Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But that was due to poor reactor design, which required power to maintain active cooling measures to avoid meltdown.
Newer designs do not have that issue.
Building it next to the sea prone to tsumanimi's and not hardening your emergency power supply against water inundation is the issue. There is no way to take into account every possible scenario but this should of been a no brainer.
They would never be able to insure them against accident, even if they could afford it there is no insurance company large enough to do it.
Quote:
BTW, as we speak, about 8 nuclear power plants worth of PV solar (16GW) is being installed yearly in the USA. So, in a sense...if we are already building 8 of them each year, why do we need to build more?
When the sun isn't shining those plants are making power.
Yes. Nuclear power is the only realistic way to drastically cut CO2 emissions. Solar and wind are great, but they won’t be enough because they suffer from intermittency.
i have always been a huge proponent of nuclear power since the 70s. and with any form of power, there are drawbacks;
solar needs large areas for the various forms used in generating power
wind power need large areas to generate power, the towers are ugly, and they kill many avian creatures yearly
hydroelectric power requires large dams to hold back large amounts of water and disrupt fish migrations
geothermal has its drawbacks as well, as does every other form of electrical power generation on the planet.
but the biggest issue with electrical power generation isnt the type of electric power plant wer rely on, its the electrical grid that transmits that power arcoss the country/world. much of the power generated is wasted during transmission of that power. too much resistance in the power lines, and to many cascade power outages yearly. and not enough ways to reroute power to where it needs to be without stressing the reset of the system, and possibly causing further cascade outages.
You can't make nuclear bombs with output from Thorium reactors. That's why it didn't happen the first go around.
i am glad SOMEBODY here gets it....i used to worry about peak-oil and all that baloney...and then a few years ago i stumbled upon the little know thorium reactor solution...i now KNOW we do have a solution to mans increasing demands for power..and hopefully we can save enough oil for fertilizer and medicine instead of burning it! lol...
there is a video of good ole tricky dick giving a speech and bragging about how little he knew about nuclear energy and choosing jobs in California and uranium while cutting research funding in thorium....but he fails to mention that weapons from thorium were considered...as NO bombs from thorium...
current design is 3000psi glorified steam kettle with massive pressure needing to be confined and cooled
thorium are smaller and low pressure design with fail safe plugs made that stop the reactor...
we have given all our research for free to china and india and they continue to develop this technology
Newer reactor designs that have passive cooling make accidents like Fukushima much less likely, because even in the event of power loss the reactor remains cool and stable, but unfortunately that event dealt a severe setback to efforts at expanding nuclear power.
Fukushima was a fluke and the reactor design was not at issue.
Any moron that builds a nuclear reactor in a flood plain that has been known for 2,000 years to be subject to flooding from tsunamis and typhoons deserves to be taken out and shot.
If they wanted to build a reactor there, they should have built it off the ground, with at least two-stories of space below it to bar any damage from flooding.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elvis44102
to paraphrase the movie the graduate...i have one word "Thorium"..
Thorium is good. There's another experimental reactor design that uses reactor waste. All the waste you as a tax-payer pay to store in Utah and Nevada and elsewhere would power the entire US for the next four centuries, even when accounting for increased electrical demand over those centuries.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
