Nuclear Energy: What's your take?

[seymourflops]

I believe that the nuclear energy progress in the U.S. was stopped by people very much like-minded to modern-day climate activists and by the horrible luck of the hapless Jimmy Carter. But I see some on here seeming to advocate for nuclear power as a way to reduce carbon.

If everyone is happy, with that, I'd say a huge chunk of the problem can be solved pretty quickly.

 

[noonereal]

I believe that the nuclear energy progress in the U.S. was stopped by people very much like-minded to modern-day climate activists and by the horrible luck of the hapless Jimmy Carter. But I see some on here seeming to advocate for nuclear power as a way to reduce carbon.

If everyone is happy, with that, I'd say a huge chunk of the problem can be solved pretty quickly.

What problem, pollution?

 

[seymourflops]

What problem, pollution?

Climate change.

Yes, pollution also, I guess.

 

[noonereal]

Climate change.

Yes, pollution also, I guess.

Look at japan. Decades later and they are still unable to clean up the flooded reactors.

Nukes are not the answer. They are the ultimate polluter.

Not to mention how outrageously expensive they are.

I prefer global warming, pollution and asthma.

 

[Mr Person]

More of it, but we need NIMBY dealt with. Eminent domain. Yucca mountain?

I mean, it has to go somewhere. That much is true. Much better in one remote place then sort of a whole bunch of places. But...NIMBY.




On the other hand... renewable tech seems to be scaling up faster and faster. Cost/benefit. We've got fossil infrastructure. New infrastructure costs. And there are start-up costs of nuclear. I'll listen to other people with the training and experience to run the analyses required.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

Nuclear waste and the risk to large portions of the country in the event of an accident or mother nature outweighs any actual benefit. Also the risk of terrorism. And welp centralized power production is on the way out.

 

[RedAkston]

Nuclear energy is only part of the answer. I believe we need to move towards renewable energy. We rely far too much on oil, which will eventually run out, albeit not in our lifetime. Nuclear can be used far more safely than in the 70's and 80's and it's relatively cheap in the long run. But our power grid desperately needs addressed no matter what direction we go.

 

[Mr Person]

Nuclear energy is only part of the answer. I believe we need to move towards renewable energy. We rely far too much on oil, which will eventually run out, albeit not in our lifetime. Nuclear can be used far more safely than in the 70's and 80's and it's relatively cheap in the long run. But our power grid desperately needs addressed no matter what direction we go.

That alone should be the answer no matter what one thinks of AGW: power grid and non-fossil energy independence. I don't see a sane argument to the contrary.

It makes sense even if one thinks AGW is all bullshit. Beyond energy independence, there's the simple fact that if it is bullshit (it's not, but if), then we want our companies to be selling the tech to others, not the other way around.

 

[Questerr]

I believe that the nuclear energy progress in the U.S. was stopped by people very much like-minded to modern-day climate activists and by the horrible luck of the hapless Jimmy Carter. But I see some on here seeming to advocate for nuclear power as a way to reduce carbon.

If everyone is happy, with that, I'd say a huge chunk of the problem can be solved pretty quickly.

I'm all for nuclear power. I'm also for not cutting a single corner when it comes to safety with nuclear power. If that means private for-profit companies are priced out of the market by sunk costs, regulations, inspections, and the price of dealing with spent fuel, then so be it.

Have the government instead build nuclear reactors and operate them on a non-profit basis, selling the electricity at cost.

 

[seymourflops]

More of it, but we need NIMBY dealt with. Eminent domain. Yucca mountain?

I mean, it has to go somewhere. That much is true. Much better in one remote place then sort of a whole bunch of places. But...NIMBY.




On the other hand... renewable tech seems to be scaling up faster and faster. Cost/benefit. We've got fossil infrastructure. New infrastructure costs. And there are start-up costs of nuclear. I'll listen to other people with the training and experience to run the analyses required.

I've always wondered - and I am not a rocket scientist in the literal or figurative sense - why we can't just put nuclear waste on the tip of a rocket and aim it at the sun. It would only have to break Earth orbit to naturally "fall" the rest of the way.

 

[seymourflops]

I'm all for nuclear power. I'm also for not cutting a single corner when it comes to safety with nuclear power. If that means private for-profit companies are priced out of the market by sunk costs, regulations, inspections, and the price of dealing with spent fuel, then so be it.

Have the government instead build nuclear reactors and operate them on a non-profit basis, selling the electricity at cost.

Is that the French model? Not asking sarcastically, I've heard they have had great success with their nuclear energy program.

 

[Antiwar]

"Nuclear power will be so cheap that it won't have to be metered."

I'm of the opinion that nuclear (fission) power is a bad investment.

 

[Antiwar]

I've always wondered - and I am not a rocket scientist in the literal or figurative sense - why we can't just put nuclear waste on the tip of a rocket and aim it at the sun. It would only have to break Earth orbit to naturally "fall" the rest of the way.

Rockets fail. A rocket failure with nuclear waste on-board would be a disaster.

 

[Questerr]

Is that the French model? Not asking sarcastically, I've heard they have had great success with their nuclear energy program.

Yes. Although they are closer to a "not-for-profit" where unintended profits get reinvested in the system or shuffled off to other government departments.

 

[Questerr]

I've always wondered - and I am not a rocket scientist in the literal or figurative sense - why we can't just put nuclear waste on the tip of a rocket and aim it at the sun. It would only have to break Earth orbit to naturally "fall" the rest of the way.

1. Rockets occasionally explode and rather dramatically at that.

2. It's actually easier to launch a payload out of the solar system than into the sun.

3. It would take decades, if not centuries, for the waste payload to reach the sun with modern rockets. During the intervening time, that payload is a navigation hazard for other spacecraft.

4. There are other reactor types that produce far less nuclear waste, thorium-cycle molten salt reactors for instance.

 

[Questerr]

"Nuclear power will be so cheap that it won't have to be metered."

I'm of the opinion that nuclear (fission) power is a bad investment.

If your goal is a return/profit, yes. Nuclear power is a "bad investment" in the capitalist sense of the term.

Its a great investment if your goal is produce maximized power with minimized inputs, regardless of the profit or less involved.

 

[Mr Person]

I've always wondered - and I am not a rocket scientist in the literal or figurative sense - why we can't just put nuclear waste on the tip of a rocket and aim it at the sun. It would only have to break Earth orbit to naturally "fall" the rest of the way.

$$$

How many billions do you want to pay vs burying it in the middle of a damn mountain?

 

[Bullseye]

Many countries use nuclear power generation. I favor it as part of the overall power generation strategy. The technology and safety are improving day to day.

 

[Antiwar]

If your goal is a return/profit, yes. Nuclear power is a "bad investment" in the capitalist sense of the term.

Its a great investment if your goal is produce maximized power with minimized inputs, regardless of the profit or less involved.

Fission nuclear power isn't a good solution. Fusion nuclear power isn't ready. That's my take. Every imaginable take can be found on the internet.

 

[Questerr]

Fission nuclear power isn't a good solution. Fusion nuclear power isn't ready. That's my take. Every imaginable take can be found on the internet.

It's going to take extensive investment in fission to get to fusion. The only cheap reliable fuel for fusion is Helium-3. There's very little of it on Earth, but there's ****tons of it in space. And exploiting those supplies is going to require extensive use of fission (for spacecraft engines like VASIMR and for powering deep space facilities).

And since exploiting those resources is decades if not centuries off, fission is a great investment in the meantime, especially in regions where renewable fuels aren't feasible.

 

[phoenix2020]

I am not opposed to nuclear fission reactors but I do not see them gaining traction at this point. On the one hand the economics are worse than renewables now; on the other hand, centralized generation is the past, not the future. I increasingly view advocacy of nuclear as a final gasp to attempt rationalizing continental scale grid transmission costs and I think it will not solve economically. Decentralized generation has too many advantages.

As was discussed on a different thread, if micro-reactors can become more economically feasible then there is something to talk about.

 

[phoenix2020]

Nuclear waste and the risk to large portions of the country in the event of an accident or mother nature outweighs any actual benefit. Also the risk of terrorism. And welp centralized power production is on the way out.

Thank you, hear hear.

 

[Antiwar]

It's going to take extensive investment in fission to get to fusion. The only cheap reliable fuel for fusion is Helium-3. There's very little of it on Earth, but there's ****tons of it in space. And exploiting those supplies is going to require extensive use of fission (for spacecraft engines like VASIMR and for powering deep space facilities).

And since exploiting those resources is decades if not centuries off, fission is a great investment in the meantime, especially in regions where renewable fuels aren't feasible.

That sounds like more great reasons to not further pursue nuclear power.

 

[Questerr]

That sounds like more great reasons to not further pursue nuclear power.

Explain how that follows? Is your goal to never get to nuclear fusion? Do you want humanity to die out on Earth?

 

[Antiwar]

... centralized power production is on the way out.

I agree.