Posted on 09/14/2022 4:59:34 AM PDT by MtnClimber
Even as the world cries out for more nuclear power, the only true clean and reliable source of energy, the single cure for inflation will make building them impossible.
Today, how many countries wish they had more nuclear power plants up and running? Although Germany was in the process of shutting its last remaining 3 reactors, even its Green Party was willing to relent, a little, for this winter. The departing Boris Johnson lambasted his UK government for not building more reactors—almost as if he had actually spent political capital on their advocacy during his term as a member of Parliament or as prime minister—and “committing” for 14 more. The Philippines’ President Marcos Jr. is intent on restarting a mothballed reactor project from the time of Marcos Sr. The Biden Administration is traveling the planet selling (on low, convenient terms) American industry’s newest products—“Small Modular Reactors” or SMRs—and the US Department of Energy is predicting up to 1,000 new reactors by 2050.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
The left is pretty much going to hate anything that works. Their real goal is to tear down Western Civilization.
I am certainly not anti-technology, but I cannot understand, for the life of me, why anyone would increase dependence on nuclear power while there was still oil, coal and gas available.
Why exchange pollutants which would be gone in 50 years for those that won’t be safe for thousands?
“Why exchange pollutants which would be gone in 50 years for those that won’t be safe for thousands?”
For the plants now running, there wasn’t much choice - all the ‘experts’ said we were running out of fuel and solar/wind wasn’t practical at all. Now that we have the nukes, we might as well get the nearly free power out of them, because we’re going to get the waste regardless.
As to the future, there are options for nuclear power without nearly the issue regarding waste - including stable nuclear fuels and breeder reactors.
“The left is pretty much going to hate anything that works. Their real goal is to tear down Western Civilization.”
Clearly the case, but tell that to 80% of Republicans and they’ll have you committed. Republicans are generally good people, and like the Jews in 1930s Europe, they’re mostly unable to understand just how evil others can be, even with they get slammed in the face with it, over and over.
You do not understand Nuclear power. The exchange of pollutants you mention is a fallacy for a number of reasons ranging from CO2 is not a pollutant to the ability of capturing, with current technologies, any real pollutant fossil fuels emit. So on that front I agree keep fossil fuels!
However Nuclear generates WAY less waste than the uniformed public knows and is quite easily managed and disposed of. Given the massive energy density of nuclear it should also be part of the energy mix. Without going all technical, literally it is shocking just how little space and how easily it is safely disposed of.
A better answer is nuclear for bulk needs like cities, homes and industry and fossil for transportation or remote areas where distribution is more challenging.
At some point America needs to realize and then act by strangling the left.
The strangle must be complete with the fracturing of the hyoid bone and red eyes
A handkerchief in the pocket of a nuclear worker’s coveralls is nuclear waste
The amount of power you draw from a reactor determines its waste output. Waste is, I believe, almost universally stored locally. The world should be grateful there is only one Fukushima. There is probably no way to ever clean it up.
All reactors produce nuclear waste. The plant, itself, becomes a problem.
As to choices, I submit Donald J Trump - American energy exporter in 3 years. I don’t want to let the lunatics forcing this disaster on the world, saddle us with a debt of thousands of years. Especially when there is no need.
I know, I have been working in nuclear power for close to 40 years. I took his comment on good faith that he meant actual fuel waste and other long term radioactive waste.
The handkerchief you mention literally is disposed of in such a way that the waste is made not radioactive or destroyed depending on the type of contamination, no storage required.
Quoting you “The amount of power you draw from a reactor determines its waste output.” That is a very WRONG statement. Once a reactors starts up even if it shuts down and is then decommissioned / removed the amount of fuel waste is the same as when you run for 2 years making 100% power and then remove the fuel.
As for generated operation waste such as clothing or other non fuel wastes, that is literally a non issue and managed such that it does not pose a radioactive challenge at all to the environment once disposed. Also it is independent of the power level, it relates to the time you maintain a plant.
Either you are woefully informed in which case I am happy to chat and discuss / educate you (that is my job now, I teach how to fix and manage nuclear power plants) OR you are not acting in good faith with that statement.
I agree, storing it locally is dumb - but we can thank the Democrats for that as they killed the Nevada location. Breeders reuse their waste (hence the term Breeder) but eventually wind up with a lot of Plutonium, which is actually really needed by our government, so as to have a chance of winning WW3, which seems to be the path they put us on.
As to Fukushima, is it luck, or are the controls on all of the other Western nukes actually pretty good? For example, we never hear of nuke issues in France, despite having a ton of reactors. Perhaps we get a bit more careful in how we site our nukes and design their safety systems (and upgrade the nukes that presently vulnerable)?
The world is getting nukes, whether we like it or not. China is building them by the hundreds, Japan is back to building them, as I expect much of the world. As to the US...I actually don’t care either way, but if we don’t build nukes, I sure as hell want to make sure we produce reliable energy in some other ways - and who knows if that will even be allowed?
I do not fully understand, I am sure, as I am not in the industry.
Can you explain to a lay person how nuclear waste is “disposed of”?
My understanding is that all of the spent rods used at the San Onofre power plant are still stored there. It is also that Fukushima is still a source of radiation, as it is in the same condition, but damaged.
I agree that nuclear waste is concentrated and the energy available is dense. Nuclear certainly has a place in energy generation. But the world’s use of energy is increasing. I don’t believe that an increase in nuclear waste output is a good idea.
I don’t get your point about a “fallacy”, since you agree with it. I don’t consider fossil fuel output to even be “waste”, in fact. But, even if I did, I believe it is absorbed into the environment far more rapidly than nuclear waste decays.
Fukushima was a man made accident. Take a little time and read about the actual events. I have presented several case studies on Fukushima.
A VERY brief synopsis of why it never should have happened.
1. The Diesels were at sea level, this was known to be a serious design flaw from the beginning but it was never corrected
2. The structures meant to contain the H2 release where identified decades earlier to need vents, mods were repeatedly requested from Engineers and GE but for economic reasons never perused.
3. They actually removed a natural sea wall they should have not and knew better than to. Many do not realize other Nuclear power plants in the area with equivalent walls survived and shut down with now threat to the public
See this link”https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Tepco-Removed-Natural-Seawall-that-Would-Have-Protected-Daiichi-Facility.html“
“Although not as commonly known, due to the fact that nothing happened, the Daiichi nuclear power plant is not the only facility along the Fukushima coastline. In the 1970s the Daini and Onagawa nuclear power plants were also built, however the seawalls were not destroyed here. When the massive earthquake and tsunami struck in March they were both able to achieve cold shutdowns, and no damage was suffered at either site.”
Literally this event was man made and could have been avoided. Engineers saw it coming and were not heeded. All the mods recommended were financially feasible and economically practical. People with 0 understanding of nuclear power need to stop making financial decisions about nuclear reactor design.
I am acting in good faith, for what it’s worth.
I hope you can explain how nuclear waste is “disposed of”. My understanding is that its radiation will have to decay naturally. I expect that the best we can do is hide it away, until the levels are safe to live with.
As to my “wrong” statement, are you saying that it does not accelerate the exhaustion of a fuel rod to run it at higher power levels? That is my expectation.
For generated operational waste, I am thinking more of steel piping and construction than I am clothes. I believe that almost all of the reactors ever built and since decommissioned, sit where they are. You would not bulldoze them to put in housing, or scrap the steel. To me, this puts obvious limits on the industry.
Thank you for your explanations.
That is a big topic, as for generated non fuel waste that is really no issue and not what people worry about. Fuel waste is generally the concern and for that this video is more concise and easier to link than write about.
Big problem I find is so many come to this with an agenda and you see it in the videos / article they produce. To be fair I obviously am in the nuclear field, so consider that. I do think the video link presents a appropriate view and is informed with facts.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aUODXeAM-k
“People with 0 understanding of nuclear power need to stop making financial decisions about nuclear reactor design.”
Totally agree there. What makes sense in other financial environments, including conventional source power plants, doesn’t work for nukes. For example, delete a safety system for a coal plant - worst that happens is that it blows up and makes a local mess (probably just on its own property). Do the same for a nuke, and you have the huge dead-zone around Chernobyl.
So...sorry Libertarians here, the market DOES NOT work for nukes - regulators are needed and the nukes have to comply with well-intended demands - which is the case for the ones you listed...but we still have to be careful with Leftist regulators, since they often have their own agendas.
Losing a few billion on a nuke might be manageable for a utility, but the external damage that it is capable of can cripple countries.
Let’s address steel piping. The irradiation you mention is not an issue of making it radioactive as much as it is damaging the material integrity, making it poorer steel.
The power plant I work at has been irradiating the actual pressure vessel (the part where the fuel sits in) for over 48 years and just last spring, after removing the fuel, we walked into the annuls (area surrounding the vessel) and visually inspected the vessel. During the inspection you can touch the vessel. It does not become permanently and highly radioactive, one of many extreme misconceptions the public has. Yes it will be irradiated but typically decays away quickly, to a much lower amount, and is not to difficult to reclaim in the end. Though sometime burying it may be more economically reasonable to reclaiming.
Annulus not annuls sorry, typing a bit fast and between meetings
Nuke waste can be reprocessed. Even the French can do it.
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.