Going back to nuclear. For or Against? Please keep it civil.

[Morpheus, the unwoke.]

The Fukushima disaster soured much of the West on nuclear power,  but that's changing in light of recent events.  Now Japan itself is leading a resurgence in nuclear power development with new generation systems designed not only to produce power safely and effectively but to fufill multiple tasks at once,  like creating green hydrogen produced without creating greenhouse gasses but to produce useful heat for other purposes.

Here are two videos moderately intelligent abd educated people can follow, you don't need to be a tech head or a physicist to follow them.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=K0Ff0Fg4mTI

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_uTZWaJU6ho

Personally I favor a return to nuclear power,  past disasters were usually caused by correctable issues mainly based on relying on the industry to regulate itself, a proven fallacy.

I'm curious as to how folks here, many of whom seem to be informed even if of very different opinions, feel on the issue. I believe nuclear power can be safeky developed abd used if mananged properly and strictly.  The US navy and France prove this to be the case.

Abd let's face if,  if JAPAN is willibg to bet on nuclear power again, I think they must know something. I can't see them going back to it unless they were double DAMN sure it was the way to go.

I hope some people will watch the videos I linked, they are concise yet comprehensive and comprehendable abd presented in a way that makes them normal person friendly.

[Rev. Powell]

I'm in favor of nuclear.

[LilCerberus]

Yes, nuclear...
It's worked well for a pretty long time, & has gotten a bum rap...
Before Fukushima, the Japanese had a brief history of irresponsible use that even the North Koreans didn't have, but I believe was more of a learning experience for the entire world Than anything else.

[Morpheus, the unwoke.]

Yes, nuclear...
It's worked well for a pretty long time, & has gotten a bum rap...
Before Fukushima, the Japanese had a brief history of irresponsible use that even the North Koreans didn't have, but I believe was more of a learning experience for the entire world Than anything else.

And what good are learning experiences if they are not used to advance a good cause?

And again the US Navy has run a safe effective nuclear program for a lifetime now, if we regulated a nuclear industry with the same dedication and fervor they navy does I think it'd be pretty damn safe.

[lester1/2jr]

I am opposed to nuclear power. I wouldn't trust our public or private sector with that much responsibility. Also way too many unknown unknowns

[Alex]

I'm curious as to how folks here, many of whom seem to be informed even if of very different opinions, feel on the issue. I believe nuclear power can be safeky developed abd used if mananged properly and strictly.  The US navy and France prove this to be the case.

I've only ever seen one other person comment on the US navy's use of nuclear power. He used to be on this board too.

Nuclear power is as safe as the people using it, and the area it is located. I have nothing against it being used, although I'd rather see it as a stop-gap measure while you transition to types of energy that doesn't have the waste issue. I wouldn't go campaigning against it though.

[ER]

OK, here's my thought. I believe everybody has to agree compared to 1950-1975 the last twenty-five years have seen few interesting super heroes and super villains arise, and clearly it's because we aren't seeing the level of r-mutations we did when the use of nuclear power was more common. For the sake of entertainment we must bring radiation leakage back or else we're going to lose an entire genre to stagnation. That's all I have to add to this topic.

[chainsaw midget]

OK, here's my thought. I believe everybody has to agree compared to 1950-1975 the last twenty-five years have seen few interesting super heroes and super villains arise, and clearly it's because we aren't seeing the level of r-mutations we did when the use of nuclear power was more common. For the sake of entertainment we must bring radiation leakage back or else we're going to lose an entire genre to stagnation. That's all I have to add to this topic.

That's not even getting into today's lack of horrible mutant monstrosities and giant animals rampaging across the country side.

[ER]

OK, here's my thought. I believe everybody has to agree compared to 1950-1975 the last twenty-five years have seen few interesting super heroes and super villains arise, and clearly it's because we aren't seeing the level of r-mutations we did when the use of nuclear power was more common. For the sake of entertainment we must bring radiation leakage back or else we're going to lose an entire genre to stagnation. That's all I have to add to this topic.

That's not even getting into today's lack of horrible mutant monstrosities and giant animals rampaging across the country side.

I know, right?!

[LilCerberus]

I'm curious as to how folks here, many of whom seem to be informed even if of very different opinions, feel on the issue. I believe nuclear power can be safeky developed abd used if mananged properly and strictly.  The US navy and France prove this to be the case.

I've only ever seen one other person comment on the US navy's use of nuclear power. He used to be on this board too.

Nuclear power is as safe as the people using it, and the area it is located. I have nothing against it being used, although I'd rather see it as a stop-gap measure while you transition to types of energy that doesn't have the waste issue. I wouldn't go campaigning against it though.

That's what "Clean Coal" was supposed to be...
I keep hearing that the output is better than nuclear, with manageable emissions (why else would it be called "Clean" coal?), but the waste is far worse, & since it doesn't hafta be buried ten miles underground, the highly toxic coal ash can be dumped almost anywhere.

[Morpheus, the unwoke.]

'Clean coal' was a Madison avenue term, there's no such thing as clean coal. 

Another recent boost for nuclear came much more recently. I mean, one little invasion of Ukraine and oil prices explode all over earth.

Plus that whole 'human influenced global warming' thing is pretty much established fact now no matter what fox and infowars says.

Yeah yeah I wanted to wait for fusion too but we're still decades away from it if we ever get to it. Fission is here, it's a mature tech and all it takes is the will to make it safe.  Plus modern nuclear plants have the side bonus of producing truly clean hydrogen that can be used as a fuel source in itself.

[indianasmith]

I'm gonna go with Morpheus on this one.
More nuclear power is the best way to wean ourselves off of fossil fuels.

[Alex]

Saw this today, and thought it might interest some people.

According to a paper published on November 14 in the journal Nature Physics, researchers at the National Ignition Facility (NIF) at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory discovered that when deuterium and tritium ions, which are isotopes of hydrogen with one and two neutrons, respectively—are heated using lasers during laser-fusion experiments, there are more ions with higher energies than expected when a thermonuclear burn starts.

"The process of inertial confinement fusion (ICF) squeezes a small (1mm radius) capsule filled with a layer of frozen deuterium and tritium (isotopes of hydrogen) surrounding a volume of deuterium and tritium gas down to a radius of about 30 micrometers. In the process, these isotopes of hydrogen ionize and a plasma of electrons, deuterium and tritium nuclei [is the result]," Edward Hartouni, a physicist at NIF and a co-author of the paper, told Newsweek.

"This plasma is so dense that collisions of these charged particles (electrons and ions) happen very frequently," Hartouni said. "At low temperatures, the ions mostly scatter elastically, as if they were billiard balls. But as the temperature of the plasma increases, which it does as it is squeezed, some of these collisions result in the fusion of the ions. The fusion releases tremendous energy."

"Of the three types of fusion that can occur, the fusion of the deuterium and tritium ions occurs more frequently, and releases the largest amount of energy," he continued. "This energy is in the form of the kinetic energy the fusion [produces], which for deuterium and tritium fusion are an alpha particle (the helium ion) and a neutron," Hartouni said.

In essence, the lasers heat the hydrogen fuel to enormous energy levels, leading them to collide and fuse together to form helium atoms—this is the reaction that powers the sun. This reaction also releases huge amounts of energy, which further heats the hydrogen fuel.

This extra energy can eventually power the reaction without the need for the lasers, having become what is known as a "burning plasma." This "ignition" was only achieved for the first time in 2021, also by NIF, in a milestone achievement for the field.

"If the conditions are right, this process 'runs away' and we have thermonuclear burn," Hartouni said. "It is the goal of the research to study the conditions that lead to controlled thermonuclear burn, which could be an energy-producing technology."

[ralfy]

World oil production per capita peaked back in 1979, and what affected oil is also affecting non-conventional production, uranium, copper, and even rare metals needed for nuclear reactors.

Meanwhile, the world population continues to grow even with lower birth rates due to momentum, while the energy and resource demand per capita is rising because of a growing global middle class:

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-22956470

Some argue that we will need more energy and resources than what the planet can provide. One documentary estimates that we will need the equivalent of one more earth just to meet the basic needs of that population, and up to three more earths to provide for middle class conveniences, which everyone wants.

Given that, going back to nuclear is a non-issue. The concern is whether or not we will have enough energy and resources to meet demand.

[ER]

World oil production per capita peaked back in 1979, and what affected oil is also affecting non-conventional production, uranium, copper, and even rare metals needed for nuclear reactors.

Meanwhile, the world population continues to grow even with lower birth rates due to momentum, while the energy and resource demand per capita is rising because of a growing global middle class:

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-22956470

Some argue that we will need more energy and resources than what the planet can provide. One documentary estimates that we will need the equivalent of one more earth just to meet the basic needs of that population, and up to three more earths to provide for middle class conveniences, which everyone wants.

Given that, going back to nuclear is a non-issue. The concern is whether or not we will have enough energy and resources to meet demand.

Honey, the word is Malthusian.