The fact that we haven't built a ton of Generation 3 nuclear plants to replace the old ones/add to capacity is a great failure of human kind. The nuclear waste is far far easier to deal with than the effect of fossil fuel consumption.
Opening this thread up for discussion on the various ways in which energy can be generated, the pro's and con's of various energy sources, breakthrough's in new energy technology, energy sources and their impact on climate change, and just about anything related to the way we power society.
For those who may not be up to date, the Obama administration recently formalized their intent to regulate green house gas emissions as a pollutant under the EPA. This will require each state to examine their energy mix and devise a plan as to how they can reduce the GHG emissions from their power plants. The Obama administration is pushing towards reducing the use of coal fired power plants, which will see more solar, wind, nuclear, and natural gas be used to replace coal plants.
US supreme court backs EPA plan to cut carbon emissions from power plants | Law | theguardian.com
Some more reading here;The US supreme court largely upheld Barack Obama's plans to cut carbon pollution from power plants on Monday, delivering critical support for his climate action plan.
The court reaffirmed the Environmental Protection Agency's authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, which is the pillar of Obama's climate plan
Nuclear vs. renewables: Divided they fall | Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
The world must build more nuclear power plants to halt climate change | The Verge
China could complete 9 nuclear reactors in the next 7 months and then start construction on 30 reactors over the next 18 months
China and Russia plan a nuclear energy future - Six new nuclear reactors per year planned in China and Russia has over 20 nuclear reactors for export construction
Power cuts in north India spark riots - Central & South Asia - Al Jazeera English
On the Road to Green Energy, Germany Detours on Dirty Coal by Fred Pearce: Yale Environment 360
New solar power plant is the first to go s long-term cost and efficiency still questioned | ExtremeTech
Fracking the US - Monterey Shale's 96% downgrade blows the scam - The Ecologist
Last edited by Strifen; 07-03-2014 at 08:07 PM.
The fact that we haven't built a ton of Generation 3 nuclear plants to replace the old ones/add to capacity is a great failure of human kind. The nuclear waste is far far easier to deal with than the effect of fossil fuel consumption.
micro bio reactors. we'll power the world with our movement.
ITS BEAUTIFULLY RECIPROCAL
Maybe because I am in the energy industry but I would like to see us go towards more Nuclear and Wind while we further develop Solar.
I think more nuclear is the answer. We've made it almost impossible in the US to do anything nuclear. So shit, we almost lost Harrisburg and a chunk of central PA a few decades ago when 3 Mile Island got a little crazy. Wouldn't have been a major loss, and I say that as a resident of the area.
Nuclear plants fricking everywhere until someone figures out cold fusion or some other mystical energy source.
The problem for nuclear is the surge in natural gas availability.
Once we get enough net-positive energy on a big enough scale, everything else becomes meaningless. The time between now and then, though...
Big leap for fusion: more energy produced than spent igniting fuel | Ars Technica
The biggest problem for Nuclear is the ignorant NIMBYs that refuse to let a plant be built within 100 miles of them. Since they cover the entire country that makes it tough to get anything done.
As others have said, Liquid Metal Cooled nuclear reactors (Generation Three). They essentially eliminate all the problems of light/heavy water reactors, and give even more benefits. They consume 99% of the fuel put into them, so the radioactive waste is very small. And, most of this waste, has a very short half life--so in a few hundred (As opposed to tens of thousands) it will be completely inert. Also, they can actually use waste from old style nuclear plants, so the large stockpiles of waste we have would actually be fuel; converting this waste into energy, and, as said, a much shorter half life form of waste. During a meltdown, the plant doesn't need a mechanical "cool down" device, the actual heating element is enough on it's own to stop the reaction; simply letting it run would seal it off and prevent a catastrophe. (So this plant would have easily survived, say, the Tsunami with no bad effects.) In other words, while you need a human to keep the plant producing energy--the LACK of humans would not cause a melt down that would throw off radiation. The melt down would just automatically smother itself (As far as I know.)
Oh, and we have enough fuel to power our needs for 50,000 years. It is literally the answer to all of our prayers, and any time an Anti-nuclear fuck argues about how bad Nuclear is, you should beat him for the sake of the future your children will never have.
Last edited by Lithose; 07-04-2014 at 01:03 AM.
A lot of greens have become pro-nuclear in the USA as we've become more aware of the issue of global warming. Greenpeace, Sierra Club, and some others are still anti-nuclear, but I think the tide has turned. There are a few pieces of recent legislation meant to make it easier to build nuclear facilities, but the availability of natural gas has further weakened interest from the nuclear industry to attempt any expansion.
I was reading that some of the newest production wind turbines can pay for themselves in as little as 8 months.
That seems like it's damn near a tipping point.
Solar seems relatively pointless until we can go straight to organic solar cells. Regular photovoltaic materials seem to use too much rare earth stuff to ever be truly wide scale.
Last edited by Mist; 07-04-2014 at 02:53 AM.
Last year a wind turbine company opened a new factory a few miles away from me. Every so often I see some of their work as I'm going down the interstate, and it's mighty impressive even before it's finished. A single blade of a turbine looks to be about as long as 3 regular semi trailers. I'd love to see one fully assembled and working.
Anyone interested in nuclear as a way forward should check this out. Somebody who is pro environment and is anti-nuclear just isn't looking at things rationally.
Last edited by Strifen; 07-04-2014 at 06:20 AM.
Hippies not thinking rationally? Surely you jest.
Well, the interesting thing is large scale solar plants don't need PV, they can use CSP--which is just a bunch of mirrors focusing a field of sunlight on a tower to super heat it. The tower, if it uses molten salt, can actually provide 12+ hours of energy even when the sun is down, so it can actually handle base load. And the mirrors, as far as I know, don't use any rare earths. The downside is that the system needs some large scale mechanical alignments, so it's overhead is more--also, it's much more dependent on radiance, so it can't be built in certain areas without a lot of sun. But where CSP can work? I believe it's strictly superior to PV. So in the South, Solar might still end up being king.
8 Centarl Tower CSP Plant.jpg
In the end though, the Gen 3 reactors still kick everything's ass.
Nuclear plants essenially work like huge water boilers, they heat water up to steam to generate power, thats what those clouds you see at the coolers are, basically steam.
With all that still hot water (after turbine) you could easily heat the household of about a million people in its direct neighbourhood.
Still you have yet to see a nuclear power plant in eg. NYC hudson river, or SF Alcatraz island.
Now you need to come up with an answer as to why is that.
PS: With the plants being basically money printing machines (about 1 million profit per day), direct estate prices are of lesser concern.
Once the Tea Party takes over Master Blaster will be powering Bartertown with pig shit.
Unfortunately there are plenty of NIMBYs for alternative energy also. People don't want anything obstructing their view .
Only rich people bitch about wind afaik. Poor people are too busy working to give a shit about the view.
NIMBYs are equal opportunity assholes.
birds are precious.
Well, I was wrong. People suck.
This thread needs Mikhail or Izo to be ranting about the horrors of nuclear power. It is way too rational atm.
A lot of our current nuclear plants were built to produce waste that the govt. bought to make weapons, so many of them aren't really competitive.
The point is just how good nat gas currently is and may remain for decades. Barring all the aquifer pollution shit which i personally don't believe, you spend a couple weeks and maybe a million developing and pad, fracking, and hooking up a pipeline and then sit back and collect 10mil plus in nat gas and other petroleum liquids... and you can do that one like 5 mile grids for entire states.
There's no mine reclamation, mountaintop removal, acid mine drainage, billion dollar thousand year nuclear waste disposal bungled bullshit, or possibility of ultimate catastrophe.
I think it's amazing it's competitive enough to low ball nuclear plants that are already in action, especially when Obama just finished cleaning house on coal fired plants.
I think natural gas is a great option to bridge the gap to whatever will replace fossil fuels. We need to build more cars that run on it. Of course the hippies don't like it because it makes money for oil companies so they make shit up about the horrors of fracking. Personally I think what hippies are really against is people making money.
I think sea levels have already started to rise, I read recently? And at this point theres no reversing the effects for decades, maybe even a century even if we halt all fossil fuel use. I don't think global warming is a controversy anymore, just a fact
"Oh so we're just going to cut our co2 emissions in half while lowering energy prices?...fuck that I want a thorium water solar concentration plant"
Why do you think fracking isn't polluting ground water?
So they don't have spent fuel, don't require radioactive materials, and there's no possibility of release?
I'm in no means against nuclear but you have to admit it has problems. I remember reading all the online nuclear power gurus on the forum after fukushima saying there was no possibility of melt down due to reactor design.
I don't think fracking pollutes groundwater simply due to the separation between the shale and aquifers. It's just a loosely formed opinion based on my hesitation to trust shirtless trailer dwellers that light their water on fire as it comes spewing out like their cousin has the other end of the water pipe in a cow's ass.
If they were faking flammable tap water, I think that would be exposed by now. There's no way "shirtless trailer dwellers" are disciplined enough to cover that up.
Also, I don't think that's the only way for fracking to pollute. Swear someone linked an article here recently that detailed how the drill tailings are much more radioactive than what normally dumped in a landfill, yet there's no regulation against it.
Last edited by kegkilla; 07-09-2014 at 02:05 PM.
They aren't "faking" the burning faucets, they are just incorrectly attributing it to fracking instead of the fact that they have an improperly vented water well and they live in natural gas country.
All About Fracking - Skeptoid
Thanks for the links, will read up some more on it. My state(NY) and county are still debating banning fracking.
Of course there is some nuclear waste; but we are talking a couple hundred pounds of bad shit to deal with vs. billions of tons of particulates released into the air. Wonder which is worse, hmm?
co2 is also just about the last emission to worry about, it is by far the least dangerous emission. To even attribute any real damage at all to CO2 you have to get into the cost/benefits of climate change, since it has no direct health impacts.
Also they think slanted drilling or fracking is causing all these earthquakes here in Oklahoma. I have absolutely no idea if that's true but its the prevailing theory. I'm not sure how it would do that.
Last edited by Chanur; 07-09-2014 at 02:55 PM.
So, dangerous? Yes, it can be. But not really in the "irradiated wasteland" way. More like the same kind of way that a rocket fuel plant might be. (There were some theoretical problems raised by some green groups of a perfect sodium exposion pressuring the core ect. But, the Gen 4 ones, as far as I know eliminated them.)
As for the waste. They produce, I believe, 1/2 ton of waste per 1k megawatt plant, per year. However, unlike standard waste--this waste becomes harmless in 200 years. Well within the lifetime of our containers. And the smaller amounts mean the places we have set aside already will last---forever, really. The added bonus to this is that these reactors can use the old "spent" fuel we have sitting out there already. So, in effect, they will actually decrease the current housing of old fuel, rather than increase it.
The new Gen reactors are just crazy good. I'd almost think they were bullshit, because they sound like it. But even reading the hippy counter arguments, it's all "my god, the sodium can catch fire! WARBAGABLE!" The fact is, the biggest problem with new nuclear is the capital cost for start up, its crazy high. But the long term operating cost is really low. So, it's profitable. The problem is, no one wants to push out that kind of money if some old Light water can blow up and have the public associate even these new plants with the old ones and shut them down. (Japan shut down like a multi-decade research project into fast breeders; billions of dollars, gone--because Fukishima. They just recently started it back up again, because they realized how badly they needed it.)
I'm fine with Natural Gas, btw. I am a bit more leary about water contamination than you; but I'm not dead set against it. The problem is, natural gas will get us through, what? 100 years? We have enough nuclear energy to currently power the earth for 50k years. And for me, that's a huge selling point. If we want to move society forward, we need to make third world shit holes into awesome consumer paradises that Dumar hates--and one of the principle difficulties with that is energy.
Last edited by Lithose; 07-09-2014 at 03:09 PM.
Especially when the primary advantage of natural gas over nuclear is..... ?
More people have probably died in mining accidents for fossil fuels alone than have ever been killed by nuclear plants, nevermind the power plant accidents for fossil fuels and the emissions from them.
Cad you're as usual too dead set on an idea to have a reasonable discussion on. Knives have also killed more people than hydrogen bombs and there obviously has to be a level of co2 emission that is acceptable and not explode the fuckin planet.
The new reactors do sound good as you describe them. I'm sure if it were that easy there would be some less retarded country like Japan or France that would have demonstrated by now.
France is building at least 1 Gen3 reactor now.
Nuclear Power in France | French Nuclear Energy
Let us lead the way then. It is much easier to use diplomacy to get the rest of the world to do something if you are already doing it. Be a world leader like we constantly want to be. Not some apathetic little bitch like you are advocating Creslin.
The problem with all of this is human beings don't give a fuck about long term. We only act when something dangers us in a short time frame. All of this shit is going to hit the fan when we are long dead and gone. Look how fast we got rid of CFC's because that was a problem that was and would affect us during our life time. We always pick short term profit over long term sustainability.
Originally Posted by Noodleface
Geothermal is working well for Iceland.
That may be true in the cut throat sausage industry but there are plenty of people concerned and a definite intuition to provide for the future.
There are five Gen 3 reactors being built in the U.S right now. Four are AP 1000's which is the newest Westinghouse reactor to be approved by the NRC.
Here's a bunch of pics of the work being done on the two AP 1000 in Georgia, it's a massive project. These are the first reactors to be built in the U.S in over 30 years.
Votgle: Americas Newest nuclear power plant - Imgur
Last edited by Strifen; 07-10-2014 at 02:48 AM.
If you zoom in you'll see the rail car is made by Krupp, the company that built the largest railway cannons ever made. I'm guessing this is the conversation that started their involvement. "Ok guys we would like to move the "big-fucking thing #5" to the site by rail but we can't find any rail car strong enough to carry it" "Oh boss! didn't the Nazis have like the biggest-fucking cannon ever on a rail car back in the war? Can we like...you know, figure out who built those things and see if their still in business because they'd be the experts on carting around ludicrously heavy shit. "
Just imagine how much it stings to lay out a few hundred million and then have some hippy assholes legislate you out of actually producing power. This is a double whammy for fast breeders, as their operating costs are higher too, so returns take even longer (As far as I know). This is why Japan/France are pumping so much research money into it, if the costs came down to what LWR is; it wouldn't be so risky.
Last edited by Lithose; 07-10-2014 at 06:22 AM.
That does give me some hope, I had figured the only Gen 3s we might see would be commissioned by the USN.
You should book a trip to south africa or australia and visit a uranium mine where the poor slobs mine that shit in the yellow caked wasteland sometimes at temperetures beyond 100 degrees and w/o the usage of proper protection (masks, suits, etc.)
Acres required to power 6 million homes:
Energy Density (MJ/1kg)
Crude Oil 41.9
Natural Gas 55.6
Natural Uranium 570,000
Reactor-grade Uranium 3,700,000
haha get wrekt wind and solar!
The US has 62 operating nuclear plants. So we'd need approximately 12000 tons of uranium. I'm ignoring enrichment etc here; just the raw mining needed. Even if you figure that only 10% of that uranium is usable, so we need 120000 tons, thats fine. The numbers still work out fine.
In 2012, 1,016.4 million short tons of coal were mined in the US.
Hmmm, 1.01 billion vs. 120000... yes, those are approximately equal enterprises. Only about 3 orders of magnitude off. You're right! I'm so sorry I questioned you at all. Carry on.
I would think utility costs would factor into profitability. But I get what you're saying; the only thing holding nuclear back is the people on this forum.
I'd just like to point out that up until about 5 years ago, Canada was the world's largest uranium producer. I think it's actually within the realm of possibility that the majority of the uranium mined in human history actually came from Canada. And last I checked, our mines are pretty safe.
In any case, we've pretty much got every energy source on lock down, other than solar, owing to our stupid latitude. But natural gas, coal, oil, hydro, tidal, wind, and nuclear? We have it and we're willing to dig it out of the ground and sell it to you friendly Americans!
They are putting up some GE 1.7 wind turbines out near my house. I was driving by the other day just as they started flying the rotor. Got a couple of pictures but they are not great since I was driving.
All the more reason Canada needs to be number 52!
Also, yes, U-235 is only sub 1% of uranium, but reactors don't need pure 100% 235. It only needs to be enriched from 1% to 5% concentration.
Last edited by Lithose; 07-11-2014 at 11:07 PM.
Although I know there have been issues in north eastern Arizona/NM/Utah with uranium mining but that sounds more like shitty corporations being shitty corporations and the .gov doing nothing about it.
They should offer money to the locals to dodge nimby like the oil guys in Alaska do. I assume these wind farms generate far more power than the consumption of whatever bumfuck county they're setting up in. Give those guys a break on their bill, maybe some electrical engineering scholarships, etc. and they'll be all "pick me, pick me".
Guys, I was around wind turbines for a couple days last week and I didn't get sick. I also didn't see any piles of dead birds.
I asked about their take on nuclear, particularly in regards to the Wolf Creek plant, especially in light of all the expenses and regulations that they have in regards to coal. And from what we were told, coal was still preferable to investing in nuclear if for no other reason than the regulations and restrictions on nuclear were so much more than for coal (which is already highly regulated) that it sounded like one of the biggest hurdles would be getting power companies to invest in them (and they own a large share in the Wolf Creek plant already).
They also were telling us that because of EPA regs in regards to coal that a lot of the coal they use has to be low-sulpher coal shipped in from the west, because they couldn't afford to keep burning much of the high sulpher coal that we can get locally. KCPL had a coal plant down in LaCygne because there was a huge coal mine right there, but a couple decades ago when the EPA added more and more regulations in regards to sulfer dioxide, KCPL was put into a position where they couldn't use the coal from there because it was high-sulfer but they were also trapped in a long-term contract that stated that they would only burn coal from that mine in their power plant and the power plant was the mine's sole customer. As a result KCPL was forced to buy the mine outright and close the mine in order to get out of the contract and that was really their cheapest option (and it wasn't cheap I don't think).
I think that particular plant has an exception where it can still burn a low % of higher sulpher coal but last I heard they are going to upgrades to other plants so that they can upgrade that one to get away from high sulpher altogether.
That thorium documentary showed that nuclear is even a tough sell in Canada. Construction and maintenance creates fewer local jobs and the up front investment is higher. And that was in fuckin' Canada.
It's gonna take some kind of insane subsidy to get America interested. Which is really sad. But the fearmongering over nuclear waste was extremely effective.
I get my info from xkcd, but this info about the spent fuel pools basically made me realize that people are being completely ridiculous about spent nuclear fuel. Putting it in water basically makes it completely not dangerous to us. To the point where you could swim in a pool with the shit in it and be fine.
Spent Fuel Pool
What the fuck guys. Water. Probably the most plentiful shit on the entire planet. And nuclear waste is an intractable problem, so lets go ahead and spew a few billion tons of shit in the air every year, that can't be harmful, right?
Yea, when you build a reactor with no containment building, turn the safeties off and run a reactor with really weird positive-feedback loops at redline to test things, if it blows up it blows up big and makes a right mess.
Check the Russian navy's nuclear record, they suck there too. I agree I wouldn't buy Russian designed and built reactors.
Plus run your test with the night shift crew that has the least amount of experience.
Originally Posted by supertouch
for those who asked:
i haven't sucked her penis but i have stroked it. it sounds odd but i don't view it as a masculine organ on her.
Well, like everything else, coal is slightly radioactive so burning it just throws all that very low level radiation up and out the chimney (or into an ash pile or whatever). Burning it on an industrial scale produces this...radioactive waste on an industrial scale.
Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste - Scientific American
I used to be anti-nuclear until I started reading up on these modern and theoretical reactors. While I still think you need some strong psychiatric medication if you want to build and run one of the old school reactors of the Fukushima/Chernobyl variant, these new ones look damn sexy. We need to invest more in these fuckers.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)