The Anti-Nuclear Conspiracy

a reply to: JBurns

Do you trust our world leaders to not push a button that could mean instant victory at the cost of a million innocent lives? Or 5 million? What have we traded in the past so an empire could be born or saved? What values have we compromised to protect our future? History tells us what we are capable of. Are we better than that now? How do we know for sure?

This entire forum was built on the premise that every conspiracy is inspired by some kernel of truth and that given sufficient technology and opportunity our leaders will inevitably use it for the wrong reasons.

a reply to: Bluntone22

This..

Vs This..


Perhaps?

The problem now seems to be that even if it is safe now, and I think it is, the regulations are so bad and the activists are so insane, that no company in its right mind would ever try to build a new plant.

People want safe, clean energy, but do they really?

originally posted by: Cancerwarrior
There has been another invention, around for quite a while. It scrubs carbon from the air and thrives off of it. And it practically builds itself with little or no money involved.

It’s called a tree. Guess not many people have heard of it.

I'm at a loss as to how a tree produces energy to power our needs at the same time?

originally posted by: Blaine91555

originally posted by: Cancerwarrior
There has been another invention, around for quite a while. It scrubs carbon from the air and thrives off of it. And it practically builds itself with little or no money involved.

It’s called a tree. Guess not many people have heard of it.

I'm at a loss as to how a tree produces energy to power our needs at the same time?

Adjust our needs to accommodate resources. Audacious, to be sure.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Aha, back to being hunter-gatherers.

originally posted by: JBurns
And its depleted fuel, low level radioactive waste, can be safely stored far underground for centuries or longer.

Except we're talking millennia, where the site(s) would need to be monitored and guarded. No guarantee someone responsible will be watching the place in 50 years much less thousands. Look at the Giza pyramids; mere youth on the nuclear timetable and already in ruins and used as quarries. Lucky for us the ancients didn't leave deposits of interesting warm metal....

IMHO the real future is fusion, and we need to undertake a Manhattan/Apollo effort at making it a practical reality. Versus the current pace of steps taking decades.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Blaine91555

originally posted by: Cancerwarrior
There has been another invention, around for quite a while. It scrubs carbon from the air and thrives off of it. And it practically builds itself with little or no money involved.

It’s called a tree. Guess not many people have heard of it.

I'm at a loss as to how a tree produces energy to power our needs at the same time?

Adjust our needs to accommodate resources. Audacious, to be sure.

I agree with you

8 billion humans is around 7.5 billion too many

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: Blaine91555

I think it's very generous you volunteer to have the world's nuclear waste stored on your land

It's not stored on anyone's land.

originally posted by: Breakthestreak

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Blaine91555

originally posted by: Cancerwarrior
There has been another invention, around for quite a while. It scrubs carbon from the air and thrives off of it. And it practically builds itself with little or no money involved.

It’s called a tree. Guess not many people have heard of it.

I'm at a loss as to how a tree produces energy to power our needs at the same time?

Adjust our needs to accommodate resources. Audacious, to be sure.

I agree with you

8 billion humans is around 7.5 billion too many

R.C. Christian I presume.

Couldn't they just rename it? It worked with the flu.
Call it new age green technology that uses a safe planet saving technology to use the principles from the past unsafe dangerous nuclear technology. Instead of storing why not recycle it I am sure there are plenty of things nuclear wast could be good for.
a reply to: Blaine91555
a reply to: JBurns

a reply to: TzarChasm

But isn't this really just advocating taking a step backwards? Through the use of existing technology (nuclear fission) and researching new technologies (like molten salt reactors, recycling fuel sources, etc) we could raise the quality of life for all 8 billion instead of asking every last lifeform on this planet to accept a reduced standard of living

There would be no more hostages to big oil and big gas, or the new kids on the block (the solar/wind crowd) who are really just big oil repackaged in a 'cleaner' box. They all want you to fork over recurring sums of cash in exchange for something they admit doesn't yet exist when we are already able to do with 100 year old technology (clean, safe, nuclear fission)

When the world's greatest minds discovered how to split the atom, they discovered something truly miraculous. It ushered in the atomic age, bringing with it all sorts of amazing advancements. But instead of continuing to use the discovery to enrich the lives of this planet's occupants, they kept it secret for decades and even now have strangling regulations to hold it back from its true potential

Saying we have the technology and resources to provide enough energy for every single person on this planet is not an exaggeration. It isn't a "pie in the sky" idea that requires some kind of additional breakthrough or technology we don't yet have

The only thing holding us back is ourselves

Do you trust our world leaders to not push a button that could mean instant victory at the cost of a million innocent lives? Or 5 million? What have we traded in the past so an empire could be born or saved? What values have we compromised to protect our future? History tells us what we are capable of. Are we better than that now? How do we know for sure?

This entire forum was built on the premise that every conspiracy is inspired by some kernel of truth and that given sufficient technology and opportunity our leaders will inevitably use it for the wrong reasons.

To be honest, I do not trust them not to push that button now but for the fact their own destruction would be assured. They already have their respective "big red buttons." I hope we can move past this threat of mutual nuclear holocaust, and really start using the technology for the good of mankind.

In 2019, in the US alone, our 59 nuclear power plants avoided 476 million metric tons of CO emissions. To "adjust our needs" to accomplish this same feat would require removing around 100,000,000 automobiles from the roads, and accounted for a greater reduction in emissions than every single form of "clean energy" combined. It also contributed to keeping our air cleaner, by preventing the addition of thousands upon thousands of tons of harmful air pollutants that contribute to all sorts of negative effects, acid rain, smog, lung cancer, etc.

originally posted by: CrazyFox
Couldn't they just rename it? It worked with the flu.
Call it new age green technology that uses a safe planet saving technology to use the principles from the past unsafe dangerous nuclear technology. Instead of storing why not recycle it I am sure there are plenty of things nuclear wast could be good for.
a reply to: Blaine91555
a reply to: JBurns

Indeed! Although the past technology was anything but dangerous or unsafe. The most dangerous part we've ever faced is anti-nuclear activist types attempting to cause a disaster to advance their message. Today, nuclear plants have nearly 19,000 years of running time under their belts and are very much so safe.

Nuclear waste is recyclable. Once reactor fuel (uranium or thorium) is used in a reactor, it can be treated and put into another reactor as fuel. In fact, typical reactors only extract a few percent of the energy in their fuel. You could power the entire US electricity grid off of the energy in nuclear waste for almost 100 years.

Closed Fuel Cycle reactor designs do just this Breeder Fuel Cycle makes it the only truly "sustainable" form of energy we know exists

We eventually have to decide. Do we want clean energy, a clean environment, freedom from fossil fuels and gas pumps? Or do we not?

a reply to: TzarChasm

History tells us what we are capable of. Are we better than that now? How do we know for sure?

It sure does Tzar

We are capable of putting human beings on the moon and even further.

We created the Internet, connecting remote groups of us human beings together in ways we never imagined possible when I was a kid. I played a game of Chess on the Computer with some one in Egypt just last night

We have cured some of the most deadly and cruel diseases

We defeated evil incarnate in WW2

..and we solved today's energy crisis and environmental problems 100 years ago (but we conveniently forget this)

I remember them touting solar power 40+ years ago. They've had plenty of time to make it more efficient and haven't. Perhaps they realize it will never be able to achieve, pound for pound and dollar for dollar, anywhere near what nuclear fission can

So many are looking for answers to reinvent the wheel, but again this problem...we solved it nearly a century ago!

Our regulations. Our laws. And our attitudes need to catch up!

a reply to: Peeple

I don't think you have any idea what your talking about. Nic salt reactors quite literally use the previous generations waste rods as fuel. Which processes the spent rods to an almost inert state. So in fact the new generation of reactors will indeed save the planet......from the previous generation plants waste.

Oh yeah, also create almost zeo pollution, I'm factoring in the cars driven by plant staff to said reactor.

Edit: There's a reason we haven't had another 3 mile Island or Chernobyl due to reactor designs improving.
The closest thing to those incidents, which is bigger than both combined and in fact is still slowly killing the planet with no end in sight, is Fukushima and that was a scenario of stupidity being compounded by more stupidity and should never of been built in that location in the first place.

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: Peeple

.......

Looks you guys..color me convinced. Screw oil, gas, and those other garbage technologies wind/solar. Wind and solar will never provide the energy required. They are great for charging your mobile phone on the go or lighting your camp site. But Its just another way to separate you from your money, while making you feel like you are doing something to help without actually doing something to solve the problem. If we are talking about providing energy on a planetary scale then nuclear is the only choice we have, and its a good choice!

~15% of solar energy is converted into electricity with the help of costly + constantly degrading solar panels. Wind energy is around 32% and fossil fuels 52%.

The efficiency of nuclear energy is 91% fuel->energy.

........

In reality, the radiation boogeyman isn't nearly as dangerous as you all make it out to be. We're exposed to gamma radiation constantly from the sun, and alphas can't even penetrate our dead layer of skin. THE TECH HAS COME A LONG WAY!

Forty-five years ago I had just earned a Bachelor’s degree in physics and had become a licensed Nuclear Reactor Operator and was just as enthusiastic then about nuclear power as you appear to be now. I’m still enthusiastic about it actually, but you need to temper your enthusiasm with some facts.

First of all wind and solar energy are not “garbage”. They are both cheap and plentiful. Solar power is now the cheapest form of new installed base power generation in basically every location where it makes sense to install. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory estimates that all of the US electricity could be supplied by the sunlight that falls on 0.6% of the US’s land. That’s about twice the land area of the Mojave Desert, for example. Wind power is now close behind solar in terms of cost and utilizes areas that solar usually doesn’t. Both of them are now cheaper to install than any fossil fuel plant in most places in the world.

That said, it is true that both solar and wind power are somewhat variable in their power output, depending on the weather and time of day. The capacity factor of a power plant is defined as the fraction of time that a plant produces its rated power. Wind and solar power have capacity factors substantially below 50% because the sun only shines 50% of the time (on average) and winds are stronger at night than during the day, etc., etc. That’s where nuclear power comes in. Its capacity factor is that 91% number you mentioned. It’s not the thermodynamic efficiency; it’s the fraction of the time that it can produce 100% of its rated power. Because it can run night or day, rain or shine and can ramp up or down quickly, it can easily take up the slack when solar and wind power can’t produce enough. So there’s a place for all three sources.

That said, that doesn’t mean that the fission power plants we have around right now are adequate or the best to solve the problem of getting us off fossil fuel. The reason for that is because almost all current reactors grew out of the nuclear weapons programs of the developed nations. The US, for example was the first country to build and operate nuclear reactors and did so first to understand the chain reaction in Uranium (to build a Uranium bomb) and second to breed Plutonium (to build a Plutonium bomb). That was all done during WWII. A few years after the war, the first power reactors were developed for nuclear submarines and were highly classified. It wasn’t until about the mid 1950s that the US started developing power reactors for civilian use. When we did start developing them, the decision was made to capitalize on the large investment the government had made in military nuclear power. That meant using enriched Uranium for the fuel (because we had the Oak Ridge enrichment plant) and it meant using some form of boiling water to turn the turbines (because that’s how nuclear submarines operated). All of our civilian power reactors today are variations on that theme, and that’s why they have the capacity to melt down and/or to create massive steam explosions.

But it didn’t have to be that way and doesn’t have to be going forward. When the decision was being made to go with boiling/pressurized water and enriched Uranium designs, it was known that we could have gone to a Thorium cycle using Helium or molten salt as the working fluid. Thorium doesn’t require enrichment; you just dig it out of the ground, chemically purity it and put it in a reactor. In a typical Uranium reactor, only about 6% of the Uranium is the fissile isotope 235. The other 94% is U 238, which slowly gets turned into the nasty long-lived transuranic isotopes that need to be stored for tens of thousands of years. In a Thorium reactor, every Thorium atom can ultimately fission, so the fuel cycle is much more efficient and does not produce any where near as much nasty stuff. Thorium molten salt reactors can’t melt down and can’t blow up.

Currently, there are about 450 power reactors in the world, supplying 20% of US electricity and 10% in the rest of the world. In order to pick up the slack due to shutting down fossil fuel plants, we would probably have to build several thousand additional nuclear plants worldwide in the next 20-30 years, if you didn’t want to build solar and wind power plants.

My final point: for the last 200 years or so, we have been generating power in essentially one way. We pull Carbon atoms out of the ground (coal, petroleum, or natural gas) and burn them. That’s it. That’s what allowed the industrial revolution and modern civilization. If we want to get off fossil fuel we’re not going to be able to do it by doing just one thing. We’re going to have to do multiple things at the same time: solar, wind, intelligent fission, and fusion when it comes along.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: JBurns

Do you trust our world leaders to not push a button that could mean instant victory at the cost of a million innocent lives? Or 5 million? What have we traded in the past so an empire could be born or saved? What values have we compromised to protect our future? History tells us what we are capable of. Are we better than that now? How do we know for sure?

This entire forum was built on the premise that every conspiracy is inspired by some kernel of truth and that given sufficient technology and opportunity our leaders will inevitably use it for the wrong reasons.

Who is this we?

so let me see if i have this right.

you say nuclear is clean, even tho the waste product is incredibly deadly for tens of thousands of years, and you want to use this to do what? oh, thats right, boil water!

well, im sold.

a reply to: JBurns

Nuclear is the solution short term, however it has it's drawbacks.

It's the cleanest energy available right now though.

Fusion tech is the real way to energy independence though, once we finally figure out a way to sustain fusion and harness the energy from it, well then the sky is the limit.

originally posted by: stormson
so let me see if i have this right.

you say nuclear is clean, even tho the waste product is incredibly deadly for tens of thousands of years, and you want to use this to do what? oh, thats right, boil water!

well, im sold.

It is not "incredibly deadly" for tens of thousands of years. It is low level radioactive waste, but perfectly capable of being recycled for use in other reactors.

Further, we have big daddy government to thank for the types of reactors we have today. The Thorium MSR, as a true expert explained above, cannot meltdown and has no waste products unlike the transuranic byproducts of our current designs.

Thorium based MSRs are not some pie in the sky technology requiring leaps we have yet to discover. It is feasible with current knowledge, technology and materials.

In case you haven't noticed, burning oil also has dangerous byproducts and waste. Regardless, if we are to gain independence from fossil fuels (which we have no choice, they will run out eventually) there isn't a better choice than the Thorium Molten Salt Reactor.

Imagine the quality of life a civilization with true energy independence could secure for themselves.

originally posted by: JBurns
low level radioactive waste, can be safely stored far underground

and that's where you lost all credibility.

originally posted by: JBurns
safe nuclear energy

Come on dude. I don't even need to mention Three Mile Island and Chernobyl...Fukushima happened the other day and they're still patching it! Except now they need to start dumping radioactive water into the Pacific, so they gathered the experts to explain how it's actually safe to do this -.-