- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Why Aren't We Doing More Nuclear Power?
Posted on 4/18/22 at 1:48 pm
Posted on 4/18/22 at 1:48 pm
If libs want to solve climate change, they should be shouting from the rooftops for more nuclear power. It already supplies 18% of all electricity in the U.S. (France gets 80% from it). Chyna is building new generation nuke plants as we speak.
Nuke pros:
1) It emits no CO2 or any other pollutant. It is totally "green."
2) Old reactors were already pretty safe, but newer reactor designs (Gen 3 and 4) offer "passive" safety. This means the laws of physics keep it from melting down and the plant doesn't rely on humans or backup generators, etc. Moreover, studies have shown that nuclear power is far safer than coal relative to the health of the population. (Did you know that burning coal releases radiation?).
3) It is highly reliable, can run all the time, and doesn't rely on batteries like solar or wind.
4) It doesn't take up much space relative to solar or wind, where you need tons of panels and turbines all over the place (which are ugly, loud, and a waste of land). One study found that you'd need to fill the ENTIRE state of West Virginia with wind turbines to fuel 1/3'rd of America's energy needs (over 25,000 square miles). On the other hand, you'd only need 169 square miles of nuke plants to do the same.
5) New Gen 4 designs can take nuclear waste already in storage and burn it for power.
Nuke Cons:
1) It's more expensive both in upfront plant costs and energy per KWh. However, this is mostly because of red tape. Other countries have proven it can be made cheaper than what it is here.
2) Paranoid people. A lot of people are ignorant about nuke power and repeat all kinds of urban legends. These anti-nuke groups always fight new plant construction (which bleeds over to politicians). Many a plant has been shut down (some after almost being finished) because ignorant citizens bitched.
3) Nuclear waste. Nuke plants don't take nearly as much matter to create energy as coal plants, but they do leave behind radioactive waste which needs to be stored for a long arse time. Yucca mountain would solve the problem for good, but politics got in the way (Harry Reid bitched). The GAO said Yucca mountain was shut down because of pure politics and not safety.
So why are we not talking about this more? Republicans should be on it, but even they don't talk about it much.
Nuke pros:
1) It emits no CO2 or any other pollutant. It is totally "green."
2) Old reactors were already pretty safe, but newer reactor designs (Gen 3 and 4) offer "passive" safety. This means the laws of physics keep it from melting down and the plant doesn't rely on humans or backup generators, etc. Moreover, studies have shown that nuclear power is far safer than coal relative to the health of the population. (Did you know that burning coal releases radiation?).
3) It is highly reliable, can run all the time, and doesn't rely on batteries like solar or wind.
4) It doesn't take up much space relative to solar or wind, where you need tons of panels and turbines all over the place (which are ugly, loud, and a waste of land). One study found that you'd need to fill the ENTIRE state of West Virginia with wind turbines to fuel 1/3'rd of America's energy needs (over 25,000 square miles). On the other hand, you'd only need 169 square miles of nuke plants to do the same.
5) New Gen 4 designs can take nuclear waste already in storage and burn it for power.
Nuke Cons:
1) It's more expensive both in upfront plant costs and energy per KWh. However, this is mostly because of red tape. Other countries have proven it can be made cheaper than what it is here.
2) Paranoid people. A lot of people are ignorant about nuke power and repeat all kinds of urban legends. These anti-nuke groups always fight new plant construction (which bleeds over to politicians). Many a plant has been shut down (some after almost being finished) because ignorant citizens bitched.
3) Nuclear waste. Nuke plants don't take nearly as much matter to create energy as coal plants, but they do leave behind radioactive waste which needs to be stored for a long arse time. Yucca mountain would solve the problem for good, but politics got in the way (Harry Reid bitched). The GAO said Yucca mountain was shut down because of pure politics and not safety.
So why are we not talking about this more? Republicans should be on it, but even they don't talk about it much.
41
Posted on 4/18/22 at 1:53 pm to AUstar
Because this isn’t really about “solving climate change”.
This is about bringing a population to heel.
This is about control and enriching themselves.
This is about bringing a population to heel.
This is about control and enriching themselves.
Posted on 4/18/22 at 1:54 pm to AUstar
Because it doesn't jive with climate hustlers
Posted on 4/18/22 at 1:55 pm to AUstar
All the safety features/regs drive the price up of building one. You should have seen the insane amount of concrete and rebar that went into the foundation of the River Bend plant by St. Francisville.
Posted on 4/18/22 at 1:56 pm to AUstar
Bad press and scaremongering due to Chernobyl and Fukushima.
Posted on 4/18/22 at 1:57 pm to AUstar
The left has married themselves to the radical 60's anti nuke mentality who are so pro environment and pro science they openly oppose the only solution to both problems.
Posted on 4/18/22 at 1:58 pm to AUstar
It has been made economically unfeasible to build one since the 70s.
Insurance on the plant is so high that it is impossible to make a profit.
Insurance on the plant is so high that it is impossible to make a profit.
This post was edited on 4/18/22 at 1:59 pm
Posted on 4/18/22 at 1:58 pm to AUstar
Because Elon Musk is for it.
Posted on 4/18/22 at 1:58 pm to AUstar
No solution will ever work while groomers are in charge, especially good solutions.
If you could turn water into energy, the groomers would shite on it
If you could turn water into energy, the groomers would shite on it
Posted on 4/18/22 at 1:59 pm to AUstar
And ruin the scam?
Posted on 4/18/22 at 1:59 pm to AUstar
Cause that actually IS a solution to the problem. But they cannot afford to NOT have an ‘existential’ problem to wring their hands about.
Sensible people have been ignoring anyone crying about ‘climate’ change if they weren’t advocating for nuclear. Nothing else is rational.
Sensible people have been ignoring anyone crying about ‘climate’ change if they weren’t advocating for nuclear. Nothing else is rational.
Posted on 4/18/22 at 2:01 pm to teke184
quote:
it is impossible to make a profit.
I worked in nuclear power for 30 years. You are wrong.
Posted on 4/18/22 at 2:02 pm to AUstar
Politicians don’t talk about nuclear because they have a weak to no understanding of energy technology.
Man induced climate change is a hoax. The climate changes naturally and we will adapt.
Coal, nuclear, and natural gas should be used for baseload electric generation. The fact most politicians, media, and the public don’t understand is baseload generation is needed anyway to back up the intermittent production of electricity by unreliable renewable wind and solar energy.
So central station electric generation is still needed because of unreliable renewables. There is no cost effective battery storage with the capacity to meet electricity demand for retail, commercial, and industrial customers. There will be no economical battery storage for electricity for the foreseeable future. That’s a fact.
Man induced climate change is a hoax. The climate changes naturally and we will adapt.
Coal, nuclear, and natural gas should be used for baseload electric generation. The fact most politicians, media, and the public don’t understand is baseload generation is needed anyway to back up the intermittent production of electricity by unreliable renewable wind and solar energy.
So central station electric generation is still needed because of unreliable renewables. There is no cost effective battery storage with the capacity to meet electricity demand for retail, commercial, and industrial customers. There will be no economical battery storage for electricity for the foreseeable future. That’s a fact.
This post was edited on 4/18/22 at 2:05 pm
Posted on 4/18/22 at 2:04 pm to AUstar
If you solve a problem the commies won't have anything to divide us with.
Down the road, fusion power.
Down the road, fusion power.
Posted on 4/18/22 at 2:06 pm to Lynxrufus2012
Fusion power is a pipe dream. We’ll have a jetsons city and flying cars for everyone before fusion is used for electric generation, and probably not then either.
Posted on 4/18/22 at 2:12 pm to Lynxrufus2012
I've been in three nuke plants. The safety regs are insane for sub contractors. We were changing printed circuit boards on Generator Protection Relays. the procedures were the exact same as a coal fired plant. But the safety issues outrageous. One guy had to go to the bathroom. We had one escort. All five of us had to stop, put our tools in the cases, then follow him to the bathroom. Ever the clown, I chimed out "I am not going to hold it for him, when he goes in."
Posted on 4/18/22 at 2:12 pm to AUstar
Rad waste is already extremely expensive to dispose of. Maybe use some tax payer dollars for the actual greater good and subsidize the disposal for power generation.
Would eliminate a key negative for nuclear energy. Disposal costs.
Would eliminate a key negative for nuclear energy. Disposal costs.
This post was edited on 4/18/22 at 2:56 pm
Posted on 4/18/22 at 2:15 pm to AUstar
quote:
If libs want to solve climate change, they should be shouting from the rooftops for more nuclear power.
They have been aggressively shutting down perfectly good operating nuclear power plants.
Posted on 4/18/22 at 2:17 pm to AUstar
Probably going to be pretty difficult now that we are going to be fighting a proxy war with Russia for years and have harsh capital controls on their assets 
Posted on 4/18/22 at 2:17 pm to AUstar
Some of the new generation reactors you mention arent finalized designs yet.
That being said, you’re generally correct. We need to be going balls to the wall to finalize some of these designs and then getting them operational.
Many of the newest designs negate what would have previously been considered cons.
Especially the ones that can run on the spent fuel rods we are having to store away as waste. Imagine generating massive amounts of power while simultaneously eliminating waste which costs tons to store away.
That being said, you’re generally correct. We need to be going balls to the wall to finalize some of these designs and then getting them operational.
Many of the newest designs negate what would have previously been considered cons.
Especially the ones that can run on the spent fuel rods we are having to store away as waste. Imagine generating massive amounts of power while simultaneously eliminating waste which costs tons to store away.
This post was edited on 4/18/22 at 2:21 pm
Page 1 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News