Robovski
Well-known member
I mean, she's looking right to the camera. She's got her picture for her fundraising and speaking events.Look at her face though:
This is all a game to her; one she apparently thinks she's winning.
'Climate Change' and the coming 'Climate Lockdown'
- Thread starter DarthOne
- Start date
She's gained enough weight that it now takes two cops to carry her how long until it takes 4?Look at her face though:
This is all a game to her; one she apparently thinks she's winning.
Megadeath
Well-known member
What possible advantages are there to sticking a nuclear plant on a train, rather than having an electric train that runs off a grid powered by nuclear plants? I seriously doubt that any can be thought up which outweigh the danger and risks inherent in proliferation of nuclear material, or in having dozens of reactors hurtling through the landscape at a hundred kilometres an hour.
Boats would make more sense, but it still dramatically increases risk. Not just in the case of an accident, but of piracy. If pirates take a freighter now, it kinda sucks. If some terrorists take a nuclear powered freighter and manage to avoid being noticed doing so, or get themselves behind the controls legitimately, they have a weapon of potentially devastating potential. I don't know exactly how bad it would be, but I'm pretty sure intentionally causing such a reactor to melt down in port in NY or LA would make the world look back on 9/11 with nostalgia for a safer time.
Boats would make more sense, but it still dramatically increases risk. Not just in the case of an accident, but of piracy. If pirates take a freighter now, it kinda sucks. If some terrorists take a nuclear powered freighter and manage to avoid being noticed doing so, or get themselves behind the controls legitimately, they have a weapon of potentially devastating potential. I don't know exactly how bad it would be, but I'm pretty sure intentionally causing such a reactor to melt down in port in NY or LA would make the world look back on 9/11 with nostalgia for a safer time.
With a modern Western design of reactor, one does not simply push a few buttons to make it melt down.
Even if the shipping company buys its powerplants from Rosatom, getting a full-scale Chernobyl-style radiation spill would probably be harder than you think.
Carrot of Truth
War is Peace
Could just stop dicking around with pure electric and use hydrogen already especially if we are all nuclear
Probably it would just melt through the hull and sink to the bottom, where the ocean would actually keep it relatively contained and cool it down.
bintananth
behind a desk
From a thermodynamic and emissions perspective pure H2 is a great fuel.
From a practical perspective - except for certain niche applications like big rocket motors - it's a terrible choice because:
- it's a pain in the ass to handle
- it leaks through damn near everything
- it boils at -252.9C
- it freezes at -259.1C
- it's not dense (0.07kg/L liquid, 0.09g/L @stp)
Using it in a vehicle means enormous fuel tanks which are either very cold, brittle, and insulated (liquid) or highly pressurized bombs (gaseous).
Last edited:
Ship scale nuclear reactors do not simply go Chernobyl. There are at least 3 Soviet nuclear submarines that have undergone meltdowns, yet most people haven't even heard of it.
As for pirates, as long as they avoid certain parts of the world or have proper security when passing, not happening. For one a nuclear powered ship has little reason to move slowly or cut distances at any cost to save a bit of fuel, making it a hard target for pirates. Also ships have locator beacons, nuclear ones probably would have more than one just in case of this kind of incident. Even normal freighters don't just get hijacked with no one noticing, it's someone's multi million dollar property with at least a dozen or so employees onboard, it just getting lost is not something to be handwaved away as an ordinary event.
Megadeath
Well-known member
I'm not imagining there's just some button you'd push to detonate the ship like a nuke. However, I've got to imagine if you take steps to circumvent the safety measures such as breaching the shielding, removing control rods etc, and then ram it aground at full speed, you're going to end up ruining the day for a whole bunch of people?
All true, but no one was trying to turn any of the incidents to date into the worst disaster they could, rather everyone from the engineers designing the systems to the crew aboard would have done what they could to minimise risk and impact.
As for the security, the factors you listed also apply to planes and yet hijacking can and has occurred. I'll admit, a few "pirates" in a row boat off the Somali coast probably aren't grabbing one and getting it halfway around the world for an attack on America. But again, what if the person or people who wish harm get there legitimately? They make ship handling their profession, work hard and move up the ranks, until they're captaining they hypothetical nuclear. Maybe they're a plant from the start, a jihadist sleeper agent. Or maybe the Russians find some guy who's secretly dying of cancer and offer a phenomenal severance package for his family if he ensures an accident before he clocks out. Probably need more than one person to really maximise the destructive impact, but that just adds a little complexity, it hardly makes it impossible. And even a couple of motivated, suicidal pirates could cause severe issues going for some boat going through the right high traffic shipping lane with a little luck and support. Hell, even just a quick grab to bust into the reactor to steal material to make a dirty bomb would be an issue.
For the idea to have value, it needs for a significant percentage of the world's shipping to be switched to nuclear. Changing the situation from "Basically all nuclear material is accounted for and under serious armed guard." to "Dozens or even hundreds of inherently mobile reactors with no or only minimal protection." can hardly be argued not to increase the risk.
Airplanes have a crew of 2-4 and the hijacked ones tend to be full of passengers. Even AQ had to use the passenger route.
Freighters, especially nuclear ones, would have crew in numbering dozens, good luck with that.
In terms of terrorism potential, well, massive chemical tankers, sometimes loaded with thousands of tons of seriously nasty stuff that can gas a city or actually explode like a tactical nuke already exist and regularly sail around the world. Nevermind plain ol' oil tankers. If that kind of terrorism was even remotely easy, we would have seen a lot of it already.
With what? A reactor compartment is not a chest full of gold. With what equipment? Explosives? Unless they are a whole team of professionally trained and equipped commandos and nuclear engineers, and have hours, more likely days to fuck around with it, they can enjoy a painful death before they get to do anything with that material, and that's assuming they get full control of the ship and no one bothers them through that time.
Nuclear submarines and carriers have to go into dock for weeks or months to replace fuel rods FYI.
If any terrorists could pull that off, imagine what they could do with a freighter carrying the ammonium nitrate cargo that ended up in Beirut warehouses (1.1 kiloton explosion *accidentally*).
The biggest freighters have the best ratio in terms of saved fuel and relative hassle with making them nuclear.
Because pure hydrogen sucks as a fuel. Not easily transportable or storable.
Hydrogen only works if we're able efficiently separate it from water. That's not possible right now either b/c that takes more energy than you gain.
Yeah, if you have the spare energy to synthesize H2 in large amounts and at competitive price, why not do the same with CH4 or processing CH4 further into liquid hydrocarbons.
But so typically the green attempts at central planning are way ahead of themselves - for now, it's the countries that give the greens most power have some of the highest electricity rates in the world, as opposed to energy cheap enough to synthesize fuels affordably to replace fossil fuels in vehicles.
Bear Ribs
Well-known member
And we've got some updates on this now. Here she is giggling and joking with the police while the press get their camera angles right and set up boom mikes, plus them practicing a couple of holds before settling on the "iconic" shot. It wasn't just show on her part, the entire thing was staged and the police were in on making a good photoshoot out of it.Look at her face though:
This is all a game to her; one she apparently thinks she's winning.
Blasterbot
Well-known member
when she hits her late 20s probably.
mrttao
Well-known member
> view us as crazy liberal do gooder
hahaha. no, we don't think you are a "do gooder"
Oh no! Climate alarmists lost yet another round to reality.
Pretty much every time there's a major storm of some kind, climate change devotees claim that the storm is the direct result of humanity's evil desire to warm their homes and drive cars.
notthebee.com