It’s past time to go Nuclear

Discussion in 'Energy' started by SavannahMann, Jan 7, 2018.

  1. SavannahMann
    Offline

    SavannahMann Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2016
    Messages:
    3,102
    Thanks Received:
    569
    Trophy Points:
    195
    Ratings:
    +2,316
    Many people who have read me before know I am an unapologetic and full throated advocate for Nuclear Power. Before we begin, let’s get serious. Fukushima and Three Mile Island and all that. Those were early technology designs. They were the nuclear power equivalent of the 1934 Ford Roadster. Not bad for an early effort, but certainly not state of the art.

    Fukushima and other similar reactors were designed in the era when Slide Rules were the calculator for Engineers. When pencils and paper were used to do the math. When modeling technology consisted of people sitting around and thinking, imagining what would happen. It was not the same by any stretch of the imagination to what is happening today.

    First, the modern car is similar in only the most basic means to the 1934 Ford we mentioned above. It has wheels, and an internal combustion engine. It has a transmission, and the other things that make a car go.

    Today, those engines are smaller, more powerful, and engineered to last a decade, or more. You don’t need to change the points or plugs every couple months. You don’t need to adjust the valves, or dial in the carburetor. The modern engine is engineered using computers, and advanced metallurgical standards. Like the airplane of the same era, you can see the similarities but it is nothing like that.

    Modern designs of Nuclear Power are able to handle the kind of accident that was unimaginable when they designed Fukushima. One I saw on a NOVA program was able to keep running for 72 hours without power to run any pumps. If Fukushima had been able to go 72 hours, the accident would never have happened. It would have shut down safely. It did not have that time. It could not buy the time for all the gold in the world. It would be as if you expected that 1934 Ford Roadster to pass modern safety standards. It could not do it. Crumple zones were unheard of. It didn’t even have safety belts, much less three point harnesses and airbags. Any accident was likely to be fatal, and the people of the era believed that you were safer if you could be thrown clear of the accident, an illusion that hampered the development of safety belts I might add.

    Nuclear power can meet the needs of the planet today. It can do so without producing any Greenhouse Gasses. It can do so and actually consume the depleated uranium that is left over from the enrichment of old fuels. Modern reactors do not need the premium gas so to speak. Modern reactors would not need to be refueled for sixty years. In other words, after you start it up, minimal maintainance and all that would be all that is needed for six decades. Power for all, with no greenhouse gases, for sixty years.

    There is room for Solar, and wind, but Nuclear is the way to go if you really want to end Global Warming. But it is a path that has been sewn with traps. Those traps are ignorance, and fear.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  2. Indeependent
    Offline

    Indeependent Platinum Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2013
    Messages:
    31,350
    Thanks Received:
    2,728
    Trophy Points:
    1,115
    Ratings:
    +16,313
    Do you think the politicians who would allow nuclear would be reelected?
     
  3. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    58,752
    Thanks Received:
    7,122
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +18,618
    The hell with nuclear. Too expensive, too dirty. Both solar and wind are far cheaper than fossil fuels or nuclear. With grid scale storage, that is the way to go. And those projects get done on time and at or under budget, unlike every nuclear project.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  4. westwall
    Offline

    westwall Diamond Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    56,267
    Thanks Received:
    12,116
    Trophy Points:
    2,180
    Location:
    Nevada
    Ratings:
    +41,030



    A laughable assertion. Modern nuke designs are safe, and 24/7. Your wind and solar are not. They require a fossil fuel plant to always be online to take up the slack that they are always creating. Thus there is NO net decrease in pollution. You are a delusional fool.
     
    • Agree Agree x 4
    • Winner Winner x 3
    • Funny Funny x 1
  5. Indeependent
    Offline

    Indeependent Platinum Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2013
    Messages:
    31,350
    Thanks Received:
    2,728
    Trophy Points:
    1,115
    Ratings:
    +16,313
    How large are nuclear plants and who determines where they are built?
    How many homes and business can be served by one?
     
  6. JGalt
    Offline

    JGalt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2011
    Messages:
    13,249
    Thanks Received:
    2,841
    Trophy Points:
    380
    Location:
    North
    Ratings:
    +18,979
    Same thing with Chernobyl. Never let the Russians or Japanese play with something we invented. We need to show 'em how it's done.
     
  7. Shrimpbox
    Offline

    Shrimpbox Gold Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,860
    Thanks Received:
    676
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Location:
    Carrabelle, fl. 60 miles s of tallahassee
    Ratings:
    +2,593
    What about small nuclear plants that can be easily reproduceded like manufactured housing. I have heard they are almost 100% safe. Are they in our future?
     
  8. SavannahMann
    Offline

    SavannahMann Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2016
    Messages:
    3,102
    Thanks Received:
    569
    Trophy Points:
    195
    Ratings:
    +2,316
    According to Popular Science Jan/Feb 2018 issue, this is the energy of one house for one day.

    It would take 450 square feet of solar panels to power one house. That is one house, for one day, providing there is sufficient sunlight. A cloudy day would double, or triple that requirement, for one house, for one day. It takes 54 seconds of wind on a 2 megawatt wind turbine to provide the same electricity. Providing there is sufficient wind.

    24,000 gallons of water for a hydroelectric dam to power one house, for one day.

    .02 ounces of uranium to produce one days electricity. Less than a paper clip.

    The Solar Panels will need replacement within 20 years. The wind turbine will need replacement after about the same time period.

    The company funded by Bill Gates uses depleated uranium, some of that dirty crap you are complaining about, to produce the energy I mentioned above, for sixty years. According to them, the depleated uranium currently stored would provide the energy requirements of the nation for 750 years.
    TerraPower
    So we get rid of the dirty crap you are complaining about, and have an energy source that is not dependent upon weather, for up to seven centuries off of existing stockpiles of waste materials.

    There may be a downside, but I’m not seeing it. Readily available energy for decades, reduction of existing stockpiles of radioactive waste, and no greenhouse gases.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  9. SavannahMann
    Offline

    SavannahMann Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2016
    Messages:
    3,102
    Thanks Received:
    569
    Trophy Points:
    195
    Ratings:
    +2,316
    They have been in Georgia where we are building a Nuclear Power Plant.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  10. SavannahMann
    Offline

    SavannahMann Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2016
    Messages:
    3,102
    Thanks Received:
    569
    Trophy Points:
    195
    Ratings:
    +2,316
    One would hope. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is examining those right now. For those who don’t know what we’re talking about, the NOVA episode is posted here.



    One of the designs is simple, and easy. Small reactors, and instead of a large containment chamber, lower the entire reactor, along with others, into a huge pool. This way, if you lose coolant power, the reactor scrams, and the large pool absorbs the heat until it is then shutdown cold.

    It is one of several new designs, and all of them have inherent safety that just was not possible when the current generation of reactors was being designed.

    We did not walk away from automobiles because the Model T was not safe, or reliable. We did not walk away from aircraft because the first ones were death traps.

    Why would we walk away from nuclear because the first ones were not everything they should be?
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Funny and Agree!! Funny and Agree!! x 1

Share This Page

Search tags for this page

azs