Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Just got finished watching it. Man it gets gruesome. Really makes you think twice about nuclear energy. When tragedies happen, it sheds a new light on whether we are going the right direction with things.
I have been debating watching this, might give it a go.
Nuclear is the only zero emission base load energy source.Just got finished watching it. Man it gets gruesome. Really makes you think twice about nuclear energy. When tragedies happen, it sheds a new light on whether we are going the right direction with things.
Nuclear is the only zero emission base load energy source.
Chernobyl happened because of people. Reactor design that needed to be operated a certain way. Graphite tipped control rods, human error, human error, more human errors.... Typical Russian culture mentally..... Then after all that the blindness to the result of the above that it couldn't happen.
Fukushima. That was mother nature reminding the human race how insignificant you really are. We have all now prepared for beyond design basis accidents. New reactor tech is here in progress that allows a hands off walk away shut down with no human interaction.
I watched it last night. At least the first three episodes. They told me they only had disc one at the video store so I'm guessing there are further episodes. Seemed like a good scenario for the deployment of some sort of specialized robot. But of course those would cost way more than hiring some guy for a few dollars and covering things up when an accident happens. In my opinion, nuclear is not a good choice. The consequences are too severe and irreversible. Wind, solar, and hydro are much safer environmentally. The entire desert southwest could be run on solar they are discovering now, half of the country's population. Makes a lot of sense to me and it just tells you how powerful the various fossil fuel industries are when it comes to swaying public opinion.
Solar and wind could be zero emission energy source alternatives along with hydro. Nuclear is a bad bet. Something will eventually happen and it will be irreversible.
Yeah, I understand your motivation but after 3 Mile Island and Chernobyl and the others more recently like Fukushima with the radiation leaking into the ocean and washing up on the shores of California and Washington State, I think I know all I need to know. It's just not safe. There will always be something upending it, earthquake, whatever and causing a massive catastrophe.And still not base load. Wind has a capacity factor of 25%, solar ideal CF in the desert Southwest can reach 40%. Utility scale wind is not self sustainable without government subsidies. Takes on the average 1200 wind turbines to replace our one 1200 MWE nuclear plants that has a 98%CF. Used fuel goes to drycask. See https://holtecinternational.com/company/divisions/nuclear-power-division/dry-storage-projects/
I have personally worked on the dry cask at our plant and know the processes involved. Fuel in stainless can, welded closed, set in another SS can welded closed, set in concrete and steel can.
There are some new reactors in development that have more intrinsically built in safety features.
Excellent mini-series, really well done. I have watched it twice now. I picked up the book.
Personally, I think nuclear energy is the “best option” for mass power.
But...when a solar panel, or wind power, or steam, geothermal, water or what-not go bad, there is a much lower risk of killing tens of thousands of people and contaminating everything in hundreds of miles.
It does give one pause (or, I hope it will).
I recently read an article about how installing windmills on the open ocean may well be the best solution out there for obtaining constant power with the lowest impact and risk possible.
The majority of the nuclear incidents are related to human error/competency issues. Sure you have natural causes; like tornadoes, earthquakes, Tsunamis, hurricanes, etc. But proper reactor design and shutdown procedures should mitigate/prevent those results.
Precisely my point...you think that is going to stop being a risk factor?
In my opinion, at the rate of technology advancing, I think solar power is going to be the end of all the hand-wringing over energy and power and we can finally tell very other nation producing oil to go take a hike.
What about warp drive?
SPOILER ALERT
The first episode left me freaked out, as they actually stuck their faces down over the glowing mass of the radioactivity and were handling the "hot" pieces of graphite materials. That freaky glow over the reactor and people standing on the bridge saying "how pretty" it was while radioactive material was falling like snow....
Geesh.
Hahaha. Fusion energy was touted to be "clean" nuclear energy decades ago, but the process hasn't been developed to produce it yet. There seem to be some people in this thread that actually have experience or knowledge of the nuclear power industry, so again I'll ask, what about fusion energy? Where is the research at on it's viability? Does anyone know?
Yeah, I understand your motivation but after 3 Mile Island and Chernobyl and the others more recently like Fukushima with the radiation leaking into the ocean and washing up on the shores of California and Washington State, I think I know all I need to know. It's just not safe. There will always be something upending it, earthquake, whatever and causing a massive catastrophe.
Nuclear power is also not without subsidies. In fact it has been subsidized by governments for 80 years, at a rate exponentially higher than solar and wind. You always hear people say wind and solar are subsidized and the ignorant public always sits there and says, "Yeah, hey, what about that? Them subsidies cost taxpayers money."
The problem is the solar and wind industries aren't sophisticated enough to retort with, "Yeah, hey, what about that. Them nuclear subsidies are massive and have been going on for decades." Tax breaks. Huge government research. Gag orders. Technological secrets. Those are all activities that cost the tax payer as well. And for what, an unstable energy source that the industry keeps saying is stable to save its ass at the expense of the American tax payer and tax payer freedoms such as freedom of speech and freedom of movement, freedom for a clean and safe environment. Forget it. I've seen enough. If you haven't seen enough already there is probably something wrong with you. Unless of course you work in the industry. And then you are just making a living like everyone else.
But it's obvious there's no use in trying to educate you.
Well, it looks like somebody doesn't like it if someone has a different opinion. Maybe somebody needs a time out! Go sit in the corner.You know so little it's fucking laughable. But it's obvious there's no use in trying to educate you.
Well, it looks like somebody doesn't like it if someone has a different opinion. Maybe somebody needs a time out! Go sit in the corner.
Nuclear power is a non-starter if you ask me.
I don't give a shit about opinions based on ignorance. Much less the opinions of someone with zero understanding of the technology we're discussing.Well, it looks like somebody doesn't like it if someone has a different opinion. Maybe somebody needs a time out! Go sit in the corner.
Finally!Congratulations, you have earned a place on my ignore list.
This guy is some kind of shill, probably meant to quell any real discussion on the matter or other serious ones not related to the subject at hand in an online community like this. He seems to show up in all kinds of forums talking about all kinds of subjects that nobody could truly know about and he seems to be an expert on all of them. Needless to say, the little bugger has himself all worked up about itJust ignore the idiot...he has serious issues.
This guy is some kind of shill,
How much energy is required to produce fusion?
Guessing one of the issues is getting there in a controllable way.
Do you need to fission nuke in order to get there?
I'm going to say that nuclear energy is fine. The way we do it is a bit dumb - the only things we spent money on were the earliest designs and models.
If we had spent some time getting our shop in order, nuclear energy would be 10 generations off of the first designs, not just a few.
I know mostly - I don't do reactor stuff for a living despite the education in it. I believe it can be safe- and frankly we are doing an excellent job at the complexity levels that exist in the systems.
What I mean is that I'm excited about pebble bed and molten salt stuff as well. We could be further than we are if investment hadn't been scared off by the lefties - its not the first time they shot themselves in the foot.