Comments by "Titanium Rain" (@ChucksSEADnDEAD) on "Ryan Grim: DANGEROUS Dead End Nuclear Energy Subsidies Are A WASTE Of Money" video.

@sjent The Oak Ridge reactor ran in the 1960s. They dealt with corrosion by using an alloy that had already been developed for other nuclear programs.
2
@sjent It worked. Saying it wasn't a working prototype is false considering that it went full power in 1965.
2
It's not a troll army. It's people who've organically discovered the topic.
2
They literally rushed the test to comply with regulations. Ironic.
1
@NewLeftToday The xenon poisoning issue was suppressed inside the Soviet Union. The technicians were not even supposed to know that what they were doing was dangerous. They were not ignoring regulations because they were doing something that nobody should know was bad.
1
@NewLeftToday So not only they rushed the testing to comply with regulation, they also cut corners and ignored other regulations. So more regulation is your answer? It's either going to cause people to rush things to force compliance or going to be ignored, or both at the same time. How does regulation prevent that?
1
@NewLeftToday The existence of regulations did not prevent Chernobyl which contradicts your initial post. That is all.
1
@cyberft By that logic many countries have only proved they had no hydro dam failures yet. The potential cost of a massive flood hasn't been proved away.
1
@cyberft So 171,000 people can die in a dam failure but because it cost 500 million it's all fine and dandy.
1
No. Powering the entire planet is a tremendously complex ordeal. It's not buttering a toast.
1
@paulmobleyscience Fukushima didn't show anything. The plant easily survived the tsunami, even though it had an inadequate sea wall. The problem was that the cooling system could not be restarted because all of the generators and electric panels were down in the basements below the water level. "There is no answer for the waste" - Yes, there is. The Finns are about to start their geological storage program.
1
@zuiop9993 That's textbook lying with statistics. The US isn't "shifting" to wind so China spending more doesn't mean shifting. The US isn't "shifting" to solar so them spending more on PV (probably less in per capita basis) doesn't mean shifting. Like you said, they're still building coal power plants so they're not shifting anything. They're simply expanding their capacity.
1
@snuffeldjuret They're not over-hyping it, the technology is being denied. There's a compilation of the DoE being asked about molten salt reactors almost every year and them saying "we're looking into it". When the people in charge drag their feet and gatekeep and the people hyping them have no power to make things real, how do you expect results?
1
@snuffeldjuret And outside the US, India and China are looking into it.
1
@idlereport You people just repeat the same talking points.
1
@parkyayak " Fukushima was built in the 'ring of fire.' Eighty percent of the world's most powerful earthquakes occur in this area." - And the plant survived easily. The problem was that the cooling system was halted for safety reasons and then couldn't be restarted. "Another problem with nuclear power is it is an eyesore" - But hills covered in solar panels and wind turbines aren't?
1
@parkyayak Wrong. Reactor 1 did not have a turbopump but a passive cooling system, which lasted for 10 hours. The tsunami arrived less than an hour after the earthquake triggered the control rods. That means that cooling of reactor 1 continued uninterrupted for 9 hours after the tsunami. Operators had to shut down the heat exchanger for safety reasons. When they tried to operate the heat exchanger again, it could not be restarted. Reactors 2 and 3 the turbopumps operated for 24 hours. The claim that the tsunami flooding stopped the cooling is false. "A nuclear meltdown and a few chemical explosions, the results of these explosions was actual damage to the facility. This and you say, "the plant survived easily."" - Because it did. The tsunami did not cause nuclear meltdown or the explosions. The plant survived the natural disaster. Failures only started occurring later. "Also, pay no attention to the exclusion zone where no one is allowed to live, even ten years later, because the plant survived easily. Pay no mind to the contamination caused throughout the area that is still in the process of being contained, even ten years later, people cannot return to their homes, but the plant survived easily." - Which was not caused by the tusnami. You're being ridiculous. Stop this childish nonsense. You have no arguments, you're just trying to make an emotional case and enumerating consequences, without actually drawing the relationship between cause and effect. The plant easily survived the natural disaster, and this is evidenced by the fact that the engineers that blew the whistle many years prior had suggested to move the backup systems uphill. They knew the plant would survive the disaster, it would be the backup systems that could fail. And they did, while the plant itself was more than salvageable.
1
@michaelcummins7397 "That investment needs to be better spent on renewable" - And you'll be spending that money all over again in 15-20 years.
1
@zuiop9993 A group of engineers actually blew the whistle on Fukushima lacking safety precautions and were ignored. This happened in 2000-2001. So don't be so quite sure.
1
That's the naive assumption. The restrictions are more about controlling the market than actually making things safe. If it was about safety, you'd have modern and safer plants being built because the regulations promoted it. Instead, we're dragging our feet and jeopardizing the entire industry.
1