It’s past time to go Nuclear

[SavannahMann]

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.

 

[Indeependent]

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.

Do you think the politicians who would allow nuclear would be reelected?

 

[Old Rocks]

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.

 

[westwall]

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.

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.

 

[Indeependent]

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.

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.

How large are nuclear plants and who determines where they are built?
How many homes and business can be served by one?

 

[JGalt]

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.

Same thing with Chernobyl. Never let the Russians or Japanese play with something we invented. We need to show 'em how it's done.

 

[Shrimpbox]

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?

 

[SavannahMann]

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.

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.

 

[SavannahMann]

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.

Do you think the politicians who would allow nuclear would be reelected?

They have been in Georgia where we are building a Nuclear Power Plant.

 

[SavannahMann]

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?

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?

 

[Wyatt earp]

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.

Do you think the politicians who would allow nuclear would be reelected?

They have been in Georgia where we are building a Nuclear Power Plant.

You have a link? They were building a new one in south Carolina but stoped building it.

 

[SavannahMann]

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.

Do you think the politicians who would allow nuclear would be reelected?

They have been in Georgia where we are building a Nuclear Power Plant.

You have a link? They were building a new one in south Carolina but stoped building it.

$25 billion nuclear projects at Georgia's troubled Plant Vogtle to continue

 

[westwall]

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.

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.

How large are nuclear plants and who determines where they are built?
How many homes and business can be served by one?

Look up Small Modular Reactors. Here is the wiki page but I am only presenting it as a stop gap.

Small modular reactor - Wikipedia

 

[Old Rocks]

And how many are in use, or generating electricity right now? Sounds like unicorn farts to me.

In the meantime, the combination of wind and solar with grid scale storage is already being used, and generating power.

 

[SavannahMann]

And how many are in use, or generating electricity right now? Sounds like unicorn farts to me.

In the meantime, the combination of wind and solar with grid scale storage is already being used, and generating power.

Odd isn’t it that it seems to be such a small portion of our electrical production.

Electricity in the United States - Energy Explained, Your Guide To Understanding Energy - Energy Information Administration

I know. We can put huge solar collectors in orbit and they can beam the energy to the planet using microwave or something.

Nah. Nuclear works better.

 

[westwall]

And how many are in use, or generating electricity right now? Sounds like unicorn farts to me.

In the meantime, the combination of wind and solar with grid scale storage is already being used, and generating power.

None, because idiots and fools, wish to push centuries old technology down our throats and claim it to be "new". The technology is tested, and the systems work exceptionally well, and efficiently.

 

[Old Rocks]

Show me links to where anyone has one of those mini-nukes up and running.

 

[westwall]

Show me links to where anyone has one of those mini-nukes up and running.

Ummmm, you blind, bro? See where I stated NONE. And then the reason?

 

[Old Rocks]

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

 

[Viacheslav]

And how many are in use, or generating electricity right now? Sounds like unicorn farts to me.
In the meantime, the combination of wind and solar with grid scale storage is already being used, and generating power.

If you want to have a reliable power system in case wind and solar energy can "disappear", you can't do without traditional sources of energy, and nuclear power is very suitable for this.