What's Wrong WIth The Nuclear Power?

[toasty7718]

16 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

Nuclear plants being too expensive is also pretty overrated. It's not that expensive. 

You basically need to invest $10 billion USD for nearly a lifetime of clean energy with minimal operating costs since the fuel itself is cheap as compared to coal or gas. The capital costs is huge. Which is opposed to conventional energy generation, where fuel is Costly with little capitals costs. 

To put it in context, Netflix in this year alone allocated $7B for making trash movies and series. And you think governments are too poor for setting up a power plant that cost around the same. 

The intend is lacking. Plain and simple.

Apart from the logistical challenges, and R&D almost everything that is used to counter the development of Nuclear energy is crap. Including disposing nuclear waste. All of those could be easily done with modern tech and infrastructure. 

Not to mention that we can hit a breakthrough in technology at any time that would significantly reduce the costs. But there is no interest and too much fear mongering that they force you to drink paper straws that dissolve in your juice rather than do something of substance.

That's the fundamental problem. They lack in substance. That's why it's wise to not take them seriously at all.

As long as they don't even talk about serious solutions, they will keep jerking each others off to feel good after convincing themselves that they are doing something. 

If you think long term, you will invest in infrastructure.

If you think short term, you will chase cheap energy and blame China.

Sounds like something Oppenheimer would say 

[Bobby_2021]

11 hours ago, toasty7718 said:

Sounds like something Oppenheimer would say 

😂

[bebotalk]

Nuclear power isn't proven to be safe. 

Incidents like Fukushima and Chornobyl show this.

However, both incidents were in part due to bad management. Whilst both were bad, they are the exceptions and not the norm. there have been bad oil spills, but then people are anti-oil due to climate change issues primarily, and not because wildlife or coastlines get wrecked from said spills.

I don't see why we can't litter the major deserts with solar panels, which in turn would benefit poorer African or Asian countries with additional revenues. 

[Devin]

You also can't put reactors in conflict zones due to the potential of being struck by missiles or even just left to run away by it's operators.

I personally don't trust American construction or operation of reactors, they can be done safely but it's cultural to cut every corner and to not take precautions that have not yet bet proven necessary by an accident.

I don't understand why we can't reduce coal emissions effectively.

Edited December 27, 2023 by Devin

[Devin]

I think something that's not brought up enough is interactive ev charging. Someone previously mentioned batteries for solar, we already have an interactive grid where charging can be reduced when called on by the power company. Your phone can be set up to do it as well. Pair this with charging stations at work and that takes care of solar energy storage. Power companies used to have reduced rates for people that entered similar programs, Electric Utilities will install more chargers just for it.

Edited December 27, 2023 by Devin

[Bobby_2021]

France has 70% of it's energy from Nuclear has the lowest emissions in Europe and cheapest electricity. 

[Bobby_2021]

https://images.app.goo.gl/ZddacbPpLdWxbd7x7

Did some digging and it seems that you don't have to waste decades to build nuclear reactor. A reasonable time frame is just 5 years.

Japan has built reactors within 4 years. 21% of the reactors Take 5 or less years to build. The median time for building a rector is only 7 or 8 years.

And the reason reactors are expensive is because of insurance and regulations and strict standards for safety. The more regulations and safety checking there are the more time it takes to build. It's not expensive only due to the sheer volume of steel and concrete. 

Overall if there is political will, you can fasten up the process and heavily subsidize it which will see the costs of nuclear power coming down significantly. And then we get clean constant voltage for nearly 80 years with minimal operating costs. 

Edited January 10 by Bobby_2021

[Bobby_2021]

The number of people killed by nuclear energy explosions is a whopping 1 dude, that too in the most extreme circumstances possible, a combination of 9 magnitude Earthquake and Tsunami combined. 

Even though Nuclear is by far the most safest and cleanest of all energies hippie/capitalist propaganda might cost us not meeting the climate change goals by 2050.

It's about to get hot. 

[Schizophonia]

49 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

The number of people killed by nuclear energy explosions is a whopping 1 dude, that too in the most extreme circumstances possible, a combination of 9 magnitude Earthquake and Tsunami combined. 

Even though Nuclear is by far the most safest and cleanest of all energies hippie/capitalist propaganda might cost us not meeting the climate change goals by 2050.

It's about to get hot. 

A friend regularly sends me stuff about this on discord:

I believe there will come a time when we will have to throw things into the atmosphere to reverse the warming.

 

[Bobby_2021]

3 hours ago, Schizophonia said:

A friend regularly sends me stuff about this on discord:

I believe there will come a time when we will have to throw things into the atmosphere to reverse the warming.

 

The world is not going to go down, though a lot of species might go extinct.

We are letting this happen in front of our eyes when the solution is laid out so obviously and clearly. Our lack of will is the only thing letting this happen.

This is also a reminder for the average folk to not get too carried up about climate change. The elites are only interested in expanding the size of their purse and to reach some immediate goal.

Sustainable long term thinking will only come from solid yellow minds, who are not even close to getting in power. Not in the next 50 years. Maybe after that we might start seeing a lot of yellow thinking pop up, because who will put up with this crap anyway? 

So save yourself. The planet will not forsake us. 

[Devin]

8 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

The number of people killed by nuclear energy explosions is a whopping 1 dude, that too in the most extreme circumstances possible, a combination of 9 magnitude Earthquake and Tsunami combined. 

Even though Nuclear is by far the most safest and cleanest of all energies hippie/capitalist propaganda might cost us not meeting the climate change goals by 2050.

It's about to get hot. 

That doesn't seem to be true at all.

 

According to the official, internationally recognised death toll, just 31 people died as an immediate result of Chernobyl while the UN estimates that only 50 deaths can be directly attributed to the disaster. In 2005, it predicted a further 4,000 might eventually die as a result of the radiation exposure.Jul 25, 2019

https://www.bbc.com › article › 201...

The true toll of the Chernobyl disaster - BBC

 

 

National Institutes of Health (.gov)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov › pmc

Mortality among the residents of the Three Mile Island accident area: 1979-1992.

by EO Talbott · 2000 · Cited by 80 — Total mortality was significantly elevated for both men and women (SMRs = 109 and 118, respectively).

 

 

Kyshtym disaster1957, September 29An improperly stored underground tank of high-level radioactive waste exploded. Death count unknown, estimates range from 50 to more than 9,000

 

 

disputedChernobyl disaster1986, April 26At least 78 are believed to have been directly killed by the disaster (31 due to the explosion, 28 due to radioactivity during cleanup, and an additional 19 for the same reason by 2004). [1][2] There are varying estimates of increased mortality over subsequent decades (see Deaths due to the disaster).

100+ (disputed)Windscale fire1957, October 8A 1988 UK government estimate stated that there would be around 100 deaths by 2007 as a result of exposure to radioactive material.[3][4] More recent academic research carried out in 2007 estimated that 100 to 240 deaths were caused by the radiation leak.[5][6][7]

1 (disputed)Fukushima nuclear disaster2011 MarchIn 2018, 1 cancer death of a man who worked at the plant at the time of the accident was attributed to radiation exposure by a Japanese government panel.[8][9] It has been suggested that 2,202 died as a result of the stresses of evacuation.[10] The overall death count as a result of the accident is disputed.[by whom?]

17Instituto Oncológico Nacional of Panama2000 August – 2001 MarchPatients receiving treatment for prostate cancer and cancer of the cervix receive lethal doses of radiation.[11][12]

 

10Soviet submarine K-431 reactor accident1985, August 10Reactor lid and control rods were lifted too far while adjusting position, resulting in criticality excursion. 49 people suffered radiation injuries.[15]

 

9Soviet submarine K-27 reactor accident1968, May 2483 people were injured due to uneven cooling of the reactor core, resulting in fuel element failures and multiple ruptures.[12]

8Soviet submarine K-19 reactor accident1961, July 4More than 30 people were over-exposed to radiation when the starboard reactor cooling system failed and the reactor temp rose uncontrollably. Emergency repairs ordered by the captain successfully cooled the reactor and avoided meltdown, but exposed the workers to high levels of radiation.[17]

 

5Lost radiation source, Baku, Azerbaijan, USSR1982, October 5A caesium-137 orphan source was carried by an individual in a clothes pocket, exposing several individuals. Five people suffered radiation burns and died; at least one other person suffered acute radiation sickness, and twelve others were exposed. [12]

 

 

3SL-1 accident (US Army)1961, January 3All three of the experimental reactor crew died when the reactor went prompt critical and the core explosively vaporized.

 

2Tokaimura nuclear accident, Japan1999, September 30Two fatalities, and six hundred sixty seven people suffered exposure. during a criticality accident at a fuel reprocessing facility, due to improper handling of liquid uranium fuel. [21]

2Meet Halfa, Qalyubiyya Governorate, Egypt2000 MayTwo fatalities, five injuries, and seventy six others treated for changes to their blood, due to an iridium-192 orphan source. [22]

1Mayapuri radiological accident, India2010 AprilEight hospitalized, with one fatality, from exposure to a cobalt-60 orphan source. [20]

1Daigo Fukuryū Maru1954, March 1Crewman of a Japanese fishing boat exposed to nuclear fallout from the Castle Bravo test.

1Louis Slotin1946, May 21Criticality accident at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico with same plutonium bomb core as the Daghlian accident, known as the "demon core".

1Harry Daghlian1945, August 21Criticality accident at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico with a plutonium bomb core, known as the "demon core".

1Cecil Kelley criticality accident1958, December 30Criticality accident at Los Alamos National Laboratory.[23]

1Wood River Junction, Rhode Island1964Operator error at nuclear facility while recovering highly enriched uranium; Robert Peabody died 49 hours later.

Edited January 10 by Devin

[Bobby_2021]

1 hour ago, Devin said:

That doesn't seem to be true at all.

 

According to the official, internationally recognised death toll, just 31 people died as an immediate result of Chernobyl while the UN estimates that only 50 deaths can be directly attributed to the disaster. In 2005, it predicted a further 4,000 might eventually die as a result of the radiation exposure.Jul 25, 2019

https://www.bbc.com › article › 201...

The true toll of the Chernobyl disaster - BBC

 

 

National Institutes of Health (.gov)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov › pmc

Mortality among the residents of the Three Mile Island accident area: 1979-1992.

by EO Talbott · 2000 · Cited by 80 — Total mortality was significantly elevated for both men and women (SMRs = 109 and 118, respectively).

 

 

Kyshtym disaster1957, September 29An improperly stored underground tank of high-level radioactive waste exploded. Death count unknown, estimates range from 50 to more than 9,000

 

 

disputedChernobyl disaster1986, April 26At least 78 are believed to have been directly killed by the disaster (31 due to the explosion, 28 due to radioactivity during cleanup, and an additional 19 for the same reason by 2004). [1][2] There are varying estimates of increased mortality over subsequent decades (see Deaths due to the disaster).

100+ (disputed)Windscale fire1957, October 8A 1988 UK government estimate stated that there would be around 100 deaths by 2007 as a result of exposure to radioactive material.[3][4] More recent academic research carried out in 2007 estimated that 100 to 240 deaths were caused by the radiation leak.[5][6][7]

1 (disputed)Fukushima nuclear disaster2011 MarchIn 2018, 1 cancer death of a man who worked at the plant at the time of the accident was attributed to radiation exposure by a Japanese government panel.[8][9] It has been suggested that 2,202 died as a result of the stresses of evacuation.[10] The overall death count as a result of the accident is disputed.[by whom?]

17Instituto Oncológico Nacional of Panama2000 August – 2001 MarchPatients receiving treatment for prostate cancer and cancer of the cervix receive lethal doses of radiation.[11][12]

 

10Soviet submarine K-431 reactor accident1985, August 10Reactor lid and control rods were lifted too far while adjusting position, resulting in criticality excursion. 49 people suffered radiation injuries.[15]

 

9Soviet submarine K-27 reactor accident1968, May 2483 people were injured due to uneven cooling of the reactor core, resulting in fuel element failures and multiple ruptures.[12]

8Soviet submarine K-19 reactor accident1961, July 4More than 30 people were over-exposed to radiation when the starboard reactor cooling system failed and the reactor temp rose uncontrollably. Emergency repairs ordered by the captain successfully cooled the reactor and avoided meltdown, but exposed the workers to high levels of radiation.[17]

 

5Lost radiation source, Baku, Azerbaijan, USSR1982, October 5A caesium-137 orphan source was carried by an individual in a clothes pocket, exposing several individuals. Five people suffered radiation burns and died; at least one other person suffered acute radiation sickness, and twelve others were exposed. [12]

 

 

3SL-1 accident (US Army)1961, January 3All three of the experimental reactor crew died when the reactor went prompt critical and the core explosively vaporized.

 

2Tokaimura nuclear accident, Japan1999, September 30Two fatalities, and six hundred sixty seven people suffered exposure. during a criticality accident at a fuel reprocessing facility, due to improper handling of liquid uranium fuel. [21]

2Meet Halfa, Qalyubiyya Governorate, Egypt2000 MayTwo fatalities, five injuries, and seventy six others treated for changes to their blood, due to an iridium-192 orphan source. [22]

1Mayapuri radiological accident, India2010 AprilEight hospitalized, with one fatality, from exposure to a cobalt-60 orphan source. [20]

1Daigo Fukuryū Maru1954, March 1Crewman of a Japanese fishing boat exposed to nuclear fallout from the Castle Bravo test.

1Louis Slotin1946, May 21Criticality accident at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico with same plutonium bomb core as the Daghlian accident, known as the "demon core".

1Harry Daghlian1945, August 21Criticality accident at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico with a plutonium bomb core, known as the "demon core".

1Cecil Kelley criticality accident1958, December 30Criticality accident at Los Alamos National Laboratory.[23]

1Wood River Junction, Rhode Island1964Operator error at nuclear facility while recovering highly enriched uranium; Robert Peabody died 49 hours later.

They didn't die directly because of the explosion at Fukushima, but due to the tsunami and earthquake that accompanied it.

Also the real deal toll is only 1 dude who died from radiation and they way they estimate these numbers are highly disputable. Except for Chernobyl, none of these reportings are explosions. They are accidents. Often working with ancient technology which are not relevant to our discussion in 2024.

 

[Devin]

1 hour ago, Bobby_2021 said:

They didn't die directly because of the explosion at Fukushima, but due to the tsunami and earthquake that accompanied it.

Also the real deal toll is only 1 dude who died from radiation and they way they estimate these numbers are highly disputable. Except for Chernobyl, none of these reportings are explosions. They are accidents. Often working with ancient technology which are not relevant to our discussion in 2024.

 

Over ten thousand deaths are attributed to the use of nuclear energy, many more were afflicted with cancer, from operating only a few hundred globally. We need 20 thousand reactors to power the world, and in higher populated areas than they have ever been.

For perspective, there are only 60 plants globally under construction, they take a decade to build, to get to 20 thousand anytime soon I think it would be reasonable to expect many catastrophic failures from the slap stick construction and operation that would be required. If production is doubled every ten years which is impossible, it would take 90 years to go all nuclear, and reactors only last 40 years.

Edited January 10 by Devin

[Bobby_2021]

9 hours ago, Devin said:

Over ten thousand deaths are attributed to the use of nuclear energy, many more were afflicted with cancer

Still the lowest of all the energy sources.

9 hours ago, Devin said:

they take a decade to build,

Japan has built reactors within 4-5 years. What's stopping the US from building? Their own regulations. So it takes longer to build which adds on top of the expenses. This is on top of being the safest of all energies. 

It take decades to build because you don't allow them to work as fast as they can. Not because it takes inherently so long to build. 

9 hours ago, Devin said:

We need 20 thousand reactors to power the world, and in higher populated areas than they have ever been.

What's the alternative? Coal? Wind? Solar?

Renewable are not even scalable and cause even more damage to the environment if you try to scale it. 

9 hours ago, Devin said:

If production is doubled every ten years which is impossible, it would take 90 years to go all nuclear, and reactors only last 40 years

It can be pushed to work for even more than 40 years.

All wind/solar farms will work for half of that time, so you are looking at shit tons of waste and the challenge that come with recycling it.

Look at the alternatives. And they say which is better. 

 

[LSD-Rumi]

Our focus should be on improving batteries. Renewable source of energy work like a charm but energy storage is the problem. Lithium batteries are just so much expensive.

[Devin]

5 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

Still the lowest of all the energy sources.

Japan has built reactors within 4-5 years. What's stopping the US from building? Their own regulations. So it takes longer to build which adds on top of the expenses. This is on top of being the safest of all energies. 

It take decades to build because you don't allow them to work as fast as they can. Not because it takes inherently so long to build. 

What's the alternative? Coal? Wind? Solar?

Renewable are not even scalable and cause even more damage to the environment if you try to scale it. 

It can be pushed to work for even more than 40 years.

All wind/solar farms will work for half of that time, so you are looking at shit tons of waste and the challenge that come with recycling it.

Look at the alternatives. And they say which is better. 

 

No one has died from green energy, I think you're being very dishonest.

So now you can see even in your rhetoric, "Japan has built reactors within 4-5 years. What's stopping the US from building? Their own regulations."

"can be pushed to work for even more than 40 years."

This is the cultural ignorance that will push us to unsafely build and operate reactors, and ultimately have descendants that glow.

 

Nuclear is definitely a viable energy source and can be done safely, but it's not going to be our main energy source for a long time. Green energy and energy reduction are much more practical stop-gaps. The bad thing is, when the climate gets harsher and harsher, nations will increase energy consumption to try to sustain their lifestyles, and the increase will be from fossil fuels, society is retarded, we need a green dictator.

Edited January 11 by Devin

[Yimpa]

17 minutes ago, Devin said:

No one has died from green energy, I think you're being very dishonest.

17 minutes ago, Devin said:

society is retarded, we need a green dictator.

Think again 

 

[Bobby_2021]

1 hour ago, Devin said:

No one has died from green energy, I think you're being very dishonest.

Go check the stats.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/494425/death-rate-worldwide-by-energy-source/

Although green energy deaths are minimal, it will start to get a lot higher as the overhead of scaling comes into picture. It's in the same range as nuclear, although singular events have caused the mammoth share for the deaths of nuclear energy. It's not even representative of the current state of nuclear energy technology which has grown manifold. 

All deaths from Nuclear energy has to do with ancient technology which is meaningless in this day and age and you keep citing them to keep them in fear. 

[Devin]

3 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

Go check the stats.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/494425/death-rate-worldwide-by-energy-source/

Although green energy deaths are minimal, it will start to get a lot higher as the overhead of scaling comes into picture. It's in the same range as nuclear, although singular events have caused the mammoth share for the deaths of nuclear energy. It's not even representative of the current state of nuclear energy technology which has grown manifold. 

All deaths from Nuclear energy has to do with ancient technology which is meaningless in this day and age and you keep citing them to keep them in fear. 

Most reactors online today were built pre-Chernobyl accident, and the recent Fukushima accident is one of the largest nuclear accidents in history in the most quality conscious nation. More complicated layers of safety do not change our culture of complacency, laziness, and corner cutting, which were the reason for both Fukushima and Chernobyl. Look at the recent plane failures or how driving is more dangerous than ever with the safest cars ever, more layers of safety give the impression of safety which results in even more complacency, look at the recent refineries that have blown up in the U.S..

Nuclear can and will be done safely, but we're dealing with humans and real logistical constraints. I think nuclear is great, but it's a loaded weapon and to be taken seriously as such. Bill Gates is working on a small remote reactor, I think that is a more viable path.

Edited January 11 by Devin

[Bobby_2021]

1 hour ago, Devin said:

Most reactors online today were built pre-Chernobyl accident, and the recent Fukushima accident is one of the largest nuclear accidents in history in the most quality conscious nation.

Fukushima is a testament for how safe the nuclear reactors are even for those  from 1970s.

There is no case for them exploding like bombs or like Chernobyl but merely a leakage of radioactive waste that too in 9.0 earthquake and Tsunami combined. Most places on the earth do not have this Problem.

It all boils down to how much you want to solve climate change and the length you go to deny the obvious solution that is lying dead in your face.