Imagine waiting 16 years for a PR :/
I've seen 16 year old bugs get fixed though. Usually just need to get them retriaged as a security bug, and then all things are fixable.
I thought they meant American Permanent Resident (aka green card), which has a notoriously long waiting period.
I have been following closely, and never once have I heard of a delay because of regulation changes. Not once! It's all construction.
And with the costs of delays, blaming this on an external party like the NRC would be an essential thing to do to explain it to the backers.
If you have any knowledge of regulations that caused the big delays, I would love to know, and would be very surprised.
Although to fair on the NRC, there was a case where, due to lack of experience, the contractor cast an enormous slab using the wrong rating of concrete, which then had to be removed at great expense and delay.
And that's what it comes down to, EPC and design not understanding each other and mucking it up. Regulations and rules have not gotten in the way or caused ballooning budgets or massive delays.
IN fact, if the NRC had more regulations and required the design to specify how to construct and other parts, then perhaps these projects would not be in so much trouble. But instead all three sides of the deal seem intent on mucking up the construction and then suing each other at the end when everything falls apart.
And that's the problem with the entire nuclear construction industry: no accountability or reliability, and tooooons of corruption. Some of the execs involved with the Summer project are going to jail, and if executives in the US are going to jail for something other than medical regulations (the only regulations with real teeth for executives), then they are hopelessly corrupt.
Imagine writing bug-free code put in continuous, mass population-critical use for the better part of a century.
Can't possibly go tits up. These new reactors are surely infallible, right?
A few plant and supply chain workers have been killed, but again, fewer than with any other source (mining coal and climbing on roofs and towers to install wind and solar is dangerous, yo).
Since I've been muzzled again:
> Climbing on the roof of a two story house to install solar panels is considerably less dangerous than building a nuclear power plant. Yo.
In terms of workers killed per watt-hour generated?
No, it isn't. It's not even close. Yo.
> climbing on roofs and towers to install wind and solar is dangerous, yo
Climbing on the roof of a two story house to install solar panels is considerably less dangerous than building a nuclear power plant. Yo.
> without a single fatality to a member of the general public.
No immediate fatality is the only accurate claim you can make. Over 150,000 people were evacuated from the Three-Mile Island disaster. Due to the stress, there were some increases in consumption of alcohol, cigarettes, and tranquilizers immediately following the accident. The eventual long term effects of those behaviors surely resulted in shorter life spans for at least some of the people.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/003801...
> for over 70 years
That's a short time. Unless you can show the US is somehow exceptional in its quality controls compared to Japan, then a huge disaster like Fukushima is inevitable, and life will be lost.
No one complains about the dangers of the neighbors who use solar energy. No one wants a reactor in their backyard. And it has fair reasoning behind it. You'll never have to evacuate 150,000 people due to your neighbors' solar panels failing.
> No, it isn't. It's not even close. Yo.
This source says you are wrong. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-p...
What source were you using when making your claim?
1) Ground level installations have a greatly diminished risk of dangerous falls during construction/maintenance and have come to account for more wattage than rooftop systems.
2) Installing a solar panel in a large farm instead of on a roof yields more energy output per year, since it usually has mechanical sun tracking [2] and will be oriented for optimum output even if installed with a fixed tilt.
3) Newer panels generate more annual energy output per panel, per kilogram, and per square meter. That means that the same number of full time solar installation workers now produce more energy over the system's lifetime than in the past.
The information from OurWorldInData that you linked is more up to date and therefore shows low deaths-per-TWh for solar. Probably Turing_Machine was remembering an older report like this one from 10 years ago: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-d...
[1] https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy22osti/81325.pdf page 9
[2] https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2017/09/20/trackers-dominate-u-s...
No, I was talking about the United States. Not Chernobyl.
The Soviet Union (and now Russia) is notorious for having crap technology.
Adding Chernobyl into the mix is like adding the (outrageously high) air crash rates from the Soviet Union into the mix and claiming that it's "evidence" that flying is dangerous.
> You're simultaneously claiming that the US can somehow safely build the tall and complex structures for a nuclear plant
Yes. We can. 70 years, no accidents.
> but cannot safely install solar panels on a 2 story building
I'm saying that the fatality rate is HIGHER for solar panels. Which it is.
I think we're done here.
And Japan too? They had a major and recent disaster. How do you explain that? Crap Japanese technology?
> Yes. We can. 70 years, no accidents.
That's absolutely false.
1961. Steam explosion and meltdown results in three fatalities at National Reactor Testing Station's SL-1 Stationary Low-Power Reactor Number One
1986. Feedwater line-burst at Surry Nuclear Power Plant kills 4
2013. One worker was killed and two others injured when part of a generator fell as it was being moved at the Arkansas Nuclear One.
> I'm saying that the fatality rate is HIGHER for solar panels. Which it is.
It's not. You're confusing correlation with causation. There is nothing particular about solar installations that would result in a higher fatality rate compared to building tall nuclear cooling towers. You'd need to point to some sort of causation to be believable.
The real difference is probably something like big construction sites versus small construction sites. Which says nothing at all about the safety of nuclear vs. solar.
In fact it would be a safe bet that large scale solar installations are far safer to build and maintain than nuclear installations.
I explain that with 1) outdated plant, 2) magnitude 9.0 (!) earthquake 3) devastating tsunami, 4) massive fire, 5) total loss of power to all control systems.
Followed by:
6) still didn't kill anybody due to radiation leaks.
So what? Solar isn't killing anyone due to radiation leaks either. The subject is death rate, not death due to radiation leaks.
This is yet another example of you trying to get away with cherry picking data. And failing at it.
Besides the fact that the radiation deaths from Fukushima will come.
At least six workers have exceeded lifetime legal limits for radiation and more than 175 (0.7%) have received significant radiation doses
That will never happen with a solar power plant. Never.
And you avoided the question. Does Japan have crap technology? Is that your explanation for the Fukushima disaster? That was your excuse for Russia. What's your excuse for the Fukushima disaster?
There have been nuclear power disasters requiring evacuation at the minimum in Russia, the US, and Japan. Can you name a solar power disaster?
Several comments ago you said "I think we're done here". And in another comment "Again, I think we're done here". You called that wrong, didn't you? Twice.
https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy
Even giving you the benefit of the doubt there, it's clear that nuclear is extremely safe. Plus it has the added benefit of, actually, you know, working (and by "working" I mean "producing energy in quantities sufficient to run a modern industrial society", not "works in someone's pipe dream").
It's clear that solar is extremely safe. And doesn't have a history in the US of evacuating over 150,000 people. Which nuclear does.
> Plus it has the added benefit of, actually, you know, working (and by "working" I mean "producing energy in quantities sufficient to run a modern industrial society", not "works in someone's pipe dream"
Modern solar works and continues to be installed at a rapid rate all over the world. Even France is phasing out nuclear. Westinghouse Electric went bankrupt over the Vogtle nuclear plant in discussion. The U.S. government has given $8.3 billion of loan guarantees to help finance construction of the Vogtle reactor. It's not viable anymore compared to very quick and simple to maintain solar plants. The future is sunny. Which is after all just nuclear energy at a safe distance.
Sorry, you don't get to count media hysteria as a "risk" of nuclear energy.
It wasn't media hysteria. The evacuation was to protect people. On the seven-point International Nuclear Event Scale, it is rated Level 5. It was a partial meltdown, and there was a risk of explosion, releasing radiation into the general area. Not evacuating would have been grossly irresponsible.
It is a matter of historical record that Met Ed had not informed state officials before conducting a steam venting from the plant. Convinced that the company was downplaying the severity of the accident, state officials turned to the NRC.
Twenty-eight hours after the accident began, William Scranton III, the lieutenant governor, appeared at a news briefing to say that Metropolitan Edison, the plant's owner, had assured the state that "everything is under control".
Later that day, Scranton changed his statement, saying that the situation was "more complex than the company first led us to believe". There were conflicting statements about radioactivity releases. Schools were closed and residents were urged to stay indoors. Farmers were told to keep their animals under cover and on stored feed.
Governor Dick Thornburgh, on the advice of NRC chairman Joseph Hendrie, advised the evacuation "of pregnant women and pre-school age children...within a five-mile radius of the Three Mile Island facility". The evacuation zone was extended to a 20-mile radius on Friday, March 30.
Where do you see the press taking action in any of the above except to repeat what state and NRC officials had decided?
Can you name a US evacuation over a solar power accident?
It absolutely was media hysteria. Add "stupid and cowardly politicians" if you like. I'd be okay with that.
> Add "stupid and cowardly politicians" if you like.
Do you expect the average politician to be highly educated about when a nuclear meltdown in progress becomes dangerous enough to evacuate?
Do you think politicians should be brave about the lives of others when faced with a nuclear meltdown? You can be brave with your own life -- that's your choice for sure -- but asking political leaders to risk the lives of hundreds of thousands of people just in order to make sure nuclear has a good name, seems quite off. Asking people to not be "cowardly" when faced with an actual nuclear meltdown in progress sounds more like a sociopath than of a leader tasked with the responsibility to protect people.
Has any political leader ever had to be brave about a solar power plant disaster? Can you even name a solar power plant disaster?