commercial nuclear power reactors

there are roughly 430 nuclear power reactors currently in operation

over 60 further nuclear power reactors are under construction, while over 150 are firmly planned

good or bad move for humanity?

BiancaDK

[QUOTE="thegerg"] No, it's not a global problem. Storage/disposal of nuclear waste is quite well regulated and doesn't really pose much of a problem to anyone. What energy solution do you feel would provide a better alternative?BiancaDK

Seriously, people need to get over their fear of nuclear energy. It's by far the best option available. Please list better alternatives if you can think of them.

Thorium reactors seem to be clearly superior, I don't understand why they build tons of these plutonium reactors when the technology could be outdated within a decade.

[QUOTE="BiancaDK"]

there are roughly 430 nuclear power reactors currently in operation

over 60 further nuclear power reactors are under construction, while over 150 are firmly planned

good or bad move for humanity?

BranKetra

there are roughly 430 nuclear power reactors currently in operation

over 60 further nuclear power reactors are under construction, while over 150 are firmly planned

good or bad move for humanity?

BiancaDK

[QUOTE="BiancaDK"]

there are roughly 430 nuclear power reactors currently in operation

over 60 further nuclear power reactors are under construction, while over 150 are firmly planned

good or bad move for humanity?

Matthew-first

[QUOTE="BiancaDK"]

there are roughly 430 nuclear power reactors currently in operation

over 60 further nuclear power reactors are under construction, while over 150 are firmly planned

good or bad move for humanity?

Matthew-first

You know, that 'sun' thing, sure isn't providing much right. It's almost like the sun isn't always available as a viable source of energy depending on time of day and weather.

Even if it were possible to get 100% of the nation's energy by solar and wind, they're still intermittent, and you'd still need power plants.

[QUOTE="Matthew-first"]

[QUOTE="BiancaDK"]

there are roughly 430 nuclear power reactors currently in operation

over 60 further nuclear power reactors are under construction, while over 150 are firmly planned

good or bad move for humanity?

Inconsistancy

You know, that 'sun' thing, sure isn't providing much right. It's almost like the sun isn't always available as a viable source of energy depending on time of day and weather.

Even if it were possible to get 100% of the nation's energy by solar and wind, they're still intermittent, and you'd still need power plants.

It's a double-edged sword. On one hand it will help address growing energy costs in a carbon neutral manner. On the other hand we will be relying on a source of energy that is limited, and it creates a type of waste that lasts nearly forever and is truly bad for the earth. Also when you consider that no plant is 100% safe from a Japan style meltdown you do have to seriously consider whether or not we should be pursuing nuclear as an energy source.

I will say that on the storage/radiation front that we have found a certain type of mushroom in Chernobyl which breaks down radiation. Perhaps with some more research we can find a way to utilize this new breed to less the time it takes to store nuclear waste.

[QUOTE="Inconsistancy"][QUOTE="Matthew-first"]

SUN.

We have FREE energy... no need of power plants.

BiancaDK

You know, that 'sun' thing, sure isn't providing much right. It's almost like the sun isn't always available as a viable source of energy depending on time of day and weather.

Even if it were possible to get 100% of the nation's energy by solar and wind, they're still intermittent, and you'd still need power plants.

Everything is a tradeoff. That idea for instance is ridiculous because of cost. To use one of your own phrases...ask any (electrical) engineer. Moreover it would be horribly inefficient due to distance and differences in peak demand.

The key to wind and solar has nothing to do with the intermittancy of the source energy...it has everything to do with our inability to store electricity in sufficient quantities for sufficient time. Batteries in other words.

In N America we will increasingly rely on natural gas while making slow continued progress in renewables. We will do this because we have hundreds of years of supply with current technology. Next generation technology will increase that to thousands of years of supply.

This will provide us more than enough time to solve the electrcity storage issue, and if we never solve it, we will at least have more than enough time to slowly transition to renewables.

[QUOTE="Matthew-first"]

[QUOTE="BiancaDK"]

there are roughly 430 nuclear power reactors currently in operation

over 60 further nuclear power reactors are under construction, while over 150 are firmly planned

good or bad move for humanity?

Inconsistancy

You know, that 'sun' thing, sure isn't providing much right. It's almost like the sun isn't always available as a viable source of energy depending on time of day and weather.

Even if it were possible to get 100% of the nation's energy by solar and wind, they're still intermittent, and you'd still need power plants.

It's a great thing until we develop stable fusion reactors. At least two of which are in production right now and should be operational 100% by 2050 at the absolute latest.

It's the largest source of cheap energy with the lowest amount of waste compared to the other sources that can produce similar outputs. Green energies all have the issue of not being stable. Solar only works during the day, we can only harness like 10% max of the energy, and we can't store it properly. Wind energy is incredibly expensive to maintain and puts out a very low amount of power to a limited area. Hydroelectric power requires the damming up of rivers which destroys the local eco systems. Geothermal is only practical in areas where the crust is thin enough.

Nuclear energy is our best bet. 300,000 tons of nuclear waste is practically nothing given the size of the Earth.

Fusion is the ultimate form of energy. Massive amount of energy output for little waste production. Until we get fusion reactors, nuclear energy is the way to go. People are parinoid over it for no reason. Don't build a nuclear power plant on a major fault line or earthquake prone area and you're fine. They last for decades and output a lot of energy. Storing nuclear waste is the only difficult part but even that has been worked on quite a bit. There are ways to recylce and reduce the nuclear waste and then proper storage methods that don't harm the environment around them. It's something any nation that can afford nuclear energy can easily handle.

I say we go with fat people powering a large turbine.

It's a better alternative to having a grass roof and a boiler that runs on turds.Gifye

Good.Inconsistancy

This.

Security is really the only downside of nuclear power. And most security issues related to nuclear plants involve decades old installments.

With technological improvements finding fuel is not nearly as problematic as it was in the beginning when U-238 was the only viable isotope. The cost efficiency of nuclear power is ridiculously high compared to any other power source. Of course clean energy would be better, but alas, capitalism dictates where we go.

[QUOTE="Inconsistancy"]Good.N30F3N1X

This.

Security is really the only downside of nuclear power. And most security issues related to nuclear plants involve decades old installments.

With technological improvements finding fuel is not nearly as problematic as it was in the beginning when U-238 was the only viable isotope. The cost efficiency of nuclear power is ridiculously high compared to any other power source. Of course clean energy would be better, but alas, capitalism dictates where we go.

[QUOTE="Inconsistancy"]Good.BiancaDK

lulz, people want to cry about nuclear energy but i suspect the story will different in a few years if you want the lights on and your local hospital operating.

my suggestion is to look at the saftey record of these plants and not some bullshyt spewed by people opposed to safe clean energy.

[QUOTE="Gen007"]

we really dont have a choice with the way energy demand is going up.

BiancaDK

lulz, people want to cry about nuclear energy but i suspect the story will different in a few years if you want the lights on and your local hospital operating.

my suggestion is to look at the saftey record of these plants and not some bullshyt spewed by people opposed to safe clean energy.

Riverwolf007

[QUOTE="BiancaDK"][QUOTE="Gen007"]

we really dont have a choice with the way energy demand is going up.

Jebus213

[QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]

lulz, people want to cry about nuclear energy but i suspect the story will different in a few years if you want the lights on and your local hospital operating.

my suggestion is to look at the saftey record of these plants and not some bullshyt spewed by people opposed to safe clean energy.

Serraph105

shoot it into space

They should be more afraid of cars then, much more deadly.Inconsistancy

shoot it into space

SuperSaiyanLink

It's a very good move for humanity - practically essential if we ever want to stop emitting metric fvcktons of C02. We need to build more of 'em more quickly, though.

[QUOTE="Gen007"]

we really dont have a choice with the way energy demand is going up.

BiancaDK

Thorium.

[QUOTE="Inconsistancy"][QUOTE="Matthew-first"]

SUN.

We have FREE energy... no need of power plants.

BiancaDK

You know, that 'sun' thing, sure isn't providing much right. It's almost like the sun isn't always available as a viable source of energy depending on time of day and weather.

Even if it were possible to get 100% of the nation's energy by solar and wind, they're still intermittent, and you'd still need power plants.

This is a dumb post.

Long range electrical power transmission has problems, you know. NAMELY LOSS OF POWER.

It's a great thing until we develop stable fusion reactors. At least two of which are in production right now and should be operational 100% by 2050 at the absolute latest.

Wasdie

That would be the absolute earliest.

[QUOTE="BiancaDK"] at the moment that's not a feasible solution, because things that go up might come down, and if they do go down, we'd be in troubleMannyDelgado

Mhmm.

Provided, ofc, that they don't asplode midflight in the atmosphere.

We could use the moon for target practice.

Also, I thought BiankaDK was smarter than this.

[QUOTE="BiancaDK"][QUOTE="Gen007"]

we really dont have a choice with the way energy demand is going up.

Brosephus_Rex

Thorium.

Nuclear power it is.. until someone discovers a cleaner source of energy.

[QUOTE="Inconsistancy"]They should be more afraid of cars then, much more deadly.BiancaDK

shoot it into space

SuperSaiyanLink

The half-life of MSR waste is ~100-300 years, and LWR's 10's of thousands. And we've never had any more than a partial meltdown in Three Mile Island venting a tiny amount of radioactive material.

I'm afraid to go outside of a bunker, because a meteor could strike me, a gamma ray burst could fry me... and most of all, I'm afraid to live, because I may die. Yes, we should be careful about how we build and operate nuclear power plants, but fearing them so much that we refuse to build them really isn't worth it at all.

I live within spitting distance of 2 nuclear power plants, but electricity costs more than the average for the US. Super lame, right?Guppy507

Nuclear is not cost effective in the US.

[QUOTE="Guppy507"]I live within spitting distance of 2 nuclear power plants, but electricity costs more than the average for the US. Super lame, right?SUD123456

Nuclear is not cost effective in the US.

Well, compared coal, oil & gas, nothing is. That aside, one could definitely do worse.

[QUOTE="SUD123456"]

[QUOTE="Guppy507"]I live within spitting distance of 2 nuclear power plants, but electricity costs more than the average for the US. Super lame, right?Brosephus_Rex

Nuclear is not cost effective in the US.

Well, compared coal, oil & gas, nothing is. That aside, one could definitely do worse.

Which doesn't make nuclear any more cost effective.

There has not been a new nuke plant built in the US in decades and there won't be any new ones built.

[QUOTE="Brosephus_Rex"]

[QUOTE="SUD123456"]

Nuclear is not cost effective in the US.

SUD123456

Well, compared coal, oil & gas, nothing is. That aside, one could definitely do worse.

Which doesn't make nuclear any more cost effective.

There has not been a new nuke plant built in the US in decades and there won't be any new ones built.

There are nuclear power plants currently in construction.

I would say that future construction largely depends on what sort of political ramifications there are due to the perceived threats posed by global warming.

[QUOTE="SUD123456"]

[QUOTE="Brosephus_Rex"]

Well, compared coal, oil & gas, nothing is. That aside, one could definitely do worse.

Brosephus_Rex

Which doesn't make nuclear any more cost effective.

There has not been a new nuke plant built in the US in decades and there won't be any new ones built.

There are nuclear power plants currently in construction.

I would say that future construction largely depends on what sort of political ramifications there are due to the perceived threats posed by global warming.

There are no NEW nuke plants under construction in the US. There has not been a NEW nuclear plant built in the US in 30 yrs. There have been only a very few nuclear reactors installed on existing nuclear plant sites in the past 30 yrs.

It has been eseentially impossible to receive a permit to site a NEW nuke plant. As of August 2012 there is now also a federal court imposed injunction against even relicensing existing plants.

Moreover, the current and likely forseeable cost of natural gas in N America makes any NEW nuke plant uneconomical and this situation is likely to persist for decades to come.

Meanwhile the global warming issue is largely irelevant as most of the GHG savings in power generation can be accomplished by changeover from coal to natural gas. While the incremental gain in going from natural gas to nuclear is still meaningful, the net gain of that incremental benefit is dwarfed by the problem in transportation and stationary (building) non-electricity enery usage (heating & waterheating).

Simultaneously, the net delivered cost per KW/h of alternative renewables partnered with NG combined cycle dispatchable backup is rapidly approaching if not bettering nuclear. Meaning, that even if you priortize power generation over transportation and stationary uses it still won't provide benefit vs wind/solar backed by NG for dispatchable and peaking puposes.

Nuclear is effectively dead and will remain that way for decades if not forever.

the net gain of that incremental benefit is dwarfed by the problem in transportation and stationary (building) non-electricity enery usage (heating & waterheating).

SUD123456

^ I do think I overlooked that.

To my knowledge, Southern Company has two plants in the works. Obviously natty gas is the most economically friendly direction, but how much pull the green people (which mightn't be much at all) have in the future is of consequence to natty gas.

[QUOTE="SUD123456"]

the net gain of that incremental benefit is dwarfed by the problem in transportation and stationary (building) non-electricity enery usage (heating & waterheating).

Brosephus_Rex

^ I do think I overlooked that.

To my knowledge, Southern Company has two plants in the works. Obviously natty gas is the most economically friendly direction, but how much pull the green people (which mightn't be much at all) have in the future is of consequence to natty gas.

Southern is just adding two reactors to an existing plant. It is not a new facility.

Almost all of the green groups are anti-nuclear. Where gas and nuclear are both part of the generation mix the greenies choose gas 9/10 times (made up stat, but based on my considerable energy experience)

Almost all of the green groups are anti-nuclear. Where gas and nuclear are both part of the generation mix the greenies choose gas 9/10 times (made up stat, but based on my considerable energy experience)

SUD123456

I see. I'll take your word for it based upon your past posts pertaining to energy in general. I was under the impression that b/c tons C02/kW*hr were higher for NG than nuke (not to mention the whole fracking brouhaha) that they would opt for the latter instead.

[QUOTE="SUD123456"]

Almost all of the green groups are anti-nuclear. Where gas and nuclear are both part of the generation mix the greenies choose gas 9/10 times (made up stat, but based on my considerable energy experience)

Brosephus_Rex

I see. I'll take your word for it based upon your past posts pertaining to energy in general. I was under the impression that b/c tons C02/kW*hr were higher for NG than nuke (not to mention the whole fracking brouhaha) that they would opt for the latter instead.

I understand your point. In theory you should be correct. In practice, there is a rabid almost instinctual anti-nuke element to the greenies that basically overrides any kind of practical comparison.

[QUOTE="Brosephus_Rex"]

[QUOTE="SUD123456"]

Almost all of the green groups are anti-nuclear. Where gas and nuclear are both part of the generation mix the greenies choose gas 9/10 times (made up stat, but based on my considerable energy experience)

SUD123456

I see. I'll take your word for it based upon your past posts pertaining to energy in general. I was under the impression that b/c tons C02/kW*hr were higher for NG than nuke (not to mention the whole fracking brouhaha) that they would opt for the latter instead.

I understand your point. In theory you should be correct. In practice, there is a rabid almost instinctual anti-nuke element to the greenies that basically overrides any kind of practical comparison.

That feel when I should have put a parenthesis around "kW*hr."

In any case, I don't think the greens will be able to stop natty gas. Is that going to work its way into the mainstream transportation infrastructure in the foreseeable future?