• US Senate votes 87 to 4 to promote advanced nuclear power and cut through NRC red tape
    66 replies, posted
[quote]Building on the Obama Administration’s recent Nuclear Summit at the White House, the United States Senate made an even bigger statement in favor of new nuclear energy. At the Advanced Nuclear Summit in Washington, D.C. last week, hosted by the Third Way, several U.S. Senators attending the meeting announced the Nuclear Energy Innovation Capabilities Act, S.2461, intended to facilitate the development of advanced nuclear technologies. The next day, the Senate overwhelmingly approved the legislation in a vote of 87 to 4. The legislation, introduced by Senators Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) and Mike Crapo (R-ID), directs the U.S. Department of Energy to prioritize partnering with private innovators on new reactor technologies and the testing and demonstration of new reactor designs. The measure is cosponsored by Senators Jim Risch (R-ID), Cory Booker (D-NJ), Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Mark Kirk (R-IL) and Dick Durbin (D-IL), an unusually bipartisan group for nuclear energy, signaling a shift in views on nuclear in light of climate change and grid reliability.[/quote] [quote]This vote also reflects the observation that coal is still the fastest-growing energy source in the world. “Nuclear energy has an important role to play as we transition to a carbon-free energy future. This amendment will help drive investment, remove bureaucratic barriers, and allow our entrepreneurs and businesses to unleash the promise of advanced nuclear technologies,” said Senator Booker (D-NJ).[/quote] [quote]The hurdles faced by nuclear power in this country include the complicated and sometimes arbitrary regulations and financial challenges not faced by other forms of clean energy. Under S.2461, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) would report to Congress on any barriers that would prohibit the licensing of new reactors within a four-year time period.[/quote] [url]http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2016/02/01/u-s-senate-wants-to-decrease-co2-by-increasing-nuclear-energy/#474a10266620[/url] I'm actually shocked by the support this got. I've been following the recent grassroots support for nuclear for a while but I'm shocked it has reached the senate level so fast.
Finally nuclear getting the positive response that it deserves.
If the country starts building up a heavy nuclear infrastructure, ill be very pleased. I mean sure, ive got no doubts we'll all be paying for it now, but in a decade there's gotta be some hood returns with how efficient the shit is [editline]2nd February 2016[/editline] I wouldn't doubt the support is due to the weaker oil lobbies, seeing as saudia Arabia is fuckin slamming us with cheap oil
I don't get the language reflecting coal when its not true. China has been mainly driving that but their economy slowing down will put the breaks on their energy growth, India barely can keep the lights on as it is, they're building out coal but not at the crazy rate china was One hopes this does last longer than oil prices fluctuate, it is actually unusual to invest in nuclear with this cheap of oil, last time the world had a nuclear boom was the fuel crisis of the 70s
Hopefully it promotes sensible ideas with nuclear energy, the fact it's so bipartisan is surprising to me.
[QUOTE=Sableye;49656078]I don't get the language reflecting coal when its not true.[/QUOTE] And what was said that was untrue about coal?
[QUOTE=Sableye;49656078]I don't get the language reflecting coal when its not true. China has been mainly driving that but their economy slowing down will put the breaks on their energy growth, India barely can keep the lights on as it is, they're building out coal but not at the crazy rate china was One hopes this does last longer than oil prices fluctuate, it is actually unusual to invest in nuclear with this cheap of oil, last time the world had a nuclear boom was the fuel crisis of the 70s[/QUOTE] oil companies can't afford to push back currently, sensible hands are starting to be raised [editline]2nd February 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=download;49656093]And what was said that was untrue about coal?[/QUOTE] I can't claim they're wrong, coal is the fastest growing. Id call it some bullshit though because currently nuclear, solar and wind are stagnant as shit, and the Saudis have -all- say when it comes to petroleum.
Something reasonable and logical got approved in the US senate? What universe is this.
I still don't trust nuclear at all, and that is unlikely to change knowing the power of the atom, but I would rather have nuclear plants than coal plants.
As a Nuclear Engineering student this is the best birthday gift I could have asked for!
[QUOTE=Megadave;49656540]I still don't trust nuclear at all, and that is unlikely to change knowing the power of the atom, but I would rather have nuclear plants than coal plants.[/QUOTE] What dont you trust about it?
[QUOTE=Megadave;49656540]I still don't trust nuclear at all, and that is unlikely to change knowing the power of the atom, but I would rather have nuclear plants than coal plants.[/QUOTE] Spend half an hour reading up on it, you will learn that it is far safer than any other power plant out there.
Pleasantly surprised they passed it. Sure, we have some issues we need to work out with nuclear waste disposal and public image, but compared to fossil fuels it's significantly cleaner. Even then, with the latest reactor designs proposed even the waste products from older reactors are still fissile material. This video links to both sides of the arguments [video=youtube;rcOFV4y5z8c]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcOFV4y5z8c[/video]
We Nuclear Now [video=youtube;7XmDYJBZZdc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XmDYJBZZdc[/video]
[QUOTE=Matthew0505;49657734]The oil lobbyists got a much needed pimp slap from the invisible hand.[/QUOTE] Oil lobbyists isn't what's keeping nuclear down, it's price. Nuclear cannot compete with the price of natural gas. The little jump we had hit in oil prices over the last 10 years however, showed that nuclear was viable and needs to be implemented to stabilize energy costs the next time crude and natural gas prices go up.
Just to keep the thread on topic, anyone can PM me with questions or concerns about nuclear power, I should be able to answer them. The NRC as a whole is terribly underfunded, they're a group of about 3500 people with a 1 billion dollar budget in charge of both maintaining the safety of the ~100 nuclear plants across the country, and licensing new reactor designs. Not everyone at the NRC is a nuclear engineer either; there are also administrative positions, and the NRC must also oversee the power plant mechanics in addition to the core itself. There's a huge education issue where the employees are trained to maintain the old Gen II reactor designs from 40+ years ago. Most of the "new" reactor designs are spinoffs of these Gen II designs, typically bigger in scale and with better safety features. They have to be this way because the cost of getting a completely new reactor design such as Thorium Fueled Reactors, LFTRs, or Travelling Wave Reactors is incredibly high, and these reactors use completely different physics one would only understand coming from graduate school. Even so, grad students and researchers typically don't want to work in policy, so the NRC has a tough time finding the right people who will work for government pay to help license new reactor designs. This article helps industry lower R&D costs since they can rent out lab space, though there are still a few more bureaucratic obstacles in the way.
[QUOTE=Megadave;49656540]I still don't trust nuclear at all, and that is unlikely to change knowing the power of the atom, but I would rather have nuclear plants than coal plants.[/QUOTE] the analogy is that nuclear power going awry is like seeing a shooting happen in your vicinity. it's shocking and horrifying, but the reality is that not that many lives were lost. compare this to a more unseen killer like heart disease, which affects many many more people without much reaction. the problem was never us running out of a supply of coal/oil, the problem is that by the time we burn it all up to a point where we have to worry about it, we've already poisoned ourselves. sure, nuclear waste is really hard to get rid of, but it's a lot easier stuffing it into the ground and marking it as a no-zone than watching emissions meld into the air and contribute to our slow deaths. if a nuclear accident occurs, then only a relatively small patch of land will be rendered unusable -- these reactors don't explode like weaponized nuclear isotopes do.
We need that post made by that one guy that destroys any arguments made about why nuclear is unsafe before they can crop up
[QUOTE=aznz888;49657950]the analogy is that nuclear power going awry is like seeing a shooting happen in your vicinity. it's shocking and horrifying, but the reality is that not that many lives were lost. compare this to a more unseen killer like heart disease, which affects many many more people without much reaction. the problem was never us running out of a supply of coal/oil, the problem is that by the time we burn it all up to a point where we have to worry about it, we've already poisoned ourselves. sure, nuclear waste is really hard to get rid of, but it's a lot easier stuffing it into the ground and marking it as a no-zone than watching emissions meld into the air and contribute to our slow deaths. if a nuclear accident occurs, then only a relatively small patch of land will be rendered unusable -- these reactors don't explode like weaponized nuclear isotopes do.[/QUOTE] Those patches of land don't stay unusable either. You can already move back to Fukushima and not notice anything from the disaster, the Tsunami was way more destructive.
[QUOTE=l337k1ll4;49657982]Those patches of land don't stay unusable either. You can already move back to Fukushima and not notice anything from the disaster, the Tsunami was way more destructive.[/QUOTE] and also chernobyl was such an outlier in circumstances that it really shouldn't be mentioned
Better than coal or oil. Hope to see some renewed interest in fusion, too.
[QUOTE=Dr.C;49657981]We need that post made by that one guy that destroys any arguments made about why nuclear is unsafe before they can crop up[/QUOTE] My face punching hero (that isn't postal): Snowmew!
[QUOTE=Matthew0505;49658237]Exactly, the margins on fracking were terrible before the oil price drops. They're probably negative now.[/QUOTE] the thing is, if company A puts in the well and goes out of business, then company B comes along and buys the well, they make money off of the fracking without paying for the fracking
[QUOTE=Megadave;49656540]I still don't trust nuclear at all, and that is unlikely to change knowing the power of the atom, but I would rather have nuclear plants than coal plants.[/QUOTE] The point of this is to make nuclear energy more viable from an economic standpoint. And if the industry grows then we'll probably be seeing even more research and technology to make power plants safer and more efficient. I can understand why you don't like it, but it's one of the better alternatives and it's more likely to get even better if we choose to explore it.
[QUOTE=nagachief;49657646]Pleasantly surprised they passed it. Sure, we have some issues we need to work out with nuclear waste disposal and public image, but compared to fossil fuels it's significantly cleaner. Even then, with the latest reactor designs proposed even the waste products from older reactors are still fissile material. This video links to both sides of the arguments [video=youtube;rcOFV4y5z8c]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcOFV4y5z8c[/video][/QUOTE] That video promotes several well debunked nuclear misconceptions. It's really not good.
[QUOTE=download;49659257]That video promotes several well debunked nuclear misconceptions. It's really not good.[/QUOTE] For the record, can you list these misconceptions?
[QUOTE=Trebgarta;49659272]Does anyone have a link to the nuclear roast from someone with a cat avatar?[/QUOTE] [url=https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1336387&p=43252922&viewfull=1#post43252922][b][i]haha oh boy here we go again[/i][/b][/url]
[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;49657811]Just to keep the thread on topic, anyone can PM me with questions or concerns about nuclear power, I should be able to answer them. The NRC as a whole is terribly underfunded, they're a group of about 3500 people with a 1 billion dollar budget in charge of both maintaining the safety of the ~100 nuclear plants across the country, and licensing new reactor designs. Not everyone at the NRC is a nuclear engineer either; there are also administrative positions, and the NRC must also oversee the power plant mechanics in addition to the core itself. There's a huge education issue where the employees are trained to maintain the old Gen II reactor designs from 40+ years ago. Most of the "new" reactor designs are spinoffs of these Gen II designs, typically bigger in scale and with better safety features. They have to be this way because the cost of getting a completely new reactor design such as Thorium Fueled Reactors, LFTRs, or Travelling Wave Reactors is incredibly high, and these reactors use completely different physics one would only understand coming from graduate school. Even so, grad students and researchers typically don't want to work in policy, so the NRC has a tough time finding the right people who will work for government pay to help license new reactor designs. This article helps industry lower R&D costs since they can rent out lab space, though there are still a few more bureaucratic obstacles in the way.[/QUOTE] Besides fucking over the nuclear [I]fission[/I] projects, funding continues to be pulled away from nuclear fusion projects on many fronts. My university's Plasmas department has been continuously cut since the mid 90s- lost two offsite labs and most of the staff. I'm interested to see where this leads, and hope it paves the way for better understanding in fission tech in the immediate future and for fusion tech further down the road.
[QUOTE=paindoc;49659386]Besides fucking over the nuclear [I]fission[/I] projects, funding continues to be pulled away from nuclear fusion projects on many fronts. My university's Plasmas department has been continuously cut since the mid 90s- lost two offsite labs and most of the staff. I'm interested to see where this leads, and hope it paves the way for better understanding in fission tech in the immediate future and for fusion tech further down the road.[/QUOTE] I can tell you where it leads in the short term: Modular Gen III+ units that are cheaper and quicker to build.
I really like nuclear power though I'm aware of it's possible hazards. I really wish hard environmentalists would stop trying to shut it down and embrace it. My Ideal future is nuclear fission/fusion doing the bulk of the work with solar filling in the gaps/doing the work off the grid in remote areas.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.