Powerfully stated and thoughtful article. Two phrases leapt out of the page:
"...freedom entails risk and risk can be fatal." This is why safety is NOT the number 1 objective, but rather an EQUIVALENT objective along with generating power reliably, on budget, in accordance with corresponding permits, licenses, and regulations. If safety was No. 1, why start the plant?
"Nuclear power plants are excellent by every available metric." Those arguing against nuclear power must always use studies that include dire projections of unfavorable outcomes based on unfounded, biased, and/or outright incorrect assumptions or inputs. When studies use actual numbers and inputs based on verifiable data and inputs, nuclear power is unimpeachable - throughout the fuel cycle, in both physical and economic performance., based on unbiased engineering assessments (which account for both technical and economic reality). In other words, whereas other options/energy technologies are compared against each other, notice that nuclear is always compared against perfection.
Nuclear is a no-brainer, but as with many things politicians do, they will eventually get around to doing the right thing after exhausting all of the other alternatives. I have one question Emmet, at some stage an enemy may use an EMP to knock out the electrical grid and fry computer systems. What would happen in a Nuclear Plant if it lost it's control systems due to an EMP attack?
That was EXCELLENT!
Powerfully stated and thoughtful article. Two phrases leapt out of the page:
"...freedom entails risk and risk can be fatal." This is why safety is NOT the number 1 objective, but rather an EQUIVALENT objective along with generating power reliably, on budget, in accordance with corresponding permits, licenses, and regulations. If safety was No. 1, why start the plant?
"Nuclear power plants are excellent by every available metric." Those arguing against nuclear power must always use studies that include dire projections of unfavorable outcomes based on unfounded, biased, and/or outright incorrect assumptions or inputs. When studies use actual numbers and inputs based on verifiable data and inputs, nuclear power is unimpeachable - throughout the fuel cycle, in both physical and economic performance., based on unbiased engineering assessments (which account for both technical and economic reality). In other words, whereas other options/energy technologies are compared against each other, notice that nuclear is always compared against perfection.
Good piece. Nuclear should be inspirational.
Look at what the stars did with it. I crave our chance.
Well Said.
I hadn't thought of it that way I will mend my ways.
Thanks Dan!
F@&$ yes!
We should build nuclear because it works — 24/7, rain or shine, winter & summer, is scaleable, and has negligible environmental impact
Una argumentación (¡y qué gran pregunta origen!) filosófica-ingenieril con todos los méritos.
Gracias, mano!
Nuclear is a no-brainer, but as with many things politicians do, they will eventually get around to doing the right thing after exhausting all of the other alternatives. I have one question Emmet, at some stage an enemy may use an EMP to knock out the electrical grid and fry computer systems. What would happen in a Nuclear Plant if it lost it's control systems due to an EMP attack?
Alas, the politicians and climate activists have no brains so cannot or will not see their value