OT: Rolls Royce on track to deliver SMR

Aberfan didn't stop coal mining :(

Dams are also built:

You won't want to see this link:

Would that include dams and mines?

I know you won't reply be3cause you hate facts that don't further your myopic views.

And?

Oh the irony (or maybe this is the best I should expect when trying to discuss things with trolls, left brainers or people who obviously have a vested interest / bias). ;-(

WTF has the number of people who have died in other ways got to do with anything?

The 'issue' wasn't the number of deaths, it was the *total risk(s)* of nuclear versus (and only generally in comparisons with) other forms of electricity generation that I was talking about here.

But hey, I guess if you don't have any argument / defence for that they *of course* you would try all sorts of distractions ... ;-(

There are loads of things out in the big wide world that are *very dangerous* and have to be handled very carefully. Only a complete idiot would deny their mere existence *could* post a large risk to us / the environment, a greater risk than if they didn't exist in the first place. This would still be the case, *even if* they were typically used for good reasons.

Cheers, T i m

Aww, bless, the sad old Goblin jumping on yet another bandwagon over a cliff. ;-(

I love it, I love the way these left brainers think they know it all and so can / should_be_able_to simply 'tell' someone something and they then *must* believe / agree / do what they say!

Bwhahahahaha!!!! (No, I shouldn't laugh, they really can't help themselves).

Bwhahaha ... yes, I choice I have every right to make, *especially* when the information is irrelevant and coming from a Goblin!

And? WTF difference does that make to *anything*?

And? WTF difference does that make to *anything*?

Wow, that makes everything ok then!

It really must be easy for you and your kind, being able to get solace from focusing on some specific sub-set of the information and use that for the entire basis for your thoughts / decisions. But no more that I'm used to from some here ... voting for Brexit just for 'sovereignty even though it could cost many people their livelihoods.

Cheers, T i m

You appear to be trying to reply to more than one person with the same tripe. Or alternatively you are replying to one person with multi purpose tripe. I can't tell at this distance.

You appear to have missed the point I as making about 100% support for all and any initiatives to develop nuclear power in the UK. The more the merrier. Bring it on.

Aww bless, the left brainers slowly catching up and explaining what I've been saying all along to each other. Awwwww. ;-)

Now you seem to have got that bit, let's try moving the idea on a bit (I appreciate ideas' aren't your thing, just black / white facts (as you see them) etc ...).

Now, if a(traditional) explosion happens of power 'x', then anyone within 'y' meters could be perfectly safe.

Have that same explosion but this time wrap the explosives with nails and bolts, the people standing at 'y' meters could now be at risk.

(Don't worry, those people aren't you and it wouldn't matter if it was someone else etc).

That 'damage radius' could be extended to say a couple of thousand miles or more, if any toxin / pollutant could be carried by the wind and then settles or washed down onto the ground below.

Now, when that's Sahara sand or volcanic ash or even frogs, the chances are few are doing to suffer much from it. If it's (say) radioactive, a few hundred farmers may not be allowed to sell a few thousand sheep or worse.

Now ... not that any left brainer would GAF about anything like that, but the fact that they don't, doesn't impact the scenario *at all*.

But credit where credit's due, in spite of the headaches and frustrations you must have been suffering trying to understand anything so straightforward, you did hang in there (al be it for the wrong (trolling) reasons).

Cheers, T i m

Kursk 1-4 Leningrad 3 and 4 Smolensk 1-3

Do you find it difficult to justify your opposition to nuclear power when being reminded of the risks you were willing to take in your biking years?

Is that your way of saying you have nothing substantive to say?

If we are talking about energy production, it is useful to consider the risks and deaths with the alternatives to nuclear energy.

Quite, then lets look at these risks. This is starting point:

Only a complete idiot would dismiss nuclear power out of hand whilst not considering all the risks, plus I would like to leave reserves of minerals and oil for my children, and my children's children.

You seem to advocate the mining of the rare element lithium so there is none left for future generations.

I know you won't reply be3cause you hate facts that don't further your myopic views.

What has Brexit got to do with nuclear power? There is a connection, you initially sit on the fence claiming an open mind where in reality it's made up and myopic.

It is a common theme to abuse those who have different subset beliefs than yours, especially when you're told fact you don't like to hear.

Which will decay naturally.

Now this is what I call pollution as an alterntaive to nuclear power:

Or responding to the same tripe from different people?

See above.

I know.

Yes, I know, so *I* have missed nothing?

Yup, I know, you said.

Yup, I know, you said (vested interest / bias etc).

So, exactly what of what I was saying were you bothering to reply to if you weren't replying to what I was talking about.

Or are you admitting you are stating that 'You love nuclear' as a reply to my 'It's ok as long as it doesn't go wrong'?

Cheers, T i m

Yes. But what you overlook is that the total number of deaths is a good measure of the riskiness of a technology. Which is why these figures are put forward for your consideration.

The danger comes from the poor use of whatever it is. So enriched uranium and plutonium, f'rinstance, will be dangerous if you let the wrong people play with it. Or if you design a reactor which can be unsafe and don't train its operators properly. If OTOH you design it to be inherently safe, which is what happens these days, then you're much better off. Chernobyl happend because of a poor design AND bad luck AND poorly trained operators. Remove any one of these and the reactor operates safely.

Of course it "could" still be a problem. But with a good design and properly trained operators the risk is now very low, and I don't lose any sleep over it. Just as we "could" be hit by another 8-mile-diameter asteroid, but I don't lose any sleep over that, either.

You need to learn to assess risk.

Both planes and rockets have the same problems: control system failure, pilot error, mechanical fault can all lead to loss of control, which tends to mean plummeting from the sky (or with rockets, exploding). They also tend to have everything under software control (albeit multiple systems).

Nuclear power plants have hard-wired, mechanical or passive safety systems, that continue to work, even if the control systems go wrong or operators do things that they should not (similar would be too bulky and heavy for aircraft).

Modern nuclear power plants can have have everything fail (loss of power, plus backup power) and will remain sitting there passively cooled

- unlike aircraft and rockets where gravity has other ideas.

So you are beginning to accept that *NEW* reactors are not the risk that

Here we go again with a left brainers perception of what 'I might overlook'. Are you really so thick / left brained that you might think I'd overlook such?

Of course?

But there aren't *relevant* re my point.

Just because you have facts that state that to date, there have been no alien related deaths, doesn't go any way towards negating the fact that their could be (well, until we can accurately rule out the existence of any other species).

Yes ... with the key words there being 'the danger'. You have conceded the existence of such and so confirmed my point. The end.

'Much better' not 'completely safe' I notice? It's not 'completely safe' because you are unable to guarantee that (of course).

I know.

'Safer'. But, so?

Quite.

'Of course', 'no question'. However, the 'point' is 'the risk' ... compared with say 'the risk' of a windmill falling over or a solar panel shorting out, (as far as the 'in use' risk is concerned). All of them will cause pollution and consume materials in their construction, nuclear probably more in it's decommissioning and loads more if stuff goes wrong).

Nor do I.

Nor do I, but not the point (... as far as I know, we aren't building / launching asteroids).

And you need to understand how to communicate with humans (or Vegans).

Cheers, T i m

There's no failsafe for those

There is for power stations, and railways ...

I rather think that those were the points that I was making - particularly as I also mentioned the effect of gravity when things go wrong.

I don't like the term "bad design". I'm not sure it is possible to design and build anything useful that does not have some limitations. The operators got confused and took it outside its clearly defined permissible envelope. Rather like putting a 747 into a vertical dive, and then trying to pull out at 600 knots. When our experts looked at the RBMK in the 1970's they decided it would not have been licensable in the UK presumably because of the lack of interlocks to prevent it being taken beyond the safe envelope. But as we have seen recently with the Max 8, safety system design can be cocked up too.

Also, it wasn't an unauthorised test; but it had not been reviewed as carefully as it would have been in the UK.

Ok.

Understood, but it was the concept of being 'pored over by the Nuclear, Process, Mechanical and Control Engineers' I was really reflecting ... yet they have *still* gone wrong.

Sure, it's pretty obvious they weren't all directly equivalent (but see my point above). And they have still gone wrong.

What do you mean 'beginning to'?

Please don't be like the others by 1) putting words into my mouth and

It seems like you are trying to prove black is white and so will obviously fail.

Where the risks are high, of course the systems to minimise the risks should be commensurate but history has proved (so I don't need to) that that's not always been the case.

If you are saying that now days there is no risk what_so_ever of the latest design nukes ever 1) going wrong and 2) that then becoming more of an issue than say a windmill falling over or a solar panel inverter exploding then fair enough.

If you aren't saying that, but are saying that 'the real world chances of a modern nuke ever causing any 'nuclear' problems are extremely low' ... then we are in likely in agreement.

Cheers, T i m

And just how acceptable would hydro power be after it had destroyed Manchester?

Andy