The Anti-Nuclear Conspiracy

a reply to: Odysse

Well, nuclear plants should never be placed on a coastline or a small island.

Also, if meltdown scenario tests are going to be ran, you shouldn't actually simulate it, it should be computer programs simulating the scenario.

Just because humans have been stupid with the technology doesn't mean it isn't the best tech available for energy generation.

a reply to: Vector99

Such great points

It is a contradiction among some factions on the left and right. Some want energy independence or independence from fossil fuels, other just care about the environment..but in all cases nuclear fission gives us that clean energy with a renewable energy source they claim to seek

But it would put their entire "green lobby" out of business, so like their oil/gas dead plants counterparts, they actively misinform the public regarding nuclear power

a reply to: 1947boomer

Thanks for this reply. You are clearly an authority on the subject

I need to read this a few times before replying, to fully understand the concepts (some new to me)

a reply to: Odysse

Do you actually believe low level waste, when properly stored/recycled, poses a threat?
This is provably false.

Go take a tour of the NTS sometime, walk around ground burst craters and tell me about the radiation boogeyman.

You should see the shielding requirements. It doesnt take much to block gamma radiation, and beta/alpha has minimal penetration indeed alphas cant even penetrate dead skin.

Advancing THIS technology is the way to go. Recycle fuel, cut out the government and build Thorium based MSRs, make the technology small enough and cheap enough to power everything. Batteries can be charged in vehicles, eliminating even more sources of contamination

The green crowd needs to decide what their priorities are. Solving the enegy and environmental problems OR continuing to wage information warfare against nuclear power at the behest of those profiting from the minimally effective solutions they push

So let’s say we build a bunch of nuclear plants and get rid of anything that runs on fossil fuels.

I’m assuming everyone will then be forced to use electric cars, boats, and anything that uses an internal combustion engine.

What will be done with all of the toxic batteries that will be used in millions and millions of items that used to be powered by a 4 stroke?

You can’t recycle them without causing problems, you can’t just dump me in a landfill. And I don’t know if you’ve ever seen a lithium mine but not even grass grows anywhere near them.

The simple truth is, nuclear power plants everywhere for all energy needs would cause more problems than it solves.

I don’t buy into the whole carbon pollution runaway greenhouse gases destroying the earth. Especially when you take into account that carbon levels have been much higher in earths past, before there were humans driving cars.

Maybe it’s because I’m a forester, but I’m all about planting trees if people are so bent out of shape about it.

originally posted by: JBurns
Well here's your sign! Support clean, safe nuclear energy.

If you want to support truly safe nuclear energy, you will support the rapid development of LFTR technology and replace every single PWR (pressurized water reactor) - which is basically every single nuclear reactor currently in service - with a LFTR.

LFTRs can also be designed to be modular, can be designed to produce extremely valuable medical isotopes worth more than even the energy these reactors produce.

More importantly, they produce far, far less waste, and the waste they do produce has much shorter half lifes and is far less dangerous, and most important of all, they have ZERO risk of going into meltdown.

a reply to: tanstaafl

Absolutely! I am all for anything to improve on this technology. We have had it for so long and have not taken advantage of it, these developments should have been made 50 years back but thats OK its never too late

Is this similar at all to the MSRs and Thorium based designs?

The jobs alone this undertaking would create is an angle that cant be overlooked

It takes money directly out of oil barrons pockets and puts it into the people but it doesnt have to end there. We have a vested interest in sharing the tech

a reply to: JBurns

I'm not 100% sure about the technicalities. I do remember that in Europe (when I used to live there) this was a bit of a problem. I don't think every country had a safe place for them or a safe way to move them around. I also recall from the news (....) that in some US States they just store them underneath the plant rather than transport them. I read this a while ago so maybe it's a local issue somewhere, idk. It just made me think, if there's an earthquake or some kind of accident, it would not only affect the plant but release the spent fuel etc -.-

I'm not 100% against it. I just think your viewpoint is a bit too optimistic : / Sorry if I came across the wrong way.

originally posted by: Vector99
Well, nuclear plants should never be placed on a coastline or a small island.

I don' t know. I'm not a nuclear scientist -.- From what I read on Wikipedia (that should tell you all you need to know about my knowledge on the topic) 3 Mile Island is not really a small island, it's in the middle of a rive and looks like it's a stone throw away from land on both ends -.- here it is on Google sat

Japan is not a small island though, and Chernobyl was on the mainland, wasn't it? Just next to a big lake? I think you cannot avoid a water source - be it lake, river, or the sea - I seem to understand lots of cold water are needed to keep these reliable marvels of safe energy from sending us to meet our maker...ok that's to be taken tongue-in-cheek ; )

I think that maybe a discrete application of this technology alongside the "safer" ones and the ones based on fossil fuels (which should be phased out over time) may be a good plan. If only lawmakers and industry worked on solving this issue based on the people's best interest, without profits entering the picture....

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: tanstaafl
Is this similar at all to the MSRs and Thorium based designs?

It is the perfection of the MSR/Thorium reactors. LFTR = Liquid Fluoride (molten salt) Thorium Reactor.

Kirk Sorenson is the man Trump should appoint as the Secretary of Energy. His company has perfected multiple designs - including one that can quickly use up all of the current stockpiles of the nastiest nuclear waste as fuel.

The jobs alone this undertaking would create is an angle that cant be overlooked

It takes money directly out of oil barrons pockets and puts it into the people but it doesnt have to end there. We have a vested interest in sharing the tech

Yes.

LFTRs can also be designed as tiny decentralized single use systems - to power a single home, a single building, or a single neighborhood. This is the model I prefer - to get rid of the ugly morass of power lines blanketing the developed world and engulfing everyone with their EMF pollution.

Vogtle Units 3 and 4 in Georgia under construction and 2 more locally that haven't officially started but the are designing and doing site prep work.

a reply to: Odysse

My apologies Odysse, I didn't mean to come at you personally I am not a nuclear scientist either, just a lay person who remembers the dawn of the Atomic Age and how it was supposed to solve all our problems, until government essentially hijacked the technology for weapons and kept it to themselves at humanity's expense

I am sure you are right, there is some recycling technology and closed fuel cycles that can eliminate the long term storage of the waste, but tanstaafl and a few others here have mentioned

It is the perfection of the MSR/Thorium reactors. LFTR = Liquid Fluoride (molten salt) Thorium Reactor.

As tanstaafl wrote, this would truly be the pinnacle of fission technology, it cannot melt down, can not be weaponized and has no wasteful byproducts

I also learned that Kirk Sorenson has designs that can even use up our current stockpiles of waste as its fuel source, what a great solution it would be my friend

I appreciate your replies here and I apologize if I came off as being a jerk toward you at all, I am just used to taking cover when I bring up the nuclear power idea at different places, but this is ATS I should know better!!

originally posted by: Odysse

originally posted by: JBurns
low level radioactive waste, can be safely stored far underground

and that's where you lost all credibility.

originally posted by: JBurns
safe nuclear energy

Come on dude. I don't even need to mention Three Mile Island and Chernobyl...Fukushima happened the other day and they're still patching it! Except now they need to start dumping radioactive water into the Pacific, so they gathered the experts to explain how it's actually safe to do this -.-

Even with those disasters nuclear is by far the safest has caused the least deaths per GW generated out of all means of power generation. Wind turbines are the second safest but cause double the deaths as nuclear per GW. Solar has over four times the death rate as nuclear.

Mortality rate of energy sources

Certain fungi may be the solution to nuclear waste as there's ones types that remove the radiation through mycoremediation, there's a few different types growing on the 'elephant foot' in Chernobyl.

a reply to: JBurns

to seek But it would put their entire "green lobby" out of business, so like their oil/gas dead plants counterparts, they actively misinform the public regarding nuclear power

Then they keep trying to stop fracking too, but Americans for Prosperity explained that a Russia controls energy in Europe, and they dont want us to compete with their dominance.
www.google.com...

The China Syndrome - June Fonda starred in it. Was a very anti nuke movie scaring people in the early 80’s when the nuclear freeze movement was in full swing. Of course that was using environmental concerns to stop us from having and keeping nuclear advantage over Russia. This is what leftists do.

originally posted by: JBurnsI appreciate your replies here and I apologize if I came off as being a jerk toward you at all, I am just used to taking cover when I bring up the nuclear power idea at different places, but this is ATS I should know better!!

I was away a few days, figured I'd check in. Thanks for your civility. It's a breath of fresh air.

I also agree that it's kinda odd. For example: most people usually think that nuclear energy requires some huge facility with ominous cylindrical towers producing lots of waste ( I know that's what I used to think) but then we have nuclear-powered subs that, according to Wikipedia, never need to be refueled within 25 years? : / I mean, couldn't energy companies develop a network of small power plants that way? :/