5
38

[–] SkepticalMartian 5 points 38 points (+43|-5) ago  (edited ago)

Around here we have a hard enough time just getting a new cell tower because it's constantly opposed by a group of idiots citing electromagnetic hypersensitivity. I can't even fathom what kind of uphill battle nuclear power is going to have.

FWIW, I too think Nuclear power is presently the best option to meet rising demands.

2
6

[–] escapetomars 2 points 6 points (+8|-2) ago 

Yep, the hardcore 'green' movement is not known for being particularly rational. Nuclear power is soo scary OMG to those people and they don't have enough IQ points to get past their irrational emotions.

1
5

[–] ObscureReference 1 points 5 points (+6|-1) ago 

There is always the fringe green movement that is anti-nuke just as a staple position of the movement.

My impression is that many of the moderates in the growing green movement see global warming as a threat and are open to nuclear plants

6
-6

1
26

[–] Samchay6 1 points 26 points (+27|-1) ago 

Their stance clashes with those of environmental groups such as Greenpeace that advocate against nuclear energy.

Figuring out how to harness the power of the atom in a safe and effective manner shows more promise than any other energy source on earth.

2
20

[–] SkepticalMartian 2 points 20 points (+22|-2) ago 

We don't even have to figure it out, we already know how to do it in a safe and effective manner. Next gen nuclear plants have so many redundant safety precautions that you have a better chance of winning the lottery than you do getting harmed by a nuclear power plant.

[–] [deleted] 1 points 6 points (+7|-1) ago 

[Deleted]

1
4

[–] escapetomars 1 points 4 points (+5|-1) ago 

Light water definately has it's drawbacks; LFTR using thorium is a much better long term solution for a number of reasons. That being said, the choice right now is between light water reactors and coal (fantasies like wind and solar have no hope of becoming primary power sources). I'll take light water any day.

1
1

[–] Broc_Lia 1 points 1 points (+2|-1) ago 

you have a better chance of winning the lottery than you do getting harmed by a nuclear power plant.

I assume that's not what you meant, but those would be terrible odds. Thousands of people win lotteries every week.

1
-1

[–] qel33 1 points -1 points (+0|-1) ago 

Doesn't someone win the lottery every day?

3
3

[–] indiglo_girls 3 points 3 points (+6|-3) ago 

Figuring out how to harness the power of the atom in a safe and effective manner shows more promise than any other energy source on earth.

That would be real progress.

10
-6

[–] [deleted] 2 points 1 points (+3|-2) ago  (edited ago)

[Deleted]

1
2

[–] SkepticalMartian 1 points 2 points (+3|-1) ago  (edited ago)

The problem with greenpeace isn't the mission, it's the fact that radical left wing politics (and by extension, radical right wing politics) are by nature anti-intellectual belief structures that one must be indoctrinated in to. Think of it as a large circle jerk where there are only two states: "with us" or "against us". There's no real in-between where you're allowed to question parts of the dogma, because it's more like a belief system then a quest for scientific answers and/or solutions. In the middle of any greenpeace rally you'll nearly always find a significantly large number of people involved that have absolutely no understanding of the thing they're protesting. They're not really interested in understanding, they just want to feel like they're doing something to make the world a better place.

The world would benefit immensely from a greenpeace-like organization that put science first, and allowed new discovery to assist in changing their activities.

2
23

[–] BentAxel 2 points 23 points (+25|-2) ago 

Thorium. No reason for Nuclear when Thorium solutions exist. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power

Thorium Power Is the Safer Future of Nuclear Energy http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2015/01/16/thorium-future-nuclear-energy/ Nuclear power has long been a contentious topic. It generates huge amounts of electricity with zero carbon emissions, and thus is held up as a solution to global energy woes. But it also entails several risks, including weapons development, meltdown, and the hazards of disposing of its waste products.

But those risks and benefits all pertain to a very specific kind of nuclear energy: nuclear fission of uranium or plutonium isotopes. There’s another kind of nuclear energy that’s been waiting in the wings for decades – and it may just demand a recalibration of our thoughts on nuclear power.

Nuclear fission using thorium is easily within our reach, and, compared with conventional nuclear energy, the risks are considerably lower.

2
14

[–] deadite 2 points 14 points (+16|-2) ago 

It's disheartening that thorium was passed over because you can't build a bomb out of it. The world has had this tech since the mid 60's and it has been scrapped for the most part. It's also readily scalable, with designs that could be localized in cities or even neighborhoods. Plus you can say you get your power from Thor Energy.

3
3

[–] War_Wombat 3 points 3 points (+6|-3) ago 

Thorium has pros and cons when compared to traditional nuclear power. IMO, the cons far outweigh the pros. Thorium power is very wasteful in that it only uses a specific state of the atoms to another very specific state. It's also a whole lot more expensive, and requires preparation from uranium anyway, making the idea "you can't build a bomb out of it" ridiculous, especially since traditional nuclear power doesn't use weapons-grade uranium anyway.

Here's the actual list from Wikipedia:

"There are several challenges to the application of thorium as a nuclear fuel, particularly for solid fuel reactors:

Unlike uranium, natural thorium contains no fissile isotopes; fissile material, generally 233U, 235U or plutonium, must be added to achieve criticality. This, along with the high sintering temperature necessary to make thorium-dioxide fuel, complicates fuel fabrication. Oak Ridge National Laboratory experimented with thorium tetrafluoride as fuel in a molten salt reactor from 1964–1969, which was expected to be easier to process and separate from contaminants that slow or stop the chain reaction.

In an open fuel cycle (i.e. utilizing 233U in situ), higher burnup is necessary to achieve a favorable neutron economy. Although thorium dioxide performed well at burnups of 170,000 MWd/t and 150,000 MWd/t at Fort St. Vrain Generating Station and AVR respectively,[4] challenges complicate achieving this in light water reactors (LWR), which compose the vast majority of existing power reactors.

In a once-through thorium fuel cycle the residual 233U is a long-lived radioactive isotope in the waste.

Another challenge associated with the thorium fuel cycle is the comparatively long interval over which 232Th breeds to 233U. The half-life of 233Pa is about 27 days, which is an order of magnitude longer than the half-life of 239Np. As a result, substantial 233Pa develops in thorium-based fuels. 233Pa is a significant neutron absorber, and although it eventually breeds into fissile 235U, this requires two more neutron absorptions, which degrades neutron economy and increases the likelihood of transuranic production.

Alternatively, if solid thorium is used in a closed fuel cycle in which 233U is recycled, remote handling is necessary for fuel fabrication because of the high radiation levels resulting from the decay products of 232U. This is also true of recycled thorium because of the presence of 228Th, which is part of the 232U decay sequence. Further, unlike proven uranium fuel recycling technology (e.g. PUREX), recycling technology for thorium (e.g. THOREX) is only under development.

Although the presence of 232U complicates matters, there are public documents showing that 233U has been used once in a nuclear weapon test. The United States tested a composite 233U-plutonium bomb core in the MET (Military Effects Test) blast during Operation Teapot in 1955, though with much lower yield than expected.[20]

Though thorium-based fuels produce far less long-lived transuranics than uranium-based fuels,[15] some long-lived actinide products constitute a long-term radiological impact, especially 231Pa.[16]

Advocates for liquid core and molten salt reactors such as LFTRs claim that these technologies negate thorium's disadvantages present in solid fueled reactors. As only two liquid-core fluoride salt reactors have been built (the ORNL ARE and MSRE) and neither have used thorium, it is hard to validate the exact benefits.[4]"

2
0

[–] BentAxel 2 points 0 points (+2|-2) ago 

Thank you for providing some education on this. I am only a layperson. Either way something should be done.

0
1

[–] KyJoCaThe2nd 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Thorium is nuclear. Nuclear power just refers to the reaction that's being harnessed; that of the atomic bonds within the nucleus. Nuclear doesn't mean the uranium fuel cycle, although we can't fully divorce nuclear power from the use of uranium.

1
18

[–] idle_voating 1 points 18 points (+19|-1) ago  (edited ago)

Yes, but not those pile of shit generation 1 reactors, light water reactors that are expensive to run and melt down and don't even use much of the energy in their fuel. We need generation 4 reactors that can run on spent fuel and with designs like the molten salt reactor will not melt down due to how they're built so differently from pile of shit generation 1 light water reactors.

Preferably thorium could be used as a fuel because it's so abundant and cheap, about as common as lead in the earth. It's actually garbage left over from the mining of rare earth metals, those slag piles are so full of opportunity. It would take an insanely long amount of time for thorium to run out.

1
14

[–] SkepticalMartian 1 points 14 points (+15|-1) ago 

This. Exactly.

Many people don't understand just how far the technology has advanced.

2
4

[–] escapetomars 2 points 4 points (+6|-2) ago 

Yep, and many people don't realize how ignorant nuclear haters really are when they talk about radiation and the 'problems' with nuclear. Not only do they not understand the how far the technology has progressed, but they are completely unable to put it in context with other forms of power. For example - if they are so afraid of radiation - coal plant waste is highly radioactive and contaminates thousands of acres of land yearly. But you never see them protesting the construction of a new coal plant.

1
4

[–] CatNamedJava 1 points 4 points (+5|-1) ago 

I watch a documentary written by environmentalists turn pro nuke (opening pandora or something like that ). In the old Federal funded test olant they redid the 3 mile island and the chernobyl disasters l. The gen 4 just shut down on thier own without any human interference. It is literally impossible for those incidents to happen again.

2
2

[–] ObeyTheFist 2 points 2 points (+4|-2) ago 

So long as they use newer, safer designs.

[–] [deleted] 3 points 2 points (+5|-3) ago 

[Deleted]

1
1

[–] Broc_Lia 1 points 1 points (+2|-1) ago 

^ this

If they'd had one of those at fukushima, not only would the area still be habitable, they'd probably have the plant back up and running within a few months.

0
1

[–] novictim 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Between not talking about population reduction and not talking about nuclear energy, I think that we have yet to accept the catastrophe that climate change and CO2 rise is going to bring.

To me, these are a litmus test for whether someone is being serious or just being fashionable when it comes to man made carbon pollution.

2
1

[–] massiveprivilege 2 points 1 points (+3|-2) ago  (edited ago)

After Fukushima? Good luck convincing people.

Also

2
1

[–] Broc_Lia 2 points 1 points (+3|-2) ago 

It's worth noting that different types of nuclear reactors have very different levels of risk. LFTRs for example have virtually no risk. Even if you shot one with an artillary shell it would just shut down and make a (well contained and localised) mess.

The problem is that the type of reactors governments want are the kind which produce by-products which can be used in nuclear weapons, and also tend not to be the safest kind.

[–] [deleted] 2 points -2 points (+0|-2) ago 

[Deleted]
load more comments ▼ (12 remaining)