Google maps conspiracy!



  • More than likely it is just a simple screw up on Googles part, but I found something interesting when using Google Maps to look at the Hog Island Wildlife Management Area in Virginia, just across the James river from Williamsburg and Newport News.


    [url=http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=virginia&sll=37.301293,-77.669233&sspn=1.721615,3.249207&ie=UTF8&t=k&ll=37.169482,-76.651268&spn=0.107789,0.203075&z=13&iwloc=A"]This link to the satellite/aerial pics of Hog Island[/url] shows what looks like Google deliberately missing the required pics for this area. Zoom out one level and you can see it all.

    Normally I wouldn't fuss of a missing Sat/Aerial pic, but what amused me is that directly below the southern border of the missing pics, is the Surry Nuclear Power plant - for which you can almost zoom in enough to see people waving at you. So if they were trying to hide the plant then it was an epic fail.

    I looked up a couple of other nuke plants in Google maps and they show no indication of missing pics, so I don't know what to think - other than it is an amusing screwup

    As an aside, if you look to the south east of the map, in the middle of the James river you can see the remains of the [url=http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/james-river.htm]National Defense Reserve Fleet[/url] or as it is colloquially known - the Ghost fleet



  • Under the blocked-out part is a wildlife preserve.  Clearly the photos were redacted to protect the privacy of Nature from the snooping eyes of the Internet.



  • WTF? They placed a wildlife preserve directly next to a nuclear power plant? People may complain, but animals can't, so who cares? Sheesh. 

    The place in question is perfectly viewable on Bing maps btw: http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&encType=1&sp=Point.q5v7br8m7sv4_Untitled item____



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    Under the blocked-out part is a wildlife preserve.  Clearly the photos were redacted to protect the privacy of Nature from the snooping eyes of the Internet.

    Actually, now that I think about it you are probably more right than you realize. In order to gain access to the WMA, you have to pass through the nuke plant security checkpoint as the only road passes through the nuke plant. When I was there on Friday they checked my car (under hood, in trunk, underneath, swiped a test for explosives), took my license into a guardhouse area and asked my questions including did I have any bombs! (And I am not making this shit up). The proper conclusion must be that the nuke plant is a front for something even more terrifying and scarier than nuclear waste. Who knows what they are hiding in there.



  • @Mole said:

    WTF? They placed a wildlife preserve directly next to a nuclear power plant? People may complain, but animals can't, so who cares? Sheesh.

    Nuclear plants don't spew pollution into the surrounding environment.  They're quite safe and clean.  People who fear being near a nuclear power plant are generally ignorant and irrational, so a wildlife refuge makes a lot of sense for otherwise useless land.  Also, if the plant was to meltdown (which wouldn't even be a possibility with newer reactors that can't be built because of enviro-freaks ignorantly protesting anything nuclear) it would be far better for it to be surrounded by nature rather than civilization.  Of course, there's enough civilization around this plant to make that point moot.



  • They are safer than older reactors but not fully safe. To be more specific, modern reactors are safe against leaks but not fully protected against contamination. For example, reactors are usually built near a water source. The water is used for two purposes: to generate steam (heat from nuclear fission is used to generate steam) and later to cool of that steam. This water (used in cooling) is eventually released back to the water source. The most common complaint is this contaminates the water.

     And to comment on the original post. I think it is irresponsible on Google's part to cover up such locations in the USA but show vivid details about nuclear plants in other countries.



  • @Sesh said:

    They are safer than older reactors but not fully safe. To be more specific, modern reactors are safe against leaks but not fully protected against contamination. For example, reactors are usually built near a water source. The water is used for two purposes: to generate steam (heat from nuclear fission is used to generate steam) and later to cool of that steam. This water (used in cooling) is eventually released back to the water source. The most common complaint is this contaminates the water.

     

    You are getting your coolants confused. Primary coolant is not released (it cycles between the reactor and the heat exchanger), and secondary coolant (water for the steam cycle) dosn't come into contact with anything radioactive. I beleve that primary coolant never leaves the containment vessel, but I could be wrong on that.



  • @rdamiani said:

    You are getting your coolants confused. Primary coolant is not released (it cycles between the reactor and the heat exchanger), and secondary coolant (water for the steam cycle) dosn't come into contact with anything radioactive. I beleve that primary coolant never leaves the containment vessel, but I could be wrong on that.

     

    You are right but one of the complaints of the environmentalists is that the secondary coolant also carries sufficient radiation to cause harm. 



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    They're quite safe and clean.
     

    ... says he who's avatar is showing a lady with only three fingers. Also, Homer Simpson works at a Nuclear plans - how many fingers does he have? Or his family? Ha!



  •  @Sesh said:

    @rdamiani said:

    You are getting your coolants confused. Primary coolant is not released (it cycles between the reactor and the heat exchanger), and secondary coolant (water for the steam cycle) dosn't come into contact with anything radioactive. I beleve that primary coolant never leaves the containment vessel, but I could be wrong on that.

     

    You are right but one of the complaints of the environmentalists is that the secondary coolant also carries sufficient radiation to cause harm. 

    IIRC - at least over here - the complaints are not about radiation, but about the coolant water being too warm, thus ruining the balance of the  river it is being lead back to.



  • @Sesh said:

    And to comment on the original post. I think it is irresponsible on Google's part to cover up such locations in the USA but show vivid details about nuclear plants in other countries.


    Sorry. fail. The Surry nuke plant is not covered up. It is visible. I also checkd the nuke plant on Lake Anna in VA and the one near Middleton, PA and they are both also highly visible



  • @Mole said:

    WTF? They placed a wildlife preserve directly next to a nuclear power plant? People may complain, but animals can't, so who cares? Sheesh. 


    Actually I think the wildlife management area (not a preserve) has been around a bit longer than the nuke plant. It is called Hog Island because thats what the settlers were using it for since the 17th century.



  • @tdittmar said:

    @morbiuswilters said:
    They're quite safe and clean.
    ... says he who's avatar is showing a lady with only three fingers.

    Em... count again, I only see 2 fingers...



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @Mole said:

    WTF? They placed a wildlife preserve directly next to a nuclear power plant? People may complain, but animals can't, so who cares? Sheesh.

    Nuclear plants don't spew pollution into the surrounding environment.  They're quite safe and clean.  People who fear being near a nuclear power plant are generally ignorant and irrational


    Actually the plant at North Anna has released radiation in the past. So there is some validity to the environmental concerns - especially in the older designs that are still in use. Also heat pollution of the cooling water is also a concern.



  • @Hitsuji said:

    @tdittmar said:

    @morbiuswilters said:
    They're quite safe and clean.
    ... says he who's avatar is showing a lady with only three fingers.

    Em... count again, I only see 2 fingers...

     

    OK, three possibilities: a) you need glasses, b) in Ireland, not all fingers are called fingers or c) this is some joke I don't get. I'm going for a), but it may as well be c)



  • @tdittmar said:

    OK, three possibilities: a) you need glasses, b) in Ireland, not all fingers are called fingers or c) this is some joke I don't get. I'm going for a), but it may as well be c)

    I'm fairly sure it's b), on the basis one of the appendages is a thumb. Mind you,

    @Wikipedia said:

    English dictionaries describe finger as meaning either one of the five digits including the thumb, or one of the four excluding the thumb (in which case they are numbered from 1 to 4 starting with the index finger closest to the thumb). Linguistically, it appears that the original sense was to include the thumb as a finger.



  • @tdittmar said:

     @Sesh said:

    @rdamiani said:

    You are getting your coolants confused. Primary coolant is not released (it cycles between the reactor and the heat exchanger), and secondary coolant (water for the steam cycle) dosn't come into contact with anything radioactive. I beleve that primary coolant never leaves the containment vessel, but I could be wrong on that.

     

    You are right but one of the complaints of the environmentalists is that the secondary coolant also carries sufficient radiation to cause harm. 

    IIRC - at least over here - the complaints are not about radiation, but about the coolant water being too warm, thus ruining the balance of the  river it is being lead back to.

    The complaints I've heard are also that the water is too warm.



  • @bstorer said:

    The complaints I've heard are also that the water is too warm.

    The solution to which is cooling the water before dumping it back in the ecosystem, not avoiding a cheap, clean and safe form of power altogether.  Hell, extra electricity can be generated from all that "waste heat".



  • @OzPeter said:

    Actually the plant at North Anna has released radiation in the past. So there is some validity to the environmental concerns - especially in the older designs that are still in use.

    How much radiation?  As a technically-minded person, you're surely aware that we are bombarded by radiation all the time and that a lot of enviro-tards just exploit ignorance to scare the public by talking about "radiation".  Also note that the environmentalists are the ones that have intimidated people so effectively that aging, end-of-life reactors can't be replaced with newer, safer designs.



  • @Mole said:

    WTF? They placed a wildlife preserve directly next to a nuclear power plant? People may complain, but animals can't, so who cares? Sheesh.

     

    Actually, that's a good reason to have it there. People will stay away, and people are generally more harm to animals than the perfectly clean water which comes out of a nuclear plant. In fact, that's a good argument to have nuclear plants next to ALL wildlife preserves (no I'm not kidding).

     

     



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @bstorer said:

    The complaints I've heard are also that the water is too warm.

    The solution to which is cooling the water before dumping it back in the ecosystem, not avoiding a cheap, clean and safe form of power altogether.  Hell, extra electricity can be generated from all that "waste heat".

    No.  Unacceptable.  Warm water is a deal-breaker.  Nothing you can ever do will erase the fact that the water used to be warm.



  • @pscs said:

    Actually, that's a good reason to have it there. People will stay away, and people are generally more harm to animals than the perfectly clean water which comes out of a nuclear plant. In fact, that's a good argument to have nuclear plants next to ALL wildlife preserves (no I'm not kidding).

    Agreed.  Or maybe "wildlife preserves next to all nuclear plants" since we probably don't need as many nuke plants as we have protected areas.  People are irrationally afraid of nuclear power but animals are too dumb to know the difference.  Also, as I said above, if a plant does meltdown (which is impossible for new designs) it would be better to have it destroy some wildlife rather than a population center.



  • @bstorer said:

    @morbiuswilters said:

    @bstorer said:

    The complaints I've heard are also that the water is too warm.

    The solution to which is cooling the water before dumping it back in the ecosystem, not avoiding a cheap, clean and safe form of power altogether.  Hell, extra electricity can be generated from all that "waste heat".

    No.  Unacceptable.  Warm water is a deal-breaker.  Nothing you can ever do will erase the fact that the water used to be warm.

    Just think: some of the water you drink today could have once been warmed within Hitler's bladder.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    Just think: some of the water you drink today could have once been warmed within Hitler's bladder.
    Great. Now I'm going to die out of thirst because of that image.

    Edit: I just realized how appropriate my avatar seems to be.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    Just think: some of the water you drink today could have once been warmed within Hitler's bladder.
    Great.  Now I'm going to die of overconsumption of water because of that image.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    Just think: some of the water you drink today could have once been warmed within Hitler's bladder.
    This is why I create my own water from all new particles.  The laws of thermodynamics aren't my laws, man!



  • @Zecc said:

    Edit: I just realized how appropriate my avatar seems to be.

    A disembodied, floating head chewing on a very stretchy piece of taffy?



  • @bstorer said:

    @morbiuswilters said:

    Just think: some of the water you drink today could have once been warmed within Hitler's bladder.
    This is why I create my own water from all new particles.  The laws of thermodynamics aren't my laws, man!

    I use my own recipe, adding 2 parts carbon to 6 parts hydrogen and 1 part oxygen, for extra zing!



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @bstorer said:

    The complaints I've heard are also that the water is too warm.

    The solution to which is cooling the water before dumping it back in the ecosystem, not avoiding a cheap, clean and safe form of power altogether.  Hell, extra electricity can be generated from all that "waste heat".

    I'm sure the prefessional engineers at Areva are cursing themselves right now for never having thought of the idea of cooling water down, instead of building [url=http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/utilities/article6626811.ece]plants which need to be turned off on hot days[/url].



  • @Zecc said:

    Edit: I just realized how appropriate my avatar seems to be.

    How is a sad jellyfish appropriate?



  • @_moz said:

    @morbiuswilters said:

    @bstorer said:

    The complaints I've heard are also that the water is too warm.

    The solution to which is cooling the water before dumping it back in the ecosystem, not avoiding a cheap, clean and safe form of power altogether.  Hell, extra electricity can be generated from all that "waste heat".

    I'm sure the prefessional engineers at Areva are cursing themselves right now for never having thought of the idea of cooling water down, instead of building plants which need to be turned off on hot days.

    Prefessional?

     

    I'm not quite sure what point you are trying to make.  Hot days make cooling difficult which is why the plants can't run at full capacity.  They are designed to work within a particular range of temperatures and when they have to work outside of those temperatures, they lose capacity.  And clearly they are cooling the water (since the effectiveness of the cooling reduces on hot days).  Most likely they will have to increase the cooling capabilities of the plants or build more plans to add extra capacity for the times when they can't run at 100%.

     

    So, anyway, WTF was your point?  Did you even have one or were you just being retarded?



  • You mention that if you zoom out slightly, you see everything. True, but what you are seeing is a different arial photo. (compare colors, etc)  

     My guess is that when the high resolution photo was taken, something interesting from one of the nearby naval bases was in that area and was blocked out.



  • @Spectre said:

    @Zecc said:
    Edit: I just realized how appropriate my avatar seems to be.

    How is a sad jellyfish appropriate?

    You don't think a jellyfish would be sad to discover it's swimming in Hitler pee?



  • @bstorer said:

    @morbiuswilters said:

    Just think: some of the water you drink today could have once been warmed within Hitler's bladder.
    This is why I create my own water from all new particles.  The laws of thermodynamics aren't my laws, man!

    This is why I recycle the water from my own bladder!



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @bstorer said:

    @morbiuswilters said:

    Just think: some of the water you drink today could have once been warmed within Hitler's bladder.
    This is why I create my own water from all new particles.  The laws of thermodynamics aren't my laws, man!

    I use my own recipe, adding 2 parts carbon to 6 parts hydrogen and 1 part oxygen, for extra zing!

    you drink carbon dioxide?  do your farts smell like exhaust fumes?


  • @galgorah said:

    @morbiuswilters said:

    I use my own recipe, adding 2 parts carbon to 6 parts hydrogen and 1 part oxygen, for extra zing!

    you drink carbon dioxide?  do your farts smell like exhaust fumes?

    C2H6O



  • You let yourself get goaded into explaining the joke.



  • @morbiuswilters said:



    I'm not quite sure what point you are trying to make.  Hot days make cooling difficult which is why the plants can't run at full capacity.  They are designed to work within a particular range of temperatures and when they have to work outside of those temperatures, they lose capacity.  And clearly they are cooling the water (since the effectiveness of the cooling reduces on hot days).  Most likely they will have to increase the cooling capabilities of the plants or build more plans to add extra capacity for the times when they can't run at 100%.

     

    So, anyway, WTF was your point?  Did you even have one or were you just being retarded?

    Simply that cooling millions of gallons of water per day is hard (i.e. expensive), to the extent that power companies would rather shut down completely from time to time than install equipment to ensure that the water going in and out of the plant is cool enough, and the government has been willing to overlook its environmental regulations to keep them going in the past.

    I do look forward to a time when nuclear power stations emit neither dangerously warm water nor toxic waste, but it won't get here any sooner for people wishing it so.

    And I would never attempt to be retarded in such illustrious company.



  • @_moz said:

    Simply that cooling millions of gallons of water per day is hard (i.e. expensive), to the extent that power companies would rather shut down completely from time to time than install equipment to ensure that the water going in and out of the plant is cool enough, and the government has been willing to overlook its environmental regulations to keep them going in the past.

    It's France -- the "power companies" you refer to are owned by the Government.  Regarding the expense of proper cooling, it's not unmanageable but in a heavily-regulated industry with price controls who is going to bother?  Compared to the expense of oil, the toxic air pollution of coal and the impracticality of solar and wind, nuclear power could manage both the heat and waste problems with a small price increase to consumers.  Of course, that's not likely to happen when the Government controls the power and politics prevents any market competition.

     

    @_moz said:

    I do look forward to a time when nuclear power stations emit neither dangerously warm water nor toxic waste, but it won't get here any sooner for people wishing it so.

    Nuclear power stations don't "emit" toxic waste.  The toxic waste they do produce (spent fuel) is simply unavoidable, but it's also pretty cheap and safe to just bury it deep in the desert.  Like America was going to do until the project was canceled due to pressure from dipshit enviro-weenies who figure it's better to store nuclear waste above-ground at the nuclear plants themselves (where a leak could imperil millions of lives and risk of terrorist attack is much higher) rather than "harm the Earth" by sticking it deep underground where it will decay safely and cleanly.



  • @Random832 said:

    You let yourself get goaded into explaining the joke.

    You let yourself get goaded into expressing disapproval for my explaining of the joke.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    And clearly they are cooling the water (since the effectiveness of the cooling reduces on hot days).  Most likely they will have to increase the cooling capabilities of the plants or build more plans to add extra capacity for the times when they can't run at 100%.

     

     I don't believe they cool the water: I believe the water (from the river/sea/environment) is used to cool the innermost fluid so you get: heated by reactor => through turbine => cooled by water => heated by reactor etc.). The problem is you can't just "cool water", you need to transfer the (heat) energy to some other medium, which then obviously gets warmer.
    When the (river) water is warmer because of higher temperatures, the inner fluid can't get cooled enough, hence the need to run at a lower capacity.

    "Cooling the river water" isn't possible (well, at least not in an energy-efficient way) because the water is already used as a coolant, you'd need another more efficient coolant, but if that was available it would've been used in the first place.

    Another option (used where there is no cooling water available) are cooling towers, where energy is transferred to the atmosphere by evaporating water. Howerer, I believe they are more inefficient and more expensive (I'm not sure though)

     Also, these problems aren't nuclear-power-plant specific, all turbine (nuclear, fossil, solar-heat) would have this issue I would think.



  •  @Sesh said:

    @rdamiani said:

    You are getting your coolants confused. Primary coolant is not released (it cycles between the reactor and the heat exchanger), and secondary coolant (water for the steam cycle) dosn't come into contact with anything radioactive. I beleve that primary coolant never leaves the containment vessel, but I could be wrong on that.

     

    You are right but one of the complaints of the environmentalists is that the secondary coolant also carries sufficient radiation to cause harm. 

    Only ones who don't bother to study what they complain about. There aren't any radioactive isotopes of hydrogen or oxygen that I am aware of, and anything other than H2O in the secondary circuit (including any dissolved gasses) would be catastrophic at those temperatures and pressures. Sunlight, dirt, and hospitals are more radioactive than secondary coolant.



  • @_moz said:

    @morbiuswilters said:

    @bstorer said:

    The complaints I've heard are also that the water is too warm.

    The solution to which is cooling the water before dumping it back in the ecosystem, not avoiding a cheap, clean and safe form of power altogether.  Hell, extra electricity can be generated from all that "waste heat".

    I'm sure the prefessional engineers at Areva are cursing themselves right now for never having thought of the idea of cooling water down, instead of building plants which need to be turned off on hot days.

     

     

    When condenser injection temperatures are too high, you need to reduce the exhaust steam flow (by throttling the turbines) or you won't be able to maintain a sufficiently high vacuum. Too little vacuum means you'll stop condensing altogether, flash (or crush, depending) the deariating feed tank as it empties, trip the feed pumps as they cavitate, and suffer a low-water event in the steam generator which will result in a SCRAM. This makes plant operators and regulatory agencies unhappy, and will result in your having unfortunate nicknames for a long time (e.g. 'killer of fish and small children'). So operators can either refrigerate the river or reduce output. Generally, they choose the latter.



  • @dtech said:

    @morbiuswilters said:

    And clearly they are cooling the water (since the effectiveness of the cooling reduces on hot days).  Most likely they will have to increase the cooling capabilities of the plants or build more plans to add extra capacity for the times when they can't run at 100%.

     

     I don't believe they cool the water: I believe the water (from the river/sea/environment) is used to cool the innermost fluid so you get: heated by reactor => through turbine => cooled by water => heated by reactor etc.). The problem is you can't just "cool water", you need to transfer the (heat) energy to some other medium, which then obviously gets warmer.
    When the (river) water is warmer because of higher temperatures, the inner fluid can't get cooled enough, hence the need to run at a lower capacity.

    "Cooling the river water" isn't possible (well, at least not in an energy-efficient way) because the water is already used as a coolant, you'd need another more efficient coolant, but if that was available it would've been used in the first place.

    Another option (used where there is no cooling water available) are cooling towers, where energy is transferred to the atmosphere by evaporating water. Howerer, I believe they are more inefficient and more expensive (I'm not sure though)

     Also, these problems aren't nuclear-power-plant specific, all turbine (nuclear, fossil, solar-heat) would have this issue I would think.

     

     

    You are correct. In a nuke plant, there are three main coolants. The primary coolant is in contact with the fuel and transfers heat to the steam generator. It is a completely closed cycle, and the primary coolant is usually somewhat radioactive. Secondary coolant circulates from the steam generator to the turbines and other bits and pieces of the power plant. It's also a closed cycle (less some minor losses through turbine seals and such), and is no more dangerous than any other kind of steam. The third coolant is river (or ocean) water, and is used in very high volumes compared to the other two. It's function is to cool the 'spent' steam so it can condense and be returned to the steam generator. 

     All steam plants have the second two 'coolant' circuits, no mater how the steam is generated, though the steam part (the nuke plant secondary circuit) isn't usually refered to as 'coolant' in those plants. Coal, natural gas, oil, garbage, solar thermal, ect. - they all have the same potential problem as the nuke plants if the river or ocean is too hot. Even gas-turbine plants have that problem to some degree - they usually use the gas turbine exhaust to generate steam that's used to make more power.  That's part of why gas-turbine and diesel peaking plants, as well as interconnect arrangements with other utilities, are necessary.

    Cooling towers are used to cool the output from the third curcit I menitoned above. They are basicly large radiators, and are not nearly efficent enough to provide sufficcent cooling for any kind of steam plant on thier own. Plants built where there isn't much water need an artifical lake or some other large source of water (aqueduct or under ground aquifier) for cooling.



  • @rdamiani said:

    Cooling towers are used to cool the output from the third curcit I menitoned above. They are basicly large radiators, and are not nearly efficent enough to provide sufficcent cooling for any kind of steam plant on thier own. Plants built where there isn't much water need an artifical lake or some other large source of water (aqueduct or under ground aquifier) for cooling.

    Right, and this is the point I was trying to get at above: the coolant for the inner circuits is generally cooled about as best it can be.  The problem noted in the article was that the plants were have to reduce capacity or dump 30C water into the river on days when the temperature exceeded 30C.  That would seem to indicate they are air cooling the tertiary coolant as much as possible but obviously they can't get the water any cooler than ambient.  And 30C water is too damn hot to dump back into the ecosystem without causing some damage.  As you mentioned, artificial lakes could provide enough of a buffer to assist in cooling that much water without excessive cost.  The plants were probably designed as cheaply as possible, though, and just rely on using the river water itself as a tertiary coolant.

     

    Regardless, it's hardly an intractable problem and properly cooling a nuke plant is not going to add significant cost to power generated (and considering how cheap nuclear power is, it should still end up far cheaper than "green" pseudo-alternatives like wind or solar).  Cooling is not a problem specific to nuclear power and arguing that heat pollution makes nuclear power infeasible as a safe alternative is just more environmentalist scaremongering.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    Regardless, it's hardly an intractable problem and properly cooling a nuke plant is not going to add significant cost to power generated (and considering how cheap nuclear power is, it should still end up far cheaper than "green" pseudo-alternatives like wind or solar).  Cooling is not a problem specific to nuclear power and arguing that heat pollution makes nuclear power infeasible as a safe alternative is just more environmentalist scaremongering.

     

     The really funny bit about the heat pollution 'problem' is that it exists - to exactly the same extent and for exactly the same reason - in solar thermal plants.



  • @morbiuswilters said:



    @_moz said:
    I do look forward to a time when nuclear power stations emit neither dangerously warm water nor toxic waste, but it won't get here any sooner for people wishing it so.


    Nuclear power stations don't "emit" toxic waste.


    [url=http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article4479848.ece]Yes they do[/url]. There are arguments to be made in favour of nuclear power on environmental grounds, just as there are for and against almost any means of generating electricity. So long as you believe that nuclear power stations don't emit toxic waste (what's with the quotes, anyway?), or that the failure of Areva, GE and Toshiba to produce nuclear power stations which are capable of operating at a wide range of temperatures is the result of a conspiracy between governments, you will never raiseany of them.



  • @_moz said:

    @morbiuswilters said:


    @_moz said:
    I do look forward to a time when nuclear power stations emit neither dangerously warm water nor toxic waste, but it won't get here any sooner for people wishing it so.


    Nuclear power stations don't "emit" toxic waste.


    Yes they do. There are arguments to be made in favour of nuclear power on environmental grounds, just as there are for and against almost any means of generating electricity. So long as you believe that nuclear power stations don't emit toxic waste (what's with the quotes, anyway?), or that the failure of Areva, GE and Toshiba to produce nuclear power stations which are capable of operating at a wide range of temperatures is the result of a conspiracy between governments, you will never raiseany of them.

    Your use of "emit" implies nuclear power plants release toxic waste by design.  Which they do not, if properly built.  I suppose if your only facilities were built by members of the notoriously lazy and inept French workforce, then I guess you would start to assume lethal doses of toxic waste were normal.  Then again, you'd also assume the purpose of service industries is to be hostile and rude, bathing is a bi-weekly ritual (at best) and militaries exist as professional surrender organizations.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    professional surrender organizations.
    Surely you're not suggesting that we leave surrendering to amateurs?!



  • Probably just a speck of lint on the lens.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.