The past two years have made me much more supportive of nuclear power and other technologies

[ruadisneyfan2]

OK, I'll give it consideration.

Please find me where it has been proven by legit scientists that Radioactive Waste can be stored undisturbed and in no danger of damage from natural forces like earthquake for the "Plutonium-239 has a half-life of 24,000 years."(post 13) To be clear, half life does not mean gone, half life means the volume is reduced by half so the timeline to safety is many many times longer.

I am of the opinion nowhere is safe especially if the world starts pumping out this stuff in the volume necessary to sustain billions of humans for generations, but maybe you have seen something I have not.

It is my best guess that many things people believe to be true were dreamt up by some marketing execs wanting to make a quick buck without an ounce of understanding nor conscience. If conscience was involved NOTHING bad would be created without equal attention to solution and IMO humans have demonstrated time and time again this is not how things operate.

Again though, in spite of my own experience I can consider the possibility that this time was different and a solution was given equal attention.

There is NO type of energy production that has zero consequences.

 

[ruadisneyfan2]

Nuclear is to power what airplanes are to travel.
When there’s an accident, it’s huge but overall it’s so rare compared to driving a car. Flying is the safest form of travel yet people have irrational fears about it.

 

[Dakota731]

In a world where groups of people don’t want anyone using natural gas, electric or nuclear power for energy, then we are kind of stuck. As for me, I tend to enjoy heat, lights and running water. We are NO where near ready to ditch all these power sources for wind or solar - they have all proved much too unreliable to provide energy for millions of people. And many of these “green” sources have proved to have consequences for the environment as well. Just look at the mining for lithium to fuel batteries for electric cars (which need gas to provide the electricity anyway). So I’d like too see more leading with facts and science instead of emotion in this industry.

 

[Dakota731]

Large-scale wind and solar farms require at least 10 times as much land per unit as coal- and natural gas-fired power plants, including the land used to produce and transport the fossil fuels. But only a fraction of all land is suitable for development.
Anericans are not going to put up with blackouts like many other countries experience with unreliable energy sources or technology. The financial loss is tremendous and most people don’t want to worry about the electricity or heat going off in the winter or having no air conditioning in the summer. We are not, as a country, willing to go back in time as far as progress is concerned. And blackouts are unavoidable with solar and wind because the wind can stop blowing strongly, sometimes for weeks, and the sun sets daily and may be blocked by clouds for many days consecutively.

 

[BrianL]

Nuclear is to power what airplanes are to travel.
When there’s an accident, it’s huge but overall it’s so rare compared to driving a car. Flying is the safest form of travel yet people have irrational fears about it.

Yeah, nuclear has problems for sure, though if we had really gone all-in on it, I would think that by now it would be so much safer and better - and it already is quite safe as you point out. There were a lot of interest groups trying to derail it, etc. and those few incidents sure didn't help. It;s not necessarily practical for use everywhere, but again, if the technogy had really progressed unabated, I think we'd be in a different place with it. Hopefully, we will one day crack fusion, which will be a total game changer.

 

[longboard55]

It takes 20 years and billions to build a nuke, a solar farm is up and running in 2 years max. At least in the southwest, solar is just too easy. We still have 30 years of nuclear waste from 2 reactors sitting 50 yards from one of the busiest highways in America, and no one knows where to put it, nuclear has its flaws.

 

[BrianL]

There is a simple solution for the waste problem:

 

[Starport Seven-Five]

There is NO type of energy production that has zero consequences.

There are more and less severe consequences though.

And blackouts are unavoidable with solar and wind because the wind can stop blowing strongly, sometimes for weeks, and the sun sets daily and may be blocked by clouds for many days consecutively.

Solar doesn't require direct sunlight to generate energy. Production still occurs on overcast or even rainy days.

There are methods for storing electricity as well. For example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_County_Pumped_Storage_Station

 

[ruadisneyfan2]

I don’t think anyone is specifically against solar and wind. Of course we should pursue these avenues and keep improving their efficiency.
Still they are not enough to exclusively power our country.

 

[longboard55]

At least in the Southwest, we do have power that runs 24/7 such as dams and the few remaining nukes. They key is what to do with peak demand which occurs when it is hot. When it is hot the sun is out, so that is why solar works so well. The one issue is the few hours when it is still hot but the sun has gone down such as evening hours. That is where the water batteries make a lot of sense. They have done a few but many more are in planning

 

[_19disnA]

Comparing airplane accidents to concerns about nuclear power is conflating two unrelated things.

The daily/normal operation of EVERY nuclear plant creates highly toxic/radioactive waste that scientists still haven't figured out how to safely dispose of it. Remains radioactive for something like 100,000 years. That is a HUGE issue even if there was never another nuclear plant accident.

Even after 50+ yrs of research, there is still no solution to the problem of nuclear waste. There is no guarantee that spending more money on research will ever result in a solution. Building new nuclear plants without knowing how to handle the resulting radioactive waste is a bit like sticking your head in the sand.

Besides the fact that the construction/operation of nuclear power plants is FAR more expensive/complicated than originally anticipated.

 

[ruadisneyfan2]

Comparing airplane accidents to concerns about nuclear power is conflating two unrelated things.

The daily/normal operation of EVERY nuclear plant creates highly toxic/radioactive waste that scientists still haven't figured out how to safely dispose of it. Remains radioactive for something like 100,000 years. That is a HUGE issue even if there was never another nuclear plant accident.

Even after 50+ yrs of research, there is still no solution to the problem of nuclear waste. There is no guarantee that spending more money on research will ever result in a solution. Building new nuclear plants without knowing how to handle the resulting radioactive waste is a bit like sticking your head in the sand.

Besides the fact that the construction/operation of nuclear power plants is FAR more expensive/complicated than originally anticipated.

I’m only comparing the rarity of these events and the fears.
They do know how to safely store it and even re-use it. I’m ay work right now and can’t elaborate fully but I will when I can.

 

[Dakota731]

There are more and less severe consequences though.


Solar doesn't require direct sunlight to generate energy. Production still occurs on overcast or even rainy days.

There are methods for storing electricity as well. For example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_County_Pumped_Storage_Station

A few years ago, bitter cold weather locked up wind turbines across the Midwest, and it was the coal mining states had to come rescue that area.
And according to Bill Gates,
“Here’s the problem: Storing energy turns out to be surprisingly hard and expensive.
As I wrote in this year’s Annual Letter: “If you wanted to store enough electricity to run everything in your house for a week, you would need a huge battery—and it would triple your electric bill.”
According to this U.S. Energy Information Administration fact sheet, in 2014 the typical U.S. household used 911 kilowatt-hours a month, which works out to roughly 210 kilowatt-hours per week (911 per month / 30 days per month x 7 days per week). The best lithium-ion batteries store less than 0.2 kilowatt-hours per kilogram.
So a lithium-ion battery large enough to store 210 kilowatt-hours would weigh at least 210 / 0.2, or 1050 kg. 1050 kg is about 2314 pounds, or more than one ton.”
We are nowhere near ready in this country to give up fossil fuels and to rush into anything half cocked( like was done with the electric car industry) without facts and foresight into the future is extremely dangerous.

 

[spewey]

I dunno. I suppose a meltdown would be bad, but who doesn't want Cancer-Proof Mutant Wolves?

That's a joke - but the decades of data being looked at regarding the effects of exposure to radiation from the Chernobyl incident are not what was expected.

 

[BrianL]

Comparing airplane accidents to concerns about nuclear power is conflating two unrelated things.

The daily/normal operation of EVERY nuclear plant creates highly toxic/radioactive waste that scientists still haven't figured out how to safely dispose of it. Remains radioactive for something like 100,000 years. That is a HUGE issue even if there was never another nuclear plant accident.

Even after 50+ yrs of research, there is still no solution to the problem of nuclear waste. There is no guarantee that spending more money on research will ever result in a solution. Building new nuclear plants without knowing how to handle the resulting radioactive waste is a bit like sticking your head in the sand.

Besides the fact that the construction/operation of nuclear power plants is FAR more expensive/complicated than originally anticipated.

I mean, the waste is a problem, but we also spew a ton of toxic smoke from buring fossil fuels right into the air. It's not containted at all. Sure, I don't want to be exposed to nuclear waste, but the odds of that happening to me are much lower than they are of breathing smoggy air. I'm not necessarily positing a solution, but it is a consideration.

 

[Starport Seven-Five]

A few years ago, bitter cold weather locked up wind turbines across the Midwest, and it was the coal mining states had to come rescue that area.

I believe you're thinking of a handful of wind turbines that were relocated from warmer regions and locked up due to improper lubricant:
https://www.startribune.com/california-turbines-frozen-in-minnesota-wind/83506647/

Wind turbines have no problem working in arctic regions around the world. The limit is generally design and human access for maintenance, not the turbine itself:
https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/it-true-wind-turbines-dont-work-winter

Also, if we want to get into anecdotal examples we could talk about natural gas lines freezing in Texas. Fossil fuels really let those people down huh? It was actually a design issue and not a fuel issue of course, but it's the same argument you are making.

 

[jimmymc]

Nuclear is to power what airplanes are to travel.
When there’s an accident, it’s huge but overall it’s so rare compared to driving a car. Flying is the safest form of travel yet people have irrational fears about it.

Kyle Hill is an amazing source for learning about nuclear science.

 

[jimmymc]

That's me as well!

Three Mile Island happened when I was in 4th grade. I didn't live close enough to be in real danger, but close enough that I knew exactly where that was - it wasn't someplace far away and hard to imagine. It really formed my opinion on nuclear power, and no matter how many statistics I read now, I think I'll always feel, deep down, that it's unsafe.

Sorry to reply to a random old comment, but you could've been standing across the river from Three Mile Island during the accident and would experience no additional radiation. The only real disaster that happened was for nuclear power's image. But in spite of this, millions of people feel the same as you, and that is a real hurdle for nuclear power.

 

[Dakota731]

I believe you're thinking of a handful of wind turbines that were relocated from warmer regions and locked up due to improper lubricant:
https://www.startribune.com/california-turbines-frozen-in-minnesota-wind/83506647/

Wind turbines have no problem working in arctic regions around the world. The limit is generally design and human access for maintenance, not the turbine itself:
https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/it-true-wind-turbines-dont-work-winter

Also, if we want to get into anecdotal examples we could talk about natural gas lines freezing in Texas. Fossil fuels really let those people down huh? It was actually a design issue and not a fuel issue of course, but it's the same argument you are making.anti-icing systems are installed, they can fail when weather conditions knock out existing power supplies because they rely on the grid to work in the first place.

I believe you're thinking of a handful of wind turbines that were relocated from warmer regions and locked up due to improper lubricant:
https://www.startribune.com/california-turbines-frozen-in-minnesota-wind/83506647/

Wind turbines have no problem working in arctic regions around the world. The limit is generally design and human access for maintenance, not the turbine itself:
https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/it-true-wind-turbines-dont-work-winter

Also, if we want to get into anecdotal examples we could talk about natural gas lines freezing in Texas. Fossil fuels really let those people down huh? It was actually a design issue and not a fuel issue of course, but it's the same argument you are making.

When anti-icing systems are installed, they can fail when weather conditions knock out existing power supplies because they rely on the grid to work in the first place.
Another downside is that blades which do not have an ice-prevention system installed may need to be stopped temporarily while cold temperatures pass. Jian Wang, a professor of aircraft technology and his team at London's Kingston University said doing so "introduces safety hazards where big chunks of ice falling off the blade could present a hazard to people in and around wind farms".
There is no perfect energy source and we are certainly not at a point in this country to give up fossil fuels which can be cleaner, cheaper, better for the environment, and more efficient than other energy sources.
And I remember a few years back when the same celebrities who claim to want clean energy, fought hard to not have a wind farm on Martha’s Vineyard. They take up a lot of lane which isn’t plentiful in some areas and not everyone wants to look at them in their backyard.

 

[LuvOrlando]

There is NO type of energy production that has zero consequences.

But some are way worse than others and nuclear radiation is very messed up, we are still hearing about Chernobyl meanwhile the volume that would be generated by switching over 330 MILLION American's would be so much more, so so so much more so the potential for damage across countless acres and waterways for thousands of years is astronomical.

I don't think any other power sources are also WMDs, LITERALLY prohibited in many parts of the world. The whole topic is a very tricky u-turn and I just can't wrap my head around how Nuclear Power is being branded as environmentally friendly.... like just how it is mind boggling.