NUCLEAR IS GREENEST TECHNOLOGY CLAIM 65 TOP BIOLOGISTS

[Inotanewbie]

Sixty-five of the world’s leading biologists are demanding the “historical antagonism” towards nuclear power from the green lobby end. In an open letter, the group is expected to claim it is too risky to replace fossil fuels with wind turbines and are calling for nuclear to be in the “energy mix” as it is the greenest technology of all.

There is some merit to this opinion. Nuclear power may be the greenest of the all available options, but it is the most risky technology at the same time. Remember we're yet to find a workable solution to get rid of the nuclear waste?

Nuclear energy is actually very safe. There are a very low number of nuclear "incidents" and most incidents involve no deaths/injuries.

The problem with nuclear energy is that when something bad happens it can potentially kill millions of people. On EV level nuclear power is probably more green then solar/wind energy

[BitBlitz]

Sixty-five of the world’s leading biologists are demanding the “historical antagonism” towards nuclear power from the green lobby end. In an open letter, the group is expected to claim it is too risky to replace fossil fuels with wind turbines and are calling for nuclear to be in the “energy mix” as it is the greenest technology of all.

There is some merit to this opinion. Nuclear power may be the greenest of the all available options, but it is the most risky technology at the same time. Remember we're yet to find a workable solution to get rid of the nuclear waste?

The problem is that people generally believe all nuclear power generation is the same, which is not true. Over time, various generations of plants have been designed and built, each significantly safer.  Current designs require operators to sustain their reaction, and default to safer states when things fail.  First and second generation reactors require operators to control the reaction, and faults can leave them in runaway conditions. 

1st generation reactors should be completely shut down (I don't think any are still in large scale operation).  2nd generation should be phased out and replaced with 3+ as soon as possible.

[criptix]

Sixty-five of the world’s leading biologists are demanding the “historical antagonism” towards nuclear power from the green lobby end. In an open letter, the group is expected to claim it is too risky to replace fossil fuels with wind turbines and are calling for nuclear to be in the “energy mix” as it is the greenest technology of all.

There is some merit to this opinion. Nuclear power may be the greenest of the all available options, but it is the most risky technology at the same time. Remember we're yet to find a workable solution to get rid of the nuclear waste?

The problem is that people generally believe all nuclear power generation is the same, which is not true. Over time, various generations of plants have been designed and built, each significantly safer.  Current designs require operators to sustain their reaction, and default to safer states when things fail.  First and second generation reactors require operators to control the reaction, and faults can leave them in runaway conditions. 

1st generation reactors should be completely shut down (I don't think any are still in large scale operation).  2nd generation should be phased out and replaced with 3+ as soon as possible.

I agree to that. There are still some 1st generation reactors and mainly 2nd generation reactors running.
main problem here is the building cost & duration of new nuclear power plants.
Build time and cost is around 3-4 times to that of fossil fueled power plants.

And to be honest if cost would not play the main role we could just use regenerative energy.

[BitMos]

Nuclear is the best way to assure a long term trace of having boiled water. I very dislike nuclear technology. It's a very sure way to have the best case example of why so called public-private partnership are Huuuugggeeee scam.

the public will :
- not be able to decentralize electricity production-storage-innovation due to the low subsidized cost of nuclear energy.
- have to carry the cost of subsidizing the energy production
- will not be able to maximize the conversion of watts to $.
- will not be able to get the fuck out of there (where ever it may be) on a timely fashion (private jet rdy).

the private will:
- not be able to decentralize electricity production-storage-innovation due to the low subsidized cost of nuclear energy.
- will benefits from the low cost of subsidized energy
- will be able to maximize the conversion of watts to $
- will be able to get the fuck out of there (where ever it may be) on a timely fashion (private jet rdy)
- will monster naked short those fç"* shares in case of event
- will profit from the construction, running, disposal of the waste and removal of the operation once old.
- will profit from the increase need of defense budget
...

but more generally speaking it's the lack of decentralization that nuclear technology induce, the inherent system risk of having a centralized energy production, and the inherent systemic risks of the nuclear energy production (a few mistakes and the nearby cities are ghosted faster than... forevermore... ). However I agree that the job that the nuclear industry does is quite interesting. How they have successfully dominate the news on this story... it's ironic that they can't master radioactivity as easily... the soviets learned it the hardway btw... but seems to have too forgotten what they may be ready to inflict upon generations of unborn for the sake of a few lights more at night... 1. decentralized energy production 2. decentralized energy storage... that will be the true alt .

edit: lame me, biologists .

edit2 : it's funny to think that life on earth is water based and that apparently nuclear wastes mix well with water... who knows, the space is wide and dark... only mind conquered by an out of earth life form can support such primitive technology. And frankly NT goes deeply against the philosophy of Earth as best space craft ever. At least now there is apparently still no need to wear a full nbc gear... if you want it hard go on the dark side of the moon or mars and beyond do your "innovations"-"science"-"wars"-"conflicts"-"pollutions".

edit3: you can still reduce a little (but if you get the "tail" it's anyway pointless) by imposing everyone involved to live 5 miles max radius around installations .

not all tail event are the same...

[Rishblitz]

If we can figure out nuclear fission for helium we could make a shit ton of energy.

[Balthazar]

<spam>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00h0_Tq8ThA&feature=youtu.be
</spam>

 

[manselr]

Lol what a scam. Nuclear technology is deprecated and Geothermal is the future.

[Tusk]

World's First NUCLEAR SALT REACTOR - Documentary

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIDytUCRtTA

A liquified salt activator (MSR) is a class of nuclear fission activators where the primary coolant, or also the energy itself, is a liquified salt mix. MSRs perform at higher temperature levels than water-cooled reactors for greater thermodynamic savings, while staying at low vapor tension.

In many designs the nuclear energy is dissolved in the molten fluoride salt coolant as uranium tetrafluoride (UF4). Solid energy designs rely on ceramic energy dispersed in a graphite matrix, regarding the molten salt providing low stress, high temperature level air conditioning.

The early Aircraft Reactor Experiment (1954) was primarily motivated by the tiny dimension that the style might offer, while the Molten-Salt Reactor Experiment (1965-- 1969) was a prototype for a thorium gas cycle breeder activator nuclear power plant. Among the Generation IV reactor designs is a molten-salt-cooled, molten-salt-fuelled reactor; the initial reference design is 1000 MWe.

______________________________________________________________________

A great documentary, Lets hope they succeed 

They raised $410K on kick starter to make the documentry

[TECSHARE]

Sure, nuclear is the greenest technology... if you ignore the hundreds of thousands of tons of nuclear waste overflowing with no place to go, and the fallout blanketing the earth from failed reactors.

[bitcreditscc]

Ask russia/ukraine and japan how well it worked out for them. "Green" is only until something happens, then it becomes blacker than everything else...for centuries. NO to nuclear energy, lets focus on solar harvesting.

[the_reprobate]

Ask russia/ukraine and japan how well it worked out for them. "Green" is only until something happens, then it becomes blacker than everything else...for centuries. NO to nuclear energy, lets focus on solar harvesting.

I agree Solar and Wind should be an alternative energy instead of chemicals.. The Fukushima incident is a sign that we should not support such energies

[bryant.coleman]

I agree Solar and Wind should be an alternative energy instead of chemicals.. The Fukushima incident is a sign that we should not support such energies

Do you know how many tons of toxic chemicals are produced as byproduct, during the manufacturing of a single solar panel? Solar energy produces huge amount of toxic waste. And moreover, it is extremely expensive when compared to the other forms of energy. And with today's technology, there are innovative ways to take care of the nuclear waste, which makes it more preferable to the other forms of energy.

[bitcreditscc]

I agree Solar and Wind should be an alternative energy instead of chemicals.. The Fukushima incident is a sign that we should not support such energies

Do you know how many tons of toxic chemicals are produced as byproduct, during the manufacturing of a single solar panel? Solar energy produces huge amount of toxic waste. And moreover, it is extremely expensive when compared to the other forms of energy. And with today's technology, there are innovative ways to take care of the nuclear waste, which makes it more preferable to the other forms of energy.

It's a difficult issue, but can you compare the toxicity of those chemicals to radiation? I'm no expert , but a small leak of the wrong radioactive stuff could have devastating effects, let alone a melt down.

[bryant.coleman]

It's a difficult issue, but can you compare the toxicity of those chemicals to radiation? I'm no expert , but a small leak of the wrong radioactive stuff could have devastating effects, let alone a melt down.

If we store the radioactive waste properly, then there will be no issues. The problems arise only when it is not contained properly. The Americans and the Europeans are doing it properly, by storing them in gigantic lead containers in isolated and remote areas. Also, the net volume of the radio active waste generated from the nuclear plants is much smaller when compared to the toxic waste generated during the manufacturing of solar panels. 

[Wilikon]

New Nuclear Power Seen as Big Winner in Obama’s Energy Plan

The Obama administration is giving the struggling U.S. nuclear industry a glimmer of hope with changes to its carbon emission rules that mean new reactors will count more toward meeting federal benchmarks.

States will be able to take more credit for future carbon-free electricity to be generated by nuclear power plants still under construction when meeting their emission reduction targets, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said in a call on Sunday. The targets are required under the EPA’s landmark Clean Power Plan that was unveiled on Monday.

Under last year’s draft of the rules, the yet-to-be completed reactors were counted as existing units that wouldn’t be fully credited for carbon reductions generated in the future after they started operating. The nuclear power industry complained that amounted to a penalty on the plants and made state targets harder to achieve.

“We tend to view new rules as potentially the first bit of good news for the struggling nuclear industry,” Julien Dumoulin-Smith, an analyst for UBS, wrote on Monday in a research note.

Nuclear operators are being challenged by high maintenance and clean up costs as well as competition from cheap natural-gas fueled power plants and low-cost wind and solar generation. About 10 percent of the nation’s nuclear output could be retired early due to low energy prices, according to Moody’s Investors Service.

The question of waste disposal also hangs over the industry as efforts to establish a federal repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada have stalled.

The Nuclear Energy Institute, a Washington-based trade group, said it was “pleased” that the EPA recognized that nuclear plants under construction “should count toward compliance when they are operating,” according to an e-mail statement from Marvin Fertel, president of the group.

Fertel said the industry was disappointed that existing reactors won’t get credit for their carbon-reduction value given that some plants are at risk for early retirement, according to the statement.

Delayed Projects

New reactor projects - the first in decades - have been plagued by delays and cost increases.

Beneficiaries of the rule changes would include Southern Co. and Scana Corp., which are building new reactors in Georgia and South Carolina, respectively. The Tennessee Valley Authority, which is building a reactor at its Watts Bar facility near Spring City, Tennessee, would also get a boost.

“We had indicated that any nuclear facility that was under construction would be considered as part of the standard-setting process,” U.S. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said in a call with reporters Sunday. The agency reconsidered after reviewing comments, and now will be counting new nuclear under construction as “a compliance strategy,” she said.

“If nuclear plants already under construction can be counted toward a state’s carbon reduction goals, then those states may not have to do something else to reduce carbon,” said Paul Patterson, a New York-based utility analyst for Glenrock Associates LLC.

Utility Concerns

The rule changes address one of TVA’s “major concerns,” Scott Brooks, a spokesman for Tennessee Valley Authority, said in a statement Monday.

“That means we can count Watts Bar Unit 2, scheduled to be online within the next year, as part of our compliance plan.”

Southern is reviewing the final rules and remained concerned that they “impede state’s authority to act in the best interests of customers,” Tim Leljedal, a spokesman for Southern, said in an e-mail statement Monday.

Southern said in January that delays may add more than $700 million in costs to the twin reactors its building at Plant Vogtle near Augusta, Georgia. The company has said customers won’t have to pay for those setbacks.

“Nuclear facilities will be credited because it’s new, zero-carbon generation that will be credited as part of a compliance strategy,” McCarthy said. “We think that’s entirely consistent and appropriate.”



http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-08-03/new-nuclear-power-seen-as-big-winner-in-obama-s-power-plan

[blablahblah]

Black Swan risk calculations, or STFU and GTFO.

The safety argument reeks of erroneously ignoring the possibility of rare events similar to Chernobyl or Fukushima. Maybe it's expedience, maybe they were taught at school to ignore outliers when drawing smoothed graphs.

Or maybe "this time it's different"... because next-generation plants will not be susceptible to unforeseen disasters.


If people want efficient solar: grow and harvest high-energy crops and forests for fuel.
-land usage is far more efficient than any system of mirrors or panels.
-plants produce a natural 3d matrix that has far superior light absorption qualities than panels. (Reflected light is scattered downwards).
-It's carbon-neutral, and plays much better with local fauna compared to solar panel factories or arrays of mirrors, or wind turbines.

[criptix]

Black Swan risk calculations, or STFU and GTFO.

The safety argument reeks of erroneously ignoring the possibility of rare events similar to Chernobyl or Fukushima. Maybe it's expedience, maybe they were taught at school to ignore outliers when drawing smoothed graphs.

Or maybe "this time it's different"... because next-generation plants will not be susceptible to unforeseen disasters.


If people want efficient solar: grow and harvest high-energy crops and forests for fuel.
-land usage is far more efficient than any system of mirrors or panels.
-plants produce a natural 3d matrix that has far superior light absorption qualities than panels. (Reflected light is scattered downwards).
-It's carbon-neutral, and plays much better with local fauna compared to solar panel factories or arrays of mirrors, or wind turbines.

But time consumption regarding growing and processing to eletricity is big.
Also think about social  and economical consequences of burning food...

Although we soon might have special gmos for just that.
But well the oil and other energy lobbys will probaly stop that.

[blablahblah]

Black Swan risk calculations, or STFU and GTFO.

The safety argument reeks of erroneously ignoring the possibility of rare events similar to Chernobyl or Fukushima. Maybe it's expedience, maybe they were taught at school to ignore outliers when drawing smoothed graphs.

Or maybe "this time it's different"... because next-generation plants will not be susceptible to unforeseen disasters.


If people want efficient solar: grow and harvest high-energy crops and forests for fuel.
-land usage is far more efficient than any system of mirrors or panels.
-plants produce a natural 3d matrix that has far superior light absorption qualities than panels. (Reflected light is scattered downwards).
-It's carbon-neutral, and plays much better with local fauna compared to solar panel factories or arrays of mirrors, or wind turbines.

But time consumption regarding growing and processing to eletricity is big.

Then use industrial hemp or other annual crops.
Battery storage costs for forestry and logging aren't high, the fuel just sits there. In fact it gets better as it dries out.
Fuel and food crops competing for space could be an issue, but there are areas that are only suitable for one but not the other. Forests also have high social value as parks and recreational areas (as long as the logging is confined to a small portion at any given time.)

In some cases, burning fuel locally is more efficient because what people need is more heat, not electricity. This brings up the issue of fossil fuels and transport costs. At any given moment, the competing prices are seeking an equilibrium. If natural gas is cheaper than wood, people will use more gas and less wood. The price system is a good indicator of how efficient something is. So you should not try to be green if it doesn't pay off financially.

The only reservation I have about prices is that they could be skewed by subsidies, but then it's a question of how much do you trust your government to have superior social and planning/risk data than your local data?

Another issue with local versus centralised energy production is the scaling and efficiency of furnaces. Household chimneys are notorious creating smog, especially if emissions regulation and enforcement is inadequate.

[protokol]

Personally I have no problem with radioactivity... It's an eternal and inevitable part of our world, just like air, water or sunlight:





(c) myself

However, I have problem with these greenpeace zombies, who have brought nothing but damage and growing entropy.

Agree with you, if nuclear energy is done properly, then it is the most efficient source of energy, and the best choice for the environment. Unfortunately it has a bad reputation because when there is an accident, it's pretty dramatic.

Here's an analogy for trying to get through to the "greenpeace zombies":

Imagine the difference between airliners and cars, specifically when they have accidents. Airliners rarely crash, but when they do it's pretty gnarly, and it's in the news. Cars crash all the time, and kill loads more people, but many people perceive cars as safer.

Imagine that nuclear energy is airliners, and fossil fuel combustion is cars. Except that nuclear energy is a lot safer than airliners, and getting safer all the time.

Well OK, maybe not the best analogy in the world, but you gotta keep it simple for these guys yo.

PS. Have you got any brazil nuts? Point your Geiger counter at one and take a photo. For science. 

[spazzdla]

Nuclear is the best way to assure a long term trace of having boiled water. I very dislike nuclear technology. It's a very sure way to have the best case example of why so called public-private partnership are Huuuugggeeee scam.

the public will :
- not be able to decentralize electricity production-storage-innovation due to the low subsidized cost of nuclear energy.
- have to carry the cost of subsidizing the energy production
- will not be able to maximize the conversion of watts to $.
- will not be able to get the fuck out of there (where ever it may be) on a timely fashion (private jet rdy).

the private will:
- not be able to decentralize electricity production-storage-innovation due to the low subsidized cost of nuclear energy.
- will benefits from the low cost of subsidized energy
- will be able to maximize the conversion of watts to $
- will be able to get the fuck out of there (where ever it may be) on a timely fashion (private jet rdy)
- will monster naked short those fç"* shares in case of event
- will profit from the construction, running, disposal of the waste and removal of the operation once old.
- will profit from the increase need of defense budget
...

but more generally speaking it's the lack of decentralization that nuclear technology induce, the inherent system risk of having a centralized energy production, and the inherent systemic risks of the nuclear energy production (a few mistakes and the nearby cities are ghosted faster than... forevermore... ). However I agree that the job that the nuclear industry does is quite interesting. How they have successfully dominate the news on this story... it's ironic that they can't master radioactivity as easily... the soviets learned it the hardway btw... but seems to have too forgotten what they may be ready to inflict upon generations of unborn for the sake of a few lights more at night... 1. decentralized energy production 2. decentralized energy storage... that will be the true alt .

edit: lame me, biologists .

edit2 : it's funny to think that life on earth is water based and that apparently nuclear wastes mix well with water... who knows, the space is wide and dark... only mind conquered by an out of earth life form can support such primitive technology. And frankly NT goes deeply against the philosophy of Earth as best space craft ever. At least now there is apparently still no need to wear a full nbc gear... if you want it hard go on the dark side of the moon or mars and beyond do your "innovations"-"science"-"wars"-"conflicts"-"pollutions".

edit3: you can still reduce a little (but if you get the "tail" it's anyway pointless) by imposing everyone involved to live 5 miles max radius around installations .

not all tail event are the same...

Nuke generators don't have to be so insanely stupidly big...  100's of little ones might be the safest method actually.