[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Nuclear Energy (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 3/19/2012 6:27:22 PM EDT
|
Pros vs Cons Discuss...
|
| For right now,whether you like it or not Nuke is the state of the art for delivering our demanding use of electricity. On Earth, right now. We will advance to fusion in the future, maybe. It's the top of the line for OUR technoplasam. Other sources,methods don't even compare, not even a little bit. Wind, solar, geothermal, oil, WHATEVER, pales in comparison. For what we need in great amounts. |
|
Well at least on the pro side, you can get into the industry at a young age, making a shit ton of money, and it only goes up from there. Glowing fuel is still fascinating the 1000th time youve seen it. Reconstitution of fuel is making huge improvements, so there is going to be less dry cask storage of spent fuel in the future. Thousands employed. Gainfully. Cons: Down time is not as much fun as it sounds. Despite a squeaky clean, sterile background, I still have to piss in a cup every month. Its hot as fuck on the refuel floor. And then some douche gets a PCE and were all in plastic suits and face shields on said floor. |
|
Quoted: Well at least on the pro side, you can get into the industry at a young age, making a shit ton of money, and it only goes up from there. Glowing fuel is still fascinating the 1000th time youve seen it. Reconstitution of fuel is making huge improvements, so there is going to be less dry cask storage of spent fuel in the future. Thousands employed. Gainfully. Cons: Down time is not as much fun as it sounds. Despite a squeaky clean, sterile background, I still have to piss in a cup every month. Its hot as fuck on the refuel floor. And then some douche gets a PCE and were all in plastic suits and face shields on said floor.  I'm not really thinking in terms of nuclear energy as a career field. Just nuclear energy as a source of energy.
|
|
Nuke power will insure the longevity of the US and our traditional way of life.
Eventually we're going to need alternate sources of liquid fuel for transportation - nuke generated electricity makes that a low cost proposition. There are no cons, just a society full of ignoramuses obstructing Freedom. |
|
I'm a big supporter of thorium/LFTR development. It does sound too good to be true at first, but the molten salt reactor experiment proved the concept. That doesn't refute some of the engineering problems (ex: effects of molten salts on the pipes), but I can't believe the way it all got swept under the rug and Alvin Weinberg got fired. Politics 
|
| Just NIMBY's essentially. I like how Edmonton has a nuclear reactor at the UofA (since the 70's or 80's) but everybody gets their panties in a bunch when they want to build one for the Fort Macmurray power supplies (and even for the rest of Alberta)... We're still using fucking coal for the majority of our power right now. |
|
+ ELEVENTYBILLION The cool.... Cherenkov Radiation: 
|
|
Quoted:
For right now,whether you like it or not Nuke is the state of the art for delivering our demanding use of electricity. On Earth, right now. We will advance to fusion in the future, maybe. It's the top of the line for OUR technoplasam. Other sources,methods don't even compare, not even a little bit. Wind, solar, geothermal, oil, WHATEVER, pales in comparison. For what we need in great amounts. Best, most correct answer of the bunch. It is plenty safe now days and the only gripe people seem to even have left is how long it takes to built. So start f'ing building them right away and in 10-20yrs we'll be sitting pretty. |
|
Quoted:
Well at least on the pro side, you can get into the industry at a young age, making a shit ton of money, and it only goes up from there. Glowing fuel is still fascinating the 1000th time you've seen it. Reconstitution of fuel is making huge improvements, so there is going to be less dry cask storage of spent fuel in the future. Thousands employed. Gainfully. Cons: Down time is not as much fun as it sounds. Despite a squeaky clean, sterile background, I still have to piss in a cup every month. Its hot as fuck on the refuel floor. And then some douche gets a PCE and were all in plastic suits and face shields on said floor. This, watching a refuel is awesome. I dont care how many times you see it, watching the blue-ish purple glow underwater is awesome. You get used to the heat, it sucks but, when you cash that nuclear pay check its all worth it... The only thing that sucks it the safety bullshit is way out of control... Example, you want to use a box cutter, you need to have Kevlar gloves, Kevlar sleeves, a spotter, and a permission slip.... or get fired... |
|
There's another element to the energy debate as well that's rarely addressed. Currently, the American worker is kept vaguely competitive in the world due to automation and technology; these forces are highly dependent upon easy access to cheap and bountiful energy. If I recall, the average wage of a skilled laborer in China is around the $1 an hour mark, compared to the U.S. where the average wage is $24+ per hour. In order to maintain some industrial competitiveness, our workers must achieve 24 times the productivity of a Chinese laborer.
It is a logical absurdity to try to pursue both wage protection and free trade. The only way such a contradictory and obviously irrational approach can continue is if, due to the forces of rapid technological expansion, we maintain our position on the cutting edge of technological development and expertise/automation dependent industry. The only way we can continue to expand the capabilities of domestic industries and workers is to ensure access to cheap, plentiful energy. Understand that I am not dredging up some ancient mercantilism view of the world and bemoaning trade imbalances, I am instead talking about cutting edge industries that are responsible for the majority of research and development - industries that are essential to maintain if we want to continue to be a leader and an innovator. If we do not want other nations becoming havens of venture capital and research and development, and subsequently becoming world leaders in technology and research (and the sole owners of radical new military technology), then we must take steps to ensure that the United States does not give up the last vestiges of engineering and theoretical innovation. The nuclear industry is the path to the future. Whether you like it or not, the nations today that develop and maintain modern, efficient nuclear reactors will have an economic and technological leg up for the rest of the 21st century. |
|
We need to be bringing a new nuke plant online every year. The current (1950's 60's and 70's design and construction) crop is getting old, and there are newer and better reactor designs which are more efficient, safer, and cheaper to build, and they produce less waste. Every town could have a small nuke plant. Existing nuclear waste could be converted to a safer state in the newer reactors.
We don't do it because we lack the foresight and political will to overcome inane and irrational arguments to the contrary. |
|
Great source of power, when handled correctly, when not Chernobyl happens, IMO pros out way the cons, especially when they find a way to use the spent rods other than storing them underground for the next 10,000 years, also keep the plants away for shores vulnerable to tsunamis is probably a good plan. The problem just like guns the most of the population are complete morons about it's use, or how safe it actually is.
There were a few deaths in the 1960s on a base where the test nuclear power plants, in Idaho Falls ID, there was a book written about it as well. From the book it sounds like the accident happened because the operator wanted and interesting way to kill himself, don't think he planned on having to be scraped off the ceiling of the containment dome, with a spatula so his body goo could be put in a 2 ft thick lead casing and buried in the ground. His fellow operators died too, don't think that was part of his plan either. |
|
Quoted: Accidents, spills, leakage, waste and containment arent very pretty or easy to clean up.. and maintain for how long? Yeah, Three Mile Island is devoid of life for a 50 mile radius  . Waste would be a problem if the Chicago Jesus didn't spend 3 trillion dollars opening Yucca Mountain...oh, wait, HE DIDN'T. He ended the repository.Nuclear power would be great if we didn't have to contend with IDIOT DEMOCRATS and HOLLYWEIRDOS who think it can never be mastered. |
|
Quoted:
We wouldn't have as much of a waste issue if we would reprocess it and build breeder reactors. But someone thought they would be used to make weapon grade isotopes so we don't. Yep, breeder reactors to reenrich it. Pebble bed and molten salt reactors... thorium reactors... We could get to a point where we have so much cheap power generation that people won't give a fuck about insulating the house, just crank the thermostat! w00t! |
|
This. |
|
Quoted:
Long term waste problem. Waste is only a problem because spent fuel from commercial reactors is prohibited from being recycled or reprocessed by a Jimmy Carter executive order. Once you understand nuclear reactions and nuclear fuels you understand that of what you put into a reactor, about 1 percent is actually used, leaving a bit less than 1% as waste (the missing fraction is where the energy comes from). But the recycling ban means that the remaining 4% or so of fuel along with the 95% inert material all becomes "waste" along with the less than 1% waste. And actually, some of the "waste" is actually useful stuff that could be used for various industrial, scientific and medical purposes. It's been a few years ago, but I read a scientist's remarks that the actual volume of true waste material from all nuclear power generation in the US would fit in a volume about the size of a filing cabinet. The problem is that it's legally mandated to stay put in a volume the size of stadium. One would think the greenies would be all about recycling...  The recycling ban was a carefully calculated move to effect a long-term destruction of the nuclear power industry, by requiring large quantities of dangerous high level waste to accumulate.
And that's not even the start of it. There's a reactor design that can actually burn almost all of the waste from other reactors as fuel. The arf-touted thorium cycle stuff is nothing compared to the potential of the IFR. The energy calculations of that reactor are staggering, in that it's so efficient and versatile that it could essentially cover the energy needs of mankind for something like a few millennium. Clinton killed the IFR research program, and IIRC under Obama they've actually dismantled the test reactor so new research and development would have to start from scratch. I made a comment in a previous thread which bears repeating and won't be refuted. Nuclear power is the only currently available alternative energy source that is viable - that can provide a sufficient quantity of power over the long term to make any real difference to mankind, as well as the only option that could actually decrease use of fossil fuels through both direct energy production as well as better enabling large scale synthetic liquid fuel production. And, when you add up ALL the costs, the most environmentally friendly energy source we have. |
|
Quoted: When it comes to nukes I trust Jimmy Carters judgement.Quoted: Long term waste problem. Waste is only a problem because spent fuel from commercial reactors is prohibited from being recycled or reprocessed by a Jimmy Carter executive order. Once you understand nuclear reactions and nuclear fuels you understand that of what you put into a reactor, about 1 percent is actually used, leaving a bit less than 1% as waste (the missing fraction is where the energy comes from). But the recycling ban means that the remaining 4% or so of fuel along with the 95% inert material all becomes "waste" along with the less than 1% waste. And actually, some of the "waste" is actually useful stuff that could be used for various industrial, scientific and medical purposes. It's been a few years ago, but I read a scientist's remarks that the actual volume of true waste material from all nuclear power generation in the US would fit in a volume about the size of a filing cabinet. The problem is that it's legally mandated to stay put in a volume the size of stadium. One would think the greenies would be all about recycling... The recycling ban was a carefully calculated move to effect a long-term destruction of the nuclear power industry, by requiring large quantities of dangerous high level waste to accumulate.And that's not even the start of it. There's a reactor design that can actually burn almost all of the waste from other reactors as fuel. The arf-touted thorium cycle stuff is nothing compared to the potential of the IFR. The energy calculations of that reactor are staggering, in that it's so efficient and versatile that it could essentially cover the energy needs of mankind for something like a few millennium. I made a comment in a previous thread which bears repeating and won't be refuted. Nuclear power is the only currently viable energy source that can provide a sufficient quantity of power over the long term to make any real difference to mankind, as well as the only option that could actually decrease use of fossil fuels through both direct energy production as well as better enabling large scale synthetic liquid fuel production. And, when you add up ALL the costs, the most environmentally friendly energy source we have.  Some of his credentials: chosen by Admiral Hyman Rickover for the nuclear submarine program, he was assigned to Schenectady, N.Y., where he took graduate work at Union College in reactor technology and nuclear physics, and served as senior officer of the pre-commissioning crew of the Seawolf, the second nuclear submarine.
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
When it comes to nukes I trust Jimmy Carters judgement.Quoted:
Long term waste problem. Waste is only a problem because spent fuel from commercial reactors is prohibited from being recycled or reprocessed by a Jimmy Carter executive order. Once you understand nuclear reactions and nuclear fuels you understand that of what you put into a reactor, about 1 percent is actually used, leaving a bit less than 1% as waste (the missing fraction is where the energy comes from). But the recycling ban means that the remaining 4% or so of fuel along with the 95% inert material all becomes "waste" along with the less than 1% waste. And actually, some of the "waste" is actually useful stuff that could be used for various industrial, scientific and medical purposes. It's been a few years ago, but I read a scientist's remarks that the actual volume of true waste material from all nuclear power generation in the US would fit in a volume about the size of a filing cabinet. The problem is that it's legally mandated to stay put in a volume the size of stadium. One would think the greenies would be all about recycling... The recycling ban was a carefully calculated move to effect a long-term destruction of the nuclear power industry, by requiring large quantities of dangerous high level waste to accumulate.
And that's not even the start of it. There's a reactor design that can actually burn almost all of the waste from other reactors as fuel. The arf-touted thorium cycle stuff is nothing compared to the potential of the IFR. The energy calculations of that reactor are staggering, in that it's so efficient and versatile that it could essentially cover the energy needs of mankind for something like a few millennium. I made a comment in a previous thread which bears repeating and won't be refuted. Nuclear power is the only currently viable energy source that can provide a sufficient quantity of power over the long term to make any real difference to mankind, as well as the only option that could actually decrease use of fossil fuels through both direct energy production as well as better enabling large scale synthetic liquid fuel production. And, when you add up ALL the costs, the most environmentally friendly energy source we have. Some of his credentials: chosen by Admiral Hyman Rickover for the nuclear submarine program, he was assigned to Schenectady, N.Y., where he took graduate work at Union College in reactor technology and nuclear physics, and served as senior officer of the pre-commissioning crew of the Seawolf, the second nuclear submarine.
I wouldn't trust Jimmy Carter with a mop and a bucket. |
|
>95% of the "problem" with NP arises from the histrionic public reaction to the very unfortunate concidence of the release of the movie The China Syndrome and the Three Mile Island incident TWO WEEKS LATER.
It fucked with a lot of people's heads, not unreasonably so. The Fear Uncertainty and Doubt of the movie was instantaneously replaced with Terror, Certitude and Inevitability. Holy shit –– Jane Fonda and Jack Lemmon were right!! I was in San Diego NTC waiting for my slot in Naval Nuclear Power School (Orlando) to open up when this thing happened. I had seen the movie the day it opened. I remember it vividly. The inevitable consequence of this is that for many many americans, NP became this sort of monster, proven to be everything bad, with horrible disaster only avoided by mere chance. That's "what's wrong" with NP. I don't subscribe to that theory, at all. Other posters have covered the upside quite well. But if you were born after about 1975, you missed the this crucial pivot in the American mind. After TMI, i went on to be certified as an Operator at two separate nuclear power plants. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Accidents, spills, leakage, waste and containment arent very pretty or easy to clean up.. and maintain for how long? Yeah, Three Mile Island is devoid of life for a 50 mile radius . Waste would be a problem if the Chicago Jesus didn't spend 3 trillion dollars opening Yucca Mountain...oh, wait, HE DIDN'T. He ended the repository.
Nuclear power would be great if we didn't have to contend with IDIOT DEMOCRATS and HOLLYWEIRDOS who think it can never be mastered. You’re forgetting about the flies! They did not have any flies for months after the Three Mile Island incident. |
|
Quoted:
Dry cask storage. 
Have to babysit for 10,000 years.
I am for it as long as its not in my backyard.
I am a proud NIMBY. I know you're just trolling but I'll bite.
I have a house in California less than 2 miles from a nuclear power plant and I'm a proud IMBY.
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Long term waste problem. Waste is only a problem because spent fuel from commercial reactors is prohibited from being recycled or reprocessed by a Jimmy Carter executive order. Once you understand nuclear reactions and nuclear fuels you understand that of what you put into a reactor, about 1 percent is actually used, leaving a bit less than 1% as waste (the missing fraction is where the energy comes from). But the recycling ban means that the remaining 4% or so of fuel along with the 95% inert material all becomes "waste" along with the less than 1% waste. And actually, some of the "waste" is actually useful stuff that could be used for various industrial, scientific and medical purposes. It's been a few years ago, but I read a scientist's remarks that the actual volume of true waste material from all nuclear power generation in the US would fit in a volume about the size of a filing cabinet. The problem is that it's legally mandated to stay put in a volume the size of stadium. One would think the greenies would be all about recycling... The recycling ban was a carefully calculated move to effect a long-term destruction of the nuclear power industry, by requiring large quantities of dangerous high level waste to accumulate.
And that's not even the start of it. There's a reactor design that can actually burn almost all of the waste from other reactors as fuel. The arf-touted thorium cycle stuff is nothing compared to the potential of the IFR. The energy calculations of that reactor are staggering, in that it's so efficient and versatile that it could essentially cover the energy needs of mankind for something like a few millennium. Clinton killed the IFR research program, and IIRC under Obama they've actually dismantled the test reactor so new research and development would have to start from scratch. I made a comment in a previous thread which bears repeating and won't be refuted. Nuclear power is the only currently available alternative energy source that is viable - that can provide a sufficient quantity of power over the long term to make any real difference to mankind, as well as the only option that could actually decrease use of fossil fuels through both direct energy production as well as better enabling large scale synthetic liquid fuel production. And, when you add up ALL the costs, the most environmentally friendly energy source we have. Thorium or IFR could solve our energy problems indefinitely. I had not looked at IFR much until your post, but if wiki's information is at all accurate, it claims using an IFR, we could extract enough uranium from seawater to satisfy our current energy needs for the rest of the Earth and Sun's current relationship (some 5 billion years). But nah, lets keep building a bunch of wind turbines and solar panels. Makes much more sense...
|
|
Liquid fluoride thorium reactors are able to use all of the nuclear waste we've generated as fuel.
So let's see... Clean energy...check. Plentiful thorium...check. Can use waste as fuel....check. Could easily provide so much cheap energy we wouldn't need a meter (but we all know that won't happen)....check. Yep, sounds like the perfect thing for the liberals and envirowackos to protest against. |
|
I cam here to post this.  |
| We have fuel for 500 years worth of electricity in the form of depleted uranium for breeder reactors already mined and processed, just sitting around stockpiled in containers. Equivalent to having a strategic oil reserve of 5 trillion barrels of oil (the actual strategic reserve is 700 million barrels). |
|
Quoted:
We need to be bringing a new nuke plant online every year. The current (1950's 60's and 70's design and construction) crop is getting old, and there are newer and better reactor designs which are more efficient, safer, and cheaper to build, and they produce less waste. Every town could have a small nuke plant. Existing nuclear waste could be converted to a safer state in the newer reactors. We don't do it because we lack the foresight and political will to overcome inane and irrational arguments to the contrary. Wrong. We need 3 to 4 new 2 GW plants in operation every month for a 5 year span. Right now is a good time to get started on site design and permitting so the first of those new plants can open in no more than 5 years. |
|
Quoted:
Dry cask storage. Have to babysit for 10,000 years. I am for it as long as its not in my backyard. I am a proud NIMBY. Here's the thing. No one here really cares about your opinion, your time would be better spent spewing your ignorant opinions amongst your own kind and spare us the trolling. If you ever actually offered an argument, that would be one thing, but all you have to offer is below the horizon trolling. In my opinion you've violated the Conduct Code sufficiently to earn a ban, but the decision to lower the ban hammer is above my pay grade here. |