Nuclear Power

[AndyZ]

People here have been pretty awesome about giving various perspectives, so I wanted to open up the floodgates on this one.  How do people feel about nuclear power?

Personally, I feel we need more nuclear power.  I would love to see both sides on this in the 21st century.

[Alice Wonder]

I think we need more nuclear power.
I think we need to do it intelligently though, like they appear to have done in France.

Here in the US, there are so many different models of reactors that maintenance costs are real factor. If we standardized then the cost of parts and training would go down, as would the risk of problems caused by operator error.

[Sabby]

I remember reading once that one of the biggest factors in Nuclear powers unpopularity within public opinions is The Simpsons... which I could totally believe. Homer isn't exactly a good representation of a power plant employee.

Then again, that same article claimed that CSI had harmed the judicial services by convincing juries that DNA evidence is sooo important!

[TheGlyphstone]

I dunno about DNA specifically, but there is a legitimate phenomenon called the 'CSI Effect', though a quick and totally not exhaustive Net search tells me that the 'Effect's' veracity is rather questionable.


As for Nuclear power, I'm all for it - like above, France has done a great job with it.

[Revolverman]

Total supporter of Nuclear power, and decentralized solar collectors to solve the power crisis. We got to stop burning shit.

[TheGlyphstone]

Total supporter of Nuclear power, and decentralized solar collectors to solve the power crisis. We got to stop burning shit.

I dunno, burning shit could actually help solve the problem.

[AndyZ]

A lot of people for it.  Awesome ^_^  Any against?

[Revolverman]

I dunno, burning shit could actually help solve the problem.

Lord, how much would it suck to work at that power plant?

[Oniya]

I've heard that once it's been properly dried, it doesn't reek so bad.  In theory, I could go up to one of the local hitching posts and collect a sample or five.

[ExisD]

I'm a huge proponent of more nuclear energy, especially a model like what France has, and really wish we could get a more public education about the topic.

I can't count the number of times I've had to explain a large number of topics, but mainly: the difference between a nuclear reactor and a nuclear bomb and how radiation actually works/how much exposure is bad and how much common things like flying give you.

[gaggedLouise]

I used to be really against (civilian) nuclear power but over time it's changed. I'd say we definitely need to use it; keeping on burning up oil, coal and gas is both an environmmental and political hazard, and very uneconomical. We really ought not to produce electricity from stacks of burning oil and that, doing it from nuclear or hydro resources is much better.

There are risks with nuclear power, we're all aware of them but for the next fifty or hundred years it doesn't look like there is any real alternative to put in its place - solar and wind energy are not going to provide the amounts we need, for fusion energy it's impossible to know when and how - and fossil fuels are unsuitable. That leaves nuclear and hydroelectric as the only alternatives that will really produce large scale energy in a steady way. And settling for just hydroelectric would mean regulating almost every major river and waterfall on the planet.

[DarklingAlice]

I'm pretty sure the people who fret over the risks of nuclear power are those who perpetually remain unaware of the risks of coal & oil industries. Just goes to show what good PR you can buy <_<

Especially since people continue to view nuclear radiation as some kind of evil magic and have no context for measures of radiation (just look at the way some people in California were freaking out over the Fukushima accident...). Not that they have measures for the toll other power sources take but for some reason they don't feel they need them.

A little off topic but I did find a nice infografic on radiation dose a while back (made by the author of XKCD): Link Here

[Sabby]

Wait, I thought the energy crisis was more about inability to move to better alternatives, not lack of alternatives o.O if all it takes is power plants and solar arrays, we would have done it by now... this may be archaic, unintentionally, but I always thought the problem was the petrol industry don't wanna gtfo and we're not exactly motivated to tell it yes, you do, now gtfo.

[Oniya]

Nuclear power has had a shadow over it since Three Mile Island, and Chernobyl didn't help matters.  The biggest problem that nuclear power proponents have is the 'NIMBY' (Not In My Back Yard) crowd, that says 'Sure, great idea - wait, you want it where?  Forget it!'  This is despite the fact that modern nuclear power plants have safeguard on top of safeguard, and do not hire people whose brains go blank at the thought of Dooooooonuuuuuuuutssssss.

We do still need to find some portable power alternative - I'm encouraged by the recent marketing of electric cars (and once they make one that can actually haul, then we'll be looking into it).  This is where the petrol companies need to gtfo.

[AndyZ]

No argument about Nimby, but I was hoping to see who would be okay with having it built in their own backyard.  I know I would; it'd create jobs.

We do still need to find some portable power alternative - I'm encouraged by the recent marketing of electric cars (and once they make one that can actually haul, then we'll be looking into it).  This is where the petrol companies need to gtfo.

One of the problems with electric cars is that we usually use coal for electricity, at least around where I live.  I could understand this being an argument if other sources were more heavily in use.  Moreover, some of the so-called electric cars have about a 40-mile battery life with a "backup" that far exceeds the actual distance the car can travel.

Personally, I don't believe in manmade global warning.  (I have doubts on a number of scientific principles, including the special theory of relativity, but that's a whole other argument I'd love to have with someone knowledgeable on the subject).  If you do, however, then you may want to read this before you go out and buy a green car: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/green-living-blog/2010/sep/23/carbon-footprint-new-car

Making a new car creates as much carbon pollution as driving it, so it's often better to keep your old banger on the road than to upgrade to a greener model.

However, oil certainly has its own problems, and wind/solar don't currently fix them.  No argument there.

Anyway, I'm rambling.  Anyone who believes in nuclear power but still doesn't want one in their area, or who knows why we don't have more beyond simple NIMBY?

[Callie Del Noire]

Didn't the newest versions reactors (designed by the germans and/or french) that is based on a granular ball rather than rods, get shown to be many many times more safe and able to issues that past reactors have had.

[itsbeenfun2000]

I had a couple of members of the navy come in and explain how a nuclear reactor works to my Pre Calc class right after the Chernobyl accident. They were nuclear engineers close to retirement and had very attractive offers after 20 years in the service. The difference between our reactors and Chernobyl is eye opening. As long as you keep the reactors off fault lines they are very safe. By the way the navy has more reactors then the US has in its power grid.

[didoanna]

I think it would be great to have lots of nuclear power.  And maybe lots of geo-thermal stuff too.

[Callie Del Noire]

I had a couple of members of the navy come in and explain how a nuclear reactor works to my Pre Calc class right after the Chernobyl accident. They were nuclear engineers close to retirement and had very attractive offers after 20 years in the service. The difference between our reactors and Chernobyl is eye opening. As long as you keep the reactors off fault lines they are very safe. By the way the navy has more reactors then the US has in its power grid.

The nukes (Navy Nuclear guys. ) are a wild bunch. They are worked like dogs, driven like dogs while in school (I've seen Nukes get kicked for forging study hall logs), and even when they have made the rating they have to keep up studies, drills and proficiency like no other ratings in the navy. The only ones that come close are the air craft controllers and air crews, with the SPECWAR guys being the ones who MIGHT surpass them on training/tension. (The SEALS don't share what they do though)

I would work a 14 to 16 hour day on the flight deck and my buddy the nuke would do like a 10 hour shift, a 6 hour duty watch and possibly have drills (up to 4 hours, happened about every 1 our of 4 to 6 days). LOTS of work.

So I don't begrudge them their bennies when they get out.. Civie work must be a dream compared to underway times for them

[itsbeenfun2000]

The nukes (Navy Nuclear guys. ) are a wild bunch. They are worked like dogs, driven like dogs while in school (I've seen Nukes get kicked for forging study hall logs), and even when they have made the rating they have to keep up studies, drills and proficiency like no other ratings in the navy. The only ones that come close are the air craft controllers and air crews, with the SPECWAR guys being the ones who MIGHT surpass them on training/tension. (The SEALS don't share what they do though)

I would work a 14 to 16 hour day on the flight deck and my buddy the nuke would do like a 10 hour shift, a 6 hour duty watch and possibly have drills (up to 4 hours, happened about every 1 our of 4 to 6 days). LOTS of work.

So I don't begrudge them their bennies when they get out.. Civie work must be a dream compared to underway times for them

The guys were great and were wonderful with the students. Went through the difference between a Russian reactor and a US one. They explained it at the level of the class they were working with.

[Revolverman]

More so, even with the weird Russian reactors, Chernobyl only happen because of a long chain of fuckups caused by Bureaucrats, not engineers.

[Jude]

That sounds like something that could never happen in the United States.

[didoanna]

More so, even with the weird Russian reactors, Chernobyl only happen because of a long chain of fuckups caused by Bureaucrats, not engineers.

Umm...I'm not sure if you'd be interested but Martin Cruz Smith wrote an 'Arkady Renko' novel called "Wolves Eat Dogs' based in and around Chernobyl and Pripyat.  It took me a while to finish it but it is a very good book!

[TheGlyphstone]

Arkady Renko ftw.

[itsbeenfun2000]

That sounds like something that could never happen in the United States.

The Russians pretty much broke every NRC safety code to cold start the reactor. The top of a Russian reactor at the time, I don't know if it has changed, was a 1000 ton concrete top that sat free on the reactor. The explosion tossed the top 5 miles into the air according to the navy guys. American reactors have 100 ton concrete tops that are screwed down with bolts every 6 or 12 inches, I can't remember which now, with tons of torque in each bolt.