[Whatnext]

Originally Posted by biker1

Fukushima was actually just bad luck/timing. They knew they had a vulnerability with backup power generation and had planned to address the problem in the near future. Unfortunately, the tsunami took out the backup power generation they had at the plant before they could build a more hardened backup facility. It turns out that only about 50 people have died from the three nuclear accidents. This is far less than the deaths attributed to other sources of electricity. Your average person probably doesn't understand this. The rapid increase in nuclear power plant regulations in the US in the 70's caused an explosion in the cost and time to build nuclear power plants and effectively killed the industry. Also, the Simpsons didn't help from a public relations point of view.

The actual deaths from different cancers ran into thousands with those who were exposed to the radio active fallout at Chernobyl. Later a spike in birth defects were also attributed to the disaster.

[SaucyJim]

Originally Posted by elevatorman

Sheldon tried this and got busted.

But he wasn’t crazy. His mother had him tested.

[defrey12]

Originally Posted by Win1894

We really missed the boat on nuclear power generation. We need a national effort in the US that would be on a scale similar to the NASA program the 60s to land man on the moon. Sadly, we focus developmental efforts on inefficient, stop-gap sources of power like solar and wind, which are intermittent, low energy density, short lived, and litter the landscape. We have enough naturally occurring Uranium and Thorium to meet the total energy needs of our country for a thousand years. Fourth and even fifth generation nuclear power is safe, totally green (non polluting), and easily fits into the existing electrical power distribution infrastructure. All it would take is a national commitment between government and industry (like NASA) and, most importantly, the will of the people. The technology to make this happen already exists and is being further developed in the case of fifth generation reactors. Shamefully, we haven't had effective energy leadership in this country for 40 years.

Wish I'd written that. That's about the time "identity politics" entered the landscape...the Green Movement. Too bad they don't understand science and economics.

[PlentyOfFish]

Originally Posted by Win1894

We really missed the boat on nuclear power generation. We need a national effort in the US that would be on a scale similar to the NASA program the 60s to land man on the moon. Sadly, we focus developmental efforts on inefficient, stop-gap sources of power like solar and wind, which are intermittent, low energy density, short lived, and litter the landscape. We have enough naturally occurring Uranium and Thorium to meet the total energy needs of our country for a thousand years. Fourth and even fifth generation nuclear power is safe, totally green (non polluting), and easily fits into the existing electrical power distribution infrastructure. All it would take is a national commitment between government and industry (like NASA) and, most importantly, the will of the people. The technology to make this happen already exists and is being further developed in the case of fifth generation reactors. Shamefully, we haven't had effective energy leadership in this country for 40 years.

Nuclear is our future.
AI and crypto use SO much electricity that we will HAVE to build more nuclear reactors..
China is building 30 unclear reactors right now...the US? Zero
The problem is our government.
China who is WAY ahead of the US in energy productivity.
China uses government to speed things up and the US uses government to slow things down..

This is why a certain congresswoman bought a water treatment stock. ( weird i thought ) NOW I KNOW WHY.
You need water to cool nuclear energy AND NDB's ( batteries that use nuclear waste) are the future

[rsmurano]

I worked for 2 electric/gas/fuel cell utilities for 3 decades. 30 years ago, we had a subsidiary that was working on natural gas fuel cells. The engineer showed me a fuel cell that was the size of a shoe box that would power a house. Their plan was to convert their natural gas customers with fuel cells at the street and use the existing electric line going to the house.
The by product of the fuel cell was water. Not sure what happened since I left that company 25 years ago. I know they are pursuing hydrogen fuel cells but that fuel isn’t readily available at the home

[jeepnjt]

Salt Lake City has may data centers. They are looking at adding these because of the massive power consumption of AI. When I started in IT a 2' x 4' computer rack consumed ~4kw. I have asks as high as 1 MW (1024 kw) for a single rack now. Nuclear is the best hope for powering that much. Google Microsoft and 3 Mile Island.

[Justputt]

eVinci is a 5MWe (not 50) and operates at full power for 8 years. eVinci™ Microreactor | Westinghouse Nuclear

The animations are wishful thinking. The reactor building of all nuclear power plants is required to be designed to withstand a direct impact of the largest commercial jet fully loaded and fully fueled. Designed for worse case ground motion, terrorist attack, etc. etc.

While this reactor has only 19.75% enriched fuel, that is significantly higher than in traditional PWR and BWR units. Moving spent fuel will be a terrorist nightmare.

The cost of $80M is also wishful thinking when you add the cost of security, power distribution, and other infrastructure. Additionally, one of the main drivers of cost has been the cost of money, and once the intervenors (anti-nukes) discovered they could limit/kill nuclear power by dragging out construction for year$ costing billions, they'd find a sympathetic judge and keep litigating the same things at every site over and over. When ANO Unit 1 was built it took 6 years and less than $1B. Contrast that with Midland Nuclear plant that was to have cost <1$B but intervenors dragged construction out. The plant was 85% complete, 13 years behind schedule and over 20 times the original cost estimate when in 1984 Consumers Power canceled the project!! Compare that to Consumers Power sister plant Palisades that was completed in just 4.5 years at a total cost on $630M. IMO, nuclear will be heavily limited until the regulatory situation limits intervenors and requires surety bonds WHEN the intervenors lose in court, which they mostly do lose!

[Elixir34]

NOT two years to refuel a commercial reactor. Average three weeks. I worked at a plant that was refueled in 17 days. Then it ran at 100% power for 710 consecutive days before the next refueling.

[BostonRich]

I know it once was a pipe dream, but this actually seems small enough to power railroad locomotives. That would be an incredible game changer in transportation. Ironically, it would bring back steam powered locomotives!

[Caymus]

What is the output of one that powers a submarine?

[NewRealms]

How about the release of the Tesla type energy that has been suppressed for more than 100 years? This documentary was very interesting:
The Lost Century with Dr. Steven Greer.
The Lost Century and How To Reclaim It - Aliens, UFOs, Drones - Steven Greer

[ton80]

Originally Posted by rsmurano

I worked for 2 electric/gas/fuel cell utilities for 3 decades. 30 years ago, we had a subsidiary that was working on natural gas fuel cells. The engineer showed me a fuel cell that was the size of a shoe box that would power a house. Their plan was to convert their natural gas customers with fuel cells at the street and use the existing electric line going to the house.
The by product of the fuel cell was water. Not sure what happened since I left that company 25 years ago. I know they are pursuing hydrogen fuel cells but that fuel isn’t readily available at the home

The Carbon in NG also is consumed and released as CO2

[Win1894]

Originally Posted by Whatnext

The actual deaths from different cancers ran into thousands with those who were exposed to the radio active fallout at Chernobyl. Later a spike in birth defects were also attributed to the disaster.

I also heard rumors to this effect including wild speculations about the tens of thousands that were projected to develop cancer. None has borne out with any degree of scientific scrutiny. These projections were based on the "linear no threshold model" that has since been proven wrong. The only accepted effect was a slight uptick in leukemia and thyroid cancer which, fortunately are relatively successfully treatable cancers. After forty years the scientists monitoring the situation believe that any cancers directly linked to Chernobyl are not detectible beyond background levels with any degree of scientific certainty. This goes even for the "liquidators", the term used for those who worked early on in the initial clean up effort. These workers were very closely followed, even now 40 years after the disaster. I could go on but will leave it at that.

[RoadTowed]

Originally Posted by Win1894

We really missed the boat on nuclear power generation. We need a national effort in the US that would be on a scale similar to the NASA program the 60s to land man on the moon. Sadly, we focus developmental efforts on inefficient, stop-gap sources of power like solar and wind, which are intermittent, low energy density, short lived, and litter the landscape. We have enough naturally occurring Uranium and Thorium to meet the total energy needs of our country for a thousand years. Fourth and even fifth generation nuclear power is safe, totally green (non polluting), and easily fits into the existing electrical power distribution infrastructure. All it would take is a national commitment between government and industry (like NASA) and, most importantly, the will of the people. The technology to make this happen already exists and is being further developed in the case of fifth generation reactors. Shamefully, we haven't had effective energy leadership in this country for 40 years.

We were there in the 80s.
Forwarded by President Regan.
Three mile island incident panic killed the initiative.
Then the coal crowd came on strong and unfortunately we're still stuck there.

[biker1]

Still stuck with coal? Not really. Coal accounts for less than 20% of electricity generation in the US.

Originally Posted by RoadTowed

We were there in the 80s.
Forwarded by President Regan.
Three mile island incident panic killed the initiative.
Then the coal crowd came on strong and unfortunately we're still stuck there.