[UPDATED] Nuclear power is the way to go, no ifs, buts or maybes

Picture from Wikipedia showing the Kernkraftwerk Grafenrheinfeld nuclear power plant.

Time to bust the myths that nuclear power is dangerous and kills lots of people so shouldn't be considered. It doesn't and never has. Even the big meltdowns like Chernobyl and Fukushima that everyone knows about actually only ever killed very few people each and those accidents were worst case scenarios, unlikely to happen again with modern technology and processes.

Uranium reactors are safe enough, even with their radioactive by-products that people are so scared of, but thorium is on another level of safety. On top of that, the energy extracted from thorium is an enormous 200x that of uranium! We have enough reserves on earth to last thousands of years, making renewable energy unnecessary and that energy is available on demand, a key criteria. Building thorium reactors are therefore a no-brainer.

Fusion would be even better, but that's proving such a tough technological nut to crack, that we can't consider it for the foreseeable future, unfortunately. Scientists just have to keep plugging away at developing viable reactors.

China's building a test thorium reactor and the West should do so too.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

UPDATE 27.11.2022

Please see post 13 for a new video about this subject.

[UPDATED] Nuclear power is the way to go, no ifs, buts or maybes

Picture from Wikipedia showing the Kernkraftwerk Grafenrheinfeld nuclear power plant. Time to bust the myths that nuclear power is dangerous and kills lots of people so shouldn't be considered. It doesn't and never has. Even the big meltdowns like Chernobyl and Fukushima that everyone knows...

nerdzone.uk

 

[Tiffany]

Nuclear energy is very clean. Most people do miss that detail, agreed. A nuclear plant properly managed can serve a large area of land very efficiently.

I still am baffled why the Fukushima nuclear plant in Japan was built right at the sea. I just read a few days ago, that Japan plans to release radioactive water into the sea. They say that it will be as clean as possible, but Tritium will still remain in the water. That does not sound good to me.

 

[Retro]

I remember seeing a documentary about that some time ago. While controversial, the idea is that they'll do it very slowly, in stages, thus maintaining a very diluted amount of tritium in the water thus maintaining safety. I don't like the idea either, but maybe this is the science talking rather than the politics.

 

[Tiffany]

I remember seeing a documentary about that some time ago. While controversial, the idea is that they'll do it very slowly, in stages, thus maintaining a very diluted amount of tritium in the water thus maintaining safety. I don't like the idea either, but maybe this is the science talking rather than the politics.

Thanks for that extra understanding of Japan's process on releasing that contaminated water. I'm going to try and trust the science on the process of releasing this water into the ocean, but I still can't help to envision the minute consequences to the overall health of the sea. Not going all Aquaman here, but our oceans need some environmental clean up help, in my humble opinion.

 

[Retro]

Indeed the whole environment, not just the sea, needs to be disinfected and repaired from the ravages of mankind.

My friend showed me a TV documentary a while back where satellite images clearly showed the vast deforestation that's going on. The whole planet now looks scarred from it. Shocking and that's our air supply that these greedy idiots are cutting down with wild abandon, let alone all the animals that they make homeless and die horribly. In short, they're treating the planet like an infinite resource that's there to be raped and pillaged. Disgusting.

 

[Retro]

I've just upgraded my OP to article status as I've said enough there to qualify for one.

 

[Tiffany]

Indeed the whole environment, not just the sea, needs to be disinfected and repaired from the ravages of mankind.

My friend showed me a TV documentary a while back where satellite images clearly showed the vast deforestation that's going on. The whole planet now looks scarred from it. Shocking and that's our air supply that these greedy idiots are cutting down with wild abandon, let alone all the animals that they make homeless and die horribly. In short, they're treating the planet like an infinite resource that's there to be raped and pillaged. Disgusting.

I'll have to look up a documentary on that. I believe it. If I recall my geography history about Ireland, the last ice age was so devastating, that much of Ireland has been without trees or a large portion of it because of the damage from the ice. I do not not remember the timeline, I just remember that detail.

We live in pseudo country and it's very frustrating to see all of the building taking place. We have lost an abundance of pasture and in it's place are homes being built. One of my favorite stormy weather pictures is of a pasture not far from my house. Now it's been bull dozed and they are putting up homes in it's place. It's a shame, we do need the oxygen from the trees and the animals need their forests or tree lines to nest or den. We have seen more bob cats and coyotes this year because they are losing their places to live. ~It's Ferngully ~

 

[Tiffany]

That's funny you upgraded your OP

 

[Retro]

Bad news for nuclear fusion. I had no idea that the world had a crtical tritium problem which could cause future reactors to sit there idle without half of the fuel they need. They sort of have a solution though as the article explains.

There's never an easy solution when it comes to getting power from nuclear fusion.

Nuclear Fusion Is Already Facing a Fuel Crisis

It doesn’t even work yet, but nuclear fusion has encountered a shortage of tritium, the key fuel source for the most prominent experimental reactors.

www.wired.com

 

[Arantor]

The only downsides to nuclear (aside from pronouncing it correctly, as Gene Hackman repeatedly fails to do so in the Christopher Reeve Superman films) are the high cost to get it going and the high cost to clear it up after, though we've gotten better at the latter.

Hinckley Point C, for example, started construction in 2017 - it's already 2 years late, expected to go live in 2027, and expected cost somewhere around £26 million - more than 50% over the 2016 budget.

But it is as far as we know the best way of managing the baseload of an already energy-hungry world without burning more things into the atmosphere. And I don't know how eco-friendly the renewables *really* are, they seem to consume quite a lot of material in the building and maintenance.

 

[Retro]

Yup, Jack Bauer in 24 was an especially bad culprit for saying "nuc-e-lear"!

24 (TV Series 2001–2010) - IMDb

24: Created by Robert Cochran, Joel Surnow. With Kiefer Sutherland, Mary Lynn Rajskub, Carlos Bernard, Dennis Haysbert. Counter Terrorism Agent Jack Bauer races against the clock to subvert terrorist plots and save his nation from ultimate disaster.

www.imdb.com

With prices often going into the billions, a few million sounds like a positive bargain.

And yeah, the hidden costs of those "green" technologies are what make me so skeptical about them. On the one hand, no vehicle emissions (yay!) that's a real health benefit. On the other, making them in the first place isn't exactly green, batteries especially and then when recharged, how much crap goes into the atmosphere to generate the electricity? That last one of course varies enormously depending on where you live and the type of power station supplying the power, with coal being the worst.

When there's lots of money to be made out of something, you can be sure that vested interests are gonna lie to you with abandon and even commit outright fraud to get your money. It therefore stands to reason that the "green" sector must be rife with this kind of corruption.

 

[Tiffany]

@Arantor- I consider myself pretty well versed in speech and writing but since you referenced the correct pronunciation of nuclear I had to actually look it up to make sure the audio input of Texan influence wasn't interfering with pronouncing nuclear incorrectly....lol. Apparently, I'm good.

@Retro

It therefore stands to reason that the "green" sector must be rife with this kind of corruption

I've never seen so much corruption in my life time. I'm a common sense, do it the right way, even if it costs a bit more and do it with integrity kind of person.

Greed, is dangerous.

 

[Retro]

I'm reviving this article from a few months ago with this new video from respected physicist Sabine Hossenfelder on why nuclear power stations are safe and the way to go, as it's a good idea to have something explained from different angles. Especially so when it comes to controversial nuclear power.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

This cute animated video from Kurzgesagt that I posted a couple of weeks ago about disposing of nuclear waste is also helpful.

Why disposing of nuclear fuel in space is a terrible idea

It would actually be a great idea once it's gone, but there are a myriad of problems with this including safety and very high costs, making it a terrible idea. We can deal with it quite effectively by keeping it on earth, no need to worry. Kurzgesagt* explain it in their own inimitable style...

nerdzone.uk

 

[Tiffany]

People fear nuclear power because of lack of understanding. Nuclear is great if properly managed and built in the right area away from a major city.

Texas has a nuclear plant:

Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1

www.nrc.gov

 

[Retro]

The story of Sellafield.

Dismantling Sellafield: the epic task of shutting down a nuclear site

The long read: Nothing is produced at Sellafield anymore. But making safe what is left behind is an almost unimaginably expensive and complex task that requires us to think not on a human timescale, but a planetary one

www.theguardian.com

 

[Tiffany]

Fascinating read on Sellafield. That's a very complicated history from the design to Sellafield's decline and demise. I had no idea radioactive material took tens of thousands of years to dissipate the radiation either.

From your above article:

To prevent that disaster, the waste must be hauled out, the silos destroyed and the ponds filled in with soil and paved over. The salvaged waste will then be transferred to more secure buildings that will be erected on site. But even that will be only a provisional arrangement, lasting a few decades. Nuclear waste has no respect for human timespans. The best way to neutralise its threat is to move it into a subterranean vault, of the kind the UK plans to build later this century. Once interred, the waste will be left alone for tens of thousands of years, while its radioactivity cools. Dealing with all the radioactive waste left on site is a slow-motion race against time, which will last so long that even the grandchildren of those working on site will not see its end. The process will cost at least £121bn.

 

[Retro]

Yeah, that's kinda critical that bit, isn't it? It does give me some pause for thought. On the plus side, these problems will happen far into the future when none of us are here any longer and technology may well have developed to handle the waste much better. And don't forget the massive benefits of thorium reactors over uranium ones. Given all this, it's a can that I'm willing to kick down the road to solve the very immediate energy and environmental crisis.

 

[Tiffany]

Agreed, nuclear is still the best option.

 

[Retro]

I've just come across this channel by nuclear physicist Elina Charatsidou who covers all aspects of nuclear power. This video is about thorium reactors, a promising new technology if done right.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

In this video, she debunks Greenpeace lies about nuclear power.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Tiffany]

Interesting and I like how she just talks to you in a relaxed but informative setting with props, and facts in the best interest of educating while viewing Elina's video.

 

[Tiffany]

Over the weekend we watched a series on Netflix about the 3 Mile Island Nuclear Plant disaster in 1979. Very informative, with interviews, and graphs. Wow, did the government officials both state and federal really misinform the people. The one fun fact that I learned was that President Carter was a trained nuclear engineer.

It was clear that nuclear was so new that the government did not want a tarnish on this new way of energy because of the failure at 3 Mile Island. Lots of cover-ups.

 

[aussiefooty]

Urgh...
This whole thing is gross.
it's going to leak radiation everywhere.
if we go nuclear.

 

[Retro]

No, it really isn't as explained in posts 1,13 and 19. Don't let the green brigade fool you with their lies. Nuclear is actually one of the greenest ways of supplying power. Please do see those posts for the full facts.

 

[Retro]

@aussiefooty please do have a look at those posts. I'd be interested to see if they change your opinion at all.

 

[aussiefooty]

@aussiefooty please do have a look at those posts. I'd be interested to see if they change your opinion at all.

They won't.
Here in Australia we have just had a change of government federally. about a month before the elections the liberals signed a contract for the use of these nuclear rockets.
so no thanks