3 ms·

A terrorist is not likely to select a solar manufacturing plant as a target. What chemicals would you be talking about? silane gas is explosive, but burns to w

A terrorist is not likely to select a solar manufacturing plant as a target. What chemicals would you be talking about? silane gas is explosive, but burns to water and silicon dioxide... > These kinds of scenarios are borderline absurd So absurd, the US government gave the hijackers of Southern Airways Flight 49 $2 million ..., about as absurd as an earthquake and a tsunami flooding some emergency generators... Good luck with Mohr's circle...

Manfredo_1 6y ago
> A terrorist is not likely to select a solar manufacturing plant as a target. A terrorist is not likely to select a nuclear power plant's dry storage either. Again, a terrorist stands to kill far more people crashing a plane into a building than either dry cask storage or solar panel manufacturing planet. > What chemicals would you be talking about? silane gas is explosive, but burns to water and silicon dioxide Crashing a plane into inert concrete casks is too great a risk but crashing into a plant with explosives is fine? And depending on the type of solar panel being crated, manufacturing could involve cadmium and other materials that could easily pose a cancer risk on par with the uranium in the dry storage casks. And I doubt these materials are as well secured. > So absurd, the US government gave the hijackers of Southern Airways Flight 49 $2 million The plane itself is more expensive than the $2M. I doubt the authorities' decisions would have been different if the hijackers threatened to fly into the nearest skyscraper. And by the way, the hijackers threatened to crash into the reactor not the dry storage casks. > about as absurd as an earthquake and a tsunami flooding some emergency generators Earthquakes are real concerns, planes flying into dry storage casks are not. There's no Mohr's circle here, only increasingly bizarre scenarios about how someone might compromise dry storage casks (coupled with handwaving away the fact that there are far more dangerous things a person could do with a hijacked plane, like fly it into an occupied building).
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > Again, a terrorist stands to kill far more people crashing a plane into a building than either dry cask storage or solar panel manufacturing planet. For terrorists, body count isn't the goal it's one means to an ends indicated by the label.
  - Manfredo_1 6y ago
    Sure, a terrorist's goal is to create terror. But a higher body count is by far the most reliable way to generate more terror. Sure, a few people killed in a particularly gruesome way might create more terror than a numerically larger event. But only by a moderate factor. I highly doubt 10 people killed by a plane crashing into a dry storage site would leave a greater impression than a hundred killed by crashing into an occupied building. And a 10:1 ratio is probably generous towards the number killed by the attack on the waste storage. For the most part, these concrete cylinders sit still with few, if any, people around them: https://blogs-images.forbes.com/jamesconca/files/2018/03/ENW-Dry-Cask-figure.jpg https://blogs-images.forbes.com/jamesconca/files/2018/03/ENW...
- DoctorOetker 6y ago
  is cadmium still even used for new solar panels?
yongjik 6y ago
This thread is a quintessential anti-nuclear circular argument. Sorry for bad paraphrasing, but basically: A: Nuclear is dangerous because bad things happen if a jumbo jet crashes onto it. B: Is there anything that doesn't cause bad things when a jumbo jet crashes onto it? A: Irrelevant, these things aren't as dangerous as nuclear. I get that there are issues with nuclear. This isn't one.
- DoctorOetker 6y ago
  did you read my comment about Southern Airways Flight 49? its not just about things being bad when an airliner crashes, but about the additional risk incurred. if I can choose between a nuclear power plant getting hit 10km from me, or some silane also 10km from me, I'd know what I'd dissaprove of most. if I can choose between leaving for the next generations a location where surface storage was hit by an airliner, or where some silane gas was used being hit by an airliner, I'd know what I prefer to leave behind for them... chemicals are easier to sort than isotopes
  - Manfredo_1 6y ago
    Nuclear waste sits in sealed concrete containers, and is stored by burying it in bedrock with no aquifer. There's so little of it that we can store it securely. Solar panels on the other hand... https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211467X19301245#:~:text=The%20International%20Renewable%20Energy%20Agency,%5D%2C%20%5B19%5D%5D https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211467X1.... Nuclear waste is measured in the tens of thousands of tons. Solar waste is in the tens of millions of tons. Most of it just dumped in landfills. If your concern is about wanting to minimize the amount of waste left to future generations, then there is absolutely no reason to choose solar over nuclear power. The energy density of nuclear power is such that it generates orders of magnitude less waste.
    - DoctorOetker 6y ago
      From the abstract: > End-of-life (EOL) solar panels may become a source of hazardous waste although there are enormous benefits globally from the growth in solar power generation. It is good that people worry about this new waste stream, and argue incentivizing recycling of this waste stream. That said, the harmfulness of different types of waste is not compared in kilograms...
DoctorOetker 6y ago
why the downvote? I know of 0 incidents where terrorists did or threatened to attack a solar manufacturing plant with an aeroplane. But we know of at least 1 incident of terrorists threatening to attack a nuclear facility with an aeroplane.

Manfredo_1 6y ago

> A terrorist is not likely to select a solar manufacturing plant as a target. A terrorist is not likely to select a nuclear power plant's dry storage either. Again, a terrorist stands to kill far more people crashing a plane into a building than either dry cask storage or solar panel manufacturing planet. > What chemicals would you be talking about? silane gas is explosive, but burns to water and silicon dioxide Crashing a plane into inert concrete casks is too great a risk but crashing into a plant with explosives is fine? And depending on the type of solar panel being crated, manufacturing could involve cadmium and other materials that could easily pose a cancer risk on par with the uranium in the dry storage casks. And I doubt these materials are as well secured. > So absurd, the US government gave the hijackers of Southern Airways Flight 49 $2 million The plane itself is more expensive than the $2M. I doubt the authorities' decisions would have been different if the hijackers threatened to fly into the nearest skyscraper. And by the way, the hijackers threatened to crash into the reactor not the dry storage casks. > about as absurd as an earthquake and a tsunami flooding some emergency generators Earthquakes are real concerns, planes flying into dry storage casks are not. There's no Mohr's circle here, only increasingly bizarre scenarios about how someone might compromise dry storage casks (coupled with handwaving away the fact that there are far more dangerous things a person could do with a hijacked plane, like fly it into an occupied building).

dragonwriter 6y ago
> Again, a terrorist stands to kill far more people crashing a plane into a building than either dry cask storage or solar panel manufacturing planet. For terrorists, body count isn't the goal it's one means to an ends indicated by the label.
- Manfredo_1 6y ago
  Sure, a terrorist's goal is to create terror. But a higher body count is by far the most reliable way to generate more terror. Sure, a few people killed in a particularly gruesome way might create more terror than a numerically larger event. But only by a moderate factor. I highly doubt 10 people killed by a plane crashing into a dry storage site would leave a greater impression than a hundred killed by crashing into an occupied building. And a 10:1 ratio is probably generous towards the number killed by the attack on the waste storage. For the most part, these concrete cylinders sit still with few, if any, people around them: https://blogs-images.forbes.com/jamesconca/files/2018/03/ENW-Dry-Cask-figure.jpg https://blogs-images.forbes.com/jamesconca/files/2018/03/ENW...
DoctorOetker 6y ago
is cadmium still even used for new solar panels?

yongjik 6y ago

This thread is a quintessential anti-nuclear circular argument. Sorry for bad paraphrasing, but basically: A: Nuclear is dangerous because bad things happen if a jumbo jet crashes onto it. B: Is there anything that doesn't cause bad things when a jumbo jet crashes onto it? A: Irrelevant, these things aren't as dangerous as nuclear. I get that there are issues with nuclear. This isn't one.

DoctorOetker 6y ago
did you read my comment about Southern Airways Flight 49? its not just about things being bad when an airliner crashes, but about the additional risk incurred. if I can choose between a nuclear power plant getting hit 10km from me, or some silane also 10km from me, I'd know what I'd dissaprove of most. if I can choose between leaving for the next generations a location where surface storage was hit by an airliner, or where some silane gas was used being hit by an airliner, I'd know what I prefer to leave behind for them... chemicals are easier to sort than isotopes
- Manfredo_1 6y ago
  Nuclear waste sits in sealed concrete containers, and is stored by burying it in bedrock with no aquifer. There's so little of it that we can store it securely. Solar panels on the other hand... https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211467X19301245#:~:text=The%20International%20Renewable%20Energy%20Agency,%5D%2C%20%5B19%5D%5D https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211467X1.... Nuclear waste is measured in the tens of thousands of tons. Solar waste is in the tens of millions of tons. Most of it just dumped in landfills. If your concern is about wanting to minimize the amount of waste left to future generations, then there is absolutely no reason to choose solar over nuclear power. The energy density of nuclear power is such that it generates orders of magnitude less waste.
  - DoctorOetker 6y ago
    From the abstract: > End-of-life (EOL) solar panels may become a source of hazardous waste although there are enormous benefits globally from the growth in solar power generation. It is good that people worry about this new waste stream, and argue incentivizing recycling of this waste stream. That said, the harmfulness of different types of waste is not compared in kilograms...

DoctorOetker 6y ago

why the downvote? I know of 0 incidents where terrorists did or threatened to attack a solar manufacturing plant with an aeroplane. But we know of at least 1 incident of terrorists threatening to attack a nuclear facility with an aeroplane.