Support NeoGAF

[Trokil]

you really need to read more about energy policy. Electricity is a commodity. Prices are not that inflated by the ominous "corporation" except in instances where some politifcal group has succeeded in granting them a state monopoly. The worst part is you are talking about cost and listing off a slew of power options that are currently more expensive. The best long run options society has to look forward to are technological advances in photovoltaic solar and fusion power. We have to plan the interim carefully.

You should read that yourself. I like how you compare reality with corporate propaganda. The cost of nuclear energy never ever includes the cost for the waste or the deconstruction of the plants. Usually it takes about 40 years to dismantle a nuclear plant and the corporations should pay for that. But they don't have the money to do that and usually the tax payer has to pay, which of course is for free. Tax payers have limitless money as we all know.

So of course solar is more "expensive", because as long as I can cheat with my numbers everything is possible.

 

[Tal Shiar Agent]

Nuclear energy as it seems was just a ponzi scheme. While the current generation is getting the profits our children and their children will either have to find a way to deal with the waste or in the case of Fukushima, Chernobyl or all the other nuclear disasters with the waste and the radiation in the enviroment.

It would be interesting to make a study, if over the long run, nuclear energy may even cost more, just because of the waste and the very difficult deconstruction of the plants, than what the economy has gained from the “cheap” energy

Or, you know, don't build nuclear plants in seismically active zones.

Chernobyl happened and Fukushima happened because of one thing only, human negligence. Chernobyl was a cheap-ass design and had severely lacking safety rules and Fukushima was because TEPCO cheapened out and didn't built strong or high enough sea walls and the plant was old and built in a geologically unstable area.


Modern nuclear plants, when build in safe areas, are magnitudes safer than the two aforementioned plants. Old plants should be decommissioned and new ones built. Nuclear power should work alongside solar, wind, and wave. Abandoning nuclear because of ignorance is a terrible idea.

 

[Frankfurter]

Because renewable sources are terrible at the moment for reliable base power and are not all that renewable when you look into the rare earth minerals needed to produce them.

Major German energy companies warned the government that the grid would collapse if the German government shut down ~half the nuclear power plants after the Fukushima incident. It did so nevertheless. The grid didn't collapse, nothing happened. Actually, the German grid is one of the most stable in the world, "although" renewables are growing like crazy.
50Hertz, which operates roughly ~one third of the German grid in the Northeast (i.e. the part with the most wind energy in Germany) says that 80% renewables is totally managable without even having more storage (batteries for example) than atm.

There is a nice interview with the CEO of 50Hertz (only in German, though) where the guy goes into a couple of the myths, including yours.

http://www.tagesspiegel.de/wirtscha...t-erneuerbare-sind-kein-problem/13688974.html


Feel free to provide a source on the rare earth minerals part. I've encountered people saying the same thing about lithium batteries

Because the potential of Nuclear power is far greater than all the alternatives combined?

How much larger than "all the energy we need" could we need, though?

The regulations with requiring newly built nuclear reactors and dismantling the old ones should be stricter. They knew that Fukushima plant was fucked.

It's already impossible for any private corporation to build nuclear power plant without massive subsidies as is, though.

 

[DrROBschiz]

That's not true. The cost of closing a nuclear powerplant is so high that energy companies want to run them forever.

Many nuclear energy power plants project die at an early state because it's too expensive. Without direct and indirect subsidies nuclear energy isn't profitable unlike wind energy for example which is at a point a stupid safe investment.

Which is why innovation in this space is so paramount

When you are talking about these costs we are still talking traditional Light Water Reactors

Heavily modified over the years but essentially still running on expensively processed solid fuel uranium

We havent had a new flagship design take hold in the commercial space and you are right... The existing Nuclear industry wont slash and burn their investments

We need a new player with a new method, design and infrastructure. It might even happen at the private level (but lots of startups are working on it) and my happen at a Government level in the several countries around the world actually investing in doing Nuclear differently

 

[Linkstrikesback]

Which areas have been made uninhabitable by the current energy production methods?

Ah yes, if the results aren't immediately noticeable right now, they can't be there.

I wouldn't recommend buying a house near sea level, that's for sure.

 

[Wereroku]

You should read that yourself. I like how you compare reality with corporate propaganda. The cost of nuclear energy never ever includes the cost for the waste or the deconstruction of the plants. Usually it takes about 40 years to dismantle a nuclear plant and the corporations should pay for that. But they don't have the money to do that and usually the tax payer has to pay, which of course is for free. Tax payers have limitless money as we all know.

So of course solar is more "expensive", because as long as I can cheat with my numbers everything is possible.

No solar is just more expensive period. It uses very expensive rare earth elements and the yield for each panel is low so you need massive fields of panels to produce the necessary amounts of power. Also the operating life of most panels is pretty poor so they would have to be rotated often. Solar sounds cool but has a shit load of caveats. For somewhere like Japan fossil fuels, nuclear, or geothermal would really be the only options and geothermal are not anywhere close to providing the needed energy yet.

 

[Lunar15]

I feel it's like if we scrapped airplanes and trains because the first ones were unreliable and suffered horrific crashes.

Definitely not a 1:1 analogy since these incidents can cost way more and have lasting effects, but... I dunno. When it comes down to safety standards rather than the actual production method being fucked, I'm willing to move forward.

 

[EMT0]

Nuclear energy as it seems was just a ponzi scheme. While the current generation is getting the profits our children and their children will either have to find a way to deal with the waste or in the case of Fukushima, Chernobyl or all the other nuclear disasters with the waste and the radiation in the enviroment.

Okay buddy. Sure. Not like we don't have nuclear plants all throughout the country that manage to work just fine because they're not sitting on the Ring of Fire. Fukushima, Chernobyl...a natural disaster and shoddy construction make nuclear energy a failure?

 

[Herb Alpert]

nuclear is short term privileged over long term.
if the pharahos have had nuclear plants, we would still be dealing with their wastes... such a scam...

 

[Vicetrailia]

There are big pitfalls with Nuclear, we all know this. You can be pro nuclear and not try to sell it as something that is perfect.

That said we should put more money into it, and keep diversifying with green tech.

 

[DrROBschiz]

I feel it's like if we scrapped airplanes and trains because the first ones were unreliable and suffered horrific crashes.

Definitely not a 1:1 analogy since these incidents can cost way more and have lasting effects, but... I dunno. When it comes down to safety standards rather than the actual production method being fucked, I'm willing to move forward.

Well in the US they expect industry and start ups to pave the way and make a case for marketing a new reactor design

India and China will likely beat us to the punch when it comes to building a reactor that can beat out the LWR in all aspects

 

[Frankfurter]

No solar is just more expensive period. It uses very expensive rare earth elements and the yield for each panel is low so you need massive fields of panels to produce the necessary amounts of power. Also the operating life of most panels is pretty poor so they would have to be rotated often. Solar sounds cool but has a shit load of caveats. For somewhere like Japan fossil fuels, nuclear, or geothermal would really be the only options and geothermal are not anywhere close to providing the needed energy yet.

Solar has come a long way and it's still getting cheaper at crazy rates. Nuclear is probably already way more expensive.

What exactly are talking about in terms of the operating life and "rotating" the panels? Solar panels operating life is like 25 or 30 years, with ~zero maintenance. And you never rotate panels, why would you?

 

[hydragonwarrior]

Tell them to get their asses on salt reactors instead if they want to continue to use nuclear power. Nuclear power can be safe with that technology.

Hopefully the hazardous waste is stored in a location that isn't near a fault line and won't be disrupted for at least a millenia.

 

[ClosingADoor]

nuclear is short term privileged over long term.
if the pharahos have had nuclear plants, we would still be dealing with their wastes... such a scam...

As compared to coal, oil and gas? Long term impact of those are way, way, way worse. If the pharaos had coal powered stuff, we would already by drowning by rising sea levels.

Nuclear is fine. Just don't built it in areas known for earthquakes and update them, instead of letting old ones run way past their planned lifecycle. New nuclear plants are way better then the ones from the 70s like this one was.

 

[DrROBschiz]

Tell them to get their asses on salt reactors instead if they want to continue to use nuclear power.

Hopefully the hazardous waste is stored in a location that isn't near a fault line and won't be disrupted for at least a millenia.

I would much rather see Nuclear waste used and processed which is totally a feasible option were we to get reactors that can do the job economically

 

[PdotMichael]

Which is why innovation in this space is so paramount

When you are talking about these costs we are still talking traditional Light Water Reactors

Heavily modified over the years but essentially still running on expensively processed solid fuel uranium

We havent had a new flagship design take hold in the commercial space and you are right... The existing Nuclear industry wont slash and burn their investments

We need a new player with a new method, design and infrastructure. It might even happen at the private level (but lots of startups are working on it) and my happen at a Government level in the several countries around the world actually investing in doing Nuclear differently

China is the only nation with a relevant nuclear building program and even China is investing and pushing renewable energy more.

After decades of nuclear energy there are stillnthe same limits and questions in the air.

 

[SporeCrawler]

A land on top of the pacific fire ring, well that is hard I guess. Also there is no wind or sun as well, so I guess it has to be nuclear energy.



If there was only an alternative. But it seems there is only coal or nuclear.

Wind and solar

 

[DrROBschiz]

China is the only nation with a relevant nuclear building program and even China is investing and pushing renewable energy more.

I dont blame them for diversifying

Its what everyone is doing

I bet I know which source will come out ahead if the right breakthroughs and designs come to fruition

 

[Wereroku]

Major German energy companies warned the government that the grid would collapse if the German government shut down ~half the nuclear power plants after the Fukushima incident. It did so nevertheless. The grid didn't collapse, nothing happened. Actually, the German grid is one of the most stable in the world, "although" renewables are growing like crazy.
50Hertz, which operates roughly ~one third of the German grid in the Northeast (i.e. the part with the most wind energy in Germany) says that 80% renewables is totally managable without even having more storage (batteries for example) than atm.

There is a nice interview with the CEO of 50Hertz (only in German, though) where the guy goes into a couple of the myths, including yours.

http://www.tagesspiegel.de/wirtscha...t-erneuerbare-sind-kein-problem/13688974.html


Feel free to provide a source on the rare earth minerals part. I've encountered people saying the same thing about lithium batteries

How much larger than "all the energy we need" could we need, though?

It's already impossible for any private corporation to build nuclear power plant without massive subsidies as is, though.

Here is a decent list of the materials involved in each. Link

Currently we are very reliant on China for these materials and the mining to get them in large quantities is very damaging to the environment.

I have no way to read the article you posted so I don't know how they are handling things but since Germany is slightly smaller then the state of Montana I am not entirely sure how a solution for them would be usable by the US.

Solar has come a long way and it's still getting cheaper at crazy rates. Nuclear is probably already way more expensive.

What exactly are talking about in terms of the operating life and "rotating" the panels? Solar panels operating life is like 25 or 30 years, with ~zero maintenance. And you never rotate panels, why would you?

Zero maintenance is a ridiculous statement. Solar panels need to be cleaned regularly to ensure there is nothing on the panels. But otherwise I was using out of data information. The efficiency loss per cell used to be much higher. New cells seem to be better and only experience a 20% loss of performance over 20 years.

 

[Earthstrike]

You should read that yourself. I like how you compare reality with corporate propaganda. The cost of nuclear energy never ever includes the cost for the waste or the deconstruction of the plants. Usually it takes about 40 years to dismantle a nuclear plant and the corporations should pay for that. But they don't have the money to do that and usually the tax payer has to pay, which of course is for free. Tax payers have limitless money as we all know.

So of course solar is more "expensive", because as long as I can cheat with my numbers everything is possible.

Corporate propaganda? Jesus christ man get a hold of yourself. There have been plenty of studies commissioned by governments about the various costs of energy sources.

You should also realize that every major energy source that governments have the option to buy have a lobby to back them. There is a wind lobby, a nuclear lobby, a solar lobby, etc. They all make arguments that advance their cause. We can use science to separate the facts from the nonsense. This whole idea that nuclear is some evil corporate scheme whereas wind and solar are angels because they're renewable is some idealistic nonsense. All power sources available have their pros and cons which includes cost, viability of method of production, construction, etc. These can be weighted and balanced against eachother and discussed. People who actually know science can see that the energy density of fissile material is so great that nuclear stands to be a very cost efficient means of energy production. It does, and the data overwhelmingly supports that conclusion.

 

[DrROBschiz]

Corporate propaganda? Jesus christ man get a hold of yourself. There have been plenty of studies commissioned by governments about the various costs of energy sources.

You should also realize that every major energy source that governments have the option to buy have a lobby to back them. There is a wind lobby, a nuclear lobby, a solar lobby, etc. They all make arguments that advance their cause. We can use science to separate the facts from the nonsense. This whole idea that nuclear is some evil corporate scheme whereas wind and solar are angels because they're renewable is some idealistic nonsense. All power sources available have their pros and cons which includes cost, viability of method of production, construction, etc. These can be weighted and balanced against eachother and discussed. People who actually know science can see that the energy density of fissile material is so great that nuclear stands to be a very cost efficient means of energy production. It does, and the data overwhelmingly supports that conclusion.

Thank you

 

[Herb Alpert]

As compared to coal, oil and gas? Long term impact of those are way, way, way worse. If the pharaos had coal powered stuff, we would already by drowning by rising sea levels.

Nuclear is fine. Just don't built it in areas known for earthquakes and update them, instead of letting old ones run way past their planned lifecycle. New nuclear plants are way better then the ones from the 70s like this one was.

in france we have near 80 reactors. they all had a 30 year lifetime when they were build. now some of them approach their 40's and even 50's. nobody here has ever dismantle a reactor. no one know how much it costs. the only trial, brennilis, has gone on for 30 years and the cost is abysmal, lightyears away from the small amount the operator puts aside for each.

nuclear is a gamble. we win, future generations loose.

 

[CraigerGamer]

Ah yes. A disaster caused by the 4th strongest earthquake ever (that's no biggie, right?) Means everything Nuclear is shit.

I'm not sure that is what the OP is saying. Look, accidents will happen. These are systems built by humans in a world full of instability Its just that the dangers are magnified when dealing with nuclear energy. The question is, are the costs and destruction caused by these accidents worth it over time? That's what I gleaned from the OP, anyway.

 

[DrROBschiz]

We clearly backed the wrong horse with LWR and solid fuels

Governments wanted the bombs at the time

I am immensely sad that Nuclear energy is no where close to where it needs to be from an investment and technological standpoint

 

[8byte]

If only we had natural occurrences that we could use to harness their energy and generate electricity. If only.

 

[PdotMichael]

If only we had natural occurrences that we could use to harness their energy and generate electricity. If only.

We have just coal, sorry.

But why don't you save the world and buys some shares of nuclear energy operators?

 

[Pomerlaw]

Has it not been proven that the radioactive spill has reached the US cost?
This has been horrific and cost should not be the issue, can't understand why the world's scientists have not gathered to help then fix the fact it is still pumping into the ocean.

Most of this is propaganda, from conspiracy websites.

Yes the radioactive spill has expanded but to ridiculously small amount that far from the site. I remember back then being sent websites about how we were going to all die.

Take Tchernobyl which is a lot worse. Just read a report on a guy who went there, and the biggest amount of radiation he encountered was during his plane flight to get there.

There are risks and they should not be taken lightly. But there is also a lot of paranoia.

 

[Mr. X]

Isn't there a method of harnessing energy from the waste that isn't possible with old technology?

 

[elyetis]

That's not true. The cost of closing a nuclear powerplant is so high that energy companies want to run them forever.

Many nuclear energy power plants project die at an early state because it's too expensive. Without direct and indirect subsidies nuclear energy isn't profitable unlike wind energy for example which is at this point a stupid safe investment.

I didn't say it was the only reason a project wouldn't happen, or that it lead to running for a longer time.

Only that it is more likely to lead to a "No don't build that new reactor near our town !", than leading a company/government to close a 40 year's old reactor.

 

[1.21Gigawatts]

I have no way to read the article you posted so I don't know how they are handling things but since Germany is slightly smaller then the state of Montana I am not entirely sure how a solution for them would be usable by the US.

Actually having space to put up these solar/wind/water powerplants makes things easier in the US.
Also, virtually every place in the US, except for Alaska, has more sun than Germany, so solar would be much more viable in the US than it is in Germany.

There are no problems with renewable energy that can't be solved.
The US just don't want to do it because there are significant fossil fuel lobbys investing billions to keep politicians from even thinking about it. In Germany these people got voted out of office, so we ended up with the plan we have that doesn't include nuclear or fossil going foward, because germans don't like either.

 

[PdotMichael]

USA is the largest oil producer in the world. Germany isn't.

Thr power of lobbyism. RIP world.

 

[Frankfurter]

Here is a decent list of the materials involved in each. Link

Currently we are very reliant on China for these materials and the mining to get them in large quantities is very damaging to the environment.

I have no way to read the article you posted so I don't know how they are handling things but since Germany is slightly smaller then the state of Montana I am not entirely sure how a solution for them would be usable by the US.

I could use a little more data? I mean, there is a list of materials, but it doesn't quite state if anyone of those is significantly limited or what kind of problems there are in terms of mining them?

Germany makes a favorable comparison, precisely because it is small and also densely populated. There is much less physical space to construct all the renewables onto, but it still seems plenty. I.e. it would be much easier to do in Montana (or most other US states) than it is in Germany.

Zero maintenance is a ridiculous statement. Solar panels need to be cleaned regularly to ensure there is nothing on the panels. But otherwise I was using out of data information. The efficiency loss per cell used to be much higher. New cells seem to be better and only experience a 20% loss of performance over 20 years.

I have first hand experience with solar. Both of my systems (one ~9 years old, one ~7) have had zero (0.00€) maintenance costs since they were put on the roof. There is no reason for regular cleaning, unless you are in a very, very dry area and/or you are subject to very rough conditions (very close to seawater or a building that has pigs etc. in it [methane etc.]). But even then, cleaning is very cheap.

Efficiency loss so far is an estimated ~0%. Both systems still occassionally have "best days ever" for the specific month. The experience of friends and relatives (~10 overall) are the same, except for one inverter that malfunctioned and had to be partly replaced (~300€ for a system with 5KW peak power). Most PV corporations actually guarantee that their systems still operate at 80%+ after 20 or 25 years, too.

 

[Frankfurter]

Corporate propaganda? Jesus christ man get a hold of yourself. There have been plenty of studies commissioned by governments about the various costs of energy sources.

You should also realize that every major energy source that governments have the option to buy have a lobby to back them. There is a wind lobby, a nuclear lobby, a solar lobby, etc. They all make arguments that advance their cause. We can use science to separate the facts from the nonsense. This whole idea that nuclear is some evil corporate scheme whereas wind and solar are angels because they're renewable is some idealistic nonsense. All power sources available have their pros and cons which includes cost, viability of method of production, construction, etc. These can be weighted and balanced against eachother and discussed. People who actually know science can see that the energy density of fissile material is so great that nuclear stands to be a very cost efficient means of energy production. It does, and the data overwhelmingly supports that conclusion.

This is a very weird conclusion. Energy density is in no way correlated to costs per kWh.

Edit: Sorry, DP :/

 

[MetatronM]

Which areas have been made uninhabitable by the current energy production methods?

Centralia, Pennsylvania?

 

[Abounder]

USA is the largest oil producer in the world. Germany isn't.

Thr power of lobbyism. RIP world.

Especially since everyone wants the premier EU export, gas-guzzling (and regulation cheating) German automobiles. But the world will be fine, nature's diversity not so much.

Nuclear energy as it seems was just a ponzi scheme. While the current generation is getting the profits our children and their children will either have to find a way to deal with the waste or in the case of Fukushima, Chernobyl or all the other nuclear disasters with the waste and the radiation in the enviroment.

It would be interesting to make a study, if over the long run, nuclear energy may even cost more, just because of the waste and the very difficult deconstruction of the plants, than what the economy has gained from the “cheap” energy

Worth it for the cold war generation since it not only cuts costs but also is a fast track to a nuclear weapons program. I agree nuclear is far from an optimal future. I expect Japan to do something crazy like making their own islands to counter China's, and hopefully fill them with solar panels. But with the Olympics everything will be hushed aside anyway

 

[Earthstrike]

This is a very weird conclusion. Energy density is in no way correlated to costs per kWh.

Edit: Sorry, DP :/

Theer is a correlation. It's not a strong one but it is present. Energy density is a specific scientific measurement that we use for a reason, it tells us about the potential energy output of different sources. e.g. butane vs propane vs a specific isotope of uranium, etc.

When people look to develop new technologies, one of the means is to look at what is potential by examining quantities such as these. The energy ouput of any device that utilizes an energy source is of course going to be related to the volume of material put in multiplied by the energy density. More energy dense materials can be taken advantage of due to scales of economy. It's part of the reason energy dense oil became the world's major energy resource in the first place.

 

[DaRealMVP]

Holy shit there's a lot of misinformation being thrown around in this thread. I would quote but I'd probably have to quote a third of the posts.

Guys, energy is very important, please don't spread misinformation to the general public on a forum unless you really know what you're talking about. Everyone uses energy but very few understand how the transmission infrastructure and energy markets are setup in the US.

These misunderstandings just propagate and spread, and energy is so important to our daily lives that it's very harmful.

 

[Frankfurter]

Theer is a correlation. It's not a strong one but it is present. Energy density is a specific scientific measurement that we use for a reason, it tells us about the potential energy output of different sources. e.g. butane vs propane vs a specific isotope of uranium, etc.

When people look to develop new technologies, one of the means is to look at what is potential by examining quantities such as these. The energy ouput of any device that utilizes an energy source is of course going to be related to the volume of material put in multiplied by the energy density. More energy dense materials can be taken advantage of due to scales of economy. It's part of the reason energy dense oil became the world's major energy resource in the first place.

I don't see the correlation and your post isn't proving it at all.

 

[yanipheonu]

Nuclear energy as it seems was just a ponzi scheme. While the current generation is getting the profits our children and their children will either have to find a way to deal with the waste or in the case of Fukushima, Chernobyl or all the other nuclear disasters with the waste and the radiation in the enviroment.

I mean, I'm not going to pretend nuclear is perfect, but no energy solution is.

Certainly isn't a ponzi scheme (???)

 

[Buzzman]

Chernobyl was an unprecedented nuclear disaster that resulted in almost an additional million people dying from cancer over two decades.

Air pollution directly causes over five million deaths every year.

Ignoring you know, the whole global warming aspect that will result in the destruction of some of the most important ecosystems on Earth.

 

[DrROBschiz]

As much as I support Nuclear and the science behind it I acknowledge that the general opinion of the public wont change until GEN 4 reactors have something to show for themselves

The current trajectory for that I could find pegs them no sooner than 2020 and beyond. So not super far away but at this point it will be better to show how far the tech can be pushed and whether or not a new infrastructure makes economic sense to build and deploy

Wind I find the weakest of other alternatives outside of where it makes the most sense. Solar continues to evolve and should always be considered where the math makes sense. Not sure if im on board with Massive Solar and Wind plants at this point but we will see

There are certain areas of the world where it makes sense to build and maintain them.

Chernobyl was an unprecedented nuclear disaster that resulted in almost an additional million people dying from cancer over two decades.

Air pollution directly causes over five million deaths every year.

Ignoring you know, the whole global warming aspect that will result in the destruction of some of the most important ecosystems on Earth.

yeah this is just categorically false man

There seems to be abundant ignorance of what radiation is, why types are created and dispersed in nuclear accidents and how they compare to natural sources.

http://www.slate.com/articles/healt..._cases_are_caused_by_low_level_radiation.html

 

[Earthstrike]

Solar has come a long way and it's still getting cheaper at crazy rates. Nuclear is probably already way more expensive.

What exactly are talking about in terms of the operating life and "rotating" the panels? Solar panels operating life is like 25 or 30 years, with ~zero maintenance. And you never rotate panels, why would you?

I don't see the correlation and your post isn't proving it at all.

You don't see the correlation between energy density and the energy output of a device that uses said material? It's not exactly a difficult one to perceive. Given your other posts in this thread though I can't say I'm surprised. Claims about cost and efficiency should be grounded in science and actual research.

 

[forknknife]

Nuclear energy is good in theory if you completely disregard human incompetence and malevolence.

 

[Frankfurter]

You don't see the correlation between energy density and the energy output of a device that uses said material? It's not exactly a difficult one to perceive. Given your other posts in this thread though I can't say I'm surprised. Claims about cost and efficiency should be grounded in science and actual research.

Uh what? Now you are talking about something completely different. Your original post was about energy density and costs, now you are suddenly at energy density and energy output. What is it?

 

[DrROBschiz]

Nuclear energy is good in theory if you completely disregard human incompetence and malevolence.

Thats why you push design forward to eliminate the human factor

Its the same trend for any commercialized area of science and should have no different for the development of Nuclear though...

I have to admit when it comes to what the science demands out of those who study in it I suppose its not overly surprising

Nuclear physics is the highest of high end prospects... maybe a higher mountain to climb than we give it credit for

 

[Jebusman]

OP we could've had a nice conversation about the pros and cons of nuclear power but instead you had to fuck it up with talks of ponzi schemes and conspiracies.

Like take a step back, think about what you actually wrote, and then re-enter the conversation with maybe even the slightest bit of willingness to hear out why nuclear power isn't the devil. It's not perfect, but to blame the failures of Chernobyl and Fukishima on the technology itself, rather than the incompetency of the people meant to run it, you're doing it a disservice.

 

[Buzzman]

yeah this is just categorically false man

There seems to be abundant ignorance of what radiation is, why types are created and dispersed in nuclear accidents and how they compare to natural sources.

I just tried to find whatever the highest estimate was, it still is just a fraction of other pollutants.
http://www.nyas.org/publications/annals/Detail.aspx?cid=f3f3bd16-51ba-4d7b-a086-753f44b3bfc1

 

[DrROBschiz]

Im all for the continued push of Solar and to a lesser extent wind (and whatever other potentially viable options are being pursued)

But completely shelving the science underlying our discoveries in Nuclear physics? Extremely irresponsible IMHO

 

[Earthstrike]

Uh what? Now you are talking about something completely different. Your original post was about energy density and costs, now you are suddenly at energy density and energy output. What is it?

Wow, ok.

Cost of electricity = One time costs + annual costs
One time costs = construction, negotiation, bidding process, etc
annual costs = plant maintenance, fuel costs, etc

Electrical output of a plant = (energy density of the fuel) x (amount of fuel used) x (extraction efficiency)

Since fuel costs are a cost, and since you need less of a higher energy density material to achieve a specific electrical output, energy density is related to the cost of electricity.

It's literally the whole reason we value resources like oil and coal in the first place. This is obscenely common sense.

 

[Nategc20]

I personally wouldn't mind to contribute to a crowdfunding campaign for the cleanup and maintenane. If a million people around the world donate 10 dollars, it's 10 million dollars.

I feel like cleanups like this shouldn't be held back financially as it's of utmost importance to do it at the best quality possible.

This.

Just dont make sense we should worry about the price tag on something that has to be done.