OT: Rolls Royce on track to deliver SMR

How soon after it 'destroyed Manchester' could they rebuild Manchester again?

a) Straight away. b) Many years later.

What is it with you people who feel there is a need to try to conflate a man made disaster that is just what it is then goes away ... with a man made disaster that means you can't go near the place for many years after? (And that doesn't only have to be nuclear but that's one of the worst to mange / clear up). 1500+ miles is a long way to walk with a dustpan and brush.

Ok, for the hard of thinking, working on the 'what the can go wrong, will go wrong' basis, *anything* that pollutes somewhere in such a way that it can't be inhabited for a very long time, in my book, isn't 'a good thing'?

Now, does that mean we have the choice to do without all bad / potentially bad things? No, of course not, but 'most people' would only consider keeping them on whilst there was no alternative.

I can promise you, as soon as there is a viable 'alternative' form of energy (to nuclear), we will stop using nuclear, no matter how close (but not at) 100% 'safe' they promise it to be.

We have seen such promises before ...

Cheers, T i m

Given that is very unlikely with western safety procedures and methods, you're more likely to have a number of Manchesters or even a few Banqiao Dam failures.

If you looked hard you would check on the contaminated site in the UK from various oil and other spills.

There is no viable alternative.

That'll be good, the same as soon as we have a viable alternative to fossil fuels there will be an eventual switch, or the green manufacture of these fuels.

I haven't? If so, only by fools where only fools are taken in.

How about fixing 'what can go wrong' so that it 'cant go wrong'. Which is what is done with modern designs.

So, you are stating that

and

and

Cheers, T i m

Looking at Banqiao - I mean who has even heard of the greatest ever power generation loss of life ever? - no one would bat an eyelid. It's *green* you see.

Green deaths are not immoral. They are martyrs to the One True Cause.

Only a thousand times more people died at Banqiao, than Chernobyl. That's why we have never heard of it.

I looked - nothing to do with 'green' - it was due to the thoughts of Chairman Mao and the Cultural Revolution, long before 'green' had been invented.

Well of course "*anything* that pollutes somewhere in such a way that it can't be inhabited for a very long time" is not nuclear power.

Christ on a bike they even dropped a nuke on Hiroshima, never 'cleaned it up' and people have been living there ever since with no ill effects.

All this paranoia comes from the fact that

(a) Fear of nuclear was a cold war weapon in is own right, and governments tacitly encouraged it - especially the Soviet Union, who were backing CND and the Labour party covertly. CND became the Greens to all intents and purposes after nuclear fear 'went away'

(b) No one actually knew. The effects of total high single dose exposure were known, as were the effects of chronic medium dose exposure. Both caused cancers. There was no evidence whatsoever on the effects of chronic low dose exposure, and they needed some kind of metric. So they picked 'lifetime dose' as a metric. It was as wrong as saying that if drinking a gallon of vodka has a 50% chance of killing you, drinking a gallon of vodka over a lifetime has a 50% chance of killing you.

(c) So they adopted the LNT model of total dosage as a metric for health and safety regulations. The power station companies said they could meet extremely low emissions regulations and did.

(d) LNT was a gift to the greens, because it allowed them to model disasters from even minor spills of radioactivity and led to such statements as 'contaminated for thousands of years' 'no such thing as a safe dose ' 'that is what your *own government* says' . Out of LNT came all the predictions of MegaDeath post Chernobyl that simply never happened. My dear Vegan Green sister still believes that 'it was based on government models, therefore it was correct' and 'the government covered it up, because the government cannot be trusted'

She thinks she is intelligent....but I digress.

The fact is that huge areas of the earth have been contaminated for millions of years by ....sea water! You cant grow any crops foir vegans in the middle of the oceans!

The total amount of long term radioactivity in the sea is also f****ng ginormous. 4 billion tonnes of 'nuclear waste' dissolved in it before we even built the first atomic bomb.

Dartmoor is, according to the LNT model, 'uninhabitable' as is much of Cornwall. It is many times the radioactivity of FUKU exclusion zone or Pripyat near Chernobyl.

Gotta lurve these Left leaning systems of gubberment

'Cancel' culture was invented by communists. The Party Is Right. End Of. It Cannot Make Mistakes.

Nose picking bastards

Well you are not correct about timing. Germans have been naturists for a

But today it would be classed as 'renewable energy' and its today that we see the silence...

Greens don't want reminding that the only large scale *reliable* 'renewable' energy has the worst safety record of any form of energy

Just as well. ;-)

Why would you limit the concept of the risk to everyone one in the world by restricting the conversation to the UK?

Remind me, did you vote for Brexit? ;-)

Cheers, T i m

The original way salt was extracted from sea water was by natural evaporation but that was to collect the salt. In theory you could probably use the heat from the cooling system to power a still and collect the fresh water and possibly the salt and other solids. Whether it would be economic to process the solids further I don?t know. Previously work was done on extracting various this from sea water including gold but it wasn?t economic. Gibraltar has or had a desalination plant.

Except when it is.

You really are disgusting aren't you how low you will stoop to try to make your bogus points. Considering you put yourself up as an 'expert' on all this, it makes it particularly so.

The Hiroshima nuke was *NOT* a ground blast and was detonated as an air blast to *specifically* limit the radioactive contamination of the ground and reduce airborne debris.

Cheers, T i m

In general, it relied on heat from wood or coal fires.

Of course, but that wouldn't appear to help Turnips anti people FUD.

Cheers, T i m

There is a firm in Cornwall, on the Lizard peninsula, that produces sea salt. Quite how they do it and what the energy cost is, and whether they have a heat recovery system, I don't know.

That's an example of *good* design, in the context of the former soviet union and their shortage of electrical power. That let them build the complicated bits in a factory and assemble them on-site with "shipbuilding" technology. And also to "scale" the plant. Welds didn't fail either, until they were massively overstressed by the power transient from getting the physics wrong.

These points only apply IF you drive it outside the envelope

I've already pointed out that it would not be licenced in the UK. But then neither are some Russian aircraft.

Rather like Magnox and AGR plant, in fact.

All technology is potentially unsafe. The issue is, getting the balance of risk against benefit.

Sort of true. But I am not sure whether the standard western trope about authority in the Communist block is quite right. Certainly the

No, it *was* authorised; just implemented badly.

It wasn't widely know, it was "noticed", in a "how strange" sort of way.

One of the impressions you get from Chernobyl is that the operators behaved the way they did because they felt they had a sure fire fail safe, scram, to shut down the reactor.

It is slightly concerning to see the same over confidence in safety systems reflected in this thread.

The western systems are probably safer and better run, but to quote Schiller: "Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain."

No, just confidence. Its only your complete lack of technical understanding plus your total desire to remain irrationally scared of 'nuclear power' against all reason that spins that in your mind into 'overconfidence'

Looking at your posts, one can only agree

I'm 100% pro nuclear fission, 100% pro research into breeder reactors. Pro SMR, would be also be happy with a massive reactor building program like happened in France.

I'm even pro fission as opposed to fusion.

Unfortunately I'm also familiar with the kind of political idiocy that infects big projects