"Bruce Farquhar" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 23:32:47 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Bruce Farquhar" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 22:12:56 -0000, dpb wrote:

On 12/10/2018 1:08 PM, Rod Speed wrote:
"Bruce Farquhar" wrote in message
news ...

I said "We do have nuclear power stations which can and do
explode...."
You said "Wrong."

Only Fukushima exploded.
...

And that was _NOT_ a nuclear explosion but conventional hydrogen gas
(which came from decomposition of water and collected). It isn't
physically possible to create a supercritcal mass from the low-enriched
commercial reactor fuel.

But don't commercial reactors create weapons grade stuff on behalf of
the
military?

Nope, the stuff used in bombs is made in specific purpose nukes.

It's why the governments subsidise them in the first place.

Why the govt paid for them, yep.

Something in the power stations is required to make weapons.

Its much better to have a nuke that only produces what
is used in nuke weapons, much more efficient. Power
generation nuke so produce some of the fissile material
used in weapons but dedicated nukes produce much
more of what you want much more quickly.

It may only be the first step I'm not sure, but the subsidies were for
weapons, not "cheap" power.

Not subsidys, the govt paid for the nukes.

It's the same **** again now claiming solar is cheap. It's only cheap
when the greenie subsidies come in.

That's not true anymore. Even with no subsidy at
all its now worth doing in places like Australia.
Not so much in places like that soggy little frigid
island where you get **** all out of them in winter.

The biggest risk of something bad at TMI was, in fact, the potential of
a H2 explosion there but were able to get it vented without having such
an incident. With the tsunami at Fukushima, the ability to have hands
on site and take corrective action was too severely limited to be able
to have any timely mitigating actions.