Secretary of Energy Rick Perry Wants to Make Nuclear Cool Again
47 replies, posted
I would highly advise watching the whole conference, more than a third of it is about nuclear topics
[video]https://youtu.be/4xWJP-LSnf4?t=3048[/video]
[QUOTE=Article]"One of the things we want to do at [the Department of Energy] is to make nuclear energy cool again," Perry said during a lengthy news conference at the White House Tuesday.
He said, "You remember when we were kids, well, sorry, you are nowhere near my age. But when I was younger in the '60s, and a lot of kids wanted to go into the nuclear energy field."
But that isn't the case now, he said, "because this industry has been strangled all too often by government regulations." He wants the U.S. to begin again to "bring us to that place where nuclear energy is part of a portfolio, and be able to sell it in great truthfulness and honesty about what it can add to America from an environmental standpoint and from a security standpoint."
[/QUOTE]
[URL]http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/perry-wants-to-make-nuclear-energy-cool-again/article/2627250[/URL]
Raise the control rods WE'RE GOING TO FULL POWER BABY
EDIT: [URL="https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/06/27/press-briefing-secretary-energy-rick-perry-and-principal-deputy-press"]Full Transcript[/URL], key highlights:
[QUOTE=Highlights]
P:[B] This administration believes that nuclear energy development can be a game-changer[/B] and an important player in the development of our clean-energy portfolio globally. I believe we can achieve this by focusing on the development of technology, for instance, [B]advanced nuclear reactors, small modular reactors.
[/B]P: This administration truly believes in an all-of-the-above approach, allowing nuclear energy to come and play an important role in a very diverse portfolio. [B]So the idea that overregulating an industry -- that is one of the challenges[/B]. And it's not just about the United States from the standpoint of our being able to have an energy source that is reliable, that is zero emission. [B]It's about America maintaining -- or regaining may be a better word -- our leadership role in nuclear energy, because the Russians and the Chinese are very actively engaged across the board,[/B] globally, to go put their technology to gain and leverage their political place, if you will, using nuclear energy as one of the levers.
Q What about Yucca Mountain? What about Yucca Mountain?
SECRETARY PERRY: Well, you know, we’ve made no decisions at DOE, nor has this administration, from the standpoint of where we’re going to look. Obviously, those are all options but there’s been no decision made about where it will be going.
Q Mr. Secretary, you’re very enthusiastic about nuclear power and the potential that it has. A lot of people are still scared of nuclear power because of nuclear waste and nuclear plant safety. And this has been happening since the ’60s, when one television documentarian said that really it hasn’t changed in terms of what we know to do with nuclear waste, which isn’t much. [B]Can you assure the American people that nuclear waste and nuclear plant safety are such that we should expand nuclear power in this country?
[/B]
SECRETARY PERRY: You know, I would reflect that -- or deflect that, if he was here, to President Macron of France, who gets 70-plus percent of their power from nuclear energy.
Now, this is the country that wouldn’t buy Texas beef for some reason, yet 76 percent of their energy comes from nuclear power. So the French, who I’ve always thought were a little bit different -- (laughter) -- and that’s in a good way. You know, they recognized us as a state back in the 1830s, so we actually have a really close, personal relationship with the French. We like them. We had an embassy in Paris. They had one in Austin; as a matter of fact it’s still there, called the French Legation. Invite all of you to come and see it.
But the French are a little different when it comes to some things. And one of those I would find it really interesting -- [B]our French friends are very comfortable getting 76 percent, thereabouts, of their energy from nuclear, and I can assure you they’re very fond of getting it at the rate they’re getting it.[/B][/QUOTE]
This is the only thing I'd be OK with keeping from the Trump Administration so far. Sure, I love solar and wind too - but there's no reason to limit our options and Nuclear is at very least more stable/reliable on an hourly basis.
*whilst also fucking with the subsidies necessary for plants
*also screwing over the entire educational system so getting the education needed to actually work at a nuclear plant becomes more expensive than it's worth
[QUOTE]The first part of new cooperation with India will be exporting liquefied natural gas, the second area will be on clean coal, and the third will be nuclear energy.[/QUOTE]
*thinking there's such a thing as clean coal, also making it a priority over nuclear.
I know you're in the field and are literally BEAMING with wishful thinking about America's nuclear future under the leadership of a man who probably doesn't know the difference between nuclear power and nuclear weapons, so that just makes all these empty gestures all the more sad.
Missed opportunity to say 'Make Nuclear Rad Again', although I can see they passed up on that, given how easily it could be misinterpreted.
Well, if this administration manages to restart nuclear power in this country, I would concede that as a point for an otherwise mired track record.
I hope this doesn't give people who oppose the administration generally the desire to shit on nuclear even more when the political reins get switched.
[QUOTE=EcksDee;52408024]*whilst also fucking with the subsidies necessary for plants
*also screwing over the entire educational system so getting the education needed to actually work at a nuclear plant becomes more expensive than it's worth
*thinking there's such a thing as clean coal, also making it a priority over nuclear.
I know you're in the field and are literally BEAMING with wishful thinking about America's nuclear future under the leadership of a man who probably doesn't know the difference between nuclear power and nuclear weapons, so that just makes all these empty gestures all the more sad.[/QUOTE]
Can you take your anti-Trump glasses off for a minute and try to recognize that Perry's nuclear goals for the DOE are a good thing?
What does the Secretary of Energy have to do at all with the education system? The reason I am able to study nuclear engineering in the first place is specifically because this field pays so well that I can afford taking on debt to go to college.
The desire to build more than just a few plants in the South means that we might be able to stabilize our existing nuclear capacity when the old plants start going down in 10-15 years (or sooner). This is great for the industry itself but it also prevents future coal/natural gas plants from being needed to replace the old nuclear plants.
[editline]27th June 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=U-Lander;52408111]Well, if this administration manages to restart nuclear power in this country, I would concede that as a point for an otherwise mired track record.
I hope this doesn't give people who oppose the administration generally the desire to shit on nuclear even more when the political reins get switched.[/QUOTE]
Perry notable avoided the questions on waste/nuclear safety in the conference and instead talked about how France uses nuclear for 76% electricity. The answers to those questions are lengthy/technical and would probably confuse/worry the public so I think he did a good job diverting the question to prevent nuclear topics from becoming a political football again.
Reactor safety and waste management are two completely different areas in my field but if there's an issue with any one area then protestors and politicians swamp nuclear power as a whole and its problematic.
[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;52408113]Can you take your anti-Trump glasses off for a minute and try to recognize that Perry's nuclear goals for the DOE are a good thing?
What does the Secretary of Energy have to do at all with the education system? The reason I am able to study nuclear engineering in the first place is specifically because this field pays so well that I can afford taking on debt to go to college.
The desire to build more than just a few plants in the South means that we might be able to stabilize our existing nuclear capacity when the old plants start going down in 10-15 years (or sooner). This is great for the industry itself but it also prevents future coal/natural gas plants from being needed to replace the old nuclear plants.[/QUOTE]
Too bad you're third place on the priority list, below even 'clean coal', which is a lie anyways. Honestly you should demand better treatment considering your field is considered less important than coal mining.
[QUOTE=froztshock;52408142]Too bad you're third place on the priority list, below even 'clean coal', which is a lie anyways. Honestly you should demand better treatment considering your field is considered less important than coal mining.[/QUOTE]
That priority list is for cooperation with India :|
The fact that we are considered a priority in the first place is cause for celebration in an industry that has had almost no development in 40 years
[editline]27th June 2017[/editline]
full transcript released, editting op
[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;52408158]That priority list is for cooperation with India :|
The fact that we are considered a priority in the first place is cause for celebration in an industry that has had almost no development in 40 years
[editline]27th June 2017[/editline]
full transcript released, editting op[/QUOTE]
I just find it hard to trust people who tell bold-faced lies over and over again and seem to be set on pandering to dying industries but if you believe they're gonna' legitimately do good by nuclear then by all means.
[editline]27th June 2017[/editline]
Considering, y'know, 'clean coal' isn't a real thing.
Billy, I support the goal here. More nuclear is great.
But what I have a problem with is this is the only movement being taken for it. There's a lot more to it than just bolstering up the field through exuberance. You need educated people. You need healthy people. Both of those things are going to be problems going forward. 20 years from now, when many of those plants finally open their doors for the first time, who's going to be there to staff them? Will they have recieved quality education? Or will they most likely have been through an even more broken version of the US's public school system once all this is over and done with? Good, Trump's "pushing" nuclear. But it's not great because the supports won't be there when it's ready.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52408225]Billy, I support the goal here. More nuclear is great.
But what I have a problem with is this is the only movement being taken for it. There's a lot more to it than just bolstering up the field through exuberance. You need educated people. You need healthy people. Both of those things are going to be problems going forward. 20 years from now, when many of those plants finally open their doors for the first time, who's going to be there to staff them? Will they have recieved quality education? Or will they most likely have been through an even more broken version of the US's public school system once all this is over and done with? Good, Trump's "pushing" nuclear. But it's not great because the supports won't be there when it's ready.[/QUOTE]
The people working at these places will include myself and the graduates of America's nuclear engineering programs? There are also more mechanical engineers that work at nuclear plants than nuclear engineers, and MechE is the most common type of engineer there is. There's a lot of effort for the retiring workforce to train new employees coming in before their retirement to fill their jobs as well.
I dont understand where the concern for the education needed to run a nuclear power plant is coming from. Building the plant is a different concern due to lack of trade skills but i believe we will have more than enough qualified employees at these facilities.
Nuclear is the future, not Solar or wind.
Thank fuck.
[QUOTE=LAMB SAUCE;52408298]Nuclear is the future, not Solar or wind.
Thank fuck.[/QUOTE]
As long if morons can't infect themselves with radiation-exposed (this be a major reason why people fear about Nuclear power besides feel being outdated in the 21st century), Is better.
[QUOTE=LAMB SAUCE;52408298]Nuclear is the future, not Solar or wind.
Thank fuck.[/QUOTE]
Why not all 3 with them being used dependent on the environment where they're being generated? Seems best so long as they're being properly made so that they can safely and efficiently produce energy.
[QUOTE=LAMB SAUCE;52408298]Nuclear is the future, not Solar or wind.
Thank fuck.[/QUOTE]
There is zero reason to think renewable energy "losing" is a good thing short of brain damage.
Solar is rapidly evolving, becoming more and more efficient constantly. It can provide for the needs to entire towns, cities, states, or even countries is fielded correctly for a fraction of the setup time of a new nuclear reactor and significantly less red tape. Wind is great in a few places for similar reasons.
Nuclear reactors getting more efficient and "cleaner" is a great thing, but it shouldn't be all that we rely on. It's still not a truly renewable resource and even with newer gen reactors, waste management is still going to be a problem at some point.
[QUOTE=FinalHunter;52408356]That doesn't have to be true.
Imagine covering a few square miles of the Mojave desert with solar panels - nobody is going to live out there anyways. That would be a shitload of power.
It just needs to be affordable enough for someone to want to do it.[/QUOTE]
Transmission loss is going to be a problem though. It doesn't matter if you can generate tons of power in the middle of nowhere if you can't get it to where people live efficiently.
Solar takes space, space is going to exceedingly harder to get, solar farms nowhere near human populace is inefficient. Plus it will never be as cost efficient as nuclear can be in the future. Wind is too unreliable.
Who can you always rely on? Good ol nuclear power.
[QUOTE=LAMB SAUCE;52408391]Solar takes space, space is going to exceedingly harder to get, solar farms nowhere near human populace is inefficient. Plus it will never be as cost efficient as nuclear can be in the future. Wind is too unreliable.
Who can you always rely on? Good ol nuclear power.[/QUOTE]
Rooftop installations in residential/commercial districts would be fine. It would also cut down on the need for energy production as everyone with a setup installed would be providing for themselves for the most part.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;52408376]There is zero reason to think renewable energy "losing" is a good thing short of brain damage.
Solar is rapidly evolving, becoming more and more efficient constantly. It can provide for the needs to entire towns, cities, states, or even countries is fielded correctly for a fraction of the setup time of a new nuclear reactor and significantly less red tape. Wind is great in a few places for similar reasons.
Nuclear reactors getting more efficient and "cleaner" is a great thing, but it shouldn't be all that we rely on. It's still not a truly renewable resource and even with newer gen reactors, waste management is still going to be a problem at some point.[/QUOTE]
Where did he say solar or wind losing is a good thing? He's just pointing out that nuclear is a more practical solution to clean energy than the other alternatives. He didn't say we should stop using them entirely.
Waste also really isn't [I]that[/I] huge of an issue; old nuclear reactors only produce about 20 metric tonnes of waste per year (over the past 40 years the US has only produce about enough to fill an area the length and width of a football field and seven yards deep), and reactors using newer, more efficient technology could potentially use the waste of old reactors as fuel. Keeping the waste secure and out of the hands of people who shouldn't have access to radioactive materials is a bigger issue than the waste itself.
Imagine Secretary of Energy Rick Perry being involved in the innovation of Generation IV fusion reactors. That's not something anyone could have ever predicted. Of course he wouldn't be doing any of the science himself, but still.
The key here is bringing advances in nuclear power and waste management to this increase in nuclear power. The DOE's record is sketchy and they need to enforce oversight, especially on privitized nuclear.
[QUOTE=FinalHunter;52408356]That doesn't have to be true.
Imagine covering a few square miles of the Mojave desert with solar panels - nobody is going to live out there anyways. That would be a shitload of power.
It just needs to be affordable enough for someone to want to do it.[/QUOTE]
Nuclear would be needed for places that don't have the sun or wind, like deep space or something.
Maybe do a bit of both and put a bunch of solar panels against a giant-ass fusion reactor like a mini Dyson Sphere.
[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52408017]This is the only thing I'd be OK with keeping from the Trump Administration so far. Sure, I love solar and wind too - but there's no reason to limit our options and Nuclear is at very least more stable/reliable on an hourly basis.[/QUOTE]
Exactly my issue with solar and wind. Solar only works when the sun's out. Night falls? Heavily overcast? Storming? Panels produce fuck all. And it doesn't work everywhere, it needs a good, direct, clear, unobstructed view of that orange ball of blindness. Wind's even worse, sure it works at night but it's not practical in all regions and it's VERY sensitive to storms.
Nuclear's the best option we have, really.
Holy crap the bot game going on in the comments
I don't understand why it has to be either or on nuclear and renewables. Doesn't it make more sense to use whichever source of energy is efficient and optimal for a given circumstance? seems like unnecessary political bickering to me.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;52408544]I don't understand why it has to be either or on nuclear and renewables. Doesn't it make more sense to use whichever source of energy is efficient and optimal for a given circumstance? seems like unnecessary political bickering to me.[/QUOTE]
Lots of people don't support wind and solar because "global warming don't exist, God will take care of the planet." Just as discouragingly, other people - people who usually side with the science - don't support nuclear because "all reactors are another Chernobyl or Fukushima waiting to happen." Do you think the Simpsons was just joking around when Homer nearly blew up Mr. Burns' power plant every other episode? There has been a vested, scientifically erroneous vendetta against nuclear for decades.
Compared to solar, which has the least negative on the environment? I'm not talking about nuclear waste or emissions but the materials for both of them need to be mined
All are pretty negligible if we ignore environmental costs due to manufacturing/sourcing materials. Radioactive material should be the easy 'this one' - however the techniques employed in recovering it prevent much of what would otherwise be potential environmental costs.
All told, I'd say maybe nuclear by a hair just because it requires a larger array of materials when considering the entire plant, its electronics/safeguards, heavier wiring/infrastructure needs and specialized equipment and so forth, at least some of which being less friendly than solar/wind, followed by solar and then by wind.
But really, as I wrote above, it's all pretty negligible if we're just talking running cost.
Reposting from other thread since I think its relevant to the political discussion here:
[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;52404474]I think you and Morgen would appreciate something I just finished writing for work. We get new hires who aren't very familiar with the nuclear industry so I was asked to [url=http://docdro.id/x3DERz7]write a crash course in everything nuclear[/url] to get new workers up to speed.
I think you would like the Nuclear Fuel Cycles section, and Morgen would like (or like to contest) what I wrote in the Energy Politics and Economics section.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;52408432]Rooftop installations in residential/commercial districts would be fine. It would also cut down on the need for energy production as everyone with a setup installed would be providing for themselves for the most part.[/QUOTE]
Which is piss poor, what are some Solar panels on the top of an apartment block going to do? There's no room for solar to make a real difference In a high density living future.
Nuclear has way more potential for the future, since it's not reliant on weather, space, rain etc.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.