Global Nuclear Power Boom | FEED DISCUSSION

[DarkNoon]

Let's not call low probability high impact events "propaganda".

Nope. Even full meltdowns don't pose the threats the media or Hollywood portray. It is indeed fear porn click bait and propaganda for the fossil fuel companies. Wake up sir.

Not to mention most alive don't even recall a living memory of a nuclear disaster even though hundreds of reactors across the globe have ran since their birth without a single incident.

Even the worse nuclear disaster in history (chernobyl) that had a TOTAL meltdown with minimal containment architecture only killed 31 civilians. That was decades ago. That will also never happen again as it was a design flaw that CANNOT be replicated again.

Coal killed 31 people today alone from mining/processing it. Not to mention the global permanent contamination of many heavy element byproducts of burning coal.

So everyone. Please learn.

 

[DarkNoon]

Coal killed 31 people today alone from mining/processing it. Not to mention the global permanent contamination of many heavy element byproducts of burning coal.

You know. Fossil fuel companies are right to take the American people as fools, they pulled a fast one even on the most smartest people regarding nuclear power...

Cities powered by coal have more radiation than cities power by nuclear. As burning coal releases deadly radiation into the environment. Among other heavy deadly elements like mercury. That not only kills people but poisons the environment over the long term.

But nuclear powered cities have less radiation in their background and less heavy toxic medals in their environmental background then those who burn coal.

But oh no, nuclear power is the boogy man. My God.

 

[DarkNoon]

It's not even about climate change. Fuck the climate. It changes with or without humanity.

This about the proven facts that nuclear is without a shred of doubt safer than any other form of power generation, even compared to wind and solar.

It's about energy independence, it's about energy to cheat to meter, it's about being able to say fuck you to whatever enemy holding fossil fuels over our heads...

Idk. Don't mind me. Just screaming into a void I guess.

But really, my only point through ALL OF THIS IS... you only have the media to blame for high energy prices over propagating misinformation over nuclear power in the 70's-2000's. Just another thing to hate the media for.

 

[DarkNoon]

And it's not just coal. Natural gas has the same problems. Though it's less deadly.

But saying that is like saying vaping is healthier than smoking. It's still bad. Ditto for natural gas verus coal. Sure one is less bad for your health. Still bad regardless.

Again not talking about climate change. Talking about literally physical health of people & average lifespan.

 

[DEFCON Warning System]

No. It is a irrational fear propagated by the media. Even chernobyl was blown way out of portion. ONLY 31 CIVILIANS died in chernobyl.

And contaminated an area for quite some time. Don't let's downplay things, either.

I am not trying to suggest a nuclear power plant meltdown would incinerate San Fransisco. I am also not suggesting that a meltdown that results in contaminating exposure can't happen.

You know how you get pissed the heck off @DEFCON Warning System when people needless propagate misinformation in regards to "nuclear war not survivable" when you have learn it very much is.

You're right. But I also don't downplay the effects of nuclear war, either. I have oft said that nuclear war is survivable, but it won't be Disneyland either.

Same with a nuclear accident. It won't irradiate half the planet, but you can't go dancing outside the property either.

 

[DarkNoon]

You're right. But I also don't downplay the effects of nuclear war, either. I have oft said that nuclear war is survivable, but it won't be Disneyland either.

Same with a nuclear accident. It won't irradiate half the planet, but you can't go dancing outside the property either.

Now this I can respect and very much agree too.

 

[DarkNoon]

And contaminated an area for quite some time. Don't let's downplay things, either.

I am not trying to suggest a nuclear power plant meltdown would incinerate San Fransisco. I am also not suggesting that a meltdown that results in contaminating exposure can't happen.

@Friendly Engineer should put this myth to rest. No this cannot happen. Chernobyl was a unique one off event that cannot happen again. Nuclear power plants cannot explode and spread radiation in vast distances across counties like chernobyl did.

ONLY reason why it happened and why it will never happen again is because it was a unknown design flaw in the early days of nuclear engineering in a authoritarian system with poor communication.

There is no nuclear power plant on earth that can blow up and spread radiation like chernobyl did. They can blow up due to hydro gas buildup like Fukushima. But the cores of any nuclear power plant cannot and will not explode like chernobyl did, ever again. It is a myth.

 

[DarkNoon]

@Friendly Engineer should put this myth to rest. No this cannot happen.

Even he has said ZNPP reactors can take direct hits and it still can't happen aka chernobyl 2.0. So. Let's all take the time to really learn about nuclear power. I have in the past fully, and here above lightly provided fact based sources on the matter.

Hope a literal nuclear engineer can take this away from me @Friendly Engineer and double down on all this. Which a lot of this i am repeating from what I have learned from him over the years here.

 

[Torch]

I am interested in seeing molten salt reactors (MSR) becoming commercially viable. They have some safety benefits compared to traditional reactors. They run at lower pressure and have some passive safety systems to mitigate disaster. But they come with operational challenges, such as corrosion. These challenges must be addressed in order to improve the commercial viability of the technology.

I think the main draw back is that they can never be scrammed. Well ok, they can be scrammed but only once so there is no PM other than external patches and support.

Some number of Soviet submarines were trashed after being shut down following the Cold War due to the sodium reactors.

All of this is Google free in the middle on the night, so its afaik. Someone please correct or expand on my viewpoint, please and thank you!

 

[Friendly Engineer]

Wow didn't realise this was so controversial
tbh I'm too hungover to debate this properly

 

[william]

Wow didn't realise this was so controversial
tbh I'm too hungover to debate this properly

 

[Friendly Engineer]

Right, as for the whole nuclear safety debate;

Meltdowns are a concern, and quite a lot of care is taken to prevent and mitigate them via defence in depth.
Asteroid strikes are also a concern, and if a nuclear engineer was in charge they'd spend billions on asteroid interceptors even though it's unlikely.

Designs these days have containment buildings, core catchers, emergency systems on top of emergency systems (talking about the EPR here), and smaller ones like the rolls-royce SMR use passive safety features extensively.
To be honest I think the safety culture has gone too far the other way in the UK, e.g. dose limits are stupidly low.

 

[Friendly Engineer]

Nope. Even full meltdowns don't pose the threats the media or Hollywood portray. It is indeed fear porn click bait and propaganda for the fossil fuel companies. Wake up sir.

Not to mention most alive don't even recall a living memory of a nuclear disaster even though hundreds of reactors across the globe have ran since their birth without a single incident.

Even the worse nuclear disaster in history (chernobyl) that had a TOTAL meltdown with minimal containment architecture only killed 31 civilians. That was decades ago. That will also never happen again as it was a design flaw that CANNOT be replicated again.

Coal killed 31 people today alone from mining/processing it. Not to mention the global permanent contamination of many heavy element byproducts of burning coal.

So everyone. Please learn.

I agree with @teekay99 insofar as meltdowns aren't propaganda, they are a genuine concern. Chernobyl probably killed a few more hundreds long term from cancers. I agree with you that coal kills more per kWh.

I'll be honest I like nuclear, it's a good way of producing energy and I am a bit of a cheerleader for it, but it has downsides. Uranium mining isn't very pleasant (yes closed fuel cycles can help but that requires further investment, it's cheaper to wreck some ecosystem via strip mining), meltdowns can happen, and people can get lethal doses from spent fuel handling (happens from time to time). Uranium isn't an infinite resource, yes we'll find more prospects when the price inevitably shoots up but it is a dwindling supply (also when it gets in short enough supply we'll start reprocessing and stretch reserves).

As engineers we do all we can to mitigate a meltdown, to prepare for every eventuality we can think of, but there's no such thing as a certainty in engineering & science.

 

[DarkNoon]

I agree with @teekay99 insofar as meltdowns aren't propaganda, they are a genuine concern. Chernobyl probably killed a few more hundreds long term from cancers. I agree with you that coal kills more per kWh.

I'll be honest I like nuclear, it's a good way of producing energy and I am a bit of a cheerleader for it, but it has downsides. Uranium mining isn't very pleasant (yes closed fuel cycles can help but that requires further investment, it's cheaper to wreck some ecosystem via strip mining), meltdowns can happen, and people can get lethal doses from spent fuel handling (happens from time to time). Uranium isn't an infinite resource, yes we'll find more prospects when the price inevitably shoots up but it is a dwindling supply (also when it gets in short enough supply we'll start reprocessing and stretch reserves).

As engineers we do all we can to mitigate a meltdown, to prepare for every eventuality we can think of, but there's no such thing as a certainty in engineering & science.

Yes. But I know for a fact you have said before here I promise I will find it even if you said it years ago, you said and I quote: "chernobyl cannot happen again". So. The fear porn where a nuclear reactor can contaminate the whole world or even large regions is false as fuck.

Not saying a true nuclear meltdown will not contaminate the local environment. But global or wide reaching regional effects even remotely like chernobyl is PURE FICTION.

Don't try to please everyone here. Be honest about this as you always have about this in the past.

 

[Friendly Engineer]

Yes. But I know for a fact you have said before here I promise I will find it even if you said it years ago, you said and I quote: "chernobyl cannot happen again". So. The fear porn where a nuclear reactor can contaminate the whole world or even large regions is false as fuck.

Not saying a true nuclear meltdown will not contaminate the local environment. But global or wide reaching regional effects even remotely like chernobyl is PURE FICTION.

Don't try to please everyone here. Be honest about this as you always have about this in the past.

It's virtually impossible for the reactor to go full-on chernobyl (In reference to Rolls-Royce SMR)


This can't and won't turn into a Chernobyl 2.0 . Zaporizhzhia uses something called a "Core catcher" (In reference to ZNPP a while back in the Russia Ukraine conflict)

As for the second one I was trying to be reassuring due to a lot of fearmongering, from I scientific perspective I should've said "highly unlikely". If the Russkies put a few bunker busters through the roof they could've spread a lot of radioactive material around (thankfully they haven't and I very much doubt they will)

 

[Friendly Engineer]

Yes. But I know for a fact you have said before here I promise I will find it even if you said it years ago, you said and I quote: "chernobyl cannot happen again". So. The fear porn where a nuclear reactor can contaminate the whole world or even large regions is false as fuck.

Not saying a true nuclear meltdown will not contaminate the local environment. But global or wide reaching regional effects even remotely like chernobyl is PURE FICTION.

Don't try to please everyone here. Be honest about this as you always have about this in the past.

I agree a reactor can't contaminate half the world, but Chernobyl did have a noticeable effect on a good chunk of Europe (as in, you could detect it), so they can have a regional effect, but the significant effects generally are limited to nearby countries.

File:Tchernobyl radiation 1996.svg - Wikimedia Commons (from 1996)

 

[Friendly Engineer]

I am interested in seeing molten salt reactors (MSR) becoming commercially viable. They have some safety benefits compared to traditional reactors. They run at lower pressure and have some passive safety systems to mitigate disaster. But they come with operational challenges, such as corrosion. These challenges must be addressed in order to improve the commercial viability of the technology.

I reckon we'll see a lot more molten salts as the decades go on and uranium gets pricier. Better design for closed fuel cycles.

 

[Torch]

What the cost to recycle fuel and Im thinking breeders to convert? Is that more sustainable?

Of course Wars are an excellent use as fas as US Ammunition and armor reinforcements

 

[Torch]

What the cost to recycle fuel and Im thinking breeders to convert? Is that more sustainable?

Of course Wars are an excellent use as far as the USA special ammunition and armor reinforcements

I actually saw .50 Cal DAP back in the last century. I heard we even tried it in 30 call SLAP darts. I thinking it was too much trouble in small calibers for the benefit.

 

[Publius]

What the cost to recycle fuel and Im thinking breeders to convert? Is that more sustainable?

Of course Wars are an excellent use as fas as the USA$ special ammunition and armor reinforcements

I actually saw .50 Cal DAP back in the last century. I heard we even tried it in 30 call SLAP darts. I thinking it was too much trouble in small calibers for the benefit.

Explosively formed projectile on a small scale.
Density + velocity = destruction