Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

a kennedy

(29,707 posts)
Mon Mar 14, 2022, 08:34 PM Mar 2022

A possible return to atomic power??? WTH??? 🤬 🤬 🤬

Six years after Wisconsin lifted a ban on nuclear power plant construction, a La Crosse utility company that operated the state’s first nuclear plant is exploring a return to atomic power.

Dairyland Power Cooperative has agreed with NuScale Power to explore using the company’s small-scale nuclear generating technology as a carbon-free power source for about half a million customers in Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa and Illinois.

This agreement provides Dairyland an opportunity to explore this technology and evaluate whether it might be a viable long-term alternative to provide our members with safe, reliable and cost-effective electricity in a lower-carbon future,” said Dairyland CEO Brent Ridge.

Maintaining reliability while cutting the coal-heavy utility’s greenhouse gas emissions will require “out of the box” thinking, said John Carr, vice president for strategic growth.

https://chippewa.com/


169 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
A possible return to atomic power??? WTH??? 🤬 🤬 🤬 (Original Post) a kennedy Mar 2022 OP
Anyone who has a remote sense of reality would applaud this. NNadir Mar 2022 #1
Guess I don't have a remote sense of reality..... a kennedy Mar 2022 #5
I guess not. NNadir Mar 2022 #19
Correct, you don't correct! Nt USALiberal Mar 2022 #44
No. Act_of_Reparation Mar 2022 #150
It's okay. Every action has costs and benefits that change as Hortensis Mar 2022 #160
I agree with you. Buckeyeblue Mar 2022 #33
+1000 Freethinker65 Mar 2022 #34
I agree. Happy Hoosier Mar 2022 #46
Good luck with all the spent fuel. Kid Berwyn Mar 2022 #51
Anyone who is concerned about valuable used nuclear fuel when... NNadir Mar 2022 #58
So, you don't know what to do with the nuclear waste. Kid Berwyn Mar 2022 #61
Post removed Post removed Mar 2022 #64
Wow!!!! MarineCombatEngineer Mar 2022 #74
Damn, I missed it dumbcat Mar 2022 #80
It was pretty much to the point about what he thought of the other's MarineCombatEngineer Mar 2022 #82
Karen Silkwood was murdered trying to tell the truth about nuclear power. Kid Berwyn Mar 2022 #86
Dude or dudette, MarineCombatEngineer Mar 2022 #89
Right back at ya. Kid Berwyn Mar 2022 #94
+100 agree. MarineCombatEngineer Mar 2022 #97
Well hopefully the plant discussed in the OP isn't going to build using 1970s tech. Cuthbert Allgood Mar 2022 #96
Nuclear power will never be safe...not from accidents, attacks etc. We can do better. And while Demsrule86 Mar 2022 #77
Lift the ban on reprocessing Amishman Mar 2022 #92
The land mismanagement going on in the name of solar jeffreyi Mar 2022 #155
Exactly. Layzeebeaver Mar 2022 #83
I certainly do. This subject and our agreement on it is how we met on here. Celerity Mar 2022 #168
Reading Bill Gates latest book... WarGamer Mar 2022 #2
Gonna have to read his book...thanks a kennedy Mar 2022 #7
I know he's a weird dude... WarGamer Mar 2022 #11
I used to think no, but small scale seems feasible and I support it. Pobeka Mar 2022 #3
The article stated "the company's small-scale nuclear generating technology", multigraincracker Mar 2022 #24
Yep. I saw that. Thanks. Pobeka Mar 2022 #39
Its hardly a carbon free power source when the fuel must be mined and processed Blues Heron Mar 2022 #4
This story says about 1/100th exboyfil Mar 2022 #12
I looked it up the other day will try and find it. Blues Heron Mar 2022 #15
If the mining equipment is run off electricity exboyfil Mar 2022 #18
we are talking fuel here - like I said Blues Heron Mar 2022 #26
If we are dickering over 9g/kwh vs 11g/kwh RandomNumbers Mar 2022 #79
It's net positive over the years while FF is not, Nuke power is way beyond 3 Mile Island or Fukashim uponit7771 Mar 2022 #14
they just leave the rods in place -are you kidding? Blues Heron Mar 2022 #21
I'm sure you will point out regulations regarding transport... DiamondShark Mar 2022 #141
My point is they dismantled every last remnant of that nuke plant Blues Heron Mar 2022 #142
Do you know the regulations regarding transportation of spent fuel? DiamondShark Mar 2022 #143
You have a lot of questions - but do you have a point or an opinion? Blues Heron Mar 2022 #145
This message was self-deleted by its author DiamondShark Mar 2022 #161
There are regualtions in place regarding transportation of spent fuel. DiamondShark Mar 2022 #162
Wind and solar are hardly carbon free considering that they require fossil fuel backup... hunter Mar 2022 #87
fuel-wise they are 100 percent carbon free Blues Heron Mar 2022 #99
Why does that matter? FBaggins Mar 2022 #114
Is this gaslighting? Blues Heron Mar 2022 #115
Pretending that only fuel-related emissions matter? I suppose one could claim that. FBaggins Mar 2022 #119
Which nuke do you think will meltdown next? Blues Heron Mar 2022 #122
Changing the subject? FBaggins Mar 2022 #124
no answer? Blues Heron Mar 2022 #125
I guess that was a "yes" FBaggins Mar 2022 #129
So which one will melt down next? Blues Heron Mar 2022 #132
Which Ones Have Actually Melted Down? ProfessorGAC Mar 2022 #164
5 meltdowns and two exclusion zones Blues Heron Mar 2022 #165
Which ones would still have happened with the design under discussion in the OP? FBaggins Mar 2022 #166
Thats so comforting Blues Heron Mar 2022 #169
So, whenever the wind isn't blowing and the sun isn't shining we live without electricity. hunter Mar 2022 #131
You're assuming no storage. lagomorph777 Mar 2022 #117
When did storage become carbon-free? FBaggins Mar 2022 #128
Which magical storage system do you have in mind? hunter Mar 2022 #134
Multiple technologies are being developed right now. By engineers. Not magicians. lagomorph777 Mar 2022 #135
The unintended consequences of anti-nuclear activism Zeitghost Mar 2022 #6
yeah real safe - so safe you cant live in vast swaths of the earth now - Fukushima ring a bell? Blues Heron Mar 2022 #10
And coal plants are making the whole planet... Happy Hoosier Mar 2022 #47
Compared to the damage being caused by fossil fuels Zeitghost Mar 2022 #48
The problem with carbon pollution (fossil fuels) is the amount used, RandomNumbers Mar 2022 #85
It's over 40 years since Mile Island, come on people lets not be luddites. Atomic power is beyond... uponit7771 Mar 2022 #8
you are dreaming - its just as dangerous as ever. Fukushima was only ten years ago Blues Heron Mar 2022 #13
Fukushima was 60 years old and not supposed to be operating, your making the case for new uponit7771 Mar 2022 #16
Correction -it was 40 years old at the time of the multiple meltdowns Blues Heron Mar 2022 #69
The design started in the '50s and it was supposed to be shut down already uponit7771 Mar 2022 #102
nature shut it down for us Blues Heron Mar 2022 #105
Irrelevant point, enforce the rules nuclear works. Just like airliners. Not perfect but better than uponit7771 Mar 2022 #106
How close is your closest nuke? Blues Heron Mar 2022 #108
Not with 21st century tech, we all need to update ourselves on nuke power. Take down the old uponit7771 Mar 2022 #118
Just take them down, sounds so simple Blues Heron Mar 2022 #121
... and Build Back Better? right ? tia uponit7771 Mar 2022 #126
Company always cut corners so I am absolutely against nukes...there is no coming back from a Demsrule86 Mar 2022 #154
Same with airliners but they're fairly well regulated. uponit7771 Mar 2022 #163
"Nobody could have seen that coming"? betsuni Mar 2022 #109
pure folly Blues Heron Mar 2022 #112
Fukushima: old reactor built right on a coastal area with a long history of earthquakes/tsunamis. betsuni Mar 2022 #27
same uranium, same scam. Blues Heron Mar 2022 #28
Chernobyl and Fukushima, both seventies nuclear technology. betsuni Mar 2022 #49
Its inherently a bad idea, whatever new fangled XTRA SAFE!# tech they come up with Blues Heron Mar 2022 #50
Seventies nuclear technology makes it a bad idea? betsuni Mar 2022 #52
I think you are being deliberately obtuse here Blues Heron Mar 2022 #53
Seventies seventies seventies. It's 2022. betsuni Mar 2022 #59
The idea nuclear is carbon free is laughable Blues Heron Mar 2022 #60
Chernobyl SEVENTIES technology. betsuni Mar 2022 #62
instead of repeating yourself ad nauseum and posting silly emoticons Blues Heron Mar 2022 #63
Oh, now it's about me! betsuni Mar 2022 #65
make your argument if you have one Blues Heron Mar 2022 #67
Oh dear. All I ever said was that it's not the seventies. betsuni Mar 2022 #70
Thats compelling Blues Heron Mar 2022 #73
It's still not the seventies. betsuni Mar 2022 #76
Let's compare those track records you speak of... Zeitghost Mar 2022 #127
There are arguments for nuclear but... Renew Deal Mar 2022 #54
But no newdayneeded Mar 2022 #66
what is your point? Blues Heron Mar 2022 #68
Fukushima newdayneeded Mar 2022 #71
Was there a tsunami at Three Mile Island? Blues Heron Mar 2022 #75
Um, "Old corrupt conservative men in charge " RandomNumbers Mar 2022 #88
What do mean by "please turn on the news"? betsuni Mar 2022 #90
Fair point. Maybe I should say, look at recent history RandomNumbers Mar 2022 #91
50-50 senate. Gives each senator a veto. betsuni Mar 2022 #95
You are correct. But unfortunately it is reality. nt. RandomNumbers Mar 2022 #98
You literally just proved the point FOR clean nuclear obamanut2012 Mar 2022 #56
What on earth is clean nuclear - are you kidding? Blues Heron Mar 2022 #57
What about Japan. No to nukes...it will never be safe. Demsrule86 Mar 2022 #152
1950s design vs 2018 ... We can't be Luddite with nuke power uponit7771 Mar 2022 #153
They won't find it easy to obtain insurance nt Wicked Blue Mar 2022 #9
How come nobody ever worries about insurance for the seven million people who die each year... NNadir Mar 2022 #22
Good! Elessar Zappa Mar 2022 #17
sounds like a bumper sticker Blues Heron Mar 2022 #29
Montana did something similar last session. MontanaFarmer Mar 2022 #20
You don't need batteries. Gravity systems are coming along. Pobeka Mar 2022 #40
Better get used to the idea. Triloon Mar 2022 #23
Can be done but... zipplewrath Mar 2022 #25
but we are not handling the spent fuel rods Blues Heron Mar 2022 #31
You're not wrong zipplewrath Mar 2022 #41
The technology is supposedly vastly improved... VarryOn Mar 2022 #30
thats what they said about Chernobyl - now look Blues Heron Mar 2022 #32
I'm going to assume technology has improved since '72 when it was built... VarryOn Mar 2022 #36
It's the same uranium as it's always been, same uranium mines, same processing, same waste. Blues Heron Mar 2022 #38
The same uranium that powers our Navy? Cuthbert Allgood Mar 2022 #104
yes that shit is everywhere isnt it. Blues Heron Mar 2022 #107
How many reactor accidents has the Navy had since they started using them? Cuthbert Allgood Mar 2022 #137
good safety record - keep it up! Blues Heron Mar 2022 #138
The flaws in the Soviet RBMK reactors were known in the 70s. NutmegYankee Mar 2022 #43
Yeah, 60 years ago uponit7771 Mar 2022 #100
none of the nukes are getting any younger - which will be the next to blow? Blues Heron Mar 2022 #103
We could have a meltdown every decade Zeitghost Mar 2022 #130
interesting opinion Blues Heron Mar 2022 #136
They aren't getting younger Zeitghost Mar 2022 #146
the Chernobyl exclusion zone is 1000 square miles Blues Heron Mar 2022 #147
What is the square mileage Zeitghost Mar 2022 #149
check the news bro - they keep cutting power to it Blues Heron Mar 2022 #151
We will soon know who is wrong on that particular issue Zeitghost Mar 2022 #156
Nuclear has risks but continued fossil fuel use is certain suicide. femmedem Mar 2022 #35
Nuclear is the only source BGBD Mar 2022 #37
+1, and now the fuel can be recycled down to safe exposures up close uponit7771 Mar 2022 #101
Well...three significant accidents jmowreader Mar 2022 #120
Hard to say that TMI BGBD Mar 2022 #123
Aggressive renewable energy schemes in places like California, Denmark, and Germany have failed... hunter Mar 2022 #42
I hope it happens more Meowmee Mar 2022 #45
Good, we should have done this years ago obamanut2012 Mar 2022 #55
I think nuclear may be the lesser of two evils, at least until ... dawg Mar 2022 #72
I doubt renewable ever BGBD Mar 2022 #78
I think renewables will eventually get us there, but not soon. dawg Mar 2022 #81
At least it would diminish Manchin's hold on the Democratic party. I'm for it. Samrob Mar 2022 #93
Yes please! GoneOffShore Mar 2022 #84
See coal deaths per year!!!! USALiberal Mar 2022 #110
Anti-nuclear is just being pro-climate change Sympthsical Mar 2022 #111
Nuclear plants are needed to be green dsp3000 Mar 2022 #113
Not really comfortable with nukes and "out of the box" in the same paragraph... lagomorph777 Mar 2022 #116
Shit, are they going to bring back asbestos and lead paint while they're at it? Initech Mar 2022 #133
I am for nukes Chuuku Davis Mar 2022 #139
Modern fission nuclear power is a smart alternative energy choice dwayneb Mar 2022 #140
Just stop it. Economic de-growth is the only sane path to sustainable human life on earth. Ron Green Mar 2022 #144
"Economic de-growth" So live in yurts off the land somehow? EX500rider Mar 2022 #148
I'm doing the best I can (or the least I can), and so are a lot Ron Green Mar 2022 #158
Way Past Time to Do This TuskMoar Mar 2022 #157
To have this debate about nuclear is as silly to me as debating vaccinations rictofen Mar 2022 #159
Renewables do not have enough EROEI to be the sole energy sources atm. Nuclear is a must. Celerity Mar 2022 #167

Hortensis

(58,785 posts)
160. It's okay. Every action has costs and benefits that change as
Tue Mar 15, 2022, 05:50 PM
Mar 2022

various factors change. We've had some enormous changes and are in the midst of our biggest-ever emergency.

Happy Hoosier

(7,386 posts)
46. I agree.
Mon Mar 14, 2022, 11:30 PM
Mar 2022

Many on our side have a knee-jerk reaction to nuclear, but IMO, we absolutely need it right know

NNadir

(33,545 posts)
58. Anyone who is concerned about valuable used nuclear fuel when...
Tue Mar 15, 2022, 08:14 AM
Mar 2022

...seven million people die each year from dangerous fossil fuel waste, aka "air pollution" is not only badly educated, completely unfamiliar with the chemistry and physics of used nuclear fuels, but also, I would submit, given reality, morally withered.

Kid Berwyn

(14,955 posts)
61. So, you don't know what to do with the nuclear waste.
Tue Mar 15, 2022, 08:24 AM
Mar 2022

The issue under discussion is not the harm that comes from fossil fuels.

When people need to weigh the dangers of nuclear power generation, confusing the issue advances the agenda of the nuclear industry.

Response to Kid Berwyn (Reply #61)

MarineCombatEngineer

(12,429 posts)
82. It was pretty much to the point about what he thought of the other's
Tue Mar 15, 2022, 09:40 AM
Mar 2022

views on nuclear power, but it apparently was over the top for some.
Well, ya takes yur chances on a jury and sometimes ya lose.

Kid Berwyn

(14,955 posts)
86. Karen Silkwood was murdered trying to tell the truth about nuclear power.
Tue Mar 15, 2022, 09:50 AM
Mar 2022


Remembering the Killing of Karen Silkwood

August 11, 2009 in Capitalism, Environmental Justice, Nuclear, Organizing

After watching the brilliantly-acted and courageous film Silkwood (1983, starring Meryl Streep), I learned the compelling story of Karen Silkwood and her death, which has seemingly been forgotten by America. Karen, only 28, was a union activist working in a Kerr-McGee nuclear power plant in Oklahoma, who died in a suspicious car accident while on her way to meet with a New York Times reporter for a story that would have exposed the company’s dangerous and illegal mishandling of plutonium.

Karen was active in her union, calling attention to the radioactive contamination in the plant, and spent months compiling evidence to show that the company was deliberately covering up the fact that their fuel rods contained imperfections, which could put millions of lives at risk if they sparked a meltdown. The night of her death, many believe Karen was deliberately driven off the road by another car, and her family was later able to sue Kerr-McGee for $1.3 million in damages, but the company admits no wrongdoing.

The nuclear plant where Karen worked was shut down in 1975, one year after her death. When Karen’s story became public controversy, it helped display the dangers inherent to nuclear power, contributing to the amazingly successful anti-nuclear movement that has stopped construction of all new nuclear plants in the US since 1979. Thus is especially important today as some corporate lobbyists are trying to repackage nuclear power as a “clean” or “carbon-free” energy “source.” In fact, it’s none of those things.

Karen’s story is both a warning and an inspiration – that capitalism pushes companies to sometimes do terrible things to protect their profits, even if it means endangering lives, but also that brave people such as Karen Silkwood, in bringing the truth to light, can challenge us to create a better world.

CONTINUED w LINKS:

http://endofcapitalism.com/2009/08/11/remembering-the-killing-of-karen-silkwood

MarineCombatEngineer

(12,429 posts)
89. Dude or dudette,
Tue Mar 15, 2022, 09:55 AM
Mar 2022

I'm not going to argue with you about this, I couldn't care less what you think of nuclear power, that's your opinion, mine's different.

Have a great Tuesday.

Kid Berwyn

(14,955 posts)
94. Right back at ya.
Tue Mar 15, 2022, 10:14 AM
Mar 2022

I’ll fight to the death for your right to disagree with me. That said, I won’t let bullies get their way.

Have a great day!

PS: I didn’t hit “Report” on that removed post.

Cuthbert Allgood

(4,965 posts)
96. Well hopefully the plant discussed in the OP isn't going to build using 1970s tech.
Tue Mar 15, 2022, 10:15 AM
Mar 2022

I would assume they will use a more modern approach.

Demsrule86

(68,667 posts)
77. Nuclear power will never be safe...not from accidents, attacks etc. We can do better. And while
Tue Mar 15, 2022, 09:04 AM
Mar 2022

carbon after-effects can be dealt with Nuclear waste is forever...and it will be used against us by religious fanatics, racists, C...terrorists in all forms. I am completely against it.

Amishman

(5,559 posts)
92. Lift the ban on reprocessing
Tue Mar 15, 2022, 10:03 AM
Mar 2022

Think of it as recycling.

Less waste, less need for new uranium from places like Russia

Nuclear is essential for at least the next fifty years, until better technologies are developed.

We need to go into nuclear in a big way to mitigate climate change. Wind and solar can't do it alone (at least until we develop much better energy storage technology)

jeffreyi

(1,943 posts)
155. The land mismanagement going on in the name of solar
Tue Mar 15, 2022, 05:14 PM
Mar 2022

Is astonishing. There's solar on previously disturbed sites. Rooftops, parking lots, et al. Fine, we need more. And then there's the vast acreages of public lands being bulldozed as we speak, for solar farms, roads, power lines. This is habitat for desert tortoises, burrowing owls, migratory birds, lots and lots of other trees, shrubs, herbaceous plants, wildlife, and humans who find peace and beauty there. And the carbon footprint of the "renewables" is not "green." When those solar farms are obsolete in a few years, the energy produced will have been minimal, and the habitat is still lost forever. I am all for nuclear power generation, warts and all, especially small scale, in the interim while we wait around for the technology to really be able to produce cleaner power. And leave the wild lands alone. One way or another, the ultimate long-term solution is to reduce the demand for this energy. I think Homo saps are living in dream land, behaving as if we can replicate and consume forever, with no consequences. Mother nature has a tendency to laugh last, and she doesn't care if we make the necessary changes by choice or by default.

WarGamer

(12,483 posts)
2. Reading Bill Gates latest book...
Mon Mar 14, 2022, 08:36 PM
Mar 2022

It can be done safely AND cleanly.

It's the greenest form of energy.

WarGamer

(12,483 posts)
11. I know he's a weird dude...
Mon Mar 14, 2022, 08:46 PM
Mar 2022

But check this out

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/11/bill-gates-bullish-on-using-nuclear-power-to-fight-climate-change.html

“Today, nuclear power is at a crossroads. Nearly 20% of America’s electricity comes from nuclear,” Gates said. “But while America’s current nuclear capacity serves the country well, there are far more reactors slated for retirement than there are new reactors under construction.”

According to Gates, “if we’re serious about solving climate change, and quite frankly we have to be, the first thing we should do is keep safe reactors operating.”

But “even then, just maintaining that status quo is not enough. We need more nuclear power to zero out emissions in America and to prevent a climate disaster,” Gates said Wednesday.

multigraincracker

(32,719 posts)
24. The article stated "the company's small-scale nuclear generating technology",
Mon Mar 14, 2022, 08:59 PM
Mar 2022

which has been shown to be much safer than the old style, and expensive, style reactors.

Blues Heron

(5,943 posts)
4. Its hardly a carbon free power source when the fuel must be mined and processed
Mon Mar 14, 2022, 08:39 PM
Mar 2022

fuel rods don't just rain down from the sky like solar energy, nor do they float in on the breeze like wind power

Talking fuel here only, not the steel in the wind towers etc. Fuel from which the actual electricity is generated.

The fuel to run the nuke plants is mined just like coal (albeit about 1/10 compared to coal joule for joule)

Other than that immense carbon footprint, yeah carbon free. kinda.

exboyfil

(17,865 posts)
12. This story says about 1/100th
Mon Mar 14, 2022, 08:47 PM
Mar 2022

and about what wind power is which is number 2. Could you give me the citation for the 1/10th?


Thanks


More specifically, they figure that wind turbines average just 11 grams of CO2 emission per kilowatthour of electricity generated. That compares with 44 g/kwh for solar, 450 g for natural gas, and a whopping 1,000 g for coal.

But beating them all is the original large-scale zero-carbon power source, nuclear power, at 9 g/kwh.


https://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2021/04/28/how-green-is-wind-power-really-a-new-report-tallies-up-the-carbon-cost-of-renewables/?sh=42d74f4f73cd

Blues Heron

(5,943 posts)
15. I looked it up the other day will try and find it.
Mon Mar 14, 2022, 08:49 PM
Mar 2022

Whatever it is, the point still stands - nuclear is not even carbon free whatsoever fuel-wise. So there goes that particular neo-nuke talking point.

exboyfil

(17,865 posts)
18. If the mining equipment is run off electricity
Mon Mar 14, 2022, 08:52 PM
Mar 2022

generated by nuclear power, would that be carbon free. Windmills requires lots of material like concrete and steel just like reactors so are they carbon free?

Blues Heron

(5,943 posts)
26. we are talking fuel here - like I said
Mon Mar 14, 2022, 09:01 PM
Mar 2022

obviously the windmills are constructed out of materials. The point is- is the energy generated carbon free i.e the fuel source? nukes -no, wind. yes, solar, yes.

RandomNumbers

(17,600 posts)
79. If we are dickering over 9g/kwh vs 11g/kwh
Tue Mar 15, 2022, 09:33 AM
Mar 2022

given the safety risks* of the lesser number,

the problem is not the method of energy generation, it is the amount of energy requiring generation.

Because soon enough the aggregate of 9g/kwh will overtake the current aggregate of 11g/kwh, unless the root cause is addressed.

The amount of energy required is driven by consumption which is driven by population. That is the inconvenient truth that is too often avoided. If there were few enough people consuming it, carbon based production wouldn't be the problem that it is.

* Safety risks = waste + accidents. If these have been adequately addressed by technology - to where new nuclear is as safe as competing technologies, then educate rather than browbeat people. Most anti nuclear folks have rational concerns, whether or not they express them well.

uponit7771

(90,364 posts)
14. It's net positive over the years while FF is not, Nuke power is way beyond 3 Mile Island or Fukashim
Mon Mar 14, 2022, 08:48 PM
Mar 2022

... which were 3 generations old.

Spent fuel rods can be recycled down to something you can bury on a beach.

We need to move past the old fears of nuke energy we're starting to look like Luddites

Blues Heron

(5,943 posts)
21. they just leave the rods in place -are you kidding?
Mon Mar 14, 2022, 08:57 PM
Mar 2022

go up to the old Maine Yankee site - its no longer there, long since torn down, but the spent fuel rods are still there- all of them ever used in the plant- , burning away at 500 degrees or whatever, in dry casks out in a field where the parking lot used to be. They are most definitely not recycling them down to anything.

DiamondShark

(787 posts)
141. I'm sure you will point out regulations regarding transport...
Tue Mar 15, 2022, 01:07 PM
Mar 2022

At some point that is brought up. As I don't live in Maine can you provide the relevant statutes that would provide transport of the 500 degree dry casks?

Blues Heron

(5,943 posts)
142. My point is they dismantled every last remnant of that nuke plant
Tue Mar 15, 2022, 01:13 PM
Mar 2022

And then just left all the spent fuel behind, like - you guys deal with this shit we’re out of here.

Aren’t they supposed to be reprocessing it?

DiamondShark

(787 posts)
143. Do you know the regulations regarding transportation of spent fuel?
Tue Mar 15, 2022, 01:37 PM
Mar 2022

This is the first I've read from you regarding reprocessing. Can you elaborate?

Blues Heron

(5,943 posts)
145. You have a lot of questions - but do you have a point or an opinion?
Tue Mar 15, 2022, 02:30 PM
Mar 2022

I'm not really here to be interrogated for whatever point you have in mind or think your making, why not just say what you mean? If you need to look stuff up to bolster your argument, whatever it is, please do so.

Response to Blues Heron (Reply #145)

DiamondShark

(787 posts)
162. There are regualtions in place regarding transportation of spent fuel.
Tue Mar 15, 2022, 05:53 PM
Mar 2022

If you can elaborate on reprocessing you stated up thread I am willing to hear.

hunter

(38,327 posts)
87. Wind and solar are hardly carbon free considering that they require fossil fuel backup...
Tue Mar 15, 2022, 09:50 AM
Mar 2022

... when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing.

Typically a fully built out hybrid energy system will require a total natural gas input of greater than 50%.

In such a situation adding more wind and solar capacity doesn't help because the excess electricity these generate is useless if there's no demand.

Contrary to popular belief, battery storage tends to be measured in minutes, and stand-alone hydro storage schemes capable of storing energy for even a few hours are very expensive and environmentally destructive.

The biggest problem with wind and solar is that it can drop out for days or weeks. There's no storage scheme capable of covering these kinds of gaps in production, thus fossil fuel power plants must still be maintained.

Hybrid renewable energy schemes will only prolong our dependence on fossil fuels, especially natural gas. Even if, in some perfect world, these hybrid energy schemes replaced three quarters of our fossil fuel use, that's not enough to save the world, especially as the world economy expands, more people are connected to electric grids, and more people drive cars, electric or not.

Blues Heron

(5,943 posts)
99. fuel-wise they are 100 percent carbon free
Tue Mar 15, 2022, 10:16 AM
Mar 2022

that is just a fact. Unlike nuclear power which is now somehow being touted as carbon free in the latest industry talking points. Its not.

The fuel must be mined and extracted and processed etc.

FBaggins

(26,758 posts)
114. Why does that matter?
Tue Mar 15, 2022, 10:52 AM
Mar 2022

It's pretty ridiculous spin to pretend that only carbon emissions from fuel impact the climate.

FBaggins

(26,758 posts)
119. Pretending that only fuel-related emissions matter? I suppose one could claim that.
Tue Mar 15, 2022, 11:19 AM
Mar 2022

Nonsensical certainly... gaslighting if you expect others to buy it.

Blues Heron

(5,943 posts)
122. Which nuke do you think will meltdown next?
Tue Mar 15, 2022, 11:25 AM
Mar 2022

Or are we done with meltdowns?

I know you are well educated on all things nuke, so in your opinion which nuke is the creakiest most likely to meltdown next, if any. Maybe you think we’ll be fine from here on out, but that seems doubtful given the age of the nukes and fallibility of the human operators.

FBaggins

(26,758 posts)
124. Changing the subject?
Tue Mar 15, 2022, 11:33 AM
Mar 2022

Think anyone on the thread can't guess why?

Slightly more logical an argument... but still not particularly logical. Why would the relative safety of a much older version of the technology have anything to do with whether the latest version should be looked at?

Blues Heron

(5,943 posts)
125. no answer?
Tue Mar 15, 2022, 11:37 AM
Mar 2022

the fact of the matter is that in all likelihood we haven't seen the last nuclear disaster, but the pro nukers struggle with admitting that - like you right here.

FBaggins

(26,758 posts)
129. I guess that was a "yes"
Tue Mar 15, 2022, 11:42 AM
Mar 2022


Once again - even if prior disasters were good arguments against nuclear (they aren't) - they aren't relevant to discussions of newer technologies. If some older plant is going to melt down next year... it's going to happen whether SMRs are deployed or not.

Blues Heron

(5,943 posts)
132. So which one will melt down next?
Tue Mar 15, 2022, 11:56 AM
Mar 2022

I think we both know that we have not seen the last nuclear meltdown - it would be foolish to argue otherwise. It is just a matter of time. But in your opinion, which one of them is the riskiest, most poorly maintained one of them all? Or are they all just doing great, no worries?

ProfessorGAC

(65,168 posts)
164. Which Ones Have Actually Melted Down?
Tue Mar 15, 2022, 06:50 PM
Mar 2022

Chernobyl was a stupidity caused accident on a reactor design below the standards EVER used in the US.
Fukushima was never a reactor problem, but they built the plant, stupidly, on a fault line.
There has been no major event based upon inadequate reactor design (even Chernobyl would have been ok had they not run that ridiculous experiment).
And, there has not been a true meltdown except for the earliest stages of Chernobyl.
Add to that design & understanding has increased a hundredfold since those early designs, and computing power for redundant emergency action is a millionfold what it was in those early designs.
To dismiss this option based upon the potential for a disaster while ignoring the pending disaster from doing nothing is short sighted.

Blues Heron

(5,943 posts)
165. 5 meltdowns and two exclusion zones
Tue Mar 15, 2022, 07:02 PM
Mar 2022

TMI
Chernobyl
Fukushima x 3

Are you seriously claiming these did not happen?
I do not think humans as currently evolved can handle nukes without melting them down on a regular basis. How many more exclusion zones will this so called safe technology create?

Do you really think we wont have more?

FBaggins

(26,758 posts)
166. Which ones would still have happened with the design under discussion in the OP?
Tue Mar 15, 2022, 07:41 PM
Mar 2022

Answer - none of them.

Blues Heron

(5,943 posts)
169. Thats so comforting
Tue Mar 15, 2022, 07:57 PM
Mar 2022

too bad they did meltdown and more to come no doubt. Do you think we are done with the meltdowns forever? If not, which one will be next and how big will the exclusion zone be?

hunter

(38,327 posts)
131. So, whenever the wind isn't blowing and the sun isn't shining we live without electricity.
Tue Mar 15, 2022, 11:51 AM
Mar 2022

Got it.

No clean water, no sewage treatment, no heating or cooling, food getting warm in the refrigerator and freezer...

Seriously, large scale solar and wind energy systems are not economically viable without natural gas. That's the dirty secret of the wind and solar industry. Even very wealthy people living off-grid who can afford large resource intensive battery packs must resort to fossil fuel generators when the sun doesn't shine or the wind doesn't blow for a few days.

FBaggins

(26,758 posts)
128. When did storage become carbon-free?
Tue Mar 15, 2022, 11:41 AM
Mar 2022

Or the alternate (e.g., gas) generation that necessarily backs up solar/wind?

lagomorph777

(30,613 posts)
135. Multiple technologies are being developed right now. By engineers. Not magicians.
Tue Mar 15, 2022, 12:04 PM
Mar 2022

But you knew that.

Pumped hydro (not actually new)
Flywheels
Flow batteries
Thermal
Compressed air

There are numerous variations on each of these technologies; they will be adapted to specific situations.

Zeitghost

(3,868 posts)
6. The unintended consequences of anti-nuclear activism
Mon Mar 14, 2022, 08:42 PM
Mar 2022

Has been horrendous.

I'm happy to see at least a little movement back towards safe, green nuclear energy. It's the future.

Happy Hoosier

(7,386 posts)
47. And coal plants are making the whole planet...
Mon Mar 14, 2022, 11:34 PM
Mar 2022

…. Uninhabitable. Modern nuclear is far safer than the older designs.

RandomNumbers

(17,600 posts)
85. The problem with carbon pollution (fossil fuels) is the amount used,
Tue Mar 15, 2022, 09:46 AM
Mar 2022

vs. the capacity of the planet to absorb carbon.

I'm not an advocate for continuing dependence on fossil fuels - far from it. But if we don't recognize all aspects of the issue, we at best only postpone catastrophe.

Deforestation is probably as big a part of the problem as the use of fossil fuels. If you balance carbon pollution sources with enough capacity of carbon-absorbing plant life, then the problem wouldn't be carbon pollution.

I am not saying it is feasible or that it is the only problem. For example, dirty energy plants create dirty air particularly in certain types of neighborhoods and even having the capacity to capture the carbon* doesn't solve the exposure to the pollution that happens between energy plant and absorption.

* I am not referring to unproven, risky "carbon capture" technologies or "geoengineering" (we are already geoengineering by extracting and burning fossil fuels. How's that one going?). Nature already gave us perfectly safe carbon capture technology - forests. Only problem is the consumption needs of the human population seems to have outgrown our ability, or at least willingness, to set aside the space needed for naturally handling the offal of our needs.

uponit7771

(90,364 posts)
8. It's over 40 years since Mile Island, come on people lets not be luddites. Atomic power is beyond...
Mon Mar 14, 2022, 08:43 PM
Mar 2022

... safer than what's been put in action

Blues Heron

(5,943 posts)
13. you are dreaming - its just as dangerous as ever. Fukushima was only ten years ago
Mon Mar 14, 2022, 08:47 PM
Mar 2022

Have you forgotten?

uponit7771

(90,364 posts)
16. Fukushima was 60 years old and not supposed to be operating, your making the case for new
Mon Mar 14, 2022, 08:51 PM
Mar 2022

... nuke power because few people understand the modularity of it now.

The nuke fuel can be recycled down to less than airliners flights worth of radiation exposure.

The left is no doubt looking like luddites when it comes to new nuke power

Blues Heron

(5,943 posts)
69. Correction -it was 40 years old at the time of the multiple meltdowns
Tue Mar 15, 2022, 08:52 AM
Mar 2022

it was built late 60s early 70s.

Blues Heron

(5,943 posts)
105. nature shut it down for us
Tue Mar 15, 2022, 10:22 AM
Mar 2022

doh! nobody could have seen that coming. Which one do you think will be next to blow?

uponit7771

(90,364 posts)
106. Irrelevant point, enforce the rules nuclear works. Just like airliners. Not perfect but better than
Tue Mar 15, 2022, 10:23 AM
Mar 2022

... Nothing.

You have half an argument if this wasn't the 21st century. There's no need to listen to flat earth mindset in regards to nuclear power. Water is wet, Earth round nuclear power is way safer than it was three to five generations ago.

Blues Heron

(5,943 posts)
108. How close is your closest nuke?
Tue Mar 15, 2022, 10:28 AM
Mar 2022

remember - each weld in each fuel rod is getting more and more brittle, each bit of corrosion is getting deeper and deeper, the crud is piling up, the waste pools are filling up, and none of them are getting any younger. the concrete containment is becoming more and more irradiated, will it hold? who knows. tick tock!

uponit7771

(90,364 posts)
118. Not with 21st century tech, we all need to update ourselves on nuke power. Take down the old
Tue Mar 15, 2022, 11:14 AM
Mar 2022

... designs and regulate new designs ... bout that simple.

Works for airliners worldwide will work for nuke energy, we all need to get out of the 20 century and into a cleaner energy sources with new technology

Blues Heron

(5,943 posts)
121. Just take them down, sounds so simple
Tue Mar 15, 2022, 11:22 AM
Mar 2022

Glad you got it all figured out. The next meltdown is not if it’s when and where.

Demsrule86

(68,667 posts)
154. Company always cut corners so I am absolutely against nukes...there is no coming back from a
Tue Mar 15, 2022, 05:09 PM
Mar 2022

mistake.

betsuni

(25,618 posts)
109. "Nobody could have seen that coming"?
Tue Mar 15, 2022, 10:33 AM
Mar 2022

Old nuclear reactor right on the coast with a long history of earthquakes and huge tsunamis?

Now in 2022 more people can see this coming because it's not the seventies.

Blues Heron

(5,943 posts)
112. pure folly
Tue Mar 15, 2022, 10:38 AM
Mar 2022

of course it was obvious but the nukers did it anyway. And now we are paying the price. Who will be next?

betsuni

(25,618 posts)
27. Fukushima: old reactor built right on a coastal area with a long history of earthquakes/tsunamis.
Mon Mar 14, 2022, 09:02 PM
Mar 2022

Old corrupt conservative men in charge thinking, What could possibly happen? Different from 21st century technology.

Blues Heron

(5,943 posts)
28. same uranium, same scam.
Mon Mar 14, 2022, 09:05 PM
Mar 2022

what happens when war breaks out or do you think that wont happen - check out whats going on at good old Chernobyl right now. The nuke plants are a horrendous liablity at all times but especially during war

Blues Heron

(5,943 posts)
50. Its inherently a bad idea, whatever new fangled XTRA SAFE!# tech they come up with
Tue Mar 15, 2022, 07:55 AM
Mar 2022

we are better off with electricity generating that doesnt need fuel at all. Mined fuels are turning out to be a deal with the devil, whether its coal or nukes.

Nukes have a poor track record so far with two disasters resulting in massive, long term contamination. The waste is piling up in situ with no plan in sight to deal with it.

We dodged a bullet with Three Mile Island, but a worse accident here at home is just a matter of time.

Blues Heron

(5,943 posts)
60. The idea nuclear is carbon free is laughable
Tue Mar 15, 2022, 08:21 AM
Mar 2022

unless you completely ignore the entire uranium mining industry that is required to dig up and process the fuel rods

It is a last ditch talking point to rehabilitate the filthy, dangerous industry with a truly horrendous track record. You cant trust inherently fallible humans with something as hazardous as uranium. we will unfortunately pay the price of this hubris again and again going forward. Or do you think there will not be any more meltdowns. Chernobyl is getting ready to blow again, now that its in a war zone - that could happen to any nuke anywhere on the planet.





Blues Heron

(5,943 posts)
63. instead of repeating yourself ad nauseum and posting silly emoticons
Tue Mar 15, 2022, 08:38 AM
Mar 2022

why not make the case for your xtra safe new clean nukes ?

What is so safe about these new uranium reactors? Please enlighten us.

Blues Heron

(5,943 posts)
67. make your argument if you have one
Tue Mar 15, 2022, 08:47 AM
Mar 2022

its not about you at all - its about your lack of an argument. Do you have anything to say about the newfangled xtra safe uranium reactors? Why are they so safe?

Keep in mind nukes are hazardous eight ways to Sunday - so being meltdown resistant is only one facet - you still have the pesky issue of all that radioactive material which is dangerous from cradle to grave.

betsuni

(25,618 posts)
70. Oh dear. All I ever said was that it's not the seventies.
Tue Mar 15, 2022, 08:54 AM
Mar 2022

I don't know anything about the newfangled nuclear things but I know it's not the seventies. There is no argument because it's 2022 and not the seventies.

Zeitghost

(3,868 posts)
127. Let's compare those track records you speak of...
Tue Mar 15, 2022, 11:40 AM
Mar 2022

Let's start with human lives:

How many people have died from nuclear energy production?

How many have died from coal/fossil fuel energy production?

https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy#:~:text=Nuclear%3A%20In%20an%20average%20year,a%20single%20person%20would%20die.


Renew Deal

(81,871 posts)
54. There are arguments for nuclear but...
Tue Mar 15, 2022, 08:07 AM
Mar 2022

The new stuff is better isn’t one of them for me. It’s better until it’s not. That said, I don’t dismiss it. I just wouldn’t want to live anywhere near it.

newdayneeded

(1,957 posts)
71. Fukushima
Tue Mar 15, 2022, 08:56 AM
Mar 2022

got destroyed from a tsunami, remember, as stated up thread. Nuclear is much safer now. Wausau doesn't have coastal threats as does Japan.

Blues Heron

(5,943 posts)
75. Was there a tsunami at Three Mile Island?
Tue Mar 15, 2022, 09:02 AM
Mar 2022

no - of course not. There are more hazards associated with radioactive uranium reactors than just tsunamis.

RandomNumbers

(17,600 posts)
88. Um, "Old corrupt conservative men in charge "
Tue Mar 15, 2022, 09:51 AM
Mar 2022

maybe you have hit on the biggest problem

Nuclear may have moved on but if you think the part I quoted as changed all that much ... please turn on the news.

N.B. young idealistic non-white non-conservative women can do dumb stuff too. Just for different reasons. But still dumb and still potentially disastrous.

betsuni

(25,618 posts)
90. What do mean by "please turn on the news"?
Tue Mar 15, 2022, 09:58 AM
Mar 2022

That Japan is controlled by old corrupt conservative men has nothing to do with Europe or North America, totally different, not even close. Turn on the news and every meeting in Japan is men, a few women, otherwise all men.

RandomNumbers

(17,600 posts)
91. Fair point. Maybe I should say, look at recent history
Tue Mar 15, 2022, 10:01 AM
Mar 2022

and consider likely near future political climate.

(but hell, even currently you just have to look at what passes for a 'Democrat' in certain states, that is holding up most significant progress in the Senate even as we type here)

betsuni

(25,618 posts)
95. 50-50 senate. Gives each senator a veto.
Tue Mar 15, 2022, 10:14 AM
Mar 2022

As it was with the ACA, a miracle that it passed at all. Without those Democrats in red states, Democrats wouldn't have even the slimmest majority and nothing at all would get done. Republicans are the problem, and the people who vote for them or don't vote because they idiotically think both sides are the same.

Blues Heron

(5,943 posts)
57. What on earth is clean nuclear - are you kidding?
Tue Mar 15, 2022, 08:14 AM
Mar 2022

There is nothing clean about uranium - mining, burning, waste disposal.

NNadir

(33,545 posts)
22. How come nobody ever worries about insurance for the seven million people who die each year...
Mon Mar 14, 2022, 08:58 PM
Mar 2022

...from air pollution while people quiver in fear of the last best hope of humanity, nuclear energy?

What insurance pays for climate change?

I personally do not think that insurance actuaries should make major environmental decisions.

They're not qualified to do so.

Raising the issue of insurance in connection with a major environmental issue is intellectually and frankly ethically weak.

MontanaFarmer

(630 posts)
20. Montana did something similar last session.
Mon Mar 14, 2022, 08:56 PM
Mar 2022

Folks, we're not coming anywhere near net zero without nuclear being a huge component. We're just not. You can't store wind and solar without huge batteries, which also require mining, so that argument doesn't hold water. Without storage those 2 sources can't do it on their own. The smaller modular new-generation reactors should be a direct replacement for coal plants; here, the reason for the legislative change was because of the potential to put those reactors into the colstrip generation stations.

Pobeka

(4,999 posts)
40. You don't need batteries. Gravity systems are coming along.
Mon Mar 14, 2022, 10:14 PM
Mar 2022

I think I remember the latest -- is they are about 90% efficient.

I also think I remember (sketchy on it though) that about 600 of these blocks are about all we need in the USA. The footprint is a football field size IIRC.

It's a massive concrete block that moves "up" on excess electriciy, and lowers when you need to generate electricity.

Water systems have also be employed for the same purpose, but need a lot more real estate.

We're going to need every trick in the book to battle climate change.

Triloon

(506 posts)
23. Better get used to the idea.
Mon Mar 14, 2022, 08:58 PM
Mar 2022

None of the other technologies have moved ahead in the last 50 years as needed. We've passed all the tipping points and have run out of time, the way I see it. There are no longer any non-dangerous means available to us. I've dreaded ever having this thought, but here it is.

zipplewrath

(16,646 posts)
25. Can be done but...
Mon Mar 14, 2022, 08:59 PM
Mar 2022

We've learned alot over the years and can probably build reactors that don't have the risks of the past. Pebble bed reactors are among those technologies. And we can handle much of the nuclear "waste" problem through the use of reclamation efforts to recover usable fuel. But in the end, there will be unusable nuclear waste, vastly less that is currently claimed, but it will exist non the less. And until that is addressed, there is a significant problem with nuclear power.

Blues Heron

(5,943 posts)
31. but we are not handling the spent fuel rods
Mon Mar 14, 2022, 09:09 PM
Mar 2022

there just sitting there out in a field in casks or in spent fuel pools.

All this woulda coulda stuff -the reality is nuke power is unfolding poorly on this planet. We have contaminated vast swaths of formerly habitable land with it. It remains dangerous at all times but especially in times of trouble - like right now.

zipplewrath

(16,646 posts)
41. You're not wrong
Mon Mar 14, 2022, 10:54 PM
Mar 2022

We aren't handling the "stuff" correctly. The reasons why are the basis of opposing new constructions. But make no mistake, the reasons are also the obstacle to handling the existing problems correctly, much less moving forward with an achievable energy source that would be an excellent replacement for fossil fuels.

 

VarryOn

(2,343 posts)
30. The technology is supposedly vastly improved...
Mon Mar 14, 2022, 09:09 PM
Mar 2022

It has to be considered. Anyone foreclosing it in the array of potential energy sources isn't serious.

 

VarryOn

(2,343 posts)
36. I'm going to assume technology has improved since '72 when it was built...
Mon Mar 14, 2022, 09:33 PM
Mar 2022

Nuclear sources should be considered, not dismissed outright. Surely lessons have been learned in each of the few accidents.

We just need to stay open-minded.

Blues Heron

(5,943 posts)
38. It's the same uranium as it's always been, same uranium mines, same processing, same waste.
Mon Mar 14, 2022, 10:02 PM
Mar 2022

It hasn’t changed, still just as dangerous as ever.

Blues Heron

(5,943 posts)
107. yes that shit is everywhere isnt it.
Tue Mar 15, 2022, 10:24 AM
Mar 2022

which nuke do you think will be the next to blow or are we done with meltdowns now?

Cuthbert Allgood

(4,965 posts)
137. How many reactor accidents has the Navy had since they started using them?
Tue Mar 15, 2022, 12:07 PM
Mar 2022

Spoilers: It's either none or 1 based on who you want to believe.

Blues Heron

(5,943 posts)
138. good safety record - keep it up!
Tue Mar 15, 2022, 12:10 PM
Mar 2022

all nukes need the utmost professionalism to be operated safely, unfortunately, that has not been the case back on dry land - we have had five meltdowns and two exclusion zones already. Where will the next one be?

NutmegYankee

(16,201 posts)
43. The flaws in the Soviet RBMK reactors were known in the 70s.
Mon Mar 14, 2022, 11:16 PM
Mar 2022

But the design was cheaper than western designs and the fatal flaw (graphite control rod tips) was covered up as a state secret.

Blues Heron

(5,943 posts)
103. none of the nukes are getting any younger - which will be the next to blow?
Tue Mar 15, 2022, 10:20 AM
Mar 2022

who will be the next victims of this scam? Or do you think they get safer as they age? Do you really think we are done with meltdowns going forward? I think that is highly doubtful. The only question is - who's next?

Zeitghost

(3,868 posts)
130. We could have a meltdown every decade
Tue Mar 15, 2022, 11:49 AM
Mar 2022

Which isn't close to a realistic risk analysis and still not cause even a fraction of the amount of death and destruction that fossil fuels cause.

Blues Heron

(5,943 posts)
136. interesting opinion
Tue Mar 15, 2022, 12:06 PM
Mar 2022

where do you think the next meltdown will be, if any. Obviously it would be great if that didn't happen but lets get real here - we have had five meltdowns and two exclusion zones already, and the nukes - they are not getting any younger are they.

(although I hear the exclusion zones make great wildlife refuges- lets hear it for nuclear tolerant wildlife!)

Zeitghost

(3,868 posts)
146. They aren't getting younger
Tue Mar 15, 2022, 04:26 PM
Mar 2022

Because we aren't building enough new, modern reactors that are much safer due to the fear mongering by anti-nuclear activism.

We're headed towards a future where climate catastrophe exclusion zones will dwarf the few square miles currently left uninhabitable by nuclear incidents, both of which would never happen with modern plants.

You and others are letting the perfect be the enemy of the good and it's literally costing us thousands of lives a year and getting worse. That's not an interesting opinion, it's a tragic one.

Blues Heron

(5,943 posts)
147. the Chernobyl exclusion zone is 1000 square miles
Tue Mar 15, 2022, 04:33 PM
Mar 2022

it will probably be twice that size before the week is out the way things are going right now over there.

Zeitghost

(3,868 posts)
149. What is the square mileage
Tue Mar 15, 2022, 05:01 PM
Mar 2022

Of the soon to be underwater coastal areas?

And no, it's not about to double... Stop the fear mongering, it's killing people.

Zeitghost

(3,868 posts)
156. We will soon know who is wrong on that particular issue
Tue Mar 15, 2022, 05:14 PM
Mar 2022

But the simple fact remains, nuclear is far safer and far cleaner than fossil fuels.

femmedem

(8,207 posts)
35. Nuclear has risks but continued fossil fuel use is certain suicide.
Mon Mar 14, 2022, 09:26 PM
Mar 2022

There are no risk-free, pain-free solutions to the climate crisis.

 

BGBD

(3,282 posts)
37. Nuclear is the only source
Mon Mar 14, 2022, 09:51 PM
Mar 2022

That is clean enough to not contribute to the next mass extinction event and has the capability to supply baseline power.

Want to move to electric vehicles? Two options, either burn coal or build more nuke plants.

Nuclear is, by far, the safest option for baseline power. FF burning has killed massively more people than nuclear. Nuke has been used around the globe for 70 years with only 2 significant accidents.

 

BGBD

(3,282 posts)
123. Hard to say that TMI
Tue Mar 15, 2022, 11:30 AM
Mar 2022

Was a significant accident. There was only a limited release of material no proven effects. TMI was more a disaster of public perception than an actual disaster.

hunter

(38,327 posts)
42. Aggressive renewable energy schemes in places like California, Denmark, and Germany have failed...
Mon Mar 14, 2022, 11:11 PM
Mar 2022

... and have only increased our long term dependence on natural gas.

In Germany this failure has been catastrophic, since German renewable energy schemes were dependent on Russian natural gas.

As Germany has been forced to increase its use of coal their ability to use solar and wind energy is diminished.

There's enough natural gas in the ground to destroy whatever is left of the natural world as we know it, and civilization itself.

It's best we leave that natural gas in the ground.

I used to be a radical anti-nuclear activist. I'm not any more.

The human race has worked its way into a tight spot. With the world population approaching 8 billion people we've become dependent on high density energy sources. I figure a "renewable energy" only economy can only support about 4 billion people, and such an economy would look nothing like the economy many affluent people now enjoy.

Meowmee

(5,164 posts)
45. I hope it happens more
Mon Mar 14, 2022, 11:28 PM
Mar 2022

We can reduce dependence on oil and emissions. We have the highest costs in the country for electric and power supply. I am sure they will still try somehow to price gouge here though, ugh.

dawg

(10,624 posts)
72. I think nuclear may be the lesser of two evils, at least until ...
Tue Mar 15, 2022, 08:59 AM
Mar 2022

we find a way to generate more (and efficiently store) energy from renewables.

It's either that or fossil-fuel peaking plants, and nuclear may be the best option currently available to us.

 

BGBD

(3,282 posts)
78. I doubt renewable ever
Tue Mar 15, 2022, 09:32 AM
Mar 2022

Are our frontline power source. Nuclear is the best option for now and only fusion technology is capable to replace it. However, we are atleast 50 years from a viable commercial fusion plant, and that's being hopeful.

dawg

(10,624 posts)
81. I think renewables will eventually get us there, but not soon.
Tue Mar 15, 2022, 09:35 AM
Mar 2022

The sun is a giant fusion reactor that generates vast amounts of free energy. We just need to learn better ways of harnessing it and storing it for use when the sun isn't shining.

Samrob

(4,298 posts)
93. At least it would diminish Manchin's hold on the Democratic party. I'm for it.
Tue Mar 15, 2022, 10:10 AM
Mar 2022

Just invest in more and improved safety measures.

GoneOffShore

(17,340 posts)
84. Yes please!
Tue Mar 15, 2022, 09:45 AM
Mar 2022

The technology is there to make it safe.

And I suspect that these were not the droids you were looking for.

Sympthsical

(9,111 posts)
111. Anti-nuclear is just being pro-climate change
Tue Mar 15, 2022, 10:38 AM
Mar 2022

At some point (and that point was 20 years ago), people must come to grips with the fact renewables will not magically get us out of this mess. I'm currently getting solar on my house. Solar is good. But it's not what a global economy requires.

The technology has changed, it is much safer.

At some point, the attitudes of the 70s have to give way to the 21st century. People who oppose nuclear just aren't coping with reality or taking climate change seriously. I'm sorry, but they're not.

"More windmills!" is laughably unserious.

dsp3000

(489 posts)
113. Nuclear plants are needed to be green
Tue Mar 15, 2022, 10:46 AM
Mar 2022

there's no way around it. And the EU wouldn't be in their russian pickle if they weren't so stupid to completely shut down their nuke plants after fukushima w/o any plans on replacing them.

dwayneb

(768 posts)
140. Modern fission nuclear power is a smart alternative energy choice
Tue Mar 15, 2022, 12:37 PM
Mar 2022

The reason why it is smart is that the risks from nuclear fissile reactors are exceedingly small in comparison to the damage being caused by the burning of fossil fuels. Of course there are risks, but you have to look at the data and the statistics to realize that those risks are very low.

Another consideration is that modern nuke plants will be far, far safer than previous designs. Both Chernobyl and Fukashima and this war in Ukraine are providing essential new specifications for the design and construction of modern nuke plants.

Ultimately, fusion power will provide the world with nearly unlimited energy, but it's still probably 50 years away. In the meantime we have to do everything we can to stop using fossil fuels, not only for climate change, but as we have seen recently, for national security.

Ron Green

(9,823 posts)
144. Just stop it. Economic de-growth is the only sane path to sustainable human life on earth.
Tue Mar 15, 2022, 02:00 PM
Mar 2022

It took 350 million years for humans to grow to a billion on this planet, then only 200 years to reach 8 billion, all the while extracting fossil fuel and building a vacuous consumer culture.

Our only hope is to turn it around, but I’m not betting that’ll happen.

“Safe” nuclear power, my ass.

Ron Green

(9,823 posts)
158. I'm doing the best I can (or the least I can), and so are a lot
Tue Mar 15, 2022, 05:36 PM
Mar 2022

of others. People have known for many years that a carbon and economic footprint was a problem, but too many politicians got elected pandering to comfort and convenience, not to mention growth.

Look, I know the human story is beginning to end, but to cheerlead *safe nuclear power* rather than take a serious look at our relationship with nature and question population and economic growth is just insane.

TuskMoar

(83 posts)
157. Way Past Time to Do This
Tue Mar 15, 2022, 05:32 PM
Mar 2022

We will never "conserve" our way out of energy production. The demand keeps going up. The reactors of today are so very different from those in the 50s and 60s. They are safer, more efficient, produce less (but not zero waste), and much less likely to be weaponized. Bring on the power of the atom!

rictofen

(236 posts)
159. To have this debate about nuclear is as silly to me as debating vaccinations
Tue Mar 15, 2022, 05:45 PM
Mar 2022

And the opposition logic is oddly very similar: point out the very rare instances where death/damage was done and ignore the millions of lives saved.

Celerity

(43,500 posts)
167. Renewables do not have enough EROEI to be the sole energy sources atm. Nuclear is a must.
Tue Mar 15, 2022, 07:45 PM
Mar 2022

The science completely validates my stance.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»A possible return to atom...