Nuclear Energy

[Ransil]

It is now clen energy.

 

[Sceep]

Good.

 

[JNHEscher]

Imagine that.

 

[Hydromaster]

It’s clean because Bill Gates is invested in it

 

[Sandy Johnson]

Great. Let them run with that football.

 

[grumpy356]

It’s clean because Bill Gates is invested in it

You're right, but I don't care as to the why. I'm just happy if ANYONE can get it the respect and implementation it deserves.

I would even support FJB if he was pushing it.

 

[78bronco460]

Let’s export some clean energy to Iran.

 

[RusM]

It is now clen energy.

It's certainly been trening lately, I know it's not super realistic that we'll have sufficient nuke plants to power the electric revolution, but I'll anavar give up on the dream!

 

[D_JEEPER]

If we arent going to do oil, we absofuckinglutely need to go nuclear. The benefits of nuclear far outweigh the cons. However, this does not mean we need to sideline the oil industry either.

 

[Wades_76_cj7]

I think I brought this up in another thread months ago. Is nuke power a net positive by the time you spend all the energy to mine then refine the ore? Not trolling here I am curious.

 

[Hydromaster]

Sure is easier to clean up the environment /emissions, from coal or a natural gas power plant then it is to clean up after a nuclear power plant.

Not that I’m necessarily against nuclear power its the hypocrisy of now it’s green.

 

[jeeptj19992001]

Until the next 3 mile island or cynoble.

 

[Hydromaster]

It’s not the 50’s
Technology has made advancements.

The coal fired power plant in coal strip mt is only operating at 1/2 capacity at Best, and has been listed for decommissioning for almost a decade. There are other coal plants in this position, that could be producing more energy.
And why don’t we burn the gas that the oil fields produce in gas fired power plants?


Save the greenhouse gas argument.
When these large volcanoes around the world erupt, they spew out as much or more emissions than the industrial revolution did.

 

[AKnate]

They have a site for spent fuel disposal? Maine Yankee has been waiting since the 90s for thst.

 

[Talon2006]

I think I brought this up in another thread months ago. Is nuke power a net positive by the time you spend all the energy to mine then refine the ore? Not trolling here I am curious.

This is a really good question....

 

[gt1guy]

I think I brought this up in another thread months ago. Is nuke power a net positive by the time you spend all the energy to mine then refine the ore? Not trolling here I am curious.

There is nuke reactor technology today that can use our old spent reactor fuel.

It was really nice of Hillary Clinton to sell our uranium mines to the ruskies.

 

[east_beast]

This is way past due. Given current technology it's the only reasonable avenue of approach to our rapidly growing power needs.

 

[Hydromaster]

How many years does it take to bring a nuclear power plant online and the infrastructure to connect it to the grid?

In the meantime, we already have the means to increase our power generation, and it’s already connected to the grid

 

[maveric]

There is nuke reactor technology today that can use our old spent reactor fuel.

It was really nice of Hillary Clinton to sell our uranium mines to the ruskies.

I have seen at least 2 articles (not in front of me) stating they are planning to reopen 2 uranium mines in Wyoming.

Also rumor that one of our local coal plants may get transitioned to nuclear at some point, but probably just speculation.

 

[Motorcharge]

Until the next 3 mile island or cynoble.

Both of those incidents were blown way out of proportion. Nuclear is the only viable option we have for long term power needs for a modern industrialized world and it's far, far safer than we've been lead to believe over the last several decades.

Modern reactors are all engineered with previous problems in mind and are leaps and bounds safer than either of the mentioned incidents.

One of the other anti-nuclear talking points people love to bring up is nuclear waste and storing it. They'll often point to the fact that we only have one location we store it while ignoring that's because there's so little waste byproduct from nuke plants that we haven't needed another location to store it. We only passed 50% capacity at Yucca Mountain in like the mid 00s. There's also other uses for spent rods that we don't really capitalize on, the small amount of waste leftover from nuke plants could be reduced beyond what it is now.

 

[JD Mark]

They have a site for spent fuel disposal? Maine Yankee has been waiting since the 90s for thst.

Iran?

 

[JD Mark]

Why now all of a sudden?

It always has been the cleanest source of power.

 

[grumpy356]

repost, because ,,,fuck you... that's why

When aliens see us putting up windmills again after we have harnessed fission:

THIS IS THE MOST GHETTO SHIT I’VE EVER SEEN IN MY LIFE!!!

 

[Motorcharge]

Why now all of a sudden?

It always has been the cleanest source of power.

Because the hysteria and propaganda have worn off as have fears from the cold war and associating nuclear power with nuclear war. They've also milked the solar and wind about as much as they can and people are realizing it was bullshit. Then you have things like the Nordstream making people realize how vulnerable traditional power sources are. AI has also greatly increased the need for power and traditional plants can't keep up. Same thing with electric cars.

Germany is a prime example of what happens when you abandon nuclear. They can't meet their power needs and the costs have been astronomical.

 

[subybaja]

I think I brought this up in another thread months ago. Is nuke power a net positive by the time you spend all the energy to mine then refine the ore? Not trolling here I am curious.

Yes, by far. Nuke fuel is something like 10,000x more energy dense than coal/oil.

Until the next 3 mile island or cynoble.

3 Mile had zero injuries.
Are you also going to judge automotive safety by what the Russians designed in the 1960s?
Side note: don't build reactors on fault lines on islands.

 

[grumpy356]

Why now all of a sudden?

It always has been the cleanest source of power.

with ZERO research and nothing to go on, I would say money. A Uranium-One / Clinton Foundation kind of aspect, where some politician is getting paid.

 

[JD Mark]

with ZERO research and nothing to go on, I would say money. A Uranium-One / Clinton Foundation kind of aspect, where some politician is getting paid.

More what I was thinking.

It's been demonized for years and now all of a sudden a resurgence.

I just don't trust anything to be pure anymore.

 

[jeeptj19992001]

Yes, by far. Nuke fuel is something like 10,000x more energy dense than coal/oil.


3 Mile had zero injuries.
Are you also going to judge automotive safety by what the Russians designed in the 1960s?
Side note: don't build reactors on fault lines on islands.

I am 100% nuke.
All I am saying is they want nuke again....butcher media will freak out and want to shut it down again if just the littlest thing happens.

 

[grandeyota]

And why don’t we burn the gas that the oil fields produce in gas fired power plants?

Transportation. I think there was a company that had a go at hauling it with trucks. Dunno how that worked out though.

 

[Wades_76_cj7]

Yes, by far. Nuke fuel is something like 10,000x more energy dense than coal/oil.

i understand that nuke power is very energy dense. but at one time in the '40s 25% of all electricity generated in the US was used at Oak Ridge TN. Now I am sure that technology has come a long way in the last 85 years. That is my question for the net positive/negative question on nuke power..

It takes an incredible amount of electricity to refine the uranium ore to get them to fuel rod state. Think of that fuel rod as a "battery" that you are charging to release later. Or do you put in XX electricity to refine it and after it's done you get back XXX energy?

I genuinely dont know.