used camel hair brushes to apply the glowing paint onto dial numbers. The going rate, for painting 250 dials a day, was about a penny and a half per dial. The brushes would lose shape after a few strokes, so the U.S. Radium supervisors encouraged their workers to point the brushes with their lips, or use their tongues to keep them sharp.

Yeah, well.... that too. Business, being profit-oriented, has an inherent interest in keeping costs low. Which means lax inspections etc.

But that doesn't explain Chernobyl, which was a non-profit, "inherently safe" reactor. The best explanation I ever found for the CAUSE of the accident was that it was an ad hoc experiment by the operators. The problem was that the power to operate the reactor came from the reactor itself. The operators were wondering if there was enough power in the winding-down turbine to operate the dampening rods in case of an emergency shutdown, and so they deliberately tried fooling with the controls while shutting down the reactor.

DUH.

You have to factor "human stupidity" into the design and operation of something potentially devastating, and if you can't eliminate Murphy's Law then you really have to think about the consequences of catastrophic failure, and weigh those in the balance.

BTW- I also disagree with "solar" not being "green". The guy has not kept up with technology. Due to higher solar panel efficiencies and lower production energy (for example, amorphous silica as opposed to crystalline) solar energy is producing more than it consumes.


---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 16, 2008 4:08 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by Fletch2:
The irony here is that the various civilian agencies charged with developing nuclear power -- especially research labs like Saudia had developed far safer, and more easily disposed of reactor designs that were never actually used. These were designs where for example basic physics prevented a meltdown in the event of a coolant loss and mechanisms for annealing pipes weakened by radiation was built into the design.

Yes, this is a case in which regulation running amuck has resulted in worse conditions, not safer conditions. Environmentalists and the regulations we apply to appease them often seem to be pretty irrational.



Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 16, 2008 6:32 AM

FLETCH2


The point about the Sandia reactor is that if cooling fails, thermal expansion drops control rods into the reactor and shuts it down. There is no manual control of these rods, no override and no reset. If you lose cooling you "Brick" the reactor, it's done, kaput, that tends to discourage experimentation.

As to the Russian program, the Soviet government from the sixties until the fall of Communism went to extreme lengths to ensure that they appeared progressive and ahead of the west. EU nuclear inspectors looking at decomissioned Soviet era reactors in former eastern block countries found that the design and construction was rushed, materials substandard and spares often unavailable. The aim was to produce powewr for the Soviet state and to be seen as being advanced, it wasn't so important how well that was implemented as long as the PR value was there.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 16, 2008 9:22 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:

Environmentalists and the regulations we apply to appease them often seem to be pretty irrational.

That, I will agree with.

While they mean well, most of em* - they have this tendancy to not think things all the way through or fully research something before howling a fit about it.

-F
*And as with any org, you also do have those exploiting the "faithful" for personal power and gain, look out for those too.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
With apologies to JSF: Favorite songs (3)
Fri, April 19, 2024 18:08 - 53 posts
President Meathead's Uncle Was Not Eaten By Cannibals
Fri, April 19, 2024 17:21 - 1 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Fri, April 19, 2024 17:03 - 3535 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Fri, April 19, 2024 15:17 - 6268 posts
I'm surprised there's not an inflation thread yet
Fri, April 19, 2024 13:10 - 743 posts
Elections; 2024
Fri, April 19, 2024 10:01 - 2274 posts
BREAKING NEWS: Taylor Swift has a lot of ex-boyfriends
Fri, April 19, 2024 09:18 - 1 posts
This is what baseball bats are for, not to mention you're the one in a car...
Thu, April 18, 2024 23:38 - 1 posts
FACTS
Thu, April 18, 2024 19:48 - 548 posts
Biden's a winner, Trumps a loser. Hey Jack, I Was Right
Thu, April 18, 2024 18:38 - 148 posts
QAnons' representatives here
Thu, April 18, 2024 17:58 - 777 posts
Why does THUGR shit up the board by bumping his pointless threads?
Thu, April 18, 2024 12:38 - 9 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL