Practical Energy Discussion: Bring Back Nuclear To Abate Climate Change

[Shrimpbox]

New safer technologies are out there, including ones that use spent fuel rods for power. Nation could focus on a nuclear program similar to Eisenhower’s Interstate Highway System. The environmental impact of solar and wind is finally being considered. Energy density is the new buzzword. Listen to what a committed environmentalist says about our energy policy.

 

[Shrimpbox]

Had They Bet On Nuclear, Not Renewables, Germany & California Would Already Have 100% Clean Power

 

[william the wie]

That is simply good sense.

 

[candycorn]

I completely agree. The US Navy has had nuclear powered vessels for about 6 decades now and very few accidents have resulted. These boats go under the Arctic ice cap, through 30 foot seas, operate 24/7 in blasting heat, bitter cold, high winds, etc…

I would feel most comfortable if we were to license nuclear plants with one caveat:

You guys from PG&E, ConEd or NRG can charge whatever you want for the power, your plant will be operated by US Navy personnel. You won’t have employees, you won’t have strikes, you won’t have a health plan to administer or anything like that. You pay the DoD what you would be paying your staff and we supply the crew.

I’m sure that won’t ever happen but there should be a zero-bullshit-tolerance policy if we’re going to have private industry running these places.

 

[Dekster]

I am fine with nuclear, though I would rather see more money put into coming up with a better grid option to make solar more practical and cheaper for end consumers to generate their own. Sort of a plug and play version of solar.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

We'd be better off investing a trillion dollars in fusion energy research and/or the Casimir Effect research than seven trillion or more on the New Green Deal.

*****SMILE*****

 

[Cassandro]

Nuclear power makes way too much sense for Demwits to support it. They would much rather use it as a scare tactic to influence ignorant voters.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Nuclear power is a dead issue. When San Onofre was shut down it was working perfectly with no issues.

 

[Crepitus]

New safer technologies are out there, including ones that use spent fuel rods for power. Nation could focus on a nuclear program similar to Eisenhower’s Interstate Highway System. The environmental impact of solar and wind is finally being considered. Energy density is the new buzzword. Listen to what a committed environmentalist says about our energy policy.

The environmental impact of both wind and solar are negligible.

I am fine with nuclear power by the way. Go for.it.

 

[daveman]

I am fine with nuclear, though I would rather see more money put into coming up with a better grid option to make solar more practical and cheaper for end consumers to generate their own. Sort of a plug and play version of solar.

What does the grid need done to it to better enable people to generate their own solar?

 

[Dekster]

I am fine with nuclear, though I would rather see more money put into coming up with a better grid option to make solar more practical and cheaper for end consumers to generate their own. Sort of a plug and play version of solar.

What does the grid need done to it to better enable people to generate their own solar?

Probably nothing in your mind. Solar is magic.

In reality, the grid is designed to distribute power from central generators to behind the meter consumption. It is not designed for behind the meter generation being sent back toward the current generators. Germany has a horrible problem shedding load on sunny, windy days--they have to pay someone to take the electricity off their grid to keep it from melting down. California's grid is already having related issues because of power fluctuations. The current grid is designed to pair generation with consumption in real time. There isn't any meaningful storage system as would be needed either behind the meter or in local microgrids to take the excess loads off in real time. In addition, the thing that everybody who is thinks solar is the magic bullet ignore is that standby power gets increasingly more expensive per kilowatt the more alternative energy is being put on the grid. It is part of the reason Germany has some of the most expensive electricity in the world. Edge generation can mitigate the need for new power generators, but it cannot totally replace the need for centralized 24/7/365 producers.

 

[elektra]

We can not change the climate. No way, no how. Nuclear is a great source of power. Solar and Wind are for fools.

 

[elektra]

Nuclear power is a dead issue. When San Onofre was shut down it was working perfectly with no issues.

San Onofre had poorly designed replacement steam generators. It was not functioning perfectly. It did fail. I know, I inspected the steam generators. But, San onofre should of been allowed to continue operation. It is more than reasonable to assume San onofre could of operated at 90% of capacity. Democrat politicians shut down San onofre. Shutting down nuclear automatically elevates solar and wind into a higher percentage of the power mix.

 

[elektra]

I completely agree. The US Navy has had nuclear powered vessels for about 6 decades now and very few accidents have resulted. These boats go under the Arctic ice cap, through 30 foot seas, operate 24/7 in blasting heat, bitter cold, high winds, etc…

I would feel most comfortable if we were to license nuclear plants with one caveat:

You guys from PG&E, ConEd or NRG can charge whatever you want for the power, your plant will be operated by US Navy personnel. You won’t have employees, you won’t have strikes, you won’t have a health plan to administer or anything like that. You pay the DoD what you would be paying your staff and we supply the crew.

I’m sure that won’t ever happen but there should be a zero-bullshit-tolerance policy if we’re going to have private industry running these places.

The navy? Our nukes run great without the navy. The navy would fumble trying to operate something as large as a commercial nuclear power plant. The navy has zero experience with large scale nukes

 

[candycorn]

I completely agree. The US Navy has had nuclear powered vessels for about 6 decades now and very few accidents have resulted. These boats go under the Arctic ice cap, through 30 foot seas, operate 24/7 in blasting heat, bitter cold, high winds, etc…

I would feel most comfortable if we were to license nuclear plants with one caveat:

You guys from PG&E, ConEd or NRG can charge whatever you want for the power, your plant will be operated by US Navy personnel. You won’t have employees, you won’t have strikes, you won’t have a health plan to administer or anything like that. You pay the DoD what you would be paying your staff and we supply the crew.

I’m sure that won’t ever happen but there should be a zero-bullshit-tolerance policy if we’re going to have private industry running these places.

The navy? Our nukes run great without the navy. The navy would fumble trying to operate something as large as a commercial nuclear power plant. The navy has zero experience with large scale nukes

Private industry has a spotty safety record at best.

 

[elektra]

Private industry has a spotty safety record at best.

The military record is the same, and worst. The private record is better reported.

 

[candycorn]

Private industry has a spotty safety record at best.

The military record is the same, and worst. The private record is better reported.

Doubtful given the number of vessels, the conditions the US Navy vessels operate in and the capabilities of the vessels supported by the reactors. You implement that sort of command in control by rule across the board…I’m in.

 

[elektra]

Private industry has a spotty safety record at best.

The military record is the same, and worst. The private record is better reported.

Doubtful given the number of vessels, the conditions the US Navy vessels operate in and the capabilities of the vessels supported by the reactors. You implement that sort of command in control by rule across the board…I’m in.

Doubtful? You can not say with certainty.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I completely agree. The US Navy has had nuclear powered vessels for about 6 decades now and very few accidents have resulted. These boats go under the Arctic ice cap, through 30 foot seas, operate 24/7 in blasting heat, bitter cold, high winds, etc…

I would feel most comfortable if we were to license nuclear plants with one caveat:

You guys from PG&E, ConEd or NRG can charge whatever you want for the power, your plant will be operated by US Navy personnel. You won’t have employees, you won’t have strikes, you won’t have a health plan to administer or anything like that. You pay the DoD what you would be paying your staff and we supply the crew.

I’m sure that won’t ever happen but there should be a zero-bullshit-tolerance policy if we’re going to have private industry running these places.

The navy? Our nukes run great without the navy. The navy would fumble trying to operate something as large as a commercial nuclear power plant. The navy has zero experience with large scale nukes

Private industry has a spotty safety record at best.

How many deaths in the US civilian nuclear power industry?

 

[elektra]

How many deaths in the US civilian nuclear power industry?

0, relating to the nuclear reactor, radiation, or an event triggered by the reactor.