Atomic Power

[rudder]

It's not that solar or wind can't produce energy, they can, but it's just nowhere near enough or priced cheaply enough to make a huge difference..

The Ivanpah solar-power project that recently opened and is killing all the birds cost about $2.2 billion. It produces enough energy to power a whopping 140,000 homes.

That is $15,000 per home. At my current rates it would take 10 years to break even... not factoring in maintenance and labor costs. Wind farms have similar issues where the acreage needed is enough to have a negative environmental impact.

Our nuke plants are out dated but those wold cost a lot more to replace.

The solution is room temperature super conductivity.... which we will get about the same time we get fusion reactors.

So I guess its LED everything to save power.

 

[Zxian]

I don't think anyone is running a breeder reactor today except for research and perhaps fuel reprocessing. Too much danger of a runaway reaction. Apparently though the thorium thermal breeders are thought to be fairly safe.

All modern reactors still require extreme pressures in order to operate. The actual reactors are no bigger than the typical living room. The rest of the power plant is required to keep things safe and under "control".

 

[Moonbeam]

The engineering egg head types are going to moan and grown forever about the irrationality of nuclear phobic and all to no avail. The brain defect that creates that fear is as powerful and immutable as the conservative brain defect. They are virtually the same thing.

Solar, hydrolysis, and fuel cells will make energy independence possible.

 

[norseamd]

Our nuke plants are out dated but those wold cost a lot more to replace.

the problems we have about spending the necessary money on projects like these is that most money is lost to corruption and not just in these type of projects but across all the economy and government. get rid of the corruption and there will be enough money and resources for projects like replacing and building nuclear power plants

 

[Agent11]

All modern reactors still require extreme pressures in order to operate. The actual reactors are no bigger than the typical living room. The rest of the power plant is required to keep things safe and under "control".

No. There is a lot of difference between a LFTR and a solid fuel breeder or a light water reactor. Seriously major differences.

 

[Zxian]

No. There is a lot of difference between a LFTR and a solid fuel breeder or a light water reactor. Seriously major differences.

Do we have any LFTR's in operation today? As far as I know, it's still testbench technology. When I said "modern reactors" I meant those in operation.

Fissile uranium is extrememly rare.

 

[bradly1101]

Whether it's coal ash, nuclear waste/radiation or pollution/CO2 our appetite for energy is looking more and more like it will be our undoing. Unless of course we move to cleaner technologies, and fast.

 

[Agent11]

They had a LFTR functioning for years at oakridge. This was decades ago...

LFTR was the superior technology for energy production, but because of the need to politicize the peaceful application of wartime technology, and defend fuel cycle monopolies, it was passed over.

Everyone has been too distracted by solid fuel breeders and fusion lately, both of which are expensive boondoggles compared to LFTR.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Quote:
Originally Posted by piasabird
I started watching this program on HULU about Nuclear Power plants. Most of the nuclear power plants in the USA are 40 years old or older. 75% of all the USA nuclear plants have had a tritium leak. Almost all Nuclear power plants are leaking every day. Tritium is H^3 or a radioactive isotope of Hydrogen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tritium
...

If you think government inspectors have your best interests at heart you are very very wrong.

Obviously you don't understand the science. If you did you would know that the Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission has already promised that:

Quote:
"Our children will enjoy in their homes electrical energy too cheap to meter... It is not too much to expect that our children will know of great periodic regional famines in the world only as matters of history, will travel effortlessly over the seas and under them and through the air with a minimum of danger and at great speeds, and will experience a lifespan far longer than ours, as disease yields and man comes to understand what causes him to age.

Besides isn't the science clear and don't all the scientist agree that

Quote:
As climate and energy scientists concerned with global climate change, we are writing to urge you to advocate the development and deployment of safer nuclear energy systems. We appreciate your organization’s concern about global warming, and your advocacy of renewable energy. But continued opposition to nuclear power threatens humanity’s ability to avoid dangerous climate change.

We call on your organization to support the development and deployment of safer nuclear power systems as a practical means of addressing the climate change problem.

Since at least 1954, when the Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission made his promises, the situation has been clear and all of the scientists have agreed.

A denier are you?

Uno

Obvioulsy you have no clue period!!

 

[Zxian]

They had a LFTR functioning for years at oakridge. This was decades ago...

LFTR was the superior technology for energy production, but because of the need to politicize the peaceful application of wartime technology, and defend fuel cycle monopolies, it was passed over.

Everyone has been too distracted by solid fuel breeders and fusion lately, both of which are expensive boondoggles compared to LFTR.

I think you and I are saying the same thing. My point was that there are no large-scale LFTRs in operation today. Fuji MSR is still a ways out, and the Chinese are still a few years out as well.

I want it to be reality. It's a far better option than other nuclear technologies, but unfortunately it was mothballed in the US and fallen to the wayside. You'll notice that I linked to Sorensen's LFTR's in 5 minutes video earlier in this thread.

It still doesn't address the negative connotation that most people have with the word "nuclear" though.

 

[PowerEngineer]

A rare visit to P&N

It will take many combined cycle, wind, solar, and alternative fuel power plants to replace the nuclear and coal fired plants in the US. The bigger problem is upgrading the power grid, all it takes is a couple plants going down and that causing the upper midwest/northeast poser grid to experience massive blackouts.

It takes much more than simultaneous loss of two power plants to cause "massive blackouts", especially in the eastern interconnection.

Nobody wants nuclear power in their back yard but everybody would welcome free electricity from their roof. Nonspecific location of energy generation is a matter of national security. The power transmission issues are greatly reduced and the threat of terrorism is largely eliminated. The demand for solar energy is growing world wide and represents a massive investment opportunity.

Only free is one ignores the cost of the initial investment, however arguably a cost worth incurring for long-term energy independence. Distributed generation (i.e. small generation mixed in close to loads) does reduce the loading on transmission systems (thereby reducing losses), but the system still needs to be capable of meeting peak demands which might come on the freezing winter day when neither solar nor wind distributed generation is producing much. It's possible to reduce peak demands if customers are amenable to have their loads partially shed.

The biggest thing that hurts solar and wind power is they can't provide rapid reserves (rotating reserves) in the event of a power outage at another plant like a nuclear, coal, or combined cycle plant can. Many plants run at a partial load so they can rapidly supply power when needed to maintain the grid power.

Many types of thermal plants (particularly nuclear and combined cycle) also have trouble providing operating reserves. The biggest thing that hurts solar and wind power is the variable nature (and unpredictability) of their power output which requires other power plants to constantly offset their fluctuations. You pretty much need 100 MW of hydro/thermal generation backing up 100 MW of solar/wind to get 100 MW of firm (dependable) generation.

 

[rpanic]

I started watching this program on HULU about Nuclear Power plants. Most of the nuclear power plants in the USA are 40 years old or older. 75% of all the USA nuclear plants have had a tritium leak. Almost all Nuclear power plants are leaking every day. Tritium is H^3 or a radioactive isotope of Hydrogen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tritium

Think about 3 mile island and it wasnt till years later that they determined that the reactor there had a meltdown. However, no one was notified about the real severity of the incident at the time. The power company and the government inspectors hid the truth. Either that or the people running the plant did not have a clue about what is going on.

Wonder why people have cancer alot? Is it the nuclear power plants?

Watch this if you are curious:
http://www.hulu.com/#!watch/442227?playlist_id=1953&asset_scope=movies

If you think government inspectors have your best interests at heart you are very very wrong.

OP read about this cover up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Susana_Field_Laboratory

Worse than Three Mile Island, sodium reactor leak. Some of wife’s family worked there, lived near it, and died of bone cancer.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/15158753/...perts-meltdown-worse-three-mile/#.UwsiWE2YbVg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAHmaEs5cYU&list=PL5D60756CC039ABF3

 

[1prophet]

Nobody wants nuclear power in their back yard but everybody would welcome free electricity from their roof. Nonspecific location of energy generation is a matter of national security. The power transmission issues are greatly reduced and the threat of terrorism is largely eliminated. The demand for solar energy is growing world wide and represents a massive investment opportunity.

Americans don't want to shit in their own yard but think nothing of spending trillions of dollars and many hundreds of thousands of lives shitting in someone else's backyard in the middle east for cheap energy, as well as paying the Saudi's billions to pervert their religion and spread that perversion across the globe.

Ask the mothers, orphans, cripples and all other collateral casualties in the middle east if they would have been better off if America had gone nuclear like France for most of their energy needs.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Americans don't want to shit in their own yard but think nothing of spending trillions of dollars and many hundreds of thousands of lives shitting in someone else's backyard in the middle east for cheap energy, as well as paying the Saudi's billions to pervert their religion and spread that perversion across the globe.

Ask the mothers, orphans, cripples and all other collateral casualties in the middle east if they would have been better off if America had gone nuclear like France for most of their energy needs.

First off less 1% of electricity in the US is produce from oil. Second ask the people of Libya how they feel about the French wanting their oil at any cost.

 

[chihlidog]

I'[m not sure which generation method would be best long term, but we need to pick one and stick with it. Thorium maybe. I'm still hopeful for cold fusion. Just the other day scientists were able to get more out of a reaction than they put into it.

Whichever it is, we need to throw EVERYTHING into it. Like the Manhattan Project or the Apollo Project. Throw every last resource and all the willpower behind it until it's DONE and we have a clean and renewable power source.

I will agree that CURRENT nuclear does NOT fit those criteria, but I ALSO agree that done correctly its the best thing we have at the moment. We need to spend more resources making sure it's done correctly.

 

[norseamd]

Everyone has been too distracted by solid fuel breeders and fusion lately, both of which are expensive boondoggles compared to LFTR.

eventually fusion will come. it just requires a lot of research. the scientists were stupid to predict that we would definitly be using fusion in 50 years when they likely had just begun researching it

 

[norseamd]

I'm still hopeful for cold fusion. Just the other day scientists were able to get more out of a reaction than they put into it.

that was not cold fusion. thorium seems to be the way to go for the next 20 to 30 years. after that fusion will likely start to become viable if iter and such work out as planned. think iter will advance the basic fusion technology by a lot. not sure if there might have to be more research to increase power generation and adapt fusion technology to industrial use

 

[Moonbeam]

Americans don't want to shit in their own yard but think nothing of spending trillions of dollars and many hundreds of thousands of lives shitting in someone else's backyard in the middle east for cheap energy, as well as paying the Saudi's billions to pervert their religion and spread that perversion across the globe.

Ask the mothers, orphans, cripples and all other collateral casualties in the middle east if they would have been better off if America had gone nuclear like France for most of their energy needs.

So instead of being stupid like Americans, we should be stupid like the French. Great idea. How about we be smart and create our power at home from the sun. You just don't get soccer Moms. They don't like the idea of fissionable materials on playgrounds. All those great minds that went into nuclear might as well have gotten art history degrees. Say Bu Bye to nuclear energy. We've been Fukushima'ed enough. I don't like fish or bok choy that glow in the dark.

 

[piasabird]

If you watch the video you will realize we have a lot of 40 -60 year old reactors just waiting to have a problem. Would you operate a car for over 40 years? Stuff breaks down eventually. That was the problem in Japan. There is probably cleaner safer reactor designs available than what we built 40-60 years ago. There is one in New York that is along a river but at a higher elevation that is on 2 fault lines and over 40 years old.

What happens is the NRC is probably a good group of eggs, but their recommendations go to congress then congress makes the decisions that might kill millions. For instance, the reactor in New York state has an evacuation plan for 10 miles surrounding the plant. However in Japan they evacuated the area within 50 miles of their plant. We have no such plans. They depend on congress funding some kind of plan to decommission these nuclear plants. Congress does not have a very good safety record.

 

[werepossum]

All modern reactors still require extreme pressures in order to operate. The actual reactors are no bigger than the typical living room. The rest of the power plant is required to keep things safe and under "control".

Agreed, I was just sayin'.

The engineering egg head types are going to moan and grown forever about the irrationality of nuclear phobic and all to no avail. The brain defect that creates that fear is as powerful and immutable as the conservative brain defect. They are virtually the same thing.

Solar, hydrolysis, and fuel cells will make energy independence possible.

Um, it's all those wonderfully defect-free (yet somehow usually medicated/therapisted) liberal brains that are afraid of nuclear plants. Tennessee is extremely conservative and we have nuclear power plants everywhere we can put them - and we aren't afraid of them at all.

I'[m not sure which generation method would be best long term, but we need to pick one and stick with it. Thorium maybe. I'm still hopeful for cold fusion. Just the other day scientists were able to get more out of a reaction than they put into it.

Whichever it is, we need to throw EVERYTHING into it. Like the Manhattan Project or the Apollo Project. Throw every last resource and all the willpower behind it until it's DONE and we have a clean and renewable power source.

I will agree that CURRENT nuclear does NOT fit those criteria, but I ALSO agree that done correctly its the best thing we have at the moment. We need to spend more resources making sure it's done correctly.

Never got the point of cold fusion. Say you can sustain a reaction with 10% more energy output than you put into it. How do you get electricity from it? Most of our electricity comes from boiling water, whether by fission or burning coal/natural gas/oil.

 

[Darwin333]

Fine with me, I don't give a shit about carbon emissions anyway so bring on the coal and petroleum fired power plants. Global warming people can all move to Amish country and use horse-drawn carriages to get around for all I fucking care if they don't like it.

It is well established that emissions from coal fired power plants greatly increase cancer rates in the surrounding areas and that is when they are functioning properly.

 

[Darwin333]

It will take many combined cycle, wind, solar, and alternative fuel power plants to replace the nuclear and coal fired plants in the US. The bigger problem is upgrading the power grid, all it takes is a couple plants going down and that causing the upper midwest/northeast poser grid to experience massive blackouts.

Ding ding ding.

Not to mention that without the upgraded grid it is impossible to integrate any sort of distributed power generation. There are good arguments for large scale solar and wind farms but there are also very good arguments for using existing unused/wasted space and generating power right where it is needed.

Even if we do none of that, our grid is a patch job of antiquated 40 year old crap and needs to be replaced regardless. That is what the stimulus should have been spent on imo.

 

[Darwin333]

Solar isn't the answer. Solar companies all over the world are going bankrupt as soon as their subsidies dry up.

What we need is liquid fluoride thorium reactors. That is how you will produce hydrogen economically. People get too distracted by these green energy designs which are inherently dirty, destructive and inefficient.

I agree that thorium is an area we need to be doing massive research and investment, disagree on the entire solar crap and hydrogen is a joke.

If you are going to build a new infrastructure and redesign transportation anyways why in the hell would you want to convert electricity to hydrogen, an inherently inefficient process, instead of just using the electricity? Swapable batteries solves the entire distance problem, a problem that 90ish% of Americans currently don't really have except on rather rare occasions.

 

[Darwin333]

Nobody wants nuclear power in their back yard but everybody would welcome free electricity from their roof. Nonspecific location of energy generation is a matter of national security. The power transmission issues are greatly reduced and the threat of terrorism is largely eliminated. The demand for solar energy is growing world wide and represents a massive investment opportunity.

We still need to spend roughly a trillion bucks on a new nationwide grid. Frankly we are going to have to do this anyway and it would make our current power generation more efficient so imho its the best place to start. Without the new grid distributed power generation of any sort simply will not work on even a relatively small scale.

 

[norseamd]

Um, it's all those wonderfully defect-free (yet somehow usually medicated/therapisted) liberal brains that are afraid of nuclear plants. Tennessee is extremely conservative and we have nuclear power plants everywhere we can put them - and we aren't afraid of them at all.

those conservative minds have other brain defects like not worrying about how coal damages the environment or that other people do exist and have their own opinions on the environment. also i am sure that there are a lot of republican moms who will have nothing to do with guns or nuclear power. but they might not ever care about exploiting the poor.

so there are problems on both sides of politics