The Nuclear Option

LadyStanley

Registered User
Sep 22, 2004
105,735
18,860
Sin City
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/the-nuclear-option.html

Need power that runs 24/7 without carbon waste? Nuclear may be the answer. Bill Gates and others are investing in 21st century technology to solve the known problems with (shutting down) nuclear reactor after issues and do it safely. Gates' company, Terrapower is looking at using "spent" fuel and estimates they could use the currently stockpiled material to power the entire country SEVEN HUNDRED AND FIFTY YEARS!!!!

Three Mile Island (TMI), Chernobyl, Fukushima and other plants all used 1950-1960 technology. A lot of testing at various plants (to improve how things worked) was shut down by President Bill Clinton.



Related:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/chernobyls-megatomb.html

Building tomb for Chernobyl
 

njdevsfn95

Help JJJ, Sprite.
Jul 30, 2006
31,348
55
As much as I am a fan of renewables, I recognize that, due to problems such as energy storage, we still need some of the older, dirtier-in-some-way technology.

Planning to use leftover/spent fuel for any purpose is a good step. The proposed storage facility at Yucca Mountain keeps getting delayed so trying to figure out ways to use it makes a lot of sense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RoarLionRoar

LadyStanley

Registered User
Sep 22, 2004
105,735
18,860
Sin City
If they can make it much safer to shut down it would be huge.

Advances in technology since most reactors were built in 1960s (or based on that era tech) and lots of testing (simulated and actual) means they can build a lot safer reactors today.
 

chicagoskycam

Land of #1 Overall Picks
Nov 19, 2009
25,580
1,833
Fulton Market, Chicago
chicagoskycam.com
Advances in technology since most reactors were built in 1960s (or based on that era tech) and lots of testing (simulated and actual) means they can build a lot safer reactors today.

Yeah that's what I was reading in your OP. The main issue people take is safety especially in the event of a natural disaster or terrorist target.

It could really help bridge the gap to renewable energy.
 

hatterson

Registered User
Apr 12, 2010
34,951
12,225
North Tonawanda, NY
Yeah that's what I was reading in your OP. The main issue people take is safety especially in the event of a natural disaster or terrorist target.

It could really help bridge the gap to renewable energy.

The safety issue is really just a case of people struggling to understand how to balance danger of a large negative event with many smaller negative events. Off the top of my head I forget the terms that's usually applied to a situation like that, but it's something that's completely understandable for people to struggle with given evolutionary history. That means it's not a case of people just being thick headed, but rather one that can be resolved with continued education.

"dirty" power kills far, far more people than nuclear does, it's just that those people either die in small events (mine collapses, etc.) or they die over long periods of time due to health issues.
 

LadyStanley

Registered User
Sep 22, 2004
105,735
18,860
Sin City
Just use solar energy.

Nuclear too dangerous.

Not a problem if the sun shone 24x7.

Yes, daytime usually has higher power demand than night (businesses), but how would you power the TV and microwave for dinner?

Battery technology is not to the point that any excess generated during the day can easily be distributed off peak.
 

Holden Caulfield

Eternal Skeptic
Feb 15, 2006
22,807
5,399
Winnipeg
Just use solar energy.

Nuclear too dangerous.

Nuclear power is actually one of the safest forms of power generation there is. Modern nuclear stations with functioning oversight have basically no risk at all.

The real issue with nuclear is the leftover isotopes. How to dispose of those is downside to nuclear.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RoarLionRoar

SenorDingDong

Registered User
Apr 1, 2006
3,496
32
Toronto
Not a problem if the sun shone 24x7.

Yes, daytime usually has higher power demand than night (businesses), but how would you power the TV and microwave for dinner?

Battery technology is not to the point that any excess generated during the day can easily be distributed off peak.

It's quickly getting there...

https://www.theverge.com/2017/3/8/14854858/tesla-solar-hawaii-kauai-kiuc-powerpack-battery-generator

There are a number of places popping up and doing this in the Pacific. Islands in the pacific definitely make the most sense for where to start and "Test" out these projects but as the tech advances they will be brought onshore.

I'm not opposed to Nuclear though in areas where this is no natural disasters and where it tends to be darker. Placing like Florida or California though it makes way more sense to go solar.
 

jdhebner

Registered User
Sponsor
Feb 24, 2003
925
2
I ain't cousin Basil
Visit site
It's quickly getting there...

https://www.theverge.com/2017/3/8/14854858/tesla-solar-hawaii-kauai-kiuc-powerpack-battery-generator

There are a number of places popping up and doing this in the Pacific. Islands in the pacific definitely make the most sense for where to start and "Test" out these projects but as the tech advances they will be brought onshore.

I'm not opposed to Nuclear though in areas where this is no natural disasters and where it tends to be darker. Placing like Florida or California though it makes way more sense to go solar.

I disagree. While there may be a niche for the battery backup in small areas, anything large scale (like a city such as Philly) will require a 10-fold increase in battery energy density. However, physical principles limit energy density increases to about a factor 3, and that's really optimistic. So solar/wind/geothermal with battery backup might be part of but not the entire solution
 

KirkOut

EveryoneOut
Nov 23, 2012
14,548
3,757
USA
Things aren't looking great. Westinghouse is a sinking ship and plants are closing while new projects are getting shut down. I'm glad my job is not in the commercial world right about now.

Nuclear energy's problem is 100% PR. Not educating the public has been a disastrous failure on the part of the nuclear industry. You can't fault Joe Schmo for ignorance of what is a real concern with nuclear and what isn't. At this point I fear it's too late.

Just use solar energy.

Nuclear too dangerous.

I'm on the edge of my seat here waiting for you to explain why nuclear is dangerous.
 
  • Like
Reactions: x Tame Impala

njdevsfn95

Help JJJ, Sprite.
Jul 30, 2006
31,348
55
Kind of similar to how "chemical" became a synonym for "bad" when, by definition, well, that isn't the definition.
 

Leafsdude7

Stand-Up Philosopher
Mar 26, 2011
23,135
1,213
Ontario
Just use solar energy.

Nuclear too dangerous.

Ignoring that nuclear isn't at all dangerous, statistically speaking, and that we're currently nowhere near being able to use solar energy as a major energy source, the fact is putting our energy eggs in one basket is still a bad idea, regardless of how strong the Pro-V-Con is. Even having a heavy majority of a single energy source is probably a bad idea, since it would make adjusting to potential problems we haven't found in using a form of energy generation to such levels much more difficult.

Our goal with nuclear energy should be, IMO, to have it provide around 50-60% of usage, with solar, wind, hydro and other renewables providing the other 40-50%, with maybe a small percentage of fossil fuels to support.
 

bobber

Registered User
Jan 21, 2013
8,210
5,519
Kitchener Ontario
Eventually the powers that be have to make a decision on a sustainable type of energy to power the world because fossil fuel will run out in time. Nuclear is probably one of the most popular options as it is already viable but it has to be controlled. It is used now as a so called "deterrent" and a threat by some countries. Basically all these newer types of energy mentioned above are being put to use in combinations by some countries. IMO to continue to keep up with world demand and to bring all of the poorer countries up to standards all of the above has to be utilized until they find an alterative. Unfortunately because of greed and the need to keep their coffers full there will always be people with alternative agendas that hold back some forms of energy.
 

beowulf

Not a nice guy.
Jan 29, 2005
59,361
8,958
Ottawa
Just use solar energy.

Nuclear too dangerous.
Problem is solar is not always possible for many people. Higher latitudes that have long winters with short days, solar is much less effective.

I am not saying nuclear is the way to go, but if someone can find a way of making it safer and using the waste for further energy use then maybe it could be worth it.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->