I think we need to consider more nuclear energy

[Craig234]

One of the few issues I think Democrats have made mistakes on is pretty broad opposition for a long time to nuclear energy. Planning to make this post I checked and found that in 2020, Democrats endorsed nuclear energy in the platform for the first time since 1972.

Humanity is currently heading to a destroyed planet. That's one option.

What are the options?

- Slash the human population - not planned.

- Slash the energy used, return to a low-energy use society. Essentially impossible to happen.

- Meet the energy needs just by increasing 'nice' renewable energy, water, solar, water, apparently not possible.

- Invent amazing new technology that mitigates the harm from harmful energy sources. There are some efforts here, but no reason to think it will be a solution.

No, there seem compelling reasons to consider more nuclear power, including the new Thorium reactors, and no compelling reasons not to. Unless they find a reason otherwise, I think progressives should lead the way on it.

 

[NatMorton]

One of the few issues I think Democrats have made mistakes on is pretty broad opposition for a long time to nuclear energy. Planning to make this post I checked and found that in 2020, Democrats endorsed nuclear energy in the platform for the first time since 1972.

Humanity is currently heading to a destroyed planet. That's one option.

What are the options?

- Slash the human population - not planned.

- Slash the energy used, return to a low-energy use society. Essentially impossible to happen.

- Meet the energy needs just by increasing 'nice' renewable energy, water, solar, water, apparently not possible.

- Invent amazing new technology that mitigates the harm from harmful energy sources. There are some efforts here, but no reason to think it will be a solution.

No, there seem compelling reasons to consider more nuclear power, including the new Thorium reactors, and no compelling reasons not to. Unless they find a reason otherwise, I think progressives should lead the way on it.

At last, common ground. You are absolutely correct.

 

[longview]

One of the few issues I think Democrats have made mistakes on is pretty broad opposition for a long time to nuclear energy. Planning to make this post I checked and found that in 2020, Democrats endorsed nuclear energy in the platform for the first time since 1972.

Humanity is currently heading to a destroyed planet. That's one option.

What are the options?

- Slash the human population - not planned.

- Slash the energy used, return to a low-energy use society. Essentially impossible to happen.

- Meet the energy needs just by increasing 'nice' renewable energy, water, solar, water, apparently not possible.

- Invent amazing new technology that mitigates the harm from harmful energy sources. There are some efforts here, but no reason to think it will be a solution.

No, there seem compelling reasons to consider more nuclear power, including the new Thorium reactors, and no compelling reasons not to. Unless they find a reason otherwise, I think progressives should lead the way on it.

I agree, there is almost no way to get from where we are, to where we need to be related to energy without nuclear.
It might be possible, but would make our path much more difficult.

 

[Irredentist]

One of the few issues I think Democrats have made mistakes on is pretty broad opposition for a long time to nuclear energy. Planning to make this post I checked and found that in 2020, Democrats endorsed nuclear energy in the platform for the first time since 1972.

Humanity is currently heading to a destroyed planet. That's one option.

What are the options?

- Slash the human population - not planned.

- Slash the energy used, return to a low-energy use society. Essentially impossible to happen.

- Meet the energy needs just by increasing 'nice' renewable energy, water, solar, water, apparently not possible.

- Invent amazing new technology that mitigates the harm from harmful energy sources. There are some efforts here, but no reason to think it will be a solution.

No, there seem compelling reasons to consider more nuclear power, including the new Thorium reactors, and no compelling reasons not to. Unless they find a reason otherwise, I think progressives should lead the way on it.

The primary issue with using nuclear power is that at present, we have no safe long term storage options for the nuclear waste generated by power plants. There is not a single site in the US capable of securely containing this material indefinitely, and nuclear waste is incredibly toxic both to humans and to the environment. Until we find or build such a facility, large scale use of nuclear power to replace fossil fuels is simply not an option.

 

[Irredentist]

At last, common ground. You are absolutely correct.

How do you propose that we deal with all of the toxic waste material that will be generated by large scale use of nuclear power?

 

[longview]

The primary issue with using nuclear power is that at present, we have no safe long term storage options for the nuclear waste generated by power plants. There is not a single site in the US capable of securely containing this material indefinitely, and nuclear waste is incredibly toxic both to humans and to the environment. Until we find or build such a facility, large scale use of nuclear power to replace fossil fuels is simply not an option.

This is simply not true, we choose not to reprocess nuclear waste.
We also choose a nuclear process because it produced more nuclear waste(That could be processed into weapons grade material).
Other nuclear processes, produce less waste, and some even use existing waste.
Office of Nuclear Energy 5 Fast Facts about Spent Nuclear Fuel

5. Used fuel can be recycled​

That’s right!

Used nuclear fuel can be recycled to make new fuel and byproducts.

More than 90% of its potential energy still remains in the fuel, even after five years of operation in a reactor.

The United States does not currently recycle used nuclear fuel but foreign countries, such as France, do.

There are also some advanced reactor designs in development that could consume or run on used nuclear fuel in the future.

 

[NatMorton]

How do you propose that we deal with all of the toxic waste material that will be generated by large scale use of nuclear power?

I'd learn from what Europe has done. They have far more post-processing of nuclear waste than do we and thus there plants ultimately produce less waste. If memory serves, ever bit of waste their plants have ever produced in their history of nuclear energy production fits in a single facility in La Hague.

Yes, such a facility is a risk, but I'm told so is climate change. Pick your poison.

 

[Irredentist]

This is simply not true, we choose not to reprocess nuclear waste.
We also choose a nuclear process because it produced more nuclear waste(That could be processed into weapons grade material).
Other nuclear processes, produce less waste, and some even use existing waste.
Office of Nuclear Energy 5 Fast Facts about Spent Nuclear Fuel

Even if you recycle the nuclear fuel, you will still end up with a large amount of nuclear waste in need of long term secure storage, storage which neither the US nor France currently possesses. Until we build such a storage facility, converting the whole country to nuclear power will not be feasible.

 

[Razoo]

You cannot run from nuclear waste because nuclear waste cannot be seen or smelled. The NRC is not a reliable nor transparent group.

I say the choices should be:
wind
solar'
geo thermal
hydro

There is no safe storage of nuke waste and how many want a nuke waste storage facility in their state or backyard?

The earth moves way too much and often to guarantee safe storage of radio active waste.

 

[Irredentist]

I'd learn from what Europe has done. They have far more post-processing of nuclear waste than do we and thus there plants ultimately produce less waste. If memory serves, ever bit of waste their plants have ever produced in their history of nuclear energy production fits in a single facility in La Hague.

Yes, such a facility is a risk, but I'm told so is climate change. Pick your poison.

I'd pick the poison that doesn't have a radioactive half life of several thousand years.

 

[Razoo]

5 Questions to Ask About the CEPP, A Powerful Tool For Clean Energy

If we push, and Congress gives climate change the attention it deserves, the CEPP will be a key tool for tackling climate change.

blog.ucsusa.org

 

[Razoo]

Nuclear Free Campaign - Sierra Club​

https://content.sierraclub.org › team-news › 2019/06
Jun 25, 2019 — One nuclear power plant takes on average about 14-1/2 years to build, ... plutonium or enrich uranium to manufacture nuclear weapons.

Nuclear Free Future | Sierra Club​

https://www.sierraclub.org › michigan › nuclear-free-fu...
Add to that water pollution resuting from mining uranium ore, habitat destruction, costly maintenance, that producing nuclear power adds to climate change ...

Nuclear Free Future Fact Sheets | Sierra Club​

https://www.sierraclub.org › nuclear-free › nuclear-free...
The "Front End" is how a nuclear power plant gets its fuel. Uranium is one of the 4 Horsemen of the Dirty Fuels Apocalypse, along with coal, oil and gas.

Nuclear Free | Sierra Club​

https://www.sierraclub.org › ohio › nuclear-free
This Sierra Club fact sheet describes the major “front end” industries of nuclear power – these are industries beyond uranium mining, milling, and refining. The ...

How Nuclear Power Worsens Climate Change - Sierra Club​

https://www.sierraclub.org › nuclear-free › how-n...

PDF
Nuclear power has a big carbon footprint. At the front end of nuclear power, carbon energy is used for uranium mining, milling, processing, conversion, ...

 

[longview]

Even if you recycle the nuclear fuel, you will still end up with a large amount of nuclear waste in need of long term secure storage, storage which neither the US nor France currently possesses. Until we build such a storage facility, converting the whole country to nuclear power will not be feasible.

Consider what our other options are for replacing the energy we currently get from fossil fuels?

 

[NatMorton]

I'd pick the poison that doesn't have a radioactive half life of several thousand years.

We're told Earth as we know it may not have 100 years.

 

[roguenuke]

The primary issue with using nuclear power is that at present, we have no safe long term storage options for the nuclear waste generated by power plants. There is not a single site in the US capable of securely containing this material indefinitely, and nuclear waste is incredibly toxic both to humans and to the environment. Until we find or build such a facility, large scale use of nuclear power to replace fossil fuels is simply not an option.

It's called recycling. The vast majority of those things that are high level radioactive waste are also things that can be reused, recycled with just a little money and effort. It would cost money, yes. But it is easily able to be accomplished.

Radioactive Waste – Myths and Realities - World Nuclear Association

There are a number of pervasive myths regarding both radiation and radioactive wastes. Some lead to regulation and actions which are counterproductive to human health and safety.

world-nuclear.org

 

[Irredentist]

Consider what our other options are for replacing the energy we currently get from fossil fuels?

There are plenty of options, and all of them come with their own downsides. Nuclear just happens to have a particularly troublesome one.

 

[Visbek]

One of the few issues I think Democrats have made mistakes on is pretty broad opposition for a long time to nuclear energy. Planning to make this post I checked and found that in 2020, Democrats endorsed nuclear energy in the platform for the first time since 1972.

Humanity is currently heading to a destroyed planet. That's one option.

What are the options?

- Slash the human population - not planned.

- Slash the energy used, return to a low-energy use society. Essentially impossible to happen.

- Meet the energy needs just by increasing 'nice' renewable energy, water, solar, water, apparently not possible.

- Invent amazing new technology that mitigates the harm from harmful energy sources. There are some efforts here, but no reason to think it will be a solution.

No, there seem compelling reasons to consider more nuclear power, including the new Thorium reactors, and no compelling reasons not to. Unless they find a reason otherwise, I think progressives should lead the way on it.

One compelling reason not to is the enormous cost. The second is the enormous difficulty. A third is waste products. A fourth is safety.

New reactors are phenomenally expensive. For example, the VC Summer project started to build 2 new reactors. The initial cost was nearly $10 billion. As costs escalated, the reactor manufacturer (Westinghouse) declared bankruptcy, estimated costs soared, and both reactors were canceled -- sticking ratepayers with the bills anyway.

And that was using a new design, the AP1000, which was supposed to be cheaper and safer than current designs.

In terms of waste, nuclear plants are near-zero carbon emissions (which is great) but still have an impact on the environment. Obviously, something has to be done with spent fuel rods, and so far that usually means dumping them in a hole, and who wants that in their backyard? Another issue is that they are almost always water-cooled, and all that heated water has to go somewhere. Enormous water consumption also means that areas experiencing droughts can't (or shouldn't) feasibly build nuclear reactors.

And of course, major accidents are rare but devastating, as we see from both Chernobyl and Fukushima.


As a result, it seems fairly clear that the safer, cleaner and cheaper options are:

• Energy conservation (an effective method that is criminally underutilized)
• Wind generation (whose costs have plummeted in recent years)
• Solar generation (costs down as well)
• Water turbines
• Hydrogen fuels
• Carbon capture (needs a lot of work though)

Seems pretty obvious we're better off developing cleaner, cheaper, more sustainable energy generation than nuclear.

 

[roguenuke]

You cannot run from nuclear waste because nuclear waste cannot be seen or smelled. The NRC is not a reliable nor transparent group.

I say the choices should be:
wind
solar'
geo thermal
hydro

There is no safe storage of nuke waste and how many want a nuke waste storage facility in their state or backyard?

The earth moves way too much and often to guarantee safe storage of radio active waste.

I lived on a nuclear reactor for 4.5 years. I have no issue with safely recycling the "waste", the majority of which is not high level and can be taken care of with little effort. The high level waste can almost all be recycled, reducing it to very little that would actually need to be stored.

No natural sources are completely reliable or stable enough to provide the base amount of energy we need, stability we need.

 

[roguenuke]

One compelling reason not to is the enormous cost. The second is the enormous difficulty. A third is waste products. A fourth is safety.

New reactors are phenomenally expensive. For example, the VC Summer project started to build 2 new reactors. The initial cost was nearly $10 billion. As costs escalated, the reactor manufacturer (Westinghouse) declared bankruptcy, estimated costs soared, and both reactors were canceled -- sticking ratepayers with the bills anyway.

And that was using a new design, the AP1000, which was supposed to be cheaper and safer than current designs.

In terms of waste, nuclear plants are near-zero carbon emissions (which is great) but still have an impact on the environment. Obviously, something has to be done with spent fuel rods, and so far that usually means dumping them in a hole, and who wants that in their backyard? Another issue is that they are almost always water-cooled, and all that heated water has to go somewhere. Enormous water consumption also means that areas experiencing droughts can't (or shouldn't) feasibly build nuclear reactors.

And of course, major accidents are rare but devastating, as we see from both Chernobyl and Fukushima.


As a result, it seems fairly clear that the safer, cleaner and cheaper options are:

• Energy conservation (an effective method that is criminally underutilized)
• Wind generation (whose costs have plummeted in recent years)
• Solar generation (costs down as well)
• Water turbines
• Hydrogen fuels
• Carbon capture (needs a lot of work though)

Seems pretty obvious we're better off developing cleaner, cheaper, more sustainable energy generation than nuclear.

No energy source is safer than nuclear. Even when Chernobyl and Fukushima are taken into account.

 

[Irredentist]

It's called recycling. The vast majority of those things that are high level radioactive waste are also things that can be reused, recycled with just a little money and effort. It would cost money, yes. But it is easily able to be accomplished.

Radioactive Waste – Myths and Realities - World Nuclear Association

There are a number of pervasive myths regarding both radiation and radioactive wastes. Some lead to regulation and actions which are counterproductive to human health and safety.

world-nuclear.org

It could be accomplished, yes, but not easily or cheaply, and you would still end up with the same problem of what to do with the remaining unusable nuclear waste, of which there would be quite a bit, especially if you were to convert the greater part of US energy generation to nuclear power.

 

[noonereal]

I think we need to consider more nuclear energy​

Why is that?

Wind and solar are not dangerous enough for ya.

----------------------

What we need are large scale investment on renewables. R and D . The oceans have enough energy to fill all our energy needs forever. Lets put the money into using all this available energy we ignore.

 

[roguenuke]

It could be accomplished, yes, but not easily or cheaply, and you would still end up with the same problem of what to do with the remaining unusable nuclear waste, of which there would be quite a bit, especially if you were to convert the greater part of US energy generation to nuclear power.

No, there wouldn't be "quite a bit" because you would still use those other things, other sources to take the main load off of nuclear power. I'm for encouraging wind and solar and other natural energy sources wherever feasible, especially on small scale, on every building or structure that it is practical to do so, which would leave nuclear power as simply the backup and base source for when it is needed.

 

[Dans La Lune]

One of the few issues I think Democrats have made mistakes on is pretty broad opposition for a long time to nuclear energy. Planning to make this post I checked and found that in 2020, Democrats endorsed nuclear energy in the platform for the first time since 1972.

Humanity is currently heading to a destroyed planet. That's one option.

What are the options?

- Slash the human population - not planned.

- Slash the energy used, return to a low-energy use society. Essentially impossible to happen.

- Meet the energy needs just by increasing 'nice' renewable energy, water, solar, water, apparently not possible.

- Invent amazing new technology that mitigates the harm from harmful energy sources. There are some efforts here, but no reason to think it will be a solution.

No, there seem compelling reasons to consider more nuclear power, including the new Thorium reactors, and no compelling reasons not to. Unless they find a reason otherwise, I think progressives should lead the way on it.

What's the solution to the nuclear waste issue?

 

[noonereal]

No energy source is safer than nuclear. Even when Chernobyl and Fukushima are taken into account.

LOL

What coal burning power plant has had an accident that left the land unusable for thousands of year?

My friend wants to know.

 

[Craig234]

One compelling reason not to is the enormous cost. The second is the enormous difficulty. A third is waste products. A fourth is safety.

Thanks for the arguments; but I think cost is very justified despite high cost; Difficulty is not a roadblock, the difficulty from our current approach is far more difficult, and I think you overestimate how much other alternatives can help; we need to keep exploring options on waste products, but as a 'least evil' they're almost a non-issue; and I think safety is all but a non-issue going forward. Again, see the Thorium technology.

Seems pretty obvious we're better off developing cleaner, cheaper, more sustainable energy generation than nuclear.

I'd happily agree with you if I thought it was possible. I don't, though of course we should do as much as we can of that.