Select to expand quoteKamikuza 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 quoteMr 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 quoteMr 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 quoteKamikuza 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 quoteMacroscien 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 quoteKamikuza 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 quoteKamikuza 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.
Select to expand quotepsychomub 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 quoteMr 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 quoteMr 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 quoteKamikuza 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 quoteKamikuza 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 quoteKamikuza 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 quotepsychomub 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 quotelog 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 quotepsychomub 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 quoteKamikuza 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 quotecisco 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.
