Universal Love TRTT Part 8: Random thoughts also sack Hinkley

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Unpopular opinion: I thought the final GoT episode wasn’t too bad compared with the previous few episodes. The main problem is that 6 episodes was never going to be enough to wrap up multiple plotlines and character arcs built over 7 seasons so everything felt unnecessarily rushed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Unpopular opinion: I thought the final GoT episode wasn’t too bad compared with the previous few episodes. The main problem is that 6 episodes was never going to be enough to wrap up multiple plotlines and character arcs built over 7 seasons so everything felt unnecessarily rushed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I enjoyed the whole season except for the finale. Just too many holes.
 
So the Libs aren't going to give tax concessions to the poor after all, I'm shocked!

The GOT ending was absolute trash as it didn't follow the rules of its own making. It is a little like a soccer game when someone decides to just pick the ball up and run, yes you CAN do that if you like as it's all made up, but it's really s**t to do so.
 
More nuclear info:

Gen I ~ (1950-1965) ~ 70 built ~ 0 operating ~ 11 meltdowns ~ 25 deaths ~ Unacceptable Risk Profile
Gen II ~ (1965-1995) ~ 600 built ~ 430 operating ~ 8 meltdowns ~ 31 deaths ~ Unacceptable Risk Profile (Almost all deaths at Chernobyl*)
Gen III ~ (1997-present) ~ 21 built ~ 21 operating ~ 0 meltdowns ~ 0 deaths ~ very safe (50+ to be built)
Gen IV ~ (2015-present) ~ 4 built ~ 0 operating ~ 0 meltdowns ~ 0 deaths ~ essentially meltdown proof

* There was 1 death from radiation at Fukishima, 2000+ deaths from the evacuation
* There were no deaths, injuries or adverse health effects resulted from the Three Mile Island accident

[IMG='width:685px;']https://i.ibb.co/55DHg4p/Screenshot-2019-05-21-Death-rates-from-energy-production-per-TWh.png[/IMG]
 
More nuclear info:

Gen I ~ (1950-1965) ~ 70 built ~ 0 operating ~ 11 meltdowns ~ 25 deaths ~ Unacceptable Risk Profile
Gen II ~ (1965-1995) ~ 600 built ~ 430 operating ~ 8 meltdowns ~ 31 deaths ~ Unacceptable Risk Profile (Almost all deaths at Chernobyl*)
Gen III ~ (1997-present) ~ 21 built ~ 21 operating ~ 0 meltdowns ~ 0 deaths ~ very safe (50+ to be built)
Gen IV ~ (2015-present) ~ 4 built ~ 0 operating ~ 0 meltdowns ~ 0 deaths ~ essentially meltdown proof

* There was 1 death from radiation at Fukishima, 2000+ deaths from the evacuation
* There were no deaths, injuries or adverse health effects resulted from the Three Mile Island accident

[IMG='width:685px;']https://i.ibb.co/55DHg4p/Screenshot-2019-05-21-Death-rates-from-energy-production-per-TWh.png[/IMG]
Don't bring facts into the debate, you'll scare the children!
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

More nuclear info:

Gen I ~ (1950-1965) ~ 70 built ~ 0 operating ~ 11 meltdowns ~ 25 deaths ~ Unacceptable Risk Profile
Gen II ~ (1965-1995) ~ 600 built ~ 430 operating ~ 8 meltdowns ~ 31 deaths ~ Unacceptable Risk Profile (Almost all deaths at Chernobyl*)
Gen III ~ (1997-present) ~ 21 built ~ 21 operating ~ 0 meltdowns ~ 0 deaths ~ very safe (50+ to be built)
Gen IV ~ (2015-present) ~ 4 built ~ 0 operating ~ 0 meltdowns ~ 0 deaths ~ essentially meltdown proof

* There was 1 death from radiation at Fukishima, 2000+ deaths from the evacuation
* There were no deaths, injuries or adverse health effects resulted from the Three Mile Island accident

[IMG='width:685px;']https://i.ibb.co/55DHg4p/Screenshot-2019-05-21-Death-rates-from-energy-production-per-TWh.png[/IMG]

That's nice but the points raised weren't about safety, they were about cost, construction time, disposal of waste, etc.

Also convenient how the 2000 deaths at Fukushima are a footnote.

Given gen IV has only been operational 4 years and there are only 4 examples, it's not exactly useful data either.
 
Lets also remember AM vs FM when it come to technology.

People saying nuclear is extremely safe........ Now! Is a little hard to believe, but very easy to say.
 
More nuclear info:

Gen I ~ (1950-1965) ~ 70 built ~ 0 operating ~ 11 meltdowns ~ 25 deaths ~ Unacceptable Risk Profile
Gen II ~ (1965-1995) ~ 600 built ~ 430 operating ~ 8 meltdowns ~ 31 deaths ~ Unacceptable Risk Profile (Almost all deaths at Chernobyl*)
Gen III ~ (1997-present) ~ 21 built ~ 21 operating ~ 0 meltdowns ~ 0 deaths ~ very safe (50+ to be built)
Gen IV ~ (2015-present) ~ 4 built ~ 0 operating ~ 0 meltdowns ~ 0 deaths ~ essentially meltdown proof

* There was 1 death from radiation at Fukishima, 2000+ deaths from the evacuation
* There were no deaths, injuries or adverse health effects resulted from the Three Mile Island accident

[IMG='width:685px;']https://i.ibb.co/55DHg4p/Screenshot-2019-05-21-Death-rates-from-energy-production-per-TWh.png[/IMG]
31 deaths from Chernobyl!!?

C'arn!

That's not the whole story! I am pro nuclear, but this is just misleading.

https://ourworldindata.org/what-was-the-death-toll-from-chernobyl-and-fukushima
 
That's nice but the points raised weren't about safety, they were about cost, construction time, disposal of waste, etc.

Also convenient how the 2000 deaths at Fukushima are a footnote.

Given gen IV has only been operational 4 years and there are only 4 examples, it's not exactly useful data either.

The cost of nuclear today is chicken feed compared to the trillions climate change will cost if we continue on our current trajectory. To address construction time its better to start now than be in a worse place climate change wise in 10 years and have to start then. The technology is available today to be proactive and be carbon neutral. The 2000 deaths were due to fear and panic and were entirely preventable even given the unique circumstances at Fukushima. Waste disposal isn't an issue either, the concept of having to store waste in barrels for 100,000 years is now outdated. Gen IV technology eats nuclear waste for fuel, there are also other new methods of waste disposal (such as radiation eating bacteria) that ends the issue of long term storage.

I've maintained all along that Gen IV technology should continue to be developed along with renewables for a carbon free future. You probably would have written off the Wright brothers first flight as "not useful data". The data is insanely useful. Everything starts from somewhere.
 
31 deaths from Chernobyl!!?

C'arn!

That's not the whole story! I am pro nuclear, but this is just misleading.

https://ourworldindata.org/what-was-the-death-toll-from-chernobyl-and-fukushima

It's generally accepted that the death toll from the blast or acute radiation syndrome is 31. The long term health effects have been estimated between 4,000 premature deaths - 93,000 adverse effects depending on the source. Chernobyl is unique because the operators intentionally created uncontrolled reaction conditions against testing protocols. They literally tried to blow it up and succeeded. It's a Gen II reactor and not one I'm a proponent off. Gen II reactors should be decomissioned and replaced with Gen III.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top