Young climate activist tells Greenpeace to drop ‘old-fashioned’ anti-nuclear stance
Swedish teenager Ia Anstoot says group’s ‘unscientific’ opposition to EU nuclear power serves fossil fuel interests
You're viewing part of a thread.
all need to be decommissioned at some point, because they will fail catastrophically if they don't.
This is false, that idea comes from decades of anti-science fearmongering. They need to be decommissioned for the same reasons as everything else, they just become too expensive to maintain. Same as every other energy source, including renewables.
This is false, it’s fearmongering. They need to be decommissioned for the same reasons as everything else, they just become too expensive to maintain. Same as every other energy source, including renewables.
No, it's not fear mongering. The pressure that the metals of the reactor are put under from the radiation is a real thing, it causes damage and fatigue.
At some point they're decommissioned because if you keep them running they'll have catastrophic failures, which besides the loss of life and land, would be a great expense to the operators of the plant.
Go read that article that I linked in a different one of my comments in this same conversation, as it has some details about that.
The pressure that the metals of the reactor are put under from the radiation is a real thing, it causes damage and fatigue.
Yes.
they’re decommissioned because if you keep them running they’ll have catastrophic failures, which besides the loss of life and land
No. This is the fearmongering part. A nuclear plant that is past its service life doesn't just turn into Chernobyl.
I don't know what article you're talking about, but I'm pretty sure it won't trump my years of university education on this.
No. This is the fearmongering part. A nuclear plant that is past its service life doesn’t just turn into Chernobyl.
That's not what I said though, at all, hence no fear-mongering. Please don't put words in my mouth.
Here's what I said...
they’re decommissioned because if you keep them running they’ll have catastrophic failures
My point is you can't just keep them running forever, at some point you have to shut them off, you have to decommission them.
And also, by catastrophic I mean horrible leaks/contamination, not explosions
You said catastrophic failure in the same context as loss of life and land. That is what I was responding to, and it is incorrect.
You said catastrophic failure in the same context as loss of life and land. That is what I was responding to, and it is incorrect.
No, I didn't. Three Mile Island was a catastrophic failure, but it didn't explode in the same way that Fukushima or Chernobyl did.
Catastrophic means a complete and utter failure of the machine. How that failure manifests and effects can be different under each case. Again, Three Mile island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima, all had catastrophic failures, all manifested and affected differently.
You made an incorrect assumption, a presumption on your part based on a single word, and then you're tried to force that on me, as words that I actually said which is wrong, as that's not what I said.
So, again, if those three examples are what you mean by catastrophic failure, then my assumption was correct. None of them were due to maintenance failures or being in service too long. Catastrophic failure is not a failure mode for a modern reactor past its service life.
Catastrophic failure is not a failure mode for a modern reactor past its service life.
Catastrophic failure is an engineering term, and also general language term, to describe when a device that breaks down completely, or breaks down in such a way that it's completely unusable.
You're assuming I use that word just to explain a huge explosion and loss of life, which is possible as a side effect of catastrophic failure, but not necessarily, like 3 Mile island.