Can we get @$&# nuclear power already?

[Interconnected_Series_of_Tubes]

@appleciders

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.

Meltdowns? :dubious:

[ElvisL1ves]

Stewart Brand, Mr. Whole Earth Catalog himself, has come around.

Hence, Brand has come to the position that humanity must be unbiased in its resolve to do whatever works. He opposes doctrinaire forms of environmentalism like the campaign to globally ban the pesticide DDT–a decision that, according to malaria expert Robert Gwadz of the National Institutes of Health, contributed to the deaths of 20 million children worldwide. Most pernicious, in Brand’s view, greens have resisted nuclear power, claiming that renewable sources of energy like wind and solar will one day generate all the grid electricity we now derive from fossil fuels.
…
Brand says it’s entirely predictable that many greens neither know nor are interested in educating themselves about recent developments like new reactors or cleaner fuel cycles: “As far as they’re concerned, nuclear had been stopped, they’re glad it was, and now that it’s happening again, they’re confused and upset.” That observation strikes at the heart of the matter. If today Greenpeace and an entire generation of activists simply cannot accept that nuclear power might be the most credible source of carbon-free energy, it’s because doing so would entail an almost unbearable recognition: that a very large part of their life’s work has been fundamentally, disastrously wrong, and that by obstructing the transition to nuclear back in the 1970s, they bear direct responsibility both for global warming and for the hundreds of thousands of deaths that have since resulted from coal-related pollution. It is to Stewart Brand’s credit that he can recognize that disturbing truth.

[Squink]

@Interconnected_Series_of_Tubes

Meltdowns? :dubious:

We prefer the term Meltaways.

[Der_Trihs]

@Richard_Parker

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.

And why is nuclear power so expensive? Because of the constant harassment of anti-nuclear fanatics, and ridiculous standards that would cripple any industry, not just nuclear. Nuclear waste doesn’t need to be stored under conditions that will be perfect for millennia; that’s our demonization talking, not realism. A few drops escaping in 500 years isn’t going to kill the world. Or anyone almost certainly, unless they sneak into the facility and lick the containment vessels.

@levdrakon

We have oil-related accidents because we have lots and lots of oil drilling and handling.

And because the political power of oil lets them get away with lower safety standards than equivalent industries; like not using double hulled tankers like other industries shipping toxic chemicals are forced to use. Notice how it’s only oil spills you hear of? And the recent spill in the news was in part due to them skimping on safety.

@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.

Which is another reason to go for nuclear power, so oil can be used for things other than generating electricity.

@Shawn1767

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?

It’s more like millennia, not “20 years”. Not only can we make more, but fuel is such a low part of the cost and so little is needed that even expensive methods of extracting it from poor quality sources is viable. Unlike oil which is needed in vast amounts; a process that extracted oil from previously inaccessible sources for fifty times the cost wouldn’t be very sustainable, but for nuclear fuel it would.

[Jihi]

I’m a card carrying Democrat and consider myself a “bleeding heart”, but the opposition to nuclear power is one plank that I simply do not understand. Based on my understanding it’s relatively cheap, (as DT points out), and carries no more inherent risk to the environment than run away oil drilling in a worst case scenario, which we’ve already invested in and seen the consequences thereof.

[Cat_Whisperer]

@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.

This is dangerously close to the truth, I suspect.

[Guinastasia]

@VinylTurnip

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.

What do you think would happen if we locked Rand Rover and Der Trihs in a room together?

[Jihi]

@Guinastasia

What do you think would happen if we locked Rand Rover and Der Trihs in a room together?

Something along the lines of matter and anti-matter…

[gonzomax]

If nuke made sense ,the nuke companies could manufacture a plant without tax money. They could get insurance without going to the taxpayers. But they can not get the cost under control and they can not sell the generated electricity cheap enough. Of course they can not even pay for storage of waste. The tax payer does that too. It is a sweet deal for someone but not the consumer and not the tax payer. Of course a poor little company like G.E. can not be expected too pay for any of those costs. They only have a few billion in the bank, an offshore, Caiman Islands bank of course.

[Musicat]

@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.

But if nuclear power took the place of fossil-fuel electrical generation, it would free up petroleum for other, non-fuel uses like plastics, fertilizers and maybe even some “etc.”.

[Polycarp]

@Guinastasia

What do you think would happen if we locked Rand Rover and Der Trihs in a room together?

The average intelligence quotient of a SDMB post would increase? :dubious:

[Xan]

@Polycarp

The average intelligence quotient of a SDMB post would increase? :dubious:

I bet that reaction would be enough to power the US for a while.

[Der_Trihs]

@gonzomax

If nuke made sense ,the nuke companies could manufacture a plant without tax money.

That ignores the fact that much of the cost is due to the relentless harassment of the anti-nuclear people.

And, it ignores the fact that we need that electricity, and nuclear is the technology we have that can provide it without pumping yet more CO2 into the air. It wouldn’t much matter if you were right and they couldn’t be made profitable; if so, that just means we subsidize building them anyway, however much we need to. We need the power.

[Deeg]

@gonzomax

If nuke made sense ,the nuke companies could manufacture a plant without tax money.

If other countries can do it so can we. We’re being beat out by panty-waist Frenchies and Atheist Commies, for *@#$ sake! (Note: previous line tongue in cheek; please send no nasty letters.)

Look, I’m an environmentalist–I drive an enviro-weenie Prius–and it seems blindingly obvious to me that nuclear power is less of a disaster than what we’re currently doing. The WORST nuclear accident in the US led to zero deaths. We’re way past that this year alone. I just don’t understand the mind-set of anti-nukers. It’s like people who don’t put on their seat-belts because they’re afraid they’ll drown if their car falls into the ocean.

[Uzi]

@Der_Trihs

And because the political power of oil lets them get away with lower safety standards than equivalent industries; like not using double hulled tankers like other industries shipping toxic chemicals are forced to use. Notice how it’s only oil spills you hear of? And the recent spill in the news was in part due to them skimping on safety.

Uh, the place I work for in the Middle East uses the same processes and safety criteria as the Chemical industry does to manage its operation. Also, we don’t allow single hulled vessels to dock at our export facility. I can’t say that all Oil companies do the same, but at least some do.
It was real nice of BP to screw the pooch AGAIN. Maybe throw a few of their VP’s in jail for a long time to give them the message that all companies should be safer.
But, then shit happens even when you try to do your best and follow all the safety precautions in the world. People run these operations, after all.

[wmfellows]

@gonzomax

If nuke made sense ,the nuke companies could manufacture a plant without tax money.

In addition to the other responses, one has to note that while it is hard to take critiques from someone who is unable to properly place a simple comma properly, the same objection would stand for any renewable energy. None are purely market sustainable at this time.

@Der_Trihs

That ignores the fact that much of the cost is due to the relentless harassment of the anti-nuclear people.

This seems a universal…

@Deeg

I just don’t understand the mind-set of anti-nukers. It’s like people who don’t put on their seat-belts because they’re afraid they’ll drown if their car falls into the ocean.

Hah. Yes.

[Uzi]

Whatever happened to those fellows doing the cold fusion thing years ago? Last I heard they were working in Japan with some major company there.

[Count_Blucher]

@Guinastasia

What do you think would happen if we locked Rand Rover and Der Trihs in a room together?

Is this a ‘knife on the floor’ scenario, where the survivor gets hung for murder the next day?

[bouv]

@Deeg

The WORST nuclear accident in the US led to zero deaths.

The worst nuclear power plant accident. In the 40’s and 50’s, several people died doing nuclear research.

[billfish678]

@bouv

The worst nuclear power plant accident. In the 40’s and 50’s, several people died doing nuclear research.

Wow.

Several?!

Holy Crap that shit is dangerous.