Fuel if required is a necessity, not a thing that should be subject to capitalist economic profit games. Same goes for anything else that is about satisfying basic physical needs, like food, water, medicine, clothing, shelter, transport.
Anyone viewing that kind of stuff as abstracts are completely insane.
"Nuclear Energy Will Save The Planet- Join In" LOL! Tell that to the citizens of Japan. Nuclear energy is such an overrated, highly subidized source of electricity. On top of that, the proponents of nuclear have outright lied about nuclear costs, safety. The cost of energy from nuclear does not consider in its entirety, initial costs of a new power pant and the decommissioning of radioactive material.
Given that had society been built up sanely with future foresight, then any power generation would have always been on-site per building / village / building complex - and renewables fitting to the areas weather would generate plenty of power just fine, wtf are these people claiming they need so much energy for?
@MannySteinerBleeky I would respond, but this post makes no sense- in the gramatical way. Can you edit this?
I am GUESSING that you are saying that renewables (solar, wind, geothermal etc) can support the society? well that is not true. for example, look at UK- they have a huge amount of wind power supply. well, every few months, they hit a time where there is no wind, and the end up buying NUCLEAR power from France. Imagine if NYC suddenly lost power for a while. Do you like that?
@funkyfudge11 - freak it makes plemty of sense, but nothing that comes from corrupt liars like you does.
All properties & buildings or villiages were meant to have any power generated on-site, and as I clearly stated and as anyone sane & informed would already know, renewables for that purpose are easily enough power.
Kill yourself, your dumbfuck society will fail anyway.
@MannySteinerBleeky there you go again. Where have i lied? How the hell am I corrupt? How about you take a god damn chill pill? There is something seriously wrong with you. Just FYI, reported.
And who were they "meant" to have power generators next to them by? The reason they don’t is because people don’t want to live next to an electrical generator. That being said, i agree that this is a better solution due to the fact that the power loss is minimized this way.
@funkyfudge11 - reported for what you dumb cunt? You're the pedo that claimed my post didn't make sense, just cause you know it's fucking 100% true.
Nuke power is incredibly stupid, nobody sane would ever even consider punting it, it's also completely un-necessary for reasons already explained. & fucking hell if you knew anything about chill pills then you would never punt nuke power DUH.
@MannySteinerBleeky Local green activists made sure to stop the construction of a CO2 free power plant on Brokeback Mountain. Your preserve was saved, sweetie
@MarkGubbish - well you already had that same retarded obsessive shit answered at the video you uploaded about the coin and post to daily with so many of your sick stalker channels,
so why have you for the millionth time asked the same question that means nothing anyway, when it's been answered?
You know I'm not a jewbag dwarf faggot like you are.
Kill yourself, you Grail-defiling stalking useless-eater subhuman, Black Iron Prison causer, scum.
@MannySteinerBIeeky We can call you warwick massa cohen. Where is your coin? LOL CO2 free nuclear power, good, just not on brokeback mtn right, miss dwarf
@MarkGubbish - you were in Peter Jackson's earlier movies, scumbag who wishes I was a short-arse faggot like he is, you were the zombies in Brain Dead and the victims in Bad Taste and the - well you pretty much ARE Meet The Feebles.
And you only use 'gubbish' in your name cause you copied me posting that to your 1000s of channels too.
Japan's daiichi BWR's failed to implement or maybe even incorporate basic ECCS into their ill-designed obsolete BWR facility. Not to mention the fact that they failed to have mobile diesel generators on site along with the stationary emergency generators. You shouldn't have to "go get" a working generator, not to mention poorly designed/built containment buildings. This is academic however since the Westinghouse AP1000 passive ECCS design makes this obsolete anyway.
@racenemo I agree that we need to stop consuming power at the rate we do (especially the US) but I do not foresee that being the case. Here is a news-flash: in the US, the general public is allowed to get 0.1 rem of radiation from industry per year. You get 0.376 rem from background radiation (sun, bananas, your granite counter-tops etc). Would you rather have us rely on oil? Or coal? I am asking because "renewables" can’t support our demands by themselves (just look at UK...)
@racenemo there are two things wrong here: 1) Power and weapon production were never the same industry. Aside from uranium mining, they had nothing to do with each other- one was always privatized, the other, military-based. Now, if the same company made nukes and plants, i would say you have a point.
2) The nuclear lobby right now is tiny. If it wasn’t, do you think they would let the government make it impossible for them to expand? They are competing against big oil- a fight they can’t win
@funkyfudge11 - nuke and oil are two sides of the same fake coin, they are both stupid polluting non-renewables, 'promoted' by the same fucktarded lowlifes that live their lives in suits suitcases artificial office buildings pressing trade buttons on computers, any normal society would recognise that as an illness and make them play videogames with no actual physical reality consequences instead, or similar.
then I suggest you stop being a hypocritical bastard and stop using industrial clothing, industrial goods, turn off that computer you polluting evil mind, take off your socks which were made using dirty coal, stop eating food raised on industrial farms using oil for transport and coal powered electricity to process. In fact, go crawl in a cave in a forest; because the rest has been made using oil, coal and nuclear generated electricity.
@52111centrumcz - scumfuck i only eat organic food & i'm vegetarian. the rest is kind of difficult to avoid - because of your child-molester satanic cult of ahrimanic scumfucks, maria and giovanni, the capitalist lowlife cult that pretends ithasn't raped the entire world and enslaved it to fossil-fuels and toxic farming, then acts like anyone honest about that shouldn't use your evil system to destroy you and post facts about how inferior and evil you are.
@52111centrumcz - normal proper farming isn't even mechanised you fuckwit idiot, nevermind relying on fossil fuels - no systems designed & built properly to serve everyday needs would ever be dependant upon any fuels, even renewables.
all those fuel systems have done is ruin this planet, the fact they produced some good stuff like the internet and other non-destructive in its usage technology, is more a compensation & means to pass the time in this ruined world.
@52111centrumcz - proper housing doesn't need anything mechanised to be built and designed either.
the fact morons like you build that way is because you are clueless about how to build anything properly. so you instead waste loads of fuel to do so, and what you produce makes people sicker just by being around it, and it also destroys nature.
so you create more templates for disease just from all that destruction & noise & waste.
@52111centrumcz - onto fabrics, guess what moron - real fabrics are hand(or foot...)-spun too, and no they don't get made from oil. i do my best to never buy synthetics, who the fuck would want to wear anything like that by choice, can't you tell how fucked up it is just feeling it or looking at it. look at the amount of fuel you waste making fabrics from petroleum oil - when it takes no fuel to harvest crops or give animals haircuts, and then spin the fibres and weave them.
@52111centrumcz - transportation now - what's wrong with walking, boats (remember - if you're sane you have to build nearby an actual water supply, that often means a river, which is why people used them to travel for free) and non-abusive animal use. then there's all manner of glidings and pedal-powers. i won't get into the ahrimanic tech, cause your kind would only use that to destroy more of this planet and nature.
Surely you can't be seriously insisting any modern food production is not based on oil powered transportation? and the main component of fossil fuel that goes into agriculture goes in as fertilizer, without which most of industrially used agricultural methods would not be usable, which would lead to a massive slide down in the production of foodstuffs?
@52111centrumcz - learn to read fucktard because you already failed that crucial part in your first idiot paedo-cult masonic satanist reply to me didn't you, it clearly fucking says that proper growing of crops doesn't even use mechanisation - nevermind fucking fuels to make any part of any input to the growing.
you know absolutely fuck all about how to grow plants, just like all your other fails of your paedo-cult satanist ahrimanic cunt capitlaist society.
im actually 21 now, and i graduated from university of florida this past december. and no, i will not have masters in a year. i will START it next year, and finish, hopefully, in 2 years. as to the numbers, i dont have any real stats, but my school had a graduating class of 14 people. considering that there are only about 30 schools with the degree, 450 grads per year sounds about right. i can only speak from my personal experiance, but i love working in the field...sorry you dont
The information in this video is outdated and/or incorrect. I graduated in May with a BS in Nuclear Engineering and I have recieved ZERO job offers. I have applied to many different positions from PRA to health physics trainee and still nothing. The video claims only 200 grads/year - that is no longer correct, there are many more than that and very few entry-level jobs. I would not recommend nuclear engineering and would research before going into any engineering field - don't buy the hype.
maybe thats because youre not marketable? haha did that ever occur to you? I too graduated with NucE degree and, along with all of my friends, got a job BEFORE i graduated. in addition, next year i will be completing my masters which is paid for by the company.
@funkyfudge11 your profile has your age as 20, it's impressive that you have a BS, a job, and you're half way through a master's before your 21st b-day........but here in the real world NE programs have swelled, again this video states 200 grads/year, now it's 600-700+. This video is outdated. As far as me being marketable:I did receive job offers, just not in the nuclear ind - and I do have an S&E job. In light of recent events, I'm glad I'm not in the nuclear industry.
@funkyfudge11 - do you realise how soul-less you are to even consider saying things like "you're not marketable"? Well how evolved you are, they got you studying for them AND being glad to be a slave.
@MannySteinerBleeky Hey, why don’t you try being a little more dramatic? I don’t think all the children in the audience cried... I am "soul-less" and I am a "slave"? WOW Manny, WOW! As for my comment, there are two possibilities: a) he is right, and the job market in this field sucks or b) he has not gotten the right GPA/ done enough research/ too few internships. Since I know the market does NOT suck, it brings me to believe in point b).
@phonzicat - that'll either be cause you don't have the fake-mason funny handshake, so they won't offer you the jobs etc, or if you're really evolved it's because your higher self will be stopping you getting a job in an industry that'll literally destroy your soul, and possibly your physical health to an obvious degree. Which can happen because down here our souls purpose gets split off from our conscious mind cause of capitalist corporate-whore fucktard systems meaning we have to make money.
@MannySteinerBleeky As for you, you seem like a reactionary "naturalist" who saw Fukushima and cried. Why don’t you tell me how many people died of radiation from Nuclear Power Industry? Yeah, Chernobyl is the only place where that happened and that’s <100. In the USA its 0
Look, do you think I want to hand the planet over to MY kids in a horrible state? NO! In fact, that why I got into Nuclear. "Renewables" (wind, solar, geothermal etc) have their draw-backs too! There is no silver bullet
you do know that tritium only emits beta particals which can be stoped very easly. its half life is only around 10 years. there other thing out there that are worse than tritium. right now in my pocket i have a glass tube of tritum and i am not dead.
@milofonbil it would be hard because it is a gas phase in a tube, but i bet u have had water before and there is tritium in water. there some good use for it to look up Beta Voltaric battory. im helping out with research on it in my college. beside most if not all nuclear plants have closed loop water systems. some nuclear power plant design dont even use water in the core
@rebelgunnut Of course there is tritium in ordinary fresh water. But the concentration of tritium to ordinary hydrogen is very, very small. Naturally occurring tritium is extremely rare on Earth. Nuclear power plants make tritium through neutron absorbtion. Although the most nuclear power plants have a closed water system, tritium does leak from the primary loop into the secondary. BWRs don't have a secondary loop.
Here in the US, we use BWR and PWR. The rest is science fiction.
Nuclear Power? The answer? - not in my world - nuclear energy production is not clean, green or sustainable. Using it medical imaging sure, for heating water to turn turbines - No. Why? Because tritium is always being released from nuclear power plants as part of normal operations and tritium is not good for you or the natural world.
@inquisitum Funny, Tritium is found in nature, and only has a half-life of 13.6 years. Unless you are going to boycott the consumption of water in any quantity i'm not sure what your position is? The amount of tritium produced in cooling and moderating liquids (water) is barely decernable from natural water. If you were going to boycott everything radioactive, then you'd never go outside because of the sun, never stay inside because of radon, and never eat because of C14 and radioactive K.
ya i hear newer plants will soon use it,but America won't because how brainwashed it is....ya use solar when you cover the entire country you won't produce a fraction we need.
Either your kidding or lying or just very uniformed? If solar were put on the roofs of our commercial buildings and the homes where it makes since it would put a big dent into the energy we use as a nation from other sources and some people think the Sun will shine a bit longer then we have reserves for Coal, Oil and Gas.
yet if it costs a person 18 thousand to install,solar panels which would take 20 years to get the money back, the average folk would not bother as they could buy a new car with around that amount of money
I've sold solar systems where the payback is less then five years, lots less then seven years, and that doesn't even factor in the increased price of their home and how much quicker it will sell.
The energy payback to build the system will be less then two years.
We have a few billions years left of the Sun and a few hundred for coal.
We have given hundreds of billions of dollars to old energy, it's sustainable time Now. It will take a while to shift...
I think ppl opposed to it are way over thinking the disposal, that part was the easy design. The hard part was making plants that are safe and the plants all are the biggest "threat" is the water waste, non radioactive at least no more than normal fresh or oceanic waters but very warm, the waste is delt with in a way than more needed way, the threat that needs to be looked into is if the warm water produced is made at a mass enough lvl to further global warming which I doubt but is debateable.
@captinseperoth .. This was France's solution for many years ... just dump the waste into the ocean. It takes a long time for a subduction zone to move a foot. Meanwhile there are ocean currents that take the radioactive mess all over the place. It's simply not responsible and you know it.
@grimilenn If disposal could be guaranteed for 450,000 years, then maybe there would be a chance. So far, It's not possible to guarantee anything over 10,000 years.
Peaceful nuclear power is harmless if rules are observed, also radioactive materials are thrown in to the atmosphere every day by coal burning plants, the steel industry, and there-s a hell of a lot bigger chance that you get cancer from what they use to make solar cells and electronics than from nuclear plants, but you never know & don't care. If half the effort that went into nuclear protests would go into lobbying for coherent projects for electronics recycling we'd be 10 times better.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
? Nuclear power is the most DANGEROUS WAY OF BOILING WATER EVER INVENTED. And who said we like coal? How about green energy instead of big corporate forms of energy. And we're doing a lot of electronics recycling, Europe is ahead of us on that but with Obama in it will come to the US in not that long. Anyway, Obama killed Yucca so there is no waste storage solution. Nuclear power is dead. Go back to the Republican party with your love affair for radioactive power. Obama 2012!
@m3141592 - well if you boil water, or cook things in general, in a microwave oven, then it has very detrimental effects upon the likes of plants watered with that water. There's a lot of experiments like that, done to show how much of a biohazard the likes of those energies are.
The only reason anyone may find the idea of contained radiation emission to be safe is because they've been conditioned to accept things like mobile combustion engines are normal.
for all you niglets who like solor, radiation is everywhere, you drink it, you eat it, hell you are a bit radioactive, i work in a power plant myself (control room ) and there is i amit, a bunch of buttons everywhere, but everythng goes prerdy smooth( with the exeption of drills of course)
Uh yeah, and guess what, solar is electromagnetic radiation. It's not dichotomous, one can support a joint solar/nuclear/wind/tidal/biofuel/hydroelectric clean energy approach.
Great propaganda! There was one great, glaring omission: no mention was made of nuclear waste. I suppose this field provides a great opportunity to make a tremendous impact on peoples lives for tens of thousands of years. Has anyone yet designed a nuclear moral compass?
The U.S. now imports 90% of its uranium. Why would any young person commit to a career that depends so much on a finite and rapidly depleting natural resource?
Oh and the Japanese as well as a large part of Europe are building nuclear power plants. Americans are the only ones who haven't experienced deaths from nuclear power and yet we are the ones who are afraid of it. Makes sense to me.
@NDfan27 We *have* experienced deaths from nuclear power here in the US. For example, all three that entered the containment of TMI-2 are now dead.
France and England got into the business of building nuclear power plants so that they could be nuclear super powers. Now they are stuck with the legacy of the mess they have caused for themselves. Nuclear power is not a panacea, it's a curse.
@milofonbil Three deaths are unfortunate but it still less than the number of deaths from wind power. And I have yet to meet a person who understands power generation and isn't polically blinded that doesn't support nuclear over wind and solar. Solar barely works in Arizona with a lot of government support (I have worked for a successful solar company but they relied greatly on subsidies).
@milofonbil I also live in Western Kansas which is supposedly the Mecca for wind power. But the massive growth is due to subsidies, overzealous projections (the turbines are rarely turning during the day), and the fact that the grid cannot handle more wind farms. These companies will only make money if conditions are perfect so they are not going to pay to improve the grid here. Overall, wind and solar are impressive feats of engineering but hardly the solution.
@NDfan27 Well, you have not met me yet. I am blinded by my engineering background, not politics. I do understand power generation and I believe that the risks undertaken by nuclear power are far too high.
Nuclear power could not survive without huge subsidies.
@milofonbil Well you do seem much more level-headed than the average poster. Don't get me wrong, I support alternative energy sources. However I need someone who has a good understanding of climate change to convince me that global warming is a real problem. Al Gore is full of it.
I am intrigued by Spain though. Wind power is not a base load source so you would need massive energy storage to get up to 53% (or not use any power). So far our methods are inefficient and expensive at best.
more people die falling off the many story high turbines,repairing them than the many deaths related to atomic energy....in the united states. Saying that id say we should ban wind turbines.
@milofonbil Yeah, I'm pretty sure coutrny with the "Cleanest air in the developed world & also with the cheapest hydro bills" Is a paradise not a curse.
Also considering the fact that France has a very strong economy and [0] deaths from nuclear power would say that NP is the Paradise where eveyone should go.
@plutonium136 i actually think that wind, solar and hydroelectric are the way to go. i think nuclear energy and coal are polluting a lot and could cause dangerous radioactive waste like what happened to Marie Curie.
taterville29 is completely right. these plants give off radiation but that also brings up another problem. There's also 6 billion plus humans on the plant also producing radiation just by being alive... but in all seriousness, the radiation that people experience from the sun is greater than that from nuclear power plants so we should be using our most intelligent students to figure out a way to turn it off.
to Papico, first of all you need to cleanup your garbage mouth.The truth is hard to bear isnt it,next of all every nuclear power plant in the world lets so called safe amounts of radiation into the air each day. There are no safe amounts of radiation ask the people in Russia ,ask the people in Japan. Skin cancer has increased in an alarming rate since the first a bomb and the increased building of nuclear plant.
"How much radiation do you get from solar, wind, wave, tide and geothermal energy? That's right - zero. "
Actually...I work in the nuclear field. I am within a schoolbus length of a reactor every day, and I have received FAR more exposure from the sun...not to make a comparison to SOLAR energy. I am just proving a point. You get radiation exposure every day. What you receive naturally is much greater than what you would get drinking a coffee cup of water from a reactor.
@kayhaus1 It would be nice if the reactor were the only place that could possibly be a problem for the environment. But in every part of the nuclear fuel cycle there is radiation and other pollution escaping into the environment. For example Uranium mining releases a trail of radon into the air, the settling ponds from the mills are full of nasty radioactive products which pollute the groundwater. The enrichment plants leak all sorts of fuoro-hydrocarbons into the air. etc.
The answer to the safety problem with nuclear power is to put it in space and run wires to it. Do I have to tell you how to do everything. Geezzz. As for solar power, it is unreliable because if the sun burned out, we would have no power. Use your brains before posting.
The yucca mountain repository can store all the worlds nuclear waste very easily. It's in a region thats geologically dead, and even if there was an earthquake it will be deep enough underground that there will be no chance of radioactive materials being released.
Also, NASA(?)has developed a nuclear fuel container that can survive orbital reentry into an erupting volcanoe. It's never been used due to the cost, but within the next thousand years or so, it will become cost effective.
@mmysama Yucca mountain would be full already if all the high-level waste from nuclear power plants were moved to it.
Geologically dead? Well... it was an ocean 10,000 years ago. Also, there is a fault that runs right through it.
Sandia National Laboratories has developed all sorts of transportation containers for nuclear waste, nuclear weapons, nuclear materials, etc. But none of them can survive being dumped into an erupting volcano.
#3 its burried underground, the dirt will shield you from the radiation
#4 no terrorist like kill people, which it why they slam planes into skyscrapers. hitting a nuclear plant with a plane will do nothing because they are designed to survive it.
#5 Uranium is radioactive if we use it or not, but you will not be exposed by it. Your far more likely to get radiation from radon gas, chest x-rays, the Sun, being in a plane, and high altitude.
@mmysama - I am opposed to nuclear power and have no problem giving facts.
1) There is no viable storage for the nuclear waste. Currently, we can only guarantee 10,000 years. However, the waste remains hazardous for 450,000 years. This means that the waste needs to be handled 45 times before its no longer a threat.
2) Nuclear reactors are tremendously inefficient. For every Kilowatt of electricity produced, a nuclear power plant produces two Kilowatts of waste heat right into lakes, rivers
3) Nuclear power is cheap only because we the tax payers pick up other costs such as loan guarantees, liability caps, waste storage, fuel enrichment, DOE research, etc. The new reactors are far, far more expensive than other forms of electricity generation.
4) A nuclear accident can lay to waste a large portion of the Untied States
5) 84% of uranium is currently being imported. This makes us dependent of foreign countries.
6) Radioactivity escapes from every part of the nuclear fuel cycle - from mining to reprocessing. There have been deaths associated with every part of the fuel cycle too. The reactors are relatively clean, but not all of the entire process.
7) The problem is not the normal operation. The problem is when there is an accident. The risks of an accident cannot be eliminated, they can only be diminished through preventitive measures. For me, the risks are all too real.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Which is the scariest scenario: the threat of a terrorist strike on a wind or solar power grid, or the threat of a terrorist strike on a nuclear power plant? Which would you fear the most from a disgruntled employee? Nuclear power is insanity.
Not doing the right thing, like creating billions of dollars of wealth, ending global warming, and saving untold numbers of lives from air pollution by building 1000's of nuclear power plants around the world is insanity.
There are many alternative sources of power that can baseload our infrastructure if we let them. The oil and money industries, however, have prevented them from happening. We need to give them a chance.
Soon the entire city of San Diego, CA will be powered purely from solar power, or very close to it.
There are also ways of conservation that can save enormous amounts of energy. The truth is we don't have to turn to nuclear power and most all of don't really want to.
Go ahead then, you and all you rich diseased red beacons of death, shove your radioactive tree down all our throats, even if we don't want it. You are right and we are all wrong. Nuclear power is obviously much safer than solar, wind and conservation. Radiation is good for us right? You who promote this deadly power have been snorting too much radon. It's just plain stupidity.
Nuclear power is not safer than wind or solar, but it's pretty damn close, there have been no deaths caused by it in the US and the amount of radioactive particles released is extremely small, less than coal power even. It's also far cheaper and more reliable than solar and wind.
Nuclear power heats up whatever cooling water it uses - be it from a river or ocean. The water is then slightly radioactive. Mining uranium is very dangerous and radioactive. Nuc plants must be dismantled after about 40 years and buried to keep us safe. It only takes one major accident. Nuc plants are suseptible to disgruntled employees. No one wants a nuc waste dump in their vicinity. Sometimes plumes of radiation do get emitted. We have not given solar, wind, and other any real chance.
Nuclear plants heat water is the same manner as coal plants, it does'nt actually make contact with radioactive materials and there is no radioactive particles released into the water system.
And it would take a lot more than one disgruntled or incompetent employee to cause a nuclear incident. the plants are very secure and have multiple layers of redundancy. if one person where to fuck up, there will be many others to fix the problem before it has any effect.
There are so many other forms of power that do not have the potential for great harm that nuclear power has - and we have not given them a chance. What will you do with the radioactive waste? It's insanity to feed off of a radioactive tree. When Carter left office he had a plan in place to have 20% of the USA powered with solar by yr 2000. Reagan nixed the program. Today we are 20% nuclear with no good site for disposal and basically no solar. This is sheer stupidity. Keep nuclear off my planet!
Nuclear power is extremely safe, there has never been a single fatality in the united states caused by nuclear power and there is plenty of room in the yucca mountain waste depository. Solar power is very expensive and solar plants can't produce any power during the night or on cloudy days.
Nuclear power is not intrinsically safe. Many people have died from it - my mother being one. She was a victim of radioactive iodine releases from Hanford. Died years later as a result from leukemia.
Why do you want nuclear power so bad? Are you a nuke promoter? Are you hired by the nuke industry to blog here and spread your diseased propaganda? Your comment about nulear holocaust = life shows how deceived you are. Many people are deceived like you. It's time for us to wake up to the truth.
Hey, how do we know you not some crony for the Anti-nuclear groups like greenpeace, the ultimate collection of hippie douchebags, to blog your diseased propaganda?
The bottom line is I think you're full of crap and would rather take my chances than listen to this useless 60's hippie backwash about the alleged dangers of a source of power every science teacher I have ever known say is say.
And what the hell will terrorists do to a nuclear plant? It's not like they can break open a containment dome simply by flying a A380 filled with high explosives into it or something. it would take multiple bunker buster bombs to do that. The worst they can do it take it off the grid, and it would be much easier to take a windfarms and solar plants off the grid.
Feeding off a radioactive tree is a continuation of insanity - just like taking the carbon out of the ground and putting it into the atmosphere - just like exploding the human population so that we now cover the Earth like a cancer. True wisdom is in reducing our numbers voluntarily through birth control and reducing our impact on Earth through sustainable non-harmful technology. Nucear power = death.
Well, think of it this way, nuclear fuel reprocessing can be used to make nuclear weapons, nuclear wepons can be used to dramatically decrease the human population and work as an alternative to birth control, thus preventing the human race form covering earth like a cancer. Nuclear holocaust = life.
nuclear would be the westren wolrds salvation from arabian Oil BUT WE CANNOT FORGET CHERNOYLBY it whas becaus of the extremly imcopetent and stupit comunist soviets but still if exampel a nuclear plant near paris or a nother major city and badabing badabom a massive loss of lives
Nuclear energy isnt clean! what do you usa people undestand about clean energy!???.. and by the way! why would you get involve with the next monopoly!? uranium of tomorrow is the oil of today!! always the solution is a no renovable and limited source of energy.. sur all about money.
is NOT clean, the radiactive waste can destroy 1000 tons of water and damage 10 km of ground.
why is the best solution?, because is the only one where you can get money from, why? because is base in a resource that is dificult to find and finite. that means, the same problem as oil.
Thats the second time i've heard you use these same arguments, yet again they neither make sense, nor are they even logically applicable. In fact, what your suggesting is actually PHYSICALLY IMPROBABLE (or the final solution to our energy needs if you understand physics, E=MC^2 M=1000 tons :) lol). Radioactive waste would only make its surroundings temporarily radioactive (roughly as dangerous as an x-ray) if it was not contained (which never occurs).
Dude. if you put 1 kilogram of radioactive material in water.. what would happend in it because natural water diffution? how many part per millon of water would you see in 1 or 2 tons of water? and E=mc2 doent have any sense when you are talkin about WASTE.
oO, define diffution, because i think you just made up a word (diffusion maybe?). Radioactive particles don't diffuse into water because they don't dissolve, and even if they did they are no more dangerous in water than salt. similarly, its pointless to calculate a concentration of a heterogeneous mixture, they don't interact with each other. And the E=mc^2 was in reference to your implication that radiation could completely destroy 1000 tons water.
sorry i speak spanish, so my english isnt as good as i wish. radiactive particules DO diffuse into water, uranion and plutonium disolve in water and even in the air. and E=mc^2 is only aplicable to energy it self or reaction efectivity.. not to the range of contamination of radioactive particles and thats what im talking about.
Bleez, of course radioactive particles can dissolve in water. The water does not care if the atoms are radioactive or not. So if you have 1000 tons of water and 1 kg of a radioactive salt, for example, then your solution is 1kg radioactive materials/(1,000,000 kg water + 1 kg radioactive salt), or a little less than 1ppm of radioactive salt.
If cs 137 or sr 90 is part of a salt water solution, and a tree takes up that salt water, it concentrates in the tree. The tree becomes radioactive.
and the water from the tree continues to evaporate in the tree. So a relatively benign 1ppm radioactive salt solution can make a tree the most deadly thing around. Near Chernobyl, there is the Red Forest - an entire forest of highly radioactive trees.
E=MC^2 only applies to the mass *lost* to energy as the radioactive atoms split, not the whole 1kg salt or 1000 tons of water.
my point was that he stated that the water was "destroyed." it may be contaminated, but the water is by no means annihilated. second, casks stored in a geologically sealed tomb are no harm to anyone. the natural reactors in Oklo held their radioactive material for billions of years, even with active water circulation. btw, Chernobyl was a disaster, but understand the context; It was a disaster waiting to happen, and could not possibly be mimicked in a modern scenario. (Negative Void Coef.)
this guy bogon5dot makes a good point, a point that I've not heard one pro-nuke person address
There are BILLIONS of years of sunlight, wind and wave energy on the earth - Why take ANY kind of chance and have to worry about waste for thousands of years when this INHERENTLY SAFER AND ULTIMATELY CHEAPER source of energy is readily available?
I guess ill be the first then. The large majority of pro nukes support renewable sources such as wind and solar, however we've come to the realization that those sources (even if combined) cannot possibly meet all of our energy needs. You can't get energy from nothing, and all renewables do is take energy from the balanced energy systems environmentalists are working to protect. We need a clean and efficient way to produce our own energy. And by that logic, Nuclear makes perfect sense.
Bleezz, you know this is nonsense. You guys on here have been arguing for months telling me how worthless renewables are. I can even tell you what all of your talking points are.
Why not GEOTHERMAL now that we know how to drill down to 10-15,000 feet? We won't need to mine for uranium and worry about people getting sick from the radon, we won't have to worry about polluting the environment with the acids left behind from the purifying process.. We won't have a mess to dispose afterwards.
geothermal is not a golden child. its still limited to only a handful of usable sites its still an energy source reliant on a natural process, the heat in the ground is not unlimited, and if we draw it up to quickly (as is currently being done), then the temp. in the well goes down, making it unusable for several years until it naturally heats back up. There is an imbalance, if we want to perpetuate a non-natural lifestyle we MUST produce the energy ourselves, we cannot steal it from nature
Yes, if you too heavily load a geothermal system it takes a longer time to recover than other sources. That does not make it unusable. It's a bit like a brownout but slower. They just have to learn how to match the thermal load to the heat source.
All energy is derived from nature - Coal, oil, nuclear, gas, hydro, wind, solar, and geothermal. Actually, we cannot *produce* energy, just recover it from somewhere.
im not arguing that we couldn't match the thermal load, im just saying that at this limited capacity it cant match the demand.
And thats a fair point, burning coal is essentially just harnessing the potential energy created by nature in the coal. the difference is, we humans are extracting this potential energy that has no natural use. by harnessing the kinetic or thermal energy already present nature, we are taking energy that is already serving a purpose, and is not meant to meet our demands
There is a *lot* of geothermal potential out there.
I don't really get your second point. Are you saying that we are extracting energy that normally that would not be available to the ecosystem? So for example nuclear, oil, gas and coal would have been left underground locked up and therefore not part of the closed system already existing? If I tap the wind, ocean or sun, I am extracting energy that would have been meant for something else? No matter what we do, we leave a footprint.
I dont think you quite understand my opinion on renewables. I am not saying their useless, In fact, most pro-nukes are also very pro-renewable. However, we do not believe that they have the capacity to ween us from fossil fuels. Wind and solar are great for peak, but their not reliable, and are uneconomical as baseload. hydro and geothermal could work, but are location specific and biofuels create more problems then they solve. so whats left? Nuclear. To us, it just makes sense.
I believe I do understand your opinion. As far as other pro-nukes go, my experience on YouTube and on other boards is that pro-nukes feel that renewables are useless and come at the cost of subsidies that pro-nukes want.
One thing is that you might consider is that power companies will not shut down and decomission their coal plants until they need to be replaced. For now, nuclear does have one benefit - lower CO2. But on the other hand, the cost of a nuke plant is far more than gas/coal.
(con't) The conversion away from fossil fuels will not happen overnight but it will need to happen in the next 30 years or so because it is running out.
The baseload/peak argument is an interesting one. Baseload can be filled by several wind farms. Wind "outages" don't cover entire states or the whole country.
I think our differences are on the the stability of uranium prices, the pollution that nuclear does make (outside of the reactor), and safety and health issues.
(con't) On the other hand, I feel that you have quite a few misunderstandings about renewables. Costs, availability, load factor, reliability, true market costs versus subsidized costs, and fuel costs...
I do agree with you that biofuels like corn will take food out of people's mouths.
Now, is if you want a really useful and perhaps interesting conversation rather than exchanging salvos, it would be to nail down what we do agree on and discuss those points backed with real expert sources.
because access to it is geographically limited and you end up with a shit ton of sulfates and other various corrosive substances
wind would be good if it wasn't woefully inifficient and require so much space. you could make it more viable if you were willing to down commercial airliners though
solar's the wave of the future but it's best used in tandem with nuclear power
anyways, good luck finding a credentialed nuclear scientist who agrees with you
You don't seem to mind about tons of nuclear tailing piles left in the environment. If you are mining 0.05% ore, then 99.95% is waste that is leaking radioactive materials and acid. Sulfates you can sell. Nuclear is geographically limited to being next to water and away from population.
Wind is more efficient than nuclear power. Nuclear power is only 30% efficient thermal in, electric out.
Solar is still much more expensive than wind.
I have an MS and used to work in the nuclear industry
You have to have cooling water for the Carnot cycle to work. All nuclear power plants require cooling water. Show me one that does not.
You need to mine a large amount of ore to extract a very small amount of uranium and the remainder is a large amount of mill tailings. The tailings contain the radioactive element radium, which decays to produce radon, a radioactive gas. The radium in these tailings will not decay entirely for thousands of years.
"Why take ANY kind of chance and have to worry about waste for thousands of years when this INHERENTLY SAFER AND ULTIMATELY CHEAPER source of energy is readily available?"
Because at the current state of development wind power and solar PV are expensive and nearly useless. They are intermittent power sources with craptacular capacity factor(20-30%), need to be matched up with expensive storage or peak power plants(gas, hydro). It does not look like this will change in the next few decades.
...He needs to check his facts. With the latest generation of turbines, wind is now cost competitive with hydro. Solar thermal is being tested and looks like it's going to be very viable. My community in Washington is powered by damless hydro. The Bush administration in its FY 2007 budget request eliminated hydropower and geothermal research, declaring them "mature technologies" that need no further funding.
Bush thinks nuclear is clean and renewable. Go figure.
yeah fukushima saved planet
dhksrksalem 1 week ago
Fuel if required is a necessity, not a thing that should be subject to capitalist economic profit games. Same goes for anything else that is about satisfying basic physical needs, like food, water, medicine, clothing, shelter, transport.
Anyone viewing that kind of stuff as abstracts are completely insane.
MannySteinerBIeeky 8 months ago
"Nuclear Energy Will Save The Planet- Join In" LOL! Tell that to the citizens of Japan. Nuclear energy is such an overrated, highly subidized source of electricity. On top of that, the proponents of nuclear have outright lied about nuclear costs, safety. The cost of energy from nuclear does not consider in its entirety, initial costs of a new power pant and the decommissioning of radioactive material.
mechysonu2010 8 months ago
Given that had society been built up sanely with future foresight, then any power generation would have always been on-site per building / village / building complex - and renewables fitting to the areas weather would generate plenty of power just fine, wtf are these people claiming they need so much energy for?
MannySteinerBleeky 9 months ago
@MannySteinerBleeky I would respond, but this post makes no sense- in the gramatical way. Can you edit this?
I am GUESSING that you are saying that renewables (solar, wind, geothermal etc) can support the society? well that is not true. for example, look at UK- they have a huge amount of wind power supply. well, every few months, they hit a time where there is no wind, and the end up buying NUCLEAR power from France. Imagine if NYC suddenly lost power for a while. Do you like that?
funkyfudge11 9 months ago
@funkyfudge11 - freak it makes plemty of sense, but nothing that comes from corrupt liars like you does.
All properties & buildings or villiages were meant to have any power generated on-site, and as I clearly stated and as anyone sane & informed would already know, renewables for that purpose are easily enough power.
Kill yourself, your dumbfuck society will fail anyway.
MannySteinerBleeky 9 months ago
@MannySteinerBleeky there you go again. Where have i lied? How the hell am I corrupt? How about you take a god damn chill pill? There is something seriously wrong with you. Just FYI, reported.
And who were they "meant" to have power generators next to them by? The reason they don’t is because people don’t want to live next to an electrical generator. That being said, i agree that this is a better solution due to the fact that the power loss is minimized this way.
You, sit are an asshole
funkyfudge11 9 months ago
@funkyfudge11 - reported for what you dumb cunt? You're the pedo that claimed my post didn't make sense, just cause you know it's fucking 100% true.
Nuke power is incredibly stupid, nobody sane would ever even consider punting it, it's also completely un-necessary for reasons already explained. & fucking hell if you knew anything about chill pills then you would never punt nuke power DUH.
Kill yourself.
MannySteinerBleeky 9 months ago
@MannySteinerBleeky Local green activists made sure to stop the construction of a CO2 free power plant on Brokeback Mountain. Your preserve was saved, sweetie
MarkGubbish 8 months ago
@MarkGubbish - faggotscum, kill yourself, you Grail-defiling stalking useless-eater subhuman, Black Iron Prison causer, scum.
MannySteinerBIeeky 8 months ago
@MannySteinerBIeeky You still looking for your coin my jewish dwarf? Perhaps you can become a warwick davis extra.
MarkGubbish 8 months ago
@MarkGubbish - well you already had that same retarded obsessive shit answered at the video you uploaded about the coin and post to daily with so many of your sick stalker channels,
so why have you for the millionth time asked the same question that means nothing anyway, when it's been answered?
You know I'm not a jewbag dwarf faggot like you are.
Kill yourself, you Grail-defiling stalking useless-eater subhuman, Black Iron Prison causer, scum.
MannySteinerBIeeky 8 months ago
@MannySteinerBIeeky We can call you warwick massa cohen. Where is your coin? LOL CO2 free nuclear power, good, just not on brokeback mtn right, miss dwarf
MarkGubbish 8 months ago
@MarkGubbish - you can't even call yourself a nurse for your horrendous mental retardation condition.
Kill yourself, you Grail-defiling stalking useless-eater subhuman, Black Iron Prison causer, scum.
MannySteinerBIeeky 8 months ago
@MannySteinerBIeeky Why don't you timebend over to New Zealand and become a hobbit for the next Hobbit movie my little cohen dwarf
MarkGubbish 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MarkGubbish - you were in Peter Jackson's earlier movies, scumbag who wishes I was a short-arse faggot like he is, you were the zombies in Brain Dead and the victims in Bad Taste and the - well you pretty much ARE Meet The Feebles.
And you only use 'gubbish' in your name cause you copied me posting that to your 1000s of channels too.
Kill yourself Graal-defiler subhuman useless-eater BIP-causing scum.
MannySteinerBIeeky 8 months ago
Japan's daiichi BWR's failed to implement or maybe even incorporate basic ECCS into their ill-designed obsolete BWR facility. Not to mention the fact that they failed to have mobile diesel generators on site along with the stationary emergency generators. You shouldn't have to "go get" a working generator, not to mention poorly designed/built containment buildings. This is academic however since the Westinghouse AP1000 passive ECCS design makes this obsolete anyway.
stratoleft 10 months ago
Mother Earth shows that NATURE has powers
that can make nuclear power a hazard to life on earth.
(Japan 2011)
Think about what level of radiation you are willing to give to your children.
STOP consuming like there is NO tomorrow
racenemo 10 months ago
@racenemo I agree that we need to stop consuming power at the rate we do (especially the US) but I do not foresee that being the case. Here is a news-flash: in the US, the general public is allowed to get 0.1 rem of radiation from industry per year. You get 0.376 rem from background radiation (sun, bananas, your granite counter-tops etc). Would you rather have us rely on oil? Or coal? I am asking because "renewables" can’t support our demands by themselves (just look at UK...)
funkyfudge11 9 months ago
@funkyfudge11
Wind Water and Solar never got a chance because in the 60ies and 70ies the choice was easy
Nuclear technology was usable in WARFARE
This is the main reason the nuclear lobby got this big and nuclear catastrophies are kept silent
racenemo 9 months ago
@racenemo there are two things wrong here: 1) Power and weapon production were never the same industry. Aside from uranium mining, they had nothing to do with each other- one was always privatized, the other, military-based. Now, if the same company made nukes and plants, i would say you have a point.
2) The nuclear lobby right now is tiny. If it wasn’t, do you think they would let the government make it impossible for them to expand? They are competing against big oil- a fight they can’t win
funkyfudge11 9 months ago
@funkyfudge11
I don't agree with you, you appearently don't know how people lived in the 60 and 70ies.
The cold war made huge investments on nuclear technology possible.
Do you know what game is played behind the ones in charge.
Sure the Oil industry tried to keep the Wind Water and Solar energy down wherever they could
racenemo 9 months ago
@funkyfudge11 - nuke and oil are two sides of the same fake coin, they are both stupid polluting non-renewables, 'promoted' by the same fucktarded lowlifes that live their lives in suits suitcases artificial office buildings pressing trade buttons on computers, any normal society would recognise that as an illness and make them play videogames with no actual physical reality consequences instead, or similar.
MannySteinerBIeeky 8 months ago
@MannySteinerBIeeky
then I suggest you stop being a hypocritical bastard and stop using industrial clothing, industrial goods, turn off that computer you polluting evil mind, take off your socks which were made using dirty coal, stop eating food raised on industrial farms using oil for transport and coal powered electricity to process. In fact, go crawl in a cave in a forest; because the rest has been made using oil, coal and nuclear generated electricity.
52111centrumcz 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@52111centrumcz - scumfuck i only eat organic food & i'm vegetarian. the rest is kind of difficult to avoid - because of your child-molester satanic cult of ahrimanic scumfucks, maria and giovanni, the capitalist lowlife cult that pretends ithasn't raped the entire world and enslaved it to fossil-fuels and toxic farming, then acts like anyone honest about that shouldn't use your evil system to destroy you and post facts about how inferior and evil you are.
kill yourself paedo faggot scumfuck.
MannySteinerBIeeky 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@52111centrumcz - normal proper farming isn't even mechanised you fuckwit idiot, nevermind relying on fossil fuels - no systems designed & built properly to serve everyday needs would ever be dependant upon any fuels, even renewables.
all those fuel systems have done is ruin this planet, the fact they produced some good stuff like the internet and other non-destructive in its usage technology, is more a compensation & means to pass the time in this ruined world.
kill yourself Gaia-rapist scum
MannySteinerBIeeky 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@52111centrumcz - proper housing doesn't need anything mechanised to be built and designed either.
the fact morons like you build that way is because you are clueless about how to build anything properly. so you instead waste loads of fuel to do so, and what you produce makes people sicker just by being around it, and it also destroys nature.
so you create more templates for disease just from all that destruction & noise & waste.
kill yourself liar.
MannySteinerBIeeky 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@52111centrumcz - onto fabrics, guess what moron - real fabrics are hand(or foot...)-spun too, and no they don't get made from oil. i do my best to never buy synthetics, who the fuck would want to wear anything like that by choice, can't you tell how fucked up it is just feeling it or looking at it. look at the amount of fuel you waste making fabrics from petroleum oil - when it takes no fuel to harvest crops or give animals haircuts, and then spin the fibres and weave them.
kill yourself liar.
MannySteinerBIeeky 3 months ago
@52111centrumcz - transportation now - what's wrong with walking, boats (remember - if you're sane you have to build nearby an actual water supply, that often means a river, which is why people used them to travel for free) and non-abusive animal use. then there's all manner of glidings and pedal-powers. i won't get into the ahrimanic tech, cause your kind would only use that to destroy more of this planet and nature.
kill yourself liar.
MannySteinerBIeeky 3 months ago
@MannySteinerBIeeky
Surely you can't be seriously insisting any modern food production is not based on oil powered transportation? and the main component of fossil fuel that goes into agriculture goes in as fertilizer, without which most of industrially used agricultural methods would not be usable, which would lead to a massive slide down in the production of foodstuffs?
52111centrumcz 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@52111centrumcz - learn to read fucktard because you already failed that crucial part in your first idiot paedo-cult masonic satanist reply to me didn't you, it clearly fucking says that proper growing of crops doesn't even use mechanisation - nevermind fucking fuels to make any part of any input to the growing.
you know absolutely fuck all about how to grow plants, just like all your other fails of your paedo-cult satanist ahrimanic cunt capitlaist society.
kill yourself, scourge of the Earth
MannySteinerBIeeky 3 months ago
@MannySteinerBIeeky couldnt have said it better if I tried...neither of these are a solution...
bcbk93 3 months ago
im actually 21 now, and i graduated from university of florida this past december. and no, i will not have masters in a year. i will START it next year, and finish, hopefully, in 2 years. as to the numbers, i dont have any real stats, but my school had a graduating class of 14 people. considering that there are only about 30 schools with the degree, 450 grads per year sounds about right. i can only speak from my personal experiance, but i love working in the field...sorry you dont
funkyfudge11 10 months ago
"Nuclear energy will save the planet"
- Hardly. Sooner, politically correct protocols will do the trick.
(sarcasm)
scholion 1 year ago
The information in this video is outdated and/or incorrect. I graduated in May with a BS in Nuclear Engineering and I have recieved ZERO job offers. I have applied to many different positions from PRA to health physics trainee and still nothing. The video claims only 200 grads/year - that is no longer correct, there are many more than that and very few entry-level jobs. I would not recommend nuclear engineering and would research before going into any engineering field - don't buy the hype.
phonzicat 1 year ago
@phonzicat
maybe thats because youre not marketable? haha did that ever occur to you? I too graduated with NucE degree and, along with all of my friends, got a job BEFORE i graduated. in addition, next year i will be completing my masters which is paid for by the company.
funkyfudge11 10 months ago
@funkyfudge11 your profile has your age as 20, it's impressive that you have a BS, a job, and you're half way through a master's before your 21st b-day........but here in the real world NE programs have swelled, again this video states 200 grads/year, now it's 600-700+. This video is outdated. As far as me being marketable:I did receive job offers, just not in the nuclear ind - and I do have an S&E job. In light of recent events, I'm glad I'm not in the nuclear industry.
phonzicat 10 months ago
@funkyfudge11 - do you realise how soul-less you are to even consider saying things like "you're not marketable"? Well how evolved you are, they got you studying for them AND being glad to be a slave.
MannySteinerBleeky 9 months ago
@MannySteinerBleeky Hey, why don’t you try being a little more dramatic? I don’t think all the children in the audience cried... I am "soul-less" and I am a "slave"? WOW Manny, WOW! As for my comment, there are two possibilities: a) he is right, and the job market in this field sucks or b) he has not gotten the right GPA/ done enough research/ too few internships. Since I know the market does NOT suck, it brings me to believe in point b).
funkyfudge11 9 months ago
@phonzicat - that'll either be cause you don't have the fake-mason funny handshake, so they won't offer you the jobs etc, or if you're really evolved it's because your higher self will be stopping you getting a job in an industry that'll literally destroy your soul, and possibly your physical health to an obvious degree. Which can happen because down here our souls purpose gets split off from our conscious mind cause of capitalist corporate-whore fucktard systems meaning we have to make money.
MannySteinerBleeky 9 months ago
@MannySteinerBleeky As for you, you seem like a reactionary "naturalist" who saw Fukushima and cried. Why don’t you tell me how many people died of radiation from Nuclear Power Industry? Yeah, Chernobyl is the only place where that happened and that’s <100. In the USA its 0
Look, do you think I want to hand the planet over to MY kids in a horrible state? NO! In fact, that why I got into Nuclear. "Renewables" (wind, solar, geothermal etc) have their draw-backs too! There is no silver bullet
funkyfudge11 9 months ago
OMG
jamesjaw 1 year ago
Comment removed
hesperius 1 year ago
Duh, look it up, We import 95% of the uranium from Russia and Kasistan
jstack6 1 year ago
1989 Chernobyl remember that, the explosion, nuclear power, it caused many deformitys to children and it still is.
122boxer 1 year ago
you do know that tritium only emits beta particals which can be stoped very easly. its half life is only around 10 years. there other thing out there that are worse than tritium. right now in my pocket i have a glass tube of tritum and i am not dead.
rebelgunnut 2 years ago
@rebelgunnut I dare you to drink it.
milofonbil 1 year ago
@milofonbil it would be hard because it is a gas phase in a tube, but i bet u have had water before and there is tritium in water. there some good use for it to look up Beta Voltaric battory. im helping out with research on it in my college. beside most if not all nuclear plants have closed loop water systems. some nuclear power plant design dont even use water in the core
rebelgunnut 1 year ago
@rebelgunnut Of course there is tritium in ordinary fresh water. But the concentration of tritium to ordinary hydrogen is very, very small. Naturally occurring tritium is extremely rare on Earth. Nuclear power plants make tritium through neutron absorbtion. Although the most nuclear power plants have a closed water system, tritium does leak from the primary loop into the secondary. BWRs don't have a secondary loop.
Here in the US, we use BWR and PWR. The rest is science fiction.
milofonbil 1 year ago
Nuclear Power? The answer? - not in my world - nuclear energy production is not clean, green or sustainable. Using it medical imaging sure, for heating water to turn turbines - No. Why? Because tritium is always being released from nuclear power plants as part of normal operations and tritium is not good for you or the natural world.
inquisitum 2 years ago
@inquisitum you cannot avoid radio active materials if you do your dead because you have not had a drink of water.
Kadriification 1 year ago
@inquisitum Funny, Tritium is found in nature, and only has a half-life of 13.6 years. Unless you are going to boycott the consumption of water in any quantity i'm not sure what your position is? The amount of tritium produced in cooling and moderating liquids (water) is barely decernable from natural water. If you were going to boycott everything radioactive, then you'd never go outside because of the sun, never stay inside because of radon, and never eat because of C14 and radioactive K.
UKRentor1605 1 year ago
@UKRentor1605
ya i hear newer plants will soon use it,but America won't because how brainwashed it is....ya use solar when you cover the entire country you won't produce a fraction we need.
captinseperoth 1 year ago
@captinseperoth who says you need to cover the entire country? I think your math is a little off.
milofonbil 1 year ago
@captinseperoth
Either your kidding or lying or just very uniformed? If solar were put on the roofs of our commercial buildings and the homes where it makes since it would put a big dent into the energy we use as a nation from other sources and some people think the Sun will shine a bit longer then we have reserves for Coal, Oil and Gas.
MLBinwa 1 year ago
@MLBinwa
in lala dream land i would agree with you.
yet if it costs a person 18 thousand to install,solar panels which would take 20 years to get the money back, the average folk would not bother as they could buy a new car with around that amount of money
captinseperoth 1 year ago
@captinseperoth
I've sold solar systems where the payback is less then five years, lots less then seven years, and that doesn't even factor in the increased price of their home and how much quicker it will sell.
The energy payback to build the system will be less then two years.
We have a few billions years left of the Sun and a few hundred for coal.
We have given hundreds of billions of dollars to old energy, it's sustainable time Now. It will take a while to shift...
MLBinwa 1 year ago
@UKRentor1605 It's funny ... real funny. A short half-life means it's very radioactive.
milofonbil 1 year ago
I think ppl opposed to it are way over thinking the disposal, that part was the easy design. The hard part was making plants that are safe and the plants all are the biggest "threat" is the water waste, non radioactive at least no more than normal fresh or oceanic waters but very warm, the waste is delt with in a way than more needed way, the threat that needs to be looked into is if the warm water produced is made at a mass enough lvl to further global warming which I doubt but is debateable.
grimilenn 2 years ago
@grimilenn
KISS
keep
it
simmple
stupid
just dump it in the deeper parts of the ocean,as the ocean produces lots of natural radiation
raise the radiation levels by 1 percent,and have a clean energy society
what about natural subduction zones in the ocean crustal areas?
if a earth quake happens,the radiation would affect non if leaked from containers..
captinseperoth 1 year ago
@captinseperoth .. This was France's solution for many years ... just dump the waste into the ocean. It takes a long time for a subduction zone to move a foot. Meanwhile there are ocean currents that take the radioactive mess all over the place. It's simply not responsible and you know it.
milofonbil 1 year ago
@milofonbil It's not "waste" BTW It's just fuel rods that will literally not even touch the harm the ocean.
200,000 of the most radioactive fuel rods will cause less damage then garbage from a "Trashship"
SniperViper1000 1 year ago
@grimilenn If disposal could be guaranteed for 450,000 years, then maybe there would be a chance. So far, It's not possible to guarantee anything over 10,000 years.
milofonbil 1 year ago
Peaceful nuclear power is harmless if rules are observed, also radioactive materials are thrown in to the atmosphere every day by coal burning plants, the steel industry, and there-s a hell of a lot bigger chance that you get cancer from what they use to make solar cells and electronics than from nuclear plants, but you never know & don't care. If half the effort that went into nuclear protests would go into lobbying for coherent projects for electronics recycling we'd be 10 times better.
Blackthorn2323 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
? Nuclear power is the most DANGEROUS WAY OF BOILING WATER EVER INVENTED. And who said we like coal? How about green energy instead of big corporate forms of energy. And we're doing a lot of electronics recycling, Europe is ahead of us on that but with Obama in it will come to the US in not that long. Anyway, Obama killed Yucca so there is no waste storage solution. Nuclear power is dead. Go back to the Republican party with your love affair for radioactive power. Obama 2012!
ObamaBiden20082012 2 years ago
"Nuclear power is the most DANGEROUS WAY OF BOILING WATER EVER INVENTED"
If you'd actually checked the facts on that statement you'd find more people die and are injured by coal, gas and oil per megawatt generated.
Your political histrionics is irrelevant.
You're lying (intentionally or otherwise) to support you ideological prejudices.
If you're so certain that new nuclear plants are so dangerous, perhaps you'd like to describe how a gas cooled pebble bed reactor could meltdown?
m3141592 2 years ago 8
@m3141592 who has built a gas cooled pebble bed reactor? It's science fiction.
milofonbil 1 year ago
@m3141592 your a fucking moron
IGotN0 1 year ago
@m3141592 - well if you boil water, or cook things in general, in a microwave oven, then it has very detrimental effects upon the likes of plants watered with that water. There's a lot of experiments like that, done to show how much of a biohazard the likes of those energies are.
The only reason anyone may find the idea of contained radiation emission to be safe is because they've been conditioned to accept things like mobile combustion engines are normal.
MannySteinerBleeky 9 months ago
@Blackthorn2323 Harmless as long as the procedures are followed. Pretty much what they said about the mess in the gulf, right?
milofonbil 1 year ago
for all you niglets who like solor, radiation is everywhere, you drink it, you eat it, hell you are a bit radioactive, i work in a power plant myself (control room ) and there is i amit, a bunch of buttons everywhere, but everythng goes prerdy smooth( with the exeption of drills of course)
noah3824 2 years ago 7
@noah3824
clean coal power plants produce a product hat creates tons of mild radiation.
captinseperoth 1 year ago
@noah3824 You cant even spell, and they let you work in a nuclear power plant? That is completely amazing.
milofonbil 1 year ago
@noah3824
Uh yeah, and guess what, solar is electromagnetic radiation. It's not dichotomous, one can support a joint solar/nuclear/wind/tidal/biofuel/hydroelectric clean energy approach.
AspiringPotato 1 year ago
@noah3824 cool which type of reactor? like PWR etc.
plutonium136 1 year ago
@noah3824 - I'm sure you must get this a lot given that comment, but nonetheless,
you = Homer Sector 7G...
MannySteinerBleeky 9 months ago
Great propaganda! There was one great, glaring omission: no mention was made of nuclear waste. I suppose this field provides a great opportunity to make a tremendous impact on peoples lives for tens of thousands of years. Has anyone yet designed a nuclear moral compass?
The U.S. now imports 90% of its uranium. Why would any young person commit to a career that depends so much on a finite and rapidly depleting natural resource?
QuarereAude 3 years ago
Oh and the Japanese as well as a large part of Europe are building nuclear power plants. Americans are the only ones who haven't experienced deaths from nuclear power and yet we are the ones who are afraid of it. Makes sense to me.
NDfan27 3 years ago 2
@NDfan27 We *have* experienced deaths from nuclear power here in the US. For example, all three that entered the containment of TMI-2 are now dead.
France and England got into the business of building nuclear power plants so that they could be nuclear super powers. Now they are stuck with the legacy of the mess they have caused for themselves. Nuclear power is not a panacea, it's a curse.
milofonbil 1 year ago
@milofonbil Three deaths are unfortunate but it still less than the number of deaths from wind power. And I have yet to meet a person who understands power generation and isn't polically blinded that doesn't support nuclear over wind and solar. Solar barely works in Arizona with a lot of government support (I have worked for a successful solar company but they relied greatly on subsidies).
NDfan27 1 year ago
@milofonbil I also live in Western Kansas which is supposedly the Mecca for wind power. But the massive growth is due to subsidies, overzealous projections (the turbines are rarely turning during the day), and the fact that the grid cannot handle more wind farms. These companies will only make money if conditions are perfect so they are not going to pay to improve the grid here. Overall, wind and solar are impressive feats of engineering but hardly the solution.
NDfan27 1 year ago
@NDfan27 Of course the grid can handle more wind farms. Spain has had its grid powered by as much as 53% wind power.
The wind projects here in Washington State work with very litte subsidies if any.
milofonbil 1 year ago
@NDfan27 Well, you have not met me yet. I am blinded by my engineering background, not politics. I do understand power generation and I believe that the risks undertaken by nuclear power are far too high.
Nuclear power could not survive without huge subsidies.
milofonbil 1 year ago
@milofonbil Well you do seem much more level-headed than the average poster. Don't get me wrong, I support alternative energy sources. However I need someone who has a good understanding of climate change to convince me that global warming is a real problem. Al Gore is full of it.
I am intrigued by Spain though. Wind power is not a base load source so you would need massive energy storage to get up to 53% (or not use any power). So far our methods are inefficient and expensive at best.
NDfan27 1 year ago
@milofonbil
same goes for most green energy these days.
did you know that a year ago, you could get a tax credit that gives you the same amount of money of what a golf cart would cost?
saying that, there was a loophole that had the government buy you a golf cart,with no costs for you
captinseperoth 1 year ago
@NDfan27
more people die falling off the many story high turbines,repairing them than the many deaths related to atomic energy....in the united states. Saying that id say we should ban wind turbines.
captinseperoth 1 year ago
@milofonbil Yeah, I'm pretty sure coutrny with the "Cleanest air in the developed world & also with the cheapest hydro bills" Is a paradise not a curse.
Also considering the fact that France has a very strong economy and [0] deaths from nuclear power would say that NP is the Paradise where eveyone should go.
SniperViper1000 1 year ago
@SniperViper1000 thank god you made that comment i'm all nuclear but some solar
plutonium136 1 year ago
@plutonium136 i actually think that wind, solar and hydroelectric are the way to go. i think nuclear energy and coal are polluting a lot and could cause dangerous radioactive waste like what happened to Marie Curie.
clap4makkapakka123 1 year ago
@clap4makkapakka123 watch this video over again and you'll think about it. im not saying your wrong though
plutonium136 1 year ago
@plutonium136 i guess its debatable ... :)
clap4makkapakka123 1 year ago
@clap4makkapakka123 excatly
plutonium136 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@clap4makkapakka123excatly
plutonium136 1 year ago
taterville29 is completely right. these plants give off radiation but that also brings up another problem. There's also 6 billion plus humans on the plant also producing radiation just by being alive... but in all seriousness, the radiation that people experience from the sun is greater than that from nuclear power plants so we should be using our most intelligent students to figure out a way to turn it off.
NDfan27 3 years ago
@NDfan27
id say,lets kill off all the humans to save the enviroment
captinseperoth 1 year ago
@captinseperoth what nonsense
milofonbil 1 year ago
to Papico, first of all you need to cleanup your garbage mouth.The truth is hard to bear isnt it,next of all every nuclear power plant in the world lets so called safe amounts of radiation into the air each day. There are no safe amounts of radiation ask the people in Russia ,ask the people in Japan. Skin cancer has increased in an alarming rate since the first a bomb and the increased building of nuclear plant.
taterville29 3 years ago
@taterville29
why you worried about cancer? don't people give it to them self's knowingly every year with cigarette?
captinseperoth 1 year ago
The video is dead wrong about nuclear energy,nuclear power plant are nothing but time bombs waiting to go off.nothing but propaganda.
'Wrong" Nuclear
taterville29 3 years ago
BackwardsBound,
"How much radiation do you get from solar, wind, wave, tide and geothermal energy? That's right - zero. "
Actually...I work in the nuclear field. I am within a schoolbus length of a reactor every day, and I have received FAR more exposure from the sun...not to make a comparison to SOLAR energy. I am just proving a point. You get radiation exposure every day. What you receive naturally is much greater than what you would get drinking a coffee cup of water from a reactor.
kayhaus1 3 years ago
@kayhaus1 It would be nice if the reactor were the only place that could possibly be a problem for the environment. But in every part of the nuclear fuel cycle there is radiation and other pollution escaping into the environment. For example Uranium mining releases a trail of radon into the air, the settling ponds from the mills are full of nasty radioactive products which pollute the groundwater. The enrichment plants leak all sorts of fuoro-hydrocarbons into the air. etc.
milofonbil 1 year ago
The answer to the safety problem with nuclear power is to put it in space and run wires to it. Do I have to tell you how to do everything. Geezzz. As for solar power, it is unreliable because if the sun burned out, we would have no power. Use your brains before posting.
RegularFool 3 years ago
Nuclear is very bad!!!!! Research Dr. Helen Caldicott.
amrguitars 3 years ago
theres only one word to describe nuclear energy and that word is bad.
Wierdo4848 3 years ago
How so?
pouyo3 3 years ago
Notice how people who are opposed to it never give any hard data or facts. The more knowledgeable people are, the more likely they are to support it.
mmysama 3 years ago 4
#1 where will the waste go
#2 if you send it to space there can be a possibility that it explodes on its way
#3 if you store it underground and an erthquake strikes the canisters do leak radiation.
#4 terrorist like to strike at things that go boom realy badly.
#5 once you use the uranium it ends up being radioactive for more than 1000 years
thats all fact and thats only a small handfull of the problems.
Wierdo4848 3 years ago
The yucca mountain repository can store all the worlds nuclear waste very easily. It's in a region thats geologically dead, and even if there was an earthquake it will be deep enough underground that there will be no chance of radioactive materials being released.
Also, NASA(?)has developed a nuclear fuel container that can survive orbital reentry into an erupting volcanoe. It's never been used due to the cost, but within the next thousand years or so, it will become cost effective.
mmysama 3 years ago
@mmysama Yucca mountain would be full already if all the high-level waste from nuclear power plants were moved to it.
Geologically dead? Well... it was an ocean 10,000 years ago. Also, there is a fault that runs right through it.
Sandia National Laboratories has developed all sorts of transportation containers for nuclear waste, nuclear weapons, nuclear materials, etc. But none of them can survive being dumped into an erupting volcano.
milofonbil 1 year ago
#1 underground/reused
#2 thats why it goes underground
#3 its burried underground, the dirt will shield you from the radiation
#4 no terrorist like kill people, which it why they slam planes into skyscrapers. hitting a nuclear plant with a plane will do nothing because they are designed to survive it.
#5 Uranium is radioactive if we use it or not, but you will not be exposed by it. Your far more likely to get radiation from radon gas, chest x-rays, the Sun, being in a plane, and high altitude.
117wolf 3 years ago 2
@mmysama - I am opposed to nuclear power and have no problem giving facts.
1) There is no viable storage for the nuclear waste. Currently, we can only guarantee 10,000 years. However, the waste remains hazardous for 450,000 years. This means that the waste needs to be handled 45 times before its no longer a threat.
2) Nuclear reactors are tremendously inefficient. For every Kilowatt of electricity produced, a nuclear power plant produces two Kilowatts of waste heat right into lakes, rivers
milofonbil 1 year ago
Comment removed
milofonbil 1 year ago
Comment removed
milofonbil 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@milofonbil (con't)
3) Nuclear power is cheap only because we the tax payers pick up other costs such as loan guarantees, liability caps, waste storage, fuel enrichment, DOE research, etc. The new reactors are far, far more expensive than other forms of electricity generation.
4) A nuclear accident can lay to waste a large portion of the Untied States
5) 84% of uranium is currently being imported. This makes us dependent of foreign countries.
milofonbil 1 year ago
@mmysama
6) Radioactivity escapes from every part of the nuclear fuel cycle - from mining to reprocessing. There have been deaths associated with every part of the fuel cycle too. The reactors are relatively clean, but not all of the entire process.
7) The problem is not the normal operation. The problem is when there is an accident. The risks of an accident cannot be eliminated, they can only be diminished through preventitive measures. For me, the risks are all too real.
milofonbil 1 year ago
Comment removed
milofonbil 1 year ago
nuclear: YESSSSS!
DragonofDiscord 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Which is the scariest scenario: the threat of a terrorist strike on a wind or solar power grid, or the threat of a terrorist strike on a nuclear power plant? Which would you fear the most from a disgruntled employee? Nuclear power is insanity.
BackwardsBound 3 years ago
You really are backwards bound.
Not doing the right thing, like creating billions of dollars of wealth, ending global warming, and saving untold numbers of lives from air pollution by building 1000's of nuclear power plants around the world is insanity.
What other BASELOAD energy sources are available?
braddockakalatis 3 years ago
Friend Braddock,
There are many alternative sources of power that can baseload our infrastructure if we let them. The oil and money industries, however, have prevented them from happening. We need to give them a chance.
Soon the entire city of San Diego, CA will be powered purely from solar power, or very close to it.
There are also ways of conservation that can save enormous amounts of energy. The truth is we don't have to turn to nuclear power and most all of don't really want to.
BackwardsBound 3 years ago
And I assume that no one is san diego uses electricity at night?
mmysama 3 years ago
Go ahead then, you and all you rich diseased red beacons of death, shove your radioactive tree down all our throats, even if we don't want it. You are right and we are all wrong. Nuclear power is obviously much safer than solar, wind and conservation. Radiation is good for us right? You who promote this deadly power have been snorting too much radon. It's just plain stupidity.
BackwardsBound 3 years ago
Nuclear power is not safer than wind or solar, but it's pretty damn close, there have been no deaths caused by it in the US and the amount of radioactive particles released is extremely small, less than coal power even. It's also far cheaper and more reliable than solar and wind.
mmysama 3 years ago 3
Nuclear power heats up whatever cooling water it uses - be it from a river or ocean. The water is then slightly radioactive. Mining uranium is very dangerous and radioactive. Nuc plants must be dismantled after about 40 years and buried to keep us safe. It only takes one major accident. Nuc plants are suseptible to disgruntled employees. No one wants a nuc waste dump in their vicinity. Sometimes plumes of radiation do get emitted. We have not given solar, wind, and other any real chance.
BackwardsBound 3 years ago
Nuclear plants heat water is the same manner as coal plants, it does'nt actually make contact with radioactive materials and there is no radioactive particles released into the water system.
And it would take a lot more than one disgruntled or incompetent employee to cause a nuclear incident. the plants are very secure and have multiple layers of redundancy. if one person where to fuck up, there will be many others to fix the problem before it has any effect.
mmysama 3 years ago 3
There are so many other forms of power that do not have the potential for great harm that nuclear power has - and we have not given them a chance. What will you do with the radioactive waste? It's insanity to feed off of a radioactive tree. When Carter left office he had a plan in place to have 20% of the USA powered with solar by yr 2000. Reagan nixed the program. Today we are 20% nuclear with no good site for disposal and basically no solar. This is sheer stupidity. Keep nuclear off my planet!
BackwardsBound 3 years ago
Nuclear power is extremely safe, there has never been a single fatality in the united states caused by nuclear power and there is plenty of room in the yucca mountain waste depository. Solar power is very expensive and solar plants can't produce any power during the night or on cloudy days.
mmysama 3 years ago 3
Nuclear power is not intrinsically safe. Many people have died from it - my mother being one. She was a victim of radioactive iodine releases from Hanford. Died years later as a result from leukemia.
Why do you want nuclear power so bad? Are you a nuke promoter? Are you hired by the nuke industry to blog here and spread your diseased propaganda? Your comment about nulear holocaust = life shows how deceived you are. Many people are deceived like you. It's time for us to wake up to the truth.
BackwardsBound 3 years ago
Hey, how do we know you not some crony for the Anti-nuclear groups like greenpeace, the ultimate collection of hippie douchebags, to blog your diseased propaganda?
majordbag2 3 years ago
The bottom line is I think you're full of crap and would rather take my chances than listen to this useless 60's hippie backwash about the alleged dangers of a source of power every science teacher I have ever known say is say.
majordbag2 3 years ago
And what the hell will terrorists do to a nuclear plant? It's not like they can break open a containment dome simply by flying a A380 filled with high explosives into it or something. it would take multiple bunker buster bombs to do that. The worst they can do it take it off the grid, and it would be much easier to take a windfarms and solar plants off the grid.
mmysama 3 years ago 2
@mmysama
Chernobyl had none..see what happen when cheap soviets build things?
captinseperoth 1 year ago
Feeding off a radioactive tree is a continuation of insanity - just like taking the carbon out of the ground and putting it into the atmosphere - just like exploding the human population so that we now cover the Earth like a cancer. True wisdom is in reducing our numbers voluntarily through birth control and reducing our impact on Earth through sustainable non-harmful technology. Nucear power = death.
BackwardsBound 3 years ago
Well, think of it this way, nuclear fuel reprocessing can be used to make nuclear weapons, nuclear wepons can be used to dramatically decrease the human population and work as an alternative to birth control, thus preventing the human race form covering earth like a cancer. Nuclear holocaust = life.
mmysama 3 years ago
nuclear would be the westren wolrds salvation from arabian Oil BUT WE CANNOT FORGET CHERNOYLBY it whas becaus of the extremly imcopetent and stupit comunist soviets but still if exampel a nuclear plant near paris or a nother major city and badabing badabom a massive loss of lives
portugalreis 3 years ago
I'm glad that Finland is building EPR reactor.
MokomaSusi 4 years ago
Nuclear energy isnt clean! what do you usa people undestand about clean energy!???.. and by the way! why would you get involve with the next monopoly!? uranium of tomorrow is the oil of today!! always the solution is a no renovable and limited source of energy.. sur all about money.
RavnoUK 4 years ago
"Nuclear energy isnt clean!"
Yes it is.
"uranium of tomorrow is the oil of today!"
How come? where you heard this?
MokomaSusi 4 years ago
is NOT clean, the radiactive waste can destroy 1000 tons of water and damage 10 km of ground.
why is the best solution?, because is the only one where you can get money from, why? because is base in a resource that is dificult to find and finite. that means, the same problem as oil.
RavnoUK 4 years ago
Thats the second time i've heard you use these same arguments, yet again they neither make sense, nor are they even logically applicable. In fact, what your suggesting is actually PHYSICALLY IMPROBABLE (or the final solution to our energy needs if you understand physics, E=MC^2 M=1000 tons :) lol). Radioactive waste would only make its surroundings temporarily radioactive (roughly as dangerous as an x-ray) if it was not contained (which never occurs).
Bleezz 3 years ago
Dude. if you put 1 kilogram of radioactive material in water.. what would happend in it because natural water diffution? how many part per millon of water would you see in 1 or 2 tons of water? and E=mc2 doent have any sense when you are talkin about WASTE.
RavnoUK 3 years ago
oO, define diffution, because i think you just made up a word (diffusion maybe?). Radioactive particles don't diffuse into water because they don't dissolve, and even if they did they are no more dangerous in water than salt. similarly, its pointless to calculate a concentration of a heterogeneous mixture, they don't interact with each other. And the E=mc^2 was in reference to your implication that radiation could completely destroy 1000 tons water.
Bleezz 3 years ago
sorry i speak spanish, so my english isnt as good as i wish. radiactive particules DO diffuse into water, uranion and plutonium disolve in water and even in the air. and E=mc^2 is only aplicable to energy it self or reaction efectivity.. not to the range of contamination of radioactive particles and thats what im talking about.
RavnoUK 3 years ago
Bleez, of course radioactive particles can dissolve in water. The water does not care if the atoms are radioactive or not. So if you have 1000 tons of water and 1 kg of a radioactive salt, for example, then your solution is 1kg radioactive materials/(1,000,000 kg water + 1 kg radioactive salt), or a little less than 1ppm of radioactive salt.
If cs 137 or sr 90 is part of a salt water solution, and a tree takes up that salt water, it concentrates in the tree. The tree becomes radioactive.
bogon5dot 3 years ago
and the water from the tree continues to evaporate in the tree. So a relatively benign 1ppm radioactive salt solution can make a tree the most deadly thing around. Near Chernobyl, there is the Red Forest - an entire forest of highly radioactive trees.
E=MC^2 only applies to the mass *lost* to energy as the radioactive atoms split, not the whole 1kg salt or 1000 tons of water.
bogon5dot 3 years ago
my point was that he stated that the water was "destroyed." it may be contaminated, but the water is by no means annihilated. second, casks stored in a geologically sealed tomb are no harm to anyone. the natural reactors in Oklo held their radioactive material for billions of years, even with active water circulation. btw, Chernobyl was a disaster, but understand the context; It was a disaster waiting to happen, and could not possibly be mimicked in a modern scenario. (Negative Void Coef.)
Bleezz 3 years ago
this guy bogon5dot makes a good point, a point that I've not heard one pro-nuke person address
There are BILLIONS of years of sunlight, wind and wave energy on the earth - Why take ANY kind of chance and have to worry about waste for thousands of years when this INHERENTLY SAFER AND ULTIMATELY CHEAPER source of energy is readily available?
BeondaPale 3 years ago
I guess ill be the first then. The large majority of pro nukes support renewable sources such as wind and solar, however we've come to the realization that those sources (even if combined) cannot possibly meet all of our energy needs. You can't get energy from nothing, and all renewables do is take energy from the balanced energy systems environmentalists are working to protect. We need a clean and efficient way to produce our own energy. And by that logic, Nuclear makes perfect sense.
Bleezz 3 years ago
Bleezz, you know this is nonsense. You guys on here have been arguing for months telling me how worthless renewables are. I can even tell you what all of your talking points are.
Why not GEOTHERMAL now that we know how to drill down to 10-15,000 feet? We won't need to mine for uranium and worry about people getting sick from the radon, we won't have to worry about polluting the environment with the acids left behind from the purifying process.. We won't have a mess to dispose afterwards.
milofonbil 3 years ago
geothermal is not a golden child. its still limited to only a handful of usable sites its still an energy source reliant on a natural process, the heat in the ground is not unlimited, and if we draw it up to quickly (as is currently being done), then the temp. in the well goes down, making it unusable for several years until it naturally heats back up. There is an imbalance, if we want to perpetuate a non-natural lifestyle we MUST produce the energy ourselves, we cannot steal it from nature
Bleezz 3 years ago
Yes, if you too heavily load a geothermal system it takes a longer time to recover than other sources. That does not make it unusable. It's a bit like a brownout but slower. They just have to learn how to match the thermal load to the heat source.
All energy is derived from nature - Coal, oil, nuclear, gas, hydro, wind, solar, and geothermal. Actually, we cannot *produce* energy, just recover it from somewhere.
milofonbil 3 years ago
im not arguing that we couldn't match the thermal load, im just saying that at this limited capacity it cant match the demand.
And thats a fair point, burning coal is essentially just harnessing the potential energy created by nature in the coal. the difference is, we humans are extracting this potential energy that has no natural use. by harnessing the kinetic or thermal energy already present nature, we are taking energy that is already serving a purpose, and is not meant to meet our demands
Bleezz 3 years ago
There is a *lot* of geothermal potential out there.
I don't really get your second point. Are you saying that we are extracting energy that normally that would not be available to the ecosystem? So for example nuclear, oil, gas and coal would have been left underground locked up and therefore not part of the closed system already existing? If I tap the wind, ocean or sun, I am extracting energy that would have been meant for something else? No matter what we do, we leave a footprint.
milofonbil 3 years ago
I dont think you quite understand my opinion on renewables. I am not saying their useless, In fact, most pro-nukes are also very pro-renewable. However, we do not believe that they have the capacity to ween us from fossil fuels. Wind and solar are great for peak, but their not reliable, and are uneconomical as baseload. hydro and geothermal could work, but are location specific and biofuels create more problems then they solve. so whats left? Nuclear. To us, it just makes sense.
Bleezz 3 years ago
I believe I do understand your opinion. As far as other pro-nukes go, my experience on YouTube and on other boards is that pro-nukes feel that renewables are useless and come at the cost of subsidies that pro-nukes want.
One thing is that you might consider is that power companies will not shut down and decomission their coal plants until they need to be replaced. For now, nuclear does have one benefit - lower CO2. But on the other hand, the cost of a nuke plant is far more than gas/coal.
milofonbil 3 years ago
(con't) The conversion away from fossil fuels will not happen overnight but it will need to happen in the next 30 years or so because it is running out.
The baseload/peak argument is an interesting one. Baseload can be filled by several wind farms. Wind "outages" don't cover entire states or the whole country.
I think our differences are on the the stability of uranium prices, the pollution that nuclear does make (outside of the reactor), and safety and health issues.
milofonbil 3 years ago
(con't) On the other hand, I feel that you have quite a few misunderstandings about renewables. Costs, availability, load factor, reliability, true market costs versus subsidized costs, and fuel costs...
I do agree with you that biofuels like corn will take food out of people's mouths.
Now, is if you want a really useful and perhaps interesting conversation rather than exchanging salvos, it would be to nail down what we do agree on and discuss those points backed with real expert sources.
milofonbil 3 years ago
because access to it is geographically limited and you end up with a shit ton of sulfates and other various corrosive substances
wind would be good if it wasn't woefully inifficient and require so much space. you could make it more viable if you were willing to down commercial airliners though
solar's the wave of the future but it's best used in tandem with nuclear power
anyways, good luck finding a credentialed nuclear scientist who agrees with you
plenty of pretend scientists though
ucihapokujin 3 years ago
You don't seem to mind about tons of nuclear tailing piles left in the environment. If you are mining 0.05% ore, then 99.95% is waste that is leaking radioactive materials and acid. Sulfates you can sell. Nuclear is geographically limited to being next to water and away from population.
Wind is more efficient than nuclear power. Nuclear power is only 30% efficient thermal in, electric out.
Solar is still much more expensive than wind.
I have an MS and used to work in the nuclear industry
milofonbil 3 years ago
you don't need to be far away from people to run a nuclear power plant or have a natural source of water nearby
for the closed system it wouldn't be a problem anyways, but for the open system you just need a medium to circulate water
and if you mine .05% of the ore then 99.5% is left in the ground
if fuel accounts for .05% you basically end up with minerals and salt that are less radioactive than your toaster
go learn what efficiency is too. how old are you anyways? 15?
ucihapokujin 3 years ago
You have to have cooling water for the Carnot cycle to work. All nuclear power plants require cooling water. Show me one that does not.
You need to mine a large amount of ore to extract a very small amount of uranium and the remainder is a large amount of mill tailings. The tailings contain the radioactive element radium, which decays to produce radon, a radioactive gas. The radium in these tailings will not decay entirely for thousands of years.
Don't worry, I understand efficiency.
50
milofonbil 3 years ago
i don't think you understand much to be honest. including language comprehension. or radiation. or engineering
ucihapokujin 3 years ago
You win - believe what you want to.
milofonbil 3 years ago
"Why take ANY kind of chance and have to worry about waste for thousands of years when this INHERENTLY SAFER AND ULTIMATELY CHEAPER source of energy is readily available?"
Because at the current state of development wind power and solar PV are expensive and nearly useless. They are intermittent power sources with craptacular capacity factor(20-30%), need to be matched up with expensive storage or peak power plants(gas, hydro). It does not look like this will change in the next few decades.
soylentgreenb 3 years ago
Because at the current state of development wind power and solar PV are expensive and nearly useless.
LIES, there have been MAJOR ADVANCES in solar wave and tide in the last 5 years alone.
BeondaPale 3 years ago
...He needs to check his facts. With the latest generation of turbines, wind is now cost competitive with hydro. Solar thermal is being tested and looks like it's going to be very viable. My community in Washington is powered by damless hydro. The Bush administration in its FY 2007 budget request eliminated hydropower and geothermal research, declaring them "mature technologies" that need no further funding.
Bush thinks nuclear is clean and renewable. Go figure.
milofonbil 3 years ago
You probably think that things like wind and solar will actually meet our demands. Go figure.
braino2000 3 years ago
Renewables don't have a finite fuel source problem.