Nuclear power

[pecksniff]

If we're going to have electric cars, and if that is to have any beneficial net impact on the environment, then we're going to have find less polluting ways to generate electricity.

What's wrong, really, with nuclear fission power? My brother, who is an engineer (software, not nuclear), assures me that present technology makes it possible to build meltdown-proof plants. The only real problem remaining is waste disposal, which at any rate is not an air pollution problem, the wastes being solid.

(The lesson of Fukushima is, don't build nuclear power plants near an earthquake fault, i.e., anywhere in Japan.)

 

[Dribble]

Not in my back yard. Put it in yours

 

[phrodeau]

There’s no safe way to transport fissionable material.

 

[pecksniff]

There’s no safe way to transport fissionable material.

Are you referring to the fuel, or the waste?

 

[phrodeau]

Are you referring to the fuel, or the waste?

The fuel.

Coal can be loaded into open rail cars, and if there’s an accident, it’s just scooped up with little harm done. Oil spills are damaging and hard to reclaim, but it can be run through pipes with much less risk, as long as essential aquifers are avoided. With radioactive material, there is always a trail of radiation left behind when it’s moved, and a single spill renders the route it’s on unusable.

 

[pecksniff]

The fuel.

Coal can be loaded into open rail cars, and if there’s an accident, it’s just scooped up with little harm done. Oil spills are damaging and hard to reclaim, but it can be run through pipes with much less risk, as long as essential aquifers are avoided. With radioactive material, there is always a trail of radiation left behind when it’s moved, and a single spill renders the route it’s on unusable.

Probably true, but I never heard of that happening.

 

[CornusKousa]

If we're going to have electric cars, and if that is to have any beneficial net impact on the environment, then we're going to have find less polluting ways to generate electricity.

THAT'S RACIST!!!!! (because D'eez don't want to hear anything about THAT!!)

 

[Dribble]

Probably true, but I never heard of that happening.

Like I said....build them in your backyard.

Weird thing about humans....they think they are smarter than nature...even though nature always ends up winning.

Electricity is created near where it is used. That's because the transmission infrastructure will not handle it. It isn't just about the production system...but just as critically the transmission system. You can shut down normal plants when something like Texas occurs...it takes a week or so to shut down nuclear plants.

 

[Philthy_Phil]

THAT'S RACIST!!!!! (because D'eez don't want to hear anything about THAT!!)

Seek help.

 

[CornusKousa]

Seek help.

For what??

I'm living the good life

 

[GeorgeSoros]

A problem with nukes isn’t the known failure modes that robust engineering might account for. Problem is the unknown failure modes, and that nuclear accidents are low frequency high risk events.

 

[WillJ8787]

If we're going to have electric cars, and if that is to have any beneficial net impact on the environment, then we're going to have find less polluting ways to generate electricity.

What's wrong, really, with nuclear fission power? My brother, who is an engineer (software, not nuclear), assures me that present technology makes it possible to build meltdown-proof plants. The only real problem remaining is waste disposal, which at any rate is not an air pollution problem, the wastes being solid.

(The lesson of Fukushima is, don't build nuclear power plants near an earthquake fault, i.e., anywhere in Japan.)

Maybe we should go back to horse and donkey....I'll donate a donkie to a Republitard!

 

[Rightguide]

If we're going to have electric cars, and if that is to have any beneficial net impact on the environment, then we're going to have find less polluting ways to generate electricity.

What's wrong, really, with nuclear fission power? My brother, who is an engineer (software, not nuclear), assures me that present technology makes it possible to build meltdown-proof plants. The only real problem remaining is waste disposal, which at any rate is not an air pollution problem, the wastes being solid.

(The lesson of Fukushima is, don't build nuclear power plants near an earthquake fault, i.e., anywhere in Japan.)

It scares snowflakes.

 

[pecksniff]

A problem with nukes isn’t the known failure modes that robust engineering might account for. Problem is the unknown failure modes, and that nuclear accidents are low frequency high risk events.

We should leave off building plants because they might find new ways to go wrong?!

 

[colddiesel]

The first commercial nuclear plants were built in the late fifties and early 60's. Most of the first ones were 'magnox' designs, were over engineered, and very safe - operationally. Unfortunately they were economically poor because the relatively low output did not justify the capital cost.

Then in the late 80's early nineties they started to close them down, largely because the economics did not stack up. Everything was taken out except the reactor cores which generally means you are left with 50,000 tons of radioactive concrete and rock in a structure perhaps 200 ' high. The reactor core rods can be extracted and stored for perhaps 25 years plus. But the reactor core itself? Try and find an atomic engineer who will guarantee its safe demolition in say 300 years time. You wont find him/her, and meanwhile your descendants can maintain and secure the site for the next 300+ years.

 

[Dribble]

We should leave off building plants because they might find new ways to go wrong?!

Yes...

 

[BoyNextDoor]

America should be making big investments in nuclear. Nothing wrong with it as the non-carbon backstop against peaks in demand unmet by solar and wind.

And transmission should be minimized. You want electricity, generate it locally.

 

[pecksniff]

The first commercial nuclear plants were built in the late fifties and early 60's. Most of the first ones were 'magnox' designs, were over engineered, and very safe - operationally. Unfortunately they were economically poor because the relatively low output did not justify the capital cost.

That is a problem -- even now, AFAIK, there is no cheap way to build a nuke plant.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

That is a problem -- even now, AFAIK, there is no cheap way to build a nuke plant.

They should be built on the scale of nuclear submarines and be made for smaller geographies and local electricity consumption. The fuel cells are vastly more manageable. Building those 200 ft concrete monoliths was a mistake necessitated by the tech of the time.

 

[pecksniff]

Funny how in The Simpsons, Springfield's main industry is a nuclear power plant -- which just seems to be a way of making Burns look evil. We get it, he's evil -- but he could be just as evil if it were an auto plant. That antisemitic union-busting control freak Henry Ford was evil.

 

[Pee4Fun]

America should be making big investments in nuclear. Nothing wrong with it as the non-carbon backstop against peaks in demand unmet by solar and wind.

And transmission should be minimized. You want electricity, generate it locally.

I agree. France generates 70% of its power via nuclear reactors, but will cut back to 50% by 2035 as power from renewables grows.

 

[pecksniff]

The fuel cells are vastly more manageable.

You mean, hydrogen fuel cell cars?

 

[CornusKousa]

Funny how in The Simpsons, Springfield's main industry is a nuclear power plant -- which just seems to be a way of making Burns look evil. We get it, he's evil -- but he could be just as evil if it were an auto plant. That antisemitic union-busting control freak Henry Ford was evil.

He may have been, but not for wanting to run his company.

 

[pecksniff]

He may have been, but not for wanting to run his company.

Union-busters are evil by definition.

 

[Cubantripod]

What's wrong, really, with nuclear fission power?

NIMBYs