Was that you, Johnny.... always preaching about the benefits of nuclear
power?
Good I guess, as long as you don't have an earthquake.

On 3/14/11 6:48 PM, True North wrote:
Was that you, Johnny.... always preaching about the benefits of nuclear
power?
Good I guess, as long as you don't have an earthquake.

I haven't been opposed to nuclear power. I live about 20 miles from one.
But this latest incident in Japan sure gives one pause.

On 3/14/2011 6:48 PM, True North wrote:
Was that you, Johnny.... always preaching about the benefits of nuclear
power?
Good I guess, as long as you don't have an earthquake.
There is not a no risk utopia.
We have to learn to safely handle nuclear power, and coal, etc.
Ultimately nuclear wins out.
Japanese are not
ultimate technologists. Our Nuclear Power Plants are a lot more
sophisticated and more redundant safety.
Solar and wind power have so far cost more for acquisition and
maintenance etc than can be recouped.
Solar nor wind can supply the needs for a Houston.
Grow up and face reality that there is no zero risk energy supply let
alone affordability.
The ones persisting in this notion better make plans to grow fur and
live in a cave and graze.

On 3/14/11 6:58 PM, Lil Abner wrote:
On 3/14/2011 6:48 PM, True North wrote:
Was that you, Johnny.... always preaching about the benefits of nuclear
power?
Good I guess, as long as you don't have an earthquake.



There is not a no risk utopia.
We have to learn to safely handle nuclear power, and coal, etc.
Ultimately nuclear wins out.
Japanese are not
ultimate technologists. Our Nuclear Power Plants are a lot more
sophisticated and more redundant safety.


Oh, really? Please provide proof that our creaky old nuclear power
plants are a lot more sophisticated and more "redundant safety" than the
equally old (or new) Japanese nuclear power plants. I understand at
least one of our nuke plants, in California, is literally built over an
earthquake fault, and that several plants in the South East are also
built in areas of seismic activity.

On 3/14/2011 7:04 PM, Harryk wrote:
On 3/14/11 6:58 PM, Lil Abner wrote:
On 3/14/2011 6:48 PM, True North wrote:
Was that you, Johnny.... always preaching about the benefits of nuclear
power?
Good I guess, as long as you don't have an earthquake.



There is not a no risk utopia.
We have to learn to safely handle nuclear power, and coal, etc.
Ultimately nuclear wins out.
Japanese are not
ultimate technologists. Our Nuclear Power Plants are a lot more
sophisticated and more redundant safety.


Oh, really? Please provide proof that our creaky old nuclear power
plants are a lot more sophisticated and more "redundant safety" than the
equally old (or new) Japanese nuclear power plants. I understand at
least one of our nuke plants, in California, is literally built over an
earthquake fault, and that several plants in the South East are also
built in areas of seismic activity.
So there are seismic areas everywhere.
The problem in Japan was cooling shut down, at least with limited info
published. They perhaps could have not had a problem with something as
simple as adequate back up diesel generators or pumps.
What would you do? Pick out a cave yet?

On 3/14/11 7:04 PM, Harryk wrote:
On 3/14/11 6:58 PM, Lil Abner wrote:
On 3/14/2011 6:48 PM, True North wrote:
Was that you, Johnny.... always preaching about the benefits of nuclear
power?
Good I guess, as long as you don't have an earthquake.



There is not a no risk utopia.
We have to learn to safely handle nuclear power, and coal, etc.
Ultimately nuclear wins out.
Japanese are not
ultimate technologists. Our Nuclear Power Plants are a lot more
sophisticated and more redundant safety.


Oh, really? Please provide proof that our creaky old nuclear power
plants are a lot more sophisticated and more "redundant safety" than the
equally old (or new) Japanese nuclear power plants. I understand at
least one of our nuke plants, in California, is literally built over an
earthquake fault, and that several plants in the South East are also
built in areas of seismic activity.

Oh, and all the reactors at the plant in question were designed by...you
guessed it...General Electric. All but one were built by...you guessed
it...General Electric.

But *our* nuclear power plants built by...you guessed it...General
Electric...are a lot safer.

On 3/14/11 7:09 PM, Lil Abner wrote:
On 3/14/2011 7:04 PM, Harryk wrote:
On 3/14/11 6:58 PM, Lil Abner wrote:
On 3/14/2011 6:48 PM, True North wrote:
Was that you, Johnny.... always preaching about the benefits of nuclear
power?
Good I guess, as long as you don't have an earthquake.



There is not a no risk utopia.
We have to learn to safely handle nuclear power, and coal, etc.
Ultimately nuclear wins out.
Japanese are not
ultimate technologists. Our Nuclear Power Plants are a lot more
sophisticated and more redundant safety.


Oh, really? Please provide proof that our creaky old nuclear power
plants are a lot more sophisticated and more "redundant safety" than the
equally old (or new) Japanese nuclear power plants. I understand at
least one of our nuke plants, in California, is literally built over an
earthquake fault, and that several plants in the South East are also
built in areas of seismic activity.
So there are seismic areas everywhere.
The problem in Japan was cooling shut down, at least with limited info
published. They perhaps could have not had a problem with something as
simple as adequate back up diesel generators or pumps.
What would you do? Pick out a cave yet?



What I wouldn't do is make a pronouncement that our nuclear plants are a
"lot more sophisticated and more redundant safety" than the Japanese
plants, since both probably were designed and built by the same US
manufacturer, GE.

On 3/14/2011 7:09 PM, Harryk wrote:
On 3/14/11 7:04 PM, Harryk wrote:
On 3/14/11 6:58 PM, Lil Abner wrote:
On 3/14/2011 6:48 PM, True North wrote:
Was that you, Johnny.... always preaching about the benefits of nuclear
power?
Good I guess, as long as you don't have an earthquake.



There is not a no risk utopia.
We have to learn to safely handle nuclear power, and coal, etc.
Ultimately nuclear wins out.
Japanese are not
ultimate technologists. Our Nuclear Power Plants are a lot more
sophisticated and more redundant safety.


Oh, really? Please provide proof that our creaky old nuclear power
plants are a lot more sophisticated and more "redundant safety" than the
equally old (or new) Japanese nuclear power plants. I understand at
least one of our nuke plants, in California, is literally built over an
earthquake fault, and that several plants in the South East are also
built in areas of seismic activity.

Oh, and all the reactors at the plant in question were designed by...you
guessed it...General Electric. All but one were built by...you guessed
it...General Electric.

But *our* nuclear power plants built by...you guessed it...General
Electric...are a lot safer.
Well maybe we could have Westinghouse designed Chinese, N Korean, or.....
I have no idea since I don't inspect them.
Maybe you do?

On 3/14/2011 7:11 PM, Harryk wrote:
On 3/14/11 7:09 PM, Lil Abner wrote:
On 3/14/2011 7:04 PM, Harryk wrote:
On 3/14/11 6:58 PM, Lil Abner wrote:
On 3/14/2011 6:48 PM, True North wrote:
Was that you, Johnny.... always preaching about the benefits of
nuclear
power?
Good I guess, as long as you don't have an earthquake.



There is not a no risk utopia.
We have to learn to safely handle nuclear power, and coal, etc.
Ultimately nuclear wins out.
Japanese are not
ultimate technologists. Our Nuclear Power Plants are a lot more
sophisticated and more redundant safety.


Oh, really? Please provide proof that our creaky old nuclear power
plants are a lot more sophisticated and more "redundant safety" than the
equally old (or new) Japanese nuclear power plants. I understand at
least one of our nuke plants, in California, is literally built over an
earthquake fault, and that several plants in the South East are also
built in areas of seismic activity.
So there are seismic areas everywhere.
The problem in Japan was cooling shut down, at least with limited info
published. They perhaps could have not had a problem with something as
simple as adequate back up diesel generators or pumps.
What would you do? Pick out a cave yet?



What I wouldn't do is make a pronouncement that our nuclear plants are a
"lot more sophisticated and more redundant safety" than the Japanese
plants, since both probably were designed and built by the same US
manufacturer, GE.


NRC is pretty strict. They'll fine your butt for chewing gum on the
sidewalk, so to speak.

On 3/14/11 7:13 PM, Lil Abner wrote:
On 3/14/2011 7:11 PM, Harryk wrote:
On 3/14/11 7:09 PM, Lil Abner wrote:
On 3/14/2011 7:04 PM, Harryk wrote:
On 3/14/11 6:58 PM, Lil Abner wrote:
On 3/14/2011 6:48 PM, True North wrote:
Was that you, Johnny.... always preaching about the benefits of
nuclear
power?
Good I guess, as long as you don't have an earthquake.



There is not a no risk utopia.
We have to learn to safely handle nuclear power, and coal, etc.
Ultimately nuclear wins out.
Japanese are not
ultimate technologists. Our Nuclear Power Plants are a lot more
sophisticated and more redundant safety.


Oh, really? Please provide proof that our creaky old nuclear power
plants are a lot more sophisticated and more "redundant safety" than
the
equally old (or new) Japanese nuclear power plants. I understand at
least one of our nuke plants, in California, is literally built over an
earthquake fault, and that several plants in the South East are also
built in areas of seismic activity.
So there are seismic areas everywhere.
The problem in Japan was cooling shut down, at least with limited info
published. They perhaps could have not had a problem with something as
simple as adequate back up diesel generators or pumps.
What would you do? Pick out a cave yet?



What I wouldn't do is make a pronouncement that our nuclear plants are a
"lot more sophisticated and more redundant safety" than the Japanese
plants, since both probably were designed and built by the same US
manufacturer, GE.


NRC is pretty strict. They'll fine your butt for chewing gum on the
sidewalk, so to speak.


Which has nothing to do with the comparative safety of Japanese versus
U.S. nuclear plant facilities. For all you know, the Japanese equivalent
of the NRC is stricter.