[CoachKandSportsguy]

Your Coming Summer of Blackouts - WSJ

One new variable this summer is the Environmental Protection Agency’s recently finalized Good Neighbor Plan, which requires fossil-fuel power plants in 22 states to reduce NOx emissions. NERC predicts power plants will comply by limiting hours of operation but warns they may need regulatory waivers in the event of a power crunch.

NERC - ERO Enterprise | Regional Entities

[Stu from NYC]

I do not understand why nuclear energy has not made a major comeback.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by Stu from NYC

I do not understand why nuclear energy has not made a major comeback.

It's trendy for sure. But remember the Fukushima disaster in 2011 - a single earthquake and resulting tsunami could destroy the plant, AND risk a nuclear explosion, and radioactivity resulting in massive deaths and disease in anyone within a few miles of the fallout. That basically puts the entire west coast out of the running for placement.

As for the east coast, whose back yard do you want to bury the waste in? Because - where there is nuclear energy, there is nuclear waste. And it has to be put somewhere.

Maybe somewhere in the Sahara desert - but that'd be pointless, since a power plant has to be in a reasonable distance to the homes and businesses it's powering.

So these are the reasons why it's not a popular option. I personally think nuclear energy could be amazing. But those particular risk make it a NIMBY option for me.

[Stu from NYC]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

It's trendy for sure. But remember the Fukushima disaster in 2011 - a single earthquake and resulting tsunami could destroy the plant, AND risk a nuclear explosion, and radioactivity resulting in massive deaths and disease in anyone within a few miles of the fallout. That basically puts the entire west coast out of the running for placement.

As for the east coast, whose back yard do you want to bury the waste in? Because - where there is nuclear energy, there is nuclear waste. And it has to be put somewhere.

Maybe somewhere in the Sahara desert - but that'd be pointless, since a power plant has to be in a reasonable distance to the homes and businesses it's powering.

So these are the reasons why it's not a popular option. I personally think nuclear energy could be amazing. But those particular risk make it a NIMBY option for me.

Go read up on how new nuclear plants are going to be much safer than those that came back and tell me if you still feel the same way.

[tuccillo]

No, it doesn't work that way. Nuclear power plants cannot go supercritical and explode. They can melt down and cause a host of problems but a nuclear explosion is simply not possible. Hydrogen gas can accumulate in the enclosure and explode but that is not the same as a nuclear explosion. The fuel is not enriched enough for a supercritical nuclear reaction. Please stop making false and ridiculous statements.

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

It's trendy for sure. But remember the Fukushima disaster in 2011 - a single earthquake and resulting tsunami could destroy the plant, AND risk a nuclear explosion, and radioactivity resulting in massive deaths and disease in anyone within a few miles of the fallout. That basically puts the entire west coast out of the running for placement.

As for the east coast, whose back yard do you want to bury the waste in? Because - where there is nuclear energy, there is nuclear waste. And it has to be put somewhere.

Maybe somewhere in the Sahara desert - but that'd be pointless, since a power plant has to be in a reasonable distance to the homes and businesses it's powering.

So these are the reasons why it's not a popular option. I personally think nuclear energy could be amazing. But those particular risk make it a NIMBY option for me.

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by Stu from NYC

Go read up on how new nuclear plants are going to be much safer than those that came back and tell me if you still feel the same way.

That's a big ask...

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

It's trendy for sure. But remember the Fukushima disaster in 2011 - a single earthquake and resulting tsunami could destroy the plant, AND risk a nuclear explosion, and radioactivity resulting in massive deaths and disease in anyone within a few miles of the fallout. That basically puts the entire west coast out of the running for placement.

As for the east coast, whose back yard do you want to bury the waste in? Because - where there is nuclear energy, there is nuclear waste. And it has to be put somewhere.

Maybe somewhere in the Sahara desert - but that'd be pointless, since a power plant has to be in a reasonable distance to the homes and businesses it's powering.

So these are the reasons why it's not a popular option. I personally think nuclear energy could be amazing. But those particular risk make it a NIMBY option for me.

Originally Posted by tuccillo

No, it doesn't work that way. Nuclear power plants cannot go supercritical and explode. They can melt down and cause a host of problems but a nuclear explosion is simply not possible. Hydrogen gas can accumulate in the enclosure and explode but that is not the same as a nuclear explosion. The fuel is not enriched enough for a supercritical nuclear reaction. Please stop making false and ridiculous statements.

So the part about an explosion - I'm wrong. Not a nuclear explosion. Okay fine. A different type of explosion. And still radiation that can kill tens of thousands of people, animals, and lay the land near it fallow and/or uninhabitable. Nothing "ridiculous" about it. I was not "false" I was incorrect about the type of explosion that could result. I was not incorrect about the fact that there could be an explosion. OR that radiation from damage to a nuclear power plant can cause radiation to kill people, animals, and be destructive to the land around it.

As for future power plants being safer - they said that about Chernobyl, before there was a meltdown and over 4000 people died. Now we have much more stringent regulations, which means the price to build another one has risen to the point of not being affordable, without significantly raising taxes to pay for it. Meanwhile, nuclear power has mostly fallen out of favor worldwide, replaced by solar, wind, and hydroelectricity. Except in the US, where so many people would rather burn their clothing for fuel than accept the fact that renewable energy is better for everyone, and for the planet, and for the air. Or maybe they know this and just don't care.

[Stu from NYC]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

So the part about an explosion - I'm wrong. Not a nuclear explosion. Okay fine. A different type of explosion. And still radiation that can kill tens of thousands of people, animals, and lay the land near it fallow and/or uninhabitable. Nothing "ridiculous" about it. I was not "false" I was incorrect about the type of explosion that could result. I was not incorrect about the fact that there could be an explosion. OR that radiation from damage to a nuclear power plant can cause radiation to kill people, animals, and be destructive to the land around it.

As for future power plants being safer - they said that about Chernobyl, before there was a meltdown and over 4000 people died. Now we have much more stringent regulations, which means the price to build another one has risen to the point of not being affordable, without significantly raising taxes to pay for it. Meanwhile, nuclear power has mostly fallen out of favor worldwide, replaced by solar, wind, and hydroelectricity. Except in the US, where so many people would rather burn their clothing for fuel than accept the fact that renewable energy is better for everyone, and for the planet, and for the air. Or maybe they know this and just don't care.

There have been some new developments in generating nuclear power that are now in the trial stage and from the lectures I have been to via a club in the villages it is much safer than in the past and in the event of a problem much easier to shut down.

Renewable agent to power everything in the planet might be coming but nowhere near yet. BTW France will shortly get almost all of its energy via nuclear.

[tuccillo]

How do you get this wrong? Chernobyl was an example of a very poor design and engineering. The flaws in the Chernobyl reactor have been well documented and it is not representative of the vast majority of reactor designs. Who exactly said Chernobyl was "safer"? Also, 4000 people did not die. About 30-40 died from the Chernobyl accident. Nobody died from the Three Mile Island accident and nobody died from the Fukushima accident. Nice try walking back your false statement. Again, please stop making false and ridiculous statements.

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

So the part about an explosion - I'm wrong. Not a nuclear explosion. Okay fine. A different type of explosion. And still radiation that can kill tens of thousands of people, animals, and lay the land near it fallow and/or uninhabitable. Nothing "ridiculous" about it. I was not "false" I was incorrect about the type of explosion that could result. I was not incorrect about the fact that there could be an explosion. OR that radiation from damage to a nuclear power plant can cause radiation to kill people, animals, and be destructive to the land around it.

As for future power plants being safer - they said that about Chernobyl, before there was a meltdown and over 4000 people died. Now we have much more stringent regulations, which means the price to build another one has risen to the point of not being affordable, without significantly raising taxes to pay for it. Meanwhile, nuclear power has mostly fallen out of favor worldwide, replaced by solar, wind, and hydroelectricity. Except in the US, where so many people would rather burn their clothing for fuel than accept the fact that renewable energy is better for everyone, and for the planet, and for the air. Or maybe they know this and just don't care.

[toeser]

Originally Posted by Stu from NYC

I do not understand why nuclear energy has not made a major comeback.

Politics combined with rank stupidity. There are people who think our country can be run solely with wind and solar. It cannot.

[toeser]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

It's trendy for sure. But remember the Fukushima disaster in 2011 - a single earthquake and resulting tsunami could destroy the plant, AND risk a nuclear explosion, and radioactivity resulting in massive deaths and disease in anyone within a few miles of the fallout. That basically puts the entire west coast out of the running for placement.

As for the east coast, whose back yard do you want to bury the waste in? Because - where there is nuclear energy, there is nuclear waste. And it has to be put somewhere.

Maybe somewhere in the Sahara desert - but that'd be pointless, since a power plant has to be in a reasonable distance to the homes and businesses it's powering.

So these are the reasons why it's not a popular option. I personally think nuclear energy could be amazing. But those particular risk make it a NIMBY option for me.

A scientist employed by Fukushima had warned management that the power plant was at risk to a tsunami and gave them a plan to shore it up to withstand such an event. Since that would cost a lot of money, the company fired him.

Don't blame the technology. Blame managers who take shortcuts to increase profits. The BP oil spill comes to mind.

[Joe C.]

No matter what type of energy we use to produce electricity, there will always be a negative side to it.
If we were to build wind farms, people would bemoan it when the wind stops blowing or slows down.
If we do solar power, they would complain when the days are cloudy and not enough electricity is being produced.
Coal is dirty but can be cleaned up.
Oil, well, there can always be a major spill somewhere.

IMHO, we should use our best resources to suit the area which is being served.
Hydroelectric is probably the best, cleanest and most efficient, but can only be used where geography lets it work.

[Worldseries27]

This is the future. The rest is details.

[ehendersonjr]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

So the part about an explosion - I'm wrong. Not a nuclear explosion. Okay fine. A different type of explosion. And still radiation that can kill tens of thousands of people, animals, and lay the land near it fallow and/or uninhabitable. Nothing "ridiculous" about it. I was not "false" I was incorrect about the type of explosion that could result. I was not incorrect about the fact that there could be an explosion. OR that radiation from damage to a nuclear power plant can cause radiation to kill people, animals, and be destructive to the land around it.

As for future power plants being safer - they said that about Chernobyl, before there was a meltdown and over 4000 people died. Now we have much more stringent regulations, which means the price to build another one has risen to the point of not being affordable, without significantly raising taxes to pay for it. Meanwhile, nuclear power has mostly fallen out of favor worldwide, replaced by solar, wind, and hydroelectricity. Except in the US, where so many people would rather burn their clothing for fuel than accept the fact that renewable energy is better for everyone, and for the planet, and for the air. Or maybe they know this and just don't care.

The U.S. Navy has been operating mobile nuclear plants for decades without issue. American nuclear-powered warships have even provided power to coastal cities in times of natural calamities that interrupted normal power generation.
That said, we shouldn’t drive because we might die in a horrible accident. We shouldn’t build tall buildings because we might fall off one. And we should limit eating because of the threat of food poisoning.
Those who base their activities on fear, never accomplish anything.

[MandoMan]

Originally Posted by CoachKandSportsguy

Your Coming Summer of Blackouts - WSJ

One new variable this summer is the Environmental Protection Agency’s recently finalized Good Neighbor Plan, which requires fossil-fuel power plants in 22 states to reduce NOx emissions. NERC predicts power plants will comply by limiting hours of operation but warns they may need regulatory waivers in the event of a power crunch.

NERC - ERO Enterprise | Regional Entities

Maybe this is a good time to install a couple solar panels that will run a couple fans and an LED light or two and recharge your iPad and phone.