Posted on 08/08/2023 10:20:58 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
The U.S. brings a new Westinghouse AP1000 nuclear reactor online in Georgia, the first in 7 years, signaling a potential nuclear renaissance.
Historical fears and incidents hindered nuclear development, but changing perceptions and energy needs have positioned nuclear as a clean energy solution.
While challenges like high costs and lengthy development times persist, political support, funding, and improving public opinion could drive a resurgence in U.S. nuclear energy.
Following the energy shortages of 2022, the U.S. has been racing to reinvigorate its nuclear energy sector. Long neglected, nuclear power appears to be making a comeback in the U.S., having gained funding and political support from the Biden administration, and being seen as an obvious option to help accelerate a green transition. In recent years, the U.S. has been trying to simply keep its existing nuclear reactors ticking over but, for the first time in 7 years, a new reactor is up and running, spurring greater optimism for the future of U.S. nuclear energy.
In July, Georgia Power brought a new Westinghouse AP1000 nuclear reactor online, sending power to the U.S. grid. The Unit 3 reactor at Plant Vogtle in Georgia began operations last month following successful preliminary testing in March. The reactor generates around 1,110 MW of energy, enough to power roughly 500,000 homes and businesses. This is the first new reactor to come into operation since 2016 when the Watts Bar Unit 2 came online in Tennessee under the Tennessee Valley Authority.
(Excerpt) Read more at oilprice.com ...
ohh yeeah, i forgot ....hillary sold it all
I think the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki would notice if there friends and relatives were all dropping dead of cancer.
For that matter, Nevada was nuked over 100 times. You can even visit the Trinity site.
For all your hysterics over radiation, which has a miniscule chance of killing you, you have no problem getting in a car which is far more likely to result in your death.
By the way, here is a vacation spot for you:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guarapari
The natural world is not some pristine Eden completely free of radiation.
worrying about threats that are basically irrelevant, while ignoring things which do matter.
That's been the technique that the opponents of nuclear power have taken since the 1970's. You point out the (real) problems of the technology, exaggerate them, and ignore the problems with the alternatives. You're seeing that play out in this thread: radiation is scary, invisible, and too much of it can do a lot of bad things. But that emotion-based argument is compelling, and once you've got someone frightened, it's going to be tough to get them to accept that they might have been bamboozeled.
It workd in Germany. Astonishingly, they shut down their perfectly good nuclear plants in favor of Russian natural gas, and now they're looking at a second winter at the mercy of a foreign government's industrial and foreign policy. And now it's come out that the Russians were funding the Green opposition to the German Nukes all along. It was in their economic and political interests to do so, and seemed fairly obvious at the time, but they pulled it off with fear.
Lots of innovative engineering is going on with small modular reactors, including Gen IV alternatives to the current pressurized water reactors that address some of the legitimate criticisms of that design, but that alone won't matter. It's going to be tough, but, as Paul Harvey would say, the rest of the story has to get out. There's got to be a way to point out the risks and benefits of alternatives, rather that focussinly only on the negatives of one side.
It seems to me that we've basically got two choices:
1. We can follow the path laid out by Klaus Schawb and his New Economic Forum, and just use a lot less fossil fuels right away. Of course, this will lead to economic devastation and plent of human suffering and death, but for him, that's a feature, not a fault. The WEF and Green focus on 'sustainable" power sources (mainly solar and wind) is a part of this strategy. They know that "sustainable" energy can't run the current world population or economy, but it does give a talking point that lets them sell the idea without admitting that there will be a lot fewer people around, living much more miserable lives. It's worth noting that the WEF seems to be OK with fusion research, mostly it seems because it's safely out in the distant future, as one wag stated it "Fusion is the energy source of the future, and always will be." It certainly won't be deployed in time to thwart their plans in any case.
2. Or, if we would prefer to have some semblance of a functioning economy, and not suffer a massive retreat in everyone's (well, everyone except our new overlords) quality of life, find more efficient ways to use oil and natural gas, and deploy both current Gen III PWR's, while developing viable Gen IV reactors and fuel recycling technology. My personal view is that the natural evolution will probably arrive at a LFTR design, but there's no rush. If Thorium cycle reactors take a hundred years to commercialize (and they won't), that would still be fine. We still have hundredes of years worth of Uranium to power a growing economy before anyone needs to seriously worry about "having" to switch to Thorium. And the Thorium will last long enough for someone, a couple of hundred years down the road, to finally figure out how to make fusion work economically. Well, that's not quite right. There's enough thorium to last much longer than that, if for some reason fusion remains elusive.
Things, at present, are moving along the lines that the globalist hegemons would prefer, but there's still hope. Perhaps the veil will drop soon enough for people to see the future that these people have planned for us that we can do something about it. Cracks are forming, and I remain hopeful.
I objected to the description of nuke energy as ‘clean’ and gave examples.
From there you’ve thrown irrelevant obsolete talking points (I mean, they’ve been used over and over - get new ones!) at me.
You naturally resort to the term ‘hysterics’ because that’s what you do. Anyone objecting to the term “clean” being applied to nuke energy and explaining why, is by definition to be called ‘hysterical’.
I already know about radiation hotspots on earth’s crust. I never said the natural world is some ‘pristine Eden’ free of radiation. I said the nuke industry refuses all responsibility, is unregulated, talks down to the public, denies the damage they do, and just presses for more nuke plants.
| In the General/Chat forum, on a thread titled Another New Nuclear Reactor Energizes U.S. Clean Energy Hopes, Red6 wrote: |
We live in a world where our ability to measure things exceeds the practical limits of their relevancy. For example, we can still see the background radiation of the big bang, you can still see radiation from the above surface atomic tests we conducted... But other than knowing a cool fact or in the sciences themselves, does it matter in your day to day life? That’s why granite counter tops and cat litter do matter. You’re exposed to alpha and beta radiation from natural sources or in medical applications that FAR exceed anything you get from Chernobyl, Fukushima or all the nations of this world and their above surface nuclear tests combined. You get more radiation when going skiing in Colorado than if you went to ground zero at Trinity. You get more radiation from your dentist, going to a beach... You are probably not afraid of going into an underground basement of a building, to stay in a concrete building... You define any and all exposure as to much, and since we can measure radiation and even often determine their source to a miniscule and irrelevant level, you’re basically making a big deal out of NOTHING. If this is a conversation about health and safety, if I were you, I would worry more about that particle board furniture and its offgas, the carpet in your home, or better yet the >50% chance of you being obese. Cat litter and granite matter because you’re worrying about threats that are basically irrelevant, while ignoring things which do matter. |
WOW are you bad at this. You have to go back to 'talking-points' school because you just don't 'get' what you're saying while talking down to the public.
I mean you're so obviously disingenous:
"You’re exposed to alpha and beta radiation from natural sources or in medical applications that FAR exceed anything you get from Chernobyl, Fukushima or all the nations of this world and their above surface nuclear tests combined."
I've seen that worn out old tactic before - you're averaging the resulting impacts of radiation spills from the heavily impacted areas to 'smooth them out' as if the radioactive isotopes had actually been evenly distributed world-wide so that the problems caused by the nuke industry are of less significance than granite counter tops. That means you can blow up MANY MANY nuke plants, shower the terrain with fuel rods as in Fukushima and Chernobyl, and walk away sneering that "If I were you, I would worry more about particle board furniture."
Obviously there's nothing but distortion and disinformation in your posts - that's how you roll. You aren't even embarrassed - you don't 'get' how you exposed your backside here.
AN international organization visited villages hit hard by the Chernobyl blast and reported, "Every child is ill..." The public had nowhere to go so many families were forced to raise their families in contaminated regions for generations. The illness and damage to quality of life, death from cancer etc. just 'disappear' when the Russians make it illegal to report its relationship to radioactive waste in their food, water etc.
In Japan, TEPCO bragged that they had learned the 'lessons of Chernobyl' and so the government made it illegal for doctors to report radiation related health impacts or deaths, and Japanese people could be arrested and jailed for talking about Fukushima online.
And people like you trot along, chirping that kitty litter is worse. Disgusting.
The nuke industry has nearly been regulated out of existence. New reactors were turned on in 1996, 2016, and this year. That is hardly the mark of an industry free of regulations.
And you are hysterical about nuclear power in every sense of the word. The last real incident was three miles island and it was less of an incident than your average train derailment.
Or a paper cut? I’m waiting for you to compare Fukushima to a paper cut. C’mon, you know you want to....
So-
Talking points
Mis information
Dis information
Bla bla bla
As usual, when there is no substance, when someone lacks an argument, out come the fallacies and rhetoric.
Yes, the average US citizen will get more radiation from the earth, all naturally, than from any other source.
Specifically, Radon gas which is often found in basements...
Yes, you will get more radiation from the sun on a nice beach day than from any other source.
Nuclear power in all its facets (including accidents), accounts for LESS than 1/100 of 1%. Do you understand what that means? That’s less than .01 of 1%.
“Emissions of radiation from nuclear power plants are carefully monitored and controlled. According to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), nuclear power plant operations account for less than 1/100 of 1% of the average American’s total radiation exposure.” Quote from link since you’re likely to lazy to read the link provided.
Stick with facts.
Avoid the the junk.
Pretend to construct a logical argument.
Radiation is something that’s natural. You will never get rid of it. In fact, even burning coal sets lose radiation in the atmosphere, the link I provided in an earlier post regards some of the details. The question is merely, of all the imperfect solutions available, which one has the greatest net benefit to us?
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/
Please, tell me, where does nuclear power lose out to coal or gas?
- the environmental impact in getting the source material?
- the volume of residue left after power generation?
- hydrocarbons let lose in the atmosphere?
- CO2 let lose in the atmosphere?
- acid produced during power generation?
- amount of pipelines, rail, truck (logistics) required to sustain power generation?
- amount of soot let lose in atmosphere?
- amount of radiation let lose in the atmosphere?
- amount of people exposed to various dangers in the power generation: https://wwwn.cdc.gov/niosh-mining/MMWC/Fatality/NumberAndRate
It’s a simple question really, do you want coal and gas, or nuclear? Nuclear being the OBVIOUS winner when it comes to health and environment. But today we live in the day of Gretta Thornburg, Silent Spring, and Global Warming (now rebranded as Climate Change). Environmentalism has become political, economic, a media sensation, and the begining of the end for rational/sensible environmental policy was DDT and its bann which was entirely a political and media story, not one of science and a sound pragmatic approach.
Here’s an analogy: a breast exam exposes a woman to harmful radiation. But the net benefit of this radiation exceeds the hazard. There is no perfect answer here but one is obviously better than the other.
Nuclear power DOES carry with it risks. It does require some mining, it does produce some waste... But it’s a far better solution than the alternative coal and gas, where you merely accept the risks because those are familiar to you. If you fly with me (I’m a private pilot), you may feel uncomfortable, even some anxiety, but statistically you are FAR safer than if you drive your car the same distance. You’re arguing “perceptions and feelings” but this debate needs to remain in the realm of logic and statistics. When you debate the house, car, food, color, cloths, vacation, sexual preferences of your liking... your feelings and perceptions are paramount. But when you debate the energy policies of our nation, it needs to remain objective, empirical, pragmatic.
Boilerplate talking points and strategies are all I get from you. They really must have formalized your ‘training’ because it is too similar to your peers over decades! Yes, you all must receive standardized training - there is too much similarity.
You make STUPID comparisons to sunshine and radon.
You stress radiation is natural (pro tip - so is hemlock) as if digging it up and refining it to fuel or weapons grade is a ‘natural process’.
You use ‘averages’ to minimize the damage to say, individuals living near plants that vent radioactive gas here:
~~~~~~
““Emissions of radiation from nuclear power plants are carefully monitored and controlled. According to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), nuclear power plant operations account for less than 1/100 of 1% of the average American’s total radiation exposure.” Quote from link since you’re likely to lazy to read the link provided.”’
~~~~~
You change the subject after denying reality and I’m supposed to go along with that? It isn’t about debating all forms of fuel - it’s about the sociopathic nuclear power energy industry and their denial of reality, and the manipulative condescension they deploy when someone contradicts the lie that ‘nuclear power is clean energy’.
You keep trying to make this about my feelings, even though I’m not posting about my feelings: “You’re arguing “perceptions and feelings” but this debate needs to remain in the realm of logic and statistics. “ But the truth is, nuclear power is not clean energy, there is no comparison between a day at the beach and refined radioactive fuel blown out of containment the nuke power industry says ‘can’t fail’ right into the food chain/water/atmosphere.
When Fukushia blew up, I checked the nuke power agency’s statement and it was something like, “*sigh* now we’ll have a harder time educating the ignorant public about how safe nuclear power is.” The nuke power industry denies such events ever happened, minimizes those events when pressed, changes the subject, ridicules the public, learns nothing from its mistakes and then, rinses and repeats, and then doubles down.
Only 500,000 homes? One would think with all the new energy saving appliances that the Biden’s have mandated, it should be at least 1 million homes. /S
Luddite.
L
Stop embarrassing yourself.
In the General/Chat forum, on a thread titled Another New Nuclear Reactor Energizes U.S. Clean Energy Hopes, Red6 wrote: Stop embarrassing yourself.
You're the one equating radioactive Uranium/Plutonium to kitty litter/granite counter tops. These two are not the same - study up on this content before posting!
To any cat owners reading this: Yes, I know a dirty litter box can SEEM like a 'weapon of mass destruction' sometimes, but those of us outside the nuclear power industry know there are key differences! ;D
Cat litter, often made using clay (bentonite) contains traces of Uranium, in some cases even Thorium.
https://www.orau.gov/health-physics-museum/collection/consumer/miscellaneous/cat-litter.html
It must be nice to live in ignorant bliss.
You really are embarrassing yourself.
But to your credit. At least you didn’t flee into the realm of so called green power, which is a false/fake solution. Not to say that these might develop to be practical in the future, but as of today, they can not cover our need.
You are equating the risks posed by cat litter to those posed by nuclear fuel. I am always disappointed by the professional standards in the nuclear power industry - the arguments you people make are alarming in that some of you actually seem to believe the talking points you provide.
You used kitty litter and other stupid deflections and ad hominem attacks (e.g., ‘hysterical’) to lead away from the simple documented fact that nuclear power is not ‘clean energy’ as billed.
The false claims you and others is based on theoretical perfection in engineering, operation and human decision making that doesn’t exist in the real world installation and operations. These comparisons to nuke power and coal and solar energy all use the ‘perfection’ model of nuke power. You deny the importance, impacts and existence of contamination resulting from loss of containment.
Lots of human errors and engineering failures in both Chernobyl and Fukushima. When Fukushima had exposed fuel in crumbling ponds elevated on the remains of the reactor, US nuke power plants were asked how many had spent fuel suspended above the reactor, as in Fukushima. 78% responded they had the same design (engineering result) and asked for funds to move the fuel. So, the nuclear power industry makes catastrophic mistakes and cannot legitimately claim to be ‘clean power’ and will never, and has never, admitted responsibility and impacts of their decisions.
Nuclear power is the most regulated, tightly monitored, professionally trained, source of power.
https://getintoenergy.org/careers-in-nuclear/
The welders have the highest industry standards:
https://waterwelders.com/what-is-nuclear-welder/
The plant operators are extremely well selected and trained:
https://www.bls.gov/ooh/production/power-plant-operators-distributors-and-dispatchers.htm
Just because you say something or you feel it to be true, does not make it so. Repeating it does not make it true. Saying things louder does not make it true. Having a celebrity endorse it, does not make it true. Having a Netflix special or movie about it, does not necessarily make it true...I’m sorry, but this isn’t science: https://i.imgflip.com/7j3x8a.jpg
Mining in the US had a spectacular last year, only 10 people died in coal mines: https://arlweb.msha.gov/stats/centurystats/coalstats.asp. That is more than what died at or because of Fukushima!!!
It always goes back to one simple concept. You expect nuclear power to be perfect and any negative aspect or mistake is to much, but if hundreds die from cancer, asthma, coal mine accidents combined in the coal and gas industry you simply accept that as normal.
Now, let’s talk about so called “green” power. Do you think the plants in China where most solar panels are made meet US EPA or OSHA standards? Panels are energy intense to make, do you think China has the cleanest power?
Do you think most mines in Africa where cadmium for batteries come from meet EPA, mine safety and OSHA standards?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4764208/Child-miners-aged-four-living-hell-Earth.html
Do you think that most places in China, Africa, where they strip mine (tear the shit out of the environment) for lithium meet EPA or OSHA standards? Even in the US what do you think they do when they mine for Lithium? https://twitter.com/PeeheeMuhuh/status/1445844987858472962/photo/1
But it has the label “green.”
There is no perfect answer. But nuclear is the best answer we have today.
Just not going to read your posts...not worth my time.
You probably shouldn’t read. Reading requires effort and it’s not necessary since you can get how you should feel about things spoon fed.
You also don’t need any facts, or even a coherent argument. If you just believe in something, and repeat it often, it becomes true!
Besides, most people agree with you, so you must be right. An expert said something (without giving an argument), so that settles the science. How can you be wrong if they made movies about this:
Chain reaction
Chernobyl 1986
The cloud
Stop
Chernobyl diaries
Fukushima 50
Red Alert
Meltdown
Don’t obfuscate real science, logic, pragmatism, reason (thinking) with pop culture trash.
Making a statement is not the same as making an argument.
In the General/Chat forum, on a thread titled Another New Nuclear Reactor Energizes U.S. Clean Energy Hopes, Red6 wrote: You probably shouldn’t read. Reading requires effort and it’s not necessary since you can get how you should feel about things spoon fed.
You also don’t need any facts, or even a coherent argument. If you just believe in something, and repeat it often, it becomes true!
Besides, most people agree with you, so you must be right. An expert said something (without giving an argument), so that settles the science. How can you be wrong if they made movies about this:
Chain reaction
Chernobyl 1986
The cloud
Stop
Chernobyl diaries
Fukushima 50
Red Alert
MeltdownDon’t obfuscate real science, logic, pragmatism, reason (thinking) with pop culture trash.
Making a statement is not the same as making an argument.
You sound bitter. Are you bitter? I think you're bitter. I can't waste time on you.
You prove my point by making up a list of movies, claim I base my judgement on them, and imply I know nothing about the topic. You've never asked me what I know about the topic - you just paste about my supposed 'emotions' and make stupid kitty litter is more harmful to human health than radioactive waste comments from your ancient 'talking points' handbook.
Go pound sand and leave me alone.
What exactly do you base your feelings on? Give us a credible source.
How to win this argument every time:
1. (There is no green escape). Anytime you have a conversation with someone in the future you need to narrow the conversation down to that simple fact, since so called green power is not reliable nor at a cost point which allows an industrial society to exist. It’s not even really “green” but you better not go there since that’s outside of their comprehension.
2. (You need to compare things realistically). While many of the arguments against nuclear power actually have some merit, the reality is that fossil fuels are many times worse in literally every aspect: quantity of mining/drilling, material used, logistics, left over waste, CO2, acid, hydrocarbons, EVEN radiation let lose in the atmosphere.
What you then end up with, is not nuclear power being perfect, but simply better than the alternative.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
