Energy

[Orange]

On 6/13/2024 at 12:23 PM, mugtang said:

30 states already have laws on the books that state an HOA can’t do shit about solar panels. And solar is not a great option for every state. Like Alaska. Or most Northern states.  I’m not against solar. I think solar is a great option where available.  I have solar on my house. But long term solar isn’t the solution. It can be a supplement but nuclear is really the only logical choice long term.

I must’ve missed my check from big nuke (which isn’t really a thing.  The solar lobby is far more powerful than anything in nuclear energy).

Name 1 accident a US Naval vessel has had with its reactor.  Just 1.  And running into another ship or similar doesn’t count. Name a single reactor failure, meltdown, etc the US navy has had on one of their ships. 

Oh so now I have to confine it to ships?   Three mile island, Fukushima and Chernobyl don’t give me hope that we won’t fuck up again. 

[azgreg]

The Palo Verde nuclear plant has been operating in the Arizona desert since the 80's and has very little issues. All the wasted it's generated is still onsite.

 

[Bison]

We are going to need all those nukes to power up all those AI data centers since the hardware they will be using sucks juice.

[mugtang]

On 6/13/2024 at 11:45 AM, mugtang said:

If we’re serious about clean energy the only realistic solution is nuclear energy.  The technology has advanced so far since they first built them thing like Chernobyl (which really was a result of Soviet incompetence) aren’t really an issue anymore.  Is there a risk?  Yes but it’s very small. Do you want to destroy hundreds of thousands of acres of land for solar panels?  Probably not.  Nuclear is the future.  You get the most electricity per acre from a nuclear plant.  We need to build thorium reactors all over the country.  They are essentially meltdown proof.

If the French can produce 70% of their power from nuclear energy then why can’t we?

 

Edit:  And the US Navy currently operates 99 nuclear reactors.  Historically they have operated 526 nuclear reactors.  They have operated nuclear reactors for the equivalent of 6,200 years without a single accident.  

 

On 6/13/2024 at 12:12 PM, Orange said:

You don’t have to.  We have millions of buildings throughout the U.S. that can be subsidized to put solar panels on their roofs.  We can make it illegal for HOAs to prevent solar panels.  All it takes is will. 
 

Nuclear will take decades.  
 

also, lol @ 6200 years without accidents. You guys are truly being paid by big nuke to simp this hard for them   
 

We already destroy millions of acres with pure development.  Now suddenly it’s a problem because people want solar panels?   Do fuck off with that disingenuous shit   

 

 

On 6/13/2024 at 12:25 PM, Orange said:

Oh so now I have to confine it to ships?   Three mile island, Fukushima and Chernobyl don’t give me hope that we won’t fuck up again. 

Apparently reading comprehension isn't your thing.  I said the US Navy has operated 526 nuclear reactors through out their history.  They (the US Navy) has operated nuclear reactors for the equivalent of 6,200 years without a single accident.  So yes, confine it to Navy ships because that's what I referenced and that's what you responded to.  To make it easier for you I bolded and underlined the relevant parts of the original statements.

[retrofade]

On 6/13/2024 at 12:25 PM, Orange said:

Oh so now I have to confine it to ships?   Three mile island, Fukushima and Chernobyl don’t give me hope that we won’t fuck up again. 

He said the US Navy. 

Over 650 power plants have been used worldwide in history, and you obsess over three problems, only one of which resulted in long-term habitation issues. That's a 0.005% failure rate, and that doesn't include nuclear-powered ships. Stop acting like nuclear power is a massive danger. 

[RSF]

On 6/13/2024 at 2:42 PM, PAC MAN said:

We are going to need all those nukes to power up all those AI data centers since the hardware they will be using sucks juice.

That and bitcoin mining.

[Bison]

On 6/13/2024 at 2:37 PM, RSF said:

That and bitcoin mining.

Forgot about that since AI is the hot word these days.

[Nevada Convert]

On 6/11/2024 at 8:28 PM, Orange said:

Nuclear’s insanely expensive and takes years, sometimes decades to build.  If you wanna starve oil and gas subsidies in favor of nukes, I’d be at the table.  But let’s not pretend we have some safety silver bullet with nuclear considering humanity’s track record.  I realize risks are a part of life but it’s truly only nuclear that has the potential to destroy all life on earth (unlike climate change, which will likely only kill most of it). 

Dude, you are just massively uninformed on nuclear in 2024, and even nuclear in the past. It looks like you’re just doing it on purpose. 

Even with older technology, small reactors are incredibly safer and easier to deal with than large. It’s exponential. We’ve been powering our Navy ships and submarines for many, many decades with small reactors, and how many times have you heard about problems? Even with the old small reactor technology, we only have to re-fuel aircraft carrier reactors every 20 years. 

The new small modular reactors are so small and efficient, and the containment of the tiny amount of radiation is so strong (I believe I read it can survive a plane crashing into it) that even if there was a release, it would dissipate extremely fast and not be a problem. 

We do know that the Nevada Test Site has done about 100 nuclear bomb tests above ground with most of that radiation landing on southern Utah. There were increased cancer rates in places like St. George. But that’s like having a nuclear power plant blow up and release a lot of radiation 100 times! It didn’t exactly make any place uninhabitable. 

When I was going to school at UNLV, I worked full time driving a fuel and oil tanker. I had some deliveries to the Nevada Test Site. I drove right through the ground zero of every one of those 100 above nuclear bombs, and 30 years later I’m fine. 

The people that died horrible deaths at Chernobyl were the ones that got into and around the busted open reactor at ground zero like fire fighters, debri clearers, and plant workers. But plant workers next to reactor 4 that exploded that remained mostly in the control building next to it are alive today and doing fine. The 3 men that went under the reactor to release the radioactive water as the reactor was melting down were all alive until recently one died of old age. 

Some people are also naturally more prone to have complications from medium doses of radiation, and some do fine. But SMR’s are ridiculously safe, dude. 

One other point. Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki have no residual radiation from their bombings. In fact, 80% of the residual radiation cleared out in the first 24 hours and almost 100% in the first week. That’s because they were detonated very high in the air. There was no neutron activation with objects on the ground that would occur with a ground detonation. 

[AlpineSummer]

Break through?

https://www.thecooldown.com/green-tech/nuclear-reactor-safety-surface-discovery-boiling-water/

[Orange]

Safety issues aside, nuclear doesn’t move the needle.  
 

https://www.greenpeace.org/international/story/52758/reasons-why-nuclear-energy-not-way-green-and-peaceful-world/

 

According to scenarios from the World Nuclear Association and the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (both nuclear lobby organisations), doubling the capacity of nuclear power worldwide in 2050 would only decrease greenhouse gas emissions by around 4%. But in order to do that, the world would need to bring 37 new large nuclear reactors to the grid every year from now, year on year, until 2050.

The last decade only showed a few to 10 new grid connections per year. Ramping that up to 37 is physically impossible – there is not sufficient capacity to make large forgings like reactor vessels. There are currently only 57 new reactors under construction or planned for the coming one-and-a-half decade. Doubling nuclear capacity – different from the explosive growth of clean renewable energy sources like solar and wind – is therefore unrealistic. 

[retrofade]

On 6/14/2024 at 6:55 PM, Orange said:

Safety issues aside, nuclear doesn’t move the needle.  
 

https://www.greenpeace.org/international/story/52758/reasons-why-nuclear-energy-not-way-green-and-peaceful-world/

 

 

According to scenarios from the World Nuclear Association and the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (both nuclear lobby organisations), doubling the capacity of nuclear power worldwide in 2050 would only decrease greenhouse gas emissions by around 4%. But in order to do that, the world would need to bring 37 new large nuclear reactors to the grid every year from now, year on year, until 2050.

The last decade only showed a few to 10 new grid connections per year. Ramping that up to 37 is physically impossible – there is not sufficient capacity to make large forgings like reactor vessels. There are currently only 57 new reactors under construction or planned for the coming one-and-a-half decade. Doubling nuclear capacity – different from the explosive growth of clean renewable energy sources like solar and wind – is therefore unrealistic. 

Yep. 

Let's just all give up.

What part of parallel paths do you fail to understand? JFC. 

[Orange]

On 6/14/2024 at 11:38 PM, retrofade said:

Yep. 

Let's just all give up.

What part of parallel paths do you fail to understand? JFC. 

What part of limited national resources don’t you understand?  Also, one form of energy is safe and renewable and the other is *arguably* ….safe?…..according to internet neckbeards?    And non-renewable 

[Madmartigan]

On 6/15/2024 at 8:31 AM, Orange said:

What part of limited national resources don’t you understand?  Also, one form of energy is safe and renewable and the other is *arguably* ….safe?…..according to internet neckbeards?    And non-renewable 

it’s not sunny and windy everywhere. Germany found this out the hard way. I think we pursue all alternative sources of energy that get us away from fossil fuels including geothermal hydro where available. Curious what you’d do in states where solar and wind aren’t viable to produce enough energy. 

[RSF]

On 6/15/2024 at 9:42 AM, Madmartigan said:

it’s not sunny and windy everywhere. Germany found this out the hard way. I think we pursue all alternative sources of energy that get us away from fossil fuels including geothermal hydro where available. Curious what you’d do in states where solar and wind aren’t viable to produce enough energy. 

[Orange]

On 6/15/2024 at 7:42 AM, Madmartigan said:

it’s not sunny and windy everywhere. Germany found this out the hard way. I think we pursue all alternative sources of energy that get us away from fossil fuels including geothermal hydro where available. Curious what you’d do in states where solar and wind aren’t viable to produce enough energy. 

I’m not against trying anything, I’m against being so dead-set on one very cumbersome strategy.   The enthusiasm for nuclear here is odd to me. It’ll MAYBE reduce co2 by 5%?  It is not a silver bullet.   And the CO2 output in constructing these insanely complex (and decades-long) projects is massive. 
 

And really, it is windy in most places.  It is sunny in most places.   We could be getting more creative with windmill and solar placement.  
 

Mostly, I’m an advocate for less consumerism and more communities planned around sustainable transportation.  

[mugtang]

On 6/14/2024 at 6:55 PM, Orange said:

Safety issues aside, nuclear doesn’t move the needle.  
 

https://www.greenpeace.org/international/story/52758/reasons-why-nuclear-energy-not-way-green-and-peaceful-world/

 

 

According to scenarios from the World Nuclear Association and the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (both nuclear lobby organisations), doubling the capacity of nuclear power worldwide in 2050 would only decrease greenhouse gas emissions by around 4%. But in order to do that, the world would need to bring 37 new large nuclear reactors to the grid every year from now, year on year, until 2050.

The last decade only showed a few to 10 new grid connections per year. Ramping that up to 37 is physically impossible – there is not sufficient capacity to make large forgings like reactor vessels. There are currently only 57 new reactors under construction or planned for the coming one-and-a-half decade. Doubling nuclear capacity – different from the explosive growth of clean renewable energy sources like solar and wind – is therefore unrealistic. 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-nuclear-power-can-stop-global-warming/
 

“Indeed, he has evidence: the speediest drop in greenhouse gas pollution on record occurred in France in the 1970s and ‘80s, when that country transitioned from burning fossil fuels to nuclear fission for electricity, lowering its greenhouse emissions by roughly 2 percent per year.“

[Orange]

On 6/15/2024 at 10:10 AM, mugtang said:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-nuclear-power-can-stop-global-warming/
 

“Indeed, he has evidence: the speediest drop in greenhouse gas pollution on record occurred in France in the 1970s and ‘80s, when that country transitioned from burning fossil fuels to nuclear fission for electricity, lowering its greenhouse emissions by roughly 2 percent per year.“

Correlation /= causation.   Happens to coincide with the 1980s, when France underwent a sustained investment in high-speed rail.  

[stanfordchef]

On 6/15/2024 at 10:27 AM, Orange said:

Correlation /= causation.   Happens to coincide with the 1980s, when France underwent a sustained investment in high-speed rail.  

Like the proliferation of high efficiency nuclear power had nothing to do with making France’s HSR a reality lol. 

[Orange]

On 6/15/2024 at 11:00 AM, Joe from Wyo said:

Like the proliferation of high efficiency nuclear power had nothing to do with making France’s HSR a reality lol. 

Is that what I said?   Can you read even one word of fucking English?

[stanfordchef]

On 6/15/2024 at 1:41 PM, Orange said:

Is that what I said?   Can you read even one word of fucking English?

Eat shit 

^^can you read that?