• Guests may view all public nodes. However, you must be registered to post.

Re-Emergence of Nuclear Energy

Status
Not open for further replies.
Obreid

Obreid

Power Poster III
Joined
Oct 1, 2016
India plans to triple its number of nuclear power plants to 72 in total, while China has proposed the construction of 168 new reactors in addition to 18 being built and 37 being planned, which would amount to an increase of 337 percent. Overall, 35 reactors around Asia are already in construction, with Europe coming in second with 15 plants.

ZeroHedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero
www.zerohedge.com www.zerohedge.com
 
Nuclear is the ONLY way forward to a zero emissions world. Wind & Solar are like salt & pepper. Salt & Pepper not the main course just pairs well with main course aka Nuclear.

Wind & Solar very unstable. One day you can power the whole city & next you need to find multiple kWh to power city cause its cloud cover and still outside. That where nuclear comes in to make up for where wind and solar fail.

The idea is to sell the nuclear power to your neighbors for decent amount of money when it's not needed like if it's a really windy sunny day. Cause you can't just "shutoff" a nuclear plant whenever you feel like it.
 
DarkNoon said:
The idea is to sell the nuclear power to your neighbors for decent amount of money when it's not needed like if it's a really windy sunny day. Cause you can't just "shutoff" a nuclear plant whenever you feel like it.
Click to expand...
France is the crown jewel in the world of this system. Some days France gets all its power from solar and wind and sells its massive amounts of nuclear power to its neighbors.

Which any profit is good since it costs almost nothing to run nuclear power plants once they start running compared to a coal or gas fire plant $$$ resources they consume to keep making energy. Where a nuclear plant refueled every 2 years.

But when solar and wind isn't enough France can account for 80 percent of its energy use to nuclear power if needed. Yes 80% france grid can be powered and does sometimes by nuclear alone.

France also has one of the most stable grids in the world & most stable energy price rates for its citizens.
 
DEFCON Warning System said:
I just saw an article which says they may have made some headway on cold fusion. That would open up nuclear power greatly.
Click to expand...
We already can create fusion reaction. The problem is scaling it to be commercially profitable.

It takes to much energy to create and sustain a fuission reaction. Let alone to harness enough heat from it to create steam for energy generation.

But it's coming. Like all things the technology is slowly being miniaturize for commercial use & improved on. Where still minimally a decade away says pretty much any scientists in the fusion career.
 
Last edited:
DEFCON Warning System said:
Not cold fusion.
Click to expand...
Yes but we are half way there as we already got the fusion part down pretty well. Now its on to creating a self-sustaining "cold" fusion reactor scalable enough for commercial applications.

They got one of the biggest test model reactor under construction in Europe. Like 12 different nations including Russia are working on it toguther. Can't wait to see how it works when they turn it online. The thing is ridiculously massive. Funded by flaming dump truck loads of grant money. But will be worth it if we can pull it off. That is technology that will really take us into the future.

Ultimate source of clean energy for the whole world. Lets hope we don't blow ourselves up before its done.
 
Last edited:
DarkNoon said:
Ultimate source of clean energy for the whole world.
Click to expand...
At least parts of the world that can afford to build such monstrous cold fusion complexes, even after its mastered will likely cost multiple billions if not hundreds of billions of dollars to construct just one. But think of just one powering a couple whole nation in Europe or more. Potential & energy savings alone is "almost" limitless to whom can afford it.
 
I'm not anti-nuclear, but if you really want so called 'green energy' I'd be looking at the generation IV sodium reactors. That's not new technologies. It's been around for years, starting I think around 1957, but see, don't be deceived. The reason we don't have them around is because you can't make nuclear weapons with sodium reactors. Even if an accident occurs, the half life of what very little radiation occurs is only about 15 hours. Nuclear reactors that we have currently is absolutely the dirtiest and most dangerous form of energy known to man. Years in cooling pools?? nuclear waste, leakage of radiation, explosion hazard, radiation hazard. Yea, that's real 'green stuff' The only green that stuff is, is with the Green back $$$$ Worried about so called carbon pollution? Just plant more trees. They thrive on CO2 and provide oxygen.
 
TCharley300 said:
nuclear waste, leakage of radiation, explosion hazard, radiation hazard.
Click to expand...
The standard of living and health quality is higher in neighborhoods with nuclear power plants than with any other typical power plants. I can get you the statistical proof for this. FACT radiation is lower around operating nuclear power plants.

IF you combined every death related to nuclear power including all nuclear accidents doesn't even add to 10% of all deaths caused by coal/gas/oil power plants individually or together. Nuclear is much safer, cleaner, and healthier statistically compared to any other typical power generation stations out there & has also killed the least amount of people than any other power source in history combined. I can provide statistical proof for this too.
 
Last edited:
TCharley300 said:
I'm not anti-nuclear
Click to expand...
Your wording kinda says you are.

Don't let the hippy mother earth propaganda about nuclear power give you the willys. Nuclear Power has a very unjustified fear around it in the West. The West shouldn't fear a Chernobyl disaster. Chernobyl disaster was only made significantly worse due to soviet miss management and the server lack of efficiency in the soviet system. The Euro/American system is quick to react and acknowledge a problem when one occurs unlike the soviets where.

I would fear more of being killed and struck by a rouge meteor driving in my car then a nuclear power plant accident happening in the West. Especially the newer designs they have now are really incredibly safe. If only we could start building them along side our wind and solar. Then decommission our aging reactors, soon to be put rest anyways.

EVEN if we achieve cold fusion in a decade doesn't mean it will be commercially applicable right away. It will still take some time, maybe 30-40 years before our light bulbs and machines run on cold fusion energy. Durring that time we should be building/running typical fission nuclear stations until we perfect such technologies in the mean time.
 
Last edited:
Darknoon do you have shares or investments in nuclear energy? You know a lot and vocal about it. I agree with you. But call it a hunch.
 
Rainbows said:
Darknoon do you have shares or investments in nuclear energy? You know a lot and vocal about it. I agree with you. But call it a hunch.
Click to expand...
I retired from the fire department. My district had to cover a nuclear plant in TN. We had to study techniques or process for safety concerns. If you don't believe me that even the so called 'safest' plant doesn't emit radiation, I challenge you to get a detector, take background readings of your area, write down the notes and then go near a plant and make the comparison so you can come to your own conclusion. Oh, and I don't own stocks of any kind.
 
Rainbows said:
Darknoon do you have shares or investments in nuclear energy? I agree with you. But call it a hunch
Click to expand...
Yes I do. But I do so as a supporter or advocate. Try to encourage nuclear power through investments. Also profitable in Euro/Asian markets. Most my nuclear energy shares or investments are in Euro/Asia. But I do own some in American market as my own individual way to encourage or support it in American markets. Thank you for seeing the facts accepting tested science & statistics with nuclear power in the West.
TCharley300 said:
If you don't believe me that even the so called 'safest' plant doesn't emit radiation, I challenge you to get a detector, take background readings of your area
Click to expand...
Yes do that and then go to a coal power plant and run your meter. Coal resales tons more radiation & lead into the world than nuclear has ever done in history.
Nuclear power releases less radiation into the environment than any other major energy source -Yale
Click to expand...
e360.yale.edu

Why Nuclear Power Must Be Part of the Energy Solution

Many environmentalists have opposed nuclear power, citing its dangers and the difficulty of disposing of its radioactive waste. But a Pulitzer Prize-winning author argues that nuclear is safer than most energy sources and is needed if the world hopes to radically decrease its carbon emissions.
e360.yale.edu e360.yale.edu
 
Last edited:
DEFCON Warning System said:
"Nuclear power is the safest energy in the world, until one day then LOOKOUT!" haha!
Click to expand...
You can add all the nuclear disasters in the world, and add up the entire lifetime of operational reactors in the world radiation output together. Still would NOT add up close to the amount of radiation and lead coal has released into the world & our communities. Where just talking about coal. Haven't even mentioned gas or oils annual output of radiation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom