It’s past time to go Nuclear

[DGS49]

A few points of reference.

Since the dawn of commercial nuclear power in the U.S. In 1953, there has not been a single radiation - related death. Not a single case of cancer. Not even a serious case of radiation sickness. Not one.

What is erroneously referred to as "nuclear waste" and gives greenies nightmares is actually spent fuel, which can be reprocessed and used again, essentially forever. The decision not to use this proven technology was political.

Small modular reactors are proven technology, but have not been proven commercially yet, but contracts have been awarded, and it's just a question of a year or two.

Permitting the plants in Georgia and South carolina, if done expeditiously would have taken in the neighborhood of 15 years. The N R C recently modernized the process, expediting the operating permit process, and "shortening" the time frame to about ten years. (Have you ever seen what happens to a construction budget with years of delays, and late design changes to satisfy bureaucratic whims?)

The advent of massive amounts of cheap natural gas has killed Nuke, from an economic standpoint. But if zero-discharge, clean power is the objective, Nuke kicks ass. If we can "afford" $25B for a wall, we can surely subsidize nuclear power and scale back regulations to a rational level, which would dramatically reduce the cost.

 

[Tijn Von Ingersleben]

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.

The problem is government and the electorate. Even a knowledgeable politician will not touch this political third rail.
Never overestimate the education level of your fellow citizen. Most people function on snippets of pretzel logic.

 

[Wyatt earp]

In other words, nobody anywhere are building these miracle machines.

Because of tree huggers like you...

 

[Old Rocks]

We have ponds with five times the amount of spent rods in them that they were designed for. You really think that is a safe situation? Nuclear is dirty, in that we are not taking proper care of the waste. Nuclear is also very spendy. And nuclear requires large amounts of water. Solar and wind have none of these disadvantages. And they are cheaper, by the kw produced, than coal, gas, or nuclear.

 

[flacaltenn]

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.

You are on the same page as some of the world's premier environmentalists. INCLUDING James Hansen. The GodFather of GWarming. It's obvious. Only reason we don't is rejection of science by the eco-nauts. Could tear down the dams and coal plants. Free the salmon, be energy independent for longer.

It's just that the greens are MORE afraid of nuclear -- than they are of GWarming or pollution..

 

[flacaltenn]

We have ponds with five times the amount of spent rods in them that they were designed for. You really think that is a safe situation? Nuclear is dirty, in that we are not taking proper care of the waste. Nuclear is also very spendy. And nuclear requires large amounts of water. Solar and wind have none of these disadvantages. And they are cheaper, by the kw produced, than coal, gas, or nuclear.

0.7 ounces of waste per household per year. You CANNOT beat that. And if the govt had kept their promise, that spent fuel would have a safe repository.. OR recycled and re-used like elsewhere in the world. We've been hijacked by greeny weenies that are afraid of their shadows. That's the issue...

 

[Viacheslav]

And they are cheaper, by the kw produced, than coal, gas, or nuclear.

I'm not sure about nuclear, at the moment neither solar energy nor wind energy can't be cheaper than nuclear energy because at least solar energy and wind do not work "around the clock" and you are forced to use traditional energy. And I have special doubts about wind power, based on the numerous news about the bankruptcy of "wind power stations".

 

[fncceo]

Going nuclear has been very effective in the past.

 

[Old Rocks]

And they are cheaper, by the kw produced, than coal, gas, or nuclear.

I'm not sure about nuclear, at the moment neither solar energy nor wind energy can't be cheaper than nuclear energy because at least solar energy and wind do not work "around the clock" and you are forced to use traditional energy. And I have special doubts about wind power, based on the numerous news about the bankruptcy of "wind power stations".

With grid scale storage, wind and solar are 24/7.

 

[SavannahMann]

And they are cheaper, by the kw produced, than coal, gas, or nuclear.

I'm not sure about nuclear, at the moment neither solar energy nor wind energy can't be cheaper than nuclear energy because at least solar energy and wind do not work "around the clock" and you are forced to use traditional energy. And I have special doubts about wind power, based on the numerous news about the bankruptcy of "wind power stations".

With grid scale storage, wind and solar are 24/7.

Ok, just how big of a battery will we need? Which state will you sacrifice to this fantasy?

Batteries Need to Get Big—Like, Enormous—for Solar Power to Shine

Perhaps Jack saw something on the cart next to the beanstalk seeds.

 

[Viacheslav]

With grid scale storage, wind and solar are 24/7.

And with grid scale storage also you cann't guarantee the supply of energy 24/7, because of weather, climatic cataclysms, hurricanes and so on. And I think that grid storage for solar energy will be very costly compared to nuclear energy, a closed nuclear fuel cycle is our near energy future If the "green lobbyists" don't intervene and thermonuclear power our distant future.