• @Blossom Is A Blessing To This Community, Let Us Be A Blessing To Her
    Click Here For More Information
  • Due to excessive bot signups along with nefarious actors we are limiting forum registration. Keep checking back for the register link to appear. Please do not send emails or have someone post to the forum asking for a signup link. Until the current climate changes we do not see a change of this policy. To join the forum you must have a compelling reason. Letting us know what skills/knowledge you will bring to the community along with the intent of your stay here will help in getting you approved.

Nuclear energy is getting rebranded and making a comeback. Get ready for power plants next-door

gaze

Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2019
Messages
2,221
After emails with Peat about the driving mechanisms behind the vilification of Co2's role in the "climate crisis", Ray mentioned how many in the nuclear energy sector are probably behind a lot of the information being put out.

At first I thought that would be kind of strange, given that nuclear energy and uranium has been dying for many years now, after negative public perception has pretty much reduced much of the nuclear activity going on, combined with the fact that they have no cost efficient way of recycling radioactive waste so it just builds up, however I was wrong.


"Nuclear is ideal for dealing with climate change, because it is the only carbon-free, scalable energy source that's available 24 hours a day," Gates said in his year-end public letter. "The problems with today's reactors, such as the risk of accidents, can be solved through innovation."

"Through the Energy Department, Congress approved $221 million to help companies develop advanced reactors and smaller modular reactors in fiscal 2019, above the budget request. But Gates and TerraPower, which received a $40 million Energy Department research grant in 2016, are looking for more.
With some Democrats reconsidering opposition to nuclear energy dating back to the Three Mile Island accident 40 years ago, Gates met with lawmakers from both parties, including Sens. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., and Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., both senior members of the Senate Appropriations Committee. Last month, he had dinner with Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, and three other senators."
And of course, the problem of radioactive nuclear waste that cannot be recycled still remains, yet the media is going to start to try and change the narrative to act like it's nothing worry about, given how dangerous the alternative climate crisis is:


"So to recap: Nuclear energy is a zero-emission source that’s reliable and that doesn’t require massive amounts of vital habitat to produce it. Why, then, isn’t it the preferred choice of alternative fuel championed by environmentalists?
In a word: fear. After infamous catastrophes like Chernobyl and Fukushima, the public understandably grew wary of nuclear power. Opponents cite concerns over safety and waste disposal. It’s true that nuclear waste can remain radioactive for thousands of years, and certainly nightmarish disasters like those that unfolded in Ukraine and Japan impose serious costs. However, the facts demonstrate that neither of these should be considered disqualifiers.
Nuclear energy is actually the safest form of energy we can produce. When comparing documented deaths caused by nuclear radiation compared to documented deaths caused by air pollution from burning biomass and fossil fuels, nuclear is vastly safer (just over 100 deaths total compared to 8 million in 2016 alone). As for waste, one of the beautiful things about nuclear energy is that it actually doesn’t produce much waste at all. In fact, when comparing toxic waste produced per unit of electricity generated, one finds solar panels produce 300 times more waste than nuclear power plants. Additionally, unlike the waste from fossil and biomass fuels emitted into the atmosphere, the waste produced by nuclear energy is contained on land. "

They are trying to say that nuclear fusion is much safer than fission, therefore it's ok for power plants to be located right next to peoples homes:

"Plus, nuclear fusion is generally safe, so reactors can be located near populations centers or cities, which helps with infrastructure. (That's unlike nuclear fission, or splitting an atom to generate energy, which is the same process used in an atom bomb. Fission generates dangerous radioactive waste, and some high-profile accidents have caused massive destruction"

The problem however, is that the waste created from nuclear fusion is still very dangerous, however it's not as long lasting so they claim it's safe. These are accidents waiting to happen.



Uranium, has also increased heavily in demand and the recent shortages have increased stock prices along with what I suspect to be stricter policies against Uranium enriching countries like Iran, although uranium itself may not be that necessary if they go down the path of nuclear fusion

 
Last edited:

Perry Staltic

Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2020
Messages
5,870
Fusion's not realistic. Gates and Bezos should be putting their money into molten salt reactor technology. That's what the Chinese are doing.
 

gaze

Member
Thread starter
Joined
Jun 13, 2019
Messages
2,221


michael burry, the guy who shorted the market in 2008 and had the movie made about him (and bought gamestop before the short squeeze took place), probably has a substantial holding in uranium stock
 
Last edited:

gaze

Member
Thread starter
Joined
Jun 13, 2019
Messages
2,221
Fusion's not realistic. Gates and Bezos should be putting their money into molten salt reactor technology. That's what the Chinese are doing.
yea but the majority of gates money is not in fusion, that's just a side project, his main nuclear business terrapower is fission
 

cats

Member
Joined
May 4, 2016
Messages
117
After emails with Peat about the driving mechanisms behind the vilification of Co2's role in the "climate crisis", Ray mentioned how many in the nuclear energy sector are probably behind a lot of the information being put out.
Can you post the emails?
 

StephanF

Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2014
Messages
612
Location
Reno
And then there is thorium! This could lead to a nuclear energy source that does not produce nuclear waste.

Fusion seems always ‘20 years away’, and it has the tritium problem, since tritium has to be produced in nuclear power plants. Then once fusion power plants start running, they have to produce their own tritium by nuclear reactions with lithium to multiply neutrons. There are also possible hazards with fusion power plants. Instabilities could form and poke holes into the vessel. Then the radioactive tritium is released.

I am following the most interesting research from Prof. Leif Holmlid on ‘ultra-dense hydrogen’. He observed matter innihilation, which releases 100 times more energy than in fusion. He also observed muons emitted by this process, which could be used for muon-cataylized fusion.

 

Perry Staltic

Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2020
Messages
5,870
People who want low/zero carbon energy are going to have to make a decision between having a modern life, or not having one. Unlike zero-CO2 nuclear, unreliable renewables just can't power a modern industrialized society. Here's an example. Due to ice storms in Texas freezing up wind turbines, the spot price for electricity is currently $9000/MWh, whereas in normal times it is considered high at $100/MWh.

 

gaze

Member
Thread starter
Joined
Jun 13, 2019
Messages
2,221
did anyone catch bill on 60 minutes last night? they went over his nuclear ambitions, I clipped it from the interview when they talk about nuclear:

 

Drareg

Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2016
Messages
4,582
Probably using SMR’s.

Im not sure how they can justify the authoritarian changes required of society if we just move to nuclear , this solves their "global crisis" too quickly, it’s possible they will start some sort of dialectic, controlled opposition will rise up against it, millionaires will be made from offering their opinions in books etc, another little drama industry for "activists" to profit from.
 

Quelsatron

Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2020
Messages
479
My country is having an energy crisis after just shutting down an old but not done for nuclear power plant. I really doubt nuclear is as dangerous as claimed, when weighed against the pollution (not co2 generation) of fossil fuels and coal.
 

gaze

Member
Thread starter
Joined
Jun 13, 2019
Messages
2,221
My country is having an energy crisis after just shutting down an old but not done for nuclear power plant. I really doubt nuclear is as dangerous as claimed, when weighed against the pollution (not co2 generation) of fossil fuels and coal.
shutting down a single power plant put your country into an energy crisis? sounds like the energy crisis goes far beyond that one power plant. what country?
 

yerrag

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
9,866
Location
Manila
I was hoping that we could instead have a reactor that runs on the ideas of the electric universe theory. There's a Youtube video that shows a successful pilot run of a very mini reactor that confirms the soundness of the electric universe theory, as if it's running on a mini sun. What is very appealing with this reactor is that it does not generate nuclear waste, and it is even said to be able to transmutate nuclear waste from spent nuclear fuel, such that non-radioactive elements can be produced from the nuclear waste.

Since that experiment was done with funding from DARPA, it would remain to be seen whether DARPA has the interest to increase the scale of the experiment and make a larger reactor that would be a real prototype of a new class of reactors. I think though that there would be many forces in power that would not like this development. For one, it would annihilate and disprove many ideas of the Quantum Theory of Physics and the many ivory tower projects they have invested in such as the Hadron collider project.
 

Quelsatron

Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2020
Messages
479
shutting down a single power plant put your country into an energy crisis? sounds like the energy crisis goes far beyond that one power plant. what country?
Sweden, although it may have been more than one power plant and we don't have mass blackouts yet, but state television went out and encouraged people to not vacuum, plus a coal plant had to be activated which blatantly goes against the green ideology
 

Similar threads

Top