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.

(Forbes)   Come on baby, don't fear the nuclear   (forbes.com) divider line
    More: Awkward  
•       •       •

696 clicks; posted to STEM » on 21 Oct 2020 at 9:52 AM (5 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



42 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2020-10-21 9:07:31 AM  
I've been saying this for years.

Most of the anti-nuke propaganda has been funded by the fossil fuel industry.  Yes there is nuclear waste, but that can be handled better than fossil waste.
 
2020-10-21 9:18:06 AM  
i.gzn.jpView Full Size
 
2020-10-21 10:00:13 AM  

EvilEgg: I've been saying this for years.

Most of the anti-nuke propaganda has been funded by the fossil fuel industry.  Yes there is nuclear waste, but that can be handled better than fossil waste.


I was driving thru Fukushima the other daayyyy...

^ said in Letterkenny voice
 
2020-10-21 10:01:40 AM  
external-content.duckduckgo.comView Full Size
 
2020-10-21 10:13:33 AM  
If you can build it cheaper and faster than solar and wind, investors will hand you money. Thing is, they can't.
 
2020-10-21 10:19:17 AM  
 
2020-10-21 10:20:10 AM  

adamatari: If you can build it cheaper and faster than solar and wind, investors will hand you money. Thing is, they can't.


Well, per-kilowatt you can, it's just you can't build a small nuclear reactor. And because of the inherent dangers, nuclear power has to be highly regulated, so regulated in fact, that it basically ends up being defacto state owned. Nukes produce so much power for the initial investment that they tend to drive energy prices down, which further makes it harder to create a profit: supply increases, demand remains constant, prices crater.

Basically: nukes are great, but not for capitalism. You can produce vast amounts of power cheaply, but to actually turn a profit on the upfront costs takes a long time. They're good for society, loads of energy, but bad for the market.

(TL;DR: nationalize the power grid and nukeify it)
 
2020-10-21 10:20:15 AM  
Horseshiat.

The first thing for-profit power companies do (after given massive subsidies) is cut critical maintenance spending. Then ask for and be rubber stamped permission to run the plants for two or three times longer than the designed service life.

And once decommissioning is inevitable, they demand their customers pay for it. Or set up shell game LLC 'subsidiaries' to which waste liability is assigned, and then completely disassociate themselves from the sham company, which quickly collapses in bankruptcy to leave the state holding the radioactive waste bag.

Lather, Rinse, Repeat.
 
2020-10-21 10:28:27 AM  
This thread needs more cowbell.

media1.tenor.comView Full Size
 
2020-10-21 10:32:14 AM  
i1.wp.comView Full Size
 
2020-10-21 10:39:12 AM  
 
2020-10-21 10:46:04 AM  

Anubislg: "It can be stored safely!"
Riiiiggghhhht.....
https://www.icanw.org/hanford_s_dirty_​secret_and_it_s_not_56_million_gallons​_of_nuclear_waste


The fact that Hanford shows the terrible results of not giving a fark about safe waste disposal does not mean safe disposal is impossible or even difficult. The Hanford mess is the legacy of decades of sloppiness swept under the rug due to national security concerns and a general failure to grasp how serious the problem is.
 
2020-10-21 10:46:43 AM  

dittybopper: Actually, yes, you can.


Sure, but those lose the cheapness per kilowatt.
 
2020-10-21 10:52:16 AM  
I don't fear nuclear power. I fear the people that build and run it.
 
2020-10-21 10:54:21 AM  

dittybopper: This thread needs more cowbell.

[media1.tenor.com image 498x372] [View Full Size image _x_]


Yeah, but that's true for any thread.
 
2020-10-21 11:09:11 AM  

t3knomanser: dittybopper: Actually, yes, you can.

Sure, but those lose the cheapness per kilowatt.


Do they, actually?

KRUSTY was developed for about $20 million dollars, from scratch.  It is designed to put out 1 kilowatt, and operate for something like 15 years.

If you improve the design and lower the cost by mass production of a standardized design, you can probably bring the cost down to the point where it's relatively competitive.  Much of the cost of nuclear power comes from having multi-year construction of large facilities.  If you're turning the things out like sausages on a factory floor, it's a lot cheaper.

And yeah, KRUSTY is about the size of a refrigerator:

i.kinja-img.comView Full Size
 
2020-10-21 11:16:45 AM  

dittybopper: t3knomanser: dittybopper: Actually, yes, you can.

Sure, but those lose the cheapness per kilowatt.

Do they, actually?

KRUSTY was developed for about $20 million dollars, from scratch.  It is designed to put out 1 kilowatt, and operate for something like 15 years.

If you improve the design and lower the cost by mass production of a standardized design, you can probably bring the cost down to the point where it's relatively competitive.  Much of the cost of nuclear power comes from having multi-year construction of large facilities.  If you're turning the things out like sausages on a factory floor, it's a lot cheaper.

And yeah, KRUSTY is about the size of a refrigerator:

[i.kinja-img.com image 800x450]


What clown designed that?
 
2020-10-21 11:50:07 AM  

Anubislg: "It can be stored safely!"
Riiiiggghhhht.....
https://www.icanw.org/hanford_s_dirty_​secret_and_it_s_not_56_million_gallons​_of_nuclear_waste


Fine reprocess and shove back into the reactor.
 
2020-10-21 11:55:13 AM  

johnny_vegas: [i1.wp.com image 850x571]


Imagine the size of the wringer.
 
2020-10-21 12:26:22 PM  

dittybopper: t3knomanser: it's just you can't build a small nuclear reactor.

Actually, yes, you can.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American​_submarine_NR-1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilopowe​r


Those may be magnificent portable power plants, but I'll wager that when you figure in cost of manufacture, refueling (can the Kilopower reactor even be refueled?), and cost of disposal, the price per kilowatt of electricity generated over the lifetime of the reactor is not competitive with land-based options.  Neither NASA nor the Navy is looking for the cheapest source of ground-based electricity in exploring those designs.
 
2020-10-21 12:30:49 PM  
The problem is with the uranium fuel cycle used in the current designs. The fuel takes a lot of energy to refine and enrich. The reactors are only safe as long as they can pump water through them and they generate a lot of waste. Less than 1% of the fuel actually generates any power. We ended up using these because it helped subsidize the nuke weapons industry.

There are safer, cheaper, cleaner alternatives like Thorium molten salt reactors. China is currently building them using research from the American Thorium test reactor we ran in the 60's. Of course our program was defunded and killed because those making billions off the Uranium reactors liked things just the way they were.

LFTRs in 5 minutes - Thorium Reactors
Youtube uK367T7h6ZY
 
2020-10-21 1:32:59 PM  

adamatari: If you can build it cheaper and faster than solar and wind, investors will hand you money. Thing is, they can't.


It isn't the construction costs. It is hundreds of millions for a decade of studies and the design costs because every commercial reactor in the US is unique.
 
2020-10-21 1:35:42 PM  

RidgeRacerZX6: The problem is with the uranium fuel cycle used in the current designs. The fuel takes a lot of energy to refine and enrich. The reactors are only safe as long as they can pump water through them and they generate a lot of waste. Less than 1% of the fuel actually generates any power. We ended up using these because it helped subsidize the nuke weapons industry.

There are safer, cheaper, cleaner alternatives like Thorium molten salt reactors. China is currently building them using research from the American Thorium test reactor we ran in the 60's. Of course our program was defunded and killed because those making billions off the Uranium reactors liked things just the way they were.

[YouTube video: LFTRs in 5 minutes - Thorium Reactors]


There was one Thorium reactor built and ran for a handful of years by the TVA. They're still trying to figure out how to clean it up.
 
2020-10-21 1:37:05 PM  

madgonad: adamatari: If you can build it cheaper and faster than solar and wind, investors will hand you money. Thing is, they can't.

It isn't the construction costs. It is hundreds of millions for a decade of studies and the design costs because every commercial reactor in the US is unique.


Yet the x-rays of every weld is identical.

/Too obscure?
 
2020-10-21 1:52:40 PM  

RidgeRacerZX6: The problem is with the uranium fuel cycle used in the current designs. The fuel takes a lot of energy to refine and enrich. The reactors are only safe as long as they can pump water through them and they generate a lot of waste. Less than 1% of the fuel actually generates any power. We ended up using these because it helped subsidize the nuke weapons industry.


The uranium fuel cycle in current light water designs uses about 4 (four) percent of the uranium . . . with useful uranium and plutonium left over for recycling into new fuel. The energy used for enrichment is way less than it used to be since the transition to centrifuge enrichment and away from gaseous diffusion (like in World War II). Energy consumed by enrichment is way less than power plant output, even with old-fashioned gaseous diffusion. Also, excess stockpiled high enrichment uranium (stockpiled for bombs) was sold into the open market and "down blended" to a lower enrichment for power plant fuel starting in the mid-1990s. The nuke weapons industry wasn't subsidized by commercial nuclear power; rather, commercial nuclear power started using SOME otherwise idle nuclear weapons production machinery - the enrichment plants. Little of the nuke weapons industry was useful to commercial nuclear power interests, except enrichment plants and some lab facilities.

/user name checks out
 
2020-10-21 1:53:32 PM  

Anubislg: "It can be stored safely!"
Riiiiggghhhht.....
https://www.icanw.org/hanford_s_dirty_​secret_and_it_s_not_56_million_gallons​_of_nuclear_waste


Article is bollocks. It isn't grading the waste by radioactivity. If there is any exposure it is counted, so a barrel of water that is as radioactive as a banana is counted the same as pure plutonium. I agree with you on responsibility, but I think that it is too important for private industry to manage. The government needs to accept responsibility up front and charge producers accordingly during operation.
 
2020-10-21 1:54:09 PM  

I am Tom Joad's Complete Lack of Surprise: madgonad: adamatari: If you can build it cheaper and faster than solar and wind, investors will hand you money. Thing is, they can't.

It isn't the construction costs. It is hundreds of millions for a decade of studies and the design costs because every commercial reactor in the US is unique.

Yet the x-rays of every weld is identical.

/Too obscure?


China Syndrome is in no way obscure
 
2020-10-21 1:56:16 PM  

I am Tom Joad's Complete Lack of Surprise: There was one Thorium reactor built and ran for a handful of years by the TVA. They're still trying to figure out how to clean it up.


Nothing to do with that. NIMBYs and politics are the problem. There is not a practical difficulty in retiring nuclear facilities - we just don't have the political will to do it. The government spent billions on Yucca, but they can't use it because whine whine whine whine.
 
2020-10-21 1:56:25 PM  
steelguru.comView Full Size


Ca mandating electric cars and decommissioning nuke plants. Totally makes sense of you don't think about it.
 
2020-10-21 2:43:18 PM  

RidgeRacerZX6: The problem is with the uranium fuel cycle used in the current designs. The fuel takes a lot of energy to refine and enrich. The reactors are only safe as long as they can pump water through them and they generate a lot of waste. Less than 1% of the fuel actually generates any power. We ended up using these because it helped subsidize the nuke weapons industry.

There are safer, cheaper, cleaner alternatives like Thorium molten salt reactors. China is currently building them using research from the American Thorium test reactor we ran in the 60's. Of course our program was defunded and killed because those making billions off the Uranium reactors liked things just the way they were.

[Youtube-video https://www.youtube.com/embed/uK367T7h​6ZY]


The problem is that if you go all in for Thorium reactors, the Russians kidnap you and threaten you with war.

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-10-21 2:52:32 PM  

Pernicious Q. Varmint: Anubislg: "It can be stored safely!"
Riiiiggghhhht.....
https://www.icanw.org/hanford_s_dirty_​secret_and_it_s_not_56_million_gallons​_of_nuclear_waste

The fact that Hanford shows the terrible results of not giving a fark about safe waste disposal does not mean safe disposal is impossible or even difficult. The Hanford mess is the legacy of decades of sloppiness swept under the rug due to national security concerns and a general failure to grasp how serious the problem is.


That and the fact that Hanford was all about building weapons, not power generation.

Somehow the anti-nukes can't figure out that there is a difference.
 
2020-10-21 2:53:53 PM  

madgonad: Anubislg: "It can be stored safely!"
Riiiiggghhhht.....
https://www.icanw.org/hanford_s_dirty_​secret_and_it_s_not_56_million_gallons​_of_nuclear_waste

Article is bollocks. It isn't grading the waste by radioactivity. If there is any exposure it is counted, so a barrel of water that is as radioactive as a banana is counted the same as pure plutonium. I agree with you on responsibility, but I think that it is too important for private industry to manage. The government needs to accept responsibility up front and charge producers accordingly during operation.


Actually, the most common isotopes of plutonium decay via alpha radiation, so you could hold a bunch of it in your gloved hand and not suffer any ill effects, so long as you don't breath in or ingest any of it, because it is highly toxic.
 
2020-10-21 2:58:11 PM  

Tyrone Slothrop: I don't fear nuclear power. I fear the people that build and run it.


Me thinks you have watched too many Simpson episodes.
 
2020-10-21 3:05:11 PM  

madgonad: I am Tom Joad's Complete Lack of Surprise: There was one Thorium reactor built and ran for a handful of years by the TVA. They're still trying to figure out how to clean it up.

Nothing to do with that. NIMBYs and politics are the problem. There is not a practical difficulty in retiring nuclear facilities - we just don't have the political will to do it. The government spent billions on Yucca, but they can't use it because whine whine whine whine.


"Pernicious nonsense. Everybody could stand a hundred chest X-rays a year. They ought to have them, too." -- J Frank Parnell
 
2020-10-21 3:05:52 PM  

SafetyThird: [steelguru.com image 760x514]

Ca mandating electric cars and decommissioning nuke plants. Totally makes sense of you don't think about it.


Another username that checks out.
 
2020-10-21 3:25:58 PM  
Has any promoter of nuclear power been deceptive in their promotion?

Have they stopped?

Can I trust what the promoters say?
Or do I need to become an expert myself before I can have a real opinion?
 
2020-10-21 3:26:19 PM  

dittybopper: Actually, the most common isotopes of plutonium decay via alpha radiation, so you could hold a bunch of it in your gloved hand and not suffer any ill effects, so long as you don't breath in or ingest any of it, because it is highly toxic.


Yeah, you go ahead and absorb all the Helium nuclei you want. I know it isn't ionizing radiation, but close exposure is asking for trouble.
 
2020-10-21 3:27:52 PM  

I am Tom Joad's Complete Lack of Surprise: "Pernicious nonsense. Everybody could stand a hundred chest X-rays a year. They ought to have them, too." -- J Frank Parnell


Permanently entombing the most hazardous and lasting waste products in a single highly secure spot is a GOOD thing. Far better than the stuff languishing in dozens of locations across the nation.
 
2020-10-21 5:06:32 PM  
dittybopper:

A surprise "but ackshually" from ditty, twice! lol
 
2020-10-21 9:14:41 PM  

dittybopper: t3knomanser: dittybopper: Actually, yes, you can.

Sure, but those lose the cheapness per kilowatt.

Do they, actually?

KRUSTY was developed for about $20 million dollars, from scratch.  It is designed to put out 1 kilowatt, and operate for something like 15 years.

If you improve the design and lower the cost by mass production of a standardized design, you can probably bring the cost down to the point where it's relatively competitive.  Much of the cost of nuclear power comes from having multi-year construction of large facilities.  If you're turning the things out like sausages on a factory floor, it's a lot cheaper.

And yeah, KRUSTY is about the size of a refrigerator:

[i.kinja-img.com image 800x450]



If those numbers are correct, then their electricity generated 24 7 for 15 years would be worth about 40k dollars in Japan, and about 10k in most of the US. And I guess remote locations would pay two or three times that price.

If they were coupled with some kind of simple pumped storage and some wind and solar PV, you could probably finesse power for a small village. 10 households on the outside.
 
2020-10-21 9:26:55 PM  
I am perfectly willing to let the market decide on nuclear power, but I think fear of nuclear power and radiation is very overblown for purely political reasons. And it has always been that way. Nuclear fear was whipped up first by the DOD to deter aggression. It was picked up later as part of a pro-nature anti-capital agenda.

Over the years, and especially since 3 11 (I live so close to Fukushima that I was asked by the US government to evacuate. I didn't.) I have been intensely interested.

1. Vested interests have doomed nuclear development in the West.

2. Moral hazard and human factors can make nuclear power difficult to manage properly.

3. Nuclear power is extremely safe. Existing nuclear reactors and fuel should be used until the end of their useful life.

4. Some new technology such as LFTR might be able to reset the whole game.

/sigh.
 
2020-10-21 10:02:53 PM  

2fardownthread: I am perfectly willing to let the market decide on nuclear power


Because markets have such an amazing track record? The entire boom/bust cycle is a fundamental failure of markets with an unspeakable human toll. Perhaps we've not yet come up with a better solution, but that's hardly a recommendation. It's like a serf saying there's no cure for the black plague, so we should just accept it.
 
Displayed 42 of 42 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



  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.