White House publishes a statement supporting the use of Nuclear Power - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Dim;52389278]As someone from Europe it is really interesting for me to see so many people on the thread liking the idea of an increase in nuclear power plants. Why would you want to support a source of energy that produces highly toxic waste nobody really knows how to get rid of? I don’t want to demonize anyone, I really am curious on why you guys feel like supporting nuclear energy.[/QUOTE] Because nuclear is the somewhat sensible option that can be both safe and viable with our current technology. It's the safest form of energy per KWh, the fuel is extremely energy-dense and there are solutions available for almost all the problems that arise from running power plants. Problem is that due to politics and tons of red tape in the way of new constructions we're stuck with a bunch of ancient reactors of unsafe designs.

[QUOTE=Im Crimson;52389382]Because nuclear is the somewhat sensible option that can be both safe and viable with our current technology. It's the safest form of energy per KWh, the fuel is extremely energy-dense and there are solutions available for almost all the problems that arise from running power plants. Problem is that due to politics and tons of red tape in the way of new constructions we're stuck with a bunch of ancient reactors of unsafe designs.[/QUOTE] It's non renewable though, so regardless of waste processing it's not a very long term solution.

[QUOTE=Big Bang;52389289]Not only no, but fuck no. The fact that it hasn't [I]yet[/I] caused any ill effects doesn't mean that the practice isn't inherently harmful to the environment; it implies nothing but just disposing of something that could be highly toxic even long after we're gone, in a place where we can no longer see it. I have read on it, and the United States is signatory to not one, but three separate conventions that prohibit dumping nuclear waste in oceans, so don't even think about it. Your implication that the practice can't be harmful is wrong, not because I'm saying it, but because, empirically, [url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4312553.stm]unrestricted dumping of nuclear waste in oceans has already caused damage to coastal villages in Somalia[/url]. Nuclear waste disposal is not an easy problem to solve, and I really wish nuclear power advocates would focus more of their effort in finding a solution that doesn't involve just forgetting about it.[/QUOTE] I'm not arguing that it doesn't have harmful effects nor that it should be done (for the record, it shouldn't). I'm saying that nuclear fuel that's put deep in the ocean isn't as huge of a risk as most people think it is. It's got less negative effects than an oil spill. I don't think we're arguing the same thing here. Most nuclear waste is stored on site in the spent fuel pools past the operation time of the reactor. There are also some gen IV designs that can use spent fuel as their fuel.

[QUOTE=_Axel;52389393]It's non renewable though, so regardless of waste processing it's not a very long term solution.[/QUOTE] There is enough uranium in the ocean to last humanity tens of thousands of years in burner reactors (and millions in breeders) which can be recovered at a very reasonable US$300/lb uranium price.

[QUOTE=download;52389402]There is enough uranium in the ocean to last humanity tens of thousands of years in burner reactors (and millions in breeders) which can be recovered at a very reasonable US$300/lb uranium price.[/QUOTE] Really? Is that for 100% of energy needs being covered by nuclear? Does this reasonable price remain that low throughout exploitation? The most generous estimates I've seen is few centuries worth of fuel, and that's to sustain current nuclear production.

[QUOTE=_Axel;52389393]It's non renewable though, so regardless of waste processing it's not a very long term solution.[/QUOTE] Correct, but it's a 200-year solution based on current reserve estimates. And then there are other fuel options, some of which are even more common than uranium. I don't mean to imply that nuclear fission is the end-all solution to our energy problems, but rather since we've now figured out we'll fucking die unless we cut fossil fuel emissions quickly why not also make use of a proven low-carbon technology to rid ourselves of oil and coal faster?

[QUOTE=Tudd;52388231]I have already stated that the subsidies should be more in Nuclear. I am not even for removing all subsidies from solar/wind. Of course, I rather we didn't have to subsidize in general, but I also recognize that to lower carbon emissions some intrusion is necessary. I just prefer it go to the better power source that fix such issues now and is more cost effective when dealing metropolitan needs.[/QUOTE] If you're really against government subsidies, you should be focusing on the [URL="http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2015/wp15105.pdf"]$5.3 Trillion[/URL] that goes into propping up fossil fuels globally every year, rather than focusing on the [URL="http://fs-unep-centre.org/publications/global-trends-renewable-energy-investment-2015"]less than 1/3 Trillion[/URL] being invested in alternative energy (including biofuels). Sure, domestically [URL="https://www.cbo.gov/publication/43040"]renewables get more tax credits/subsidies than fossil fuels and nuclear[/URL], but you're comparing what has until recently been considered a fledgling industry (renewables) to established industries (fossil fuels and nuke) and STILL ignoring how much fossil fuels are being propped up compared to nuclear energy. Nuclear power is great. I'm glad Republicans are trying to give nuclear a fair shake at the market. This proposal is going to fall short of that however. You can't cry about renewables and market fairness without addressing the Trillions of subsides and damages fossil fuels are getting.

[QUOTE=download;52389355]No one is "solving it" because the issue is already solved: Bury it deep underground and forget about it.[/QUOTE] Yes, that worked so great for the [URL="http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/07/photogalleries/100708-radioactive-nuclear-waste-science-salt-mine-dump-pictures-asse-ii-germany/"]Asse II mine[/URL]. You can't just forget about it, you have to maintain and monitor it, which is costly.

[QUOTE=NoOneKnowsMe;52389473]Yes, that worked so great for the [URL="http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/07/photogalleries/100708-radioactive-nuclear-waste-science-salt-mine-dump-pictures-asse-ii-germany/"]Asse II mine[/URL]. You can't just forget about it, you have to maintain and monitor it, which is costly.[/QUOTE] No shits were given about the environment in the 1960s, that's a dump site not a storage. Modern storage proposals includes sealing the fuel in copper- and ceramic containers stored in reinforced vaults deep in unused mines or bore holes. Sure it will require periodic maintenance, but so does everything we construct. Some spent fuel can also be reprocessed into new fuel.

[QUOTE=download;52389355]No one is "solving it" because the issue is already solved: Bury it deep underground and forget about it.[/QUOTE] It is not really remotely close to solved. You can't bury it and forget about it, because the waste will actually last longer than the countries responsible for it. Even the simple task of making a warning sign that will actually mean something thousands of years into the future is daunting. Burying it isn't the solution, it's merely the only solution that we've come up thus far. It's also increasingly harder to understand the move to nuclear when we as a species have developed technologies that result in negligible waste and produce no emissions. Renewable energy works and the only reason why it isn't being pursued more in the US is solely due to politics and lobbying.

[QUOTE=Big Bang;52389942]It is not really remotely close to solved. You can't bury it and forget about it, because the waste will actually last longer than the countries responsible for it. Even the simple task of making a warning sign that will actually mean something thousands of years into the future is daunting. Burying it isn't the solution, it's merely the only solution that we've come up thus far. It's also increasingly harder to understand the move to nuclear when we as a species have developed technologies that result in negligible waste and produce no emissions. Renewable energy works and the only reason why it isn't being pursued more in the US is solely due to politics and lobbying.[/QUOTE] TBH, we can't consider what will happen in hundreds of years, let alone thousands of years. The level of tech will make any of our considerations pointless. Also, the only reason solar and wind have much of any presence in the US is directly because of government subsidy.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52390044]TBH, we can't consider what will happen in hundreds of years, let alone thousands of years. The level of tech will make any of our considerations pointless. Also, the only reason solar and wind have much of any presence in the US is directly because of government subsidy.[/QUOTE] We can't consider that our level of tech will continue increasing indefinitely either, that's a stupid gamble to make. Technological advancement is unpredictable by nature, we may very well not come up with completely safe ways to neutralize or stock nuclear waste in a thousand years. Maybe it isn't even possible.

[QUOTE=_Axel;52390073]We can't consider that our level of tech will continue increasing indefinitely either, that's a stupid gamble to make. Technological advancement is unpredictable by nature, we may very well not come up with completely safe ways to neutralize or stock nuclear waste in a thousand years. Maybe it isn't even possible.[/QUOTE] We already have the technology to safely store nuclear waste, and even recycle much of it. I'm simply saying that we can't not use those methods because they might not know about it in 500 years and get hurt. That's not realistic.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;52389264] Cherynobyl was a design and operation flaw, not necessarily a construction one. And you have no clue about the nuclear industry if you think it's just a rush for publicity and money and you think operators will sacrifice safety for money.[/QUOTE] Well, I mean, they rushed Chernobyl (by-passed safeties to get the plant running), they mucked up 3-mile Island to keep it running, and fucked up Fukishima after being warned about their back-up generator placement. If money isn't the only motivator behind those sorts of stupid mistakes, then any argument for why they happened as they did just seems even [I]more[/I] ridiculous. Companies squeeze by regulations where-ever it will save them a dime at any opportunity. [editline]22nd June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=sgman91;52390044]Also, the only reason solar and wind have much of any presence in the US is directly because of government subsidy.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=1legmidget;52389435]If you're really against government subsidies, you should be focusing on the [URL="http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2015/wp15105.pdf"]$5.3 Trillion[/URL] that goes into propping up fossil fuels globally every year, rather than focusing on the [URL="http://fs-unep-centre.org/publications/global-trends-renewable-energy-investment-2015"]less than 1/3 Trillion[/URL] being invested in alternative energy (including biofuels). Sure, domestically [URL="https://www.cbo.gov/publication/43040"]renewables get more tax credits/subsidies than fossil fuels and nuclear[/URL], but you're comparing what has until recently been considered a fledgling industry (renewables) to established industries (fossil fuels and nuke) and STILL ignoring how much fossil fuels are being propped up compared to nuclear energy. Nuclear power is great. I'm glad Republicans are trying to give nuclear a fair shake at the market. This proposal is going to fall short of that however. You can't cry about renewables and market fairness without addressing the Trillions of subsides and damages fossil fuels are getting.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Zero-Point;52390511]Well, I mean, they rushed Chernobyl (by-passed safeties to get the plant running), they mucked up 3-mile Island to keep it running, and fucked up Fukishima after being warned about their back-up generator placement. If money isn't the only motivator behind those sorts of stupid mistakes, then any argument for why they happened as they did just seems even [I]more[/I] ridiculous. Companies squeeze by regulations where-ever it will save them a dime at any opportunity. [editline]22nd June 2017[/editline][/QUOTE] Still relevant [QUOTE=Snowmew;43252922][b][i]haha oh boy here we go again[/i][/b] There were, as you say, 3 "worldwide implicating nuclear accidents". First of all, Chernobyl was considered dangerous and outdated [i]while it was being built[/i]. It was condemned by both Russian and American nuclear scientists alike. They literally said "this will explode and kill thousands of people why are you doing this" but nobody listened. The design of the reactor was extremely unsafe and no reactor in the world would experience a similar disaster, ever. The reason that Chernobyl turned into such a massive disaster was the emergency management. No evacuation or public notification was done for 2 days after the incident. Had a proper evacuation taken place at the correct time, there would have been little or no deaths. That said, the main radioactive elements distributed in the Chernobyl accident - iodine, strontium, and caesium, with half-lives of 8 days, 29 years, and 30 years, respectively - decayed too quickly to have any significant ecological impact outside the exclusion zone. The second "worldwide implicating nuclear accident" was Three Mile Island. Oh, wait, nobody died. [i]Nobody.[/i] There were no deaths as a direct result of the TMI accident. Let me just say that a fourth time - zero people died from radiation poisoning in the TMI accident. Now, that said, the main reason it was a disaster in the first place was repeated operator error, which is extremely unlikely with today's training and safety protocols. Regardless, studies have repeatedly shown no significant effects to humans or the environment. It was a non-disaster. That leaves us with the third "worldwide implicating nuclear accident" - Fukushima. Now, the reason Fukushima blew up was because TEPCO (the owner) failed to protect it against tsunamis. It SCRAMed properly during the earthquake, but the following tsunami flooded the underground backup generators which powered the coolant pumps while the plant was down. Since the reaction still generates some heat after being stopped, the cores overheated, hydrogen gas was formed, and it exploded. TEPCO was warned 3 years earlier that such a chain of events could happen and yet they failed to install any protective measures. In fact, reactors closer to the epicenter (owned by other companies, I might add) experienced insignificant to no damage. Oh, and by the way - no direct deaths. (It is not currently possible to estimate the number of cancer cases caused by Fukushima; it released several orders of magnitude less radiation than Chernobyl, which is the only accident with measurable impacts in worldwide history.) So out of the three "worldwide implicating nuclear accidents", only one actually caused any deaths, and the causes are practically impossible today without breaking the laws of physics. No other serious incident has occurred in a commercial plant in history. A grand total of zero people have died in the US (and most of the rest of the world) from nuclear accidents. To avoid quoting the rest of your misinformed, scaremonger replies, let me just knock these myths out right off the bat: The ALFRED project is a lead-cooled fast reactor, one of the few Gen IV reactor designs. It is designed to far more efficiently utilize the energy stored in uranium fuel - current reactors use 0.4%, Gen IV reactors generally use 90% or more. So we're already looking at 200x the efficiency. Because of this, they only need to be fueled once in their entire lifetime, with a block of uranium fuel about the size of a car. Nuclear waste is not some magic unknown thing. It is literally just unused fuel that can't be used in current reactor designs. The timeframe of dangerous radioactive decay in current waste is several million years - to compare, Gen IV reactors leave us with fuel that's only dangerous for around 300 years. An added bonus is that Gen IV reactors can use current "waste" directly as fuel, and doing so on our current reserves will be able to supply the worldwide energy needs entirely (eliminating all other generation methods and fuels) for several centuries without needing to mine any new uranium fuel and with no carbon output whatsoever. (By the way, nuclear power plants emit less radiation than coal and natural gas plants.) Because of their design, Gen IV reactors are also extremely difficult to melt down (doing so would require a deliberate, malicious, coordinated attack and immense knowledge of the control systems, something which is extremely difficult to accomplish without getting caught). Even if they did melt down, it would be contained entirely, far more efficiently than TMI, which would naturally result in less than zero deaths. Fukushima's fuel sinking into the ocean is not as big of a disaster as you make it out to be. You make up this vague assumption that it will suddenly irradiate the entire world and we'll all die. In fact, putting it in the water would likely make it [i]less[/i] dangerous, since water "insulates" the radioactivity far better than air. By the way, the fuel rods from Chernobyl are kept in a pool of water because of this. In fact, swimming in the water is safer than being in the open air due to the latent radioactive substances outside, as long as you stay about a meter away from the rods themselves. The risks of transporting nuclear waste (which is actually not even performed yet - all waste is currently stored on-site) is less than it is to actually use the stuff. Be as paranoid as you want about the transportation methods, but the fact is, you being 3 states away makes you completely unharmed from whatever might happen. The only danger you would face is being maybe 15-30 miles away, and at that point it would be negligible. (Believe it or not, it is actually possible to research this stuff, which you clearly haven't bothered doing.) Your misinformed edit of Saber15's reply was also unwarranted and totally false. In terms of death per kWh generated, nuclear energy is literally the safest source of power (yes, even safer than solar and wind - keep in mind we are talking in relation to the energy produced, and solar/wind produce very little energy in comparison). In fact, here's the numbers: - Coal: >1000x more dangerous - Natural gas: 44x more dangerous - Solar: 5x more dangerous - Wind: 2x more dangerous (mostly from maintenance workers falling off turbines) This is taking into account the 30 radiation deaths from Chernobyl, the few thousand cancer deaths from Chernobyl and (unreliably) projected Fukushima, and the deaths from largely unrelated issues along the nuclear chain, such as uranium mining. Hundreds of thousands of people die from coal-fired plants and coal mining every year. Yeah, that's safer for everyone. Your totally incorrect comparison of nuclear containers to chlorine containers is exemplary of typical nuclear scaremongering. Chlorine gas is stored in a tank car, which is not as reinforced. Why they still use standard tank cars for chlorine is beyond me, but the structure of the container is entirely different and says absolutely nothing about the safety of nuclear containers. So, after all of that, let's recap with a simple analogy: As a whole, if all Facepunch users were to use coal-powered energy, we would kill around 1 person a week on average. If we were to all use nuclear energy, even if Chernobyl happened every 50 years, we would still statistically never kill a single person. Want to try again?[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Zero-Point;52390511]Well, I mean, they rushed Chernobyl (by-passed safeties to get the plant running), they mucked up 3-mile Island to keep it running, and fucked up Fukishima after being warned about their back-up generator placement. If money isn't the only motivator behind those sorts of stupid mistakes, then any argument for why they happened as they did just seems even [I]more[/I] ridiculous. Companies squeeze by regulations where-ever it will save them a dime at any opportunity. [editline]22nd June 2017[/editline][/QUOTE] I hate to break it to you, but that's just not the reality in the nuclear industry anymore. There is a reason companies [URL="https://www.amazon.com/3M-8979N-Performance-Nuclear-48mm/dp/B000NG61G8/ref=pd_cp_60_2?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=B000NG61G8&pd_rd_r=NZNEX0A5114G5V9BFGE8&pd_rd_w=W8NW7&pd_rd_wg=HV4bW&psc=1&refRID=NZNEX0A5114G5V9BFGE8"]spend $30+ on a roll of nuclear grade duct tape[/URL] for something as inconsequential as taping a temporary construction sign (like "Hearing Protection Required In This Area") to a concrete wall. They all see nuclear as the next big construction boom, and they aren't going to do anything to jeopardize that.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;52391841]I hate to break it to you, but that's just not the reality in the nuclear industry anymore. There is a reason companies [URL="https://www.amazon.com/3M-8979N-Performance-Nuclear-48mm/dp/B000NG61G8/ref=pd_cp_60_2?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=B000NG61G8&pd_rd_r=NZNEX0A5114G5V9BFGE8&pd_rd_w=W8NW7&pd_rd_wg=HV4bW&psc=1&refRID=NZNEX0A5114G5V9BFGE8"]spend $30+ on a roll of nuclear grade duct tape[/URL] for something as inconsequential as taping a temporary construction sign (like "Hearing Protection Required In This Area") to a concrete wall. They all see nuclear as the next big construction boom, and they aren't going to do anything to jeopardize that.[/QUOTE] I mean if that's your justification as to why that won't happen, I'm not buying it. The medical industry in the US charges over 100$ for a metal tray that's worth about 3.50$. Does the over-valuation of the products used in said industry indicate the effectiveness and seriousness of that industry? Not really. No.

[QUOTE=_Axel;52389412]Really? Is that for 100% of energy needs being covered by nuclear? Does this reasonable price remain that low throughout exploitation? The most generous estimates I've seen is few centuries worth of fuel, and that's to sustain current nuclear production.[/QUOTE] The "few centuries" estimates are based on current reserves at a US$60/lb price point. Generally speaking each time you double the price point, you go up an order of magnitude in exploitable reserves. The good thing with nuclear power is the fuel only makes up a few percent of the overall cost of electricity, so huge increases in fuel cost are very sustainable. [QUOTE=Big Bang;52389942]It is not really remotely close to solved. You can't bury it and forget about it, because the waste will actually last longer than the countries responsible for it. Even the simple task of making a warning sign that will actually mean something thousands of years into the future is daunting. Burying it isn't the solution, it's merely the only solution that we've come up thus far. [/QUOTE] Yes you can. The only people who can reach thousands of metres below the surface are advanced societies who aren't going to accidentally stumble into a nuclear waste dump. [quote]It's also increasingly harder to understand the move to nuclear when we as a species have developed technologies that result in negligible waste and produce no emissions. Renewable energy works and the only reason why it isn't being pursued more in the US is solely due to politics and lobbying.[/quote] Maybe you should actually investigate what actually goes into producing solar panels and wind turbines. Also, please stop blaming the "politics and lobbyists" boogieman. The nations that have massive wind and solar penetration are also have some of the most costly electricity on the planet and are only propped up with massive costly subsidies. Until you solve the price of renewable energy and the storage problem, intermittent renewables are stupid pipe dream.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52391847]I mean if that's your justification as to why that won't happen, I'm not buying it. The medical industry in the US charges over 100$ for a metal tray that's worth about 3.50$. Does the over-valuation of the products used in said industry indicate the effectiveness and seriousness of that industry? Not really. No.[/QUOTE] Of course. But using a product because it's the better one to use, even when you aren't required to, shows commitment to quality over cost. It's one out of a LOT of examples of how they are taking direct actions instead of just talking about quality over cost. The attitude isn't "we have to get this done", it's "we have to get this done the right way or people can die". Nuclear construction is nothing like regular construction, and nothing like it was in the past.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;52391841]I hate to break it to you, but that's just not the reality in the nuclear industry anymore. There is a reason companies [URL="https://www.amazon.com/3M-8979N-Performance-Nuclear-48mm/dp/B000NG61G8/ref=pd_cp_60_2?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=B000NG61G8&pd_rd_r=NZNEX0A5114G5V9BFGE8&pd_rd_w=W8NW7&pd_rd_wg=HV4bW&psc=1&refRID=NZNEX0A5114G5V9BFGE8"]spend $30+ on a roll of nuclear grade duct tape[/URL] for something as inconsequential as taping a temporary construction sign (like "Hearing Protection Required In This Area") to a concrete wall. They all see nuclear as the next big construction boom, and they aren't going to do anything to jeopardize that.[/QUOTE] lol thats cheap, we have way more expensive aerospace masking tape that we toss in the trash at work they in almost all likelyhood were not required to use expensive nuclear grade tape for something like that they just used it by accident. when you use that expensive tape its for actual stuff related to what you're doing like we have aerospace rated masking tape but its used for a specific thing and because of our certifications we have to have a certification for EVERYTHING so thats why we have to buy expensive tape that is exactly the same as the stuff in the closet

[QUOTE=Lambeth;52387797]Fukushima is still in recent memory, perhaps[/QUOTE] If that were the reason, we wouldn't be trying to tear down regulations. After all, Fukushima happened because the regulators were in bed with TEPCO. TEPCO knew it was a flood risk, the regulators knew it was a flood risk, but due to regulatory capture the flaw was ignored.

[QUOTE=Dr. Evilcop;52387791]I really don't understand why politicians don't like nuclear other than corporate coal lobbying[/QUOTE] because they look at Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima and believe that that'll happen with every nuclear powerplant on earth