If They Bet On Nuclear, Not Renewables, Germany & California Would Have 100% Clean Po

Havana Moon said:
You're talking bollocks, there is a huge amount of activity in the nuclear world. SMR reactors are poised to become huge in years to come!

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesc...lar-reactors-are-the-wave-of-nuclears-future/
Click to expand...

Fair enough...I had not heard of this yet. It's a neat idea, I'll admit. We'll see where it goes. I like that this is a reactor that cannot meltdown. That has been my main concern with nuclear in the past. My other concern is the radioactive waste produced by nuclear, how does SMR technology combat that problem?
 
TrippyHippy said:
To be fair, this is is supposed to be a reactor that cannot meltdown. If I understand it correctly. I don't think it produces toxic waste like traditional nuclear reactors either. So I don't think it would be "environmental vandalism" in the way we usually consider nuclear to be.
Click to expand...

Well I was going to write you off as just another technological Luddite, but yes you are right. Here is just one of the leading contenders.

https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/...lt-reactors-starting-with-2021-prototype.html
 
TrippyHippy said:
Fair enough...I had not heard of this yet. It's a neat idea, I'll admit. We'll see where it goes. I like that this is a reactor that cannot meltdown. That has been my main concern with nuclear in the past. My other concern is the radioactive waste produced by nuclear, how does SMR technology combat that problem?
Click to expand...

Molten salt reactors do not suffer from the same problems, they produce very little waste indeed they can run on spent fuel from conventional reactors.

http://egeneration.org/solution/wamsr/
 
TrippyHippy said:
To be fair, this is is supposed to be a reactor that cannot meltdown. If I understand it correctly. I don't think it produces toxic waste like traditional nuclear reactors either. So I don't think it would be "environmental vandalism" in the way we usually consider nuclear to be.
Click to expand...

Believe it- if maggot is supporting it it's bad news;

SMRS based on fast neutrons produce a lower amount of radioactive waste per unit of electricity generated. The significance of the lower rate of waste generation, however, is debatable. The problem with siting geological repositories for waste disposal has been local and public resistance.

https://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/201701/reactors.cfm
Click to expand...



smr-type.gif
 
Last edited:
Coal is a problem.
Nuclear isn't a problem.

For twenty years, I lived close enough to a nuclear plant to see it clearly from my deck.
Two or three miles away, maybe, right by the shore.

The town got a new police station, new fire station, new library, new town hall, new community center, new water lines, new sewage system, new public school --all on taxes from the nuclear plant.

And the plant was built 100% with good union jobs.

The electric bills went up a little, but so what?
It was the folks who didn't live in the town that were bitching about that.

We were hoping that it would make the water a little warmer but it didn't.
Oh, I forgot, they paid for repairing beach erosion, too.
 
NiftyNiblick said:
Coal is a problem.
Nuclear isn't a problem.

For twenty years, I lived close enough to a nuclear plant to see it clearly from my deck.
Two or three miles away, maybe, right by the shore.

The town got a new police station, new fire station, new library, new town hall, new community center, new water lines, new sewage system, new public school --all on taxes from the nuclear plant.

And the plant was built 100% with good union jobs.

The electric bills went up a little, but so what?
It was the folks who didn't live in the town that were bitching about that.

We were hoping that it would make the water a little warmer but it didn't.
Oh, I forgot, they paid for repairing beach erosion, too.
Click to expand...

Long term solution?
 
"Coal is a problem.
Nuclear isn't a problem.

For twenty years, I lived close enough to a nuclear plant to see it clearly from my deck.
Two or three miles away, maybe, right by the shore.

The town got a new police station, new fire station, new library, new town hall, new community center, new water lines, new sewage system, new public school --all on taxes from the nuclear plant.

And the plant was built 100% with good union jobs.

The electric bills went up a little, but so what?
It was the folks who didn't live in the town that were bitching about that.

We were hoping that it would make the water a little warmer but it didn't.
Oh, I forgot, they paid for repairing beach erosion, too." NN #86
Click to expand...
So they bought you off. Fine

BUT !!
"Coal is a problem.
Nuclear isn't a problem." NN #86
Click to expand...
False.
They may be different problems. But they're problems.
Coal combustion releases Carbon into the atmosphere that can take a century for the environment to reabsorb.
Nuclear commercial power plants can produce nuclear waste that remains radioactive, dangerous to humans for millennia.
"Coal is a problem.
Nuclear isn't a problem." NN #86
Click to expand...
False.
 
sear said:
So they bought you off. Fine

BUT !!

False.
They may be different problems. But they're problems.
Coal combustion releases Carbon into the atmosphere that can take a century for the environment to reabsorb.
Nuclear commercial power plants can produce nuclear waste that remains radioactive, dangerous to humans for millennia.

False.
Click to expand...

I thought you were clued up, haven't you heard of SMR technology? They produce next to nothing in terms of waste and indeed can use high level nuclear waste as a fuel. They are also meltdown proof and require no operator intervention to shutdown in an emergency.

https://www.seattletimes.com/sponsored/small-modular-reactors-powering-a-clean-energy-future/

https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/...lt-reactors-starting-with-2021-prototype.html
 
Alternate technologies may be available.
But the technology to which you refer does not represent the majority of commercial electricity generating nuclear plants on Earth.

So rather than a hypothetical projection on some alternate universe, my comment addressed reality today.

We can't know where it'll end. Fish caught off the U.S. left coast have been found to be contaminated with radiation from Fukashima.

And the French dumped nuclear waste in steel drums into the abyssal plain for many years. Is that a safe, long term repository? We may not know the answer to that for millennia. OR !! We might find out it's not this afternoon.
 
sear said:
Alternate technologies may be available.
But the technology to which you refer does not represent the majority of commercial electricity generating nuclear plants on Earth.

So rather than a hypothetical projection on some alternate universe, my comment addressed reality today.

We can't know where it'll end. Fish caught off the U.S. left coast have been found to be contaminated with radiation from Fukashima.

And the French dumped nuclear waste in steel drums into the abyssal plain for many years. Is that a safe, long term repository? We may not know the answer to that for millennia. OR !! We might find out it's not this afternoon.
Click to expand...

You said that nuclear waste will be around for millennia, with molten salt reactors that is just not true! As for the Fukushima irradiated fish, that's just specious bollocks. Surely a scientist, as you claim to be, must understand the huge volume of water in the Pacific and the tiny amount of radioactive leaks from Fukushima by comparison?


http://egeneration.org/solution/wamsr/

https://oceana.org/blog/worried-abo...d-turns-out-bananas-are-more-radioactive-fish
 
Last edited:
"You said that nuclear waste will be around for millennia, with molten salt reactors that is just not true!" HM #93
Click to expand...
False.
There was a plan to create a national nuclear waste repository under Yucca mountain. Extensive preparations were made, until objections canceled the plan.
Yucca is over the Ogalalla Aquifer, a continental fresh water resource. They didn't dare risk poisoning the nation's wells.
"You said that nuclear waste will be around for millennia, with molten salt reactors that is just not true!" HM #93
Click to expand...
It depends on the isotope. But I've read reports indicating such nuclear waste THAT ALREADY EXISTS may remain toxic for 5,000 years.

That there's a different technology doesn't shorten the half-life of the waste already in temporary storage around the nation.

And I read (don't remember where) that the nuclear waste from the making of the bombs we dropped on Japan still has not been permanently disposed of. So we've got nuclear waste stored "temporarily" in cooling ponds, across the continent.
I know of no permanent repository in the U.S. for the nuclear waste we've already got.
"As for the Fukushima irradiated fish, that's just specious bollocks. Surely a scientist, as you claim to be, must understand the huge volume of water in the Pacific and the tiny amount of radioactive leaks from Fukushima by comparison?" HM #93
Click to expand...
Amusing, but presumptive.

I gather the fish referred to in the report were migratory. Not that they were contaminated in U.S. territorial waters, but that they were contaminated in Japan, and subsequently found here.
 
sear said:
False.
There was a plan to create a national nuclear waste repository under Yucca mountain. Extensive preparations were made, until objections canceled the plan.
Yucca is over the Ogalalla Aquifer, a continental fresh water resource. They didn't dare risk poisoning the nation's wells.

It depends on the isotope. But I've read reports indicating such nuclear waste THAT ALREADY EXISTS may remain toxic for 5,000 years.

That there's a different technology doesn't shorten the half-life of the waste already in temporary storage around the nation.

And I read (don't remember where) that the nuclear waste from the making of the bombs we dropped on Japan still has not been permanently disposed of. So we've got nuclear waste stored "temporarily" in cooling ponds, across the continent.
I know of no permanent repository in the U.S. for the nuclear waste we've already got.

Amusing, but presumptive.

I gather the fish referred to in the report were migratory. Not that they were contaminated in U.S. territorial waters, but that they were contaminated in Japan, and subsequently found here.
Click to expand...

I provided you with a link but it's obvious that you didn't read it! Oh, and I've eaten seafood in Thailand, Vietnam, Cambodia, Malaysia and Burma, haven't started glowing yet. There is also a renewed push to open Yucca Mountain after 30 odd years, even WaPo is in favour! $15 billion have been spent so far, it is all just politics and the spinelessness of Obama caving to a bunch of crazed treehuggers.

http://egeneration.org/solution/wamsr/

https://reason.com/blog/2017/07/17/open-the-yucca-mountain-nuclear-waste-re
 
"I provided you with a link but it's obvious that you didn't read it!" HM
Click to expand...
I virtually never click un-teased links. Correct.
Bitter experience over the generations at such fora as this have taught me it's virtually always a waste of time.
Very often it links to a 47 page screed of muddled, or irrelevant palaver, just not worth my time.

The purpose of the URL is:
a) Make your argument as succinctly as possible, in English.

b) Include a concise quotation from the linked resource.

c) Include the URL with your argument, so that it may be authenticated, if necessary.

But a URL is not a logical argument. And those that don't know that are usually wrong anyway. So I don't waste my time.

If you think you have a valid point to make, make it. If a URL is necessary (usually not, as it's usually something I already knew) I can use it then.
"Oh, and I've eaten seafood in Thailand, Vietnam, Cambodia, Malaysia and Burma, haven't started glowing yet." HM
Click to expand...
After the tsunami & Fukashima disaster?

Ever eaten coelacanth?
"There is also a renewed push to open Yucca Mountain after 30 odd years. Even WaPo is in favour!" HM
Click to expand...
I don't consider WaPo an authoritative source on that, or much else. Yucca as you know is suspended indefinitely.
“When I was in Bangkok, I was eating at a restaurant with a friend when Bill Murray passed by, took a French fry from our basket, dipped it in ketchup, ate it, and said "No one's ever going to believe you" before walking out.” chatchy
Click to expand...
 
sear said:
I virtually never click un-teased links. Correct.
Bitter experience over the generations at such fora as this have taught me it's virtually always a waste of time.
Very often it links to a 47 page screed of muddled, or irrelevant palaver, just not worth my time.

The purpose of the URL is:
a) Make your argument as succinctly as possible, in English.

b) Include a concise quotation from the linked resource.

c) Include the URL with your argument, so that it may be authenticated, if necessary.

But a URL is not a logical argument. And those that don't know that are usually wrong anyway. So I don't waste my time.

If you think you have a valid point to make, make it. If a URL is necessary (usually not, as it's usually something I already knew) I can use it then.

After the tsunami & Fukashima disaster?

Ever eaten coelacanth?

I don't consider WaPo an authoritative source on that, or much else. Yucca as you know is suspended indefinitely.
Click to expand...

If you can't be bothered to read stuff then screw you. Remain an ignorant pompous arse.
 
Last edited:
Energy firms demand billions from UK taxpayer for mini reactors

Ministers under pressure to fund new generation of small-scale nuclear power stations

Backers of mini nuclear power stations have asked for billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money to build their first UK projects, according to an official document.

Advocates for small modular reactors (SMRs) argue they are more affordable and less risky than conventional large-scale nuclear plants, and therefore able to compete with the falling costs of windfarms and solar power.

But the nuclear industry’s claims that the mini plants would be a cheap option for producing low-carbon power appear to be undermined by the significant sums it has been asking of ministers.

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...d-billions-from-uk-taxpayer-for-mini-reactors
Click to expand...

Haw, haw......haw . maggot must have a piece of the action. Shareholder, maggot ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top