General Discussion

RandomNumbers

(19,042 posts)

79. If we are dickering over 9g/kwh vs 11g/kwh

Tue Mar 15, 2022, 08:33 AM

Mar 2022

given the safety risks* of the lesser number,

the problem is not the method of energy generation, it is the amount of energy requiring generation.

Because soon enough the aggregate of 9g/kwh will overtake the current aggregate of 11g/kwh, unless the root cause is addressed.

The amount of energy required is driven by consumption which is driven by population. That is the inconvenient truth that is too often avoided. If there were few enough people consuming it, carbon based production wouldn't be the problem that it is.

* Safety risks = waste + accidents. If these have been adequately addressed by technology - to where new nuclear is as safe as competing technologies, then educate rather than browbeat people. Most anti nuclear folks have rational concerns, whether or not they express them well.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

169 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

A possible return to atomic power??? WTH??? 🤬 🤬 🤬 [View all] a kennedy Mar 2022 OP

Anyone who has a remote sense of reality would applaud this. NNadir Mar 2022 #1

Guess I don't have a remote sense of reality..... a kennedy Mar 2022 #5

I guess not. NNadir Mar 2022 #19

Correct, you don't correct! Nt USALiberal Mar 2022 #44

No. Act_of_Reparation Mar 2022 #150

It's okay. Every action has costs and benefits that change as Hortensis Mar 2022 #160

I agree with you. Buckeyeblue Mar 2022 #33

+1000 Freethinker65 Mar 2022 #34

I agree. Happy Hoosier Mar 2022 #46

Good luck with all the spent fuel. Kid Berwyn Mar 2022 #51

Anyone who is concerned about valuable used nuclear fuel when... NNadir Mar 2022 #58

So, you don't know what to do with the nuclear waste. Kid Berwyn Mar 2022 #61

Post removed Post removed Mar 2022 #64

Wow!!!! MarineCombatEngineer Mar 2022 #74

Damn, I missed it dumbcat Mar 2022 #80

It was pretty much to the point about what he thought of the other's MarineCombatEngineer Mar 2022 #82

Karen Silkwood was murdered trying to tell the truth about nuclear power. Kid Berwyn Mar 2022 #86

Dude or dudette, MarineCombatEngineer Mar 2022 #89

Right back at ya. Kid Berwyn Mar 2022 #94

+100 agree. MarineCombatEngineer Mar 2022 #97

Well hopefully the plant discussed in the OP isn't going to build using 1970s tech. Cuthbert Allgood Mar 2022 #96

Nuclear power will never be safe...not from accidents, attacks etc. We can do better. And while Demsrule86 Mar 2022 #77

Lift the ban on reprocessing Amishman Mar 2022 #92

The land mismanagement going on in the name of solar jeffreyi Mar 2022 #155

Exactly. Layzeebeaver Mar 2022 #83

I certainly do. This subject and our agreement on it is how we met on here. Celerity Mar 2022 #168

Reading Bill Gates latest book... WarGamer Mar 2022 #2

Gonna have to read his book...thanks a kennedy Mar 2022 #7

I know he's a weird dude... WarGamer Mar 2022 #11

I used to think no, but small scale seems feasible and I support it. Pobeka Mar 2022 #3

The article stated "the company's small-scale nuclear generating technology", multigraincracker Mar 2022 #24

Yep. I saw that. Thanks. Pobeka Mar 2022 #39

Its hardly a carbon free power source when the fuel must be mined and processed Blues Heron Mar 2022 #4

This story says about 1/100th exboyfil Mar 2022 #12

I looked it up the other day will try and find it. Blues Heron Mar 2022 #15

If the mining equipment is run off electricity exboyfil Mar 2022 #18

we are talking fuel here - like I said Blues Heron Mar 2022 #26

If we are dickering over 9g/kwh vs 11g/kwh RandomNumbers Mar 2022 #79

It's net positive over the years while FF is not, Nuke power is way beyond 3 Mile Island or Fukashim uponit7771 Mar 2022 #14

they just leave the rods in place -are you kidding? Blues Heron Mar 2022 #21

I'm sure you will point out regulations regarding transport... DiamondShark Mar 2022 #141

My point is they dismantled every last remnant of that nuke plant Blues Heron Mar 2022 #142

Do you know the regulations regarding transportation of spent fuel? DiamondShark Mar 2022 #143

You have a lot of questions - but do you have a point or an opinion? Blues Heron Mar 2022 #145

This message was self-deleted by its author DiamondShark Mar 2022 #161

There are regualtions in place regarding transportation of spent fuel. DiamondShark Mar 2022 #162

Wind and solar are hardly carbon free considering that they require fossil fuel backup... hunter Mar 2022 #87

fuel-wise they are 100 percent carbon free Blues Heron Mar 2022 #99

Why does that matter? FBaggins Mar 2022 #114

Is this gaslighting? Blues Heron Mar 2022 #115

Pretending that only fuel-related emissions matter? I suppose one could claim that. FBaggins Mar 2022 #119

Which nuke do you think will meltdown next? Blues Heron Mar 2022 #122

Changing the subject? FBaggins Mar 2022 #124

no answer? Blues Heron Mar 2022 #125

I guess that was a "yes" FBaggins Mar 2022 #129

So which one will melt down next? Blues Heron Mar 2022 #132

Which Ones Have Actually Melted Down? ProfessorGAC Mar 2022 #164

5 meltdowns and two exclusion zones Blues Heron Mar 2022 #165

Which ones would still have happened with the design under discussion in the OP? FBaggins Mar 2022 #166

Thats so comforting Blues Heron Mar 2022 #169

So, whenever the wind isn't blowing and the sun isn't shining we live without electricity. hunter Mar 2022 #131

You're assuming no storage. lagomorph777 Mar 2022 #117

When did storage become carbon-free? FBaggins Mar 2022 #128

Which magical storage system do you have in mind? hunter Mar 2022 #134

Multiple technologies are being developed right now. By engineers. Not magicians. lagomorph777 Mar 2022 #135

The unintended consequences of anti-nuclear activism Zeitghost Mar 2022 #6

yeah real safe - so safe you cant live in vast swaths of the earth now - Fukushima ring a bell? Blues Heron Mar 2022 #10

And coal plants are making the whole planet... Happy Hoosier Mar 2022 #47

Compared to the damage being caused by fossil fuels Zeitghost Mar 2022 #48

The problem with carbon pollution (fossil fuels) is the amount used, RandomNumbers Mar 2022 #85

It's over 40 years since Mile Island, come on people lets not be luddites. Atomic power is beyond... uponit7771 Mar 2022 #8

you are dreaming - its just as dangerous as ever. Fukushima was only ten years ago Blues Heron Mar 2022 #13

Fukushima was 60 years old and not supposed to be operating, your making the case for new uponit7771 Mar 2022 #16

Correction -it was 40 years old at the time of the multiple meltdowns Blues Heron Mar 2022 #69

The design started in the '50s and it was supposed to be shut down already uponit7771 Mar 2022 #102

nature shut it down for us Blues Heron Mar 2022 #105

Irrelevant point, enforce the rules nuclear works. Just like airliners. Not perfect but better than uponit7771 Mar 2022 #106

How close is your closest nuke? Blues Heron Mar 2022 #108

Not with 21st century tech, we all need to update ourselves on nuke power. Take down the old uponit7771 Mar 2022 #118

Just take them down, sounds so simple Blues Heron Mar 2022 #121

... and Build Back Better? right ? tia uponit7771 Mar 2022 #126

Company always cut corners so I am absolutely against nukes...there is no coming back from a Demsrule86 Mar 2022 #154

Same with airliners but they're fairly well regulated. uponit7771 Mar 2022 #163

"Nobody could have seen that coming"? betsuni Mar 2022 #109

pure folly Blues Heron Mar 2022 #112

Fukushima: old reactor built right on a coastal area with a long history of earthquakes/tsunamis. betsuni Mar 2022 #27

same uranium, same scam. Blues Heron Mar 2022 #28

Chernobyl and Fukushima, both seventies nuclear technology. betsuni Mar 2022 #49

Its inherently a bad idea, whatever new fangled XTRA SAFE!# tech they come up with Blues Heron Mar 2022 #50

Seventies nuclear technology makes it a bad idea? betsuni Mar 2022 #52

I think you are being deliberately obtuse here Blues Heron Mar 2022 #53

Seventies seventies seventies. It's 2022. betsuni Mar 2022 #59

The idea nuclear is carbon free is laughable Blues Heron Mar 2022 #60

Chernobyl SEVENTIES technology. betsuni Mar 2022 #62

instead of repeating yourself ad nauseum and posting silly emoticons Blues Heron Mar 2022 #63

Oh, now it's about me! betsuni Mar 2022 #65

make your argument if you have one Blues Heron Mar 2022 #67

Oh dear. All I ever said was that it's not the seventies. betsuni Mar 2022 #70

Thats compelling Blues Heron Mar 2022 #73

It's still not the seventies. betsuni Mar 2022 #76

Let's compare those track records you speak of... Zeitghost Mar 2022 #127

There are arguments for nuclear but... Renew Deal Mar 2022 #54

But no newdayneeded Mar 2022 #66

what is your point? Blues Heron Mar 2022 #68

Fukushima newdayneeded Mar 2022 #71

Was there a tsunami at Three Mile Island? Blues Heron Mar 2022 #75

Um, "Old corrupt conservative men in charge " RandomNumbers Mar 2022 #88

What do mean by "please turn on the news"? betsuni Mar 2022 #90

Fair point. Maybe I should say, look at recent history RandomNumbers Mar 2022 #91

50-50 senate. Gives each senator a veto. betsuni Mar 2022 #95

You are correct. But unfortunately it is reality. nt. RandomNumbers Mar 2022 #98

You literally just proved the point FOR clean nuclear obamanut2012 Mar 2022 #56

What on earth is clean nuclear - are you kidding? Blues Heron Mar 2022 #57

What about Japan. No to nukes...it will never be safe. Demsrule86 Mar 2022 #152

1950s design vs 2018 ... We can't be Luddite with nuke power uponit7771 Mar 2022 #153

They won't find it easy to obtain insurance nt Wicked Blue Mar 2022 #9

How come nobody ever worries about insurance for the seven million people who die each year... NNadir Mar 2022 #22

Good! Elessar Zappa Mar 2022 #17

sounds like a bumper sticker Blues Heron Mar 2022 #29

Montana did something similar last session. MontanaFarmer Mar 2022 #20

You don't need batteries. Gravity systems are coming along. Pobeka Mar 2022 #40

Better get used to the idea. Triloon Mar 2022 #23

Can be done but... zipplewrath Mar 2022 #25

but we are not handling the spent fuel rods Blues Heron Mar 2022 #31

You're not wrong zipplewrath Mar 2022 #41

The technology is supposedly vastly improved... VarryOn Mar 2022 #30

thats what they said about Chernobyl - now look Blues Heron Mar 2022 #32

I'm going to assume technology has improved since '72 when it was built... VarryOn Mar 2022 #36

It's the same uranium as it's always been, same uranium mines, same processing, same waste. Blues Heron Mar 2022 #38

The same uranium that powers our Navy? Cuthbert Allgood Mar 2022 #104

yes that shit is everywhere isnt it. Blues Heron Mar 2022 #107

How many reactor accidents has the Navy had since they started using them? Cuthbert Allgood Mar 2022 #137

good safety record - keep it up! Blues Heron Mar 2022 #138

The flaws in the Soviet RBMK reactors were known in the 70s. NutmegYankee Mar 2022 #43

Yeah, 60 years ago uponit7771 Mar 2022 #100

none of the nukes are getting any younger - which will be the next to blow? Blues Heron Mar 2022 #103

We could have a meltdown every decade Zeitghost Mar 2022 #130

interesting opinion Blues Heron Mar 2022 #136

They aren't getting younger Zeitghost Mar 2022 #146

the Chernobyl exclusion zone is 1000 square miles Blues Heron Mar 2022 #147

What is the square mileage Zeitghost Mar 2022 #149

check the news bro - they keep cutting power to it Blues Heron Mar 2022 #151

We will soon know who is wrong on that particular issue Zeitghost Mar 2022 #156

Nuclear has risks but continued fossil fuel use is certain suicide. femmedem Mar 2022 #35

Nuclear is the only source BGBD Mar 2022 #37

+1, and now the fuel can be recycled down to safe exposures up close uponit7771 Mar 2022 #101

Well...three significant accidents jmowreader Mar 2022 #120

Hard to say that TMI BGBD Mar 2022 #123

Aggressive renewable energy schemes in places like California, Denmark, and Germany have failed... hunter Mar 2022 #42

I hope it happens more Meowmee Mar 2022 #45

Good, we should have done this years ago obamanut2012 Mar 2022 #55

I think nuclear may be the lesser of two evils, at least until ... dawg Mar 2022 #72

I doubt renewable ever BGBD Mar 2022 #78

I think renewables will eventually get us there, but not soon. dawg Mar 2022 #81

At least it would diminish Manchin's hold on the Democratic party. I'm for it. Samrob Mar 2022 #93

Yes please! GoneOffShore Mar 2022 #84

See coal deaths per year!!!! USALiberal Mar 2022 #110

Anti-nuclear is just being pro-climate change Sympthsical Mar 2022 #111

Nuclear plants are needed to be green dsp3000 Mar 2022 #113

Not really comfortable with nukes and "out of the box" in the same paragraph... lagomorph777 Mar 2022 #116

Shit, are they going to bring back asbestos and lead paint while they're at it? Initech Mar 2022 #133

I am for nukes Chuuku Davis Mar 2022 #139

Modern fission nuclear power is a smart alternative energy choice dwayneb Mar 2022 #140

Just stop it. Economic de-growth is the only sane path to sustainable human life on earth. Ron Green Mar 2022 #144

"Economic de-growth" So live in yurts off the land somehow? EX500rider Mar 2022 #148

I'm doing the best I can (or the least I can), and so are a lot Ron Green Mar 2022 #158

Way Past Time to Do This TuskMoar Mar 2022 #157

To have this debate about nuclear is as silly to me as debating vaccinations rictofen Mar 2022 #159

Renewables do not have enough EROEI to be the sole energy sources atm. Nuclear is a must. Celerity Mar 2022 #167