The Evil Nuclear Power Plants! - Emancipated Human
I keep hearing about the evil nuclear power plants and how they are just bombs waiting to be detonated.
Here my friend Mike and I do some mythbusting bringing FACTS
In this episode, Luis gets to talk to former Chief Nuclear Officer Mike Blevins, who ran the best performing Nuclear Plant in these United States. They talked about his career in the power plant, conscious capitalism, Fukushima, Nuclear Power and green energy, charity, and more.
Please, help us share
One of the issues with nuclear plants in the united states at least is they were originally intentioned to be decommissioned after 50 years of faithful service. The plants were supposed to be replaced with newer, safer more state of the art ones. However that duration of time has come and passed, and no newer plants built. We just keep using the older ones, which are not nearly as safe as newer style plants.
They go in and replace parts and what not. they have outages to perform these quarterly operations to keep them up to par.
Replacing parts is fine and good however it does not upgrade safety capabilities of the plant itself. The designs for the reactors themselves have been dramatically improved over the years. The fact of the matter is a lot of US plants are just outdated. We need to invest in newer, safer, better overall designs.
Sorry, but that's "Failed logic" Anytime you replace a part, that is new, that IS an upgrade, and does increase safety. Every part manufactured in the world has a MTBF (Mean Time before Failure) rating. As systems and parts are replaced, most of the time they ARE using new, improved parts/systems, but NOT in all cases. basically I agree with your premise however !, I HATE Nukes (IMO) they are the greatest sin creation of man ...
No, I'm sorry but you can only increase safety as far as overall plant design will allow. My logic was not faulty, I did not say that replacing a failing part did not increase safety. I said it does not improve the safety of the design of the plant.
I don't hate nuclear power, I feel it is a necessary component of any national energy supply that does not contribute as much damage to the environment as coal or natural gas (when the radioactive remains are properly dealt with).
Thanks for your input.
Yes this IS terrifying! upvoted and shared!
Thank you so much
Thanks so much for this informative video. Great rebuttal to all the fear-mongering about nuclear power.
First off thanks for yet another reasonable education on an important topic!
Secondly I want to make it very clear that though this may not be as dangerous or bad as fear mongers would like to make it out to be, we have had for a VERY long time technology way superior to this in EVERY way.
Do some research on Nikola Tesla or the Egyptians even and you will find that "super technology" has been discovered and re discovered time and time again yet it gets buried/suppressed.
The REAL problem is not guns, nuclear power plants or even GMO's. It is the GLOBAL ELITE that suppress technology, medicine, and information that empowers people to freedom as they want to keep humanity as slaves.
Bless Brother~*~
you might be right. i have heard a lot of bombastic info about tesla but never seen anything come to fruition. in the meantime, nuclear power is what could help us go to a "level 1 civilization."
Well thats kinda like saying there are lots of conspiracy theories about curing cancer but we haven't seen anything come to fruition because doctors still say its in curable.
The establishment keeps the people suppressed on purpose. This is done with medicine, education, technology, food etc.
For example, we have the ability to produce way more than enough healthy organic food for everyone on earth but the establishment perpetuates a lack paradigm.
Karen Silkwood ...
I'll give this a watch when I have a chance, as I can then give a more thoroughly structured rebuttal on your position(s) and highlight some of the things we may agree upon.
With that said, I think its perhaps a dire indication of what I can expect as both an anti-nuclear person and as an anarchist when I saw the following as your relevant tags: nuclearplants, anarchy, volutnaryism, facts.
The FACT of the matter is that NUCLEARPLANTS are about the most anti-ANARCHISTIC and VOLUNTARYIST (sp?) thing imaginable or what we Humans have conceived to date. They require HUGE initial budget outlays, that always require the funding of a nation-state and consume large amounts of relevant resources (contractors/engineers/local planning and designers/decommissioning/waste management/inspection I can go on here but you get the idea); they are often constructed using critical bodies of water and are surrounding residential neighborhoods that existed before the plant and have undergone massive militarization since 9/11. Not to mention the fact that the byproducts and waste have half-lifes of 100's of millions of years, thus it would be impossible to say that anyone after our brief existence on this planet would have conceded or was even capable of volunteering into a system which utilizes nuclear energy in any capacity.
This of course this assumes they even work as they intended to without complications, as we have seen when they do melt-down/melt-through the diffusion of responsibility has dire consequences for the whole planet, reaching those those who never benefited from it nor have electricity of there own.
Used to dump radioactive waste in the ocean in 55 gal drums ... .Gov approved !
Current international law prohibits private nuclear power plant construction, but it in no way requires the resources of a nation-state to build one. Current price estimates for getting a plant from plan to production range in the $10 to $15 billion range.
Construction and material procurement is merely the initial costs; maintenance, waste management, containment and removal are the biggest costs after that, which DO require massive costs of nation-states as it increases really fast.
Hell, SONGS still hasn't removed its spent fuel because it deems it a matter for the DOE to handle, which they won't do, and their next solution is to bury it... 100 feet from the pristine coastline (some of the most expensive in CA mind you) that lies on the San Andreas fault line, whic his where that plant and its proposed containment for Spent Fuel is.
It should also be noted that California, the largest economy in the entire US and comparable to most nations. isn't going nuclear free because its a 'feel good' selling point and won't care about the loss of energy production, but because the costs to maintain and refurbish these things has become obscene considering our ever-decreasing dependence on it.
Perspective: Japan was the 2nd largest economy at the time of 3/11 when it took over TEPCO, and Fukushima is still not contained nor have the residents been compensated for land lost nor allowed to return to their land; they're literately living a life of a refugee in their own country because of that single event . Their abysmal plan for an 'ice wall' has recently failed pathetically. You should include that and all human suffering into your cost projection model as every single one of these plants can do the same level of damage.
But truth be told, I don't think we can be 100% renewable (solar/wind/geothermal) right now, but we should strive for that and use fossil fuels to close the gaps until we can while being mindful over our consumption habits. At least we know how to do effective carbon, nitrogen sequestration via Ag based solutions and methane reclamation isn't far behind, either.
Most may think its expensive, but if we're honest about Markets being efficient at price discovery we have to understand and accept the externalities to use this technology, which if following basic Free-market logic it will in turn incentivize innovation to create a viable alternative.
Right now Nuclear is arguably THE most subsidized energy of all as its paid not just by any single nation/currency but by all cell based organisms on this planet for the 100s of millions of years as the implications extend that far in our ecosystem.
This Nuclear lobby agenda-apologist narrative has to stop being repeated already, if its so safe why don't you go live to next a Nuclear plant and see if its the fairytale you think it is. Standard radiation effluence and its health implications in the surrounding areas is poorly documented in pathology despite the cancer and heart failure rates around them. I have lived around one, and its not what you're describing at all; because when you try to find legal redress you'll find just how entrenched that industry is within the State and its 'justice' system very fast.
This even touching facts like procurement for the base raw material requires a situation like France to invade Africa to acquire it in the first place.
TL:DR You're misguided to say the least on your costs-risk benefit analysis and projections and don't follow past events at all.
Three words: extended power outage.
All of the nuclear plants are built with the assumption that no power outage will last longer than a few days, two weeks at the most. This is a fatally false assumption.
(As in years, which is what we'd deal with after a cyber attack that takes down the power grid, an EMP, or a sufficient-sized CME.)
all nuclear power plants go through an "outage" and during these operations they shut down the plant for up to a month to do repairs, switch parts, clean, and what not. i can see that a cyber attack could be worse but they are very well prepared even for crazy fuckers with guns.
Just wondering if you have looked at why the Fukushima plant failed ? oh btw I live very near Nuke1 in Arkansas, USA .. from what I have heard (not researched) it has a very bad report card ... imho, they all need to be decommissioned, we don't need the threat and most likely meltdowns or leakages .. at the time it was a good idea, that time IS PAST !
yeah, we actually talked about fukushima during this interview. pls watch
? Stuxnet ...
Emp from the 11 yr cycle of solar flares from the sun is very possible. It is certainly worth looking into.
"false assumption" is aka "Failed logic", and it is a hell of a thing to see when talking about Nuke plants.... imo, Nuke plants are just bad all around ..
Although Australia is a major Uranium producer we only have 1 research reactor at Lucas Heights in Sydney. As we have massive reserves of Coal and Gas I doubt we will ever see nuclear reactors for electricity generation.
could be a world leader in solar power .... /sadness
Still digging for coal and gas and charging/taxing the people to death ... /much sadness
Not all bad news on renewable energy here in Australia. Lots of research into renewable energy, plus a lot of wind generation, pilots plants for base load solar with heat storage , Wave energy /Desalination , Huge amounts of roof top solar. Market forces are having big impacts on future investment in Coal and Gas with big projects moth balled and shelved.
Actually i am aware of that, but at times the anarchist comes out !, lol If you can just get it all into the hands of the people instead of in the hands of corporations and the government or THEY will be saving money on production and still charging the people outrages fees for energy ...
Ive seen some great blockchain powered community energy network solutions , i hope this type of model can bring power into developing areas where you dont have to fight n incumbent Energy monopoly