Time for a Return to Nuclear Power?

[Helix]

No, I don't pretend when it comes to this discussion. Nuclear power is a good alternative for electrical needs, but it doesn't satisfy transportation requirements for the country. We, as a nation, need to go all in for becoming energy independent both to increase economic growth and get our asses out of all ME politics...

we're probably going to have to transition to electric cars in the interim. our current grid can't handle it, so it needs to be upgraded yesterday.

i don't like it that much, either. i love my gasoline car, motorcycle, and jeep. however, i don't want us involved in a global war for diminishing resources. i would like to see us innovate the solution and then sell it to everyone else.

 

[AlabamaPaul]

You don't like sand? Good evening, AP.:2wave:

If I want sand, I go to the beach. Good evening 2m...

 

[AlabamaPaul]

we're probably going to have to transition to electric cars in the interim. our current grid can't handle it, so it needs to be upgraded yesterday.

i don't like it that much, either. i love my gasoline car, motorcycle, and jeep. however, i don't want us involved in a global war for diminishing resources. i would like to see us innovate the solution and then sell it to everyone else.

Electric vehicles are not yet viable or cost effective especially for cargo. We have the resources to become energy independent now, and developing those resources would help to grow the economy providing resources for R&D for the next power sources...

 

[KevinKohler]

The Middle East is like a giant beach...but without water, babes in bikinis, and...babes in bikinis.

 

[AlabamaPaul]

The Middle East is like a giant beach...but without water, babes in bikinis, and...babes in bikinis.

Don't forget the babes in bikinis... :mrgreen:

 

[specklebang]

it shouldn't. having a nuclear power plant or a waste repository is better than having our grandkids involved in a major war over an energy source from the nineteenth century.

while we're doing that, though, we need to innovate new solutions. if it's not profitable to do that, the public sector should step in.

We are doing that. Oil production domestically is at record levels (if I'm wrong correct me), we're building wind farms and solar farms (not everybody is a fan - but we are), we're investing heavily in energy storage.

But nuclear, the original topic, has its own complexities. Until recently, my son worked for the EPA at Yucca Mtn. and then (when it was closed by Numbnuts Reid) for Nevada Power. At the same time, my good friend worked for Clipper Windpower. So I've taken a real interest in the subject. I more expect the existing nuclear plants, some of which are ancient, to shut down much more than for new ones to be built.

There's no money and no karma in nuclear.

 

[tererun]

Heya JH. :2wave: Well that may be the case. But then what do we do with like what took place with Japan. We have an ongoing travesty taking place there. The Japanese having been pumping 300 million tons of Contaminated Water into the Ocean, weekly. Already they think it will reach the West Coast here. It is affecting all kinds of life in the ocean. What happens when it invades our coast line?

i see things a bit differently with the japanese disaster. It showed how safe nuclear power can be if proper preparations and safety measures are followed. One of the things you are neglecting is the reality that the plant owner ignored japanese safety regulations. Other reactors were shut down without problem, and overall showed that the safety regulations worked when followed. Of course the problem would be much worse here in america because we are so much worse at preparation and safety, and it is very easy for money to avoid doing the proper thing and never face any real problems. It ias one of the areas you would need very stict government standards and good planning. We all know how congress feels about regulating big money. Where i completely agree a nuclear plant in modern america is a huge danger, it doesn't actually have to be like that. The overall results from japan and that tsunami had the damage very well mitigated. unfortunately they alloweed the plant operator to do the wrong thing and now are facing the consequences. Japan will probably crack down harder on regulation enforcement and make things safer. here in the US we take some money from the companies and allow them to pretend they made the environment better.

 

[specklebang]

If there was any money to be made in nuclear power, why wouldn't Carlos Slim be building nuclear plants just over the border?

It isn't profitable - that sums up the whole situation.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

i see things a bit differently with the japanese disaster. It showed how safe nuclear power can be if proper preparations and safety measures are followed. One of the things you are neglecting is the reality that the plant owner ignored japanese safety regulations. Other reactors were shut down without problem, and overall showed that the safety regulations worked when followed. Of course the problem would be much worse here in america because we are so much worse at preparation and safety, and it is very easy for money to avoid doing the proper thing and never face any real problems. It ias one of the areas you would need very stict government standards and good planning. We all know how congress feels about regulating big money. Where i completely agree a nuclear plant in modern america is a huge danger, it doesn't actually have to be like that. The overall results from japan and that tsunami had the damage very well mitigated. unfortunately they alloweed the plant operator to do the wrong thing and now are facing the consequences. Japan will probably crack down harder on regulation enforcement and make things safer. here in the US we take some money from the companies and allow them to pretend they made the environment better.

You will never get rid of human error and I am a firm believer in the Peter Principle so I am no fan of nuke power.

 

[polgara]

Hmmm. It's hard to see growth in coal, but I think petroleum/gasoline will be with us for a long time, and natural gas has strong growth potential. I seriously doubt that renewables can ever supply more than 10% of demand, but scalability of nuclear is virtually unlimited.eace

:agree: However, fear is a powerful emotion, and there have been movies made that only show the downside of nuclear. It would probably take a two-month blackout nationwide to change minds, and I'm not certain even that would do it.

We couldn't get the pipeline approved to transport oil from Canada to our West Coast refineries, and we lost big-time on that, because it would have meant jobs here. Canada just got tired of the political game-playing going on here, I guess. :twocents:

 

[tererun]

You will never get rid of human error and I am a firm believer in the Peter Principle so I am no fan of nuke power.

that was not a mistake. It was a deliberate action by the owner of the plant. redundancy and other fail safes can eliminate human error. You do have to implement them.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

that was not a mistake. It was a deliberate action by the owner of the plant. redundancy and other fail safes can eliminate human error. You do have to implement them.

Peter Principle, Peter Principle, Peter Principle!:lol:

 

[the_recruit]

No, I don't pretend when it comes to this discussion. Nuclear power is a good alternative for electrical needs, but it doesn't satisfy transportation requirements for the country. We, as a nation, need to go all in for becoming energy independent both to increase economic growth and get our asses out of all ME politics...

Energy "independence" is just popular political rhetoric. Producing more energy than we consume will not magically insulate the US from shocks to the global oil markets.

Like it or not, energy markets and economies have become integrated global networks and are continuing to become more so. We're going to have a vested interested in the Middle East for a long time, entirely regardless of whether we choose to increase our national energy production.

 

[Northern Light]

I would only support nuclear fusion at this point if we can make it happen. After fukushima and its radioactive fallout pretty much contaminating our ocean globally, I just can't get behind it. The probability of nuclear meltdown is a lot lower with modern technology, but if it actually happens due to mitigating circumstances the consequences are highly detrimental. Even if we only get one meltdown every 50 years, it's enough to do serious damage and the earth won't recover for potentially thousands of years.

Fukushima is a good example of an unforseen problem; but even if they knew the risk of building a nuclear plant so close to the coast, there is no way to police nations from building risky facilities. Yet the risk is shared by every living thing on the planet.

I think we should continue to heavily supplement our economy with green energy as much as possible and make those technologies more efficient (already happening). We are not going to transition out of fossil fuel energy economy instantly, but we can transition gradually to ease the burden. At some point we will have the nuclear fusion breakthrough and our problem will be solved, assuming corporate greed doesn't continue to wage war on innovation.

 

[longview]

I think Nuclear power can be made safe.
Much of the waste issue is made up by changing the definition of
what waste is.
From what I have heard the actual atomic waste from a large plant,
is about 2 cubic meters a year.
Emerging technology could create a path to a sustainable future which
include adapting solar and wind.
Wind Power-to-Gas (P2G) technology | Energy Storage Journal
Fueling the Fleet, Navy Looks to the Seas - U.S. Naval Research Laboratory
By converting energy to hydrocarbon fuels, we add shelve life, and portability.
Currently, there is some finite distance that it is practical to have an electrical
power plant to the consumer.
By making natural gas, the gas could be transported via pipelines thousands of miles,
to gas fired plants.
In addition excess home solar and wind energy, could get energy credits to offset
home heating or even transport fuel.

 

[Deuce]

The death toll per mw/h for nuclear s less than that of solar. it's also the only power source with density that matches fossil fuels. (And greatly exceeds them) it is also effectively renewable, given the mind-boggling amount of energy in the worlds uranium reserves.

Its a no-brainer.