They're lying to you about Nuclear Energy

Yeah politicians and other stupid people ruined nuclear power.
Never underestimate stupid people in large numbers.

 

I'd like a small one in my truck, Anyone?

 

Then there could a long debate in thread here if that was a viable choice for YOU !!

 

Yea ,, me too,,, and one of them Laser Beam vaporizer guns mounted on the cab.

 

They have their places and I think we need more of them. A lot of the problem was in the sites they wanted to build them in. Calif built them on known earthquake fault lines. Seabrook in New Hampshire was sited in a bay with very poor water flow until they added a miles long cooling tunnel out into the ocean. Area had a large summer tourist population and very poor roads for exit. Could take 2 hours to get out in normal summer traffic. Electric company went broke building it. Was a major project by a company with no real experience in managing a large project. Difference between TVA and PSNH was like the effectiveness of a town chief of police and the one for New York city. Well that might not be a good example but you can see the complexity of it. Then there was the complexity of the radioactive waste, in this case the NIMBY movement by the save our planet made it into a political football. The solution of storing it on site made a bad situation even worse. We are still trying to figure out what to do in the long run for the waste from the early 1940's.

Most of the problems we have in the energy sector are the result of a few thousand very efficient activist who have been fully funded by a group of rich liberals. The resistance to Seabrook, to the power lines, to the natural gas pipeline expansion in NH have all been well funded by people who do not live in the state of NH. NH could have been getting cheap Canadian hydro power for many years now but a small group has prevented the building of the lines for a few dozen miles thru a national forest area. The gas pipeline for New York ect to supply the natural gas had proceeded to the point of land purchase for the pumping stations when it was killed by the fracking activists. Sort of like the river crossing and the pipeline out west and a few dozen very vocal "spokesmen" with no official backing by the majority of the residents who wanted it completed. Was kind of like that old cartoon of the wolf and the sheepdog. I drove by the activists with their signs in the morning on my way to work, and saw the same ones in the evening. Saw the same ones for weeks, got to the point I would wave to them and they would wave back. We just didn't punch the same time card, but the money had to come from somewhere to feed them and such. Many were committed to their cause but you can't live on causes, money has to come from somewhere and even worse for expensive law suits.

 

Not a fan. Coal plant catches fire, squirt some water on it and get back to business.

Nuke plant catches fire and billions of dollars later, it will still kill your great-grandchildren. Not even going into the lethally radioactive waste issue....

And yeah, cheap contractors cut corners....

 

My understanding is that the Trump administration is currently updating and streamlining regulations for faster reactor deployment. Given our current power needs and our future requirements, we don't have much of a choice...a bunch of windmills aren't going to resolve the power.

I think the goal is (400 Giga Watts) by 2050 with 10 new nuclear power plants under construction by 2030. The big question in my mind concerning nuclear power is what to do with the spent nuclear fuel as we're still a decade away from fusion nuclear power. However, there has been quite a few big breakthroughs as of late so...maybe closer than we think.

NOTE: Thinking more about this... Frankly, if I was still investing then I would look at companies that build, operate and maintain nuclear plants and those that are researching fusion. I think we are going to see a new and massive resurgence of nuclear power in the coming decades...out of necessity and new breakthroughs. "Necessity is the mother of invention"

EDIT: I think the best example of 'nuclear is safe' that I ever heard and also used in this video are the hundreds of ships that are currently or were powered by nuclear reactors. BTW Good video!

 

i believe the tech exists for efficient electrolysis and has been quashed. hydrogen makes sense to be. and i can keep my internal combustion stuff.

 

Deadly in 30 Minutes: Spent Nuclear Fuel at San Onofre...Myths vs Reality

fun video to watch. And no, you don't want this crap anywhere near you.

 

Anyone who has ever been near the ocean in Maine and watched the tide flow into one of the bays has to wonder why we don't use it to make hydrogen and ship it or store it and burn it in a a gas turbine to make power. Some parts of Maine get a tidal change of 18 or so feet twice a day and the Bay of Fundy in Canada is even higher. Have stood on a bridge and seen boats tied up waiting for the flow under the bridge to stop as it is several miles an hour at peak. The big problem is that if you want to do anything with a technology later then about 500 AD, run of the river paddle wheel power, you will probably die of old age before the ecology permits are finished. Might affect the ridley sea turtle, they are endangered and in the last few hundred years a couple may have been in the area. But I don't really know what will be the supposed canary in the coal mine. Putting up a dam and filling the basin as the tide goes up and lowers will change the water, fish species, sediment. ect, and it will have impacts. But unlike wind power it is reliable and the energy density is much higher than that of the sun, You would never be able to build a power system like Canada did for its hydro. You would be stopped by some Native American graveyard or endangered butterfly and in the West they are removing power dams to let the fish spawn there again when there are no fish.

 

Do like the government did with the Manhattan project get all the best minds together and design a safe reactor. Then mandate this is the only design allowed ---parts are interchangeable---safety issues arise you correct in all reactors. Build on isolated government property. Seems like a no brainer Boeing doesn't make individual planes they stick to one design. I have no problem with nuclear power done right. Nuclear navy has been running for years

 

i had never heard of red hydrogen. this articial explained alot in terminology, green blue. it also addresses loss and efficiency of 50-80% a chunk of iron in salt water electrolizes,,, but not enough to scale. thanks.

What is Red Hydrogen? Interview With Our DirectIndustry Expert - DirectIndustry e-Magazine

 

Guess we will have to wait for one of Doc Brown's Mr. Fusion portable reactors. They were supposed to be available by 2015.
But we didn't have flying cars by 2000, either.

 

Fusion is a long way off containment is the big factor the tokamak containment has a long way to go

 

NS Savannah - Wikipedia

It can be done right......

 

That's easy to avoid.
1, always use a containment dome, don't be like Slavic special ed.
2, don't build them in known tsunami zones.
3 don't build rmbk reactors at all.
4 alway put the emergency hydrogen vent outside of the containment dome, if they did this Fukushima wouldn't have blown up. You think not wanting the boom boom gas building up inside of the big solid walled concrete room would be self explanatitory....
5 perfect tech that doesn't use a water cooled core. It makes any theoretical hydrogen or steam explosions that could happen not involve the nuclear core.