Didn’t you know, all the kids are into refinery safety and wargaming clubs these days.
Too many risks but inevitable given peak oil and increasing demand.
It is too expensive compared to renewables. The cost of decommissioning and waste handling is left to the taxpayers, not the profit takers, who are long gone. Safety and security are sacrificed to increasing profits, and the guy running the reactor is Homer Simpson. What we finally get is a reactor and facility run by people that the bean counters figure is good enough. It’s bad enough when an aging gas pipeline destroys a neighborhood, but the amount of energy contained in a reactor core is millions of times what coal is and thousands of time what a fission bomb is. Accordingly to the laws of thermodynamics, and Mr. Murphy, the universe will tend towards chaos the more potential energy you have in one place the more it will tend toward chaos and that energy will be released not over 10 years, but over, say, 10 days. Despite what the nuclear lovers will tell you, this is a very bad thing.
I’d trust a mono-maniacal perfectionist safety dictator freak like Hyman Rickover to oversee a naval nuclear program, but we are more likely to get someone like Dick Cheney.
I don’t see the basic human error and 2nd law problems changing, so I’d go wind and solar. Seems to be working for the Germans.
As someone who works in the nuclear industry I can safely say that you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about. You’re not informed of facts and you’re pulling stuff out of your ass.
And if you are an example of someone who works in the nuclear industry, which I accept, you are exactly why I don’t want people like you running nuclear plants.
Do you reject the the second law of thermodynamics?
Does a fueled commercial reactor contain fuel that contains millions of time more energy than the same volume of coal?
What is the half-life of the type of spent fuel at your plant? Is it stored in pool that won’t last a fraction of that time? Has any of the spent fuel from your pool been moved to another site for permanent storage? Who pays for that storage in 100 years? 1000? 10000?
Pulling out of ass indeed.
The industry’s records of safety violations, coverups and payoffs is all public knowledge. Well, lots of it is. I highly doubt the nuclear industry has ever been entirely transparent. You do sound like you work in the industry, though.
Perhaps you could provide some cites then.
That until the fear and ignorance displayed by folks like Lev and TSS and others in this thread is fought and killed it’s a moot point. We should be doing more nuclear in this country. We COULD be doing more nuclear in this country. It would help the environment, it would help fight global warming and it would lessen the amount of folks who die every year from coal fired power plants. And we won’t do it, we won’t build the things, and we’ll just kick the can down the road some more, hoping for wind and solar to save us. And when they don’t, and they can’t scale up to meet the level of demand we have, we’ll build more coal plants, or switch to natural gas, which is a better alternative to coal but still not optimal.
C’est la vie. I wish it was different, I really do. I wish those who really understand global warming and really care about the environment would get their shit together, drop their old prejudices and come out strong in favor of an energy mix that includes nuclear as a viable and expanding option, instead of the dead end it obviously is today. I wish the US could be on the cutting edge of new nuclear reactor designs, be one of the front runners in some of the new systems, building pilot plants and showing the world how to do it cheaper and safer than it’s been done (and then selling them on US designs and know how). Be we won’t and can’t do that, and we won’t and can’t build them. Hell, we probably won’t even knuckle under and get some foreign companies and foreign designs and build those.
So, my opinion is that until and unless the fear and ignorance can be fought down nuclear is pretty much a dying branch on our energy mix tree…at least in the US. The French have it right, and we are and have been wrong. Like I said…c’est la vie.
I’d like to tease this out just a bit more. I have no doubts about the science of nuclear and the efficiency, safety, etc. But, the business end of nuclear is what always turns me off. The enormous costs, the socialized risk, the privatized gain, etc.
Can anyone shed more light on the business side of nuclear in the US? Perhaps some info on how countries like France handle the risk and reward (ISTM they socialize both).
Perhaps I and others have multiple times. But keep right on, right on there he-who-works-for-the-Industry.
Listen, you linked to a fucking Wikipedia article that mentions incidents at Nuclear Power plants. Of all the incidents, only one is truly a nuclear incident; the rest are typical industrial accidents.
This is what you’re going ape shit over? Three deaths in the entire history of nuclear energy and R&D in the US?
no question, modern cycle nuclear plants, if built quickly and well, could go a long way toward averting the worst of the global warming difficulties and costs. Which would you rather do, spend a few trillion bucks replacing coal fired and oil fired power plants, or…building a dam around every coastal city so it can stay where it is?