Discussion:
AMAZING Anti-Smoking Commercial
Add Reply
El Castor
2018-01-11 19:43:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
I just saw a truly bizarre anti-smoking commercial that blew my mind.
You corporation haters are going to LOVE it! Being a cigarette hater
myself, I was glad to see it, but considering that cigarette companies
were required to pay for it was delightful! Here it is ... BTW -- the
following web site describes the ad as bland. I don't think so. It is
unlike any commercial I have ever seen -- which should grab your
attention, at least it did mine.
http://adage.com/article/cmo-strategy/anti-smoking-tv-ads-big-tobacco-forced-run/311379
islander
2018-01-11 22:18:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
I just saw a truly bizarre anti-smoking commercial that blew my mind.
You corporation haters are going to LOVE it! Being a cigarette hater
myself, I was glad to see it, but considering that cigarette companies
were required to pay for it was delightful! Here it is ... BTW -- the
following web site describes the ad as bland. I don't think so. It is
unlike any commercial I have ever seen -- which should grab your
attention, at least it did mine.
http://adage.com/article/cmo-strategy/anti-smoking-tv-ads-big-tobacco-forced-run/311379
Well good! Now we need to force energy companies to run similar ads to
help us get off of our addiction to fossil fuels.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/tobacco-and-oil-industries-used-same-researchers-to-sway-public1/
El Castor
2018-01-12 03:18:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
I just saw a truly bizarre anti-smoking commercial that blew my mind.
You corporation haters are going to LOVE it! Being a cigarette hater
myself, I was glad to see it, but considering that cigarette companies
were required to pay for it was delightful! Here it is ... BTW -- the
following web site describes the ad as bland. I don't think so. It is
unlike any commercial I have ever seen -- which should grab your
attention, at least it did mine.
http://adage.com/article/cmo-strategy/anti-smoking-tv-ads-big-tobacco-forced-run/311379
Well good! Now we need to force energy companies to run similar ads to
help us get off of our addiction to fossil fuels.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/tobacco-and-oil-industries-used-same-researchers-to-sway-public1/
What kind of car do you drive, again? And, uh, how was it you heat
your house and water? Oh yes, and those five evil WPPS power plants
you guys shut down! Good work! They would have produced endless plumes
of CO2, right?
rumpelstiltskin
2018-01-12 04:27:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 19:18:56 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
I just saw a truly bizarre anti-smoking commercial that blew my mind.
You corporation haters are going to LOVE it! Being a cigarette hater
myself, I was glad to see it, but considering that cigarette companies
were required to pay for it was delightful! Here it is ... BTW -- the
following web site describes the ad as bland. I don't think so. It is
unlike any commercial I have ever seen -- which should grab your
attention, at least it did mine.
http://adage.com/article/cmo-strategy/anti-smoking-tv-ads-big-tobacco-forced-run/311379
Well good! Now we need to force energy companies to run similar ads to
help us get off of our addiction to fossil fuels.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/tobacco-and-oil-industries-used-same-researchers-to-sway-public1/
What kind of car do you drive, again? And, uh, how was it you heat
your house and water? Oh yes, and those five evil WPPS power plants
you guys shut down! Good work! They would have produced endless plumes
of CO2, right?
El Castor has a Prius, Islander. He's better than you.
islander
2018-01-12 16:13:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 19:18:56 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
I just saw a truly bizarre anti-smoking commercial that blew my mind.
You corporation haters are going to LOVE it! Being a cigarette hater
myself, I was glad to see it, but considering that cigarette companies
were required to pay for it was delightful! Here it is ... BTW -- the
following web site describes the ad as bland. I don't think so. It is
unlike any commercial I have ever seen -- which should grab your
attention, at least it did mine.
http://adage.com/article/cmo-strategy/anti-smoking-tv-ads-big-tobacco-forced-run/311379
Well good! Now we need to force energy companies to run similar ads to
help us get off of our addiction to fossil fuels.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/tobacco-and-oil-industries-used-same-researchers-to-sway-public1/
What kind of car do you drive, again? And, uh, how was it you heat
your house and water? Oh yes, and those five evil WPPS power plants
you guys shut down! Good work! They would have produced endless plumes
of CO2, right?
El Castor has a Prius, Islander. He's better than you.
I guess so, but he has posted recently that he will probably revert to a
more conventional gas powered car when he trades in.

As to those five WPPSS power plants, I think that it may have been a
good thing that they were killed. Our experience with nukes at Hanford
has not been good! Personally, I don't trust the promoters (Bechtel) of
projects like WPPSS. It is probably a good thing that these plans did
not proceed beyond the one plant which was finally made operational.
The design is now obsolete (similar to the failed design used at Three
Mile Island) and there are much safer ways to use nuclear power.
rumpelstiltskin
2018-01-12 18:04:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 19:18:56 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
I just saw a truly bizarre anti-smoking commercial that blew my mind.
You corporation haters are going to LOVE it! Being a cigarette hater
myself, I was glad to see it, but considering that cigarette companies
were required to pay for it was delightful! Here it is ... BTW -- the
following web site describes the ad as bland. I don't think so. It is
unlike any commercial I have ever seen -- which should grab your
attention, at least it did mine.
http://adage.com/article/cmo-strategy/anti-smoking-tv-ads-big-tobacco-forced-run/311379
Well good! Now we need to force energy companies to run similar ads to
help us get off of our addiction to fossil fuels.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/tobacco-and-oil-industries-used-same-researchers-to-sway-public1/
What kind of car do you drive, again? And, uh, how was it you heat
your house and water? Oh yes, and those five evil WPPS power plants
you guys shut down! Good work! They would have produced endless plumes
of CO2, right?
El Castor has a Prius, Islander. He's better than you.
I guess so, but he has posted recently that he will probably revert to a
more conventional gas powered car when he trades in.
Heavens to Betsy, there goes the neighborhood!
Post by islander
As to those five WPPSS power plants, I think that it may have been a
good thing that they were killed. Our experience with nukes at Hanford
has not been good! Personally, I don't trust the promoters (Bechtel) of
projects like WPPSS. It is probably a good thing that these plans did
not proceed beyond the one plant which was finally made operational.
The design is now obsolete (similar to the failed design used at Three
Mile Island) and there are much safer ways to use nuclear power.
I think there's a company in Fukushima that will sell parts for
nuclear power plants, cheap. There's a place in White Russia
too, though it's still a suicide mission to go anywhere near there
to there to gather them up. You could pick up fuel for the
reactors just by filtering the ocean water around Fukushima.
El Castor
2018-01-12 20:35:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 19:18:56 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
I just saw a truly bizarre anti-smoking commercial that blew my mind.
You corporation haters are going to LOVE it! Being a cigarette hater
myself, I was glad to see it, but considering that cigarette companies
were required to pay for it was delightful! Here it is ... BTW -- the
following web site describes the ad as bland. I don't think so. It is
unlike any commercial I have ever seen -- which should grab your
attention, at least it did mine.
http://adage.com/article/cmo-strategy/anti-smoking-tv-ads-big-tobacco-forced-run/311379
Well good! Now we need to force energy companies to run similar ads to
help us get off of our addiction to fossil fuels.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/tobacco-and-oil-industries-used-same-researchers-to-sway-public1/
What kind of car do you drive, again? And, uh, how was it you heat
your house and water? Oh yes, and those five evil WPPS power plants
you guys shut down! Good work! They would have produced endless plumes
of CO2, right?
El Castor has a Prius, Islander. He's better than you.
I guess so, but he has posted recently that he will probably revert to a
more conventional gas powered car when he trades in.
As to those five WPPSS power plants, I think that it may have been a
good thing that they were killed. Our experience with nukes at Hanford
has not been good! Personally, I don't trust the promoters (Bechtel) of
projects like WPPSS. It is probably a good thing that these plans did
not proceed beyond the one plant which was finally made operational.
The design is now obsolete (similar to the failed design used at Three
Mile Island) and there are much safer ways to use nuclear power.
Perhaps you are right, but times have changed, and designs exist that
are far safer than the plants WPPS would have built. Bill Gates has
helped to fund TerraPower, a company engaged in promoting those
designs. I would hope that the people of Washington would support such
a plant, but I suspect they would haul out the old signs and start
marching again.
islander
2018-01-13 01:37:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 19:18:56 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
I just saw a truly bizarre anti-smoking commercial that blew my mind.
You corporation haters are going to LOVE it! Being a cigarette hater
myself, I was glad to see it, but considering that cigarette companies
were required to pay for it was delightful! Here it is ... BTW -- the
following web site describes the ad as bland. I don't think so. It is
unlike any commercial I have ever seen -- which should grab your
attention, at least it did mine.
http://adage.com/article/cmo-strategy/anti-smoking-tv-ads-big-tobacco-forced-run/311379
Well good! Now we need to force energy companies to run similar ads to
help us get off of our addiction to fossil fuels.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/tobacco-and-oil-industries-used-same-researchers-to-sway-public1/
What kind of car do you drive, again? And, uh, how was it you heat
your house and water? Oh yes, and those five evil WPPS power plants
you guys shut down! Good work! They would have produced endless plumes
of CO2, right?
El Castor has a Prius, Islander. He's better than you.
I guess so, but he has posted recently that he will probably revert to a
more conventional gas powered car when he trades in.
As to those five WPPSS power plants, I think that it may have been a
good thing that they were killed. Our experience with nukes at Hanford
has not been good! Personally, I don't trust the promoters (Bechtel) of
projects like WPPSS. It is probably a good thing that these plans did
not proceed beyond the one plant which was finally made operational.
The design is now obsolete (similar to the failed design used at Three
Mile Island) and there are much safer ways to use nuclear power.
Perhaps you are right, but times have changed, and designs exist that
are far safer than the plants WPPS would have built. Bill Gates has
helped to fund TerraPower, a company engaged in promoting those
designs. I would hope that the people of Washington would support such
a plant, but I suspect they would haul out the old signs and start
marching again.
All we have to do is stop selling power to California and our hydro
capacity will be just fine. Otherwise, we have a very vigorous solar
and wind program that is growing.

TerraPower has some good ideas and may be the answer to safe nukes. My
primary objection to nuclear power has been the carelessness of the
companies that have built plants.
El Castor
2018-01-13 19:13:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 19:18:56 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
I just saw a truly bizarre anti-smoking commercial that blew my mind.
You corporation haters are going to LOVE it! Being a cigarette hater
myself, I was glad to see it, but considering that cigarette companies
were required to pay for it was delightful! Here it is ... BTW -- the
following web site describes the ad as bland. I don't think so. It is
unlike any commercial I have ever seen -- which should grab your
attention, at least it did mine.
http://adage.com/article/cmo-strategy/anti-smoking-tv-ads-big-tobacco-forced-run/311379
Well good! Now we need to force energy companies to run similar ads to
help us get off of our addiction to fossil fuels.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/tobacco-and-oil-industries-used-same-researchers-to-sway-public1/
What kind of car do you drive, again? And, uh, how was it you heat
your house and water? Oh yes, and those five evil WPPS power plants
you guys shut down! Good work! They would have produced endless plumes
of CO2, right?
El Castor has a Prius, Islander. He's better than you.
I guess so, but he has posted recently that he will probably revert to a
more conventional gas powered car when he trades in.
As to those five WPPSS power plants, I think that it may have been a
good thing that they were killed. Our experience with nukes at Hanford
has not been good! Personally, I don't trust the promoters (Bechtel) of
projects like WPPSS. It is probably a good thing that these plans did
not proceed beyond the one plant which was finally made operational.
The design is now obsolete (similar to the failed design used at Three
Mile Island) and there are much safer ways to use nuclear power.
Perhaps you are right, but times have changed, and designs exist that
are far safer than the plants WPPS would have built. Bill Gates has
helped to fund TerraPower, a company engaged in promoting those
designs. I would hope that the people of Washington would support such
a plant, but I suspect they would haul out the old signs and start
marching again.
All we have to do is stop selling power to California and our hydro
capacity will be just fine. Otherwise, we have a very vigorous solar
and wind program that is growing.
TerraPower has some good ideas and may be the answer to safe nukes. My
primary objection to nuclear power has been the carelessness of the
companies that have built plants.
This may surprise you, but I believe nuclear power operated by a
government entity focused on safety and standardized designs might not
be a bad idea.
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-01-14 03:53:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 19:18:56 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
I just saw a truly bizarre anti-smoking commercial that blew my mind.
You corporation haters are going to LOVE it! Being a cigarette hater
myself, I was glad to see it, but considering that cigarette companies
were required to pay for it was delightful! Here it is ... BTW -- the
following web site describes the ad as bland. I don't think so. It is
unlike any commercial I have ever seen -- which should grab your
attention, at least it did mine.
http://adage.com/article/cmo-strategy/anti-smoking-tv-ads-big-tobacco-forced-run/311379
Well good! Now we need to force energy companies to run similar ads to
help us get off of our addiction to fossil fuels.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/tobacco-and-oil-industries-used-same-researchers-to-sway-public1/
What kind of car do you drive, again? And, uh, how was it you heat
your house and water? Oh yes, and those five evil WPPS power plants
you guys shut down! Good work! They would have produced endless plumes
of CO2, right?
El Castor has a Prius, Islander. He's better than you.
I guess so, but he has posted recently that he will probably revert to a
more conventional gas powered car when he trades in.
As to those five WPPSS power plants, I think that it may have been a
good thing that they were killed. Our experience with nukes at Hanford
has not been good! Personally, I don't trust the promoters (Bechtel) of
projects like WPPSS. It is probably a good thing that these plans did
not proceed beyond the one plant which was finally made operational.
The design is now obsolete (similar to the failed design used at Three
Mile Island) and there are much safer ways to use nuclear power.
Perhaps you are right, but times have changed, and designs exist that
are far safer than the plants WPPS would have built. Bill Gates has
helped to fund TerraPower, a company engaged in promoting those
designs. I would hope that the people of Washington would support such
a plant, but I suspect they would haul out the old signs and start
marching again.
All we have to do is stop selling power to California and our hydro
capacity will be just fine. Otherwise, we have a very vigorous solar
and wind program that is growing.
TerraPower has some good ideas and may be the answer to safe nukes. My
primary objection to nuclear power has been the carelessness of the
companies that have built plants.
This may surprise you, but I believe nuclear power operated by a
government entity focused on safety and standardized designs might not
be a bad idea.
I am pleasantly surprised by our neo-socialist friend Jeff.
El Castor
2018-01-14 09:36:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 13 Jan 2018 19:53:39 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 19:18:56 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
I just saw a truly bizarre anti-smoking commercial that blew my mind.
You corporation haters are going to LOVE it! Being a cigarette hater
myself, I was glad to see it, but considering that cigarette companies
were required to pay for it was delightful! Here it is ... BTW -- the
following web site describes the ad as bland. I don't think so. It is
unlike any commercial I have ever seen -- which should grab your
attention, at least it did mine.
http://adage.com/article/cmo-strategy/anti-smoking-tv-ads-big-tobacco-forced-run/311379
Well good! Now we need to force energy companies to run similar ads to
help us get off of our addiction to fossil fuels.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/tobacco-and-oil-industries-used-same-researchers-to-sway-public1/
What kind of car do you drive, again? And, uh, how was it you heat
your house and water? Oh yes, and those five evil WPPS power plants
you guys shut down! Good work! They would have produced endless plumes
of CO2, right?
El Castor has a Prius, Islander. He's better than you.
I guess so, but he has posted recently that he will probably revert to a
more conventional gas powered car when he trades in.
As to those five WPPSS power plants, I think that it may have been a
good thing that they were killed. Our experience with nukes at Hanford
has not been good! Personally, I don't trust the promoters (Bechtel) of
projects like WPPSS. It is probably a good thing that these plans did
not proceed beyond the one plant which was finally made operational.
The design is now obsolete (similar to the failed design used at Three
Mile Island) and there are much safer ways to use nuclear power.
Perhaps you are right, but times have changed, and designs exist that
are far safer than the plants WPPS would have built. Bill Gates has
helped to fund TerraPower, a company engaged in promoting those
designs. I would hope that the people of Washington would support such
a plant, but I suspect they would haul out the old signs and start
marching again.
All we have to do is stop selling power to California and our hydro
capacity will be just fine. Otherwise, we have a very vigorous solar
and wind program that is growing.
TerraPower has some good ideas and may be the answer to safe nukes. My
primary objection to nuclear power has been the carelessness of the
companies that have built plants.
This may surprise you, but I believe nuclear power operated by a
government entity focused on safety and standardized designs might not
be a bad idea.
I am pleasantly surprised by our neo-socialist friend Jeff.
Now, now, just because I am not afraid to think for myself, no need to
be rude and call me names!
islander
2018-01-14 16:19:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 19:18:56 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
I just saw a truly bizarre anti-smoking commercial that blew my mind.
You corporation haters are going to LOVE it! Being a cigarette hater
myself, I was glad to see it, but considering that cigarette companies
were required to pay for it was delightful! Here it is ... BTW -- the
following web site describes the ad as bland. I don't think so. It is
unlike any commercial I have ever seen -- which should grab your
attention, at least it did mine.
http://adage.com/article/cmo-strategy/anti-smoking-tv-ads-big-tobacco-forced-run/311379
Well good! Now we need to force energy companies to run similar ads to
help us get off of our addiction to fossil fuels.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/tobacco-and-oil-industries-used-same-researchers-to-sway-public1/
What kind of car do you drive, again? And, uh, how was it you heat
your house and water? Oh yes, and those five evil WPPS power plants
you guys shut down! Good work! They would have produced endless plumes
of CO2, right?
El Castor has a Prius, Islander. He's better than you.
I guess so, but he has posted recently that he will probably revert to a
more conventional gas powered car when he trades in.
As to those five WPPSS power plants, I think that it may have been a
good thing that they were killed. Our experience with nukes at Hanford
has not been good! Personally, I don't trust the promoters (Bechtel) of
projects like WPPSS. It is probably a good thing that these plans did
not proceed beyond the one plant which was finally made operational.
The design is now obsolete (similar to the failed design used at Three
Mile Island) and there are much safer ways to use nuclear power.
Perhaps you are right, but times have changed, and designs exist that
are far safer than the plants WPPS would have built. Bill Gates has
helped to fund TerraPower, a company engaged in promoting those
designs. I would hope that the people of Washington would support such
a plant, but I suspect they would haul out the old signs and start
marching again.
All we have to do is stop selling power to California and our hydro
capacity will be just fine. Otherwise, we have a very vigorous solar
and wind program that is growing.
TerraPower has some good ideas and may be the answer to safe nukes. My
primary objection to nuclear power has been the carelessness of the
companies that have built plants.
This may surprise you, but I believe nuclear power operated by a
government entity focused on safety and standardized designs might not
be a bad idea.
The Navy has certainly demonstrated that a standard design can be
developed and implemented with a nearly perfect safety record. You are
not the only conservative who has suggested that to me.

Most if not all of the nuclear plant disasters were caused by or made
worse by really careless mistakes (putting the backup generators in the
basement of the plants in Fukushima where they would be vulnerable to
flooding for example). Nuclear power would be much more acceptable if
the companies building the plants showed some effort to assure safety in
their design. Do you remember the guy who was posting here immediately
after the tsunami? "Nothing to worry about! The reactors are designed
to contain the melted core!" Yea, right!
El Castor
2018-01-14 19:58:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 19:18:56 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
I just saw a truly bizarre anti-smoking commercial that blew my mind.
You corporation haters are going to LOVE it! Being a cigarette hater
myself, I was glad to see it, but considering that cigarette companies
were required to pay for it was delightful! Here it is ... BTW -- the
following web site describes the ad as bland. I don't think so. It is
unlike any commercial I have ever seen -- which should grab your
attention, at least it did mine.
http://adage.com/article/cmo-strategy/anti-smoking-tv-ads-big-tobacco-forced-run/311379
Well good! Now we need to force energy companies to run similar ads to
help us get off of our addiction to fossil fuels.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/tobacco-and-oil-industries-used-same-researchers-to-sway-public1/
What kind of car do you drive, again? And, uh, how was it you heat
your house and water? Oh yes, and those five evil WPPS power plants
you guys shut down! Good work! They would have produced endless plumes
of CO2, right?
El Castor has a Prius, Islander. He's better than you.
I guess so, but he has posted recently that he will probably revert to a
more conventional gas powered car when he trades in.
As to those five WPPSS power plants, I think that it may have been a
good thing that they were killed. Our experience with nukes at Hanford
has not been good! Personally, I don't trust the promoters (Bechtel) of
projects like WPPSS. It is probably a good thing that these plans did
not proceed beyond the one plant which was finally made operational.
The design is now obsolete (similar to the failed design used at Three
Mile Island) and there are much safer ways to use nuclear power.
Perhaps you are right, but times have changed, and designs exist that
are far safer than the plants WPPS would have built. Bill Gates has
helped to fund TerraPower, a company engaged in promoting those
designs. I would hope that the people of Washington would support such
a plant, but I suspect they would haul out the old signs and start
marching again.
All we have to do is stop selling power to California and our hydro
capacity will be just fine. Otherwise, we have a very vigorous solar
and wind program that is growing.
TerraPower has some good ideas and may be the answer to safe nukes. My
primary objection to nuclear power has been the carelessness of the
companies that have built plants.
This may surprise you, but I believe nuclear power operated by a
government entity focused on safety and standardized designs might not
be a bad idea.
The Navy has certainly demonstrated that a standard design can be
developed and implemented with a nearly perfect safety record. You are
not the only conservative who has suggested that to me.
Most if not all of the nuclear plant disasters were caused by or made
worse by really careless mistakes (putting the backup generators in the
basement of the plants in Fukushima where they would be vulnerable to
flooding for example). Nuclear power would be much more acceptable if
the companies building the plants showed some effort to assure safety in
their design. Do you remember the guy who was posting here immediately
after the tsunami? "Nothing to worry about! The reactors are designed
to contain the melted core!" Yea, right!
New designs, if they are ever implemented, could eliminate the
possibility of melted cores. At any rate, considering the dire
consequences of a nuclear mistake, standardized designs, training, and
supervision at the government level were always the way to go ... but
not going to happen. Nuclear power in the US appears to be dead. Maybe
fusion some day, but I doubt any of us will live to see it.
islander
2018-01-15 15:45:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 19:18:56 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
I just saw a truly bizarre anti-smoking commercial that blew my mind.
You corporation haters are going to LOVE it! Being a cigarette hater
myself, I was glad to see it, but considering that cigarette companies
were required to pay for it was delightful! Here it is ... BTW -- the
following web site describes the ad as bland. I don't think so. It is
unlike any commercial I have ever seen -- which should grab your
attention, at least it did mine.
http://adage.com/article/cmo-strategy/anti-smoking-tv-ads-big-tobacco-forced-run/311379
Well good! Now we need to force energy companies to run similar ads to
help us get off of our addiction to fossil fuels.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/tobacco-and-oil-industries-used-same-researchers-to-sway-public1/
What kind of car do you drive, again? And, uh, how was it you heat
your house and water? Oh yes, and those five evil WPPS power plants
you guys shut down! Good work! They would have produced endless plumes
of CO2, right?
El Castor has a Prius, Islander. He's better than you.
I guess so, but he has posted recently that he will probably revert to a
more conventional gas powered car when he trades in.
As to those five WPPSS power plants, I think that it may have been a
good thing that they were killed. Our experience with nukes at Hanford
has not been good! Personally, I don't trust the promoters (Bechtel) of
projects like WPPSS. It is probably a good thing that these plans did
not proceed beyond the one plant which was finally made operational.
The design is now obsolete (similar to the failed design used at Three
Mile Island) and there are much safer ways to use nuclear power.
Perhaps you are right, but times have changed, and designs exist that
are far safer than the plants WPPS would have built. Bill Gates has
helped to fund TerraPower, a company engaged in promoting those
designs. I would hope that the people of Washington would support such
a plant, but I suspect they would haul out the old signs and start
marching again.
All we have to do is stop selling power to California and our hydro
capacity will be just fine. Otherwise, we have a very vigorous solar
and wind program that is growing.
TerraPower has some good ideas and may be the answer to safe nukes. My
primary objection to nuclear power has been the carelessness of the
companies that have built plants.
This may surprise you, but I believe nuclear power operated by a
government entity focused on safety and standardized designs might not
be a bad idea.
The Navy has certainly demonstrated that a standard design can be
developed and implemented with a nearly perfect safety record. You are
not the only conservative who has suggested that to me.
Most if not all of the nuclear plant disasters were caused by or made
worse by really careless mistakes (putting the backup generators in the
basement of the plants in Fukushima where they would be vulnerable to
flooding for example). Nuclear power would be much more acceptable if
the companies building the plants showed some effort to assure safety in
their design. Do you remember the guy who was posting here immediately
after the tsunami? "Nothing to worry about! The reactors are designed
to contain the melted core!" Yea, right!
New designs, if they are ever implemented, could eliminate the
possibility of melted cores. At any rate, considering the dire
consequences of a nuclear mistake, standardized designs, training, and
supervision at the government level were always the way to go ... but
not going to happen. Nuclear power in the US appears to be dead. Maybe
fusion some day, but I doubt any of us will live to see it.
I had some exposure to failure analysis during my time at NSA. Not for
nuclear reactors, but for digital circuitry. The same basic principles
apply. It is complicated and expensive. Still, if the penalty for
failure is very high, you have to make the investment. I doubt that DoE
is anywhere near as cautious about failure as NSA, but I know that the
nuclear industry is prone to take shortcuts if it saves money. We have
tried regulating them and that doesn't work, so I think that we agree
that this is one industry where the government should take over, build
the expertise (as Rickover did) and build and operate the plants. As
you say, nuclear power is probably dead and you can blame the
carelessness of the nuclear industry for that!
El Castor
2018-01-15 19:30:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 19:18:56 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
I just saw a truly bizarre anti-smoking commercial that blew my mind.
You corporation haters are going to LOVE it! Being a cigarette hater
myself, I was glad to see it, but considering that cigarette companies
were required to pay for it was delightful! Here it is ... BTW -- the
following web site describes the ad as bland. I don't think so. It is
unlike any commercial I have ever seen -- which should grab your
attention, at least it did mine.
http://adage.com/article/cmo-strategy/anti-smoking-tv-ads-big-tobacco-forced-run/311379
Well good! Now we need to force energy companies to run similar ads to
help us get off of our addiction to fossil fuels.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/tobacco-and-oil-industries-used-same-researchers-to-sway-public1/
What kind of car do you drive, again? And, uh, how was it you heat
your house and water? Oh yes, and those five evil WPPS power plants
you guys shut down! Good work! They would have produced endless plumes
of CO2, right?
El Castor has a Prius, Islander. He's better than you.
I guess so, but he has posted recently that he will probably revert to a
more conventional gas powered car when he trades in.
As to those five WPPSS power plants, I think that it may have been a
good thing that they were killed. Our experience with nukes at Hanford
has not been good! Personally, I don't trust the promoters (Bechtel) of
projects like WPPSS. It is probably a good thing that these plans did
not proceed beyond the one plant which was finally made operational.
The design is now obsolete (similar to the failed design used at Three
Mile Island) and there are much safer ways to use nuclear power.
Perhaps you are right, but times have changed, and designs exist that
are far safer than the plants WPPS would have built. Bill Gates has
helped to fund TerraPower, a company engaged in promoting those
designs. I would hope that the people of Washington would support such
a plant, but I suspect they would haul out the old signs and start
marching again.
All we have to do is stop selling power to California and our hydro
capacity will be just fine. Otherwise, we have a very vigorous solar
and wind program that is growing.
TerraPower has some good ideas and may be the answer to safe nukes. My
primary objection to nuclear power has been the carelessness of the
companies that have built plants.
This may surprise you, but I believe nuclear power operated by a
government entity focused on safety and standardized designs might not
be a bad idea.
The Navy has certainly demonstrated that a standard design can be
developed and implemented with a nearly perfect safety record. You are
not the only conservative who has suggested that to me.
Most if not all of the nuclear plant disasters were caused by or made
worse by really careless mistakes (putting the backup generators in the
basement of the plants in Fukushima where they would be vulnerable to
flooding for example). Nuclear power would be much more acceptable if
the companies building the plants showed some effort to assure safety in
their design. Do you remember the guy who was posting here immediately
after the tsunami? "Nothing to worry about! The reactors are designed
to contain the melted core!" Yea, right!
New designs, if they are ever implemented, could eliminate the
possibility of melted cores. At any rate, considering the dire
consequences of a nuclear mistake, standardized designs, training, and
supervision at the government level were always the way to go ... but
not going to happen. Nuclear power in the US appears to be dead. Maybe
fusion some day, but I doubt any of us will live to see it.
I had some exposure to failure analysis during my time at NSA. Not for
nuclear reactors, but for digital circuitry. The same basic principles
apply. It is complicated and expensive. Still, if the penalty for
failure is very high, you have to make the investment. I doubt that DoE
is anywhere near as cautious about failure as NSA, but I know that the
nuclear industry is prone to take shortcuts if it saves money. We have
tried regulating them and that doesn't work, so I think that we agree
that this is one industry where the government should take over, build
the expertise (as Rickover did) and build and operate the plants. As
you say, nuclear power is probably dead and you can blame the
carelessness of the nuclear industry for that!
Government employees aren't careless? Don't make mistakes? Let's not
get carried away. The idea of government run nuclear power appeals to
me because designs would presumably be standardized, as would be the
training of operators and inspectors -- however, mistake free? Tell
that to some dead Amtrak customers.
islander
2018-01-18 00:00:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 19:18:56 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
I just saw a truly bizarre anti-smoking commercial that blew my mind.
You corporation haters are going to LOVE it! Being a cigarette hater
myself, I was glad to see it, but considering that cigarette companies
were required to pay for it was delightful! Here it is ... BTW -- the
following web site describes the ad as bland. I don't think so. It is
unlike any commercial I have ever seen -- which should grab your
attention, at least it did mine.
http://adage.com/article/cmo-strategy/anti-smoking-tv-ads-big-tobacco-forced-run/311379
Well good! Now we need to force energy companies to run similar ads to
help us get off of our addiction to fossil fuels.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/tobacco-and-oil-industries-used-same-researchers-to-sway-public1/
What kind of car do you drive, again? And, uh, how was it you heat
your house and water? Oh yes, and those five evil WPPS power plants
you guys shut down! Good work! They would have produced endless plumes
of CO2, right?
El Castor has a Prius, Islander. He's better than you.
I guess so, but he has posted recently that he will probably revert to a
more conventional gas powered car when he trades in.
As to those five WPPSS power plants, I think that it may have been a
good thing that they were killed. Our experience with nukes at Hanford
has not been good! Personally, I don't trust the promoters (Bechtel) of
projects like WPPSS. It is probably a good thing that these plans did
not proceed beyond the one plant which was finally made operational.
The design is now obsolete (similar to the failed design used at Three
Mile Island) and there are much safer ways to use nuclear power.
Perhaps you are right, but times have changed, and designs exist that
are far safer than the plants WPPS would have built. Bill Gates has
helped to fund TerraPower, a company engaged in promoting those
designs. I would hope that the people of Washington would support such
a plant, but I suspect they would haul out the old signs and start
marching again.
All we have to do is stop selling power to California and our hydro
capacity will be just fine. Otherwise, we have a very vigorous solar
and wind program that is growing.
TerraPower has some good ideas and may be the answer to safe nukes. My
primary objection to nuclear power has been the carelessness of the
companies that have built plants.
This may surprise you, but I believe nuclear power operated by a
government entity focused on safety and standardized designs might not
be a bad idea.
The Navy has certainly demonstrated that a standard design can be
developed and implemented with a nearly perfect safety record. You are
not the only conservative who has suggested that to me.
Most if not all of the nuclear plant disasters were caused by or made
worse by really careless mistakes (putting the backup generators in the
basement of the plants in Fukushima where they would be vulnerable to
flooding for example). Nuclear power would be much more acceptable if
the companies building the plants showed some effort to assure safety in
their design. Do you remember the guy who was posting here immediately
after the tsunami? "Nothing to worry about! The reactors are designed
to contain the melted core!" Yea, right!
New designs, if they are ever implemented, could eliminate the
possibility of melted cores. At any rate, considering the dire
consequences of a nuclear mistake, standardized designs, training, and
supervision at the government level were always the way to go ... but
not going to happen. Nuclear power in the US appears to be dead. Maybe
fusion some day, but I doubt any of us will live to see it.
I had some exposure to failure analysis during my time at NSA. Not for
nuclear reactors, but for digital circuitry. The same basic principles
apply. It is complicated and expensive. Still, if the penalty for
failure is very high, you have to make the investment. I doubt that DoE
is anywhere near as cautious about failure as NSA, but I know that the
nuclear industry is prone to take shortcuts if it saves money. We have
tried regulating them and that doesn't work, so I think that we agree
that this is one industry where the government should take over, build
the expertise (as Rickover did) and build and operate the plants. As
you say, nuclear power is probably dead and you can blame the
carelessness of the nuclear industry for that!
Government employees aren't careless? Don't make mistakes? Let's not
get carried away. The idea of government run nuclear power appeals to
me because designs would presumably be standardized, as would be the
training of operators and inspectors -- however, mistake free? Tell
that to some dead Amtrak customers.
How many people have been killed by the nuclear reactors in Navy subs
and carriers?
m***@my-deja.com
2018-01-18 01:44:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 19:18:56 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
I just saw a truly bizarre anti-smoking commercial that blew my mind.
You corporation haters are going to LOVE it! Being a cigarette hater
myself, I was glad to see it, but considering that cigarette companies
were required to pay for it was delightful! Here it is ... BTW -- the
following web site describes the ad as bland. I don't think so. It is
unlike any commercial I have ever seen -- which should grab your
attention, at least it did mine.
http://adage.com/article/cmo-strategy/anti-smoking-tv-ads-big-tobacco-forced-run/311379
Well good! Now we need to force energy companies to run similar ads to
help us get off of our addiction to fossil fuels.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/tobacco-and-oil-industries-used-same-researchers-to-sway-public1/
What kind of car do you drive, again? And, uh, how was it you heat
your house and water? Oh yes, and those five evil WPPS power plants
you guys shut down! Good work! They would have produced endless plumes
of CO2, right?
El Castor has a Prius, Islander. He's better than you.
I guess so, but he has posted recently that he will probably revert to a
more conventional gas powered car when he trades in.
As to those five WPPSS power plants, I think that it may have been a
good thing that they were killed. Our experience with nukes at Hanford
has not been good! Personally, I don't trust the promoters (Bechtel) of
projects like WPPSS. It is probably a good thing that these plans did
not proceed beyond the one plant which was finally made operational.
The design is now obsolete (similar to the failed design used at Three
Mile Island) and there are much safer ways to use nuclear power.
Perhaps you are right, but times have changed, and designs exist that
are far safer than the plants WPPS would have built. Bill Gates has
helped to fund TerraPower, a company engaged in promoting those
designs. I would hope that the people of Washington would support such
a plant, but I suspect they would haul out the old signs and start
marching again.
All we have to do is stop selling power to California and our hydro
capacity will be just fine. Otherwise, we have a very vigorous solar
and wind program that is growing.
TerraPower has some good ideas and may be the answer to safe nukes. My
primary objection to nuclear power has been the carelessness of the
companies that have built plants.
This may surprise you, but I believe nuclear power operated by a
government entity focused on safety and standardized designs might not
be a bad idea.
Your fantasy is already a reality Beav. It is called TVA.
A very successful program borne out of the socialist era
of the 1930s
d***@gmail.com
2018-01-18 05:17:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Germany has decided to eliminate all of its nuclear power plants. But they still have the very sticky problem of where they will store all of the nuclear waste they have already produced. A major problem is how to store radioactive waste safely for tens of thousands of years in such a way that groundwater is not contaminated. Good luck.

Deutsche Welle wrote:

<< Following the Fukushima nuclear catastrophe in 2011, Germany decided to withdraw from nuclear energy production altogether. But the waste remained, and two years ago a commission made up of scientists, environmentalists and politicians was created. Its goal: to develop criteria for a final nuclear repository. Thereafter, at least two potential sites would be found for the unpopular facility, so that authorities could choose between alternatives.
According to the report, several above-ground sites would be explored, and then later, at those that appeared most suitable, underground. The Bundestag, the lower house of Germany's parliament, must vote on each step along the way. The final decision on the site is to be made by 2030. And waste will begin being deposited from 2050 onward. >>

Eugene FitzAubrey
El Castor
2018-01-18 09:54:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
Germany has decided to eliminate all of its nuclear power plants. But they still have the very sticky problem of where they will store all of the nuclear waste they have already produced. A major problem is how to store radioactive waste safely for tens of thousands of years in such a way that groundwater is not contaminated. Good luck.
<< Following the Fukushima nuclear catastrophe in 2011, Germany decided to withdraw from nuclear energy production altogether. But the waste remained, and two years ago a commission made up of scientists, environmentalists and politicians was created. Its goal: to develop criteria for a final nuclear repository. Thereafter, at least two potential sites would be found for the unpopular facility, so that authorities could choose between alternatives.
According to the report, several above-ground sites would be explored, and then later, at those that appeared most suitable, underground. The Bundestag, the lower house of Germany's parliament, must vote on each step along the way. The final decision on the site is to be made by 2030. And waste will begin being deposited from 2050 onward. >>
Eugene FitzAubrey
A new design uses waste to fuel reactors -- others are 100% melt down
proof.

"New generation of nuclear reactors could consume radioactive waste as
fuel
The new 'fast' plants could provide enough low-carbon electricity to
power the UK for more than 500 years"
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/feb/02/nuclear-reactors-consume-radioactive-waste
d***@gmail.com
2018-01-18 16:19:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
El Castor quoted The Guardian:

<< A new design uses waste to fuel reactors -- others are 100% melt down
proof.

"New generation of nuclear reactors could consume radioactive waste as
fuel
The new 'fast' plants could provide enough low-carbon electricity to
power the UK for more than 500 years" >>

I am horribly suspicious. The reference to low-carbon electricity is pure propaganda. It is otherwise extraneous to the subject at hand, because all reactors are 'low carbon'. This leads to the suspicion that the British government is promoting Climate Change in order to promote the nuclear power industry. The very name of the Department of Energy and Climate Change (Decc) is suspicious. I remember when our Atomic Energy Commission became the Department of Energy overnight. Most people don't know the connection.

The concept of a reactor that would eliminate existing nuclear waste, if accurate, would make it very difficult for countries like Germany to abandon nuclear power.

Eugene FitzAubrey
d***@gmail.com
2018-01-18 20:16:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
I was wrong when I wrote:

<< I remember when our Atomic Energy Commission became the Department of Energy overnight. >>

I forgot the Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA), which came between the AEC and the DOE:

ERDA replaced the AEC on
October 11, 1974, and the DOE replaced ERDA on October 1, 1977.

You wouldn't be alone if you've never heard of the Energy Research and Development Administration.

Eugene FitzAubrey
islander
2018-01-18 20:26:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
<< A new design uses waste to fuel reactors -- others are 100% melt down
proof.
"New generation of nuclear reactors could consume radioactive waste as
fuel
The new 'fast' plants could provide enough low-carbon electricity to
power the UK for more than 500 years" >>
I am horribly suspicious. The reference to low-carbon electricity is pure propaganda. It is otherwise extraneous to the subject at hand, because all reactors are 'low carbon'. This leads to the suspicion that the British government is promoting Climate Change in order to promote the nuclear power industry. The very name of the Department of Energy and Climate Change (Decc) is suspicious. I remember when our Atomic Energy Commission became the Department of Energy overnight. Most people don't know the connection.
The concept of a reactor that would eliminate existing nuclear waste, if accurate, would make it very difficult for countries like Germany to abandon nuclear power.
Eugene FitzAubrey
Jeff may have been referring to breeder reactors which produce more fuel
than they consume (from U-238 or T-232) and which consume radio active
waste (that is waste directly produced by the nuclear reaction). There
are a few reasons that they have not been adopted, the primary reason
that they are about 25% more expensive to build. There are also issues
of safety (contamination of the coolant) and nuclear proliferation
(weapon grade plutonium is produced in the process and could be removed
before it is allowed to be consumed in the reactor).

A number of them have been built and I don't think that there are any
producing electricity commercially. One was operating in Germany but it
was shut down after Chernobyl. This is not a game for the faint of heart!

There has also been a lot of work done on traveling wave reactors which
are more efficient in consuming low grade uranium, but which create a
problem of disposing of the reactor itself after the fuel is consumed.
I heard a proposal by Lowell Wood (previously LLNL) to bury them in sand
and intentionally put the reactor into thermal meltdown to melt the sand
into a glass sarcophagus for long term storage. Lots of crazy proposals
out there!
El Castor
2018-01-18 21:17:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by d***@gmail.com
<< A new design uses waste to fuel reactors -- others are 100% melt down
proof.
"New generation of nuclear reactors could consume radioactive waste as
fuel
The new 'fast' plants could provide enough low-carbon electricity to
power the UK for more than 500 years" >>
I am horribly suspicious. The reference to low-carbon electricity is pure propaganda. It is otherwise extraneous to the subject at hand, because all reactors are 'low carbon'. This leads to the suspicion that the British government is promoting Climate Change in order to promote the nuclear power industry. The very name of the Department of Energy and Climate Change (Decc) is suspicious. I remember when our Atomic Energy Commission became the Department of Energy overnight. Most people don't know the connection.
The concept of a reactor that would eliminate existing nuclear waste, if accurate, would make it very difficult for countries like Germany to abandon nuclear power.
Eugene FitzAubrey
Jeff may have been referring to breeder reactors which produce more fuel
than they consume (from U-238 or T-232) and which consume radio active
waste (that is waste directly produced by the nuclear reaction). There
are a few reasons that they have not been adopted, the primary reason
that they are about 25% more expensive to build. There are also issues
of safety (contamination of the coolant) and nuclear proliferation
(weapon grade plutonium is produced in the process and could be removed
before it is allowed to be consumed in the reactor).
A number of them have been built and I don't think that there are any
producing electricity commercially. One was operating in Germany but it
was shut down after Chernobyl. This is not a game for the faint of heart!
There has also been a lot of work done on traveling wave reactors which
are more efficient in consuming low grade uranium, but which create a
problem of disposing of the reactor itself after the fuel is consumed.
I heard a proposal by Lowell Wood (previously LLNL) to bury them in sand
and intentionally put the reactor into thermal meltdown to melt the sand
into a glass sarcophagus for long term storage. Lots of crazy proposals
out there!
Here is what I was referring to ...
https://www.fastcompany.com/3043099/this-nuclear-reactor-eats-nuclear-waste
https://www.sciencealert.com/china-says-it-ll-have-a-meltdown-proof-nuclear-reactor-ready-by-next-year

I don't pretend to have any expertise in this area, so your comments
would be appreciated. In any event, the radical environmentalist wing
of US politics, the bunch who killed WPPS, will oppose any power
source that includes the word nuclear, so the US is unlikely to lead
the way.
islander
2018-01-19 15:24:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by d***@gmail.com
<< A new design uses waste to fuel reactors -- others are 100% melt down
proof.
"New generation of nuclear reactors could consume radioactive waste as
fuel
The new 'fast' plants could provide enough low-carbon electricity to
power the UK for more than 500 years" >>
I am horribly suspicious. The reference to low-carbon electricity is pure propaganda. It is otherwise extraneous to the subject at hand, because all reactors are 'low carbon'. This leads to the suspicion that the British government is promoting Climate Change in order to promote the nuclear power industry. The very name of the Department of Energy and Climate Change (Decc) is suspicious. I remember when our Atomic Energy Commission became the Department of Energy overnight. Most people don't know the connection.
The concept of a reactor that would eliminate existing nuclear waste, if accurate, would make it very difficult for countries like Germany to abandon nuclear power.
Eugene FitzAubrey
Jeff may have been referring to breeder reactors which produce more fuel
than they consume (from U-238 or T-232) and which consume radio active
waste (that is waste directly produced by the nuclear reaction). There
are a few reasons that they have not been adopted, the primary reason
that they are about 25% more expensive to build. There are also issues
of safety (contamination of the coolant) and nuclear proliferation
(weapon grade plutonium is produced in the process and could be removed
before it is allowed to be consumed in the reactor).
A number of them have been built and I don't think that there are any
producing electricity commercially. One was operating in Germany but it
was shut down after Chernobyl. This is not a game for the faint of heart!
There has also been a lot of work done on traveling wave reactors which
are more efficient in consuming low grade uranium, but which create a
problem of disposing of the reactor itself after the fuel is consumed.
I heard a proposal by Lowell Wood (previously LLNL) to bury them in sand
and intentionally put the reactor into thermal meltdown to melt the sand
into a glass sarcophagus for long term storage. Lots of crazy proposals
out there!
Here is what I was referring to ...
https://www.fastcompany.com/3043099/this-nuclear-reactor-eats-nuclear-waste
https://www.sciencealert.com/china-says-it-ll-have-a-meltdown-proof-nuclear-reactor-ready-by-next-year
I don't pretend to have any expertise in this area, so your comments
would be appreciated. In any event, the radical environmentalist wing
of US politics, the bunch who killed WPPS, will oppose any power
source that includes the word nuclear, so the US is unlikely to lead
the way.
There have been a lot of experiments in using liquid sodium as a first
stage thermal transfer media in a breeder reactor. The kids starting up
Transatomic seem to be focusing on some variant of that. The approach
suffers from the problem of ultimate disposal of the salt. The Chinese
pebble reactor is interesting. Instead of using fuel rods like most
reactors in operation today, it uses pebbles (spheres the size of golf
balls) but still circulates helium gas to transfer the heat to the heat
exchanger. It is not clear how the graphite coating of the fuel would
limit the nuclear reaction if something were to happen to the pumps that
circulate the helium. Could be an interesting bit of technology.

It is encouraging to see the amount of development work that is going on
around the world, not only in nuclear, but in all aspects of clean
power. China seems to be taking the lead in everything and I doubt that
has anything to do with politics. The Asian countries tend to put a lot
of money into research while the US tends to not want to spend money on
"not picking winners and losers." Our blind faith in the free market
seems to be the primary reason that we don't make strategic investments
in technology. If we could just figure out how to do research and
development with quarterly profits...
d***@gmail.com
2018-01-19 01:13:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Islander wrote:

<< I heard a proposal by Lowell Wood (previously LLNL) to bury them in sand
and intentionally put the reactor into thermal meltdown to melt the sand
into a glass sarcophagus for long term storage. Lots of crazy proposals
out there! >>

I heard something similar, and I wonder if your story and mine are connected. Some time in the mid to late'70's, I was in the Earth Sciences Division at LLNL working for a chemist named Howard Tewes. We were a small group of about eight physicists and chemists, and Howard and I worked on PNE Treaty Verification and other odd jobs that came along. One day I heard another member of the group named Jerry Cohen complaining to Howard that we didn't DO anything (exciting) anymore.

A year or so later, Howard and Jerry were telling several of us about a presentation they had given to some group in Lab management. They proposed an experiment in which 'hot' nuclear waste would be inserted in bedrock (like granite) and allowed to melt its way down until it cooled sufficiently for the surrounding rock to solidify and seal the waste in a glass like enclosure. (It wouldn't really be a glass because it would cool very slowly and form a crystalline material, whereas a noncrystalline glass would only be produced by very rapid cooling.)

I wonder if Lowell Wiod was in Lab management at the time. The idea didn't get anywhere, and I believe someone had said it was a crazy idea.

At about the same time, the movie The China Syndrome came out using a similar idea.

Eugene FitzAubrey
islander
2018-01-19 15:44:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
<< I heard a proposal by Lowell Wood (previously LLNL) to bury them in sand
and intentionally put the reactor into thermal meltdown to melt the sand
into a glass sarcophagus for long term storage. Lots of crazy proposals
out there! >>
I heard something similar, and I wonder if your story and mine are connected. Some time in the mid to late'70's, I was in the Earth Sciences Division at LLNL working for a chemist named Howard Tewes. We were a small group of about eight physicists and chemists, and Howard and I worked on PNE Treaty Verification and other odd jobs that came along. One day I heard another member of the group named Jerry Cohen complaining to Howard that we didn't DO anything (exciting) anymore.
A year or so later, Howard and Jerry were telling several of us about a presentation they had given to some group in Lab management. They proposed an experiment in which 'hot' nuclear waste would be inserted in bedrock (like granite) and allowed to melt its way down until it cooled sufficiently for the surrounding rock to solidify and seal the waste in a glass like enclosure. (It wouldn't really be a glass because it would cool very slowly and form a crystalline material, whereas a noncrystalline glass would only be produced by very rapid cooling.)
I wonder if Lowell Wiod was in Lab management at the time. The idea didn't get anywhere, and I believe someone had said it was a crazy idea.
At about the same time, the movie The China Syndrome came out using a similar idea.
Eugene FitzAubrey
Perhaps. Lowell Wood (and some others at LLNL) were famous for thinking
outside the box. I was at DARPA when the Strategic Space Initiative
(Star Wars) started and everyone including LLNL was scrambling to
protect their budgets or to steal money from other departments. DARPA
lost its directed beam program to Star Wars and was struggling to save
its program in GaAs which exhibited properties of radiation hardness.
Wood visited DARPA to explain how we really didn't need GaAs - just put
circuitry in a can to protect it from an EMT attack. During his
presentation he described nuclear war with the expression, "Poppity Pop
Pop" to explain how nuclear weapons would be going off. The casual way
that he described nuclear war really turned people off and distracted
from the whole intent of the presentation.

I visited LLNL once without my bosses permission and the only time that
was convenient was on a Saturday. Very few people around. I asked for
a tour of their fusion projects and Lowell offered to show me around.
It was pretty impressive, but what impressed me most was that whenever
Lowell needed to get into a laboratory, he would jimmy the door lock
with his pocket knife. Needless to say, I was not impressed with their
security! When my boss found out that I had visited LLNL he was furious
and instructed me to never again deal with the "DoE Mafia!"

I ran into Lowell again at an airport years later and asked him what he
was up to lately. He excitedly explained how he was proposing to shoot
down asteroids before they could hit the earth.

Definitely a creative person, but I worry about how many loose cannons
there are out there. I'm presently reading about some of the things
that were going on at RAND corporation during Vietnam. Grim!
El Castor
2018-01-18 20:55:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
<< A new design uses waste to fuel reactors -- others are 100% melt down
proof.
"New generation of nuclear reactors could consume radioactive waste as
fuel
The new 'fast' plants could provide enough low-carbon electricity to
power the UK for more than 500 years" >>
I am horribly suspicious. The reference to low-carbon electricity is pure propaganda. It is otherwise extraneous to the subject at hand, because all reactors are 'low carbon'. This leads to the suspicion that the British government is promoting Climate Change in order to promote the nuclear power industry. The very name of the Department of Energy and Climate Change (Decc) is suspicious. I remember when our Atomic Energy Commission became the Department of Energy overnight. Most people don't know the connection.
The concept of a reactor that would eliminate existing nuclear waste, if accurate, would make it very difficult for countries like Germany to abandon nuclear power.
Eugene FitzAubrey
Here's something about the waste powered reactor ...
https://www.fastcompany.com/3043099/this-nuclear-reactor-eats-nuclear-waste

And melt-down proof ...
https://www.sciencealert.com/china-says-it-ll-have-a-meltdown-proof-nuclear-reactor-ready-by-next-year

I'm not sold on global warming, but I don't have a problem with a
technology that generated power cheaper than hydro-carbon based fuel.
Why would I? I drive a Prius, not to save the world, but to save my
wallet. I light the house with LEDs for the same reason -- my wallet.
Our next car, by the way, will not be a hybrid because no more
subsidies and the miles we put on a car don't justify the added cost
of the hybrid equipment. And no, I never supported hybrid subsidies,
but who am I to turn down free cash? (-8
rumpelstiltskin
2018-01-18 23:19:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 18 Jan 2018 12:55:06 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by d***@gmail.com
<< A new design uses waste to fuel reactors -- others are 100% melt down
proof.
"New generation of nuclear reactors could consume radioactive waste as
fuel
The new 'fast' plants could provide enough low-carbon electricity to
power the UK for more than 500 years" >>
I am horribly suspicious. The reference to low-carbon electricity is pure propaganda. It is otherwise extraneous to the subject at hand, because all reactors are 'low carbon'. This leads to the suspicion that the British government is promoting Climate Change in order to promote the nuclear power industry. The very name of the Department of Energy and Climate Change (Decc) is suspicious. I remember when our Atomic Energy Commission became the Department of Energy overnight. Most people don't know the connection.
The concept of a reactor that would eliminate existing nuclear waste, if accurate, would make it very difficult for countries like Germany to abandon nuclear power.
Eugene FitzAubrey
Here's something about the waste powered reactor ...
https://www.fastcompany.com/3043099/this-nuclear-reactor-eats-nuclear-waste
And melt-down proof ...
https://www.sciencealert.com/china-says-it-ll-have-a-meltdown-proof-nuclear-reactor-ready-by-next-year
I'm not sold on global warming, but I don't have a problem with a
technology that generated power cheaper than hydro-carbon based fuel.
Why would I? I drive a Prius, not to save the world, but to save my
wallet. I light the house with LEDs for the same reason -- my wallet.
Our next car, by the way, will not be a hybrid because no more
subsidies and the miles we put on a car don't justify the added cost
of the hybrid equipment. And no, I never supported hybrid subsidies,
but who am I to turn down free cash? (-8
Sounds sensible to me.
islander
2018-01-19 15:54:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by d***@gmail.com
<< A new design uses waste to fuel reactors -- others are 100% melt down
proof.
"New generation of nuclear reactors could consume radioactive waste as
fuel
The new 'fast' plants could provide enough low-carbon electricity to
power the UK for more than 500 years" >>
I am horribly suspicious. The reference to low-carbon electricity is pure propaganda. It is otherwise extraneous to the subject at hand, because all reactors are 'low carbon'. This leads to the suspicion that the British government is promoting Climate Change in order to promote the nuclear power industry. The very name of the Department of Energy and Climate Change (Decc) is suspicious. I remember when our Atomic Energy Commission became the Department of Energy overnight. Most people don't know the connection.
The concept of a reactor that would eliminate existing nuclear waste, if accurate, would make it very difficult for countries like Germany to abandon nuclear power.
Eugene FitzAubrey
Here's something about the waste powered reactor ...
https://www.fastcompany.com/3043099/this-nuclear-reactor-eats-nuclear-waste
And melt-down proof ...
https://www.sciencealert.com/china-says-it-ll-have-a-meltdown-proof-nuclear-reactor-ready-by-next-year
I'm not sold on global warming, but I don't have a problem with a
technology that generated power cheaper than hydro-carbon based fuel.
Why would I? I drive a Prius, not to save the world, but to save my
wallet. I light the house with LEDs for the same reason -- my wallet.
Our next car, by the way, will not be a hybrid because no more
subsidies and the miles we put on a car don't justify the added cost
of the hybrid equipment. And no, I never supported hybrid subsidies,
but who am I to turn down free cash? (-8
A guy who I knew at Stanford was working on hybrid car technology as
part of a start-up. Their idea was to use a Wankel engine which
supposedly runs reliably at a constant speed to turn the generator that
produces the electricity. I wonder what ever happened to that project.

A friend of mine here on the island owned one of the early Prius cars
and complained constantly about how he had to back up steep hills
because it had no traction on a steep slope. Still, there are quite a
few hybrid and electric cars here. Our local power coop has even placed
several charging stations around the island. A neighbor owns a new
Tesla and loves it. Nice looking car! He hasn't offered to let me
drive it, tho!

DGW
2018-01-12 16:56:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
I just saw a truly bizarre anti-smoking commercial that blew my mind.
You corporation haters are going to LOVE it! Being a cigarette hater
myself, I was glad to see it, but considering that cigarette companies
were required to pay for it was delightful! Here it is ... BTW -- the
following web site describes the ad as bland. I don't think so. It is
unlike any commercial I have ever seen -- which should grab your
attention, at least it did mine.
http://adage.com/article/cmo-strategy/anti-smoking-tv-ads-big-tobacco-forced-run/311379
Lite 'um up boys! Nothing like thinning out the ranks of the mentally
disadvantaged. That was then.

This is now .........
Loading Image...

so goes one, so go we all ........
Loading Image...

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Loading...