Why no nuclear?

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I think (my opinion of course) that it's because of the great majority of people that don't have the science background to understand much about nuclear energy, many will easily fear what they don't understand and instead of looking to careful expert analysis from neutral sources that do have a good science background, they listen to politicians who don't know much....

Too many 'green' minded politicians just imagine (or worse, lie) to suggest something akin to a Chernobyl like disaster could very easily happen again in more modern (and safer) nuclear power plants which are not of the former Soviet Union reactor design of the 1970s (and have far better safety design than those old Soviet designs).

I do wonder how many green politicians may cynically (with intentional lying in effect) use fear mongering, similar to how some far right politicians in the U.S. try to re-use Trump's "stolen election" fiction, Trump's invented fiction of Democrats engaging in a great conspiracy to steal elections.

Amazingly, green politicians in Germany have pushed to shut down the last German nuclear plants, and thus the increase in coal-burning electric power, increasing greenhouse gas output, just so they could (I think) pretend to be doing something important (while in reality they are just doing harm to the environment).

One of the things I always seen brought up with regards to American views and fears on nuclear energy is Three Mile Island, which, while a definitive nuclear accident, was really... not all that bad in terms of accidents. It was a meltdown that was quickly fixed and, yes, while cancer rates around the plant did go up unfortunately, no-one immediately died in the aftermath of a meltdown. It was definitely a bad case scenario for American nuclear energy, but it was nowhere as bad as Chernobyl, which was it's own whole thing.

The whole thing with Germany shutting down its nuclear plants to replace them with coal at the behest of their 'green' party baffles me because they're right next to France, an example of nuclear energy going well. Might be a nationalist thing, the old Franco-German rivalry, or just plain idiocy of a whole other stripe. I can't tell.

 

[Hans Blaster]

One of the things I always seen brought up with regards to American views and fears on nuclear energy is Three Mile Island, which, while a definitive nuclear accident, was really... not all that bad in terms of accidents. It was a meltdown that was quickly fixed and, yes, while cancer rates around the plant did go up unfortunately, no-one immediately died in the aftermath of a meltdown. It was definitely a bad case scenario for American nuclear energy, but it was nowhere as bad as Chernobyl, which was it's own whole thing.

The whole thing with Germany shutting down its nuclear plants to replace them with coal at the behest of their 'green' party baffles me because they're right next to France, an example of nuclear energy going well. Might be a nationalist thing, the old Franco-German rivalry, or just plain idiocy of a whole other stripe. I can't tell.

The thing about the Green Party movement is that it is a left-wing party that has roots that include the anti-nuclear weapons movement. Nuclear power seems to get swept up in that. As for the US and TMI, it's hard to say exacty, though new orders for nuclear plants plunged in the aftermath. I think everyone got worried that their town would host a Chernobyl-scale event (even before it happened.) Local officials do have a lot of power to stop things in the US and they are all elected.

 

[Halbhh]

One of the things I always seen brought up with regards to American views and fears on nuclear energy is Three Mile Island, which, while a definitive nuclear accident, was really... not all that bad in terms of accidents. It was a meltdown that was quickly fixed and, yes, while cancer rates around the plant did go up unfortunately, no-one immediately died in the aftermath of a meltdown. It was definitely a bad case scenario for American nuclear energy, but it was nowhere as bad as Chernobyl, which was it's own whole thing.

The whole thing with Germany shutting down its nuclear plants to replace them with coal at the behest of their 'green' party baffles me because they're right next to France, an example of nuclear energy going well. Might be a nationalist thing, the old Franco-German rivalry, or just plain idiocy of a whole other stripe. I can't tell.

It's not all bad news though, and the full picture is mixed:​

Plans For New Reactors Worldwide​

(Updated May 2023)

• Nuclear power capacity worldwide is increasing steadily, with about 60 reactors under construction.
• Most reactors on order or planned are in the Asian region, though there are major plans for new units in Russia.
• Significant further capacity is being created by plant upgrading.
• Plant lifetime extension programmes are maintaining capacity, particularly in the USA.

Plans for New Nuclear Reactors Worldwide - World Nuclear Association

Plans for New Nuclear Reactors Worldwide. Information on the growth of global nuclear capacity with a table showing all under construction reactors.

world-nuclear.org

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

So, bottom line: nuclear is definitely something that deserves to be given a hearing about for replacing fossil fuel (you can't argue with 44 MILLION kilowatts per hour for a tonne of uranium!), but because of fear-mongering among a lot of parties, that sadly won't happen.

 

[Questioning Brother]

First and foremost it doesn't happen because of the most powerful force in American Politics: NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard). Due to the accidents, no one wants one around.

Personally, I think we need a slightly more gradual approach to changing over. By all meams build renewable energy capacity. I think our first step should be converting Coal Plants into natural gas plants. Natural gas, while still putting out emissions, is literally 1/1000 of the emissions put out by coal. While we convert the plants and keep up the electrical capacity, we build wind/solar/nuclear capacity and decomission the natural gas plants as we build the capacity to supply their load. We should end up with Nuclear, wind, hydroelectric, and solar supplying all the energy, but we can't do the left's turn off the fossil fuels now routine.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

First and foremost it doesn't happen because of the most powerful force in American Politics: NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard). Due to the accidents, no one wants one around.

Personally, I think we need a slightly more gradual approach to changing over. By all meams build renewable energy capacity. I think our first step should be converting Coal Plants into natural gas plants. Natural gas, while still putting out emissions, is literally 1/1000 of the emissions put out by coal. While we convert the plants and keep up the electrical capacity, we build wind/solar/nuclear capacity and decomission the natural gas plants as we build the capacity to supply their load. We should end up with Nuclear, wind, hydroelectric, and solar supplying all the energy, but we can't do the left's turn off the fossil fuels now routine.

Except that the accidents are literally a one in a million chance, and the last two big accidents, Chernobyl and Fukushima, were because of a horribly poor management by a government to cut costs and because of a natural disaster that no-one could anticipated happening as it it. France has been running on nuclear energy for decades and have had nothing in the same vein of those disasters, so that shows that it can be safely done and easily too.

And going from coal to natural gas still leaves us with the fact that to even get a FRACTION of the power of uranium (44 MILLION KILOWATTS PER HOUR), you'd need to burn 8.5 MILLION CUBIC METRES of natural gas. And you're still pumping out greenhouse gases not just from the burning of it, but from the refinement process and also the process of getting it out too. Nuclear energy produces ZERO green house emissions, and even with the spent fuel, there are new reactors being developed that can run on spent fuel.

So, as I said, the main problem is just fear-mongering. Not saying that's what you yourself are doing, obviously since you even admit that is the problem.

 

[Questioning Brother]

Except that the accidents are literally a one in a million chance, and the last two big accidents, Chernobyl and Fukushima, were because of a horribly poor management by a government to cut costs and because of a natural disaster that no-one could anticipated happening as it it. France has been running on nuclear energy for decades and have had nothing in the same vein of those disasters, so that shows that it can be safely done and easily too.

And going from coal to natural gas still leaves us with the fact that to even get a FRACTION of the power of uranium (44 MILLION KILOWATTS PER HOUR), you'd need to burn 8.5 MILLION CUBIC METRES of natural gas. And you're still pumping out greenhouse gases not just from the burning of it, but from the refinement process and also the process of getting it out too. Nuclear energy produces ZERO green house emissions, and even with the spent fuel, there are new reactors being developed that can run on spent fuel.

So, as I said, the main problem is just fear-mongering. Not saying that's what you yourself are doing, obviously since you even admit that is the problem.

You are correct. Fear is the issue.

As for the conversion, that was to reduce emissions, without cutting power production, while we build up renewable and nuclear capacity with the goal being elimination of the fossil fuel plants.

As a side note, there is very little refining with natural gas. It is basically pumped out of the ground and pumped to where it is going.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You are correct. Fear is the issue.

As for the conversion, that was to reduce emissions, without cutting power production, while we build up renewable and nuclear capacity with the goal being elimination of the fossil fuel plants.

As a side note, there is very little refining with natural gas. It is basically pumped out of the ground and pumped to where it is going.

I might be thinking of something else then with the refinement process then.

 

[Hans Blaster]

First and foremost it doesn't happen because of the most powerful force in American Politics: NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard). Due to the accidents, no one wants one around.

Personally, I think we need a slightly more gradual approach to changing over. By all meams build renewable energy capacity. I think our first step should be converting Coal Plants into natural gas plants. Natural gas, while still putting out emissions, is literally 1/1000 of the emissions put out by coal. While we convert the plants and keep up the electrical capacity, we build wind/solar/nuclear capacity and decomission the natural gas plants as we build the capacity to supply their load. We should end up with Nuclear, wind, hydroelectric, and solar supplying all the energy, but we can't do the left's turn off the fossil fuels now routine.

1. A lot of the transition from coal to gas has already been done. We've had a few decades of such replacement.

2. Gas plants are more heat efficient, but some of that comes from low efficiency of the old designs of coal-fired plants

3. Gas plants are definitely more flexible in delivering power to short term variations.

4. The local toxins and particulates in the air are certainly much less with gas, but...

5. The greenhouse gas impacts are way over hyped. Gas does reduce CO2 emissions, but leakage of methane (incomplete burning, pipeline leaks, drill site leakage) effectively cancel that reduction since methane is many times more powerful as a greenhouse gas than CO2. (As wasteful as seems, the flaring off of uncaptured gas at oil wells is far less damaging to the environment than just letting it escape.)


Replacing coal base plants with gas is just committing to releasing nearly the same greenhouse gas impact as the old plant for decades.

 

[Questioning Brother]

1. A lot of the transition from coal to gas has already been done. We've had a few decades of such replacement.

2. Gas plants are more heat efficient, but some of that comes from low efficiency of the old designs of coal-fired plants

3. Gas plants are definitely more flexible in delivering power to short term variations.

4. The local toxins and particulates in the air are certainly much less with gas, but...

5. The greenhouse gas impacts are way over hyped. Gas does reduce CO2 emissions, but leakage of methane (incomplete burning, pipeline leaks, drill site leakage) effectively cancel that reduction since methane is many times more powerful as a greenhouse gas than CO2. (As wasteful as seems, the flaring off of uncaptured gas at oil wells is far less damaging to the environment than just letting it escape.)


Replacing coal base plants with gas is just committing to releasing nearly the same greenhouse gas impact as the old plant for decades.

Again, it was to phase the dirtiest option (coal) out while we increase cleaner oprions to the point we can phase out the gas.

With our current needs, simply removing the fossil fuel option is not feasible.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Again, it was to phase the dirtiest option (coal) out while we increase cleaner oprions to the point we can phase out the gas.

With our current needs, simply removing the fossil fuel option is not feasible.

We've about exhausted the limit for replacing coal with gas and we should really stop doing that. The air quality benefits are clear, but the climate ones are just fooling ourselves. Coal needs to be replace by non-fossil sources.

If we have coal plants that are nearing the end of their useful operations and need replacing with something in 5-10 years, it would be better in the long run to keep them burning coal for 5 more years and then replace them with non-fossil sources than to replace the now with gas that would remain operational for 20-30 years at minimum.

 

[Questioning Brother]

We've about exhausted the limit for replacing coal with gas and we should really stop doing that. The air quality benefits are clear, but the climate ones are just fooling ourselves. Coal needs to be replace by non-fossil sources.

If we have coal plants that are nearing the end of their useful operations and need replacing with something in 5-10 years, it would be better in the long run to keep them burning coal for 5 more years and then replace them with non-fossil sources than to replace the now with gas that would remain operational for 20-30 years at minimum.

I do mostly agree, with the only problem being 20-30 years is what the non-fossil fuel sources need to get to the point that they can take over. Even with a nuclear plant starting building now, it will be years before it is online

 

[Hans Blaster]

I do mostly agree, with the only problem being 20-30 years is what the non-fossil fuel sources need to get to the point that they can take over. Even with a nuclear plant starting building now, it will be years before it is online

They're being installed at a very rapid pace right now.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Again, it was to phase the dirtiest option (coal) out while we increase cleaner oprions to the point we can phase out the gas.

With our current needs, simply removing the fossil fuel option is not feasible.

Oh, definitely. Just removing fossil fuel dependent power supplies would be a disastrous thing, especially since nuclear energy does take time to spin up (in the long run I mean), but really, just having the proverbial foot in the door as it were with nuclear, while we're still using fossil fuels, along with wind and solar, would be the better benefit for everyone since then it would mean that virtually all bases are covered for power.

Until we get geothermal stuff down right.

 

[Desk trauma]

One thing I have wondered and haven't seen much info on is converting old coal fired plants to nuclear power plants, but I do imagine that would be something that would be difficult to do. And thus costly too.

Not difficult, Impossible. Totally different designs, no interchangeable parts and zero chance of regulatory sign off.

 

[Desk trauma]

So, bottom line: nuclear is definitely something that deserves to be given a hearing

The latest round of failures with building new nuclear capacity in the US guarantees its not going get one here.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Not difficult, Impossible. Totally different designs, no interchangeable parts and zero chance of regulatory sign off.

Except that people are putting forward the idea of attempting it. You never know it's impossible unless you try it.

Converting Coal Power Plants to Nuclear Gains Steam

Utility Explores Converting Coal Plants into Nuclear Power​

DOE Report Finds Hundreds of Retiring Coal Plant Sites Could Convert to Nuclear​

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The latest round of failures with building new nuclear capacity in the US guarantees its not going get one here.

Now is that because the buildings themselves failed, or because they were failed by outside influences? Because we do know that there is still a heavy anti-nuclear trend in the US who think that any nuclear plant is akin to the Springfield Nuclear Plant from The Simpsons.

Though it is nowhere near as bad as Germany...

 

[Desk trauma]

Now is that because the buildings themselves failed, or because they were failed by outside influences?

Of the two attempts at bringing new capacity on line that actually broke ground during our “nuclear renaissance”, VC Summer and Vogtle, the first failed entirely leaving all involved bankrupt or close to it, the second is coming online a decade late and $17 billion over budget.

No company is going to take that kind of risk again for a generation or more in the US.

 

[Desk trauma]

Except that people are putting forward the idea of attempting it.

People put forward all kinds of stupid infeasible ideas on a regular basis.

You never know it's impossible unless you try it.

It’s absurd in its face.