Why I advocate for Nuclear Power

[Loren Pechtel]

The USA power grid refutes your claim. Along with thatnthere is research into low tremperature superconductors for electric power trasmission.

You realize we lose a lot of power into heating up the grid wires?

Also, nukes need a source of colant water.

As do coal and oil. I don't know about gas turbines.

As to cost in our Southwest utilities have built working solar staions using off the shelf small inexpensive inverters in parallel. The elctrical equipment to connect to the grid is off the shelf catalog items. Here in Washington as I posted before, a partialy completed abandoned nuke plant can be seen driving to the coast. It was too expemsive to show a return on investment. Same with a wind farm, electtricity was too cheap to keep it going.

Both have the storage problem. No big deal so long as they're only a quite small percent of the total, but a big deal as the fraction goes up.

For 24/7 coverage nukes have a place, but are third behind natuaral gas and solar.

Natural gas = global warming, and we will run out of it in time.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

From the link I posted on bilby's other thread, in the USA percentage of renewable energy is increasing.

Renewable, cleaner fossil, and then nuclear. The total cost of nuclear over generations is high, which is why it is not happening.

"Cleaner fossil" is only because we don't count the real dangers.

Nuke is much safer than fossil fuel if you look at all the risks.

 

[fromderinside]

The nuclear argument is losing because people are distracted by hooks to things they don't understand but do understand that what they don't understand is related to threats to humanity.

Radiation is an issue. If bombs kill by radioactive radiation then the empty headed wonder why doesn't irradiation of persons to detect disease not also kill humans. If bombs are bad then why aren't slight increases in radiation caused by industry also bad?

Solution? Well advertised programs to reduce background radiation, programs to eliminate bombs, alternative effective diagnostics that don't depend on irradiation, etc. If one follows fossil fuels one finds it also increases background radiation levels. Tie fossil fuels to the feard problem then get the troggies to take another look at something that reduces both radiation and green house gases.

IOW lump fossil fuels in the irradiation problem then show how nuke power will overall reduce both problems. Make it a comparison between Carbon 14 and plutonium 241.

 

[bilby]

The nuclear argument is losing because people are distracted by hooks to things they don't understand but do understand that what they don't understand is related to threats to humanity.

Radiation is an issue. If bombs kill by radioactive radiation then the empty headed wonder why doesn't irradiation of persons to detect disease not also kill humans. If bombs are bad then why aren't slight increases in radiation caused by industry also bad?

Solution? Well advertised programs to reduce background radiation, programs to eliminate bombs, alternative effective diagnostics that don't depend on irradiation, etc. If one follows fossil fuels one finds it also increases background radiation levels. Tie fossil fuels to the feard problem then get the troggies to take another look at something that reduces both radiation and green house gases.

IOW lump fossil fuels in the irradiation problem then show how nuke power will overall reduce both problems. Make it a comparison between Carbon 14 and plutonium 241.

Coal fired power plants already emit FAR more radioactive material than nuclear plants; They even emit FAR more radioactive uranium isotopes than nuclear plants. Carbon 14 ain't the half of it.

But weren't you the one who was just arguing that educating people was futile, because they are not listening?

 

[steve_bank]

Yes what amounts to fear mongering and prpaganda affects perception. That being said, there have three major events in the USA, Russia, and Japan. All three were preventable in hind sight. I know from expeince multiple failures on a single system of very low probabil;ies can occur. In one case on a commercial jet generators on both engines faild, then the battery backup failed. A very klow probability but it happened. The long term environmental risks are lower than fossil, but thye effects of a catastophic failure are not zero. I was a reliability enginer in a prievious incarnation.

I know from commercial aviation experience that dewpite intense verification tests, bugs get thjrough. If you are pro nuke would you raise kids near a nuke plant?

Our economy is driven by profit and return on investment. A major reason why large scale nukes are not happening because of cost and uncertaininty of being profitable. It is a simple paradaigm, if there is profit to be made at reasonable risk it happens. Regulations can be an issue, but nukes are fundamentally more expenive in terms of total cost of ownership over the service life of a nuke plant.

 

[fromderinside]

But weren't you the one who was just arguing that educating people was futile, because they are not listening?

Yes. I still am arguing that point.

What I'm saying is a change in strategy would be appropriate to reset the discussion. Nuclear power is cleaner than fossil power and nuclear power is less radioactive than is fossil power.

One can set the cleaner aside and just argue nuclear power is safer than fossil power to everyday living and health AND by advocating reductions in background levels of radiation as well one gets to be on the side of the good guys in the view of those low information types.

Now double down by continuously advocating reductions in both nuclear weapons and in overall radiation levels in power generation and becoming a little more ethical when arguing where to put plants and how to treat waste an you have some chance of getting on the good side of opinion makers.


I want to win the argument and cold logic won't do it unless one treats apple as apples. Playing both sides is what cost AEC existence. Now all you need to point out is that the ones on the side of evil are poth polluting and increasing risk from radiation much worse than are those advocating use on clean nuclear energy located away from places were mistakes can be disastrous such as near water or water tables. Its much safer and more cost effective to bring water to power plants than it is to place water plants near water.

If one wants to solve the transmission cost problem one should pair nuclear energy with rare earth and low temperature conductivity technology networks.

 

[bigfield]

But weren't you the one who was just arguing that educating people was futile, because they are not listening?

Yes. I still am arguing that point.

What I'm saying is a change in strategy would be appropriate to reset the discussion. Nuclear power is cleaner than fossil power and nuclear power is less radioactive than is fossil power.

One can set the cleaner aside and just argue nuclear power is safer than fossil power to everyday living and health AND by advocating reductions in background levels of radiation as well one gets to be on the side of the good guys in the view of those low information types.

Now double down by continuously advocating reductions in both nuclear weapons and in overall radiation levels in power generation and becoming a little more ethical when arguing where to put plants and how to treat waste an you have some chance of getting on the good side of opinion makers.


I want to win the argument and cold logic won't do it unless one treats apple as apples. Playing both sides is what cost AEC existence. Now all you need to point out is that the ones on the side of evil are poth polluting and increasing risk from radiation much worse than are those advocating use on clean nuclear energy located away from places were mistakes can be disastrous such as near water or water tables. Its much safer and more cost effective to bring water to power plants than it is to place water plants near water.

If one wants to solve the transmission cost problem one should pair nuclear energy with rare earth and low temperature conductivity technology networks.

In order to persuade the opponents of nuclear power, you must at least know their reasons:

From the Australian Greens' website:

No nuclear power, weapons or mining. Future generations must not be burdened with toxic nuclear waste for which there is no safe disposal.

The Australian Greens believe that:

1. The world should be free of nuclear weapons and the nuclear fuel chain.
2. There is a strong link between the mining and export of uranium and nuclear weapons proliferation.
3. The use of nuclear weapons, nuclear accidents or attacks on reactors pose unacceptable risk of catastrophic consequences.
4. Future generations must not be burdened with dangerous levels of radioactive waste.
5. Nuclear power is not a safe, clean, timely, economic or practical solution to reducing global greenhouse gas emissions.
6. Australia's reliance on the United States nuclear weapons 'umbrella' lends our bases, ports and infrastructure to the US nuclear war fighting apparatus, and is in conflict with our national sovereignty.

To win them over to nuclear power generation, you would need to:
1. Convince them that the danger posed by waste is small and easily manageable
2. Convince them that a catastrophic nuclear accident is extremely unlikely
3. Convince them that a terrorist attack leading to catastrophic meltdown is virtually impossible
4. Convince them that nuclear is both more timely and economic than a grid based on renewables and storage

To environmentalist like the Australian Greens, It doesn't matter that coal is more radioactive than nuclear--they are opposed to both technologies--and you would be wasting your time pursuing such an argument.

 

[fromderinside]

First thought Are greens really a thing?

Groups who get no more than 6 percent of offices are not going to be power brokers.

There are a lot more information lite people than there ever will be greenies. Bullies and propagandists can sway information lite people ergo they can be powerful.

So no, one doesn't need to know their reasons. One only needs to know how to manipulate them to fall in line.

Good propaganda appeals to things close to one's consciousness like food, parties, girls, boys, sex, .... If one wants to win one choses priring that are going to win. Convincing greenies with whatever argument one can muster has no possibility of winning. Convincing those ewho want fame, association with fame, approval by the famous can lead to a winning combination.

The example is that if elites can put it out that knives are not fashionable, are actually evil and the cause of your lose of freedoms knives can be controlled. If elites can be convinced that the problem is radiation then the elites need to be convinced that organic fuels - I'm including plats the produce oil here for safety's sake - =cause greater increases in radiation than to nuclear power. And If one really wanta to slap them in the face one can pair that little argument with the fact that organic fuels are much more a hazard to the environment, to climate, and to one's well being than iare nuclear power plants.

One cuts any argument about the lethality of nuclear weapons by pushing to bring the number of weapons toward some minimum number, hopefully zero and by implementing programs to cut back background radiation to level extant before the industrial age.

Going this route should even overcome the cheap argument since it is patently obvious that nuclear power is much more economically manageable than is organic power.

Get the elites on board and the "I don't trust antilecktuals" crowd will fall in line behind the clear winner.

 

[bigfield]

First thought Are greens really a thing?

Groups who get no more than 6 percent of offices are not going to be power brokers.

The Australian Greens held the balance of power from 2010-2013 and negotiated the country's first price on carbon.

 

[fromderinside]

One for you. Why is there this persisting stereotype that 'straliands are just a bunch of prisoner's children ....

Still I shoulda known given all the actors, singers, comedians, artists, philosophers and biologists who've come from there to 'merica. Thank ewe vera much.

Gun control too. Impressive.

Is there an argument for tribalism in there somewhere?

Though I think you can see where I come from with our antiquated two party system housed in a business model.

 

[steve_bank]

Such a coordinated national govt plan could never happen in the USA.

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

Nuclear power in France is located in France BellevilleBellevilleBlayaisBlayaisBrennilisBrennilisBugeyBugeyCattenomCattenomChinonChinonChoozChoozCivauxCivauxCruasCruasDampierreDampierreFessenheimFessenheimFlamanvilleFlamanvilleGolfechGolfechGravelinesGravelinesMarcoule/PhénixMarcoule/PhénixNogentNogentPaluelPaluelPenlyPenlySaint-AlbanSaint-AlbanSaint- LaurentSaint- LaurentSuperphénixSuperphénixTricastinTricastin
Fission-electric stations in France (view)
Location dot blue.svg Active plants
Location dot orange.svg Closed plants

Electricity production in France has been dominated by nuclear power since the early 1980s with a large portion of that power exported today.
thermofossil
hydroelectric
nuclear
Other renewables
Nuclear power is a major source of energy in France, with a 40% share of energy consumption in 2015.[1] Nuclear power is the largest source of electricity in the country, with a generation of 416.8 TWh, or 76.3%[2] of the country's total production of 546 TWh, the highest percentage in the world.[3]

Électricité de France (EDF) – the country's main electricity generation and distribution company – manages the country's 58 power reactors.[4] EDF is substantially owned by the French Government, with around 85% shares in government hands.[5]

As of 2012, France's electricity price to household customers is the seventh-cheapest amongst the 28 members of the European Union, and also the seventh-cheapest to industrial consumers, with a rate of €0.14 per kWh to households and €0.07 per kWh to industrial consumers.[6] France was the biggest electricity exporter in the EU in 2012, exporting 45TWh of electricity to its neighbours.[7] With very inclement weather, when demand exceeds supply, France infrequently becomes a net-importer of electricity in these rare cases, because of the lack of more flexible generating plants.[8][9]

France's nuclear power industry has been called "a success story" that has put the nation "ahead of the world" in terms of providing cheap energy with low CO2 emissions.[.....

As a direct result of the 1973 oil crisis, on 6 March 1974 Prime Minister Pierre Messmer unexpectedly announced what became known as the 'Messmer Plan', a huge nuclear power program aimed at generating all of France's electricity from nuclear power.[13] At the time of the oil crisis most of France's electricity came from foreign oil. Nuclear power allowed France to compensate for its lack of indigenous energy resources by applying its strengths in heavy engineering.[14][15] The situation was summarized in a slog....


Following the 2011 Fukushima I nuclear accidents, the head of France's nuclear safety agency has said that France needs to upgrade the protection of vital functions in all its nuclear reactors to avoid a disaster in the event of a natural calamity, adding there was no need to close any plants"

And as we say in engineeringm, shit happens.

'...In 2016, following a discovery at Flamanville Nuclear Power Plant, about 400 large steel forgings manufactured by Le Creusot Forge since 1965 have been found to have carbon-content irregularities that weakened the steel. A widespread programme of reactor checks was started involving a progressive programme of reactor shutdowns,...'

 

[James Brown]

 

[Loren Pechtel]

View attachment 20795

The boss is actually correct here. There's no way that can be anything like zero risk. If you can power a small city from that thing the energy density must be phenomenal. Even if somehow we have 100% conversion efficiency (and we must or it promptly overheats) it must be using superconductors. If they quench, kaboom.

High energy density is by itself a risk. Nuke plants should be out in the boonies--but so should fossil fuel plants. Wind and photovoltaic are low enough density that I wouldn't mind having one nearby.

 

[bilby]

High energy density is only a risk if a rapid release can be triggered by a possible event.

If you are using Dilbert cartoons to advise your opinion of the risks of any power source, then you probably shouldn't be listened to.

The point of the cartoon, which went right over your head, was that the anti-nuclear lobby won't accept ANY level of risk - Not even ZERO - because risk is their rationalisation, not their reason, for a religious opposition to nuclear power.

The main source of anti-nuclear lobbying, going back to the '60s, is an alliance between fossil fuel companies scared of losing market share, and environmentalists scared of a population explosion in the third world - the completely erroneous belief that improving the quality of life in the third world by providing cheap energy would cause birthrates to increase, seemed like a compelling argument to neo-Malthusians in the mid 20th Century, although we now know that birth rates are negatively correlated with wealth, and that their fears were not only unfounded but directly counterfactual.

 

[James Brown]

 

[James Brown]

 

[Loren Pechtel]

High energy density is only a risk if a rapid release can be triggered by a possible event.

Enough energy density, there is a way to trigger a rapid release.

If you are using Dilbert cartoons to advise your opinion of the risks of any power source, then you probably shouldn't be listened to.

No, I was saying he got it wrong--there's no way that device can be 100% safe.

The point of the cartoon, which went right over your head, was that the anti-nuclear lobby won't accept ANY level of risk - Not even ZERO - because risk is their rationalisation, not their reason, for a religious opposition to nuclear power.

No, the anti's think the risk estimates are wrong.

The main source of anti-nuclear lobbying, going back to the '60s, is an alliance between fossil fuel companies scared of losing market share, and environmentalists scared of a population explosion in the third world - the completely erroneous belief that improving the quality of life in the third world by providing cheap energy would cause birthrates to increase, seemed like a compelling argument to neo-Malthusians in the mid 20th Century, although we now know that birth rates are negatively correlated with wealth, and that their fears were not only unfounded but directly counterfactual.

An awful lot of the environmentalists take a only-small-is-good approach. Nuke is big, it must be bad. Solar is small, it's good.

 

[bilby]

Enough energy density, there is a way to trigger a rapid release.

Yes, but not necessarily a plausible way to do so accidentally, or even negligently. Modern reactor designs simply don't allow this to occur. Even Chernobyl style RBMK reactors can't do any worse than melt down and catch fire - they can't explode like an atom bomb. With suitable containment, such an incident need not result in any injuries or fatalities (as we saw with the 1969 vintage Fukushima Daiichi). Modern designs can't even do that - the worst case scenario is that they need several months to get re-started after an unexpected emergency stop.

Natural uranium has a very high energy density indeed; But nobody is going to accidentally pass it though a cascade of centrifuges, accidentally assemble it into accurately machined pieces, with accidentally precision made explosive charges, in an accidentally suitable casing, and then accidentally set off the bomb they just accidentally built.

It's very difficult to get the energy out of uranium (and even more difficult for Thorium), so despite the very high energy densities involved, these materials are very safe indeed.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Enough energy density, there is a way to trigger a rapid release.

Yes, but not necessarily a plausible way to do so accidentally, or even negligently. Modern reactor designs simply don't allow this to occur. Even Chernobyl style RBMK reactors can't do any worse than melt down and catch fire - they can't explode like an atom bomb. With suitable containment, such an incident need not result in any injuries or fatalities (as we saw with the 1969 vintage Fukushima Daiichi). Modern designs can't even do that - the worst case scenario is that they need several months to get re-started after an unexpected emergency stop.

Natural uranium has a very high energy density indeed; But nobody is going to accidentally pass it though a cascade of centrifuges, accidentally assemble it into accurately machined pieces, with accidentally precision made explosive charges, in an accidentally suitable casing, and then accidentally set off the bomb they just accidentally built.

It's very difficult to get the energy out of uranium (and even more difficult for Thorium), so despite the very high energy densities involved, these materials are very safe indeed.

Potential energy in the form of uranium or the like isn't a big issue for the very reason you say. I'm talking about the energy that actually is flowing through his device, though--an accident certainly can liberate that.

(And you're wrong about Chernobyl. The reactor went prompt critical and exploded. That wasn't merely a meltdown.)

 

[bilby]

Enough energy density, there is a way to trigger a rapid release.

Yes, but not necessarily a plausible way to do so accidentally, or even negligently. Modern reactor designs simply don't allow this to occur. Even Chernobyl style RBMK reactors can't do any worse than melt down and catch fire - they can't explode like an atom bomb. With suitable containment, such an incident need not result in any injuries or fatalities (as we saw with the 1969 vintage Fukushima Daiichi). Modern designs can't even do that - the worst case scenario is that they need several months to get re-started after an unexpected emergency stop.

Natural uranium has a very high energy density indeed; But nobody is going to accidentally pass it though a cascade of centrifuges, accidentally assemble it into accurately machined pieces, with accidentally precision made explosive charges, in an accidentally suitable casing, and then accidentally set off the bomb they just accidentally built.

It's very difficult to get the energy out of uranium (and even more difficult for Thorium), so despite the very high energy densities involved, these materials are very safe indeed.

Potential energy in the form of uranium or the like isn't a big issue for the very reason you say. I'm talking about the energy that actually is flowing through his device, though--an accident certainly can liberate that.

His device is fictional, and has whatever properties the author devides it has.

(And you're wrong about Chernobyl. The reactor went prompt critical and exploded. That wasn't merely a meltdown.)

There was no nuclear explosion. The only explosions at Chernobyl were a steam explosion, and a possible simultaneous hydrogen explosion, and they occurred some time after the power excursion due to the reactor suddenly going critical, partly due to positive void co-efficient, and mostly due to the complete withdrawal of the control rods, followed by a cack-handed attempt to reinsert them, which created further coolant voids and actually increased the reaction rate.

The total explosive power was approximately equivalent to one tonne of TNT - far less than the minimum you would get from a nuclear explosion. The reaction got hot very fast (doubling in milliseconds by the time the core ceased to exist as a unit, not the microseconds you would find in a fission bomb), but it wasn't a detonation - that came (seconds) later from the steam.

Chernobyl was a horrible design, and even so required some mind-bogglingly stupid actions by the unqualified persons who were operating it in order to fail catastrophically. But it didn't explode like an atomic bomb. It exploded just like a conventional industrial plant or boiler will explode if abused.