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

[KnightInShiningArmorDis92]

2 years ago I didn't know or care about nuclear power or "Fusion". I bought organic food from "Whole Foods" in order to give big corporations like "Walmart" the middle finger. I didn't know about "GMOs".

But then the 2022 West Coast "Heat Dome" happens.

And I find myself becoming more more interested in science.

I am now much more excited for things like this.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/28/opinion/climate-change-nuclear-waste.html

I also wish America aspired to be better at nuclear power like the French are.
https://www.reuters.com/business/en...ar-power-plants-inspector-general-2022-02-10/

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/readings/french.html

It boggles my mind that society didn't seem too excited to build a futuristic world back in the 2010s.

I want the most powerful nations to commit to build a better future.

It seemed like after 2008 much of American society was struggling to make ends meet while another good portion was living comfortably in McMansions in gated neighborhoods, the reality show demographic.

Nice house in a gated neighborhood, German made car, cushy office job, nice vacations each year, life is good enough already, so why dream of a "Star Trek" future?

 

[thanxfornoticin]

Not picking on you specifically, but this is why it's so vital that we all think more independently, do research and learn about things from many different angles, and not just go with the flow of what we've been told!! Nuclear energy specifically, in my opinion, was on its way to being the green energy of the future in the 70s - so much energy, no emissions, and so much potential. And then events like Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima all occurred. While nuclear energy was amazing 99.9% of the time, when it went wrong - it was extremely dangerous.

There was also the significant threat of nuclear power to the oil companies...... and they have a lot of money and political power!

And then there's the problem of what to do with the spent radioactive fuel waste - in this country, the US Govt really dropped the ball on that one.....

Keep learning independently...... you'll be amazed at the things you don't know

 

[LuvOrlando]

First, second, third and on to infinity, nuclear waste is not OK. There is nothing anyone can ever say to me ever that would make me think generating nuclear waste is an environmentally sound idea. There is no way to get rid of it, it is stored for lifetimes and everyone swears it is safe until an earthquake or flood or even malice opens it up exposing untold life forms. I mean, we've all seen how humans behave especially when money is involved, safety goes waaaaay to the back of the line in concerns once it bumps up against profits. Do I trust humans with this, no, I do not.

Also, people might want to watch or rewatch ENRON: the smartest guys in the room and see how easily a centralized power system is manipulated for profit. I can't even fathom the whole country at the mercy of these sorts, we can;t even seem to get our ducks in a row on simple things so no confidence in this. Sometimes I wonder how many proponents are deeply invested in this path & counting on the ease of exploitation as a great new way to make $.
yeah - no

Any talk about improving solar, wind & water power then I am all in, I know it isn't perfect so lets make it better.

 

[Dakota731]

I wish people would think more independently about electric cars. Most of America's electricity comes from natural gas, nuclear, and coal. An EV's environmental credentials mean nothing when you still have to burn coal to run it.
Several studies have shown that the EV production process emits more greenhouse gas than an equivalent gas powered car.
Cobalt mining for batteries can also lead to serious water pollution.
Lithium-ion batteries also burn hotter and can last much longer than gas, which tends to burn out quickly. Lithium-ion battery fires can take tens of thousands of gallons of water to extinguish. The National Fire Protection Association notes one EV fire in Texas required more than 30,000 gallons of water after a crash.
Sadlt in this country the appearance of doing something better or smarter is actually more important than the actual results or the facts.

 

[mousefan73]

Nuclear Power is a thing that a PP said, great 99% of the time, if it goes bad it's really bad. I live in western Europe. Decades after Chernobyl, even being 1000 miles from us we need to watch the amount of mushrooms we eat ( if we pick in the woods, not farm grown) as the ground here is still radioactive and for some reason mushrooms really soak that stuff up.

We had a power plant not far from us and the amount of cancer cases nearby are also higher than in other areas.. so nuclear power has it's drawbacks.

edit: forgot also we had a plant about 20 miles from us. here in germany they are all shut down.. what scared me was learning what my friend ( head pharmacist for the major hospital in that town) told me. He was responsible for precurement and in the basements what they had stored as goverment emergency meltdown back-up plans freaked me out... ex. iodine.

 

[mousefan73]

I wish people would think more independently about electric cars. Most of America's electricity comes from natural gas, nuclear, and coal. An EV's environmental credentials mean nothing when you still have to burn coal to run it.
Several studies have shown that the EV production process emits more greenhouse gas than an equivalent gas powered car.
Cobalt mining for batteries can also lead to serious water pollution.
Lithium-ion batteries also burn hotter and can last much longer than gas, which tends to burn out quickly. Lithium-ion battery fires can take tens of thousands of gallons of water to extinguish. The National Fire Protection Association notes one EV fire in Texas required more than 30,000 gallons of water after a crash.
Sadlt in this country the appearance of doing something better or smarter is actually more important than the actual results or the facts.

Not 100% green ( nothing is) but here in europe if you have EV, most people have solar on their roofand charge that way. New systems also store energy too. We are getting such a system in the near future.

 

[_19disnA]

Nuclear power is one of those things where it has turned out to be far more complicated then originally thought. There remain serious challenges to using it successfully. Throwing more research money at the problem of what to safely do with nuclear waste still has NOT resulted in any solution. Also, building/operating a nuclear plant is FAR more complicated then most people expected. Conspiracy theories relating to oil companies make for popular discussion on social media, but the scientific challenges remain. It is a simplistic view of nuclear power to assume that if we just spend enough money on research, a magical solution will suddenly appear.

Fission vs fusion are two different topics. Nuclear reactors currently in use are from fission. Research continues on fusion reactors but no one has successfully been able to produce one that generates more energy then they put into it or figured out how to make it self-sustaining. There is no guarantee that pouring more money into fusion research will yield a viable outcome.

Those wanting to learn more about these topics should search out reputable scientific sites online since there are many of them. Blogs or individual articles by someone with unknown qualifications can be of dubious scientific value or state things that are more the author's opinion then factual.

 

[MrsPete]

It seemed like after 2008 much of American society was struggling to make ends meet while another good portion was living comfortably in McMansions in gated neighborhoods, the reality show demographic.

When I was a teenager my dad told me my generation would be the first to have no middle class. He was off on the timeframe, but he was right about the concept.

And then there's the problem of what to do with the spent radioactive fuel waste - in this country, the US Govt really dropped the ball on that one.....

From the NEI -- Nuclear Energy Institute: "... the entire amount of waste created in the United States would fill one football field, 10 yards deep. By comparison, a single coal plant generates as much waste by volume in one hour as nuclear power has during its entire history."

Yes, it's dangerous stuff, but it's also very compact. That's ALL we've created in the roughly 70 years we've been using nuclear power.
A very real problem is that nuclear is the only real option for America's future, given our huge appetite for electricity, yet we haven't invested in new plants in a very long time.
Consider, too, that American nuclear plants are not built the same as those in other countries. We have more fail safes. And the security that surrounds nuclear plants -- wow.

Source: My husband, an engineer who's worked in the nuclear industry for three decades.

Sadlt in this country the appearance of doing something better or smarter is actually more important than the actual results or the facts.

The term for that is "green washing".

 

[PollyannaMom]

Any talk about improving solar, wind & water power then I am all in, I know it isn't perfect so lets make it better.

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.

 

[longboard55]

30 years of nuclear waste from 2 large reactors is sitting 100 yards from one of the busiest freeways in the country, in an area subject to earthquakes and tidal waves.

 

[LuvOrlando]

A very real problem is that nuclear is the only real option for America's future, given our huge appetite for electricity, yet we haven't invested in new plants in a very long time.

I don't accept this.

It is, of course, fine that you do feel this way but would be best to use words like "I believe" etc when stating opinion, not fact, because otherwise it is misleading and almost demands disagreement while opinions are neither right nor wrong.

Personally, I would prefer devolving back to using candles made of food waste wax to eating radioactive food, but that is just my opinion. I don't love the heat so if AC goes away Maine seems nice.

 

[RunDisney Matriarch]

I'd encourage anyone interested in this topic to check out Next Lab and their work toward molten salt nuclear reactors. Molten salt reactor technology was abandoned decades ago in favor of the current weapons-grade nuclear power that resulted in the accidents other posters have expressed concerns about. Molten salt reactors bear no such risks and while they can't help with weapons, I'm convinced they're the best energy solution we have going forward. There are a couple of TED talks well worth a watch: https://www.acunextlab.org/videos. Cheers to a fun non-Disney discussion topic!

 

[LuvOrlando]

Man made radioactive waste is not a great answer to any question IMO.

Everyone goes on and on about saving the planet for future generations, I can't quite sort out how anyone goes from this moral dilemma to it being ok to gift generations to come with radioactive waste management. Someone somewhere is gonna need to explain this one because I just don't see the sanity behind the leap.

Just swapping out one problem for another which seems much worse, the following is interesting.

https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/radwaste.html

"Radioactive isotopes eventually decay, or disintegrate, to harmless materials. Some isotopes decay in hours or even minutes, but others decay very slowly. Strontium-90 and cesium-137 have half-lives of about 30 years (half the radioactivity will decay in 30 years). Plutonium-239 has a half-life of 24,000 years."

 

[ruadisneyfan2]

Any talk about improving solar, wind & water power then I am all in, I know it isn't perfect so lets make it better.

It doesn't produce enough electricity to rely on it completely. Sure, it's improving, but not at a pace where anywhere in the near future can we cut ourselves off from fossil fuels.

 

[LuvOrlando]

It doesn't produce enough electricity to rely on it completely. Sure, it's improving, but not at a pace where anywhere in the near future can we cut ourselves off from fossil fuels.

Wind and sun I am behind 100% al l day long with whatever investments are necessary to get us to where we need to be.

How anyone can be all for nuclear energy is beyond my ability to follow.

The US has never approved a safe way to store the waste, like literally everyone is on a bandwagon into an abyss saying they are pro environment but being ok with waste that takes thousands of years to be safe yet zero way to safely store it for those thousands of years.

https://www.gao.gov/nuclear-waste-disposal

A riddle me this riddle me that topic if ever I saw one, mind boggling anyone can hold this as an option.

 

[tvguy]

Nuclear power is one of those things where it has turned out to be far more complicated then originally thought. There remain serious challenges to using it successfully. Throwing more research money at the problem of what to safely do with nuclear waste still has NOT resulted in any solution. Also, building/operating a nuclear plant is FAR more complicated then most people expected. Conspiracy theories relating to oil companies make for popular discussion on social media, but the scientific challenges remain. It is a simplistic view of nuclear power to assume that if we just spend enough money on research, a magical solution will suddenly appear.

Fission vs fusion are two different topics. Nuclear reactors currently in use are from fission. Research continues on fusion reactors but no one has successfully been able to produce one that generates more energy then they put into it or figured out how to make it self-sustaining. There is no guarantee that pouring more money into fusion research will yield a viable outcome.

Those wanting to learn more about these topics should search out reputable scientific sites online since there are many of them. Blogs or individual articles by someone with unknown qualifications can be of dubious scientific value or state things that are more the author's opinion then factual.

Very well put.

 

[Neapolitan Ice Cream]

Fusion is a real possibility now. Whilst we're easy off a functioning Nuclear Fusion plant, scientists HAVE created a reaction whereby more energy is generated than is put into it.

 

[ruadisneyfan2]

Wind and sun I am behind 100% al l day long with whatever investments are necessary to get us to where we need to be.

How anyone can be all for nuclear energy is beyond my ability to follow.

The US has never approved a safe way to store the waste, like literally everyone is on a bandwagon into an abyss saying they are pro environment but being ok with waste that takes thousands of years to be safe yet zero way to safely store it for those thousands of years.

https://www.gao.gov/nuclear-waste-disposal

A riddle me this riddle me that topic if ever I saw one, mind boggling anyone can hold this as an option.

Your link basically states that politicians can’t agree on where to dispose of the waste.
It doesn’t disprove that nuclear energy is by far more safe and efficient than any other source of energy.
It’s been powering our Navy submarines and aircraft carriers for 50 years.

 

[LuvOrlando]

Your link basically states that politicians can’t agree on where to dispose of the waste.
It doesn’t disprove that nuclear energy is by far more safe and efficient than any other source of energy.
It’s been powering our Navy submarines and aircraft carriers for 50 years.

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.

 

[Starport Seven-Five]

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.

Agree with this. I have a feeling even if we had a solution we thought was "safe" it isn't likely that we would find out it was a bad idea in 100 years. With the waste being hazardous for so long it's a huge concern for the future.

Below is the kind of stuff that comes to mind when I hear about "safe disposal"