Nuclear power is safe

SpaceNut · 2021-06-18 08:05:27

So what makes the steam nuclear plant need such high regulation and what is that reasoning?

Calliban · 2021-06-18 10:49:38

SpaceNut wrote:

So what makes the steam nuclear plant need such high regulation and what is that reasoning?

People are frightened of it, rightly or wrongly (probably wrongly). They have an over-inflated view of the real risk, which is smaller than just about any other means of producing energy. The truth of the matter is, that living in the most heavily contaminated areas in the Chernobyl exclusion zone, would result in about the same risk to human health as living in the air pollution in a city centre. Not a good thing certainly, but not exactly the end of the world. And a nuclear accident is something that might happen if we are careless or unlucky. Fossil fuel depletion is definitely happening, is definitely ruining a lot of lives and will prematurely end a lot of lives if we don't collectively get our arses into gear. We are in the position where we desperately need nuclear energy to come to the rescue, but it cannot, because anyone attempting to develop, build and commission a new nuclear reactor, has to cut through about a light-year of red tape.

tahanson43206 · 2021-06-18 11:35:36

For Calliban re #202

Thanks for your helpful answer to the question SpaceNut posed ...

My assumption was that SpaceNut asked that question precisely because "everyone" would already know the answer. Perhaps he was hoping to stimulate a review of all the points that have accumulated on the "con" side of the ledger.

The human race includes a small number of persons who cannot be trusted with atomic fuel.

Texas is experimenting right now with entrusting ** everyone ** with chemically powered weapons. It will be interesting to see how that turns out.

The human race has (for the time being) collectively decided it cannot trust the leaders of Iran or North Korea to handle nuclear material safely, and NOT to threaten their neighbors.

I read (much of) the report of analysis of the consequences of regulation of the nuclear industry you posted recently, and while the cost of such regulation seems high, I am not reassured that my fellow humans will handle nuclear material safely.

The topic title is "Nuclear power is safe"

I would argue that a (randomly chosen) human being in control of nuclear material should ** not ** be regarded as "safe".

(th)

louis · 2021-06-18 13:16:35

By definition of what fossil fuel is, it must be being depleted. But we have at least 40 years of natural gas reserves available for electricity and heating. The only argument for nuclear power is energy independence (if you don't have natural gas reserves). New nuclear costs are prohibitive. At least 9 cents per KwHe. However, from a national security point of view nuclear power stations are vulnerable to both physical and cyber attack.

It makes much more sense to develop green energy systems in combination with use of natural gas until that can be phased out in maybe 20 years or so time.

Calliban wrote:

SpaceNut wrote:
So what makes the steam nuclear plant need such high regulation and what is that reasoning?
People are frightened of it, rightly or wrongly (probably wrongly). They have an over-inflated view of the real risk, which is smaller than just about any other means of producing energy. The truth of the matter is, that living in the most heavily contaminated areas in the Chernobyl exclusion zone, would result in about the same risk to human health as living in the air pollution in a city centre. Not a good thing certainly, but not exactly the end of the world. And a nuclear accident is something that might happen if we are careless or unlucky. Fossil fuel depletion is definitely happening, is definitely ruining a lot of lives and will prematurely end a lot of lives if we don't collectively get our arses into gear. We are in the position where we desperately need nuclear energy to come to the rescue, but it cannot, because anyone attempting to develop, build and commission a new nuclear reactor, has to cut through about a light-year of red tape.

Calliban · 2021-06-18 14:38:29

Louis, you have made the same arguments here with very little modification for the past several years. I am a bit puzzled that you never seem to learn anything from these discussions. I think we have firmly demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that 'Green energy systems', which I take to mean wind and solar power, do not make any sense whatsoever. Everywhere this has been tried it has pushed up electricity prices and so far, they provide about 2% of global energy consumption. The embodied energy and materials needed to build these systems are orders of magnitude greater than those needed to build competing fossil or nuclear systems. A world economy based on Green Energy would be much poorer and would not have sufficient surplus wealth to colonise Mars or have any space programme of any kind. To achieve such things we need a lot of surplus energy.

Given that we have established this beyond any doubt, why are you still talking about Green Energy? It is a failed idea. And it will still be a failed idea the next time you inevitably bring it up.

Last edited by Calliban (2021-06-18 14:43:19)

tahanson43206 · 2021-06-18 14:57:22

For Calliban re #205 and pessimism in general

The overconfidence and supreme optimism of Louis is nicely balanced by your (reasonable) confidence of education and experience, tempered by a leaning toward pessimism.

To some extent, pessimism and optimism seem to be genetic traits distributed in the human population according to the bell curve (more or less).

In a not too distant past exchange, I ** think ** I drew from you an concession that the Sun produces enough energy to meet human needs, whatever they may turn out to be.

Those who are attempting to harness solar energy directly, and those who are trying to harness solar energy indirectly (wind/water/biomass) are all making useful gains, but your projection (and mine for what it's worth) is that those methods are not going to meet the need that lies ahead.

The Sun is pumping out more energy than we can even ** imagine ** using at this stage of our development.

I've been waiting patiently for you to point out the vast quantities of solar energy that go streaming by our planet every second, and to suggest ways to capture a teeny tiny fraction of that torrent.

Hopefully this little reminder will help you to uncap your insights, which have proven so valuable when directed at the immediate Earthy environment.

(th)

SpaceNut · 2021-06-18 17:30:11

Cyber attacks are a moot point as we have seen from the oil lines that feed our consuming system fall under there control stopping the flow of fuels, louis.
The fact that nuclear submarines have people in them working and living within feet of the reactor shows we can do them safely...

tahanson43206 · 2021-06-21 05:33:21

This post is delivered to Calliban in appreciation for his sustained support of nuclear power to meet present and future needs on Earth and Mars and (in fact) everywhere that humans might hope to set up shop around the Solar System.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/want-fight-c … 42036.html

Nuclear is an idea whose time came and seemed to have passed, but may indeed have a future. For those of us looking for a solution to climate change, the least we can ask is that no plants like Indian Power close until we have a clean, dependable and scalable alternative already in place.
Bhaskar Sunkara is the founding editor of Jacobin magazine and a Guardian US columnist. He is the author of The Socialist Manifesto: The Case for Radical Politics in an Era of Extreme Inequality

kbd512 · 2021-06-21 06:48:54

louis wrote:

By definition of what fossil fuel is, it must be being depleted. But we have at least 40 years of natural gas reserves available for electricity and heating. The only argument for nuclear power is energy independence (if you don't have natural gas reserves). New nuclear costs are prohibitive. At least 9 cents per KwHe. However, from a national security point of view nuclear power stations are vulnerable to both physical and cyber attack.
It makes much more sense to develop green energy systems in combination with use of natural gas until that can be phased out in maybe 20 years or so time.

Louis,

How is a photovoltaic or wind turbine array, all of which are entirely dependent upon networked electronics that are remotely operated in all actual commercial power plants, any less vulnerable to cyber attack?

If I wanted to disable a nation's critical infrastructure, then I wouldn't bother with attacking a heavily defended nuclear generating station when I could devote far less effort and resources to frying a network-connected battery bank or step-down transformer or disabling the pumps at a waste water treatment plant or shutting down an oil or natural gas pipeline. As it pertains to cyber attacks, the only thing so many microchips in wind / solar / batteries provide is an vastly increased attack surface for any potential terrorist / criminal to exploit.

Natural gas won't be phased out in 20 years because 20 years from now, no battery in existence will store as much energy as good 'ole cow farts, per unit weight. Cow farts are here to stay, because unlike media-induced battery BS, the natural kind of BS makes Starship fly.

Mars_B4_Moon · 2021-06-27 23:24:02

Report backs NASA proposal to change astronaut radiation exposure limits
https://spacenews.com/report-backs-nasa … re-limits/

RobertDyck · 2021-07-02 17:24:13

Not sure where to put this.
Oklo has a plan to make tiny nuclear reactors that run off nuclear waste

Bill Gates’ fission company, TerraPower, is already selling the idea that it’s building smaller reactors than are typically used in conventional nuclear power plants.
But DeWitte said Oklo will build reactors “far smaller” than the ones TerraPower is building. TerraPower’s main nuclear reactor, the Natrium, will have a capacity of 345 megawatts of electrical energy (MWe), where the first Oklo reactor, called the Aurora, is expected to have a capacity of 1.5 MWe, making it a true micro-reactor. A 2019 report prepared by the Nuclear Energy Institute defined micro-reactors to be between one and 10 MWe. Other companies in the space include Elysium Industries, General Atomics, HolosGen, NuGen and X-energy, to name a few.
...
Oklo is planning to build a specific kind of nuclear power generator called a fast reactor that is meant to be more efficient than traditional generators, allowing it to get energy out of already spent fissile fuel.
...
“Oklo is planning to use uranium recovered from previously used Experimental Breeder Reactor II (EBR-II),” Jess Gehin, an associate laboratory director of the Nuclear Science and Technology Directorate at the Idaho National Laboratory, told CNBC. The EBR-II nuclear reactor operated from 1964 to 1994, he said. “As a result, the materials, which were previously destined for disposal, can be used to produce more energy.”
...
Oklo says the fast reactors will be self-sustaining and not require any human operators.
The goal is to have “a number of plants operating by the mid-2020s,” Cochran told CNBC.

Mars_B4_Moon · 2021-07-14 05:44:03

Russia Proposes Nuclear Power Plant on Mars
https://futurism.com/russia-proposes-nu … plant-mars

Calliban · 2021-07-14 12:47:28

Interesting news from China.
https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News … ction.html

The Chinese actually build these things. People in the western world just write about them.

tahanson43206 · 2021-07-14 13:27:10

For Calliban re topic ...

Now we're talking!

Bitcoin Mining Firm Compass Inks Deal With Nuclear Microreactor Company Oklo

Nate DiCamillo
Wed, July 14, 2021, 10:01 AM
Nuclear-powered bitcoin mining appears to be gaining steam.
Compass Mining has signed a 20-year deal with nuclear fission startup Oklo under which Oklo will supply the bitcoin mining and hosting company with 150 megawatts of energy.

(th)

Calliban · 2021-07-15 15:44:01

SpaceNut wrote:

So what makes the steam nuclear plant need such high regulation and what is that reasoning?

This explains why nuclear power plants have grown steadily more expensive to build a operate since the 1970s.
http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter9.html

Regulatory ratcheting is listed as the primary cause, which on its own has increased the cost of building a reactor plant by a factor of four. In addition to what Cohen describes, a more recent problem is loss of supply chains. To build nuclear reactor components it is now necessary to rebuild supply chains, which necessitates restarting entire industries.

All things considered, a new nuclear powerplant like Hinkley C, is probably 10 times more expensive than it would be in a sane world. Nuclear power has grown relatively expensive only because we in the western world forced it to grow more expensive. There is nothing inherently expensive about nuclear power plants. They are simply steam plants using uranium fuel rods to raise heat instead of pulverised coal. Quite a cheap and well established technology in itself.

Last edited by Calliban (2021-07-15 15:48:03)

louis · 2021-07-15 18:28:28

BS.

You only get "regulatory ratcheting" where there is real risk e.g. construction sites where, 50 years ago, we tolerated horrendous death and injury rates. Now such rates are simply not acceptable.

The risk of a nuclear reactor disaster in a country like the UK is tremendusly high risk in terms of impact. No part of the UK with its 68 million people is further than 70 miles from the sea. We are a very concentrated land area. One nuclear power station going Chernobyl could potentially make tens of millions of people homeless and maybe reduce our agricultural output by 20%.

Calliban wrote:

SpaceNut wrote:
So what makes the steam nuclear plant need such high regulation and what is that reasoning?
This explains why nuclear power plants have grown steadily more expensive to build a operate since the 1970s.
http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter9.html
Regulatory ratcheting is listed as the primary cause, which on its own has increased the cost of building a reactor plant by a factor of four. In addition to what Cohen describes, a more recent problem is loss of supply chains. To build nuclear reactor components it is now necessary to rebuild supply chains, which necessitates restarting entire industries.
All things considered, a new nuclear powerplant like Hinkley C, is probably 10 times more expensive than it would be in a sane world. Nuclear power has grown relatively expensive only because we in the western world forced it to grow more expensive. There is nothing inherently expensive about nuclear power plants. They are simply steam plants using uranium fuel rods to raise heat instead of pulverised coal. Quite a cheap and well established technology in itself.

Calliban · 2021-07-16 02:53:01

Nuclear power reactors are amongst the safest forms of energy. Death rates per TWh are lower than any fossil fuel and are broadly comparable to those of wind, solar and hydro power.
https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy

tahanson43206 · 2021-07-16 04:42:36

For Calliban re topic ....

There was a time when having a self-governing furnace in a home was not an option for even the wealthiest of humans. Now a person of modest circumstances can enjoy the benefits of reliable heating and even air conditioning, in most developed Nations.

Setting aside concerns about regulation of nuclear materials for the moment, can you imagine a time when ** every ** home of modest circumstances is supplied by a small, long lasting nuclear fission reactor?

I would expect that to be the case for any and all communities on Mars, the Moon, or anywhere in the Solar System.

I would expect a fission reactor to be included in the mix of power supply options in RobertDyck's Large Ship, although my recollection is that he has envisioned considerable reliance of solar power to meet the needs of his passengers.

(th)

Calliban · 2021-07-16 07:04:38

In open space, in the inner solar system, where sunlight is available all (or most) of the time, solar power may provide a better power-weight than a fission based power reactor system, as the latter would probably require shielding and would require a large waste heat radiator. On a planetary surface, or far from the sun, the situation is different.

There are inefficiencies involved in building very small reactors (I.e. a few kW). High neutron leakage from very small cores usually requires high enrichment to reach criticality, necessitating either highly enriched uranium, or plutonium at 20%+ concentrations. This is more expensive and runs severe security risks. Whilst nuclear accident risks are generally overstated in the public mind, nuclear materials of this grade could be used to manufacture nuclear weapons. The risk of nuclear proliferation is not something that can ever be taken lightly. Avoiding the use of HEU or high concentration Pu, increases the minimum practical size of a reactor to 100s kW. A large house on Mars might use that much heat and power, but it is probably more suitable for a small settlement.

Reactors in this small size range have the advantage that cooling systems can be very simple. The reactors can be passively safe, as they would lose sufficient heat through their structure through thermal radiation to prevent fuel from overheating. In this sense, small high temperature reactors can be meltdown proof. It becomes more and more difficult to do that as size increases, one of the reasons why small modular reactors are now of such interest. Small reactors would probably be built as sealed battery type units. They would be equipped with enough fuel for a core life of 10-30 years. You would buy it, install it, run it until the fuel runs out and then ship the entire thing back to the vendor. The core would be surrounding by blankets of natural uranium, and the reactor would breed the fuel in operation that was needed to fuel the next reactor. The lead-cooled fast reactor is particularly suited to small, high-temperature units as the coolant also provides effective shielding. No need for any customer to open it and indeed the units would be designed to prevent tampering.

Last edited by Calliban (2021-07-16 07:07:23)

Calliban · 2021-07-16 08:30:23

I would strongly recommend this report to anyone interested in the manufacture of synthetic fuels that do not depend on a fossil fuel resource base.
https://www.lucidcatalyst.com/hydrogen-report

To make the fuel cheaply enough to meet the energy demands of existing transportation infrastructure is a tough call, as the report makes clear.

tahanson43206 · 2021-07-16 13:19:52

For Calliban re #220 .... thank you for the link to that encouraging report!

The 10 year figure is challenging but I think doable if we (humans) put our collective shoulders into the effort.

What ** really ** made the difference for me was seeing the comparison (rendered in trillions) comparing the three alternatives over 25 years!

The key to making this happen is (somehow) finding a way for everyone involved to profit from the transition.

And! Reactors do not need to be anywhere near humans in this scenario ... There should be employment opportunities for (literally) billions of people if we (humans) can (somehow) organize ourselves to setting the processes into motion that are needed.

Because of your interest in this technology, I hope you can find a way to put your interests and talents to work on behalf of the global enterprise.

RobertDyck is (hopefully) working on providing a permanent storage space for NewMars forum on the Mars Society Canadian chapter web site. Your designs for a reactor (or family of reactors) to fit into this scenario would be a valuable asset for planners, and a nice advertisement for the forum.

(th)

SpaceNut · 2021-07-17 09:58:31

I will take a KRUSTY any time as it meets current energy demand with a surplus to make life style better with that extra energy.

kbd512 · 2021-07-17 11:34:59

tahanson43206,

tahanson43206 wrote:

Texas is experimenting right now with entrusting ** everyone ** with chemically powered weapons. It will be interesting to see how that turns out.

It's not so much a matter of trust as an acknowledgement of objective reality. Objective reality is that criminals frequently carry chemically powered weapons (better known as firearms), no matter what laws are written asserting that they can't. Therefore, the only people who are actually affected by such laws are the very people who would not otherwise attack their neighbors to begin with. That seems pretty asinine if you ask me, and almost as if the laws were intentionally written to benefit criminals. Perhaps some people don't find any utility in being perpetual victims who must be "saved" by an all powerful yet totally benevolent government- an oxymoron which requires an even greater divergence from objective reality, deep into the realm of fantasy.

Every state or country in the entire world has always been experimenting with "entrusting people with weapons". The only real question is whether or not the politicians of a given state or country write laws that primarily benefit criminals who frequently carry out felonious assaults, or if they favor law abiding citizens who are legally empowered to fight back against such assaults using the very same weapons that the criminals use against them. The mere fact that some people think you can pass a law, that objectively only affects people who were not criminals to begin with, yet somehow reduce crime, is the very pinnacle of magical thinking.

I would suggest that basic deductive reasoning may not be a particularly well developed quality amongst such people, although they often like to imagine that they possess wisdom that is painfully lacking- to the point of being perfectly willing to sacrifice the lives of their friends and neighbors to their self-destructive ideology of perpetual victimhood. There's plenty of empirical evidence to support such a statement. Crime is highest in areas where law abiding citizens are absolutely prohibited from carrying firearms for personal protection against criminals by law. Since the vast overwhelming majority of the people do follow the laws to the best of their ability, they're frequently easy targets for violent criminals. Everyone in America should have been long dead by now if the vast majority of people couldn't be trusted with firearms. We never seem to have any mass shootings at gun shows, for example, yet there's simultaneously no shortage of firearms and ammunition there and so very little in the way of violent crime. That truly boggles the mind, doesn't it? So many weapons, so little violent crime. It's almost as if there's some kind of correlation between the number of firearms present in the hands of the general populace and the lack of opportunity for criminals to assault other people. I guess some people will never figure that out, because they don't want to.

At all times, you're surrounded by criminals who could care less about any laws the people you elect happen to pass. You simply don't know it, or refuse to acknowledge that part of reality, because you don't like what it means. The only real question is whether or not you would rather also be surrounded by law abiding citizens who have the same means to fight back against criminal assault as the criminals carry with them, irrespective of any laws passed that restrict people who do follow the law from carrying weapons to protect themselves against criminals.

I can only speak for myself when I say that I would rather that all of my neighbors have the means at hand to fight back against criminal assault, especially since the people who don't want people to have the right to carry firearms are the very same people who have stripped funding from our Police after falsely smearing all of them as racist or bigoted or oppressive in nature, based upon nothing more than the ideologically-held beliefs in their minds.

Why do people protect, help or defend strangers or the weak without expecting anything in return?

Murphy Barrett:
Essentially it is to establish an implied social contract, and to ensure the safety of people who you love and care about who are too weak to defend themselves. Its enlightened self interest.
Why is that? Quite simple, really. In the most direct form, protecting the innocent makes it clear to those who would victimize them that that behavior shall not be tolerated. It increases the risk portion of the risk/benefit analysis a criminal makes when deciding to commit a crime. When random people will protect your intended victim, the price of crime may become too high. Which tends to either cause criminals to leave for easier pastures, or find more legitimate ways to support themselves.
Indirectly, it establishes the pattern of behavior that if you are able, you are expected to protect the innocent. That that is normal and praiseworthy behavior. Therefore you do not have to be around to protect your weaker loved ones all the time, you can trust your fellows to look out for them in your stead, just as you look out for their loved ones. Yes, this is very indirect, but it still works.
This also establishes a sense of community trust. I may not know you personally, but if you are in trouble, I’ll help you if I can. This strengthens societal cohesion, and generally improves the lives of everyone involved.
If we want to live in a society that looks out for people, we have to be willing to do the same.

tahanson43206 wrote:

I would argue that a (randomly chosen) human being in control of nuclear material should ** not ** be regarded as "safe".

The Arsenic used in solar panels is a lethal poison, but we don't typically worry about someone dumping crushed solar panels into our water supply. Why is that? Failure of imagination? Should that mere possibility mean that I can't have solar panels on my roof, simply because someone could conceivably dump the Arsenic contained therein into our water supply, and potentially kill everyone?

I think you'll find that vanishingly few people are okay with mass murdering everyone in an entire city, almost exclusively limited to tin pot dictators who rule over other people through constant threat of lethal force. That obviously doesn't completely eliminate the threat, but it drastically limits who is an actual threat versus someone you simply don't trust because you don't personally know them or don't personally like them.

A select few "special people" are nuttier than squirrel turds when it comes to accepting that they don't have control over everyone and everything at all times. I may not like some of my neighbors, and some of them may not like me, yet we don't do evil things to each other, such as poisoning our water supply, over a silly difference of opinion. If we did, then civilized society would cease to exist faster than any dictatorship could prove why they're all such utter failures- namely, that nobody can actually "control" other people.

If you chose a random person from an industrialized society who had any inkling about the importance of protecting nuclear materials from falling into the hands of terrorists or other assorted madmen, then more than 99% of the time, that person would protect it with their life. Most of our criminals also have families or people they value, which means that even for most of them, at least the ones who are not completely insane or mentally retarded or very close to it, they would likewise defend that material at all costs. Simple self-interest is sufficient to recognize the danger posed by allowing criminally insane people to possess something that is intrinsically dangerous.

In Soviet Russia the men with launch control over ICBMs flatly refused to initiate a nuclear attack against the United States, at the risk of being executed and possibly having their families executed as well, over their refusal to carry out such an order. The remarkable part of that is that not only were those men fully aware of what their own government would do to them for refusing the order to launch, they still carried out their own will (that everyone in America, their sworn enemy, should live, rather than be wiped off the face of the Earth) in spite of that fact. It's almost as if they implicitly understood that something much much greater was at stake.

Most of us understand how silly this is. The threat of retaliation is pointless unless you carry it out, but if you do then absolutely nobody lives, which is totally crazy, so anyone who has nuclear weapons will never use them to begin with. Defending yourself from a knife attack inside a phone booth using a hand grenade is equally pointless and idiotic beyond belief, which is why nobody does it. If the stupid computer tells you that you're under attack, then the computer is wrong, because that kind of attack has no purpose. At that juncture, what was the point of having a computer to tell you whether or not you're under attack?

The average person who is going to colonize Mars is not someone that you need to worry about. You could hand a working nuclear weapon to them and they would already know what it is and what it can do, so they won't allow a nutcase to possess such a device.

tahanson43206 · 2021-07-17 12:11:32

For kbd512 and Calliban ...

https://www.yahoo.com/news/100-million- … 00809.html

Chattanooga Times Free Press, Tenn.
Fri, July 16, 2021 5:00 PM
Jul. 16—California-based Kairos Power and Tennessee officials on Friday unveiled plans for a low-power demonstration reactor in Oak Ridge.
The privately funded, advanced nuclear engineering company will invest $100 million and create 55 jobs to deploy the reactor at the East Tennessee Technology Park.
Called Hermes, Kairos Power's low-power demonstration reactor will show the company's capability to deliver low-cost nuclear heat and is scheduled to be operational in 2026, officials said.
The Hermes reactor is a scaled version of Kairos Power's Fluoride Salt-Cooled High Temperature Reactor (KP-FHR), an advanced reactor technology that aims to be cost competitive with natural gas in the U.S. electricity market in order to provide carbon-free, affordable and safe energy.

This is encouraging.

(th)

RobertDyck · 2021-07-17 15:06:15

kbd512 wrote:

The Arsenic used in solar panels is a lethal poison, but we don't typically worry about someone dumping crushed solar panels into our water supply. Why is that? Failure of imagination? Should that mere possibility mean that I can't have solar panels on my roof, simply because someone could conceivably dump the Arsenic contained therein into our water supply, and potentially kill everyone?

I could argue for gallium-indium-nitride. There's no arsenic in that. Of course gallium is toxic, but it will be bound in a solar panel. Used solar panels will be too valuable to just throw in a landfill. The gallium and indium would be recycled, used to make new solar panels.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#201 2021-06-18 08:05:27

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#202 2021-06-18 10:49:38

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#203 2021-06-18 11:35:36

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#204 2021-06-18 13:16:35

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#205 2021-06-18 14:38:29

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#206 2021-06-18 14:57:22

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#207 2021-06-18 17:30:11

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#208 2021-06-21 05:33:21

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#209 2021-06-21 06:48:54

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#210 2021-06-27 23:24:02

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#211 2021-07-02 17:24:13

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#212 2021-07-14 05:44:03

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#213 2021-07-14 12:47:28

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#214 2021-07-14 13:27:10

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#215 2021-07-15 15:44:01

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#216 2021-07-15 18:28:28

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#217 2021-07-16 02:53:01

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#218 2021-07-16 04:42:36

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#219 2021-07-16 07:04:38

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#220 2021-07-16 08:30:23

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#221 2021-07-16 13:19:52

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#222 2021-07-17 09:58:31

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#223 2021-07-17 11:34:59

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#224 2021-07-17 12:11:32

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#225 2021-07-17 15:06:15

Re: Nuclear power is safe

Board footer