Fukushima underscores the dangers of Nuclear Power (cost, rating, elect)

[Chefkey]

It is beyond obvious that we can't continue using Nuclear fuel to generate energy unless we can neutralize the waste. There are 900 tons of unrecoverable waste at Fukushima alone.

https://apnews.com/article/science-t...b1251af1880a5f

[Toyman at Jewel Lake]

Originally Posted by Chefkey

It is beyond obvious that we can't continue using Nuclear fuel to generate energy unless we can neutralize the waste. There are 900 tons of unrecoverable waste at Fukushima alone.

https://apnews.com/article/science-t...b1251af1880a5f

Yeah, lets replace all those nukes with coal plants!

[anononcty]

And the dangers of no power like during the winter weather in Texas last year?

[TMSRetired]

So if everything in the world morphs into running from electricity how do you propose generating that huge amount of electricity to power the world 24/7/365 ??

[The Dark Enlightenment]

Nuclear power is relatively safe. It's 9.0 magnitude earthquakes and 100-foot tsunamis that are dangerous.

[elvis44102]

Originally Posted by The Dark Enlightenment

Nuclear power is relatively safe. It's 9.0 magnitude earthquakes and 100-foot tsunamis that are dangerous.

if fukushima shows anything, its the murderous money only nature of the business model, it was a bad business de-cession to not have an adequate seawall for the reactor cost to much....


the general electric company has a monopoly on fuel rods and thats their business model....


fukushima was old ww2 technology solid fuel reactor


liquid thorium and related are a much newer technology which is failsafe... burning coal releases more radioactive radon into the air than nuclear plants do

[censusdata]

There are no perfect options. Unless most humans are willing to live far below their means wind and solar aren't going to come close to making enough power 24/7. Coal ash isn't radioactive but it is very toxic and caused cancer and birth defects. Natural gas is extracted through fracking with unknown long term problems. Wind turbines can not be recycled and put large amounts of material in landfills. Solar batteries require extensive mining for materials which leaves similar environmental degradation as coal mining sites.

We can't wait around for rainbows beamed from unicorn's rear ends to power what humans want and often need. Nuclear is probably the least bad option to fill the gap that renewables can't provide.

[PilgrimsProgress]

We will all have windmills on the roofs of our cars if the climate cultists get their way.

[ukrkoz]

Worry not. Russia is ahead of the curve. They have operational reactors on fast neutrons, BN-###. Consumes nuclear waste as fuel and produces zero radioactive waste to bury somewhere.



Active

• BN-600 - a pool type sodium-cooled fast breeder reactor at the Beloyarsk Nuclear Power Station. It provides 560 MWe to the Middle Urals power grid. In operation since 1980.
• BN-800 - a sodium-cooled fast breeder reactor at the Beloyarsk Nuclear Power Station. It generates 880 MW of electrical power and started producing electricity in October, 2014. It reached full power in August, 2016.
• BOR-60 - a sodium-cooled reactor at the Research Institute of Atomic Reactors in Dimitrovgrad, Russia. In operation since 1968. It produces 60MW for experimental purposes.[citation needed]
• FBTR - a 40MWt,13.2MWe experimental reactor in India which focused on reaching significant burnup levels.
• China Experimental Fast Reactor, a 60 MWth, 20 MWe, experimental reactor which went critical in 2011 and is currently operational.[20] It is used for materials and component research for future Chinese fast reactors.
• KiloPower/KRUSTY is a 1-10 kWe research sodium fast reactor built at Los Alamos National Laboratory. It first reach criticality in 2015 and demonstrates an application of a Stirling power cycle.

[Mathguy]

Originally Posted by Chefkey

It is beyond obvious that we can't continue using Nuclear fuel to generate energy unless we can neutralize the waste. There are 900 tons of unrecoverable waste at Fukushima alone.

https://apnews.com/article/science-t...b1251af1880a5f

There are much more modern cleaner burning nuclear plants that can help us bridge the gap from fossil fuels.

However, the zealots that hear nuclear and go ballistic while out of the other side of their mouth pronounce an "irreversible glacial collapse and flooding" in the other breath are frankly horrible human beings.

You want CO2 or you want modern nuke plants? Because right now there are very few other options that work in the real world when the sun goes down and the wind blows too slow or fast.

I truly wish the magical unicorn of renewable 24-7 energy existed without nuclear power but it does not. We have a lot of well minded folks that cannot bridge that gap and frankly they're heavily populated by young people with enough family $$$ to play eco-make believe in the real world.