Yet another religious cult raided

[Vandiablo]

Flatulence will get you nowhere. . . except maybe get you a private elevator.

I believe you meant to say "speaking out of my ass." Lots of emotion, barely a fart of reason to be found in that post.

Let me show you something. . . * . . . (credit Kurt Vonnegut).

I will now appear to completely show what Pete is talking about...

...but only if the staff of Scientific American is considered to not have a scientific education. (I will accept the possibility.)

So here goes:

Look at this "fart of reason" from Scientific American:

Reactor designs are divided into generations. The earliest prototype reactors, built in the 1950s and early 1960s, were often one of a kind. Generation II reactors, in contrast, were commercial designs built in large numbers from the late 1960s to the early 1990s. Generation III reactors incorporate design improvements such as better fuel technology and passive safety, meaning that in the case of an accident the reactor shuts itself down without requiring the operators to intervene. The first generation III reactor was built in Japan in 1996. Generation IV reactors are new designs that are currently being researched, such as pebble-bed reactors and lead-cooled fast reactors [see "Next-Generation Nuclear Power," by James A. Lake, Ralph G. Bennett and John F. Kotek; Scientific American, January 2002]. In addition, generation III+ reactors are designs similar to generation III but with the advanced features further evolved. With the possible exception of high-temperature gas reactors (the pebble bed is one example), generation IV reactors are several decades away from being candidates for significant commercial deployment. To evaluate our scenario through to 2050, we envisaged the building of generation III+ light-water reactors.

Note the part that "not requiring operators to intervene" for generation III.

Note that the first generation III was built in 1996.

Note that I said that for me nuclear became safe "sometime in the 1990's".

QED #2.

Nuclear power was a good choice in 1978, and it it a good choice in 2008. What is different is that now you admit it. What is also different is that processes and procedures, as usual in human enceavors, improve or adjust.

No, I still maintain that in 1978 nuclear was not safe, and not even safe enough. It was not safe enough until the processes improved. Removal of the need for human intervention was my threshold. Maybe you have a different threshold. Maybe you trust human intervention, but sorry, I don't. Fine, call me "emotional", but I do notice that in the accidents that do happen "human factors" play a huge role.

Note also that since I am no nuclear physicist/engineer, I get my news about nuclear issues from Scientific American (and the occasional article elsewhere). So, it's not surprising that my opinion on nuclear issues is based on what SciAm presents. If they are presenting a biased viewpoint, they will get called on it; or maybe you can email them about their web material.

Maybe they described generation III technology before 1990, but until they said "the technology is here and works" I was opposed.

I am interested in Pete's view that there is evidently no difference between a generation II and a generation III.

-V