Nuclear Power and climate change

[hellraiderParticipant 2837]

Well guys, what do you think of nuclear power (fission power)?

I think its the only viable alternative to fossil fuels in the near to medium future.

But everytime i bring this up, everybody goes insane, in particular women.

Politicians in europe just dont want to talk about nuclear power, in particular in my country, Portugal.

I think women have a instintive dislike of nuclear power because of ignorance and fear mongering.
And of course politicians cater to women.

What do you guys think?

[BudtaoParticipant 293]

I am a big fan of thorium technology. I would like to see more talk about it. Its an abundant fuel source that at conservative estimates could last us, at our current energy consumption growth rate, 1000 years.(Don’t ask me to cite, been too long since I researched this topic.) I hope there are some other guys a bit more knowledgable about this subject than I.

Nirvanna is never having to worry about a woman ever again.

[hellraiderParticipant 2837]

well, the problem with thorium cycle is that thorium in itself is not an energy source.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium_fuel_cycle

But why do you think women go bat s~~~ crazy against nuclear power?

[Anonymous 42]

Nuclear power?
Japans Fukushima daiichi unit 3 was a GE mark 1 boiling water reactor loaded with Mixed oxide fuel (pl239/ur238), it’s now probably the most toxic place on earth!
There’s no escaping the massive releases of these isotopes into the atmosphere. Cesium137 replaces potassium, strontium90 replaces calcium, these are long lived radio isotopes. The other abundant radioisotopes are short lived, that’s why you should take iodine, the body will pass iodine131 if your levels of iodine are high during your contamination period.

Personally, my survival plan in a nuclear attack; load my system with molybdenum or arsenic and simply die…..

[Biggvs_DickvsParticipant 3725]

I think the reason most women freak about nuclear power is they hear the word nuclear and immediately think of a big mushroom cloud going off near their house.

Which is incredibly ignorant. To get a nuclear detonation, you have to have fissile material that is orders of magnitude more concentrated than nuclear reactors use.

The danger of a nuclear reactor is a meltdown or steam explosion carrying the radioactive isotopes down wind like in Chernobyl.

Sounds like they’re making great progress on the fusion reactor though. One really cool bonus to fusion reactors is that in at least some circumstances, they can apparently take spent nuclear material and convert it to safe elements while using it as a fuel source. Cool beans.

"Data, I would be delighted to offer any advice I can on understanding women. When I have some, I'll let you know." --Captain Picard,

[RoyDalParticipant]

MG-ɹǝʍo┴ is right. No one has figured out how to store nuclear waste. No one has figured out how to prevent catastrophes like Fukushima with the fission reactors now in common use.

All I can think of is moving them to high orbit and shooting the waste into the sun. But that isn’t likely to happen in the near future.

Society asks MGTOWs: Why are you not making more tax-slaves?

[TheroniusParticipant 975]

Nuclear waste is a nasty problem, but is it nastier to have some real toxic s~~~ store in a few small places, or megatons of toxic s~~~ spread right out into the air? No matter what final “alternative” we go with, it will require a huge expenditure of energy over many decades to build the infrastructure for it. We certainly should be looking at nuclear as a possible source of that energy.
I’ve always liked the idea of small, dedicated reactors built in sparsely-populated areas and devoted to cracking water into oxygen and hydrogen for motor fuel. Since hydrogen doesn’t store well, it could be produced and distributed by trucks and electric railroads to distribution stations on a daily basis. That could take the carbon out of the driving business.

"I am is reportedly the shortest sentence in the English language. Could it be that I do is the longest sentence?" - George Carlin

[RennieParticipant]

Still though nuclear energy is one of the greenest and most efficient form of energy we currently have. It will be decades before any working example of a fusion reactor is produced – perhaps never, if society collapses. The research fusion reactor project ITER is in France as well…

Nuclear power is only dangerous if the radiation escapes. Normal operations are not supposed to contaminate the environment. Yes you still have to deal with the the casks of nuclear waste, but I guess you could launch it into deep space where we’ll never see it again.

[Jan SobieskiParticipant 28791]

Since I’m MGTOW with no children I don’t give a s~~~ what the planet is like after I die.

The feminists can care and worry about it.

I’d like my hydrocarbons with extra CO2 , please.

Love is just alimony waiting to happen. Visit mgtow.com.

[ShinyParticipant 2307]

There’s very little thought involved, and I don’t think it has much to do with women. It’s politics, and the fact that people tend to just go along with their ‘side’ rather than think.

The left believe in climate change – so the right deny it, against all scientific evidence.

The right support nuclear power – so the left will oppose it to the death, despite it being a CO2 clean way of creating power (if I understand it correctly).

And neither side will blink.

We saw it here in Australia not long ago. In NSW, the Left wanted a desalination plant (Australia is 70% desert and gets massive droughts). The Right screamed it was the worst idea in the world, and suggested drinking recycled sewage was a much more sensible way to save water (not making this up).

In Victoria, as far as I can tell from up here, the Right suggested the desalination plant, so the Left went to war against it.

Childish, sad, pathetic.

[AttonParticipant]

Honestly nuclear tech in it’s current form really kinda sucks. You have a high pressure vessel holding several tons of radioactive material under massive amounts of pressure mixed in with water and heat. The combination of those things can create a hell of a danger if it’s not careful and constantly watched over. Personally I am not really a fan of it, if the thorium fuel cycle is all that it has been hyped up to them then I have some confidence. But personally I seriously question that it’s all that and a bag of chips. I have a lot more faith in high performance solar and the lithium air battery.

A MGTOW is a man who is not a woman's bitch!

[QuietlyquietlyParticipant 728]

I guess my stance is that nuclear is still living in the steam age, literally.

Nuclear power generation uses the heat from fission to warm water, eventually turning it into steam to drive steam turbines. Yes, clever use of a mineral. No, not very advanced.

Add to that the half life of the various isotopes of Uranium, Neptunium, Plutonium, and other decay products, and you’re looking at an unbelievably long clean up period (24,000 yrs to 4.5 billion years). We plan for 100 year storage. In my mind that’s like turning a tap on and putting a bucket underneath it and hoping it won’t overflow.

I do have my head in the clouds, and I don’t have a problem with that. I look forward to the day when we can have widely available zero-point energy production.

[hellraiderParticipant 2837]

Well, its true that nuclear power generates radioactive waste.
But used nuclear fuel can be reprocessed and used as new fuel, like the french do.

France generates 80% of its electricity from nuclear reactors and very cheaply.
So you can see it works.

I seen a study that in USA 30000 people die every year from the smoke generated from burning coal.

If not nuclear power, what else to produce the baseload electricity we need?
More coal, gas or oil powered stations?
I dont see any other alternative, we need to stop pumping co2 to the atmosphere, climate change is real.

[RennieParticipant]

Quietlyquietly wrote:

I guess my stance is that nuclear is still living in the steam age, literally.

Nuclear power generation uses the heat from fission to warm water, eventually turning it into steam to drive steam turbines. Yes, clever use of a mineral. No, not very advanced.

That’s basically how almost every power plant works. Whether it’s natural gas, coal, oil, nuclear, solar boiler, garbage burner. Unless someone comes up with something better and more brilliant than the use of steam turbines to convert the steam to mechanical energy, then that’s how it’s going to stay since the conditions in this society are less and less conducive to brilliant minds creating radically new things.

Atton wrote:

Honestly nuclear tech in it’s current form really kinda sucks. You have a high pressure vessel holding several tons of radioactive material under massive amounts of pressure mixed in with water and heat. The combination of those things can create a hell of a danger if it’s not careful and constantly watched over.

They are treated extremely carefully. The safety standards are extremely high. Even when the things are shutdown someone is there to keep an eye on it. The things have plenty of safety features as well. Both Chernobyl and Fukushima were preventable accidents.

You don’t have a choice either, because you need power and solar and wind are not going to hack it on their own.

[QuietlyquietlyParticipant 728]

You are correct, and outside of a Thorium reactor, I don’t have the answer to our energy needs either.

Nuclear reprocessing figures show that large stockpiles of depleted uranium from enrichment plants [are] about 1.5 million tonnes in 2015….

….So far, some 90,000 tonnes (of 290,000 t discharged) of used fuel from commercial power reactors has been reprocessed. Annual reprocessing capacity is now about 4500 tonnes per year for normal oxide fuels, but not all of it is operational.

Between 2010 and 2030 some 400,000 tonnes of used fuel is expected to be generated worldwide

Both [U-235 and Pu] can be recycled as fresh fuel, saving up to 30% of the natural uranium otherwise required

[Total Uranium deposits worldwide estimated at 5,902,500 tonnes]

I’m no maths major, but even I can see that at the current rate, the world is creating 20,000 tonnes of used fuel each year, of which we aren’t even recycling 4,500 tonnes a year. In any case, each tonne of recycled fuel saves only 30% new fuel. Total reserves would last 300 years at current rates. But like any resource we are hungry for it, and we are likely to double capacity every 10 years. Which puts the time limit at only 70 years after 2030.

And then we have the most almighty clean-up job no one can actually imagine, and no energy to do it with.

Climate Change (as regurgitated by the Mainstream Media) is NOT real. Yes, the climate changes all the time. No, humans are NOT causing runaway Global Warming from CO2 emissions. Period. Really, do just an inkling of alternative research on this one.

[RennieParticipant]

Quietlyquietly wrote:

Climate Change (as regurgitated by the Mainstream Media) is NOT real. Yes, the climate changes all the time. No, humans are NOT causing runaway Global Warming from CO2 emissions. Period. Really, do just an inkling of alternative research on this one.

I don’t know if that was directed at me, but I don’t believe in global warming at all and never have.

[QuietlyquietlyParticipant 728]

No, sorry Rennie, it wasn’t.

hellraider wrote:

…I dont see any other alternative, we need to stop pumping co2 to the atmosphere, climate change is real.

[martygParticipant 103]

hellraider wrote:

… But why do you think women go bat s~~~ crazy against nuclear power?

Because they, and quite a large percentage of the population have absolutely no clue how it works. Hell, most people have no clue how their microwave oven works.

[hellraiderParticipant 2837]

well i should add that most people dont eeven know how electricity works.

the ignorance in average people is mind bogling.

[Author]

Posts