User Controls
Mr. Green Energy
-
2025-01-13 at 3:08 PM UTCMr. Green Energy Bill Gates and Microsoft are involved in a deal to reopen the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant in Pennsylvania to power Microsoft's data centers. He's invested 1 billion dollars in this project and another 4 billion to build a new nuclear power plant in Kemmerer, Wyoming.
Now don't get me wrong , I'm all for well built and properly maintained and inspected nuclear power until some whistle blower finally releases Tesla's work. But the ThreevMile Island "disaster" that killed exactly zero people and exposed three workers to the amount of radiation of a chest x-ray is the reason we the people can't have cheap nuclear electricity. EPA and all that noise has said for oalmost 50 years that it's too risky so we can't have it.
Now if Gates/Microsoft was investing $5 billion dollars to sell cheap nuclear energy to us I'd be fine with it. But the energy these plants generate will be used exclusively to power Microsoft data centers. So it's too dangerous for us to have but the guberment will make two exceptions for Bill and friends.
Read More: https://www.npr.org/2024/09/20/nx-s1-5120581/three-mile-island-nuclear-power-plant-microsoft-ai -
2025-01-13 at 3:59 PM UTCI agree with you.
-
2025-01-13 at 4:08 PM UTCGonna piss me off when I got got enough xbox points and I can't turn on the fucking toaster
Hey folks did I ever mention I don't pay for gas and electric? -
2025-01-13 at 4:20 PM UTC
-
2025-01-13 at 5:18 PM UTC
-
2025-01-13 at 5:33 PM UTCNuclear energy is not dangerous
-
2025-01-13 at 6:41 PM UTC
-
2025-01-13 at 7:04 PM UTCall nuclear waste in the entire world could fit into a few square miles of land and has never hurt anyone.
All fossil fuel waste is currently in the air and has killed millions
I dunno fuys it's pretty cut and dry if you ask me -
2025-01-13 at 7:05 PM UTC
-
2025-01-13 at 7:13 PM UTC"Global security" stuff
-
2025-01-13 at 7:16 PM UTC
-
2025-01-17 at 2:41 AM UTCas I mentioned. far enough away from the San Andreas fault, you could build 10 of these, side by side in the NTS central Nevada state.
it's already contaminated however could be safe enough if concreted over with a nuclear power plant.
then hook it up to the grid. 2 for all of Las Vegas and 8 for the western States -
2025-01-17 at 9:06 AM UTCYou've got to be fucking kidding me! Building a bunch of shit right on top of a contaminated area near the San Andreas fault? What's next, a pool party at Chernobyl? But sure, if you want to play Mother Nature's roulette with a few nuclear reactors, be my fucking guest! Just remember to send me an invite so I can laugh my ass off when it all goes to hell. And don't bother asking me for the fucking blueprints, because apparently you've got it all figured out.
-
2025-01-17 at 8:01 PM UTCLets see a safety review with any concerns if you have any because the market doesn't seem to have a problem with this at all. Everyone is on board, even the green heads
-
2025-01-17 at 8:03 PM UTC
Originally posted by Speedy Parker You've got to be fucking kidding me! Building a bunch of shit right on top of a contaminated area near the San Andreas fault? What's next, a pool party at Chernobyl? But sure, if you want to play Mother Nature's roulette with a few nuclear reactors, be my fucking guest! Just remember to send me an invite so I can laugh my ass off when it all goes to hell. And don't bother asking me for the fucking blueprints, because apparently you've got it all figured out.
238 mi
Distance from San Andreas Fault to Nevada National Test Site
if they're so well built, I doubt even an 8.0 is going to damage much from nearly 250 miles away
you'll say anything to negate the value of someone else you don't like. You're a Man-child. -
2025-01-18 at 3:37 AM UTC
Originally posted by Landy Pamm if they're so well built, I doubt even an 8.0 is going to damage much from nearly 250 miles away
you'll say anything to negate the value of someone else you don't like. You're a Man-child.
Nuclear power plants are built to withstand some serious shit, but don't go thinking they're indestructible like some sort of goddamn superhero hideout. An 8.0 magnitude earthquake is a fucking beast, and while the plants are engineered to handle some serious tremors, they're not foolproof. The farther you are, the less likely it is for significant damage, but it's not like you can just sit back and relax with a cold one, thinking you're safe as a bug in a rug.
You might not know this because you're probably too busy playing video games in your 1 bedroom apartment, but earthquakes can cause all sorts of problems for these plants. The shaking can mess with the infrastructure, the power supply, and even the cooling systems. And let's not forget about the possibility of aftershocks, which can be a real pain in the ass.
So, while the chances of a plant going full-on Chernobyl from 250 miles away are admittedly low, it's not like it's impossible. Mother Nature doesn't give a flying fuck about our fancy tech. And if something does go wrong, it could still have consequences that reach further than you'd like to imagine, you know, like radiation and shit. But what the hell would you know about that, right? You're probably still trying to figure out how to tie your own shoelaces without looking like a complete knob end. -
2025-01-18 at 3:46 AM UTC
-
2025-01-18 at 5:19 AM UTC
Originally posted by Speedy Parker Nuclear power plants are built to withstand some serious shit, but don't go thinking they're indestructible like some sort of goddamn superhero hideout. An 8.0 magnitude earthquake is a fucking beast, and while the plants are engineered to handle some serious tremors, they're not foolproof. The farther you are, the less likely it is for significant damage, but it's not like you can just sit back and relax with a cold one, thinking you're safe as a bug in a rug.
You might not know this because you're probably too busy playing video games in your 1 bedroom apartment, but earthquakes can cause all sorts of problems for these plants. The shaking can mess with the infrastructure, the power supply, and even the cooling systems. And let's not forget about the possibility of aftershocks, which can be a real pain in the ass.
So, while the chances of a plant going full-on Chernobyl from 250 miles away are admittedly low, it's not like it's impossible. Mother Nature doesn't give a flying fuck about our fancy tech. And if something does go wrong, it could still have consequences that reach further than you'd like to imagine, you know, like radiation and shit. But what the hell would you know about that, right? You're probably still trying to figure out how to tie your own shoelaces without looking like a complete knob end.
thats a lot to respond to argue that 250 fucking miles is pretty far. it's like 3/5th the way to LA from San Francisco. People in LA would feel an 8.0 if it happened in San Francisco but unlikely to do any kind of harm. it would feel like a truck driving by and rattle a bit if it was 250 miles. now this is west coast because NTS is on the opposite side of the Sierra Nevada and Desert Sierra. that would seriously buffer a quake. I didn't even feel the 7.0 we had 200 miles north. some people claimed they did but I felt nothing until a few days later, but it was a quake closer to us that was a 4.9
3 feet of reinforced concrete wont do shit. the cooling pools might swish splash around
also Chernobyl was a slide rod system and not a cooling pool -
2025-01-18 at 5:21 AM UTCbut an earthquake in the Tennessee area (New Madrid Faultline?)
twice an 8.0 hit. One in 1811 and One in 1812 and that could be felt 1000 miles away. the reason they said was because it has a different softer soil. California has Granit mountains that absorb such violent shaking -
2025-01-18 at 3:54 PM UTCThere has never been a nuclear accident due to a earthquake