I think we need to consider more nuclear energy

[Visbek]

Thanks for the arguments; but I think cost is very justified despite high cost

And you are basing that claim on...?

Difficulty is not a roadblock, the difficulty from our current approach is far more difficult....

Difficulty most certainly is a problem, because it's becoming too difficult to build new nuclear plants. In contrast, it's a snap to build out solar, wind, even water turbine generation -- in part because we don't have to go to extreme lengths to ensure that they're safe.

But go ahead, tell us where plant construction should cut corners so that more nuclear plants can get built.

I think you overestimate how much other alternatives can help

I'm not. Globally, wind and solar are already generating as much energy as nuclear. Ramping up energy efficiency and conservation also should not be underestimated.

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.

Thorium produces less nuclear waste -- but certainly not zero waste. I'd add that I've lost count of the number of new technologies that don't live up to the hype.

Speaking of waste, have you read up on the Hanford site lately...?

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.

Not only is it possible, it's actually happening. I think you're just underestimating sustainable energy.

 

[Visbek]

I am not comparing solar/wind here because it is so difficult to measure because of subsidies.

No, it isn't. Lazard regularly issues reports comparing the lifetime cost of different methods of energy generation without subsidies. Wind and several types of solar are cheaper than nuclear.

https://www.lazard.com/media/451419/lazards-levelized-cost-of-energy-version-140.pdf

 

[Mr Person]

The one major problem: NIMBY

Nobody wants spent fuel within a thousand miles, not even if it's buried in the middle of a mountain in the middle of nowhere. Then there's the question of getting and keeping a spot for the plant, and politicians being willing to weather backlash.

 

[bave]

But go ahead, tell us where plant construction should cut corners so that more nuclear plants can get built.


I'm not. Globally, wind and solar are already generating as much energy as nuclear. Ramping up energy efficiency and conservation also should not be underestimated.


Thorium produces less nuclear waste -- but certainly not zero waste. I'd add that I've lost count of the number of new technologies that don't live up to the hype.

Speaking of waste, have you read up on the Hanford site lately...?


Not only is it possible, it's actually happening. I think you're just underestimating sustainable energy.

1) Should build them on federal land/military bases, bypass the states.
2) Efficiency on PVs is going to be hitting more and more barriers as the tech progresses. Do you realistically think we are going to hit 40, 50, or 60%? That's a big reach. Even so, the rate of energy consumption growth is going to dwarf that, especially if we switch to EVs.
3) Conservation is a myth, even among greenies. Almost every greenie lives in an 8k house, usually has 2-3 houses, a boat, a dozen cars etc. People like to "feel" green, but they sure as shit aren't turning down their AC.
4) Hanford was a nuclear weapons material site, no? Not really comparable.

No, it isn't. Lazard regularly issues reports comparing the lifetime cost of different methods of energy generation without subsidies. Wind and several types of solar are cheaper than nuclear.

https://www.lazard.com/media/451419/lazards-levelized-cost-of-energy-version-140.pdf

I am not just talking about government subsidies at the installation point, I am talking about the subsidies throughout the manufacturing process etc. China is massively subsidized their solar industry and the material production is also unsustainable as the materials are becoming more problematic to acquire. The other issue, especially as you scale, is that renewables require huge backup and storage, which then hits a whole other level of cost. The problem with the analysis like you linked is that it assumes the power is 100% used and used with 100% efficiency, which isn't the case. Right now it is super easy for a renewable to exist because it has all the fossil/nuclear backup when it produces such a small percentage of overall power. Take that power contribution to 50% and look at the problems that arise. Suddenly you need to add backup and storage and the price jumps.

The one major problem: NIMBY

Have you seen the issues with windmill and solar NIMBY? It's a huge problem already.

 

[Deuce]

Very close, but no cigar. Wind and solar are slightly safer.

View attachment 67349288

However, I don't know of any situation where accidents at any wind farms required the evacuation of hundreds of thousands of people, or flooded oceans with radioactive waste, or required permanent exclusion zones. Do you?

You're overvaluing large events and undervaluing many small ones. Does it matter if a hundred people die all in one accident or in a hundred different accidents? Dead is dead.

Chernobyl is the only real event of a major nuclear disaster. Fukushima is a problem that requires substantial cleanup, but you're grossly exaggerating the effects. "Flood the ocean with radioactive waste?" That's a mathematically laughable concept. Dump every single molecule of nuclear waste humanity has ever used into the ocean, you're not going to irradiate the ocean. In fact, there's orders of magnitude more uranium in the ocean naturally.

 

[noonereal]

Which demonstrates stubbornness, and unwillingness to accept any sort of argument that counters your currently held beliefs.

A car salesman told me the same thing when I rejected his sales pitch.

I don't care how safe you say it is, we should not be focusing our energy on things that create radioactivity, period. That is not within my acceptable risk comfort level. I am much more comfortable with a less safe energy that does not leave such long term stains on the land.

I say again, the answer is wind, solar and the seas.

 

[noonereal]

Because there are designs now that make that impossible, and thorium reactors in particular are meltdown proof. Unlike traditional reactors, they are always under control. Cooling is simpler, because temperatures are lower. If power is lost, they power down safely.

The fuel is safer to mine and more plentiful, and I've read there are even designs that be reprocess the uranium waste we already store, to safely get additional energy from it that old design couldn't.

Don't let old fears stand in the way of the future. Or feel free to present the actual alternative, because renewables aren't there yet, and won't be for a while.

Sorry, I want no nuclear waste, period.

 

[roguenuke]

A car salesman told me the same thing when I rejected his sales pitch.

I don't care how safe you say it is, we should not be focusing our energy on things that create radioactivity, period. That is not within my acceptable risk comfort level. I am much more comfortable with a less safe energy that does not leave such long term stains on the land.

I say again, the answer is wind, solar and the seas.

Radioactivity is simply not that big of a deal. It is just a different form of energy and is part of life. It is in fact needed for life.

Those major energy sources we have leave a much bigger and worse "stain" on our land. Coal, oil, even natural gas are all very damaging and even long lasting waste producers. We just don't hear about those as often. And those renewable sources (solar, wind, hydrothermal) cannot support our energy needs/wants/demands.

 

[noonereal]

those renewable sources (solar, wind, hydrothermal) cannot support our energy needs/wants/demands.

and THIS is the problem

They could.

We simply have not invested in the R&D to make it so.

 

[Ikari]

and THIS is the problem

They could.

We simply have not invested in the R&D to make it so.

There has been much research into these devices. But there's only so much rare-earth to go around, and the efficiencies haven't been increasing well enough. Additionally, you're beholden to solar/wind effects and peak energy production won't match peak energy consumption. So it's not just an issue refining efficiencies and technology, but also in battery/energy storage technology.

 

[roguenuke]

and THIS is the problem

They could.

We simply have not invested in the R&D to make it so.

No, they couldn't because they are unstable sources, at least not for decades. There has to be a base energy source for what we use. And the safest and best source there is nuclear power, that is stable and reliable.

 

[noonereal]

No, they couldn't because they are unstable sources, at least not for decades. There has to be a base energy source for what we use. And the safest and best source there is nuclear power, that is stable and reliable.

You must hold a lot of stock in nukes.

 

[roguenuke]

You must hold a lot of stock in nukes.

Nope. But I do have a lot of education about them, experience working on them. I know the science and keep up with it (interestingly, my husband loves to keep informed about nuclear power too despite having no actual experience in that field).

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

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'd like to think Thorium is supposed to take a commanding lead, at least where centralized utilities are concerned.

 

[noonereal]

Nope. But I do have a lot of education about them, experience working on them. I know the science and keep up with it (interestingly, my husband loves to keep informed about nuclear power too despite having no actual experience in that field).

I still don't want any built.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

I'd be much more open to thorium reactors, but that technology still has to be developed and improved before it's viable, which could take a very long time.

The thorium fuel cycle is almost sixty years old, it was shelved due to the military's demand for weapons by products and Congress at the time was unwilling to fund both thorium and U/Pl.
We got a Sophie's Choice.
The obvious answer is to pick right back up where we left of, which was a functioning proof of concept, several of them, one of which actually provided power for a couple of towns in Tennessee for about seven years.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Currently, Nuclear Energy is one of the safest and cleanest forms of energy production. We should be looking into ways of using it more. We shouldn't, of course, stagnate on it. We should always be investing in research and engineering to find the next form of energy production, but we shouldn't shy away from better alternatives due to hysterics and fear tactics.

THORIUM, it's not "your grandfather's nuclear power".

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Hysterics and fear tactics.

Sitting in a room with walls of cinderblock increases cancer risks. Living at altitude increases cancer risks, etc. Reactors have only gotten better both in terms of the type of fuel it can consume, the amount of waste it produces, and the radioactivity of that waste.

The problem, in the end, is that most people don't understand radioactivity.

Shit, they don't even understand democracy, virology or even how to stop a VCR from blinking 12:00 12:00 12:00 12:00 12:00
And yes, you'd be surprised how many of them still use VCR's.

 

[WillyPete]

Sorry, I want no nuclear waste, period.

I'm sorry for whatever has driven you into such an inflexible position.

It's not helpful to the goal of getting us off fossil fuels and generally improving our energy efficiency and environment.

 

[roguenuke]

I still don't want any built.

And I do. And I want to educate as many who are willing to learn about how safe and reliable nuclear power can be and how much it would help us get away from fossil fuel.

 

[Razoo]

Nuke power is radioactive toxic, too expensive , not necessary, property values nearby take a hit and
areas around uranium processing plants are at risk. There is no need for any this.

Let's get on with further developing new industries = new employment = new tax revenue all for the long term.

Obviously politicians have been receiving large amounts of campaign dollars, big oil has spent big propaganda dollars, big oil owns uranium processing.

 

[noonereal]

I'm sorry for whatever has driven you into such an inflexible position.

It's not helpful to the goal of getting us off fossil fuels and generally improving our energy efficiency and environment.

wow, the pro nuke posts are absolutely cultish!

 

[noonereal]

I want to educate as many who are willing to learn about how safe and reliable nuclear power can be

well you did

and I still don't want them

 

[roguenuke]

Nuke power is radioactive toxic, too expensive , not necessary, property values nearby take a hit and
areas around uranium processing plants are at risk. There is no need for any this.

Let's get on with further developing new industries = new employment = new tax revenue all for the long term.

Obviously politicians have been receiving large amounts of campaign dollars, big oil has spent big propaganda dollars, big oil owns uranium processing.

Big oil does not want nuclear because it would ruin them. Big oil loves to push for renewables over nuclear because they know fossil fuels will be required to back up those renewables.

Renewables are good, yes, but the best backbone system (which is still needed) is nuclear.

Oil-Gas Lobby Opposes State Subsidies for Nuclear Power Producers

Nuclear power plant operators that say they need state subsidies to keep generating electricity have a new foe: oil and gas companies.

www.wsj.com

 

[Ikari]

Shit, they don't even understand democracy, virology or even how to stop a VCR from blinking 12:00 12:00 12:00 12:00 12:00
And yes, you'd be surprised how many of them still use VCR's.

Yeah, talking to some people about nuclear power is like talking to Trump Cultists about Covid vaccination.

lol

It's unfortunate so many people think their uneducated opinion is researched fact.