Total Posts:9|Showing Posts:1-9
Jump to topic:

It is time we re-think the Nuclear stigma

Skepticalone
Posts: 6,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2016 6:47:11 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
There are many Pros to nuclear as an energy source:

The fuel is inexpensive
Energy generation is the most concentrated source
Waste is more compact than any source
Extensive scientific basis for the cycle
Easy to transport as new fuel
No greenhouse or acid rain effects

The drawback to nuclear has been the difficulty in dealing with long lived radioactive waste and the possibility of nuclear contamination in the event of failure. (Fukushima, Chernobyl)

Next generation reactor designs offer a safer and more efficient energy than traditional reactors. For instance, the molten salt reactor (MSR) can be fueled by nuclear waste ejected from traditional reactors or non enriched uranium. Due to using the uranium in a liquid state, these new reactors promise 96% of the energy as opposed to the 3-4% achieved the first time around. The fuel being almost completely used up leads to shorter lived radioactive waste (350 years). Using liquid fuel also has another advantage in that in the event of power failure (Fukushima) the fuel automatically drains into an auxiliary tank and freezes. (Nuclear disaster averted!) Finally, a MSR plant can be built for about the same cost as a traditional coal plant and produce energy far more cheaply (.3 - .5 cents per KwH). Considering the concern with global warming, an effieicient environmentally friendly source of low emission energy is needed. Nuclear can provide all that as well as being more versatile and dependable than solar, wind, and hydro power.

http://www.extremetech.com...
http://www.nucleartourist.com...
http://thorconpower.com...
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Torton
Posts: 988
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2016 7:13:53 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
This, this, and more of THIS! Most of the people who oppose it are from misinformation and the fears of the dangers of outdated plants; it might as be the equivalent of the anti-vaccination movement.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2016 3:42:12 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/31/2016 7:13:53 AM, Torton wrote:
This, this, and more of THIS! Most of the people who oppose it are from misinformation and the fears of the dangers of outdated plants; it might as be the equivalent of the anti-vaccination movement.

Sadly, this is technology that has been around since the 1960's. If Fukushima or Chernobyl were Molten Salt reactors then there would have been no catastrophic containment breaches. MSRs are "walk away safe".
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2016 8:40:26 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/31/2016 6:47:11 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
There are many Pros to nuclear as an energy source:

The fuel is inexpensive
Energy generation is the most concentrated source
Waste is more compact than any source
Extensive scientific basis for the cycle
Easy to transport as new fuel
No greenhouse or acid rain effects

The drawback to nuclear has been the difficulty in dealing with long lived radioactive waste and the possibility of nuclear contamination in the event of failure. (Fukushima, Chernobyl)

Next generation reactor designs offer a safer and more efficient energy than traditional reactors. For instance, the molten salt reactor (MSR) can be fueled by nuclear waste ejected from traditional reactors or non enriched uranium. Due to using the uranium in a liquid state, these new reactors promise 96% of the energy as opposed to the 3-4% achieved the first time around. The fuel being almost completely used up leads to shorter lived radioactive waste (350 years). Using liquid fuel also has another advantage in that in the event of power failure (Fukushima) the fuel automatically drains into an auxiliary tank and freezes. (Nuclear disaster averted!) Finally, a MSR plant can be built for about the same cost as a traditional coal plant and produce energy far more cheaply (.3 - .5 cents per KwH). Considering the concern with global warming, an effieicient environmentally friendly source of low emission energy is needed. Nuclear can provide all that as well as being more versatile and dependable than solar, wind, and hydro power.

http://www.extremetech.com...
http://www.nucleartourist.com...
http://thorconpower.com...

There was an interesting TED debate on this that I watched not too long ago.
https://www.ted.com...

In it, the guy against nuclear energy showed that nuclear has the 2nd highest CO2 emissions behind Coal. It also takes between 10 and 19 years to set up a nuclear power plant. Among other things, in the end its the most undesirable of the clean energies.

Nuclear energy proliferation is also directly tied with nuclear weapons proliferation. India, North Korea, Iran, and Pakistan developed nuclear weapons by enriching uranium in nuclear energy plants.

Nuclear energy also takes the second largest amount of footprint (space is takes up), behind solar. But then you can put solar on houses, buildings, parking lot structures, light poles, etc. which you can't do with nuclear.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2016 12:50:19 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/31/2016 8:40:26 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 1/31/2016 6:47:11 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
There are many Pros to nuclear as an energy source:

The fuel is inexpensive
Energy generation is the most concentrated source
Waste is more compact than any source
Extensive scientific basis for the cycle
Easy to transport as new fuel
No greenhouse or acid rain effects

The drawback to nuclear has been the difficulty in dealing with long lived radioactive waste and the possibility of nuclear contamination in the event of failure. (Fukushima, Chernobyl)

Next generation reactor designs offer a safer and more efficient energy than traditional reactors. For instance, the molten salt reactor (MSR) can be fueled by nuclear waste ejected from traditional reactors or non enriched uranium. Due to using the uranium in a liquid state, these new reactors promise 96% of the energy as opposed to the 3-4% achieved the first time around. The fuel being almost completely used up leads to shorter lived radioactive waste (350 years). Using liquid fuel also has another advantage in that in the event of power failure (Fukushima) the fuel automatically drains into an auxiliary tank and freezes. (Nuclear disaster averted!) Finally, a MSR plant can be built for about the same cost as a traditional coal plant and produce energy far more cheaply (.3 - .5 cents per KwH). Considering the concern with global warming, an effieicient environmentally friendly source of low emission energy is needed. Nuclear can provide all that as well as being more versatile and dependable than solar, wind, and hydro power.

http://www.extremetech.com...
http://www.nucleartourist.com...
http://thorconpower.com...

There was an interesting TED debate on this that I watched not too long ago.
https://www.ted.com...

That was interesting.

In it, the guy against nuclear energy showed that nuclear has the 2nd highest CO2 emissions behind Coal.

I think it is slightly unfair that he was adding the emissions of conventional energy during the construction process of nuclear power plants and calling it "nuclear emissions". The Molten salt reactors do not generate CO2 in the in the process of energy production. (they don't have any emissions!)

It also takes between 10 and 19 years to set up a nuclear power plant. Among other things, in the end its the most undesirable of the clean energies.

The MSRs have never been built on the scale of conventional nuclear reactors, so I'm not sure how this claim is applicable. Additionally, Thorcon claims it can have a 250MW MSR operating in as little as 4 years.

http://thorconpower.com...

Nuclear energy proliferation is also directly tied with nuclear weapons proliferation. India, North Korea, Iran, and Pakistan developed nuclear weapons by enriching uranium in nuclear energy plants.

That might be true of nuclear plants requiring enriched fuels, but MSRs are not among those. They can be fueled by low grade waste left over from conventional nuclear plants (i.e. using up weaponizable material). One of the reasons MSRs were not developed in the 60's is because the waste generated was not very suitable for contributing fissile material for weapons. That's still true today.

Nuclear energy also takes the second largest amount of footprint (space is takes up), behind solar. But then you can put solar on houses, buildings, parking lot structures, light poles, etc. which you can't do with nuclear.

Nuclear power doesn't require anymore land than conventional energy sources. Not to mention, solar is not comparable to any of the conventional sources in dependability, but as far as emissions, only nuclear is comparable to solar.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
sadolite
Posts: 8,842
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2016 3:59:47 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
"It is time we re-think the Nuclear stigma" Good luck with that, you will never get a generation of indoctrinated morons to go for it.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,589
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2016 10:12:00 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/31/2016 6:47:11 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
There are many Pros to nuclear as an energy source:

The fuel is inexpensive
Energy generation is the most concentrated source
Waste is more compact than any source
Extensive scientific basis for the cycle
Easy to transport as new fuel
No greenhouse or acid rain effects

The drawback to nuclear has been the difficulty in dealing with long lived radioactive waste and the possibility of nuclear contamination in the event of failure. (Fukushima, Chernobyl)

Next generation reactor designs offer a safer and more efficient energy than traditional reactors. For instance, the molten salt reactor (MSR) can be fueled by nuclear waste ejected from traditional reactors or non enriched uranium. Due to using the uranium in a liquid state, these new reactors promise 96% of the energy as opposed to the 3-4% achieved the first time around. The fuel being almost completely used up leads to shorter lived radioactive waste (350 years). Using liquid fuel also has another advantage in that in the event of power failure (Fukushima) the fuel automatically drains into an auxiliary tank and freezes. (Nuclear disaster averted!) Finally, a MSR plant can be built for about the same cost as a traditional coal plant and produce energy far more cheaply (.3 - .5 cents per KwH). Considering the concern with global warming, an effieicient environmentally friendly source of low emission energy is needed. Nuclear can provide all that as well as being more versatile and dependable than solar, wind, and hydro power.

http://www.extremetech.com...
http://www.nucleartourist.com...
http://thorconpower.com...

Personally I think more effort should be made to reduce energy consumption rather than encourage greater consumption of it.

Well insulated homes, high efficiency appliances etc.

I now live in Arizona and looking forward to investigating solar power for running my pool, possibly more - for free (capital cost aside).

Many homes waste a huge amount still on lighting costs, moving to CFL or ideally LED can have a huge impact on costs.

Nuclear is a huge risk its only a matter of time before there's some other disaster possibly terrorism via drones etc.

Maybe fusion will eventually emerge, that would be really something!

Harry.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2016 10:20:57 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/5/2016 10:12:00 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 1/31/2016 6:47:11 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
There are many Pros to nuclear as an energy source:

The fuel is inexpensive
Energy generation is the most concentrated source
Waste is more compact than any source
Extensive scientific basis for the cycle
Easy to transport as new fuel
No greenhouse or acid rain effects

The drawback to nuclear has been the difficulty in dealing with long lived radioactive waste and the possibility of nuclear contamination in the event of failure. (Fukushima, Chernobyl)

Next generation reactor designs offer a safer and more efficient energy than traditional reactors. For instance, the molten salt reactor (MSR) can be fueled by nuclear waste ejected from traditional reactors or non enriched uranium. Due to using the uranium in a liquid state, these new reactors promise 96% of the energy as opposed to the 3-4% achieved the first time around. The fuel being almost completely used up leads to shorter lived radioactive waste (350 years). Using liquid fuel also has another advantage in that in the event of power failure (Fukushima) the fuel automatically drains into an auxiliary tank and freezes. (Nuclear disaster averted!) Finally, a MSR plant can be built for about the same cost as a traditional coal plant and produce energy far more cheaply (.3 - .5 cents per KwH). Considering the concern with global warming, an effieicient environmentally friendly source of low emission energy is needed. Nuclear can provide all that as well as being more versatile and dependable than solar, wind, and hydro power.

http://www.extremetech.com...
http://www.nucleartourist.com...
http://thorconpower.com...

Personally I think more effort should be made to reduce energy consumption rather than encourage greater consumption of it.

Well insulated homes, high efficiency appliances etc.

I now live in Arizona and looking forward to investigating solar power for running my pool, possibly more - for free (capital cost aside).

Many homes waste a huge amount still on lighting costs, moving to CFL or ideally LED can have a huge impact on costs.

I agree efficiency is a wise move.

Nuclear is a huge risk its only a matter of time before there's some other disaster possibly terrorism via drones etc.

These next gen reactors would not contribute to proliferation. In fact, they can reduce that possibility by using up waste leftover from conventional reactors.

Maybe fusion will eventually emerge, that would be really something!

Harry.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,589
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2016 5:20:07 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/5/2016 10:20:57 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/5/2016 10:12:00 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 1/31/2016 6:47:11 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
There are many Pros to nuclear as an energy source:

The fuel is inexpensive
Energy generation is the most concentrated source
Waste is more compact than any source
Extensive scientific basis for the cycle
Easy to transport as new fuel
No greenhouse or acid rain effects

The drawback to nuclear has been the difficulty in dealing with long lived radioactive waste and the possibility of nuclear contamination in the event of failure. (Fukushima, Chernobyl)

Next generation reactor designs offer a safer and more efficient energy than traditional reactors. For instance, the molten salt reactor (MSR) can be fueled by nuclear waste ejected from traditional reactors or non enriched uranium. Due to using the uranium in a liquid state, these new reactors promise 96% of the energy as opposed to the 3-4% achieved the first time around. The fuel being almost completely used up leads to shorter lived radioactive waste (350 years). Using liquid fuel also has another advantage in that in the event of power failure (Fukushima) the fuel automatically drains into an auxiliary tank and freezes. (Nuclear disaster averted!) Finally, a MSR plant can be built for about the same cost as a traditional coal plant and produce energy far more cheaply (.3 - .5 cents per KwH). Considering the concern with global warming, an effieicient environmentally friendly source of low emission energy is needed. Nuclear can provide all that as well as being more versatile and dependable than solar, wind, and hydro power.

http://www.extremetech.com...
http://www.nucleartourist.com...
http://thorconpower.com...

Personally I think more effort should be made to reduce energy consumption rather than encourage greater consumption of it.

Well insulated homes, high efficiency appliances etc.

I now live in Arizona and looking forward to investigating solar power for running my pool, possibly more - for free (capital cost aside).

Many homes waste a huge amount still on lighting costs, moving to CFL or ideally LED can have a huge impact on costs.

I agree efficiency is a wise move.

Nuclear is a huge risk its only a matter of time before there's some other disaster possibly terrorism via drones etc.

These next gen reactors would not contribute to proliferation. In fact, they can reduce that possibility by using up waste leftover from conventional reactors.

Maybe fusion will eventually emerge, that would be really something!

Harry.

The last time I read an in-depth technical book on this was like 30 years ago, so I'm pretty out of touch with how things are today.

Can these modern reactors still fall victim to the dreaded meltdown?

Harry.