Support NeoGAF

[GoldenEye98]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michae...ld-already-have-100-clean-power/#1d9bee9fe0d4

Had California and Germany invested $680 billion into new nuclear power plants instead of renewables like solar and wind farms, the two would already be generating 100% or more of their electricity from clean (low-emissions) energy sources, according to a new analysis by Environmental Progress.

The analysis comes the day before California plays host to a “Global Climate Action Summit,” which makes no mention of nuclear, despite it being the largest source of clean energy in the U.S. and Europe.

Here are the two main findings from EP's analysis:

• Had Germany spent $580 billion on nuclear instead of renewables, it would have had enough energy to both replace all fossil fuels and biomass in its electricity sector and replace all of the petroleum it uses for cars and light trucks.
  
  
  
• Had California spent an estimated $100 billion on nuclear instead of on wind and solar, it would have had enough energy to replace all fossil fuels in its in-state electricity mix.

 

[wipeout364]

Have they solved the nuclear waste problem yet?

 

[Ke0]

nuclear is powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many years ago, the power and that was 35 years ago; he would explain the power of what’s going to happen and he was right, who would have thought?

 

[Vicetrailia]

Haven't you seen the show The 100?

But seriously now, Nuclear is too expensive to build.

 

[Dontero]

Have they solved the nuclear waste problem yet?

Way less of a problem that creating sollar panels from rare metals which require a lot of fumes released into air and are super expensive and inneficient AND there is still no battery technology capable of storing huge amount of energy for use in for example city.

If climate change is priority most of nations should go nuclear as fast as possible.

But seriously now, Nuclear is too expensive to build.

Not when you account power generated and total costs like how much stuff normal power plan releases into atmosphere, how many people die out of those fumes etc.

 

[Do Make Say Think]

The only way for the future if people like how things are now is with nuclear.

I can't believe we have people who categorically say no to it because it isn't 100% clean.

 

[Do Make Say Think]

Way less of a problem that creating sollar panels from rare metals which require a lot of fumes released into air and are super expensive and inneficient AND there is still no battery technology capable of storing huge amount of energy for use in for example city.

If climate change is priority most of nations should go nuclear as fast as possible.

Solar is fine but we keep using more and more power.

Hipsters love to claim being eco friendly but they don't understand where the power they use to be hip comes from.

 

[Dontero]

Solar is fine

No it is not.

1. Most of the solar power is generated at the middle of the day.
2. Most of the power is used at the end of the day.
3. There is no effective storage for power generated
4. Infrastructure HATES uneven power distribution
5. Normal power plants are not devices you can switch on and off at whim which means most of them they can't be switched off when solar delivers power and if you actually would do that they would suffer from compression/expansion damage over time due to varied temperature over day.

Solar is only "fine" when you have closed loop OUT OF GRID.

 

[Do Make Say Think]

Like I said, it's fine.

On it's own it isn't enough but it's still a good idea that has merit.

 

[oagboghi2]

I can't speak for germany, but environmental activists in california and our state goverment is more driven by ideology than anything else. They don't care abut nuclear anything, and I doubt they ever will.

 

[Dontero]

Either way once we get fussion going, sky will be the limit.

 

[Razorback]

The word nuclear has a lot of baggage and conjures horrific images in people's minds, it's hard to take the scare factor out of it, even if the dangers are overstated.

When dams fail they can also kill hundreds of thousands of people.

 

[Vicetrailia]

Not when you account power generated and total costs like how much stuff normal power plan releases into atmosphere, how many people die out of those fumes etc.

That just means that the footprint is nice, but the capital and financial costs due to the insane attention to safety keeps it in its place.

 

[JonesTheTerrible]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor

The current generation of reactor being researched is attempting to use a closed loop for fuel, to alleviate waste problems, and provide shitloads of clean energy. Win/Win.

 

[bucyou]

Like I said, it's fine.

On it's own it isn't enough but it's still a good idea that has merit.

You have an odd definition of "fine"

 

[wipeout364]

Way less of a problem that creating sollar panels from rare metals which require a lot of fumes released into air and are super expensive and inneficient AND there is still no battery technology capable of storing huge amount of energy for use in for example city.

If climate change is priority most of nations should go nuclear as fast as possible.



Not when you account power generated and total costs like how much stuff normal power plan releases into atmosphere, how many people die out of those fumes etc.

No one can truly calculate the cost of Nuclear when there is no real waste disposal plan; how do you do cost analysis for waste that will likely be here after humans die out. I have worked in the nuclear industry and I do believe it’s day to day operations are safe but I never got a very clear answer as to what will be done with all the waste other than bury it in a mountain.

I am not a fan of solar or wind as they don’t work well as they are unreliable, but they really work really poorly with a Nuclear backbone as you can’t spin up a nuclear plant on a dime.
. natural gas or oil plants are the most compatible with solar and wind.

 

[davepoobond]

Nuclear waste would be much less of a problem than more carbon in the air, but I guess it’s fine if the entire planet is fucked either way

 

[Torrent of Pork]

NIMBY's and environmentalists have done their level best to ensure we will remain on fossils fuels for decades to come.

Perhaps when we finally achieve commercially viable fusion energy we can put a few plastic dummy solar panels in a field somewhere next to the building, so they don't fuck that up as well.

 

[womfalcs3]

Nuclear is far too expensive to make sense in most places. Maybe it was cost-effective 10+ years ago, but solar and wind have come down in cost to a point where utilities would make the investment in them over nuclear naturally; ie without government intervention. And the fact solar and wind without batteries require ramping of thermal plants, the thermal plants have to be flexible, and nuclear is not. Nuclear generation share is projected to stagnate until 2040, maybe even drop.

Not to mention that nuclear plants require 10 years of construction lead time, whereas combined-cycle gas plants and renewables require 1-3 years max.

Renewables + batteries... in the coming decade.

 

[Dontspeakforme]

Whatever they invest on, it's not going to stop innovation from competing sources. You can innovate and make more efficient any technology, we can make better nuclear power plants, we can make better wind farms, there's no limit to improving. It's not like you switch to wind and everybody stops researching nuclear or vice versa.

 

[pr0cs]

Nuclear and California seems like a terrible idea

Have they started moving back to the Fukushima area yet?

 

[way more]

Nuclear and California seems like a terrible idea

Have they started moving back to the Fukushima area yet?

That's actually a good point. And solar or wind would require massive battery storage devices that would be at risk to tsunamis, earthquakes, and hurricanes. Maybe the states with environmental risk factors should be the ones allowed oil and coal while the rest switch to solar and wind.

 

[oagboghi2]

That's actually a good point. And solar or wind would require massive battery storage devices that would be at risk to tsunamis, earthquakes, and hurricanes. Maybe the states with environmental risk factors should be the ones allowed oil and coal while the rest switch to solar and wind.

You do know most of the state isnt on a fault line?

 

[MisterFalcon]

Nuclear and California seems like a terrible idea

Have they started moving back to the Fukushima area yet?

They did, in late 2012.

 

[Maedre]

Have they solved the nuclear waste problem yet?

Of course not. And I can’t hear this anymore. With the costs of over 15 billion per Plant without fuel costs and subsidies the 480 billion are not enough. We call this in Germany a milk man calculation.

Current calculation show that our net would work with 80% solar and wind without extra battery storage. And solar and wins are free. There is no radiation. The production of solar panels and wind turbines are getting cleaner and cleaner every year. the whole production cost of energy without subsidies are even lower with wind and solar than any other method at this point.

And those 480 billion € created hundreds of thousands of jobs that are generating taxes. You won’t get that with nuclear. Just look at France. The are practically 100% nuclear and need! Regularly! Power from Germany to stabilize their nets.

I’ve worked some years with a German power grid operator. So please give me counterarguments.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor

The current generation of reactor being researched is attempting to use a closed loop for fuel, to alleviate waste problems, and provide shitloads of clean energy. Win/Win.

Nice concepts, but look at all those many and nice Gen III reactors out there in the wild. Oh wait! Gen IV is at this point not more realistic than a net positive fusion reactor.
The projected timeline talks about 2030. that’s 12 years from now (there won’t be a working Gen IV reactor in 2030) where do you think the renewable will be st that point?

 

[wipeout364]

Of course not. And I can’t hear this anymore. With the costs of over 15 billion per Plant without fuel costs and subsidies the 480 billion are not enough. We call this in Germany a milk man calculation.

Current calculation show that our net would work with 80% solar and wind without extra battery storage. And solar and wins are free. There is no radiation. The production of solar panels and wind turbines are getting cleaner and cleaner every year. the whole production cost of energy without subsidies are even lower with wind and solar than any other method at this point.

I thought Germany has had to open several gas and coal plants to stabilize their renewable grid. Wasn’t that part of their Russian deal that Trump was criticizing. I’ve also heard that consumer power costs have skyrocketed causing significant outcry, is this true?

 

[Dontero]

Have they solved the nuclear waste problem yet?

What people don't understand is just how much waste is produced.
1000MW nuclear powerplant produces around 27tons yearly in waste. AND NOTHING ELSE. Aside from water vapor no gasses into atmosphere.
27 tons is nothing because you are talking about stuff that on average weights a lot more than iron.

There are shitload of old coal mines that go deep enough to never reach water part of soil and you could run shitload of nuclear plants for literally thousands of years and you wouldn't be able to fill even one big old coal mine.

And it is not like we need to run it for next 100 years. In about 30-50 years we will have fusion plants which will be producing almost no waste that needs to be stored.

Second issue with nuclear is reactor failures. Most of modern designs are closed loops. Meaning even if rods will melt and whole thing fails nothing will get into atmosphere.

Finally real outcome of Chernobyl and Fukushima was grossly overestimated. In case of Chernobyl which was way worse disaster than Fukushima around 60 people died. In fukushima literally 0 people died directly, around 400 people estimate have increased risk of cancer (but not that much) and around 1600 people died due to panic that ensued.

Compared that with normal power plants that spew shitload of stuff into air you breathe and outcome is clear. World should at minimum switch off all gas/coal power plants and move to nuclear as fast as they can while at the same time working on fussion plants.

Solar and winds are just wasted money and can't work for proper mass scale use.

 

[Maedre]

I thought Germany has had to open several gas and coal plants to stabilize their renewable grid. Wasn’t that part of their Russian deal that Trump was criticizing. I’ve also heard that consumer power costs have skyrocketed causing significant outcry, is this true?

Germany still has many coal and gas plants in use. And especially our gas plants are currently those who are used when the renewables are fluctuating. You can bring a Gas and Steam Plant from zero to 100 in 20 minutes. And it's normal to use those fast reacting plants to stabilize the grid. That's a normal procedure in every bigger grid.

Germany is fine with its grid.

And we are buying 36% of our needed gas from Russia for those plants. But that's nothing new. Trump just tried to criticize something he thinks is wrong. and cuddles in the next moment with Putin.

Our Power costs didn't just skyrocket. We pay more for Energy then the USA that's right. Most of that is taxes and have nothing to do with the production costs of Energy. Our Energy footprint is not in the same hemisphere than the US. So that's not a problem. I pay around 60€ for power in my 100 m² flat. We use around 2,500 kWh/year. That's for two persons and many many electronics on standby.

Maybe interesting for some people here. This graph shows the development of solar cells in the last years.

What people don't understand is just how much waste is produced.
1000MW nuclear powerplant produces around 27tons yearly in waste. AND NOTHING ELSE. Aside from water vapor no gasses into atmosphere.
27 tons is nothing because you are talking about stuff that on average weights a lot more than iron.

There are shitload of old coal mines that go deep enough to never reach water part of soil and you could run shitload of nuclear plants for literally thousands of years and you wouldn't be able to fill even one big old coal mine.

And it is not like we need to run it for next 100 years. In about 30-50 years we will have fusion plants which will be producing almost no waste that needs to be stored.

Second issue with nuclear is reactor failures. Most of modern designs are closed loops. Meaning even if rods will melt and whole thing fails nothing will get into atmosphere.

Finally real outcome of Chernobyl and Fukushima was grossly overestimated. In case of Chernobyl which was way worse disaster than Fukushima around 60 people died. In fukushima literally 0 people died directly, around 400 people estimate have increased risk of cancer (but not that much) and around 1600 people died due to panic that ensued.

Compared that with normal power plants that spew shitload of stuff into air you breathe and outcome is clear. World should at minimum switch off all gas/coal power plants and move to nuclear as fast as they can while at the same time working on fussion plants.

Solar and winds are just wasted money and can't work for proper mass scale use.

- Ans those 27 Tons are packaged in much more Weight and volume. Let me guess you heard this number once and thought, hey that's not that much, right?

- Good idea just load those radioactive waste in some regular coal mine perfect. But wait why is there still no final Nuclear repository? If it's so easy why is nobody taking our thousand of tons of nuclear waste we still have in our small country?

- Then show us please how many of those modern reactors are out there and how expensive they are to plan to build and maintain without government subsidies.

- Yeah, areas that are radiated for very very long time are grossly overestimated. Let's just ignore those 400 (and that number is from what source please?)

- That's the only point I'm with you. Coal plants are bad. very bad. But "just" switching to Fission until Fusion is here is not possible. Fusion is not there to save us in the next future. ITER is not active and DEMO far far away. Wendelstein 7X is awesome and maybe much more interesting then ITER. But still just a small experiment.

- Solar and wind are not just wasted money and they work fine for proper mass scale use. There are enough showcases to look up. Denmark, Germany, Marocco. You cant just ognore that.

 

[womfalcs3]

What people don't understand is just how much waste is produced.
1000MW nuclear powerplant produces around 27tons yearly in waste. AND NOTHING ELSE. Aside from water vapor no gasses into atmosphere.
27 tons is nothing because you are talking about stuff that on average weights a lot more than iron.

There are shitload of old coal mines that go deep enough to never reach water part of soil and you could run shitload of nuclear plants for literally thousands of years and you wouldn't be able to fill even one big old coal mine.

And it is not like we need to run it for next 100 years. In about 30-50 years we will have fusion plants which will be producing almost no waste that needs to be stored.

Second issue with nuclear is reactor failures. Most of modern designs are closed loops. Meaning even if rods will melt and whole thing fails nothing will get into atmosphere.

Finally real outcome of Chernobyl and Fukushima was grossly overestimated. In case of Chernobyl which was way worse disaster than Fukushima around 60 people died. In fukushima literally 0 people died directly, around 400 people estimate have increased risk of cancer (but not that much) and around 1600 people died due to panic that ensued.

Compared that with normal power plants that spew shitload of stuff into air you breathe and outcome is clear. World should at minimum switch off all gas/coal power plants and move to nuclear as fast as they can while at the same time working on fussion plants.

Solar and winds are just wasted money and can't work for proper mass scale use.

Nuclear fusion is always 30-50 years away. I was hearing this time range since I was a kid.

 

[Dontero]

Nuclear fusion is always 30-50 years away. I was hearing this time range since I was a kid.

And ? Even in 100 years it will still revolutionize completely our energy dependency.

Also those "fusion is always 30-50 years away" is just bullshit argument posted by laymen. Even 30 years ago you could build fussion generator but at that time you would have less energy produced that it consumes. The whole point is to make more energy than it consumes and you need to produce more energy to be competetive with what is currently available on market, meaning it won't be popularized unless it will be better in every way than modern power plants. Which is the reason why it takes so slow. People just come up with improvements to design before they will want to build actual thing because buiding something that will be outdated quickly don't make sense.

ITER which is currently multinational fusion reactor of really big size as proof of concept is sheduled to be finished by 2025. By 2025 (provided it won't be delayed) you will have first fusion generator that produces more energy than it consumes.

And even ITER right now is old design and many people question if money should be even spend on it but motion is that aside from fusion itself scientists end engineers need to test other stuff than just fusion part itself to learn and make stuff for further fussion reactors that will be later popularized.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

The strong resistance to nuclear in the USA always rung hollow to me and made me suspicious of the "clean energy" movement (mind you, I'm not suspicious of the climate change, just the people who've attached themselves to the mission like leeches). Nuclear is one of our best sources of energy and as one of the biggest nations (by landmass) we have plenty of safe places to stash our nuclear plants. As for our spent fuel, we have plenty of safe places to stash that too. There is no real reason to avoid nuclear.

I mean, when we're entertaining the idea of fracking and piping more oil from Alaska and offshore wells, could we possibly destroy as much natural resources by going nuclear? I think we'd have to have four or five meltdowns to equal what we're willing to do for fossil energy now.

Here are some history facts: the world's first nuclear submarine came from the USA. The world's strictest and safest nuclear technology and procedures came from the USA. In the heat of the Cold War (when you'd think we would relax safety for the "sake of war"), the USSR had 13 nuclear reactor accidents on their ships from 1960 to 1989. The USA? Zero. We invented the modern concept of large-scale quality control in order to ensure that our nuclear subs were built properly and that their nuclear equipment was serviced properly. Admiral Rickover is responsible for all that.

The point of this history lesson is that we are well equipped to handle nuclear. What happened to American bravado? What happened to our gung-ho spirit? We should've been the first all-nuclear nation 40 years ago...

 

[mitchman]

Reminds of Dilbert's boss asking Dilbert to design a safe nuclear power plant. "How safe?" he asks and the boss replies "Not near my house". Nuclear is politically a hot potato after so many "safe" power plants have had accidents. Better to invest in something that is not a risk.

Edit: http://dilbert.com/strip/2002-02-18

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

Reminds of Dilbert's boss asking Dilbert to design a safe nuclear power plant. "How safe?" he asks and the boss replies "Not near my house". Nuclear is politically a hot potato after so many "safe" power plants have had accidents. Better to invest in something that is not a risk.

Edit: http://dilbert.com/strip/2002-02-18

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reactor_accidents_in_the_United_States

The number of nuclear accidents are absolutely tiny (with due respect to the victims of those cases) compared to oil rig accidents, coal mine accidents, fracking and natural-gas accidents. The danger of nuclear may seem scary when viewed in a vacuum, but it is objectively safer than our current means of obtaining energy. Significantly safer.

You want a "socialist" idea I can get behind? Surprised California didn't already think of this...

Government builds our nuclear plants, with coordination from the US Navy. The 10-year-plan would be that every US citizen gets free power to their residence. Every business gets free power in relation to the number of full-time employees they employ. Any profit made using the free energy is taxed and pays for the infrastructure and maintenance (more jobs). Citizens "own" the power because it is paid with our tax-dollars. Gov't goes home happy because it has yet another bureaucracy to feed off, and Americans get their free energy.

The only losers here are private businesses who've been too cowardly to push it forward as a viable energy source.

 

[Maedre]

We live in a capitalistic world. If nuclear would be so good the reactors would be everywhere. But they are not. Nuclear is fucking expensive. It's extremely problematic when you lose control and we still have no good place to store the trash for fucking 64,000 years.

The not so sad truth is that renewables are better and you can't argue as much as you want with gold-coated nuclear lobby arguments but it doesn't change the facts.

Once again look at Northern Europe. Even here Solar is cheaper than every other Energy source.

Oh and I live in the fallout zone of a cracked old Nuclear Power Plant. It's so awesome. Thanks, Belgium.
The THTR 300 was in my Town and failed to deliver the promises Thorium Technology. the construction only took 13 years and was extremely expensive.

 

[petran79]

I'd prefer if countries imported nuclear energy from neighbours instead. It would come out cheaper if they lack the infrustructure. Many Eastern Eyropean power plants are old or out of comission

 

[GoldenEye98]

We live in a capitalistic world. If nuclear would be so good the reactors would be everywhere. But they are not. Nuclear is fucking expensive. It's extremely problematic when you lose control and we still have no good place to store the trash for fucking 64,000 years.

The not so sad truth is that renewables are better and you can't argue as much as you want with gold-coated nuclear lobby arguments but it doesn't change the facts.

Once again look at Northern Europe. Even here Solar is cheaper than every other Energy source.

Oh and I live in the fallout zone of a cracked old Nuclear Power Plant. It's so awesome. Thanks, Belgium.

I'd dispute that the energy sector is capitalistic/free market....

Also:

All of the used fuel ever produced by the commercial nuclear industry since the late 1950s would cover a football field to a depth of less than 10 yards. That might seem like a lot, but coal plants generate that same amount of waste every hour.

https://www.nei.org/fundamentals/nuclear-waste

 

[Maedre]

BUT FUEL IS NOT THE ONLY WASTE THAT IS GETTING PRODUCED. Who the fuck teaches you guys stuff?

Also the nuclear energy institute is not the best source. It's like asking Marlboro if smoking is good or bad.

 

[#Phonepunk#]

nuclear power is horrible. it is not safe. we do not undestand the long term consequences. in Japan they are sending in robots to monitor the Fukishima disaster and the robots only last an hour or so. their clean up plan stretches decades and depends on developing future technology that will aid in the clean up. even nuclear experts are guessing that maybe in the future we'll figure it out.

honestly seeing the pro-nuke people come out, now from the environmentalist sides, is some sheer insanity. track down this incredible documentary from the 80s, "Dark Circle" and watch it, it will blow your mind:

http://www.pbs.org/pov/darkcircle/

kind of amazed that no climate scientists have taken into account the US dropping over 1,000 nuclear bombs. those are just the bombs, we have exploded nuclear material from "safe" power plants for experimental purposes as well. how that may have affected the atmosphere? does that material just go away and fly up into space? of course not, that shit is in the atmosphere, and the atmosphere goes everywhere. oh well let's ignore it and focus on people driving their cars too much and sell this as a cure all.

seriously we are doomed.

 

[KonradLaw]

Nuclear doesn';t generate as many jobs though.

 

[bigedole]

So want to start by saying this is an awesome conversation and I genuinely look forward to being educated about some things I've wanted to know more about but currently know little.

That said, my understanding has been that solar and wind are still not remotely as efficient or cheap as coal/gas. One user here spoke of Germany being great in this regard in terms of cost, but a very fast google search suggests they're not considering all of the variables (I'm unfamiliar with this source):

Of course not. And I can’t hear this anymore. With the costs of over 15 billion per Plant without fuel costs and subsidies the 480 billion are not enough. We call this in Germany a milk man calculation.

Current calculation show that our net would work with 80% solar and wind without extra battery storage. And solar and wins are free. There is no radiation. The production of solar panels and wind turbines are getting cleaner and cleaner every year. the whole production cost of energy without subsidies are even lower with wind and solar than any other method at this point.

http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2018-02/14/c_136976154.htm

Germany still seems to have massive subsidies for their renewable energy efforts. I don't have a problem with wind and solar energy specifically other than the fact that the costs related to their inefficiencies are pushed onto tax-payers and hidden away. If they're the best economical choice for whatever situation, then they should stand on their own.

 

[llien]

No thanks:

And ? Even in 100 years it will still revolutionize completely our energy dependency.

Welp, why not both? European ITER nuclear fusion project has been funded with billions of dollars.
US is also participating,

 

[Maedre]

So want to start by saying this is an awesome conversation and I genuinely look forward to being educated about some things I've wanted to know more about but currently know little.

That said, my understanding has been that solar and wind are still not remotely as efficient or cheap as coal/gas. One user here spoke of Germany being great in this regard in terms of cost, but a very fast google search suggests they're not considering all of the variables (I'm unfamiliar with this source):



http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2018-02/14/c_136976154.htm

Germany still seems to have massive subsidies for their renewable energy efforts. I don't have a problem with wind and solar energy specifically other than the fact that the costs related to their inefficiencies are pushed onto tax-payers and hidden away. If they're the best economical choice for whatever situation, then they should stand on their own.

The subsidiaries are slowly going away and were set in a time where they were much more expansive.
The reason the record high of subsidies this year was that high was simply because we are installed much more renewables. What many here forget is that Gas, Coal and Nuclear still getting subsidies too.

So please tell me what variables you mean. So we can talk about them.

the prices per Modul are going down. The Price per Power plant is not.

Wind and Solar have so much more potential.

 

[llien]

Here are some history facts: the world's first nuclear submarine came from the USA. The world's strictest and safest nuclear technology and procedures came from the USA. In the heat of the Cold War (when you'd think we would relax safety for the "sake of war"), the USSR had 13 nuclear reactor accidents on their ships from 1960 to 1989.

The first ever (civil/surface) ship on nuclear power was produced in USSR (icebreaker Lenin back in 1957).
It didn't make Soviet nuclear power plants safer than American, however.

 

[GoldenEye98]

Bringing up nuclear energy is great litmus test to separate the people who are serious about carbon emissions and those who are just environmentalists (who are ultimately not interested in science but environmental purity).

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

nuclear power is horrible. it is not safe. we do not undestand the long term consequences. in Japan they are sending in robots to monitor the Fukishima disaster and the robots only last an hour or so. their clean up plan stretches decades and depends on developing future technology that will aid in the clean up. even nuclear experts are guessing that maybe in the future we'll figure it out.

honestly seeing the pro-nuke people come out, now from the environmentalist sides, is some sheer insanity. track down this incredible documentary from the 80s, "Dark Circle" and watch it, it will blow your mind:

http://www.pbs.org/pov/darkcircle/

kind of amazed that no climate scientists have taken into account the US dropping over 1,000 nuclear bombs. those are just the bombs, we have exploded nuclear material from "safe" power plants for experimental purposes as well. how that may have affected the atmosphere? does that material just go away and fly up into space? of course not, that shit is in the atmosphere, and the atmosphere goes everywhere. oh well let's ignore it and focus on people driving their cars too much and sell this as a cure all.

seriously we are doomed.

I think this is disingenuous. Framing nuclear by its accidents (which are unfortunately common to all modern technologies. How many people were blown up trying to tunnel for trains? How many miners have been killed in collapses? How many have died smelting steel?) is about as silly as posting images of the Kuwait oil fields burning and saying "see how much smoke normal oil-production puts into the air?"

Nuclear is dangerous in many ways. However, we have been developing the technology for 70+ years. It is time for it to be taken seriously again.

The first ever (civil/surface) ship on nuclear power was produced in USSR (icebreaker Lenin back in 1957).
It didn't make Soviet nuclear power plants safer than American, however.

The USS Nautilus preceded the Lenin by 3 years. It was also the first ship to travel beneath the North Pole. It was our response to Sputnik. The USA didn't "join the race". We started the race. The goal was long-range subsurface vehicles that could travel for weeks and deliver ICBMs from anywhere in the world. Russia liked that idea and started outfitting their own sub fleet with nuclear cores (often with disastrous results).

 

[llien]

Russia liked that idea and started outfitting their own sub fleet with nuclear cores (often with disastrous results).

Not to say that US had better nukes, but USSR's nuclear submarine fleet outnumbered US's by factor of two. They were also used to patrol seas in harsher conditions, which naturally would lead to more problems.

The USS Nautilus preceded the Lenin by 3 years. It was also the first ship to travel beneath the North Pole. It was our response to Sputnik. The USA didn't "join the race".

World first nuclear power plant was made in USSR, back in 1954.

 

[Maedre]

I think this is disingenuous. Framing nuclear by its accidents (which are unfortunately common to all modern technologies. How many people were blown up trying to tunnel for trains? How many miners have been killed in collapses? How many have died smelting steel?) is about as silly as posting images of the Kuwait oil fields burning and saying "see how much smoke normal oil-production puts into the air?"

You are right about oil. So fucking many people are dying because of Pollution. Just look at China and that the reason we regulate this stuff and that's the reason VW has to pay billions. But the scope of what can happen with a nuclear power plant is two or three magnitudes more extreme.

One example. When Tiange in Belgium has an accident a region of 20 Million people is affected. The whole Rhein-Ruhr Area in West Germany could get radiated. 20 Million People. Thats not the same as someone killed by smelting steel.

So when some tells me that I have to live with some solar panels and wind turbines or some Nuclear power plants that could end my and the life of my loved ones. I choose the clean renewable version with zero fuel costs.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

Not to say that US had better nukes, but USSR's nuclear submarine fleet outnumbered US's by factor of two. They were also used to patrol seas in harsher conditions, which naturally would lead to more problems.

Yes, they outnumbered us because they were mass-produced without safety in mind. There's a pretty good book on the whole topic called 'Against the Tide' that details the progression of our nuclear arsenal versus the Soviet one. Something it points out is that since our subs were better-built, longer-ranged, and more reliable, it enabled us to go on more missions for longer periods of time. Going on more missions means better-trained crews. Better-trained crews meant safer operations. It had a compound effect.

Our subs all patrolled the same general seas, for the most part. The notion that they "used to patrol seas in harsher conditions" isn't a real thing.

But back on topic: compared to US subs, Russian subs were often taken down for repairs, hanging in drydock for months. Their crews were significantly less trained and less experienced than ours as a result. The build quality of the subs was just not up to par. This is why we still dominated the ocean wargames with a much smaller fleet. Their total sub numbers may have been higher than ours, but because they were often down for repairs and because Russian sub crews were getting sick and killed off by poorly-maintained and poorly-built nuclear technology, they simply had less overall experience than our teams and they didn't always have the full fleet out in operation.

World first nuclear power plant

was made in USSR, back in 1954.

That isn't the first Nuclear-powered ship, which is what you originally posted. Nor did it launch before the Nautilus. USS Nautilus began construction in 1952 and launched January 1954. The "worlds first nuclear power plant" launched in June 1954, half a year later. Check your dates.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

You are right about oil. So fucking many people are dying because of Pollution. Just look at China and that the reason we regulate this stuff and that's the reason VW has to pay billions. But the scope of what can happen with a nuclear power plant is two or three magnitudes more extreme.

One example. When Tiange in Belgium has an accident a region of 20 Million people is affected. The whole Rhein-Ruhr Area in West Germany could get radiated. 20 Million People. Thats not the same as someone killed by smelting steel.

So when some tells me that I have to live with some solar panels and wind turbines or some Nuclear power plants that could end my and the life of my loved ones. I choose the clean renewable version with zero fuel costs.

But those aren't "clean". Solar panels are made out of rare metals that are expensive to mine and highly polluting to the environment. Wind turbines take up huge amounts of steel and use thousands of gallons of fuel to transport and construct. Plus, they all need to be maintained and repaired.

I'm not unaware of the risks of nuclear, but at least in the USA those issues can be easily mitigated: we have more than enough land to put nuclear stations far, far away from populated centers, we have more than enough land and technology to handle our spent fuel, we have the best and safest nuclear technology and some of the best educated minds who could build it.

Solar and Wind just aren't fast enough. Heck, I'd even go for tidal or deep/residential geothermal at this point, seeing how far behind wind and solar are lagging.

 

[Maedre]

fast? Oo what do you want them to do? Why do you exactly think that solar and wind are lagging behind? I have the data of two countries ready to tell you that they are capable. What do you have?

Oh, come on. you want to argue with the fuel of transportation for panels and wind turbines? So Please give me the numbers (and please in real units). And the need to be maintained and repaired? That's something very other installation on this planet lacks, right? Bullshit.

Yes the USA are the best. But still those plants are not planed. Think about what the reason could be. Maybe tell this trump. I bet he would think that this is a good idea. How about 10 new nuclear power plants for the USA. GEneration 4 Of course. They need to be safe right? That would cost you about 20 Billion $ per plant and GWh. Without the disassembly costs and the costs for storing the waste. so think about 30 Billion $. So 300 Billion. It's not like he already pushed the deficit up. What is 300 Billion more?

But Think about what you could build with 300 Billion $ in renewables. Think about it.
And Yes think about all the space your country has for wind turbines and solar panels. It would be so fucking easy to generate plenty of energy without the problems of Nuclear power plants.