What's new
Frozen In Carbonite

Welcome to FiC! Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

US Nuclear Energy Capabilities Decreasing

How Bad is this


  • Total voters
    18

Aaron Fox

SB's Minor Junker Descendant and Hunter of Nazis
Author
So, been looking through SB's NSFD forums and found this:
Probably not.

That is the conclusion of a remarkable new study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in early July — remarkable because it is not written by opponents of nuclear power, as one might expect given the conclusion. The authors are in fact extremely supportive of nuclear and view its loss as a matter of “profound concern”:

Achieving deep decarbonization of the energy system will require a portfolio of every available technology and strategy we can muster. It should be a source of profound concern for all who care about climate change that, for entirely predictable and resolvable reasons, the United States appears set to virtually lose nuclear power, and thus a wedge of reliable and low-carbon energy, over the next few decades.
This... is deeply disturbing IMHO... especially with the horror show that is coming up thanks to Climate Change is on the horizon.

At this point, you'll have to literally exterminate Greenpeace from this Earth, put guns at the heads of NIMBYs and tell them deal with it, and do a fine-tooth-comb check on all the red tape and safety regulations to see what is simply there to fuck nuclear over and what is genuinely there for safety reasons.

What is your thoughts?
 

Vyor

Well-known member
I am in almost complete agreement.

The gun bit gives me pause but I'll allow it if they, say, try to attack workers building the plant.

And you can eliminate a lot of it with simple education tbh.
 

Horton

Cat
Administrator
As I said on SV

The thing to think about with nuclear power is "How much do the excess fumes" kill when looking at other types of power such as coal or oil, with some-type of calculation based on that vs another calculation based on the risk of nuclear meltdown and when you factor in the risk of nuclear meltdown, things simply add up mathematically towards the direction of nuclear.

For a more numerical and visible example, a study by the Clean Air Task Force in 2004 showed that other 24,000 deaths a year could be accounted for by fossil fuel power plants. It then goes onto say that was reduced to 13,000 in 2010 and was likely due to the impact of regulation on things, something that some of the right wing nuclear power plant fans don't get, but still an alarmingly concerning number.

So yes, if not nuclear power, I would like us to switch to renewable energy at least, as there's a moral impetus at work here. I don't like people dying and nether should Greenpeace.
 

Aaron Fox

SB's Minor Junker Descendant and Hunter of Nazis
Author
And you can eliminate a lot of it with simple education tbh.
Here's the sad thing, education is like bringing a horse to water. If the horse doesn't want to drink, you can't force it to drink...
 

Ravan

Gone
As I said on SV
Technichally the idea is that nuclear was supposed to be the stepping stone to get us to pure renewable. Nuclear is cleaner and safer and more efficient than anything else currently viable on the large scale. We want to go nuclear until solar/wind/hydro/geothermal has advanced enough to take its place.
 

AbsoluteEpic

Well-known member
I understand people at upset, but there is a very realistic issue with nuclear power. It's a tremendous investment that cant take decades for them to pay back in the initial investment. This is at a time when the energy market is facing revolutions in the oil, natural gas, and solar sectors that are pushing out innovations at a much more rapid pace. While the scale nuclear technology in extreme starting investment cost along with the cultural stigma attached to nuclear power has hampered innovation in the nuclear sector, we can see from a large developed country like France with a long history of nuclear energy that there are practical shortcomings. Even France can't ignore the lucrative advancements made to solar and they're stalling their purchases for nuclear power plants.

For anyone who wants to see nuclear power take a more prominent stage in the world's energy market (even though I think it already does) what the nuclear sector really needs to make more breakthroughs. The problem is the close regulatory structure that nuclear power plants operate under the scrutiny of, environmental concerns to a degree of prejudice no other sector faces, geopolitical concerns of nuclear proliferation that keeps iron tight regulatory supervision and can discourage non P-5 innovations, and the huge financial cost of running these facilities in labor, R&D, maintenance, and elimination of waste products.

The way I see it Nuclear while reliable and decent enough, can't compete in the current market where the US is pumping out natural gas and oil like no tomorrow and where China is burying the market under a mountain of cheap solar panels. Both at the cost of some pretty negative side effects that nuclear admittedly doesn't produce (solar isn't clean and if you know anything about Chinese industrial practices and think you're a environmental warrior by buying the stuff...... well...)
 

Aaron Fox

SB's Minor Junker Descendant and Hunter of Nazis
Author
Aim it at the children.
... it applies to the children as well...
Technichally the idea is that nuclear was supposed to be the stepping stone to get us to pure renewable. Nuclear is cleaner and safer and more efficient than anything else currently viable on the large scale. We want to go nuclear until solar/wind/hydro/geothermal has advanced enough to take its place.
Given the shear energy densities involved, you can't get renewable energy to that capability, at best you're going to have renewable supplement nuclear.
 

Aaron Fox

SB's Minor Junker Descendant and Hunter of Nazis
Author
You are underestimating how moldable a child's mind is.
I am not but you are overestimating how moldable a child's mind is. For some kids and/or families, learning isn't that high of a priority or certain fields are forbidden. That is unless you separate the children from their birth parents for better part of a decade...
 
The solution is simple:

Give Nuclear Power the same amount of Red Tape as other forms of power.

Whether that's increasing the red tape on other forms of power, or lowering it on nuclear, nuclear still wins.

Nuclear is still competative even with two arms behind its back and blindfolded, imagine how much better it will do with a level playing field.
 

Aaron Fox

SB's Minor Junker Descendant and Hunter of Nazis
Author
The solution is simple:

Give Nuclear Power the same amount of Red Tape as other forms of power.

Whether that's increasing the red tape on other forms of power, or lowering it on nuclear, nuclear still wins.

Nuclear is still competative even with two arms behind its back and blindfolded, imagine how much better it will do with a level playing field.
To do that you'll have to pretty much abolish democracy. Nuclear can't really win here due to all the forces assembled against it.
 

AbsoluteEpic

Well-known member
The solution is simple:

Give Nuclear Power the same amount of Red Tape as other forms of power.

Whether that's increasing the red tape on other forms of power, or lowering it on nuclear, nuclear still wins.

Nuclear is still competative even with two arms behind its back and blindfolded, imagine how much better it will do with a level playing field.
I'm pretty sure you're going to need do to a hell of a lot to get the US to treat oil that exists practically everywhere the same way they treat Uranium (I think that they just might have a heart attack)
 

Scottty

Member
Fun fact: which type of fuel is more likely to explode by accident when being offloaded from a train, coal or uranium?
 

Aaron Fox

SB's Minor Junker Descendant and Hunter of Nazis
Author
Fun fact: which type of fuel is more likely to explode by accident when being offloaded from a train, coal or uranium?
Coal, because that stuff is more volatile than it looks, especially when coal gas is involved.

Raw uranium isn't of the purity to cause any sort of boom... and fuel rods and waste rods are put in a literal lead-steel casket that is designed to have trains ram into it and surviving... all the while being on fire for a good while.
 

Scottty

Member
Second "fun fact" question - which fuel source currently releases more radioactivity into the atmosphere - coal or uranium?
 
Top Bottom