General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsA 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 states first nuclear plant is exploring a return to atomic power.
Dairyland Power Cooperative has agreed with NuScale Power to explore using the companys 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 utilitys greenhouse gas emissions will require out of the box thinking, said John Carr, vice president for strategic growth.
https://chippewa.com/
NNadir
(33,545 posts)I do.
a kennedy
(29,707 posts)NNadir
(33,545 posts)USALiberal
(10,877 posts)Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)You don't.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)various factors change. We've had some enormous changes and are in the midst of our biggest-ever emergency.
Buckeyeblue
(5,502 posts)Freethinker65
(10,048 posts)Happy Hoosier
(7,386 posts)Many on our side have a knee-jerk reaction to nuclear, but IMO, we absolutely need it right know
Kid Berwyn
(14,955 posts)Gonna bury it in Nevada not.
NNadir
(33,545 posts)...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)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)
Post removed
MarineCombatEngineer
(12,429 posts)dumbcat
(2,120 posts)Was the deleted post NNadir's response? I wish I had caught it.
MarineCombatEngineer
(12,429 posts)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)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 companys 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 Karens 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, its none of those things.
Karens 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)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)Ill fight to the death for your right to disagree with me. That said, I wont let bullies get their way.
Have a great day!
PS: I didnt hit Report on that removed post.
MarineCombatEngineer
(12,429 posts)I would expect nothing less.
Cuthbert Allgood
(4,965 posts)I would assume they will use a more modern approach.
Demsrule86
(68,667 posts)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)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)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.
Layzeebeaver
(1,638 posts)Its our single best hope in my opinion.
Celerity
(43,500 posts)Cheers!
WarGamer
(12,483 posts)It can be done safely AND cleanly.
It's the greenest form of energy.
a kennedy
(29,707 posts)WarGamer
(12,483 posts)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 Americas electricity comes from nuclear, Gates said. But while Americas 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 were 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.
Pobeka
(4,999 posts)multigraincracker
(32,719 posts)which has been shown to be much safer than the old style, and expensive, style reactors.
Pobeka
(4,999 posts)Blues Heron
(5,943 posts)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)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)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)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)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)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)... 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)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)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)And then just left all the spent fuel behind, like - you guys deal with this shit were out of here.
Arent they supposed to be reprocessing it?
DiamondShark
(787 posts)This is the first I've read from you regarding reprocessing. Can you elaborate?
Blues Heron
(5,943 posts)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 This message was self-deleted by its author.
DiamondShark
(787 posts)If you can elaborate on reprocessing you stated up thread I am willing to hear.
hunter
(38,327 posts)... 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)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)It's pretty ridiculous spin to pretend that only carbon emissions from fuel impact the climate.
Blues Heron
(5,943 posts)not sure if you are being serious or not
FBaggins
(26,758 posts)Nonsensical certainly... gaslighting if you expect others to buy it.
Blues Heron
(5,943 posts)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 well 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)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)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)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)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)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)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)Answer - none of them.
Blues Heron
(5,943 posts)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)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.
lagomorph777
(30,613 posts)That's not the long-term plan, obviously.
FBaggins
(26,758 posts)Or the alternate (e.g., gas) generation that necessarily backs up solar/wind?
hunter
(38,327 posts)Develop it and you'll be a billionaire.
lagomorph777
(30,613 posts)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)Has been horrendous.
I'm happy to see at least a little movement back towards safe, green nuclear energy. It's the future.
Blues Heron
(5,943 posts)Happy Hoosier
(7,386 posts). Uninhabitable. Modern nuclear is far safer than the older designs.
Zeitghost
(3,868 posts)It's basically a rounding error.
RandomNumbers
(17,600 posts)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)... safer than what's been put in action
Blues Heron
(5,943 posts)Have you forgotten?
uponit7771
(90,364 posts)... 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)it was built late 60s early 70s.
uponit7771
(90,364 posts)Blues Heron
(5,943 posts)doh! nobody could have seen that coming. Which one do you think will be next to blow?
uponit7771
(90,364 posts)... 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)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)... 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)Glad you got it all figured out. The next meltdown is not if its when and where.
uponit7771
(90,364 posts)Demsrule86
(68,667 posts)mistake.
uponit7771
(90,364 posts)betsuni
(25,618 posts)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)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)Old corrupt conservative men in charge thinking, What could possibly happen? Different from 21st century technology.
Blues Heron
(5,943 posts)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
betsuni
(25,618 posts)Don't understand the argument here.
Blues Heron
(5,943 posts)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.
betsuni
(25,618 posts)Still not understanding the argument here.
Blues Heron
(5,943 posts)Uranium makes it a bad idea- full stop.
betsuni
(25,618 posts)Blues Heron
(5,943 posts)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.
betsuni
(25,618 posts)Blues Heron
(5,943 posts)why not make the case for your xtra safe new clean nukes ?
What is so safe about these new uranium reactors? Please enlighten us.
betsuni
(25,618 posts)Blues Heron
(5,943 posts)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)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.
Blues Heron
(5,943 posts)sign me up for a backyard nuke!
betsuni
(25,618 posts)Zeitghost
(3,868 posts)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)The new stuff is better isnt one of them for me. Its better until its not. That said, I dont dismiss it. I just wouldnt want to live anywhere near it.
newdayneeded
(1,957 posts)Tsunamis in Wausau.
Blues Heron
(5,943 posts)Can you expand on that a little?
newdayneeded
(1,957 posts)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)no - of course not. There are more hazards associated with radioactive uranium reactors than just tsunamis.
RandomNumbers
(17,600 posts)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)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)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)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.
RandomNumbers
(17,600 posts)obamanut2012
(26,137 posts)Fukushima was built over half a century ago.
Blues Heron
(5,943 posts)There is nothing clean about uranium - mining, burning, waste disposal.
Demsrule86
(68,667 posts)uponit7771
(90,364 posts)Wicked Blue
(5,851 posts)NNadir
(33,545 posts)...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.
Elessar Zappa
(14,049 posts)Unlike solar and wind, nuclear is the actual solution for our energy needs.
Blues Heron
(5,943 posts)from the industry
MontanaFarmer
(630 posts)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)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)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)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)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)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)It has to be considered. Anyone foreclosing it in the array of potential energy sources isn't serious.
Blues Heron
(5,943 posts)it could blow any day now.
VarryOn
(2,343 posts)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)It hasnt changed, still just as dangerous as ever.
Cuthbert Allgood
(4,965 posts)Blues Heron
(5,943 posts)which nuke do you think will be the next to blow or are we done with meltdowns now?
Cuthbert Allgood
(4,965 posts)Spoilers: It's either none or 1 based on who you want to believe.
Blues Heron
(5,943 posts)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)But the design was cheaper than western designs and the fatal flaw (graphite control rod tips) was covered up as a state secret.
uponit7771
(90,364 posts)Blues Heron
(5,943 posts)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)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)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)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)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)Of the soon to be underwater coastal areas?
And no, it's not about to double... Stop the fear mongering, it's killing people.
Blues Heron
(5,943 posts)Zeitghost
(3,868 posts)But the simple fact remains, nuclear is far safer and far cleaner than fossil fuels.
femmedem
(8,207 posts)There are no risk-free, pain-free solutions to the climate crisis.
BGBD
(3,282 posts)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.
uponit7771
(90,364 posts)jmowreader
(50,562 posts)Chernobyl, TMI and Fukushima.
BGBD
(3,282 posts)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)... 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)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.
obamanut2012
(26,137 posts)dawg
(10,624 posts)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)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)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)Just invest in more and improved safety measures.
GoneOffShore
(17,340 posts)The technology is there to make it safe.
And I suspect that these were not the droids you were looking for.
USALiberal
(10,877 posts)Sympthsical
(9,111 posts)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)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.
lagomorph777
(30,613 posts)Initech
(100,102 posts)Chuuku Davis
(565 posts)Look at the French nukes
dwayneb
(768 posts)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)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 Im not betting thatll happen.
Safe nuclear power, my ass.
EX500rider
(10,858 posts)You 1st...
Ron Green
(9,823 posts)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)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)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)The science completely validates my stance.