Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Scientific American)   Nuclear Power Will Replace Oil By 2030 - Originally published in May 1967   (scientificamerican.com) divider line
    More: Vintage, Uranium, Nuclear power, Nuclear fission, breeder reactors, Time, Scientific American, Energy development, fission power  
•       •       •

201 clicks; posted to Geek » on 24 Jun 2020 at 1:48 PM (2 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



15 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2020-06-24 11:59:03 AM  
If only there was a glowing orb of nuclear fire that occasionally graced the sky or, furth, patterns of weather (specifically wind) that one could use to power the world.....
 
2020-06-24 1:31:51 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-06-24 1:50:26 PM  

iheartscotch: If only there was a glowing orb of nuclear fire that occasionally graced the sky or, furth, patterns of weather (specifically wind) that one could use to power the world.....


Why do you hate freedom?
 
2020-06-24 1:52:22 PM  
Fukashima, Chernobyl and Three Mile destroyed any nuclear dreams this world may have had.
 
2020-06-24 2:01:08 PM  

stuhayes2010: Fukashima, Chernobyl and Three Mile destroyed any nuclear dreams this world may have had.


It's sad because the dream of energy "too cheap to meter" could still be possible if we invested enough in nuclear.

Solar is awesome and will always be the way forward but it has a few drawbacks that baseline nuclear would be able to complement nicely.

But apparently people simply can't do it correctly.
 
2020-06-24 2:18:35 PM  
If only it had. Almost all US nuke plants were built over a twenty year period between 1970-1990 before construction stopped dead due to opposition and yet it's still 20% of our power supply.
 
2020-06-24 2:40:06 PM  

iheartscotch: If only there was a glowing orb of nuclear fire that occasionally graced the sky or, furth, patterns of weather (specifically wind) that one could use to power the world.....


stuhayes2010: Fukashima, Chernobyl and Three Mile destroyed any nuclear dreams this world may have had.


The dirty little secret about wind and solar is that there is always a fossil or nuke plant somewhere to take up the slack when the wind don't blow and/or the Sun don't shine.

For solar and wind to take over electricity production, there has to be massive overbuilding (to account for the miserable capacity factor of solar and wind), huge and efficient energy storage capability (to account for the miserable capacity factor of solar and wind), and a much better-connected electrical grid (to account for regional imbalances in the availability of solar and wind).

Fossil plants are CO2 generators. Period. Energy storage technology isn't up to the task; pumped storage hydro stations have pretty much used up the available locations - and have you tried to site a new dam lately? And don't confuse a household-sized battery with the needs for an industrial plant or even a server farm. Then there's all the hoorah associated with running a new high voltage power line.

Three Mile Island showed that meltdowns are no big deal, except that they're expensive. Chernobyl showed that you shouldn't use a stupid design. Fukushima showed that you must pay attention to site characteristics.
 
2020-06-24 3:17:07 PM  
I have a solution:Every single person or group that sues over the building of a new nuclear power plant should be sentenced to 2 years mining coal. By hand.
 
2020-06-24 3:19:13 PM  

Esc7: stuhayes2010: Fukashima, Chernobyl and Three Mile destroyed any nuclear dreams this world may have had.

It's sad because the dream of energy "too cheap to meter" could still be possible if we invested enough in nuclear.

Solar is awesome and will always be the way forward but it has a few drawbacks that baseline nuclear would be able to complement nicely.

But apparently people simply can't do it correctly.


I remain convinced that "too cheap to meter" was the entire reason that the power industry helpfully threw regulation after regulation at nuclear power, fully aware that they would sell the power under a cost plus deal.

It might not make sense now, but back in the 1960s it made a ton of sense for the power companies to "be forced" to spare no expense at safety.

And nuclear power died right before global warming was discovered.  And all the kings horses and all the kings men couldn't save the planet from CO2.
 
2020-06-24 3:43:05 PM  
Fukashima (sp?) is actually shows that nuclear is safe. The only people that died were because people went into a panic, and did things that weren't necessary, not because of the plant itself. We lost a little bit of land, but if you want to compare land lost between nuclear, and wind, it isn't even close.

lh3.googleusercontent.comView Full Size
 
2020-06-24 3:53:52 PM  

Esc7: stuhayes2010: Fukashima, Chernobyl and Three Mile destroyed any nuclear dreams this world may have had.

It's sad because the dream of energy "too cheap to meter" could still be possible if we invested enough in nuclear.

Solar is awesome and will always be the way forward but it has a few drawbacks that baseline nuclear would be able to complement nicely.

But apparently people simply can't do it correctly.


Except nuclear is NOT too cheap to meter. It's friggin expensive. It takes 30+ years to amortize the original capital cost. Sure, the operational costs for the fuel is less than that of oil, but it's hardly free.
 
2020-06-24 3:54:43 PM  

OldJames: Fukashima (sp?) is actually shows that nuclear is safe. The only people that died were because people went into a panic, and did things that weren't necessary, not because of the plant itself. We lost a little bit of land, but if you want to compare land lost between nuclear, and wind, it isn't even close.

[lh3.googleusercontent.com image 495x330]


That's not land loss to wind. It's land that's not otherwise used for anything useful.
 
2020-06-24 4:53:03 PM  

dericwater: Esc7: stuhayes2010: Fukashima, Chernobyl and Three Mile destroyed any nuclear dreams this world may have had.

It's sad because the dream of energy "too cheap to meter" could still be possible if we invested enough in nuclear.

Solar is awesome and will always be the way forward but it has a few drawbacks that baseline nuclear would be able to complement nicely.

But apparently people simply can't do it correctly.

Except nuclear is NOT too cheap to meter. It's friggin expensive. It takes 30+ years to amortize the original capital cost. Sure, the operational costs for the fuel is less than that of oil, but it's hardly free.


Oh certainly.

But the question is can those capital costs be improved? Nuclear barely had decades of design and construction. What would capital costs look like for something that evolves from bespoke plants to routine installations?

I am still hopeful that either there's a watershed with nuclear safety design that allows us to scale or an order of magnitude increase in solar efficiency hidden in some weird materials science.

Because without either of those we aren't getting that fully automated gay space luxury communism.
 
2020-06-24 5:05:31 PM  

Esc7: dericwater: Esc7: stuhayes2010: Fukashima, Chernobyl and Three Mile destroyed any nuclear dreams this world may have had.

It's sad because the dream of energy "too cheap to meter" could still be possible if we invested enough in nuclear.

Solar is awesome and will always be the way forward but it has a few drawbacks that baseline nuclear would be able to complement nicely.

But apparently people simply can't do it correctly.

Except nuclear is NOT too cheap to meter. It's friggin expensive. It takes 30+ years to amortize the original capital cost. Sure, the operational costs for the fuel is less than that of oil, but it's hardly free.

Oh certainly.

But the question is can those capital costs be improved? Nuclear barely had decades of design and construction. What would capital costs look like for something that evolves from bespoke plants to routine installations?

I am still hopeful that either there's a watershed with nuclear safety design that allows us to scale or an order of magnitude increase in solar efficiency hidden in some weird materials science.

Because without either of those we aren't getting that fully automated gay space luxury communism.


Total cost for solar now is getting close to being less than just the operating costs for nuclear. It makes no economic sense to dig one shovel full of dirt to break ground on a nuke plant.
 
2020-06-24 6:26:03 PM  
Esc7: Because without either of those we aren't getting that fully automated gay space luxury communism.

So long as there's fit and gifted astronauts being shot into space, forced into isolation with only each other to depend on for emotional comfort, the cosmos will always be ruled by homoeroticism.
 
Displayed 15 of 15 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter




In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.