• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

NRC approves two new nuclear reactors for Georgia

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Nuclear power isn't all that controversial actually, even among Dems and some environmentalists. It's just extraordinarily difficult to find places to build these plants since no one wants a reactor in their backyard, and that's just easily verifiable reality. It hurts real estate prices and depresses surrounding businesses even though nuclear is very safe these days, from what I've read.

All in all, it's not a sustainable energy source because you can't find enough places to build them. Can't wait for the day when solar is more efficient and cheap.
 
First said:
Nuclear power isn't all that controversial actually, even among Dems and some environmentalists. It's just extraordinarily difficult to find places to build these plants since no one wants a reactor in their backyard, and that's just easily verifiable reality. It hurts real estate prices and depresses surrounding businesses even though nuclear is very safe these days, from what I've read.

All in all, it's not a sustainable energy source because you can't find enough places to build them. Can't wait for the day when solar is more efficient and cheap.
Click to expand...

True, the left's opposition to nuclear power has been waning for many years now. However, I think past opposition to it may be part of the reason why no one wants one in their backyard. If people are better educated about the safety of it, then I don't think we'd have so much trouble finding places to put them. That said, what happened in Japan doesn't exactly help matters.
 
piasabird said:
Cant wait for a hurricane???
Click to expand...

Somehow, I don't think a power plant that is 100 miles inland has much to worry about when hurricanes pass the area.

Anyway, Not quite doubling the capacity of that power station, but a great start. Let's get more of these rolling!
 
woolfe9999 said:
True, the left's opposition to nuclear power has been waning for many years now. However, I think past opposition to it may be part of the reason why no one wants one in their backyard. If people are better educated about the safety of it, then I don't think we'd have so much trouble finding places to put them. That said, what happened in Japan doesn't exactly help matters.
Click to expand...

With the disaster in Japan last year, there has been a resurgance of opposition to nuclear energy.
 
First said:
All in all, it's not a sustainable energy source because you can't find enough places to build them. Can't wait for the day when solar is more efficient and cheap.
Click to expand...

You will wait and wait and it will never happen.

Nuclear power plants at San Onofre and Diablo Canyon provide roughly 28 times as much power as total state solar capacity, and 3.5 times as much power as all of California's wind and solar capacity combined.
Click to expand...

Solar will never compete with nuclear.
 
First said:
Nuclear power isn't all that controversial actually, even among Dems and some environmentalists. It's just extraordinarily difficult to find places to build these plants since no one wants a reactor in their backyard, and that's just easily verifiable reality. It hurts real estate prices and depresses surrounding businesses even though nuclear is very safe these days, from what I've read.

All in all, it's not a sustainable energy source because you can't find enough places to build them. Can't wait for the day when solar is more efficient and cheap.
Click to expand...

The problem with solar and wind, much more than materials cost, is providing baseline energy. Both wind and solar fluctuate enough that in order to compensate for those fluctuations, you need to store enormous quantities of energy during the peaks for use during the lulls. As of yet, no such high-volume storage technology exists and until it does, solar and winds will be relegated to a merely supplemental role.
 
Modelworks said:
You will wait and wait and it will never happen.



Solar will never compete with nuclear.
Click to expand...

These are modern day numbers that haven't even been realized. They're irrelevant statistics, hate to break it to you.

Oh, also hate to break another tidbit to you; Stuxnet was an impressive feat of hacking. In case you're still confused into thinking otherwise.
 
All this talk about Thorium is retarded to be honest.

If this country ever gains the political will to consider recycling our spent fuel in breeder reactors we will have a sustainable and nearly closed fuel cycle which produces essentially no long-term actinides without the use of Thorium (although thorium could be used in place of U-238). The same technological challenges that face a breeder program are what the Thorium cycle faces (high temperature, reprocessing).

Currently our industry design codes are wrestling with how to handle creep-induced damage as an additional failure mechanism. It is quite nice to be able to ignore high pressure containment requirements, but they get replaced by the relative uncertainty of long-term (40 yr + ) creep damage combined with radiation embrittlement.

Finally regarding proliferation, the products of Thorium could be used in a small scale dirty bomb almost as easily as Pu-239. Large nations aren't going to pirate Pu-239 from their civilian programs because the shit is poisoned to all hell and very hard (read nearly impossible) to separate to the purity required for bombs, if they want Pu-239 they would use reactors designed for weaponized production.

*note* I am fully aware of the cost of reprocessing and why it's not popular currently. By the same token thorium-cycles aren't very attractive for the same reasons. Ultimately higher costs on Uranium, a realistic perspective on proliferation risks, and an aversion to sequestering energy-rich long-term radioactive spent-fuel will drive us to a mix of U238-based breeding and Thorium cycles imo.
 
Last edited:
First said:
These are modern day numbers that haven't even been realized. They're irrelevant statistics, hate to break it to you.
Click to expand...

Even if you improved efficiency of solar to the maximum theoretically possible, it would make the panels too expensive if it could be done, they still cannot compete with nuclear for generation of power. It is like comparing gasoline and ethanol, gasoline will always have more energy.

Oh, also hate to break another tidbit to you; Stuxnet was an impressive feat of hacking. In case you're still confused into thinking otherwise.
Click to expand...

Stuxnet , yawn. Nothing impressive about it. It shows what you can do if you have the cash and insider information.
 
Griffinhart said:
With the disaster in Japan last year, there has been a resurgance of opposition to nuclear energy.
Click to expand...

If we follow the logic of anti-nuke woo-woos we should all be spending our lifetime assets into buying Powerball because "look at that $340 million prize! I know I will win it because somebody won it last time!".
 
dmcowen674 said:
Westinghouse is in name only, it is owned by Toshiba Japan
Click to expand...

Westinghouse in name only? The Westinghouse nuclear headquarters and design groups in areas like Pittsburgh & Charlotte are still fully staffed by the same engineers as prior to the Toshiba acquisition. Westinghouse did have a bit of a brain drain, but invariably a lot of those resources went back to help consult for Westinghouse. Finally, the designs currently being licensed were all developed prior to CBS shedding the nuclear business to BNFL.
 
Originally Posted by dmcowen674
Westinghouse is in name only, it is owned by Toshiba Japan

rcpratt said:
You have no idea what you're talking about. But please, continue your trolling.
Click to expand...

You are the troll that has no idea what you are talking about.

Did you provide a link to prove your asinine comment on me?

You suck at the Internets and should go back to school before posting.

2-6-2006

http://www.bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/stories/2006/02/06/daily3.html

Westinghouse sold to Toshiba for $5.4B



British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. on Monday finalized a deal to sell Westinghouse Electric Co. to Toshiba Corp. for $5.4 billion.

Toshiba, of Japan, will hold a 51 percent stake in Westinghouse, which was founded in 1886 in Pittsburgh by George Westinghouse.

Toshiba outbid General Electric Co. and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. Westinghouse was put up for sale last year by BNFL, which acquired it from CBS Corp. in 1996 for about $1.2 billion.
 
Originally Posted by dmcowen674
Westinghouse is in name only, it is owned by Toshiba Japan

CLite said:
Westinghouse in name only?
Click to expand...

At least you did not make an asinine comment towards me.

I commend you on your knowledge of the old U.S. Compamy but it is no longer a U.S. Company.

As you can see by link I provided, Japan is the majority stake holder.
 
StrangerGuy said:
If we follow the logic of anti-nuke woo-woos we should all be spending our lifetime assets into buying Powerball because "look at that $340 million prize! I know I will win it because somebody won it last time!".
Click to expand...

Oh, no need to tell me. I'm all for building more nuclear plants. I think there are some excellent, safe technologies out there.
 
dmcowen674 said:
At least you did not make an asinine comment towards me.

I commend you on your knowledge of the old U.S. Compamy but it is no longer a U.S. Company.

As you can see by link I provided, Japan is the majority stake holder.
Click to expand...

The definition of company ownership by a country amuses me. Does it really matter where the headquarters are? It's a publicly traded company, meaning that anyone in the world can buy a portion of it. What matters is the location of the jobs, which hasn't really changed.
 
First said:
These are modern day numbers that haven't even been realized. They're irrelevant statistics, hate to break it to you.

Oh, also hate to break another tidbit to you; Stuxnet was an impressive feat of hacking. In case you're still confused into thinking otherwise.
Click to expand...




Aw, that's cute. :wub:

You believe in the magic of solar that somehow we're going to find more energy in that ray of light than can possibly exist.

I'm going to just hold out for end point energy and to hell with nuclear! 🙄
 
Only mildly relevant question:

What is the state of research into fusion reactors?

Wikipedia sez it ain't likely to be commercialized until at least 2050. Bummer. I'll be...almost 70.

I guess that's not so bad. Maybe by then scientists will have figured out that thingie with telomerase that stops aging.
 
Last edited:
Atreus21 said:
Only mildly relevant question:

What is the state of research into fusion reactors?

Wikipedia sez it ain't likely to be commercialized until at least 2050. Bummer. I'll be...almost 70.

I guess that's not so bad. Maybe by then scientists will have figured out that thingie with telomerase that stops aging.
Click to expand...

Fusion is always 50 years away. The NIF (google it) and ITER (IIRC that's the right letters) are the closest to sustained fusion we have currently. And they haven't produced a net gain of energy yet AFAIK.

In other words, don't hold your breath for fusion.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top