Nuclear power emerges as green option for Asia

MattJ wrote:

<quoted text>
It is a statement of a maximum allowable value. Obviously the value can be exceeded when things go horribly wrong, as they did at Chernobyl.

I think that the case at Chernobyl was a purely '
"water shift reaction" with carbon from the graphite moderator. Not entirely congruent with the hydrogen bubble at TMI which was more a somewhat catalyzed thermal breakdown.

truthist wrote:

<quoted text>UNTRUE. You are eating crow. The subject was/is the TMI accident and the hydrogen generation in the core and its explosion in the reactor containment building where the dented barrel was.

Amazing. Even denying the official investigation reports. The 'permanent ignorance' is even more apparent than the 'truthiness'.

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

<quoted text>
Amazing. Even denying the official investigation reports. The 'permanent ignorance' is even more apparent than the 'truthiness'.

INCOMPETENT slob. YOU lie and lie. You have been caught with your lies as the posts document.

You can NOT change the facts. You are full of crow.

You don't know science or technology. Furthermore, you lack the scientific method. Who cares what you say or think? I don't.

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

<quoted text>
I think that the case at Chernobyl was a purely '
"water shift reaction" with carbon from the graphite moderator. Not entirely congruent with the hydrogen bubble at TMI which was more a somewhat catalyzed thermal breakdown.

Geez. You are the one who thinks TMI was a fuel cell. You are no hydrogen expert.

All your posts have demonstrated your superfical talking points. You have never met me on scientific'technological/regul atory points because you are not capable.

Cap n Trade is stupidity at its Best!

"The developing nations flatly refused to commit to the 50 percent goal by 2050. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/10/opinion/10f...

Never thaught i would say that but ..Thank you China , India , Rest of Asia for slaping these Global warming culties into reality.

Nuclear power is something we need too. ONLY Alt-Energy that will WORK!

MattJ wrote:

<quoted text>
UNTRUE. I am eating something much more pleasant.

Oh, it must be the wine sauce ;)

<quoted text>
In your own vivid imagination only. Haven't you noticed? NOBODY is agreeing with you. Take the hint.

NOBODY agrees with you! This is not a contest. Take the hint.

I have stated the science and technology relevant to the subject while you and your buddy have not met me on scientific grounds but have launched senseless insults... typical English-speaking male attitude.

Honestly, I am fed up with it. All I want is to be me in my life. Why that bothers you I don't understand.

Any young girl reading these exchanges would not choose to be knowledgeable. My path has been different because of my genetics and family culture. Not because I was forced by society or by unattractive looks.

truthist wrote:

<quoted text>INCOMPETENT slob. YOU lie and lie. You have been caught with your lies as the posts document.

Nope. The posts document your empty bragging.

truthist wrote:

<quoted text>NOBODY agrees with you! This is not a contest. Take the hint.

You are the one who is missing all the hints -- which no doubt is one of the reason Tina Anne has such trouble believing you are really female;)

I have stated the science and technology relevant to the subject

You have done no such thing. On the contrary: you made the VERY unscientific error of confusing a statement of a limit with a statement of a definition!

while you and your buddy have not met me on scientific grounds but have launched senseless insults...

Not true. I met you on scientific grounds when I gave the citations proving you WRONG about thermochemical decomposition of water. LHMF met you on scientific grounds on other topics.

typical English-speaking male attitude.

Oh, THAT's really scientific -- NOT!

Honestly, I am fed up with it. All I want is to be me in my life.

What? You mean you wouldn't rather be someone else, such as Tina Anne?;)

Why that bothers you I don't understand.

What bothers me is your habit of exaggerating, lying and empty boasting. Worse yet, doing all these things and then claiming that "science is your way".

Any young girl reading these exchanges would not choose to be knowledgeable.

And your basis for this 'insight' is -- what? Your own choice not to be knowledgeable?

My path has been different because of my genetics and family culture. Not because I was forced by society or by unattractive looks.

Not only is this WAY off-topic, it is a callous jab at women who went into the sciences -- since you are presuming they did it because of their unattractive looks.

MattJ wrote:

<quoted text>
Nope. The posts document your empty bragging.

The reasons for your biased opinion are:

1. You don't understand science and technology.
2. You are jealous of my knowledge.
3. You think like a barbarian.
4. You are irrational.
5. You are illogical.
6. You don't know how to discuss without name calling.

There are more where they came from ;)

truthist wrote:

<quoted text>
There are more where they came from ;)

Yes. "Shit happens". We know. And opinons are like anuses. Everyone has one and there is generally fecal matter behind it.

But in this case, the 'truthiness' has degraded to complete ignorance and mindless ad-hominem.

Comparing thermal hydrogen generation to a fuel cell was hilarious. It is clear you never took even high school chemistry.

truthist wrote:

<quoted text>The reasons for your biased opinion are:
1. You don't understand science and technology.
2. You are jealous of my knowledge.
3. You think like a barbarian.
4. You are irrational.
5. You are illogical.
6. You don't know how to discuss without name calling.
There are more where they came from ;)

They all came from the garbage pit, I know.

MattJ wrote:

<quoted text>
You are the one who is missing all the hints -- which no doubt is one of the reason Tina Anne has such trouble believing you are really female;)

What does this really mean?

<quoted text>
You have done no such thing. On the contrary: you made the VERY unscientific error of confusing a statement of a limit with a statement of a definition![/QUOTE}There is confusion on your part. You are stunned that I brought up the US NRC regulation. Fantastic!
[QUOTE] <quoted text>
Not true. I met you on scientific grounds when I gave the citations proving you WRONG about thermochemical decomposition of water. LHMF met you on scientific grounds on other topics.

You are still WRONG. I cited the US NRC regulation and the MIT nuclear engineering lectures. Your MO is the same. Because you don't know science and technology. Neither does your buddy from Canada.

How come he does not reply to your safety questions? Both of you have played a dirty game against a competent female, ME!

<quoted text>
Oh, THAT's really scientific -- NOT!

Well, it is the truth as I explained on another thread.

<quoted text>
What? You mean you wouldn't rather be someone else, such as Tina Anne?;)

???

<quoted text>
What bothers me is your habit of exaggerating, lying and empty boasting. Worse yet, doing all these things and then claiming that "science is your way".

UNTRUE. Just because you write these things does NOT make it the truth about me. Science is my way, whether you like it or not.

<quoted text>
And your basis for this 'insight' is -- what?

I speak with young girls. They ask me how it is because they see how professional and smart women are treated in USA... reagardless of looks. They will be reading these posts as long as Topix is alive. They will see how you and your buddy from Canada have responded to me without merit.

Girls can be smart. They are not all striving to be playboy bunnies.

<quoted text>
Your own choice not to be knowledgeable?

???

<quoted text>
Not only is this WAY off-topic, it is a callous jab at women who went into the sciences -- since you are presuming they did it because of their unattractive looks.

That is what you and your buddy from Canada have been assuming based on your common language towards me. That is the culture in English-speaking male mind. I tried a softer approach with you, my countryman, it has not made a bit of a difference.

If you paid attention, I am careful with my sisters. Even the one you encouraged when she was caling me dude and other names.. I did not respond to her.

Folks -- check for yourselves:
http://www.topix.net/news/global-warming/2009...

where LessHypeMoreFact wrote to me: "Non-sequitur. That means 'you are a clueless moron'. There is certainly reactions with the metal cladding at normal reactor temperatures. That was never an issue.

What you fail to understand is that there is ALSO a mechanism for high temperatures to dissociate water by pure thermodynamics. As in an overheated core. As happened in TMI.

It can be enhanced by catalysts added or naturally present such as the zirconium cladding.
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelce ...

Amazing that you keep going on a topic of which you are totally ignorant without even ONCE reading the literature."

Look up his link. His reference says:

"High-temperature water splitting (a "thermochemical" process) is a long-term technology in the early stages of development."

"Why Is This Technology Being Considered for the Hydrogen Economy?
Near-zero greenhouse gas emissions. Solar- and nuclear-driven high-temperature thermochemical water splitting cycles produce hydrogen with near-zero greenhouse gas emissions using water and either sunlight or nuclear energy."

As you see LessHypeMoreFac referenced hydrogen as a fuel in a hydrogen economy. It is NOT about TMI's hydrogen generation during the accident, which i have posted about, down to including the dented barrel inside the reactor containment building.

Clearly, he has NO clue.

Folks -- Notice:

http://www.topix.net/news/global-warming/2009...

where one poster asked the other:

"WHAT "inherent extra safety"? Haven't you noticed it yet? None of us are convinced there IS any such thing. "

LessHypeMoreFac has NOT replied to him. Because he is too busy .. just look at his posts!!

LessHypeMoreFact has NOT replied to him. Because he is too busy .. just look at his posts!!

(correction to #337)

They ask me how it is because they see how professional and smart women are treated in USA... regardless of looks.

(correction to #335)

truthist wrote:

<quoted text>What does this really mean?
<quoted text>You are still WRONG. I cited the US NRC regulation and the MIT nuclear engineering lectures.

And neither was a definition. Yet you said that it was. So it is your MO that sucks rocks.

I think I'll just check in here to say I like the idea of green nuclear power in Asia and elsewhere -- and if it comes in other colors that don't explode, pollute or contaminate, them, too

I introduced the US NRC Appendix K Criteria and Temperature at which significant phenomena occur
during core heat-up in:

http://www.topix.net/news/global-warming/2009...

And to reply to:

"No, you really are bragging. LHMF can see it, I can see it...
And BTW, you are full of it when you say I cannot, since I have already corrected you concerning thermochemical decomposition of water."

I wrote:'Well, read my post where I posted the US NRC definition. I repeat here.'

in

http://www.topix.net/news/global-warming/2009...

As you can see I was discussing only the TMI accident and the hydrogen problem there. They were stunned when I posted the relevant US NRC regulation and the MIT nuclear engineering lecture notes.

You have experienced how the anti-nuclear behave in words and attitude. I am not a reactor owner. I merely wanted to tell what I know. Topix pages are a witness to what happened in this and other threads.

I have not lied or misrepresented as the attackers have been about me and the knowledge I have posted. You can confirm this by yourselves. They have demonstrated their own ignorance.

If I were not here, you would be reading the guy who is the promoter of Thorium Inc and the guy who is the promoter of CANDU reactors from Canada. The USA has over 50 years of experience in U235/U238?Pu239 for power production. Our current reactors were developed in that fuel cycle. Not Thorium cycle, not CANDU reactors.

I represented to you the way it is. They did not want me to tell you as you have noticed.

U235/U238/Pu239 -- not U235/U238?Pu239

(correction to #342)