EPA Muzzling Scientists on Climate Change

#101
#101
LSU-SIU said:
I don't think I am going to glow in the dark if something happens at the coal plant. Its the unexpected emissions I think I am concern with - context please.
Click to expand...

This is based on reporting - and that is pretty suspect these days. At Fukushima spent fuel was stored in pools - not that uncommon, but those pools were outside a containment building. When power was interrupted the cooling to the spent fuel went off with apparently enough heat buildup to damage cladding. That permitted a buildup of hydrogen in the buildings that eventually blew up destroying the buildings and spreading contaminants.

Post TMI, all PWRs have spark igniters around the containment dome to burn off hydrogen (if produced) before the concentration reaches catastrophic levels. Fukushima seems not to have had that provision, or the thought that an overhead crane positioned above exposed fuel bundles protected only by water might be a problem. Had the site retained reliable onsite power following the earthquake and tsunami, things would have been a lot different - for the better. Whether you want to put the blame on not applying all applicable technology, poor siting, or an inability to fully imagine and comprehend a catastrophic geological event, I'll go with management decisions and cost considerations.

I worked in some Japanese plants (a different owner) and found them very competent. Got to go through a moderate earthquake and a snowstorm measured in meters of snow, and I found their preparedness excellent.
 
#102
#102
#103
#103
AM64 said:
This is based on reporting - and that is pretty suspect these days. At Fukushima spent fuel was stored in pools - not that uncommon, but those pools were outside a containment building. When power was interrupted the cooling to the spent fuel went off with apparently enough heat buildup to damage cladding. That permitted a buildup of hydrogen in the buildings that eventually blew up destroying the buildings and spreading contaminants.

Post TMI, all PWRs have spark igniters around the containment dome to burn off hydrogen (if produced) before the concentration reaches catastrophic levels. Fukushima seems not to have had that provision, or the thought that an overhead crane positioned above exposed fuel bundles protected only by water might be a problem. Had the site retained reliable onsite power following the earthquake and tsunami, things would have been a lot different - for the better. Whether you want to put the blame on not applying all applicable technology, poor siting, or an inability to fully imagine and comprehend a catastrophic geological event, I'll go with management decisions and cost considerations.

I worked in some Japanese plants (a different owner) and found them very competent. Got to go through a moderate earthquake and a snowstorm measured in meters of snow, and I found their preparedness excellent.
Click to expand...

I do not doubt what you are saying, but accidents happen - we can call it poor planning, bad engineering, bad management, bad execution, etc. What can go wrong, usually does, eventually.

Basically, we are not talking cleanup, generally speaking - we are talking containment and waiting 500 years. Its just my opinion, this is irresponsible to the people that come after us. Its just not a real solvable problem when it goes wrong.
 
#104
#104
LSU-SIU said:
I do not doubt what you are saying, but accidents happen - we can call it poor planning, bad engineering, bad management, bad execution, etc. What can go wrong, usually does, eventually.

Basically, we are not talking cleanup, generally speaking - we are talking containment and waiting 500 years. Its just my opinion, this is irresponsible to the people that come after us. Its just not a real solvable problem when it goes wrong.
Click to expand...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesc...-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/#1c00746709b7

Deaths per trillion kwh (in the U.S.):
Coal - ~10,000
Nuclear - 0.1

Your estimation of risk is only several orders of magnitude off.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#105
#105
armchair said:
I challenge you to show how EPA regulations are detrimental to our economy. You can't---it's the usual conservative/GOP nonsense that is ruining this country. Scott Pruitt and all other climate-change skeptics are just the worst sort of ideological hacks. It's a sad state when people with ZERO scientific background pretend to challenge scientistic consensus merely because, for some strange reason, they don't want to inconvenience big, billion-dollar energy companies. We need more environmental regulation, not less--and if we had it maybe millions of people wouldn't be dying of cancer every year. The polar ice caps are melting, the Alaska tundra is melting, the oceans are warming rapidly--and conservative boobs pretend there isn't a problem. "Gee, we'd hate to hurt the coal industry." Coal has been a dying industry for decades--barely employs 50K people. Or: "We'd hate for the Methane Unlimited Energy Company to lose a dollar off its stock price." Utterly dishonest, short-term thinking that imperils the planet. Scott Pruitt--a yahoo from Oklahoma who's been in the pocket of the energy industry for many years-- should be tarred and feathered.
Click to expand...
Tar is a petroleum product. Not very green of you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top