Ever blow up nuclear reactors in SimCity just to see if you could fix the mess?

Neighborhoods: 

Topics: 

Free tagging: 

    Comments

    Yeah, back in the good ol' days

    When you could have Godzilla stomp your city, before they had to replace it with a walking junkyard because of complaints, no doubt, from the Godzilla people.

    Then again, arrgh, that stupid black-on-maroon code sheet you needed to never lose if you wanted to play. Kids today just have no idea how rough life was back then, harrumph.

    The long con

    This is the second SimCity reference I've seen here in the last five days, Adam. I'm starting to suspect that you're a secret plant from EA, running viral marketing for their new game and playing the ultra-long con by hosting this website for years to lull us all into complacency.

    Yoga Teacher Wanted

    For emergency nuclear planning. Must be able to prepare the population of MA to have adequate flexibility to bend over and kiss their asses goodbye in the event of an over stuffed fuel pool at Pilgrim losing power to circulating water system and going critical.

    Oh, and to be able to swivel their necks to see the pathetic "evacuation route" signs while jammed in panicked traffic.

    Fukishima

    Fukishima. Same design.

    And it didn't have 4x as many spent fuel rods in the pool than it was designed for like Pilgrim does.

    Bean sprouts and wind turbines won't render an entire region uninhabitable for thousands of years due to a single power outage.

    Funny you should bring up

    Funny you should bring up Fukushima. Thousands died from the tsumani. Not a single person was killed by the plant failure.

    As to your fantasy of 'an entire region unihabitable' - you're been reading too many green fantasy stories. Chernobyl is a natural paradise today. The claims of damage are now widely accepted by scientists to have been inflated by orders of magnitude. Far, far greater harm is now known to have been done by the forced removal of the population than by the original meltdown.

    This is very simple - I'll explain it so even you could understand it, if you'd let yourself. You've said you have kids? Which would you prefer - to see your child dead from eating organic sprouts, or to see them living near Chernobyl right now, where birds sing? C'mon Mom, what's your priority?

    Call me when a severe

    Call me when a severe earthquake and a tsunami are threatening to hit the Pilgrim plant within a couple of hours of each other. In the meantime, I'll be over here, in the real world, where our options for large-scale power generation are nuclear and coal, and where coal kills more people every year under normal operating conditions than a nuclear plant does in a full-scale meltdown.

    We can do both

    I'm right there usually with the environmental causes, but science trumps earth-friendliness - we can make *much* safer reactors now than there were in the past, but fear of the past...indeed, fear of things that never even directly impacted Americans...has kept us confined to a slow death by coal.

    Natural gas-sourced power is a stopgap measure, but it's makes us the toad in the pot of water. Nuclear will solve the bulk of the needs, while solar/wind/geo can be used where feasible.

    Self-terminating reactors like thorium/molten salt designs (which can consume those spent fuel rods!) are what we should be pursuing since they'll give us far better efficiency/scalability while we can work on improving solar designs for the future. They produce useful byproducts that won't require fifty houses of congress to decide where to put it.

    Windfarms too, but at least we can put thorium reactors in places that won't offend anyone's pristine waterfront views.