[RM7]

Originally Posted by XutvJet

Don't forget about 3 Mile Island. Sure there are many redundancies and safeguards designed into nuclear power plants, BUT in the event of a catastrophe, the result could mass death and destruction. 3 Mile Island was likely minutes away from a full meltdown and possible large explosion which could have killed thousands (possibly hundreds thousands over time) and rendered a massive area surrounding the plant uninhabitable, think Chernobyl, but on an even larger scale. It took 15 years and nearly $1B to cleanup Three Mile Island.

We've had three major nuclear disasters in 43 years. That's not a great track record for a system that is supposed to be "safe", full of redundancies, and ran by high qualified personnel. There are countless small accidents and near misses at plants across the country and world, likely many not reported and/or the risk grossly underreported, as was the initial case with Three Mile Island, Fukushima, and Chernobyl.

Nuclear power is an amazing technological advancement, but a sane person should question the risk vs reward factor when it comes to larger facilities like nuclear power plants.

Well, it’s not even those so much IMO, it’s the numerous other close calls that few people know about. I’m not saying there won’t be stuff that is impossible to plan for, just that mitigating it’s down to a non-event takes a lot…of money especially. There was a plant that just closed down because natural gas in the area basically put it out of business. The reason was the cost required to make the nuclear plant “run”…

[Higgs Boson]

Originally Posted by XutvJet

Don't forget about 3 Mile Island. Sure there are many redundancies and safeguards designed into nuclear power plants, BUT in the event of a catastrophe, the result could mass death and destruction. 3 Mile Island was likely minutes away from a full meltdown and possible large explosion which could have killed thousands (possibly hundreds thousands over time) and rendered a massive area surrounding the plant uninhabitable, think Chernobyl, but on an even larger scale. It took 15 years and nearly $1B to cleanup Three Mile Island.

We've had three major nuclear disasters in 43 years. That's not a great track record for a system that is supposed to be "safe", full of redundancies, and ran by high qualified personnel. There are countless small accidents and near misses at plants across the country and world, likely many not reported and/or the risk grossly underreported, as was the initial case with Three Mile Island, Fukushima, and Chernobyl.

Nuclear power is an amazing technological advancement, but a sane person should question the risk vs reward factor when it comes to larger facilities like nuclear power plants.

Hey high five! You and me are the only two people on Earth that haven't canceled our netflix subscriptions!

But truly, the 70s (and 80s russia) you took readings from squiggly lines on paper and made adjustments by pulling a rope and spanking the hamsters. Nothing is 100% ever in life but everything is better today than it was 40 years ago w regard to safety and technology. Contruction on Fukushima began in 1967 so even that choice location was from the bone-age.

Have to keep moving forward.

[StradaRedlands]

[RM7]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

That's right. Numerous close calls. Not like energy companies don't need to report incidents to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission... No one goes to jail.... Could be HUNDREDS of unreported incidents... Scary!

Example:

CLOSE CALL AT DAVIS-BESSE
In 2002, during a routine shutdown for refueling and safety inspections, plant operators at the Davis-Besse plant noticed corrosion and cracking on the head of the reactor. Refueling shutdowns are standard. Engineers power down the reactor typically every 12–18 months, remove some of the used fuel, and replace it with fresh fuel. The 2002 inspection revealed damage in a part of the mechanism that lowers control rods into the reactor core—the device that puts the brakes on the chain reaction and regulates the reactor temperature and power output.


Taken from the corroded head of a nuclear reactor in Ohio, this nickel-based alloy failed because microscopic cracks spread along the boundaries between crystallites. After removing some of the upper components to take a look below them, the inspectors discovered boric acid deposits and “a football-sized hole in the reactor head,” according to Bogdan Alexandreanu of Argonne National Laboratory, an expert in corrosion who analyzed pieces of the damaged head.

Alexandreanu explains that because boron efficiently captures neutrons, engineers commonly add minute concentrations (parts-per-million levels) of boric acid to the coolant water to help control the fission rate. They balance the pH by adding lithium hydroxide.

SCC had caused tiny cracks to form in a part of the control-rod mechanism where welding joined various alloys, including a nickel-chromium-iron material known as alloy 600. The cracks allowed hot borated water to slowly escape from the interior of the reactor through that site. As the leaked water pooled and evaporated, the concentration of boric acid increased, gradually forming a corrosive solution that ate through much of the thickness of the reactor head, which was not made of alloy 600. The progressing corrosion did not penetrate a lower layer, made of yet another alloy, which held the pressurized coolant in check, averting possible disaster.

Plant operators replaced the damaged head with a very similar one that happened to be available from a canceled power-plant construction job. In 2010, that head also failed in much the same way as the first replacement: at weld sites containing alloy 600.

The failures implicated the Ni-Cr-Fe alloy as highly susceptible to SCC. But why did these alloy 600 parts fail while so many others—made of the same material—held up just fine? The short answer is that the sheets of alloy 600 used to make the failed Davis-Besse reactor head parts were faulty.

I'm not "against" nuclear, I'm just aware the cost to benefit ratio can be impractical. It's not some free-energy solution that pays out with cheap electricity/energy, it takes an immense amount of resources at every level. It is very impractical in some cases. It makes sense in others. It's absolutely not as simple as "we need more power, therefore we need nuclear".

[ga9213]

Whoa man. Picked this up yesterday and damn it's nice.

[JPSurratt2005]

Originally Posted by ga9213

Whoa man. Picked this up yesterday and damn it's nice.

That looks great in white! Is that the GTLine e-AWD?


I picked up a Sorento PHEV back in October but would have ordered an EV6 if I didn't need a 3rd row for the family. I've owned two Hyundais in the past and this is my first Kia. The build quality is fantastic. The only thing I'm even remotely irked about is how the door handles feel. They just dont have any meat to them. They feel sturdy but weak at the same time.

I'd love to have an all electric, and that may be my next purchase. For now I'll supplement my gas with as much electricity as I can. I'm spending about $4.35 a week on electricity and getting 6 weeks on a tank of fuel. My best tank has been 96mpg, so well worth it so far.

[ga9213]

Originally Posted by JPSurratt2005

That looks great in white! Is that the GTLine e-AWD?


I picked up a Sorento PHEV back in October but would have ordered an EV6 if I didn't need a 3rd row for the family. I've owned two Hyundais in the past and this is my first Kia. The build quality is fantastic. The only thing I'm even remotely irked about is how the door handles feel. They just dont have any meat to them. They feel sturdy but weak at the same time.

I'd love to have an all electric, and that may be my next purchase. For now I'll supplement my gas with as much electricity as I can. I'm spending about $4.35 a week on electricity and getting 6 weeks on a tank of fuel. My best tank has been 96mpg, so well worth it so far.

Yeah on the model.

And agreed on the door handles. Some creaking and just feels like I'll break em if I pull too hard. Someone send a memo to the OEMs that not EVERYTHING needs a redesign. Sigh.

But otherwise, some minor quirks and small build quality problems but nothing major. Going to give it some time and decide if I want to upgrade an order the actual GT when ordering banks open. I'm kinda leaning towards that as this suspension is a bit soft for my tastes.

[RM7]

Originally Posted by ga9213

Whoa man. Picked this up yesterday and damn it's nice.

I'm seeing quite a few of these around...in AK no less. They look good in person.

[M3WC]

Originally Posted by ga9213

Whoa man. Picked this up yesterday and damn it's nice.

Nice, that thing is a beast at dc fast charging. Only Taycan can charge faster. Peak 230kw, holds above 200kw past 50%.

[M-technik-3]

Originally Posted by M3WC

Nice, that thing is a beast at dc fast charging. Only Taycan can charge faster. Peak 230kw, holds above 200kw past 50%.

Wait till winter.

[BGM-M3COMP]

Originally Posted by ga9213

Whoa man. Picked this up yesterday and damn it's nice.

Nice!!!!

Dude those cars are so nice. I'm jealous of that interior compared to my model 3

[ga9213]

Originally Posted by RM7

I'm seeing quite a few of these around...in AK no less. They look good in person.

yeah that booty takes some getting used to....but in person it does look better.

So far I'm pretty impressed with it. It's not nearly as fast as my Mach-E GT but this is a place holder for me as the dealer also has me first on the list for an EV6 GT when ordering banks open.

Efficiency wise it's SIGNIFICANTLY better than the Mustang...Hyunda/Kia did their homework with this platform.

[M3WC]

Originally Posted by ga9213

yeah that booty takes some getting used to....but in person it does look better.

So far I'm pretty impressed with it. It's not nearly as fast as my Mach-E GT but this is a place holder for me as the dealer also has me first on the list for an EV6 GT when ordering banks open.

Efficiency wise it's SIGNIFICANTLY better than the Mustang...Hyunda/Kia did their homework with this platform.

One of the best EV platforms out there period.

[AlexFL]

The EV6 GT debuts in four days at the Goodwood Festival. Really looking forward to it. Might instantly become the best EV on the market.

[Donatello.]

Taycan? Sure. The rest? Nah

[G30M]

Originally Posted by Donatello.

Taycan? Sure. The rest? Nah

Taycan? nah - get any of the 718s, drives better.

iX 50? sure!

[M3WC]

Originally Posted by G80M4

Taycan? nah - get any of the 718s, drives better.

iX 50? sure!

Taycan is probably the best EV platform out there. Nothing comes close to it's max dc fast charging rate of 270kw. It out performs its EPA range rating by 60%. Edmunds got 323miles with a 4S. Even the EV6 and Ioniq 5 charges faster than the iX.

[G30M]

wow 60% longer range? hmm need to read up on that...

[heavyD^2]

Fast charging speed to me is not overly high on the list of pros as it's something that should be don't only when absolutely necessary as it degrades the battery. Even Kia recommends to do it sparingly.

Frequent use of DC Fast Charging can negatively impact battery performance and durability, and Kia recommends minimizing use of DC Fast Charging.

[ga9213]

Originally Posted by heavyD^2

Fast charging speed to me is not overly high on the list of pros as it's something that should be don't only when absolutely necessary as it degrades the battery. Even Kia recommends to do it sparingly.

Exactly....unless I'm road tripping it, I am not DCFCing. I have had my mustang since last october and have yet to charge anywhere but the garage. Don't need to.

If I'm going to take a VERY long road trip, I'll just rent a car....I would with an ICE to so I don't have to deal with the risks of being very far from home and having vehicle trouble and/or an accident.

Nothing worse than the headache of having to remotely address and long term repair and/or tow it back with an expensive bill. Not worth it...IMO.

[Donatello.]

Originally Posted by ga9213

If I'm going to take a VERY long road trip, I'll just rent a car....I would with an ICE to so I don't have to deal with the risks of being very far from home and having vehicle trouble and/or an accident..

Why own anything then? Just rent 100% of the time.

Most accidents happen close to home or places we always go...

[ga9213]

Originally Posted by Donatello.

Why own anything then? Just rent 100% of the time.

Most accidents happen close to home or places we always go...

Well...at 100+ dollars a day non corporate rate that really doesn't make a lot of economical sense, does it?

Kind of a silly argument to make there, IMO.

You're right, they do mostly happen close to home...but that doesn't mean that can't happen when you're far from home. And having to navigate those challenges from a distance are a royal pain in the ass.

My wife is in insurance and has had to coordinate with folks that have had this happen so I hear the horror stories. It's worth the money in the short term to avoid that for me.

But these are my own choices and my own prerogatives. It doesn't have to be yours. I'll share it though in the event someone has these concerns themselves and haven't considered it.

Buy for the 90% use case. Find a workaround for the rest. That's why I don't have a truck. When I need one, I can go rent one for 20 bucks at home depot.