Trell

Trell

Audioholic Samurai
Nuclear energy is certainly dangerous. What I find interesting is if you ask a Ukrainian he/she might mention something about a place called Chernobyl. (HBO did a great miniseries on it). That accident, again a plant designed and run by bureaucrats and incompetents had much more of an impact in Germany and the region than the events of Fukushima did. Its interesting that the Germans did not shut down their plants right after that. Wonder why? Well one of the reasons could be there was more money to make for the Media and the Gas lobby by pushing hysteria.
I don't know, its an opinion based on some of the facts out there.
Living in Scandinavia at that time you could be sure we looked at fallout patterns.

You have the right to yours as well.
That is generous of you.

Even if you think that an opinion that opposes your worldview is ignorant.
I'll always fight for that right.
There is a difference between opinions based on facts about dangers of nuclear power, and dismissal of dangers because of "over reaction fanned by the Media and elements of the Natural Gas lobby in Germany and Russia." The first is rational while the second is not.
 
SithZedi

SithZedi

Audioholic
Respectfully disagree. I think the first is rational, the second reality. Reality is sometimes not rational.
I was doing a lot of business in Germany post Fukushima accident and when the decisions to shut down their Nukes were being discussed. Do not underestimate the amount of $$$ being thrown at politicians and regulators during both the Nord Stream and now the Nord 2 project.
Questions I had then and now:
Isn't it slightly curious that Germany's Chancellor before Merkel, Gerhard Schroder, joined the boards of Nord and Rosneft after Merkel took over?
What Nord and Rosneft do for a living?
Do you think they might be interested in lobbying German politicians?
"Follow the Money", "Show me the Money!".

I envy your time in Scandinavia. I spent some time in Denmark (although some in Norway do not think the Danes are Scandinavian! )
Its interesting to note, like the French the Swedes have reluctantly acknowledged that Nuclear has to be part of their future.
Didn't they want to shut down their Nuclear plants years ago only to change their minds? Now they are building new Nukes to get to 30% reliance. We in the US should learn from that as we are at @19%...

As Woody Allen stated: "I hate Reality, but its still the best place to get a good steak"
 
Trell

Trell

Audioholic Samurai
Sweden have closed several of their nuclear plants and the rest are to follow. What is discussed whether or not to extend the deadline for closing them all, yet again. The decision to close them was in a referendum in 1980 after the Three Mile Island accident.

Since the nuclear reactors already exists it is not straightforward to just close them, but building new ones are very expensive.

Storage of nuclear waste continues to be a problem for us. Can we bury it on your backyard, please?
 
SithZedi

SithZedi

Audioholic
Ha, not possible. Too close to NYC and the politicians would not allow it no matter how much I would try.
What to do with waste? The US used to have a Reprocessing ability like the French do to reduce waste and get further use of the fuel. I remember President Carter shut our facilities down in the 70s because of Three Mile Island and Jane Fonda. Think Bush tried to revive it but Obama shut it down again...

Anyway, though I am cynical of many of Wikipedia's entries, see below from Wiki....The Swedes seem to have things well in hand regarding nuclear waste and are replacing existing reactors.

"Sweden formerly had a nuclear phase-out policy, aiming to end nuclear power generation in Sweden by 2010. On 5 February 2009, the Government of Sweden announced an agreement allowing for the replacement of existing reactors, effectively ending the phase-out policy.[3]

Nuclear waste
Sweden has a well-developed nuclear waste management policy. Low-level waste is currently stored at the reactor sites or destroyed at Studsvik. The country has dedicated a ship, M/S Sigyn, to move waste from power plants to repositories. Sweden has also constructed a permanent underground repository, SFR, final repository for short-lived radioactive waste, with a capacity of 63,000 cubic meters for intermediate and low-level waste. A central interim storage facility for spent nuclear fuel, Clab, is located near Oskarshamn. The government has also identified two potential candidates for burial of additional waste (high-level), Oskarshamn and Östhammar.[22]
 
D

Dude#1279435

Audioholic Field Marshall
Sweden have closed several of their nuclear plants and the rest are to follow. What is discussed whether or not to extend the deadline for closing them all, yet again. The decision to close them was in a referendum in 1980 after the Three Mile Island accident.

Since the nuclear reactors already exists it is not straightforward to just close them, but building new ones are very expensive.

Storage of nuclear waste continues to be a problem for us. Can we bury it on your backyard, please?
And time consuming. Isn't it something like 10 years building time and a whole lot of paperwork when in the end it may never happen?
 
SithZedi

SithZedi

Audioholic
And time consuming. Isn't it something like 10 years building time and a whole lot of paperwork when in the end it may never happen?
It certainly is but its part of the trade offs involved. Personally, I do not think any country is going to come close to meeting their carbon emissions targets without Nuclear being part of the solution. Where is all the electricity going to come from to charge all the electric vehicles planned and backup the grid in case the wind doesn't blow or the sun don't shine?
If a better way is discovered, GeoThermal, Tidal, etc...I'm all for it.
 
Trell

Trell

Audioholic Samurai
It certainly is but its part of the trade offs involved. Personally, I do not think any country is going to come close to meeting their carbon emissions targets without Nuclear being part of the solution. Where is all the electricity going to come from to charge all the electric vehicles planned and backup the grid in case the wind doesn't blow or the sun don't shine?
If a better way is discovered, GeoThermal, Tidal, etc...I'm all for it.
Hydroelectricity is an old source of electricity in Scandinavia. Wind power generators out in the ocean. Tidal power is experimented with and may become important in many places. Many households in Sweden use private geothermal energy for heating. Solar panels are cheap now.
 
SithZedi

SithZedi

Audioholic
We should be open to all within reason. I am fascinated by Geothermal and Fusion Power.
I just hope the Chinese don't blow us all up with the latter.
 
Trell

Trell

Audioholic Samurai

>>>
The Biden administration has information indicating Russia might soon launch a false-flag operation to provide a pretext for an invasion of Ukraine, a U.S. official told POLITICO.

Per the official, Russia has already placed a group of operatives “trained in urban warfare and in using explosives” in eastern Ukraine. The intel suggests that this group might “carry out acts of sabotage against Russia’s own proxy-forces,” thereby providing the Kremlin a convenient excuse to send some or all of its 100,000 troops stationed outside of Ukraine over the border.

The Russian military plans to start these activities “several weeks” before a potential invasion, which is estimated to begin sometime between mid-January and mid-February, the official continued. “We saw this playbook in 2014 with Crimea.”

<<<
 
SithZedi

SithZedi

Audioholic

Rather confusing. At at time when we should be squeezing Putin iro the Ukraine, our Senate does the above that greatly helps him and his energy strategy.
The Filibuster was used to do it 55-44 along party lines. Meanwhile, the nominal head of the party that defeated this bill, President Biden, has been using a lot of his political capital to end the use of the Filibuster.
What's our strategy then?
Putin plays chess, we play checkers.
 
GO-NAD!

GO-NAD!

Audioholic Spartan

Rather confusing. At at time when we should be squeezing Putin iro the Ukraine, our Senate does the above that greatly helps him and his energy strategy.
The Filibuster was used to do it 55-44 along party lines. Meanwhile, the nominal head of the party that defeated this bill, President Biden, has been using a lot of his political capital to end the use of the Filibuster.
What's our strategy then?
Putin plays chess, we play checkers.
I'm not sure that now is the time to impose such sanctions. Should keep the powder dry and use it as a threat. What if sanctions are imposed and the Russians invade anyway? That's one lever that will no longer be available.
 
SithZedi

SithZedi

Audioholic
You could be right. I would like to know what the strategic objective is but that's above my paygrade. Blinken is not my cup of tea. He seems to like project American power a little too much for my taste.
 
highfigh

highfigh

Audioholic Slumlord
Living in Scandinavia at that time you could be sure we looked at fallout patterns.
I would also worry about where water would flow from the nuclear plants in the event of a breach because not all nuclear power plant failures involve airborne components. Obviously, a nuclear strike would, but how far & wide it would spread depends on the altitude and strength of the blast.

I hope Putin was being honest when he said that nobody wants to use nuclear weapons. Kim Jong Un, OTOH, doesn't make me confident of anything. That guy needs to go away and be replaced by someone who's not as bent on showing how strong he is or as reckless.
 

Latest posts

newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top