Whats your thoughts on building new Nuclear power plants

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: newmachineoverlord
Wind power is the cheapest method of electricity production, far cheaper than nuclear. Nuclear power is economically obsolete. There is no reason to ever build a nuclear reactor for grid power. There is more than enough wind to provide for all the power demands of all humans. The only good use for nukes is for extremely large vessels that can't stop to refuel often, such as submarines and space probes.

Who the fsck has been lying to you?

Yeah, this is just really incorrect.

Yeah, everyone knows that you can use your brain to power all of your electronics anyway. Psychic energy is the most efficient way to generate electricity. It's much better than wind power IMO

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: FoBoT
and more coal plants, the US has mega-craploads of coal in the western US
we need to use more coal

I hope that was sarcasm. Yeah, we have tons of coal still, but nuclear power is so much better.

 

[Atheus]

Wow @ results. Almost 100% for nuclear energy.

Don't get me wrong, I think most people who are against it are eveything anything they don't understand, but there are some _real_ problems with the technology in it's current state, and you'd think the geeks here would be aware of them. Waste, cost, uranium supply...

 

[So]

Originally posted by: Atheus
Wow @ results. Almost 100% for nuclear energy.

Don't get me wrong, I think most people who are against it are eveything anything they don't understand, but there are some _real_ problems with the technology in it's current state, and you'd think the geeks here would be aware of them. Waste, cost, uranium supply...

All of these are solveable technical problems.

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: Atheus
Wow @ results. Almost 100% for nuclear energy.

Don't get me wrong, I think most people who are against it are eveything anything they don't understand, but there are some _real_ problems with the technology in it's current state, and you'd think the geeks here would be aware of them. Waste, cost, uranium supply...

All of these are solveable technical problems.

Uranium supply?

And don't tell me we can get it from other planets, because that's not gonna happen this century.

IMO fission nuclear is at best a stop-gap solution, but nuclear power (as in producing energy by 'destroying' some part of an atomic nucleus) in some other form, is the way of the future. The only way to to produce the kind of power we will need.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: Atheus
Wow @ results. Almost 100% for nuclear energy.

Don't get me wrong, I think most people who are against it are eveything anything they don't understand, but there are some _real_ problems with the technology in it's current state, and you'd think the geeks here would be aware of them. Waste, cost, uranium supply...

All of these are solveable technical problems.

Uranium supply?

And don't tell me we can get it from other planets, because that's not gonna happen this century.

IMO fission nuclear is at best a stop-gap solution, but nuclear power (as in producing energy by 'destroying' some part of an atomic nucleus) in some other form, is the way of the future. The only way to to produce the kind of power we will need.

1. Saying something is definiteivly not going to happen is silly.

2. We have PLENTY of uranium. The common pessimistic figures are only of uranium already mined.

 

[Nyati13]

We should mass produce the new Pebble Bed helium cooled reactors. They can be manufactured modularly on an assembly line and then assembled where needed. The failure mode of a Pebble Bed reactor is to shut down the nuclear reaction, with no human intervention needed.
Then we need to build a few breeder reactors to re-process the waste uranium, to re-use it. That will take care of a significant amount of the radioactive waste.

Plus, coal fired plants to take up the slack, and feed the coal exhaust through an algea farm to make the algea grow faster (and clean the coal plant exhaust) and make bio-diesel out of the algea.

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: So
1. Saying something is definiteivly not going to happen is silly.

Well, OK, but you can make an informed prediction can't you?

1 - Develop and launch unmanned uranium-finder space probes - 10 years
2 - Actually find off-world uranium - 10 years
3 - Send manned or highly sophisticated unmanned mission to discover exactly how much uranium is there and what it will take to get at it - 10 years. If supply is insufficient or inaccessable go back to step 1.
4 - Build fleet of heavy lift spacecraft capable of taking masses of uranium ore to earth or an entire a processing plant to planet X - 20 years
5 - Actually get the first supplies back to earth - 10 years

2. We have PLENTY of uranium. The common pessimistic figures are only of uranium already mined.

The most optimistic suggestions I've seen put supply at 17 million tons. 50-75 years at current usage levels, less if we build more power stations.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: So
1. Saying something is definiteivly not going to happen is silly.

Well, OK, but you can make an informed prediction can't you?

1 - Develop and launch unmanned uranium-finder space probes - 10 years
2 - Actually find off-world uranium - 10 years
3 - Send manned or highly sophisticated unmanned mission to discover exactly how much uranium is there and what it will take to get at it - 10 years. If supply is insufficient or inaccessable go back to step 1.
4 - Build fleet of heavy lift spacecraft capable of taking masses of uranium ore to earth or an entire a processing plant to planet X - 20 years
5 - Actually get the first supplies back to earth - 10 years

2. We have PLENTY of uranium. The common pessimistic figures are only of uranium already mined.

The most optimistic suggestions I've seen put supply at 17 million tons. 50-75 years at current usage levels, less if we build more power stations.

1. Look, you're just pulling numbers out of your ass. That's not the point though, I said don't count out something that is feasible on paper, if really difficult. I didn't say that was the solution.

2. Again, the pessimistic figures you see are based on already mined supply.

 

[So]

This is in fact suggested in the IAEA-NEA figures if those covering estimates of all conventional resources are considered - 10 million tonnes (beyond the 4.7 Mt known economic resources), which takes us to over 200 years' supply at today's rate of consumption. This still ignores the technological factor mentioned below. It also omits unconventional resources such as phosphate deposits (22 Mt U recoverable as by-product) and seawater (up to 4000 Mt), which would be uneconomic to extract in the foreseeable future.

Widespread use of the fast breeder reactor could increase the utilisation of uranium sixty-fold or more. This type of reactor can be started up on plutonium derived from conventional reactors and operated in closed circuit with its reprocessing plant. Such a reactor, supplied with natural uranium for its "fertile blanket", can be operated so that each tonne of ore yields 60 times more energy than in a conventional reactor.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf75.htm

I stand corrected -- already known supply, but using the most inefficient model for reactors -- discounting any and all reprocessing.

 

[lokiju]

Originally posted by: Omegachi
its not as bad as it seems, they are still operating the 3 remaining reactors in chernobyl.



And trust me, there is always ways to get rid of the rods.

Um, actually they shut them all down in 2001 (or was it 2003 )

Either way, they're all shut down now.

 

[LandRover]

I find it amusing how suddenly everyone here becomes an expert on Nuclear power. The current situation on dealing with the waste from the last 40+ years is totally inadequate. The Yucca Mountain repository won't be operational for another 11 years. In the meantime, basically every plant has their spent fuel rods submerged on-site, and we have numerous high-level waste sites scattered around the country, many of which are at or rapidly nearing their full capacity. The plan is to "clean up" some of the current waste sites by eventually transporting materials to Yucca Mtn., which is a massive undertaking on its own. And the capacity at Yucca doesn't come close to solving all future storage needs.

We're having enough problems dealing with the waste from the first generation of nuclear power plants, and yet so many people are eager for a rebirth of nuclear power, without realizing the full scope of problems that presents. And breeder reactors for reprocessing don't solve all the problems either.

A power source that creates such hazardous waste materials is far from "clean energy".

 

[HardcoreRobot]

do it

send the waste to the sun, or new jersey or something

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: Amused
I cannot possibly express how much I am for it.

I find it highly ironic that the people crying the loudest about human induced glabal climate chage are also the very same people who are so anti-nuke.

That's because they're the vocal, limpwristed, emotional type. They're non-thinkers. They're the type of people who will attend a political rally but won't bother to vote.

 

[TheRyuu]

Here on Long Island (NY) we could have had one but everyone protested and it never got built.

Now everyones bitch'n about how high their energy bills are.

Irony?
I don't got a problem with it. There actually the cleanest source of energy next to the renewable ones. Until we can find an alternative to Nuclear Power, it's probably the way to go so we arn't so relient on oil. (and polution)

 

[DrPizza]

It's interesting to see that well over 90% are for it. Unfortunately, the majority of people here are educated. But, it seems the vast majority of the population is largely ignorant about nuclear energy and its safety. Politicians often don't want to do what's correct, but rather, what will get them re-elected.

 

[EyeMWing]

They can build one literally IN my back yard. I'll even drive the spent-plutonium-rod-transport truck for them.

 

[EyeMWing]

By the way, it's impossible for another TMI incident to happen again, and I suspect Chernobyl was the same type of accident, but it was allowed to go longer.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: wizboy11
Here on Long Island (NY) we could have had one but everyone protested and it never got built.

Now everyones bitch'n about how high their energy bills are.

Irony?
I don't got a problem with it. There actually the cleanest source of energy next to the renewable ones. Until we can find an alternative to Nuclear Power, it's probably the way to go so we arn't so relient on oil. (and polution)

My dad worked on building the Shoream (sp?) plant all those years ago...the saddest part is how dumb the public was. They let the power company build it (huuuuuge expense) then, after they finished, they said "no, you can't start it" -- so what happened? The power company lost out on cheap power, had to factor in the massive loan payments into their pricing structure, and they had a huge white elephant of a building to dismantle. If they had only said no at first...it would have been a mistake, but much smaller than saying no at the end.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: LandRover
I find it amusing how suddenly everyone here becomes an expert on Nuclear power. The current situation on dealing with the waste from the last 40+ years is totally inadequate. The Yucca Mountain repository won't be operational for another 11 years. In the meantime, basically every plant has their spent fuel rods submerged on-site, and we have numerous high-level waste sites scattered around the country, many of which are at or rapidly nearing their full capacity. The plan is to "clean up" some of the current waste sites by eventually transporting materials to Yucca Mtn., which is a massive undertaking on its own. And the capacity at Yucca doesn't come close to solving all future storage needs.

We're having enough problems dealing with the waste from the first generation of nuclear power plants, and yet so many people are eager for a rebirth of nuclear power, without realizing the full scope of problems that presents. And breeder reactors for reprocessing don't solve all the problems either.

A power source that creates such hazardous waste materials is far from "clean energy".

Once the spent fuel has cooled sufficently it is usually moved to dry cask storage (big, very thick cement and steel containers) and stored on site as well.

All that spent fuel can be put to much better use than long term geologic storage at Yucca Mtn. To that end the government has lifted the ban on reprocessing and the DOE is currently bidding out several contracts for the actual reprocessing. That means more fuel and far less waste requiring long term storage.

 

[lokiju]

I'm surprised how there's so many people for it here, guess it's just because its ATOT and not representative of other people/groups.

We should try and get this Digg'ed or whatever (not even sure how to do that) and see how it turns out on a larger scale.

 

[WolverineGator]

National Geographic has had some very good articles recently on Nuclear Power and alternatives:

crucial next step: a move to breeder reactors. Breeders can make more fuel than they consume, in the form of plutonium that can be extracted by reprocessing the spent fuel. But experimental breeder reactors have proved to be temperamental, and a full-scale breeder program could be an arms-control nightmare because of all the plutonium it would put in circulation.

However, technology advances and we now have other options:

In the U.S., state and local governments are pushing alternative energies by offering subsidies and requiring that utility companies include renewable sources in their plans. And in Europe financial incentives for both wind and solar energy have broad support even though they raise electric bills.

Alternative energy is also catching on in parts of the developing world where it's a necessity, not a choice. Solar power, for example, is making inroads in African communities lacking power lines and generators. "If you want to overcome poverty, what do people need to focus on?" asks Germany's environment minister, Jürgen Trittin. "They need fresh water and they need energy. For filling the needs of remote villages, renewable energy is highly competitive."

In developed countries there's a sense that alternative energy?once seen as a quaint hippie enthusiasm?is no longer alternative culture. It's edging into the mainstream.

Nuclear will continue to play an important role in future energy needs, but I'd like to see alternatives exploited to their full potential.

 

[Nyati13]

Originally posted by: LandRover
I find it amusing how suddenly everyone here becomes an expert on Nuclear power. The current situation on dealing with the waste from the last 40+ years is totally inadequate. The Yucca Mountain repository won't be operational for another 11 years. In the meantime, basically every plant has their spent fuel rods submerged on-site, and we have numerous high-level waste sites scattered around the country, many of which are at or rapidly nearing their full capacity. The plan is to "clean up" some of the current waste sites by eventually transporting materials to Yucca Mtn., which is a massive undertaking on its own. And the capacity at Yucca doesn't come close to solving all future storage needs.

We're having enough problems dealing with the waste from the first generation of nuclear power plants, and yet so many people are eager for a rebirth of nuclear power, without realizing the full scope of problems that presents. And breeder reactors for reprocessing don't solve all the problems either.

A power source that creates such hazardous waste materials is far from "clean energy".

We have a reactor waste problem right now precisely because we don't reprocess the spent fuel. You're complaint that breeder reactors don't instantly solve ALL of the problems is not a sufficient reason to not move forward with new generation Nuclear energy. Your complaint that 1st Gen nuclear tech was dirty and caused problems is not a valid arguement against moving forward with the new 3rd Gen nuclear tech (and oh by the way, using the 3rd Gen tech to replace all those dirty 1st Gen reactors that you are so worried about, and reprocess and dispose of most of the reactor waste that you are so worried about) Refusing to move forward to new technology, just because the 1st Gen technology (that the USA only used half of anyway, compounding the problem) didn't work so well is stupid.