Science Forum

Science Forum

  1. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    14798
    16 Jun '19 19:39
    @sonhouse said
    @Metal-Brain

    Oh yeah. Tell that to your great grandchildren.
    YouTube
  2. Joined
    20 Oct '06
    Moves
    7569
    17 Jun '19 14:10
    @sonhouse said
    The point of the piece was reliability. Nuke works no matter the weather while solar, wind and such needs energy storage as part and parcel of the deal to run reliably.
    I imagine only geothermal would be as reliable as nuclear.
    That is separate from the nasty problem of waste fuel and storage of that spent nuclear fuel.
    I see some work done where the fuel is incorporat ...[text shortened]... soviets decades ago. I think something like 75 used reactors dumped overboard that way. Real smart.
    Nuclear is more dangerous than coal? I highly doubt it.
  3. Joined
    20 Oct '06
    Moves
    7569
    17 Jun '19 14:141 edit
    @metal-brain said
    Nope. This article says the government subsidies nuclear waste storage. It is too expensive in the long term.

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-06-14/[WORD TOO LONG]
    It can be recycled to generate more energy. But because of the fear mongering, it's not been developed in the US.

    If we took all the nuclear waste that was sitting around in the USA today from the past 50 years of running reactors and recycled it, we could use it to power the entire USA for about 93 years without mining anything else. Discussion of recycling waste

    https://whatisnuclear.com/factoids.html
  4. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    14798
    18 Jun '19 03:42
    @wildgrass said
    It can be recycled to generate more energy. But because of the fear mongering, it's not been developed in the US.

    If we took all the nuclear waste that was sitting around in the USA today from the past 50 years of running reactors and recycled it, we could use it to power the entire USA for about 93 years without mining anything else. Discussion of recycling waste

    https://whatisnuclear.com/factoids.html
    Breeder reactors? How many are in operation? There must be a reason why.

    "this factoid would require much to be done in order to actually happen"

    What is the obstacle? Back to reality.
  5. Joined
    20 Oct '06
    Moves
    7569
    18 Jun '19 04:05
    @metal-brain said
    Breeder reactors? How many are in operation? There must be a reason why.

    "this factoid would require much to be done in order to actually happen"

    What is the obstacle? Back to reality.
    HA. You pasted the link, read and copied the first sentence but didn't read any further? I'm not surprised. Your quote continued...

    "...Enough nuclear power plants to power the entire USA would need to be built. "
  6. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    14798
    18 Jun '19 06:30
    @wildgrass said
    HA. You pasted the link, read and copied the first sentence but didn't read any further? I'm not surprised. Your quote continued...

    "...Enough nuclear power plants to power the entire USA would need to be built. "
    No, I am referring to the link you posted. Furthermore, that is not my quote.

    Nuclear is more dangerous than coal. Saying otherwise does not make it so.
  7. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52874
    18 Jun '19 11:49
    @Metal-Brain
    NASA says otherwise:

    https://climate.nasa.gov/news/903/coal-and-gas-are-far-more-harmful-than-nuclear-power/
  8. Joined
    20 Oct '06
    Moves
    7569
    18 Jun '19 14:43
    @metal-brain said
    No, I am referring to the link you posted. Furthermore, that is not my quote.

    Nuclear is more dangerous than coal. Saying otherwise does not make it so.
    Of course we need a lot more nuclear infrastructure to recycle waste. You only quoted the part about it being difficult, but obviously storing waste is also problematic as you've pointed out. Recycling it is a far better option.
  9. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    14798
    19 Jun '19 06:16
    @wildgrass said
    Of course we need a lot more nuclear infrastructure to recycle waste. You only quoted the part about it being difficult, but obviously storing waste is also problematic as you've pointed out. Recycling it is a far better option.
    What quote? You are thinking of someone else. If I quoted what you claim show my post with that quote or stop pretending I did.
  10. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    14798
    19 Jun '19 06:20
    @sonhouse said
    @Metal-Brain
    NASA says otherwise:

    https://climate.nasa.gov/news/903/coal-and-gas-are-far-more-harmful-than-nuclear-power/
    But there are facts that prove NASA wrong. Global warming theory is not a fact.

    https://principia-scientific.org/climate-drives-carbon-dioxide-levels-not-the-other-way-round/
  11. Joined
    20 Oct '06
    Moves
    7569
    19 Jun '19 12:48
    @metal-brain said
    Breeder reactors? How many are in operation? There must be a reason why.

    "this factoid would require much to be done in order to actually happen"

    What is the obstacle? Back to reality.
  12. Joined
    20 Oct '06
    Moves
    7569
    20 Jun '19 17:151 edit
    @metal-brain said
    What quote? You are thinking of someone else. If I quoted what you claim show my post with that quote or stop pretending I did.
    If you want to recycle nuclear waste, which I think is a great idea, you'll need more nuclear facilities. Invest in the infrastructure and your waste problem becomes a clean energy solution. That's what needs to be done and it isn't difficult.
  13. Joined
    20 Oct '06
    Moves
    7569
    24 Jun '19 20:00
    @metal-brain said
    Breeder reactors? How many are in operation? There must be a reason why.

    "this factoid would require much to be done in order to actually happen"

    What is the obstacle? Back to reality.
    Twelve states have banned the construction of nuclear plants until the waste problem is resolved. But there is no enthusiasm for building the proposed waste depository. In fact, the Obama administration pulled the plug on the one high-level waste depository that was under construction at Nevada’s Yucca Mountain.

    The outlook might be different if Congress were to lift the ban on nuclear-fuel recycling, which would cut the amount of waste requiring disposal by more than half. Instead of requiring a political consensus on multiple repository sites to store nuclear plant waste, one facility would be sufficient, reducing disposal costs by billions of dollars.

    Some will say the United States can’t afford to build a nuclear recycling facility. But such a plant already is under construction at the Department of Energy’s Savannah River nuclear reservation in South Carolina. That facility will produce mixed-oxide fuel for generating electric power, not from power-plant waste, but from surplus plutonium now in U.S. weapons stockpiles.

    By lifting the ban on spent fuel recycling we could make use of a valuable resource, provide an answer to the nuclear waste problem, open the way for a new generation of nuclear plants to meet America’s growing electricity needs, and put the United States in a leadership position on climate-change action.

    If France and other nations can do it, why can’t we?


    https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2014/10/01/why-doesnt-u-s-recycle-nuclear-fuel/
  14. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    14798
    02 Jul '19 12:40
    @wildgrass
    I noticed Andrew Yang wants to nuke climate change just like you.
  15. Joined
    20 Oct '06
    Moves
    7569
    02 Jul '19 15:56
    @metal-brain said
    @wildgrass
    I noticed Andrew Yang wants to nuke climate change just like you.
    who?
Back to Top