Can we get @$&# nuclear power already?

[Deeg]

This year we’ve had two energy-related disasters that resulted in more deaths than Three Mile Island (the WV coal mine explosion and the oil rig explosion). In the last ~20 years we’ve had two oil spills that were/are way more damaging to the environment than TMI. Don’t forget the CO2 we’re pumping into the atmosphere.

Can we stop with the moronic safety concerns over nuclear power and get cracking on new plants? No, nuclear power is not completely safe but it is better than what we’re doing.

[campp]

Nuclear is all about power generation for the electrical grid.

The oil spilled is burned in internal combustion engines, not power generation. Apples and oranges. Or am I wrong on that, maybe they burn it for power down there?

[Fear_Itself]

How would you know how many deaths were caused by Three Mile Island? Cancers caused by exposure to radiation leaks may not appear for decades, and are easily attributed to other causes. The fact is, we don’t know how many people were killed by Three Mile Island…

[Rand_Rover]

Nope, sorry. The enviro-fascists won’t let it happen. They don’t like real-world common sense solutions to problems. They want society to grind to a halt as we all live in fear of the coming enviro-pocalypse from which there is no other escape.

[Polycarp]

@campp

Nuclear is all about power generation for the electrical grid.

The oil spilled is burned in internal combustion engines, not power generation. Apples and oranges. Or am I wrong on that, maybe they burn it for power down there?

A lot of electrical generating plants are oil-fired. During the late Sixties and early Seventies, when oil was still cheap and the cost of rail transport (to ship in coal) was going up, several plants near my hometown switched from coal to oil. Probably Una Persson would need to give us what percentage of oil is used for power generation, and what percentage of power generation is oil-fired, but I can tell you it’s not negligible.

[campp]

@Polycarp

A lot of electrical generating plants are oil-fired. snip

OK, interesting, my impression was that crude mostly was for engines. We have both coal and nuclear out west, for the most part.

Anyway there are tragedies in ALL types of power production. Our mission should be to minimize them as best we can. (Such as the aforementioned remote valve).

We exploit these various resources as supply and demand dictates.

[VinylTurnip]

@Rand_Rover

Nope, sorry. The enviro-fascists won’t let it happen. They don’t like real-world common sense solutions to problems. They want society to grind to a halt as we all live in fear of the coming enviro-pocalypse from which there is no other escape.

Congratulations on your graduation magna cum felchy from the Der Trihs School of Comic-book Hyperbole. It’s no Butt-Wipe University, but I think you’ll go far. I certainly wish you would.

[TurboNuke]

@Polycarp

A lot of electrical generating plants are oil-fired. During the late Sixties and early Seventies, when oil was still cheap and the cost of rail transport (to ship in coal) was going up, several plants near my hometown switched from coal to oil. Probably Una Persson would need to give us what percentage of oil is used for power generation, and what percentage of power generation is oil-fired, but I can tell you it’s not negligible.

Very little power is generated by burning oil, about 1% of the total electricity generated in the US. Recently windpower surpassed oil in the percentage of electricity generated.

[Rhythmdvl]

yeah, no shit! And while we’re at it, we need many more off-shore drilling platforms, too.

Fuck the environmental wackos!

[Richard_Parker]

@Rand_Rover

Nope, sorry. The enviro-fascists won’t let it happen. They don’t like real-world common sense solutions to problems. They want society to grind to a halt as we all live in fear of the coming enviro-pocalypse from which there is no other escape.

Irrational opposition to nuclear plays a small role, and so does the lack of a long-term geological disposal location (Yucca, even if operational, would be filled by the current waste being stores, with no room for future waste). But the much bigger role is, no surprise, the almighty dollar. Building new nuclear power plants is too expensive. So says the nuclear industry, and just about everyone else.

Now, if we have a carbon tax, or cap and trade, then things would be different:

As seen from the Table 5.1 from the MIT Study, reproduced on the next page, this scenario would change if there were a significant tax on carbon emissions, or if an equivalent economic penalty were imposed on fossil-fueled plants through a cap on carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions or a requirement that CO2 be sequestered. Nuclear would be competitive with coal if there were a carbon tax of about $100 per ton of carbon ($100/tC), and with moderately priced natural gas if the tax were about $200/tC.

So maybe you should blame the Republicans for their opposition to these sensible ideas, no?

[emacknight]

@TurboNuke

Very little power is generated by burning oil, about 1% of the total electricity generated in the US. Recently windpower surpassed oil in the percentage of electricity generated.

Do you have a cite for that, I’d like to see how various sources compare. I know where I grew up coal was the main source for electricity, then they switched to cheaper oil, then they switched a lot of the plants to run on natural gas.

ETA Never mind, I found it here

[levdrakon]

We have oil-related accidents because we have lots and lots of oil drilling and handling. It’s naive to think if we suddenly quadrupled the number of nuke plants we wouldn’t also have more accidents. Not to mention nuke plants are incredibly complicated and expensive to build and run. Nuke generated electricity is projected to cost triple the current cost of electricity. That’ll be fine in densely populated areas where everything costs triple anyway, but you can’t expect most of the country to pay Manhattan prices.

[gonzomax]

Just go flip a switch and turn a couple nuke plants on. Then find a way to hook your car up to it.
Actually the plug in electric car will give a little credence to a wrong headed rant, but that is a terrible argument. They practically do not exist.
Enviro -facsists ? Rush is it you? Explains a lot.

[RickJay]

@Fear_Itself

How would you know how many deaths were caused by Three Mile Island? Cancers caused by exposure to radiation leaks may not appear for decades, and are easily attributed to other causes. The fact is, we don’t know how many people were killed by Three Mile Island…

The consensus of a number of studies of Three Mile Island is that the total number of deaths attibutable to the accident was zero.

Even if you bend and twist the numbers as far as you can without breaking them, a high guess would be, like, two. And it was the worst nuclear power plant accident in American history. Arguing against nuclear power while allowing human beings to mine coal is crazy.

[LeeshaJoy]

How much of the BP rig’s oil was going toward the manufacture of plastics, fertilizers, etc.? You couldn’t do that with nuclear fuel last time I checked.

[AClockworkMelon]

I sigh dejectedly when I see people seriously opposing nuclear power.

[Shawn1767]

Consider me someone who was totally against nuclear power earlier in life, however, now that I feel more rational and looking at the alternatives, I also wonder why environmental people would be against it. Unless they are just knee-jerk reactions. However, as a remedy to power shortages, is there any truth to the contention that nuclear viable fuel would only last 20 years or so? And then we’d face energy shortages and nuclear plants would be useless? What’s the straight dope on nuclear fuel supplies?

[DadWagonDriver]

I read an article in Esquire recently about the sodium fast reactor. What are the downsides to using that type of nuclear reactor?

[levdrakon]

@Shawn1767

Consider me someone who was totally against nuclear power earlier in life, however, now that I feel more rational and looking at the alternatives, I also wonder why environmental people would be against it. Unless they are just knee-jerk reactions. However, as a remedy to power shortages, is there any truth to the contention that nuclear viable fuel would only last 20 years or so? And then we’d face energy shortages and nuclear plants would be useless? What’s the straight dope on nuclear fuel supplies?

I dunno, but that bastion of nuclear energy, France, is now 100% dependent on foreign uranium imports, and as far as I know, the US also imports over 90% of its uranium.

Speaking of France, their nuke electricity is nice an all, but last I heard, 70% of their final energy is still oil, gas and coal.

French officials are proud of their country’s place as the world’s leading nuclear energy state. Kouchner maintains, “Thirty years ago, France made the choice of nuclear [power]. It was the price [paid for] its independence, its prosperity, its freedom. . . .Today, we have a degree of energy autonomy that profits every French [citizen]. The cost of our electricity is the lowest in the world and our economy is one of the cleanest in terms of carbon emissions.”

Independence, prosperity, freedom–this is strong stuff. And, of course, Kouchner does not forget to point out the price of oil, which “reaches summits and continues to climb.”

But is he correct? For starters, he makes a convenient mistake–mixing up the words “electricity” and “energy.” In 2007, nuclear energy provided 78 percent of France’s electricity, which corresponded to 39 percent of its commercial primary energy but only 18 percent of its final energy. Primary energy is the energy contained in the fuel when it enters the system, while final energy is what is left over for the consumer after processing, transformation, and distribution. In the case of large nuclear or coal-fired power plants, only about one-quarter of the primary energy reaches the consumer’s home, office, or factory. In France, more than 70 percent of final energy is provided by oil, gas, and coal, of which one-half is oil alone, just as in many other countries. This year, the country will face an all-time record energy bill of more than $80 billion.

If the goal was independence from oil, then the target should have been the transportation sector. Already the largest consumer of oil in the early 1970s, oil consumption has increased by 70 percent, far outstripping the oil savings from nuclear energy’s growth in the electricity sector. Today, transportation is responsible for more than one-half of French oil consumption and one-third of the country’s greenhouse gas emissions. With all of the country’s uranium now imported as well–the last French uranium mine closed in May 2001, even though nuclear power is curiously still considered an entirely domestic energy source–it’s difficult to see how the nuclear program could even come close to ensuring the country’s energy independence.

Further claims that French nuclear power costs are “the lowest in the world” can’t be substantiated because nobody knows the cost of the entire domestic nuclear program. For decades, the civilian program has profited from direct and indirect subsidies, in particular through cross-financing with the nuclear weapons program. Current estimates don’t appropriately take into account eventual decommissioning and waste-management costs, which remain a concern and quite uncertain. (In addition to post-fission waste, 46 years of uranium mining has left 50 million tons of waste for eventual cleanup and remediation, the cost of which is unknown.) Official final disposal cost estimates for long-lived high- and intermediate-level fission wastes vary between $21 billion and $90 billion.

[appleciders]

@wmulax93

I read an article in Esquire recently about the sodium fast reactor. What are the downsides to using that type of nuclear reactor?

It uses liquid sodium as coolant, which would make meltdowns pretty nasty. I’m not opposing the sodium fast reactor on that point, just pointing out the major flaw involved in using something that explodes when it touches moisture as a friggin’ coolant. It may end up being the safest answer, but it’s still a downside.