 |
| Click above for video |
1. Chris Field comments on nuclear power are damning by faint praise. Very faint. And mentioning things ike Waste, that are no longer any issue. And he should know that.
2. Models: he says that they are accurate. Only if you understand that the projections of likely temperature rises were in a 10-degree C range and one or two of the models, around the middle, got the number right.
If you’ve enough projections, one of them will be close. But most aren’t.
As John Christy shows. Also Steve Koonin, himself an early climate modeller. Both show the shortcomings of modelling.
A guy at the YT above makes a comment on my comment, with this as his final sentence:
Both the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists warn that new advanced nuclear is no safer than the old technology.
Now this is obvious nonsense on its face. Is there anything else in the world that has not improved (ie become safer) in the last 80 years? Like flying, driving, building houses, building bridges, making phones, using toasters. Anything and everything. And we’re supposed to believe that “new advanced nuclear is no safer”?
Even I, not a nuclear scientist, sitting here in Hong Kong, know of one very specific safety feature that’s new. In the old technology, safety was “passive”. That is, the rods were in place and if there was a problem they had to be removed from the core with electrify. If the electricity failed -- as it did in Fukushima -- then you’ve go a real problem. Up to meltdown. With the new “active” safety, the rods are held in place by electricity and if the electricity fails, the rods drop out of the reactor and the reactions stops. That’s one pretty huge improvement. Also, I recall that in Chernobyl, the reason for the meltdown was an issue with the carbon in the core. They later retro-fixed all the reactors in Russia with similar technology.
It’s clearly asinine to say that there’s been no safety improvement in new tech nuclear reactors.
