Nuclear Energy. Do you want more or less?

[epi 1:10,000]

http://www.ted.com/talks/debate_does_the_world_need_nuclear_energy.html

[1714055696]

1714055696

[1714055696]

1714055696

[1714055696]

1714055696

[1714055696]

1714055696

[benjamindees]

Energy is the basis of all economic activity.  So of course the world needs more energy, not less.  And of course, until solar and wind can scale up, nuclear is the safest and cleanest large-scale source of energy, by at least an order of magnitude.

[TiagoTiago]

Nuclear Energy. Do you want more or less?

I want better

[Samantha2011]

Nuclear Energy. Do you want more or less?

I want better

Check your PMs. 

[Schleicher]

As long as a bunch of greedy bastards is running the power plants: no, thanks.
At least not in densely populated areas like europe.

[LokeRundt]

If the costs were internalized instead of being offloaded on taxpayers, then yes.  Let those who want/afford the true cost of nuclear energy pay for it, let the rest of us invest in energy technologies that do not threaten our species/planet

[compro01]

more, but get rid of these damn 1st generation cobblefests and use decent designs (e.g. CANDU and others)

[Tawsix]

Breeder reactors.  Many breeder reactors.  Many private breeder reactors.  Thousands of them.

[realnowhereman]

Thorium reactors.  Mmmm.

When they were designing nuclear reactors, Thorium was an option.  The reason they didn't go with it?  You can't make weapons-grade plutonium in a Thorium reactor.

Other than that, Thorium reactors would be cleaner, more efficient and cheaper.  The insanity of governments and greenies is that they would rather invest in impractical and ultimately unworkable wind power than Thorium research.  When that money's wasted they will go with tested Uranium technology because that's all they'll have time for.

How I love giving them my money.

[AntiVigilante]

I love you people.

You make me proud.

[compro01]

Thorium reactors.  Mmmm.

When they were designing nuclear reactors, Thorium was an option.  The reason they didn't go with it?  You can't make weapons-grade plutonium in a Thorium reactor.

Other than that, Thorium reactors would be cleaner, more efficient and cheaper.  The insanity of governments and greenies is that they would rather invest in impractical and ultimately unworkable wind power than Thorium research.  When that money's wasted they will go with tested Uranium technology because that's all they'll have time for.

How I love giving them my money.

further reason why CANDU is an awesome design.

runs on lightly enriched or unenriched uranium, LWR/PWR waste, plutoniun, and even thorium.

[rafval]

If the costs were internalized instead of being offloaded on taxpayers, then yes.  Let those who want/afford the true cost of nuclear energy pay for it, let the rest of us invest in energy technologies that do not threaten our species/planet

this is the solution and why very few are being built now, reality happened

[cothoms]

more, but get rid of these damn 1st generation cobblefests and use decent designs (e.g. CANDU and others)

Absolutely. 

The #1 issue blocking expansion of nuclear power is actually capital.  It takes so much money to get a nuke plant running, but new designs, such as modular plants, allow plug-n-play additions, so companies can use the first installment as a way to generate income to finance the next installment, and so on and so forth. 

Fear of Chernobyl 2.0 is irrational as these new power plant designs are exponentially safer.


But, as with most things in life, the path to nuclear power expansion lies with the national government.  Government will be the rudder that steers the nuclear power ship.

[grue]

As long as a bunch of greedy bastards is running the power plants: no, thanks.
At least not in densely populated areas like europe.

nuclear plants are still safer (injures/kills less) than fossil fuel plants

[Grant]

I want more, specifically i want more 1st generation under the government building in my country.

[Jaime Frontero]

i want less.

my reasoning has little to do with proliferation, site leakage dangers, pollution, et alia - although i abhor them all.

actually, i approach the issue of nuclear power in the same way that i approach Bitcoin.  politically.

i see no difference in petro-based, hydro-based, hydrogen-based or nuclear-based energy infrastructures.  they are all too big, and the only possible winners in those games are huge corporations - who vie to rule the world on an equal footing with governments.  no individual can afford to refine his own oil, build her own reactor, create a dam that will power his life (when including the costs of water rights), or tinker together a high-pressure hydrogen environment at home.

i favor (and work for) solar and wind powered systems - because they can be scaled down profitably to a granular level.  yes:  large corporations can build them and sell the power - but individuals can too; and almost as effectively.

solar and wind power can be decentralized, yet retain full functionality - just as Bitcoin can be and does.

gosh that seems simple...

[Schleicher]

nuclear plants are still safer (injures/kills less) than fossil fuel plants

Yeah, right.
Tell that to the people living near Chernobyl.

[tehcodez]

nuclear plants are still safer (injures/kills less) than fossil fuel plants

Yeah, right.
Tell that to the people living near Chernobyl.

That was a soviet design :-)

[MoonShadow]

nuclear plants are still safer (injures/kills less) than fossil fuel plants

Yeah, right.
Tell that to the people living near Chernobyl.

No one who lived near Chernobyl died or contracted cancer as a direct result of their proximity.  Chernobyl was a bad accident, but contrary to popular belief, an American coal plant releases more radioactive material into the air each year than Chernobyl did.  The problem was that Chernobyl was doing it in concentration as well as would have continued doing so so long as the fire continued.  Coal contains large amounts of thorium and uranium naturally, and there is no way to get them out before burning it.  So some portion of those elements do end up in the exhaust.  I've been employed in both types of power plants in the United States, including the oldest coal fired power plant still licensed in the United States, Beckjord Power Plant, and I can honestly say that I would much rather live near a nuke plant than a coal plant.  Yes, there is a small chance that said nuke plant could be mismanaged and have an incident that harms my children; but that's a certainty if you live downwind from a coal plant.  Go tour a coal plant, nothing green grows within a quarter mile of the stack.  Nothing.

EDIT:  BTW, Chernobyl continued to produce power for another 15 years or so before being mothballed.  Only the affected reactor was closed immediately.  There is no evidence that employees that worked at Chernobyl after the incident were exposed to any more radiation than their peers at any other nuke plants.

[grue]

nuclear plants are still safer (injures/kills less) than fossil fuel plants

Yeah, right.
Tell that to the people living near Chernobyl.

yeah right, tell that to the people living near thousands of coal power plants.