Skip to content
Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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.

(CNBC)   Nukeular investment is mushrooming   (cnbc.com) divider line
    More: Interesting, Nuclear power, nuclear energy, resurgence of nuclear power, Venture capitalists, nuclear startups, much different financial paradigm, personal investments, Nuclear fission  
•       •       •

870 clicks; posted to Business » on 02 Dec 2022 at 10:20 AM (9 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



41 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2022-12-02 10:29:00 AM  
i.pinimg.comView Full Size
 
2022-12-02 10:38:05 AM  
I'm okay with more nuclear power. We have to solve the carbon crisis.
 
2022-12-02 10:56:47 AM  
Nuk Nuk Nuk
flxt.tmsimg.comView Full Size
 
2022-12-02 10:57:02 AM  

Electriclectic: I'm okay with more nuclear power. We have to solve the carbon crisis.


Sure - as long as they aren't cheap, crappy, obsolete designs.
Pebble breeders have some size and output limitations - but they are safe.
And we can build a lot of the cheaply, and locate them locally.
Eventually, we should shoot for renewable only - but that's probably a century away - and running out of electricity and allowing civilization to fail would create and environmental disaster of vast proportions anyhow.
It's time to stop burning stuff for energy, like cavemen - and nuclear can get us through that transition with civilization in one piece.
 
2022-12-02 11:05:56 AM  
Fark user imageView Full Size


Commodity & energy speculators got really excited about Uranium when Russia first invaded, thinking that Germany would have to keep some of their nuclear reactors running (most had been previously scheduled to be decommissioned).  I believe Germany has kept some of those facilities operational but it hasn't done much for the spot price of Uranium (the Sprott Physical Uranium Trust is about 10% of this ETF).

Europe will have to find an alternative to Russian natural gas for its base load requirements... refurbishing old nuclear facilities is going to take years, never mind building new ones.
 
2022-12-02 11:07:45 AM  
It seems the more concentrated the energy source is (gas, coal, nuclear), the more toxic and persistant the waste product is. But also the less diffuse and more concentrated and manageable the waste becomes.

Fusion power may be the "greenest" energy source humans are able to come up with. But the neutron-bombarded cores of spent fusion reactors may end up being the most wildly radioactive and toxic waste of all.

/shh
//don't tell the NIMBYs
 
2022-12-02 11:13:19 AM  

Electriclectic: I'm okay with more nuclear power. We have to solve the carbon crisis.


I would like to have my own personal minisun to supply all my electricity needs
 
2022-12-02 11:20:25 AM  

Linux_Yes: Electriclectic: I'm okay with more nuclear power. We have to solve the carbon crisis.

I would like to have my own personal minisun to supply all my electricity needs


So quit wasting your time pushing shiatcoins and Linux desktops and go invent cold fusion.
Nobody's stopping you.
 
2022-12-02 11:35:52 AM  
Good.
 
2022-12-02 11:36:07 AM  
Time to pay, assholes!

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2022-12-02 11:38:32 AM  

jso2897: Linux_Yes: Electriclectic: I'm okay with more nuclear power. We have to solve the carbon crisis.

I would like to have my own personal minisun to supply all my electricity needs

So quit wasting your time pushing shiatcoins and Linux desktops and go invent cold fusion.
Nobody's stopping you.


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2022-12-02 11:45:46 AM  

KRSESQ: It seems the more concentrated the energy source is (gas, coal, nuclear), the more toxic and persistant the waste product is. But also the less diffuse and more concentrated and manageable the waste becomes.

Fusion power may be the "greenest" energy source humans are able to come up with. But the neutron-bombarded cores of spent fusion reactors may end up being the most wildly radioactive and toxic waste of all.

/shh
//don't tell the NIMBYs


If fusion becomes a reality, developed countries are going to pounce on that ability to produce essentially limitless energy. It would be worth the super toxic waste. The US owns the majority of Nevada. Build a crypt for that waste and be done with it.
 
2022-12-02 11:56:32 AM  

jso2897: Pebble breeders have some size and output limitations - but they are safe.


As long as you ignore all of the radioactive dust created from the graphite fuel casing flaking off while moving around the system.
 
2022-12-02 11:58:56 AM  

jso2897: Linux_Yes: Electriclectic: I'm okay with more nuclear power. We have to solve the carbon crisis.

I would like to have my own personal minisun to supply all my electricity needs

So quit wasting your time pushing shiatcoins and Linux desktops and go invent cold fusion.
Nobody's stopping you.


I dont think cold fusion is even possible.  Where does it even exist??
 
2022-12-02 11:59:01 AM  
static0.gamerantimages.comView Full Size
 
2022-12-02 12:19:09 PM  

Electriclectic: I'm okay with more nuclear power. We have to solve the carbon crisis.


Something has to charge these EVs and it isn't going to be wind or sun if you want to be realistic.
 
2022-12-02 12:57:03 PM  

Intrepid00: Electriclectic: I'm okay with more nuclear power. We have to solve the carbon crisis.

Something has to charge these EVs and it isn't going to be wind or sun if you want to be realistic.


Explain to me why it isn't going to be green  renewable energy
 
2022-12-02 1:00:24 PM  
Bunch'a nerds more likely to see this video. And we should do what the nerds recommend

Why You're Wrong About Nuclear Power
Youtube J3znG6_vla0
 
2022-12-02 1:07:20 PM  

Gubbo: Intrepid00: Electriclectic: I'm okay with more nuclear power. We have to solve the carbon crisis.

Something has to charge these EVs and it isn't going to be wind or sun if you want to be realistic.

Explain to me why it isn't going to be green  renewable energy


It can't handle the demand and is unreliable. Let me know when that changes.
 
2022-12-02 1:09:07 PM  

Intrepid00: Electriclectic: I'm okay with more nuclear power. We have to solve the carbon crisis.

Something has to charge these EVs and it isn't going to be wind or sun if you want to be realistic.

There is also the shift from natural gas heating to electric heat pump heating underway due to regulatory changes and price shifts.Also, a shift away from fossil fuels to renewables is technically possible.  It just comes down to cost and land use.  You'd need a massive upgrade of the national transmission grid and the deployment of a massive amount of energy storage.  Would that be cost competitive with the deployment of nuclear is the question.
 
2022-12-02 1:12:43 PM  

Intrepid00: Gubbo: Intrepid00: Electriclectic: I'm okay with more nuclear power. We have to solve the carbon crisis.

Something has to charge these EVs and it isn't going to be wind or sun if you want to be realistic.

Explain to me why it isn't going to be green  renewable energy

It can't handle the demand and is unreliable. Let me know when that changes.


Well, handling the demand would just be a case of building more.

And isn't building more the whole point of this thread? That's like saying current nuclear power can't power the future so we shouldn't have any of that.
 
2022-12-02 1:13:32 PM  

Dinjiin: Intrepid00: Electriclectic: I'm okay with more nuclear power. We have to solve the carbon crisis.

Something has to charge these EVs and it isn't going to be wind or sun if you want to be realistic.
There is also the shift from natural gas heating to electric heat pump heating underway due to regulatory changes and price shifts.Also, a shift away from fossil fuels to renewables is technically possible.  It just comes down to cost and land use.  You'd need a massive upgrade of the national transmission grid and the deployment of a massive amount of energy storage.  Would that be cost competitive with the deployment of nuclear is the question.


The upgrade of the American power infrastructure needs to be done either way.

/except in Texas of course
 
2022-12-02 1:14:51 PM  

Dinjiin: Also, a shift away from fossil fuels to renewables is technically possible.


Not even the Amish go through life using strictly renewables. It's going to be nuclear energy unless a deus ex machina appears.
 
2022-12-02 1:21:56 PM  
50 years of experience: "Nuclear is a terrible investment that will lose money, and that's why it's not happening"

Every Fark thread on the topic: "Right, right, I hear you loud and clear, it's the fault of green peace"
 
2022-12-02 1:21:59 PM  

valkore: KRSESQ: It seems the more concentrated the energy source is (gas, coal, nuclear), the more toxic and persistant the waste product is. But also the less diffuse and more concentrated and manageable the waste becomes.

Fusion power may be the "greenest" energy source humans are able to come up with. But the neutron-bombarded cores of spent fusion reactors may end up being the most wildly radioactive and toxic waste of all.

/shh
//don't tell the NIMBYs

If fusion becomes a reality, developed countries are going to pounce on that ability to produce essentially limitless energy. It would be worth the super toxic waste. The US owns the majority of Nevada. Build a crypt for that waste and be done with it.


Difficulty: Yucca Mountain.  It's been tried, and couldn't get approved.  Something aboutt transportingg the sizzle is difficult.  what mayor wants the waste rolling through their town, and the rail system in insuffiecient,.
 
2022-12-02 1:23:14 PM  

Gubbo: Intrepid00: Gubbo: Intrepid00: Electriclectic: I'm okay with more nuclear power. We have to solve the carbon crisis.

Something has to charge these EVs and it isn't going to be wind or sun if you want to be realistic.

Explain to me why it isn't going to be green  renewable energy

It can't handle the demand and is unreliable. Let me know when that changes.

Well, handling the demand would just be a case of building more.

And isn't building more the whole point of this thread? That's like saying current nuclear power can't power the future so we shouldn't have any of that.


It still will not handle the demand because it will circle right back to unreliable. We have no reliable and efficient way to store the energy when they can actually generate.

Everyone says "we will" but till that happens it's right back to nuclear.
 
2022-12-02 1:50:59 PM  

DarnoKonrad: 50 years of experience: "Nuclear is a terrible investment that will lose money, and that's why it's not happening"

Every Fark thread on the topic: "Right, right, I hear you loud and clear, it's the fault of green peace"


"Sorry, we can't save the environment because money is a thing we invented"
 
2022-12-02 2:14:38 PM  

Intrepid00: It still will not handle the demand because it will circle right back to unreliable. We have no reliable and efficient way to store the energy when they can actually generate.

Everyone says "we will" but till that happens it's right back to nuclear.


You're wrong on both points.

While the variability of a single renewable system may be rather high, given a large enough area of production, output tends to average out to a useful level.  If the wind is calm in Texas and Oklahoma, that isn't a problem if it is blowing in the Dakotas, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan.  That's why long-distance grid improvements are so important.

Likewise, pumped storage has been used since 1907 and has an efficiency of 70% to 85%.  When millions of people turn the kettle on for tea in the UK in unison during a break in a game, it is pumped storage that kicks in to keep the grid stable.

As you like to say, we circle back to cost, time, land usage.  Nuclear is expensive and time consuming to build.  It is also prone to delays, cost overruns, and local opposition.  Renewables are cheap, can be deployed quickly and incrementally, and tend to have less local opposition.  That leaves transmission improvements and storage as the weak points.  If they can be built faster and cheaper than nuclear, then it has the advantage.
 
2022-12-02 2:25:17 PM  

Electriclectic: I'm okay with more nuclear power. We have to solve the carbon crisis.


As long as it doesn't involve tech bros and unicorn chasers.  These folks aren't too keen on rules, regulations and responsibilities and the commercial nuclear industry is nothing but those things.

/16 years experience in nuclear power plant licensing and regulatory compliance
 
2022-12-02 2:39:26 PM  

Dinjiin: jso2897: Pebble breeders have some size and output limitations - but they are safe.

As long as you ignore all of the radioactive dust created from the graphite fuel casing flaking off while moving around the system.


It's another magic reactor design. Gets talked about a lot as a way to grift off government contracts or soak up research money and make sure it's a good enough distraction from real renewables. Like "clean coal"
 
2022-12-02 2:47:34 PM  

bighairyguy: Electriclectic: I'm okay with more nuclear power. We have to solve the carbon crisis.

As long as it doesn't involve tech bros and unicorn chasers.  These folks aren't too keen on rules, regulations and responsibilities and the commercial nuclear industry is nothing but those things.

/16 years experience in nuclear power plant licensing and regulatory compliance


This is Silicon Valley investment; move fast and break things.
 
2022-12-02 3:05:20 PM  

EnderWiggnz: valkore: KRSESQ: It seems the more concentrated the energy source is (gas, coal, nuclear), the more toxic and persistant the waste product is. But also the less diffuse and more concentrated and manageable the waste becomes.

Fusion power may be the "greenest" energy source humans are able to come up with. But the neutron-bombarded cores of spent fusion reactors may end up being the most wildly radioactive and toxic waste of all.

/shh
//don't tell the NIMBYs

If fusion becomes a reality, developed countries are going to pounce on that ability to produce essentially limitless energy. It would be worth the super toxic waste. The US owns the majority of Nevada. Build a crypt for that waste and be done with it.

Difficulty: Yucca Mountain.  It's been tried, and couldn't get approved.  Something aboutt transportingg the sizzle is difficult.  what mayor wants the waste rolling through their town, and the rail system in insuffiecient,.


You don't want a train with a single engineer taking nuclear waste cross country?
 
2022-12-02 3:14:10 PM  

jso2897: Electriclectic: I'm okay with more nuclear power. We have to solve the carbon crisis.

Sure - as long as they aren't cheap, crappy, obsolete designs.


As opposed to ridiculously expensive, crappy, obsolete designs we currently have for all approved nuclear power in the US?  Ok, maybe not too crappy, but the cost per watt can't possibly justify the expense.

valkore: KRSESQ: It seems the more concentrated the energy source is (gas, coal, nuclear), the more toxic and If fusion becomes a reality, developed countries are going to pounce on that ability to produce essentially limitless energy. It would be worth the super toxic waste. The US owns the majority of Nevada. Build a crypt for that waste and be done with it.


We've been able to get that via breeder reactors (admittedly, with the previously mentioned cost issue) since the 1960s or so.  But no matter how much you point out global warming, science denialists will keep insisting FISSION BAD! (global warming not an issue).

NoRedShadow: bighairyguy: Electriclectic: I'm okay with more nuclear power. We have to solve the carbon crisis.

As long as it doesn't involve tech bros and unicorn chasers.  These folks aren't too keen on rules, regulations and responsibilities and the commercial nuclear industry is nothing but those things.

/16 years experience in nuclear power plant licensing and regulatory compliance

This is Silicon Valley investment; move fast and break things.


The regulations and compliance are the main reason that nuclear power ain't gonna happen.  Granted, this means the only ones who are going to make nuclear happen are the tech bros who will casually poison the planet for a few more stock options, so I'd suggest sticking to solar and wind.

/the most interesting improvement I've heard is high-temperature solar
//takes high temperature black body radiation via solar power to electricity
///presumably you can get said temperature via solar ovens or conventional means.  But the efficiency (in the lab) is up there with turbines.  But it also means that you can store and release the power as you wish.
 
2022-12-02 3:24:15 PM  

guinsu: EnderWiggnz: valkore: KRSESQ: It seems the more concentrated the energy source is (gas, coal, nuclear), the more toxic and persistant the waste product is. But also the less diffuse and more concentrated and manageable the waste becomes.

Fusion power may be the "greenest" energy source humans are able to come up with. But the neutron-bombarded cores of spent fusion reactors may end up being the most wildly radioactive and toxic waste of all.

/shh
//don't tell the NIMBYs

If fusion becomes a reality, developed countries are going to pounce on that ability to produce essentially limitless energy. It would be worth the super toxic waste. The US owns the majority of Nevada. Build a crypt for that waste and be done with it.

Difficulty: Yucca Mountain.  It's been tried, and couldn't get approved.  Something aboutt transportingg the sizzle is difficult.  what mayor wants the waste rolling through their town, and the rail system in insuffiecient,.

You don't want a train with a single engineer taking nuclear waste cross country?


It would need a military escort.
 
2022-12-02 3:25:17 PM  

guinsu: Dinjiin: jso2897: Pebble breeders have some size and output limitations - but they are safe.

As long as you ignore all of the radioactive dust created from the graphite fuel casing flaking off while moving around the system.

It's another magic reactor design. Gets talked about a lot as a way to grift off government contracts or soak up research money and make sure it's a good enough distraction from real renewables. Like "clean coal"


CANDU reactors use a heavy-water moderator which is more efficient, enabling them to run on non-enriched uranium or the spent fuel from light-water reactors. They can also use plutonium from decommissioned weapons, or can breed thorium into U-233.

Some future reactor design might eventually prove to be even better, but CANDU or something similar is good enough for right now. If you do choose to run them on spent fuel you're actually reducing the very-long-term waste storage problem.
 
2022-12-02 4:16:19 PM  

Ivo Shandor: CANDU reactors use a heavy-water moderator which is more efficient, enabling them to run on non-enriched uranium or the spent fuel from light-water reactors. They can also use plutonium from decommissioned weapons, or can breed thorium into U-233.


CANDU reactors have a positive void coefficient, which US nuclear regulation prohibits.

The GE System 80 PWRs at Palo Verde can operate using MOX.
 
2022-12-02 4:33:10 PM  

Dinjiin: Ivo Shandor: CANDU reactors use a heavy-water moderator which is more efficient, enabling them to run on non-enriched uranium or the spent fuel from light-water reactors. They can also use plutonium from decommissioned weapons, or can breed thorium into U-233.

CANDU reactors have a positive void coefficient, which US nuclear regulation prohibits.

The GE System 80 PWRs at Palo Verde can operate using MOX.


That's a "perfect is the enemy of good" situation. It's slightly on the wrong side of zero but that doesn't mean that the overall design should be lumped together with the old Soviet RBMKs. The other safety systems were designed with that small void coefficient in mind.

MOX (U+plutonium) is still an enriched fuel. CANDU is notable for being able to run on natural uranium, which is even lower grade than spent LWR fuel.
 
2022-12-02 4:37:05 PM  

Ivo Shandor: Dinjiin: Ivo Shandor: CANDU reactors use a heavy-water moderator which is more efficient, enabling them to run on non-enriched uranium or the spent fuel from light-water reactors. They can also use plutonium from decommissioned weapons, or can breed thorium into U-233.

CANDU reactors have a positive void coefficient, which US nuclear regulation prohibits.

The GE System 80 PWRs at Palo Verde can operate using MOX.

That's a "perfect is the enemy of good" situation. It's slightly on the wrong side of zero but that doesn't mean that the overall design should be lumped together with the old Soviet RBMKs. The other safety systems were designed with that small void coefficient in mind.


You'd think that the safety record of CANDU reactors would drive a review of that rule.
 
2022-12-02 5:42:21 PM  

Electriclectic: I'm okay with more nuclear power. We have to solve the carbon crisis.


you could always try this.

Fark user imageView Full Size


You pigs.

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2022-12-02 6:22:12 PM  

Electriclectic: I'm okay with more nuclear power. We have to solve the carbon crisis.


This.

We can solve the carbon crisis with nukes in a flash.  We just have to nuke the right populations.
 
2022-12-02 10:30:16 PM  

jso2897: Electriclectic: I'm okay with more nuclear power. We have to solve the carbon crisis.

Sure - as long as they aren't cheap, crappy, obsolete designs.
Pebble breeders have some size and output limitations - but they are safe.
And we can build a lot of the cheaply, and locate them locally.
Eventually, we should shoot for renewable only - but that's probably a century away - and running out of electricity and allowing civilization to fail would create and environmental disaster of vast proportions anyhow.
It's time to stop burning stuff for energy, like cavemen - and nuclear can get us through that transition with civilization in one piece.


If renewable only is a century away, we might as well go out in our yards and start digging because we are gonna get a date with the grim reaper.

Uncontrolled global heating is going to lead to crop failures, steadily increasing heat related deaths, mass movement of refugees, and warfare, on a level we can hardly conceive of today. We can see it today, it's not a mystery - the Mississippi, Danube, and Yangtze at shocking lows, the Colorado completely tapped out, flood covering 1/3 of Pakistan, fires every year across the globe getting worse. Our huge surplus of wealth and food in the west keeps us more insulated but those things can't hold out forever.

This is not a "take your time" situation and if we try to slow walk it we are gonna find out what it's like to be afraid of death.
 
Displayed 41 of 41 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.