nuclear energy is the most effective source that we have. Windmills and solar produce more pollution, and have higher carbon footprints pound for pound, and are way way less reliable and productive. It seems much of the problems could be solved by getting over the stigmas.
Burning copies of Stephen King novels (before or after reading) gets my vote. Sure there's some smoke, but unlike those pesky fossil fuels, this is a fully renewable source. And the attendant satisfaction is priceless.
Not sure where jla is getting his information (i.e. citations needed), but here is some that can back up some of what he is saying: https://ourworldindata.org/saf...
He's free to post his own, I just grabbed a quick result showing lower greenhouse emissions from nuclear than wind and solar.
As per his usual though, he's taking something quite complex and trying to break it down into a provocative statement and see if he can trigger a reaction from people to create a controversy. I don't think we need to bite.
For me, I think nuclear should have a definite role in the energy grid, but so should renewables like wind, solar, etc. There isn't going to be one "magic bullet" energy source that will work everywhere for everyone under every condition. So why set up the conversation as nuclear is better than these other also very good sources?
Speaking of nuclear stigmas though, the big one is what to do with the waste. Perhaps not well understood generally, is that we can reprocess spent fuel and that would reduce the amount of waste that needs to be dealt with. From what I understand, the waste (after extracting the high-level elements that are to be reused) is also faster to decay to safe radiation levels (still a long time like hundreds of years, but much less overall when compared to hundreds of thousands of years). Waste with a half-life of 30-40 years for example is much easier to manage than waste with a half-life of 24,000 years (FYI, after 10 half-lives anything is considered safe). The technology is there, but the regulations in the US are not. France, on the other hand, produces more than 70% of its energy via nuclear and does a lot of reprocessing of it's nuclear waste recovering something like 96% of the reusable waste: https://www.iaea.org/newscente...
Other downsides I’ll point out are national security, mining, and cost. Benefits: national security in terms of energy independence, low land use, low co2, low operating costs, high energy output, reliability, etc. everything has pros and cons. I’m not saying that wind and solar shouldn’t also be utilized, I’m just saying that nuclear should be the primary focus for clean energy if we are serious about reducing fossil fuels. It’s the most doable from a scientific standpoint. Economics, I’m not really sure. Politically, not so good due to stigmas. The Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters were old tech with terrible locations (by ocean and surrounded by a town). We can do much safer nuclear. Don’t forget, there have been an equal share of chemical disasters like Bhopal and DuPont in WV. We haven’t stigmatized chemical industry like we have with nuclear. Those chemicals also have long half lives too. Personally, I’m not as terrified about climate change as pollution and habitat destruction. I understand that it’s not going to be fun, but I don’t see that as the number one concern. War and pollution pose a greater risk imo.
I think that France does the best job of Nuclear energy, but again they have the least problematic environmental conditions; not subject to hurricanes, or earthquakes, and their population density is largely centralized. The US would almost certainly need to decentralize the Nuclear power generation, and place where the population densities are, which seems to me, largely on coastal regions.
Mar 5, 22 11:36 am ·
·
b3tadine[sutures]
As for Bhopal, and Dupont, what we have here, are conservative/libertarian/capitalist whores, exploiting marginalized communities, with zero power to push back.
Mar 5, 22 11:38 am ·
·
x-jla
Supporting ones freedom to own knives doesn’t mean supporting stabbing sprees. Libertarians are very harsh on big corporations like DuPont, and I don’t don’t know a single libertarian who thinks DuPont’s right to make chemicals outweighs a citizens right to not have their bodily autonomy unknowingly violated by chemicals getting into the environment.
That’s not how it works.
Mar 6, 22 8:56 pm ·
·
x-jla
Libertarianism is not about what you get to do, it’s about what the state doesn’t get to do, like prevent voluntary transactions between consenting adults-hence
capitalism
Mar 6, 22 8:59 pm ·
·
x-jla
I don’t the know the ROI on nuclear, but I’d bet it’s why we don’t see more of it in the US. With all the other shit they expose us to, I doubt it’s about the dangers…
Canada is 61% hydro/tidal and 15% NuCLEar. We're doing fine with the nuke plants BTW, but we're also the leading supplier of uranium. You're welcome world.
Take a look at Thorium (sp?) or LFTR Reactors. The nuclear waste productid cannot be used for weapons. In addition these reactors can use traditional nuclear power plants waste to as fuel.
Fun fact: The world's first breeder reactor was also the world's first nuclear reactor to produce electricity when it powered a string of 4 light bulbs in the middle of the Idaho desert. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Re: your earlier comment about Thorium ... I started watching the Norwegian show "Occupied" again on Netflix and (spoiler alert for the first episode) the whole plotline of the show is based on Norway shutting down oil and gas production in lieu of Thorium-based power.
I started watching it again because of Russia's invasion, and it's been interesting to see it in a slightly different light.
Thorium reactors are an interesting concept. Apparently China has been researching them for decades. Realistically they will be the first country implement them in widespread manor. This could have huge impacts on their behavior since they won't be as dependent on oil and coal.
Didn't the US have an early thorium-based reactor for a while? I think it was something that was being developed and experimented with in the 60s and was shown to be successful, but we scrapped it and focused on uranium-based fuel because we could also use those reactors to produce weapons-grade plutonium during the cold war.
Mar 7, 22 2:04 pm ·
·
x-jla
There was an experimental one operating in the 60’s in Tennessee. It was shut down in 1969 according to the Nature
article
to b3’s point in decentralization of nuclear and populations being in less than ideal places for nuclear…materials technologies like better cable insulation can hopefully increase the distances that electricity can be transferred. That would be a game changer. We could have plants 1000 miles away. I believe now the limit is 300miles.
Mar 7, 22 1:27 pm ·
·
Non Sequitur
My province (ontario) is about 70ish% nuCLEar with 3 plants serving some 10mil or so population.
Nuclear energy
nuclear energy is the most effective source that we have. Windmills and solar produce more pollution, and have higher carbon footprints pound for pound, and are way way less reliable and productive. It seems much of the problems could be solved by getting over the stigmas.
(citations missing)
I mean for sizzle, you can't beat nuclear, the best char for the money, plus I mean I hear the cattle at Chernoble, is very illuminating!
I mean seriously, what Sneaky said.
Burning copies of Stephen King novels (before or after reading) gets my vote. Sure there's some smoke, but unlike those pesky fossil fuels, this is a fully renewable source. And the attendant satisfaction is priceless.
Not sure where jla is getting his information (i.e. citations needed), but here is some that can back up some of what he is saying: https://ourworldindata.org/saf...
He's free to post his own, I just grabbed a quick result showing lower greenhouse emissions from nuclear than wind and solar.
As per his usual though, he's taking something quite complex and trying to break it down into a provocative statement and see if he can trigger a reaction from people to create a controversy. I don't think we need to bite.
For me, I think nuclear should have a definite role in the energy grid, but so should renewables like wind, solar, etc. There isn't going to be one "magic bullet" energy source that will work everywhere for everyone under every condition. So why set up the conversation as nuclear is better than these other also very good sources?
Speaking of nuclear stigmas though, the big one is what to do with the waste. Perhaps not well understood generally, is that we can reprocess spent fuel and that would reduce the amount of waste that needs to be dealt with. From what I understand, the waste (after extracting the high-level elements that are to be reused) is also faster to decay to safe radiation levels (still a long time like hundreds of years, but much less overall when compared to hundreds of thousands of years). Waste with a half-life of 30-40 years for example is much easier to manage than waste with a half-life of 24,000 years (FYI, after 10 half-lives anything is considered safe). The technology is there, but the regulations in the US are not. France, on the other hand, produces more than 70% of its energy via nuclear and does a lot of reprocessing of it's nuclear waste recovering something like 96% of the reusable waste: https://www.iaea.org/newscente...
Other downsides I’ll point out are national security, mining, and cost. Benefits: national security in terms of energy independence, low land use, low co2, low operating costs, high energy output, reliability, etc. everything has pros and cons. I’m not saying that wind and solar shouldn’t also be utilized, I’m just saying that nuclear should be the primary focus for clean energy if we are serious about reducing fossil fuels. It’s the most doable from a scientific standpoint. Economics, I’m not really sure. Politically, not so good due to stigmas. The Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters were old tech with terrible locations (by ocean and surrounded by a town). We can do much safer nuclear. Don’t forget, there have been an equal share of chemical disasters like Bhopal and DuPont in WV. We haven’t stigmatized chemical industry like we have with nuclear. Those chemicals also have long half lives too. Personally, I’m not as terrified about climate change as pollution and habitat destruction. I understand that it’s not going to be fun, but I don’t see that as the number one concern. War and pollution pose a greater risk imo.
I think that France does the best job of Nuclear energy, but again they have the least problematic environmental conditions; not subject to hurricanes, or earthquakes, and their population density is largely centralized. The US would almost certainly need to decentralize the Nuclear power generation, and place where the population densities are, which seems to me, largely on coastal regions.
As for Bhopal, and Dupont, what we have here, are conservative/libertarian/capitalist whores, exploiting marginalized communities, with zero power to push back.
Supporting ones freedom to own knives doesn’t mean supporting stabbing sprees. Libertarians are very harsh on big corporations like DuPont, and I don’t don’t know a single libertarian who thinks DuPont’s right to make chemicals outweighs a citizens right to not have their bodily autonomy unknowingly violated by chemicals getting into the environment.
That’s not how it works.
Libertarianism is not about what you get to do, it’s about what the state doesn’t get to do, like prevent voluntary transactions between consenting adults-hence
capitalism
I don’t the know the ROI on nuclear, but I’d bet it’s why we don’t see more of it in the US. With all the other shit they expose us to, I doubt it’s about the dangers…
T0. Try harder.
I've definitely shifted my thinking on nuclear.
Interesting
Canada is 61% hydro/tidal and 15% NuCLEar. We're doing fine with the nuke plants BTW, but we're also the leading supplier of uranium. You're welcome world.
Take a look at Thorium (sp?) or LFTR Reactors. The nuclear waste productid cannot be used for weapons. In addition these reactors can use traditional nuclear power plants waste to as fuel.
You're a shill for big oil.
T0. Try harder
It should be perfectly clear at this point that Archinect is the breeder reactor* for trolls.
*A breeder reactor is a nuclear reactor that generates more fissile material than it consumes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Fun fact: The world's first breeder reactor was also the world's first nuclear reactor to produce electricity when it powered a string of 4 light bulbs in the middle of the Idaho desert. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The thing is that the trolls here are really obvious and dimwitted. It's pathetic. I doubt they could power a string of three light bulbs.
Re: your earlier comment about Thorium ... I started watching the Norwegian show "Occupied" again on Netflix and (spoiler alert for the first episode) the whole plotline of the show is based on Norway shutting down oil and gas production in lieu of Thorium-based power.
I started watching it again because of Russia's invasion, and it's been interesting to see it in a slightly different light.
Thorium reactors are an interesting concept. Apparently China has been researching them for decades. Realistically they will be the first country implement them in widespread manor. This could have huge impacts on their behavior since they won't be as dependent on oil and coal.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02459-w
Nature article on thorium.
Didn't the US have an early thorium-based reactor for a while? I think it was something that was being developed and experimented with in the 60s and was shown to be successful, but we scrapped it and focused on uranium-based fuel because we could also use those reactors to produce weapons-grade plutonium during the cold war.
There was an experimental one operating in the 60’s in Tennessee. It was shut down in 1969 according to the Nature
article
to b3’s point in decentralization of nuclear and populations being in less than ideal places for nuclear…materials technologies like better cable insulation can hopefully increase the distances that electricity can be transferred. That would be a game changer. We could have plants 1000 miles away. I believe now the limit is 300miles.
My province (ontario) is about 70ish% nuCLEar with 3 plants serving some 10mil or so population.
Nuclear = communist power apparently.
https://www.bloomberg.com/feat...
This. No radioactive pollution to potentially damage generations of kids, no thermal pollution from heated discharge water.
https://www.science.org/content/article/could-volcanoes-power-world
I’ve thought about this before…using sea water…make energy…and them capture the desalinated steam…
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.