swagagus
144459
3029
397
Feb 18, 2017 4:11 PM
swagagus
144459
3029
397
dancarlson94
I would prefer the efficiency/cost/use of renewabled like wind and solar energy be used more though. Nuclear creates future waste problems.
BitchCake
Yes. We're slowly being killed by fossil emissions, but nobody notices that less dramatic killer, and so nuclear is called too dangerous.
jerryshigan
Call me old-fashioned, but I think plants should continue to use photosynthesis, as they always have.
FukcTedCruz
Agreed. GMOs are getting out of hand
FinallyGotAUserName
This comment is way too underrated.
FukcTedCruz
Agreed. GMOs are getting out of hand.
xxmudkip95xx
The French agree
DarkSock
Is anybody considered creating a tiny universe in a box, waiting for sentient life to evolve, and then stealing their energy from them?
YerDa
As a nuclear power plant, I agree
slizzo
This deserves more upvotes
Placentaur
That sounds exactly like something a nuclear power plant would say!
DarkSock
Are you a male nuclear power plant, or are you that female power plant with the huge tits out by San Diego? If the latter… *Call me, gurl
100PercentCanadianBeef
As the Niagara Falls hydroelectric dam, I agree. The more power the better!
BlondieSayWhat
DAM FOR POWAHH
itsnohappenin
Dad?
TheUndyingPossum
Are you A Bomb?
itsnohappenin
Yes
RonaldFckingSwanson
What about solar and wind farms? No negative effects as big as if something goes wrong
trukkusan
Nothing goes wrong in LFTR plants, and they actually turn a profit in their lifespan.
GOOruguru
I don't think so as Japanese.
DrgnSlynLmbrJak
It just takes soooo long to get one built. I don't remember where I saw it,NPR?, but I read it takes usually up to 10 years to get approved.
CryingHero
Welcome to another episode of not so unpopular opinions.
GravitationalTimeDialation
Nah, it's fair use of the meme, or at least the way i see
RanOutofWit
Well going by american news, it seems to be entirely unmentioned.
muhvitus
Nuclear + wind + solar
Wastyvez
+hydro+geothermal
zombozo666
+ tidal
muhvitus
Hydro and geothermal are not universally possible so i left them out but they are good where they can be used responsibly.
superfeathers
Neither are solar or wind.
muhvitus
How so if poles are excludef
HitlersArtCritic
Does OTEC fall under hydro?
Wastyvez
No hydro is based on movement of water, OTEC is based on heat of water. But you're right, I forgot about this one.
HitlersArtCritic
It has good potential, especially in tropics because of the huge gradient between deep and surface water.
DarkSock
In order for America to go fully nuclear, it must first get over the common Coal...
Wastyvez
75% of the world's energy consumption comes from fossil fuel, nuclear is 2.6%. Unless the output of nuclear waste is drastically reduced 1)
DravenPointsHome
See the link I posted. It's a poor edit imo, designs for more efficient reactors already exist, have been tested, and are being built.
Wastyvez
While it's promising, Thorium reactor technology has been around since the 60s and it sill has a fair amount of disadvantages.
DravenPointsHome
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uK367T7h6ZY
Wastyvez
nuclear isn't viable in the long term, because we'd have to build a shit ton of extra plants, creating a shit ton of extra waste. And 2)
Wastyvez
while nuclear plants are generally safe, if something does go wrong it always has far reaching consequences. I'm all for the reduction of 3)
Wastyvez
fossil fuel power sources, but renewable energy is the only way forward. 4)
DarkSock
Renewable energy is a no-brainer. Especially solar… Scavenge the FREE energy the huge nuclear furnace 93,000,000 miles away showers on us
ThisIsMyUsernameYouCantHaveIt
Except that the amount of waste generated by the new nuclear processes is tiny, and when stored properly is no danger to the environment
trukkusan
LFTR reactors consume generation 1 nuclear waste as breeder material.
DarkSock
Burning coal simply stores mega-tons of waste in the air we breathe. We all share one room, we need to stop farting in it. Nuke=lesser evil
Wastyvez
Current nuclear power plants are outdated and in dire need of replacement. Gen 4 and thorium plants are safer and output less waste, but 1)
Wastyvez
since we're in a transitionary period there's no reason not to consider renewable energy. Doubling down on nuclear is short-sighted. 2)
trukkusan
Thanks for bringing up thorium, but enough thorium waste is generated annually in the US to power the planet for decades.
UmbertoBench
I agree. Important to look at the comparative costs as well: https://www.lazard.com/media/438038/levelized-cost-of-energy-v100.pdf
JustADumbRename
Only problem is it gets calm and the sun goes down. I don't think anyone's found efficient storage options at that scale, so all solar and
JustADumbRename
wind operations are effectively 30%+ natural gas.
UmbertoBench
Grids the size of US and Europe will have little problem with intermittency. The mix could very cheaply be 85% renewables 15% gas.
UmbertoBench
And storage costs are decreasing faster than nuclear costs. That report had utility solar with storage at $92/MWh, while nuclear is $97 min.
Taldur08
Walfas
Considering the comments, it's about 50/50.
TheMARSK
Has he? I thought the most popular opinion is against nuclear power plants?
SentOS
That's what I thought, but the top comments say otherwise. I assume this opinion is popular in the US.
TheMARSK
UK bloke here, and I went to Europe and heard a few opinions there. Not saying it represents, but I'm sure it's the same in EU at least.
Wastyvez
Not on Imgur. This entire site is a pro-Nuclear circlejerk that doesn't allow a single dissenting opinion.
LOlivingVE
You can have a dissenting opinion! As long as you acknowledge it's the wrong opinion! :P
Wastyvez
disadvantages and should be our only source of energy for years to come is fucking stupid. Imgur is more of the latter. 2)
LOlivingVE
I was being facetious my man. I feel you
Wastyvez
Saying nuclear is better than coal is just common sense. Saying alternative energy sources should be abandoned because nuclear has no 1)
hagb
We got the biggest, bestest nuclear power plant there is and we're just letting it burn out without a second thought.
WhatShouldIUseForMyUsername
Correct, but unfortunately the public opinion of nuclear power is that it will just explode randomly and turn everyone into zombies
trukkusan
Fuck the public. We could have been on Mars by now without them holding us back.
trukkusan
Fuck the public. We could have been on Mars by now without them holding us back.
WhatShouldIUseForMyUsername
yes sir, you are correct
FajitaPrinceofAllMexicans
Public opinion caused by advertising by companies that deal with non-renewable forms of energy. Not to mention, they pretty much would 1/2
FajitaPrinceofAllMexicans
go, "What about Chernobyl?!" "Yes, that was an incident we learned how to stop." "It can happen again!" "No, it won't with proper care." 2/2
bamcockseverywhere
You forgot Three Mile Island and Hanford
JustADumbRename
But again, consider kwh produced by all nuclear. Look at chernobyl, 3mil island, fukushima etc. Now look at pollution deaths from coal...
bamcockseverywhere
Yeah, they're both terrible sources of power that kill people through heavy metal and radiation poisoning.
FajitaPrinceofAllMexicans
Mostly picked Chernobyl out of popularity and fatigue.
3142
I prefer orbiting solar collector fields with microwave downfeeds to receiver stations.
Farxuu
Not very cost effective these days compared to nuclear plants
DavidBrooker
Probably my favorite game to this day
PatchouIi
I'm sad so many of the other commenters apparently do not know what this is referencing.
RanOutofWit
With improvements to induction transmission, you probably wouldnt need microwaves. In a straight line, space isnt as far away as folks think
3142
Well the atmosphere is generally classed as around 100km but geostationary orbit is 35786km which is a bit far for inductive coupling.
RanOutofWit
That is fair. Although with a bit of math, you could probably set up a polar orbit collector network with relay at LEO.
idunnoyou
Yeah... Death rays are nifty... #nimby
3142
See, now it just sounds like I have some nefarious plan when you call it that.
DonnaNobleInTheLibrary
Strip-mine Mercury to build a Dyson swarm.
trukkusan
This guy gets it. Do you follow Isaac Arthur, by any chance?
DonnaNobleInTheLibrary
Who? I just got REALLY lazy last Sunday and watched old PBS SpaceTime vids the whole day.
Walfas
Not possible yet. Haven't developed a microwave transmission method that's efficient enough to actually be viable.
3142
Efficiency is irrelevant. The energy was just going to go right past and be lost to us forever.
Walfas
It's relevant because it has to actually GET to us and provide SOMETHING. Currently it cant because the atmosphere is a slut and eats it all
3142
Pretty much all microwave radiation above a 1cm wavelength is 100% unimpeded by atmospheric gases.
Walfas
The killer for microwave transmission is diffraction. The antennae size needed in order to prevent this is massive, making it non-viable
Josher565
Dyson sphere for the win
trukkusan
*dyson swarm if you're being anywhere near realistic
BitchCake
And I prefer black hole reactors, but we can't really have those yet, can we?
3142
No, but that's because they would be impossible.
[deleted]
[deleted]
trukkusan
Then you clearly don't understand how black holes operate.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Iwasoutedbyatroll
France does energy right: most of its energy is derived from nuclear. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France
trukkusan
The wrong type of nuclear. If they were using LFTR they'd exceed the world's energy needs annually.
AgonyZ
You are commenting on every single comment chain with that, yet LFTR has no proven viability on a commercial scale and is not as is-all 1/2
AgonyZ
end-all as you seemingly want everyone to believe. 2/2
aabottom
I think its funny that Germany is against nuclear power but buys most of their electricity from France.
Keeperofthe7keys
Nuclear weapons*
AgonyZ
No. Power. We are in the midst of shutting down all our plants. By 2022 only 3 will remain which we'll try to get rid of as well.
Keeperofthe7keys
That's about as dumb as electing Trump President.
AgonyZ
How? How is reducing and ultimately abolishing nuclear bad when it obviously works and can be done?
vader300
Germany has 8
InternationalPhoneticAlphabet
that is patently false. fuck your false facts.
LaLiam
As a mechanical engineer in my second year of an MS in nuclear engineering, I too am interested in there being these stations around.
trukkusan
Please look into LFTR and nuclear engineering being an option for your MS thesis.
AgonyZ
Honest question, how can you feel safe with deep geological repositories needing to provide safety for millions of years?
LaLiam
I actually am looking into a process called Vitrification/ Geomelting which essentially safely stores the waste in glass a lot like IVF
Promethianfire
Nuclear energy is one of those rare things that liberals and conservatives could agree to irrationally hate
LETHARGICpancake
Damn straight. Complaining about light water plants is like complaining that cars only get 10 mpg in 1955 when it's 2017
LordIndica
This dude gets it^
Gsk0
Please link to where I can read more to understand this comment.
trukkusan
Look up LFTR, or liquid Flouride Thorium reactors. You'll laugh, then you'll cry when you realize this was viable 50 years ago.
number1keeper
There are a few good videos on you tube about this. The ones with that guy in.
trukkusan
Yeah, the guy that does the thing.
Keeperofthe7keys
I've lost faith in humanity over this :/
trukkusan
You don't need faith in humanity to have faith in physics.
trukkusan
You don't need faith in humanity to have faith in physics.
Keeperofthe7keys
Physics doesn't care if I have faith or not, it just is and that's how I like it, people's understanding of that however...
LearnToMakeARouxImgur
Totally :) Nuclear is clean safe energy when done right
InternationalPhoneticAlphabet
nothing is ever done right all of the time.
trukkusan
LFTR isn't really feasible if it's done wrong. It gets shut down, someone is fired, then it starts again.
LearnToMakeARouxImgur
If you say so mate,I'm not as fatalistic personally.we all hve internal combustion engines n they rarely become external combustion engines
LearnToMakeARouxImgur
I can explain to you the intricacies of the Chernobyl, TMI and Fukushima if you're interested... Criticality events from neglect all three
LearnToMakeARouxImgur
Also we certainly haven't found the "right" way of doing war, but we invest Billions in that? whys that better than clean energy
InternationalPhoneticAlphabet
is "i'm anti nuclear power but let's bomb the fuck out of those brown people" a popular stance in your parts?
InternationalPhoneticAlphabet
look at this guy, he thinks there won't be neglect. totally believable, A+ m8
olivertheyorkie
AgonyZ
Germany and, seemingly China, disagree.
trukkusan
Hardly anyone understands the advantages of LFTR plants as a safe alternative to generation 1 plants.
LadyWidebottom
Look at how many people here are offering solar or wind as an alternative... No, not everybody thinks that. Many people are terrified of
LadyWidebottom
the idea of nuclear, thinking it'll end up like Chernobyl. A lot of people just don't have enough information about nuclear.
JoshVita
http://imgur.com/WxEX1xX
PillowCroc
What are the real drawbacks of this idea?
perlcat
Radioactive spiders biting the wrong people.
InternationalPhoneticAlphabet
if you factor in materials and waste "disposal" (we still havent found a good way to do that), it's not actually that cheap, but very >
InternationalPhoneticAlphabet
> dangerous when NOT done right, which will inevitably happen.
JustADumbRename
Not compared to coal. It actively kills tens of thousands every year. Nuclear ain't done that yet combined.
InternationalPhoneticAlphabet
how about we DONT replace one bad thing with another bad thing?
Thorbane
Perfect solution fallacy.
trukkusan
We found a good way to do it in the 1950's with LFTR breeder reactors. They're safer than light water reactors and use their waste as fuel.
UrKungFuNoGood
Fukushima. Chernobyl. St Laurent des Eaux, Loret et Char, Tokaimura, all rate 4 or above on the INES. probably a couple others I'm mising
trukkusan
That's what happens when you use light water reactors instead of the safer LFTR reactors developed in the 1950's.
trukkusan
That's what happens when you use light water reactors instead of the safer LFTR reactors developed in the 1950's.
Walfas
With modern reactor designs, stuff like that is literally impossible, so that's not a valid drawback.
trukkusan
"Modern" being 1950's designs
delpharseven
None actually. Done correctly nuclear is the cleanest and most efficient power source we have.
xanderrules
Recent gas turbines with steam regenerators reach way higher thermal efficiencies.
trukkusan
They don't produce fossil fuel alternatives as heat byproducts like LFTR technologies will. Power needs go well beyond electric.
delpharseven
The energy density of uranium is over a million times higher than natural gas (by mass).
xanderrules
But these are way too expensive to build and operate + emissions of course.
HD226868
Sadly, this DOES seem to be an unpopular opinion, because 'but, but Chernobyl!'.
Madraving
Outliers are a thing. Nobody mentions coal fires.
HD226868
Ikr?
Unquote
That's a damn good argument against it though.
HD226868
Except no, it isn't. Because it happened, what, some 30+ years ago. Nuclear tech has advanced since then. And even THEN it was an outlier.
Unquote
And STILL it is a risk. And that's just problem 1 of nuclear power.
HD226868
It's a minuscule risk of minor problem. What about coal fires? Sure you can say 'go solar wind etc' but those just aren't as strong.
Unquote
They are if you invest in it instead of bitch about it. Hurr durr it can't work so lets forget it, lets go meltdown factories. Stupid.
idnotapplicable
*cough* *cough* Fukushima
HD226868
Fukushima, which was massively overstated in its impact and danger, and was built in Japan. You know, the country ON TOP OF A FAULT LINE.
infomercials
Whoa, it's almost like when you do your research, nuclear energy isn't so scary (when done properly of course).
Pocketwing
Fyi steam is a 7 times as effective greenhouse gas as CO2... and nuclear powerplants obviously cool with water that then evaporates.
SINisterWyvern
What? Water is a greenhouse gas?
Pocketwing
https://skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas.htm i didn't mean it like the "myth" thingy says. Comments are too short to explain
HellomynameisSatan
Just a very fuel efficient steam engine.
HeinrichHiTheSSGuy
The waste is dangerous for 300.000 years. And there is no chance to guarantee that neither the plants nor the waste gets destroyed by 1/2
HeinrichHiTheSSGuy
2/2 earthquakes, vulcanos etc. And the oceans are already intoxicated
Pocketwing
It still is. If anything EVER goes wrong a whole biotope can be destroyed for centuries. Why not use green energy instead?
LasciviousLibertine
It's not really that dangerous at all, only a few disasters over 60+ years and a few thousand casualties. Compare that to oil and coal
loser9999
And I should trust a power company to do it right?
primeMonarch
Only four major incidents in nuclear plants in the last 50 years killing hundreds if not thousands all across the world. I'm sceptical.
aDefenseless9yearOldGirl
http://www.psr.org/environment-and-health/environmental-health-policy-institute/responses/costs-and-consequences-of-fukushima.html
xzhous
3) Prestige Oil Spill, Exxon Oil Spill, Great Smog of '52 (up to 12k premature deaths attributed to the coal smog), Bhopal chem plant,
xzhous
2) It's scary when companies decide they don't have to follow regulations. Always has been. Fukushima, Chernobyl, BP/Deepwater Horizon Oil
laboon
Maybe don't build them in active subduction zones.
Mimsey
One under-maintained plant got hit with a 1-in-1-million wombo combo, better trash the whole industry? [1]
xzhous
The consequences of noncompliant nuclear power plants are disastrous, I agree. What they found is that Fukushima failed basic safety req
aDefenseless9yearOldGirl
Yeah so in the real world, where people will be in control of this technology, there's a lot to be worried about in its implementation.
xzhous
About its compliance, so whether or not companies will follow the law. While that is a concern, the problem isn't nuclear energy
xzhous
2) It would be akin to arguing that we should only have federally owned banks since there's worry about another Lehman Brothers
aDefenseless9yearOldGirl
Did you read something i wrote as 'the federal government needs to stop allowing nuclear power'?
Mimsey
Let's apply that logic elsewhere: Does 9/11 justify a Muslim Ban? If your brother crashes his car should you lose your license too? [2]
aDefenseless9yearOldGirl
That's obviously not what I'm saying, nor either is it the case here, but yes nuclear power is still kinda scary when you do your research.
xzhous
4) Key point is that these were all preventable. Not only that, companies were found to be noncompliant. They cut corners.
Amythyst
This is why I worry about nuclear energy. Human greed and sloth will almost guarantee it's not done properly.
DarkSock
It'll be a Coal day in hell when Mitch McConnell allows that
digitalist1
Maan mitch McConnell, what a guy, I wonder what his proffered drink is?
DarkSock
Ensure
IShouldBeStudyingRightNowInsteadOfBrowsingImgur
He's gotta kick the bucket eventually.
lonelylinguist
That’s the good thing about death. If you want to change the world, sometimes you just have to wait for a few crusty old men to keel over.
DarkSock
Wait… Shouldn't you be studying right now?
IShouldBeStudyingRightNowInsteadOfBrowsingImgur
Don't worry, I'm in my nuclear engineering class right now! (Not really)
AeoTheStoryteller
As a Kentuckian: Fingers crossed.
ArandomDane
The thing is. You have have it safe or you can have it cheap. Solar it projected to be cheaper when plants started now are finished. (1/2)
WhiteWeaselMLAS
1/2) Solar is also grossly space inefficient. 150-200W per m^2 is pretty bad. A french reactor of 2,726 MW would need 6 mi^2 of solar to...
WhiteWeaselMLAS
rival output, while the site was 100 hectares or 0.4 of a square mile.
ArandomDane
Roofs.
Justheretolurkmostly
Safe is always better
ArandomDane
(2/2) "but but... solar does not work at night" Solar towers do.
infomercials
Interesting, do you have a source? I'm not trying to say nuclear is the best, just that some people hear the word and assume the worst.
Justheretolurkmostly
You could just go with the example of the navy using nuclear reactors for all our carriers and sub fleet with no incidents for 70+ years
WhiteWeaselMLAS
Well duh, the US navy never had an issue because they actually have a budget. :kappa:
Justheretolurkmostly
Also the ridiculous amount of redundancies in everything and well trained personal working
ArandomDane
I can't find the article by a German think tank. So here is news overview from the UK
whispering
Solar is becoming the cheapest in the equator. Still minor problems with storage. Its not cheap in colder countries though.
ArandomDane
Also in the UK https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/aug/11/solar-and-wind-cheaper-than-new-nuclear-by-the-time-hinkley-is-built
ArandomDane
The problem is rightly storage, but it is being solved rather fast. Compared to the time scale of switching to nuclear.
ArandomDane
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/aug/11/solar-and-wind-cheaper-than-new-nuclear-by-the-time-hinkley-is-built
RedDwarfIV
To be fair, Hinkley C is a complete crapshoot. The design is rubbish, we'd be better off with multiple small plants
RedDwarfIV
But we're stuck with the contract now.
Placentaur
I'm only really worried by the waste. But it's not much better than the alternative anyway.
GoIIum
Depends on your research I guess, it is scary because it's never done properly and actually pretty hard to get right.
NeedToPeeButTheresASpiderInThere
Well it's pretty much clean, no pollution into the atmosphere, only really the nuclear waste we need to be weary of
TardWrangl3r
*wary
saxowoe
Right, just this radioactive material that lasts for tens of thousands of years
Walfas
Welcome to being completely wrong. Waste from modern plants only last ~800 years. Newer plants(in development) will reduce this further.
MadeMyAccountToUpvoteMetal
How do you reduce the radioactive waste last time, if the waste stays the same. Explain please. And also 800 years is fucking to long.
Walfas
The next generation of nuclear plants will be able to use this 800-year waste as fuel and the waste from THAT will decay even faster.
Sairvous
Annnd never stops building up as long as the plant keeps being operational? What could go wrong? Also meltdowns never happen right?
Sairvous
So are we just going to act like fukushima and chernobyl never happened?
planetfinder
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accidents
planetfinder
Non-Soviet reactors get less efficient as they get hotter so you can bring them under control. Chernobyl did the opposite. Once it was 2/?
planetfinder
Those aren't comparable. Chernobyl was a ludicrously dangerous Soviet design that no one else used even back then. 1/?
planetfinder
If do statistics on how many people die per kW produced nuclear and hydro win hands down. 5/6
planetfinder
going it was gone. Even then it required a long chain of fuck-ups. It's the only civilian nuclear tragedy with deaths.Fukushima has 0. 3/?
NeedToPeeButTheresASpiderInThere
Chernobyl didn't happen because of nuclear waste, it happened because of idiots.
saxowoe
Oh that makes it better, cuz there's no more idiots anymore
NeedToPeeButTheresASpiderInThere
You're a bit late
Kewra
And humanity is free at last of idiocy!
NeedToPeeButTheresASpiderInThere
Yes, but he ignored the emergency alarm and flashing red lights, he was a big idiot.
planetfinder
They designed Fukushima for the worst quake/tsunami combo in Japanese history and they got a worse one. Nothing is perfectly safe. 4/?
DoesItThough
Send the spent rods to the sun.
NeedToPeeButTheresASpiderInThere
Not a good idea xD
DoesItThough
Ship em to North Korea ?
NeedToPeeButTheresASpiderInThere
Much better.
waltjrimmer
Only problem is waste disposal. We figure that out, nuclear is going to be glorious!
trukkusan
LFTR consumes generation 1 waste as breeder material, and actually uses more than 1% of the available energy.
HitlersArtCritic
IIRC theres a new type of plant that uses old waste, which's waste is measured by the teaspoon, not barrel.
Sairvous
And potential meltdowns...
trukkusan
Can't have a meltdown in a LFTR plant because the coolant isn't absolute garbage like light water reactors (current nuclear technology)
Slashenaar
If we put the power source in space we don't have to worry about that! Or safety regs! we can just have a giant ball of fusion up there! 2-
Slashenaar
Then make like.. energy absorbing panels down here at a safe distance!
waltjrimmer
So you're saying it's like cold fusion only... Hot? GENIUS!
Slashenaar
Exactly! We could even use it to heat the earth from the cold dead swaths of space!
delpharseven
Reprocessing reduces the waste by orders of magnitude.
waltjrimmer
Oh yes. Don't get me wrong, I support nuclear wholeheartedly! That's the only major issue I know of.
Fahargo
We did figure it out. But pansy ass pieces of shit lobbied to have the storage canceled. A storage site for hundreds of years canceled.
infernalspectre
If you're talking about Yucca Mt. a study found the act of transporting the waste would cause more spillage than the current process.
Unquote
Storing it is not a solution dammit.
trukkusan
Consuming it in LFTR plants as breeder material is a solution.
UndulatingTerrain
Finland is building a final disposal site. http://www.posiva.fi/en/final_disposal#.WKiryvJ0d7k
waltjrimmer
Seriously? I'll read up more on that, but in general, Finland has its shit together.
UndulatingTerrain
Seriously. I've visited the actual site, it's very interesting stuff!
trukkusan
Why dispose if the waste when it can be consumed in LFTR plants as breeder material?
UndulatingTerrain
Theoretically, right? You got to have plans for the waste even if that technology isn't available.
trukkusan
What waste? It's than 1% of current systems
UndulatingTerrain
The waste that has been accumulating since the dawn of nuclear energy.
idunnoyou
As an electrical engineer and a person who works for an electric utility. you sir are correct.
Qumefox
Actually more of any kind of powerplant except those powered by fossil fuels. More nuclear, more solar, more wind, more hydro.
captbananapants
As someone who does research beyond "oh but Chernobyl happened", I agree
JackHEEYY
If I may ask, what about the worst case scenario? A full meltdown could cause entire areas to be unsafe. I know otherwise they are clean.
seamusgarx
Until something goes terribly wrong... And history teaches us - it does go terribly wrong from time to time
xanderrules
YES. Nuclear for base load, renewables for peak loads. Just look at France's electricity supply.
thecommoncanadian
as a chemist in hazardous waste management. we have some work to do, but I'd tend to agree too.
infinitesemal
Why does everyone use nuclear energy if you could just use energy from the power plug ***
ThePlayerFormerlyKnownAsYesfredfred
SHOW YOUR FRIENDS PANDORA'S PROMISE.
katseiko
I'd be more specific. Thermonoclear Fusion needs to be put in place. As it is, we don't know where to put our nuclear waste.
techdawg2013
We absolutely do know what to do with it. We dug a giant bunker in a mountain to store it in.
techdawg2013
...and invented indestructible casks to transport it in. Local paranoid politicians won't get out of the way.
katseiko
Just what will decay first? The cask or the content? Also, won't the place be full soon if you add more fission plants?
parishe13
As an environmentalist, we need a better solution for waste than Yuca mountain. Other than that I agree.
StealthToaster
I'm also an EE who works for a utility company.
idunnoyou
What do you do?
StealthToaster
I work in Telecom
twigvex
Personally I am pro nuclear, but if you have a stance you should be well informed. So many ppl are anti-nuclear because of unfounded fears.
Ellimem
Which is "funny" because the thing they fall back on, coal, is doing so much more damage than nuclear.
aWiseSageOnceSaid
This. The more research I've done on nuclear power the more pro nuclear I am. Fears are so sensationalized. it's actually sad
TicoGuy
Kinda like with Vaccines
AncientSeraph
And refugees.
WhaleArms
Hey bud uhh as an EE college student, how's the job market? Super worried if I'm doing the right thing right now
idunnoyou
It's okay thankfully electricity isn't going anywhere. As stated I'm in distribution stuff Making middle class pay. I could be using my 1/2
idunnoyou
Degree a little more but I am happy where I landed. I still get my hands dirty yet get to enjoy ac and a desk.
WhaleArms
I interned at my local power company in distribution last year had a blast. Any suggestions for me? Internships, what I should study?
idunnoyou
I honestly landed in Scada, reclosers, radios, security, networking and Ami/metering. Scada and Ami are huge right now in utilities.
idunnoyou
PLC's are a regret that I did not study. They may call them PACs now
Zachakx
You don't think there's other ways of harvesting energy?
RedBeardedGentleman
i think as a place holder for widespread use of renewables nuclear is the only option to massively reduce FF based energy.
Zachakx
Well stated. However, I do believe that nuclear energy is inherently dangerous. Other methods are immediately dangerous to the environment.
ArandomDane
They take about 7.5 years to build. Takes a lot of resources/emissions to build and by that time solar is projected to cheaper. (1/2)
ArandomDane
(2/2) Why not focus on the solar now maturing the technology faster?
idunnoyou
Lots of ways. This is the only cheap reliable way that is currently efficient. 50 years we may be powered by the solar roads who knows?
ArandomDane
Solar is projected to be cheaper by the time a plant started now is finished.
LtShed
solar roads are a great idea, but here in Canada i don't see them dealing with our weather and salting/grading procedures very well
ArandomDane
Maybe Canada is the place where they would be great as automatic snow removal and road lighting
LtShed
If it is a light dusting of snow, perhaps, but I don't know if the warming could keep up with a metre of snow and air temps below -25C
yOungblOOdLangbLatt
Always thought the problem with nuclear power isn't the energy gain itself but the waste/permanent repository?
sydanyon
You can recycle almost all nuclear waste with breeder reactors.
schlummi
When you dismantle a nuclear plant you got hundreds of tons of radioactive contamined steel and concrete which still needs to be stored.
xanderrules
I suggest taking a look at the MYRRHA project. Good research into using nuclear waste from current PWR in a 100% safe way
DestinyPrevails
True, but check out coal ash problems: Nuclear power is safer than coal even with waste as a factor. Issue is also more fear than knowledge.
schlummi
It's the concentration which causes high local risks, for example when leaking into your drinking water.
cliojayne
So maybe we should research that more. The glass thing sounds neat :)
kiayuki
It's a problem, one were getting better at fixing, within that last few years we've learned how to turn nuclear waste into glass
Ellimem
This is something pretty new, but they turned nuclear waste into a diamond that can hold a charge like a battery. It's incredible.
ThrustingPickle
And a source? You are a true gent
RayMC
He posted it. Wanted to alert you because he didn't post it as a reply to your comment.
RayMC
He posted it. Wanted to alert you because he didn't post it as a reply to your comment.
Ellimem
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a24050/nuclear-waste-diamond-batteries/
Eduardoram220
Would anything bad happen if said glass was shattered ? Other then having shattered glass I mean
HerrGrumps
I'm guessing it'd be like a lump of "glass" that they then bury/put in a mountain. It'd still be radioactive, can't use for windows etc :)
kiayuki
Yeap I believe the hope is to be able to make it into glass panes for easy storage
LearnSomething
I don't know a whole lot about nuclear power but it gets called clean energy a lot. Isn't there radioactive waste involved?
idunnoyou
This whole clean energy thing is a myth all modern sources are relatively clean. Coal is scrubbed, nukes are recovered, solar during manufac
LearnSomething
Coal is incredibly dangerous to mine though.
idunnoyou
Deep sea diving is too
LearnSomething
Deep sea diving gives you black lung?
idunnoyou
Lots of things are dangerous...
IATTM
Allegedly all the waste produced, ever, would fit in a 2 acre lot.
LearnSomething
But it's super fucking damaging. The amount isn't what worries me it's the impact. I was in Japan when Fukushima failed.
IProvideFakeContext
But it failed because it didnt follow existing regulations.
LearnSomething
It failed because of an earthquake. The damage was worse because they waited to report it.
DonutJustice
Fukushima was an aging plant. There are far better newer technologies with much less radiation.
IATTM
Not if it's stored away.
ArandomDane
Rough calculation: To safely store all waste produced powering all of the US would cost about 1 billion dollars a year. (1/?)
ArandomDane
(2/?) The problem with fission is that its not cheap solar is projected to be cheaper when a plant started now is finished.
ArandomDane
(3/3) and shit happens. If it goes very wrong it can disrupt/destroy the planets ecosystem.
SmartestDumbass
But it wouldn't hurt to install solar panels as well right?
DonutJustice
While better than fossil fuels they aren't practical to power cities. Until we create fusion, fission is the best solution.
idunnoyou
What makes you think they are better then fossil fuels? We just need to be careful not to waste or fossil fuels. They are pretty clean now..
FIashJordan
Nahh mate
CameToCommentandChewGumImAllOutOfGum
Solar panels on site can supply most of the power needed if they aren't charged that's when we should rely on city power not 100% of time
1dogsfordays1
It's the inverters and storage problems. I used to work for an EE test lab. There are some novel approaches but very expensive.
UmbertoBench
Prices for batteries are coming down as fast as PV prices did 10 years ago. They're not far off.
1dogsfordays1
How about inverter efficiency? I haven't done my research in a while. Also, I remember that some of the PV panels would crack or break 1/1
1dogsfordays1
2/2 owners would have to clean them on a regular basis for best use.
chooseday
Depends where you're from. They're a complete waste of time in the UK for the most part.
idunnoyou
Solar is great. But you will not get reliable power without expensive 10ish year batteries.
UmbertoBench
The price of utility scale solar with batteries is about even with new nuclear. About $92/MWh compared to at least $97/MWh for nuclear. 1/2
UmbertoBench
Source: https://www.lazard.com/media/438038/levelized-cost-of-energy-v100.pdf
jmack1087365
Short answer is yes it would hurt
AverageSizedDudeButSmallBoots
No but a nuke plant can operate 24/7 unless a solar panel farm also charges a large bank of capacitors. I haven't studied that, so no clue.
TicoGuy
I did study that. And I can tell you that Both Nuke and Solar are pretty much just as Reliable, but Nuke is more size and resourse efficient
[deleted]
[deleted]
TheQuack
Breeder reactors make their own fuel.
LiterallyWorseThanHitler
With a uranium breeder fuel cycle, uranium supplies could last for thousands of years at current consumption rates
ThePastPromisesTheFuture
A full switch to nuclear makes the life of the fuel go down. Should be making a switch to nuclear for now, fusion is promising too.
kiayuki
There's always Thorium reactors, work just like uranium ones, but it's much more common and produces far less harmful radiation iirc
Ellimem
MSR reactors are the future. If some people allow the future to happen, that is.
Kewra
Can we explore geothermal?
ArandomDane
Look up solar towers. Solar does not have to be a photovoltaic systems.
techdawg2013
Solar towers are less than half as efficient as PV. Power output is more stable though
ArandomDane
PV research have been outpacing it, yes. Not sure where you get 100 better from. Could you linky? Been a while since i read up on it.
CaptLongDick
I work in nuclear power and you are correct. Cleanest, safest and most efficient way to generate electricity.
cepacolusmaximus
Why do we use a reaction that escalates if not constantly watched? There are non-plutonium reactors that will safely wind down if untended.
ThePlatyPussies
What a credible source, Capt Long Dick
cepacolusmaximus
But we have nowhere to store the incredibly toxic waste. Yucca mountain was an idea, except for truckloads of nuke sludge on our freeways...
CaptLongDick
Also, the amount of jobs just one plant creates is astounding.
Ellimem
I thought the latest studies showed that the job creation for nuclear doesn't quite equal job loss in fossils?
Ellimem
Not that I am arguing against nuclear at all. I just don't think overall, job creation is the thing to tout.
ReverseTrapTsukasa
Why does Nuclear waste exist? Why does it need to be blended with clay based kitty litter in order to be stored? I know wood based litter(1
ReverseTrapTsukasa
goes boom and makes radio active smoke clouds. Ok that might be exaggerated but I mean nuclear power produces useless wast that can (2
ReverseTrapTsukasa
be a danger. http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/03/26/395615637/official-report-nuclear-waste-accident-caused-by-wrong-kitty-litter
lurkerconvert
What about those wonderful byproducts?
trukkusan
LFTR systems create magnificent buproducts, like catbon neutral alternatives to gasoline and diesel, with 1% the waste of current reactors.
bohjeenie
Depends, breeder reactors are awesome and have waste the size of a container over their entire lifetime. Nothing can top that.
Communistdoggo
I pretty sure we would be able figure out a way to store them safely if our focus was on nuclear power
trukkusan
LFTR breeder reactors are a great way to use generation 1 nuclear waste, since it's consumed in the process.
trukkusan
LFTR breeder reactors are a great way to use generation 1 nuclear waste, since it's consumed in the process.
Monochromatism
Solar cells have byproducts of their creation, many more than a nuclear plant would produce in quite some time.
Wastyvez
Nuclear energy provides byproducts that will remain lethally toxic for thousands of years. This is a very disingenous comparison.
ArandomDane
Only problem I can find is that some manufactures do not disposal of silicon tetrachloride waste is a safe manor. You know of anything (1/2)
ArandomDane
else? As saying that solar is dirty because some companies failed is like saying furniture is dirty because some dump them in nature....
lurkerconvert
Do those byproducts last thousands of years?
BondSpaceBond
Depends on nuclear materials used. They use uranium atm because the "waste" is plutonium used in weapons. Look up thorium as another source
Walfas
Waste from modern nuclear plants only lasts ~800 years. Fourth-generation plants(in development) will reduce this further.
lurkerconvert
800 years seems like along time. Also idk why my last question got downvoted but thanks for the info.
BondSpaceBond
Unfortunately your army is using it on depleted uranium tip missiles in syria atm. If invest in tech vs military we will all win in the end
IVerifyPeoplesUsernames
Your thoughts on fusion?
RedDwarfIV
Won't be operational for another 40 years or so. JET won't break even until 2020s. ITER won't be operational until the 2030s. DEMO won't be
RedDwarfIV
built until the 2040s. The first grid-feeding fusion plants won't be built until the 2050s, assuming the schedule doesn't slip further.
Thorbane
2050's would require a level of R&D investment that is unlikely given current trends.
RedDwarfIV
I agree. That's the timeline if everything goes right.
CheeseKaiser
Is it REALLY cleaner and safer than Solar?
Crimsonak
Yes. Lowest deaths per TWh by far.
Think of all the people who fall off a roof fitting a solar panel.
SomeGuyWhoKnowsStuff
Photovoltaic solar, yes, solar-thermal, no. But people are too stupid to realize the superiority of solar-thermal or to do it right.
BakaWakka
YES. Also, FAR more efficient.
Plaaant
You bet it is!
topdollar38
It's all about the ratio of energy produced over evergy used, Nuclear fuel is off the charts when it comes to this
xesom
Solar panels explode and spread hot particles all over the place. Learn your science, and take heed from someone who works in the industry.
petrie911
Yes. The chemicals that go into solar cells are horrifically toxic.
Hakosukaz
Fucking world cleaner. And literally as safe as anything else is.
PotassiumRegulatoryCommittee
Not technically, but the disparity is negligible and you can produce exponentially more power with less space than solar
bluefacepaint
"Not technically" he says. The price per kWh is vastly different giving nuclear the edge. Solar kills 440 people worldwide per trillion kWh
bluefacepaint
(2) produced compared to nuclear's 90 (which includes massive devastating events like Fukushima and Chernobyl).
jrhawk42
If done correctly yes. The problem is it's more expensive to do correctly. So power companies start cutting corners for better profits.
Monochromatism
Yep. Solar costs ass-tons, the production makes waste materials, and they're not very efficient for the space and resources they take up.
ArandomDane
Solar is projected to be cheaper than nuclear power by the time a plant started now is finished.
RedDwarfIV
Cheaper than Hinckley C, by your source, which is running seriously overbudget because it's a terrible design.
happyishturtle
Nuclear power plants cost "ass-tons" (I think about $6 billion for one)
IATTM
But the important thing is the price per kilowatt. Nuclear is around 2.1 cents vs 3.2c for coal.
CaptLongDick
You're right, Palo Verde cost 5.9 billion to construct. However, that plant alone is responsible for 35℅ of power generated in AZ
CaptLongDick
There is 3 reactors and each unit profits 2mil a day after O&M costs. I'd say it paid for itself pretty quickly
Mimsey
By far. Per kilowatt hour it's far, far safer. And it's worth noting other nuclear nations don't have the waste problems the US does.
demizu
Really? As a German the nuclear waste stories sound terrifying. "Let's drop the barrels down mineshafts... Oh, leaky barrels"
LOlivingVE
Nuclear waste? Why is that?
ArandomDane
It greatly depend on the metric you use.
USAMexicoWall
You can't get power from solar after 5pm during winter effectively. Nuclear is there to replace coal/gas
ArandomDane
Synth gas. Solar tower. Look it up
SmartestDumbass
But it wouldn't hurt to install those as well right?
USAMexicoWall
Not at all, nuclear, solar, wind, tidal, wave, hydro should all be invested in. I work in oil/gas/coal and it's obvious
FlyingHawaiian
You can't get solar energy during a nuclear winter.
ArandomDane
You can. About 50% production under a extreme heavy cloud layer.
WhiteWeaselMLAS
BS. This solar panel favoring site states only 10-25% https://solarpowerrocks.com/solar-basics/how-do-solar-panels-work-in-cloudy-weather/
ArandomDane
See you can get solar energy during a nuclear winter
rilebrip
At current technological levels, yes. Have you looked at processes for creating photovoltaic cells or the reliability of them?
CorneliusSoctifo
From what I hear the chemicals in them are nasty stuff
schlummi
Uranium mines are not that healthy or clean, too.
EternalSunshineofthePotlessMind
Have you looked at how much waste and pollution is created when you mine uranium?
rilebrip
Still doesn't compare to the 'carbon footprint' of creating current green energy technologies.
rilebrip
Or the battery banks needed?
idunnoyou
This, don't forget you'll change then every 7 years.
ArandomDane
What metric do you measure it against. Nuclear has the potential to go very wrong. Fukushima nearly killed the pacific ecosystem AKA us all
rilebrip
I was in the US Navy, on submarines, living and working around a reactor. Since the 80's all active US Naval vessels use nuclear reactors.
ArandomDane
So binary, "I have never seen it go wrong, so it is safe". Against "Some manufactures do not dispose of waste safely. Solar is unsafe".
RedDwarfIV
Deaths per kilowatt hour. By that measure, nuclear is safer than pretty much all power generation technologies.
ArandomDane
By that measure nothing can compete with nuclear. At least until it kills us all.... Making it a bad measure for a risk assessment.
watsisface1
Huh. Hadn't thought about the potential negative impacts of solar panels on the environment.
rilebrip
Also a reason why wind energy isn't as 'beneficial' for energy source. Reliability and manufacturing (precious metals and such)
Ellimem
Also worth noting that as of 2016, the energy created by PV cells hasn't offset the energy expended to create them.
Wastyvez
Short term nuclear is cleaner, but that doesn't include the 12 000 metric tons of nuclear waste produced every year.
ignimbrite
Which is why we should reprocess it and get more fuel to throw back into the reactor
thealmightywalrus420
All stored underground and actually not as dangerous as most people believe
Wastyvez
And they're not as safe as nuclear advocates pretend. There was an incident just two years ago. In the long term they're ticking timebombs.
Wastyvez
Except for the fact those storage facilities are not designed to last longer than our civilisation will realistically exist.
Wastyvez
Furthermore progress towards storing high level nuclear waste in underground facilities providing a long term solution is limited.