GOP: 100 new nuclear power plants, please

2009-04-25 20:03:18

#1

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6977|Canberra, AUS

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 … ar-energy/

Well, this could be good idea. 100 new nuclear power plants would produce a looot of energy, that could help de-coalify the energy sector in good time.

Just a few things though:

1. America ain't France. Size counts, and America is a biiig country when it comes to power distribution. Pure conjecture but perhaps the reason prices are more expensive is because there's more transmission costs involved?

2. Nuclear power plants are NOT cheap, and not quick to build. You're looking at least a few years before the first comes online (if you start NOW, that is)

3. Waste is still a problem, though there are some novel solutions for storing it coming around and I'm sure there's an empty patch of desert somewhere.

If you could get it to work though...

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2009-04-25 20:07:39

#2

Poseidon: Fudgepack DeQueef; +3,253|6840|Long Island, New York

Whatever happened with Yucca Mountain anyways? Did they can the project?

2009-04-25 20:13:48

#3

Flaming_Maniac: prince of insufficient light; +2,490|7009|67.222.138.85

Environmentalists are going to shit their pants at nearly every one of those locations, maybe 10 will even get the permission to be built.

2009-04-25 20:16:46

#4

Hurricane2k9: Pendulous Sweaty Balls; +1,538|6004|College Park, MD

Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Environmentalists are going to shit their pants at nearly every one of those locations, maybe 10 will even get the permission to be built.

I wish they'd shoot the fucking tree-huggers so we wouldn't have to hear their shit. Even my Environmental Science teacher, who's a card-carrying member of the Sierra Club and the Chesapeake Bay Foundation thinks we need to build more nuclear power plants.

As for waste, we should build breeder reactors as well as recycle the fuel like they do in France. I don't care if it produces weapons-grade plutonium to be honest; our nukes are getting old anyway.

https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/36793/marylandsig.jpg

2009-04-25 21:12:07

#5

Diesel_dyk: Object in mirror will feel larger than it appears; +178|6296|Truthistan

We need nuclear energy. but the future might be smaller massed produced units that are installed locally.

"the proposed reactor design will be capable of supplying 25 megawatts of electric power, weigh 18-20 tons, measure approximately 1.5 meters in diameter, be mass-produced on an assembly line, and be capable of unattended, unrefueled operation for up to five to ten years at a time. Costs are projected to be competitive with other established sources of energy, like coal, conventional nuclear, and natural gas. Hyperion Power Generation has initiated discussions regarding reactor licensing with the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and intends to install their first reactor by 2013, according to their website." From Here
And there will be 10-40 times less nuclear waste because the units have 50% burnup of the nuclear fuel.
Also check out http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/05/hyperi … clear.html

If these things work the way they sound like they work we really wouldn't need huge mega nuclear facilities and a related article on this website says that these things will help "blunt" peak oil by greatly reducing the cost involved with oil sand production.

The greenies are really going to have shit over this one, nuclear energy being used to produce cheaper oil. lolz

2009-04-25 22:51:56

#6

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|7018

Nuclear is cleaner and more practical than anything we currently have now.

They need to finish Yucca mountain, best place for nuclear storage.

https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png

2009-04-25 23:08:41

#7

DrunkFace: Germans did 911; +427|6983|Disaster Free Zone

Geothermal>hydroelectric>Nuclear.

I'm just waiting for them to create a controlled fusion reaction, then my above statement may be reconsidered.

2009-04-26 04:44:21

#8

Burwhale: Save the BlobFish!; +136|6524|Brisneyland

They generally take a long time to build. One being built in UK will take 15 years or so. Some sites say longer. Aparently there is only one place in Japan that can make the steelwork for nuclear plants, and it has a 3 year waiting list.
Not to mention cost factors: source

Time magazine wrote:
But you can't disregard capital costs--they're out of control. The world's only steelworks capable of forging containment vessels is in Japan, and it has a three-year waiting list. The specialized workforce required for manufacturing reactors has atrophied in the U.S., along with the industrial base. Steel, cement and other commodity prices have stabilized, but the credit crunch has jacked up the cost of borrowing. FPL's application concedes that new reactors present "unique risks and uncertainties," with every six-month delay adding as much as $500 million in interest costs. Meanwhile, radioactive waste languishes in temporary storage pools and casks at plants around the country. Energy maven Amory Lovins has calculated that, overall, new nuclear wattage would cost more than twice as much as coal or gas and nearly three times as much as wind--and that calculation was made before nuclear-construction costs exploded.

As much as I am not a big fan of it, it sure beats the hell out of coal.

2009-04-26 04:47:10

#9

ghettoperson: Member; +1,943|6951

Hell yes, nuclear plants rawk.

2009-04-26 04:48:31

#10

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6455|what

If the greenies oppose Nuclear power than they are idiots. It is much cleaner than coal for a start.

The only real problem is who wants a Nuclear power plant in their backyard? The support of the local population is a must when you want to build something as potentially dangerous near them. That said, the US is big enough to find 100 spots easily.

2009-04-26 04:54:52

#11

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|7018

DrunkFace wrote:
Geothermal>hydroelectric>Nuclear.

I'm just waiting for them to create a controlled fusion reaction, then my above statement may be reconsidered.

Hydro fucks the local ecosystem so much it's not even funny. Geothermal is great, if only availible in a large quantity and areas.

2009-04-26 05:19:28

#12

some_random_panda: Flamesuit essential; +454|6693

Cybargs wrote:
DrunkFace wrote:
Geothermal>hydroelectric>Nuclear.

I'm just waiting for them to create a controlled fusion reaction, then my above statement may be reconsidered.
Hydro fucks the local ecosystem so much it's not even funny. Geothermal is great, if only availible in a large quantity and areas.

Like New Zealand. Unfortunately, not that many places are like New Zealand (where steam comes up from the freaking ground, and the ground is hot enough to use as a slow oven).

Last edited by some_random_panda (2009-04-26 05:19:58)

2009-04-26 05:42:21

#13

kylef: Gone; +1,352|6795|N. Ireland

Whatever happened to this?

2009-04-26 05:46:53

#14

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6455|what

kylef wrote:
Whatever happened to this?

A global recession and a financial credit crisis?

2009-04-26 05:48:11

#15

Sydney: 2λчиэλ; +783|7145|Reykjavík, Iceland.

DrunkFace wrote:
Geothermal>hydroelectric>Nuclear.

I'm just waiting for them to create a controlled fusion reaction, then my above statement may be reconsidered.

Actually, Hydroelectric > Geothermal > Nuclear

Geothermal energy has the habit of releasing shitloads of dangerous gases. We've had a kind of smog cloud in the city from the gases released by a nearby geothermal site when the wind direction was just right.

The only pollution from hydroelectric plants is visual pollution which doesn't count IMO. Most dams look awsm.

2009-04-26 05:54:30

#16

Flecco: iPod is broken.; +1,048|6967|NT, like Mick Dundee

Sydney wrote:
DrunkFace wrote:
Geothermal>hydroelectric>Nuclear.

I'm just waiting for them to create a controlled fusion reaction, then my above statement may be reconsidered.
Actually, Hydroelectric > Geothermal > Nuclear

Geothermal energy has the habit of releasing shitloads of dangerous gases. We've had a kind of smog cloud in the city from the gases released by a nearby geothermal site when the wind direction was just right.

The only pollution from hydroelectric plants is visual pollution which doesn't count IMO. Most dams look awsm.

I know it's an extreme example but check out 3 Gorges please.

Dams do a fuckton of environmental damage.

Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.

2009-04-26 06:06:02

#17

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6707|North Carolina

DrunkFace wrote:
Geothermal>hydroelectric>Nuclear.

I'm just waiting for them to create a controlled fusion reaction, then my above statement may be reconsidered.

Geothermal is only feasible in areas where the earth's crust is thin. It works great in Iceland and would work in certain areas around Yellowstone National Park, but other than that, it's not very feasible here.

Wind is actually one of the most practical energy sources in the Midwest. We also are building a new refinery in South Dakota soon, so that should help.

Hydroelectric is already used in some areas of the U.S., but there are a few other areas where it could be implemented.

2009-04-26 06:06:32

#18

Sydney: 2λчиэλ; +783|7145|Reykjavík, Iceland.

Flecco wrote:
Sydney wrote:
DrunkFace wrote:
Geothermal>hydroelectric>Nuclear.

I'm just waiting for them to create a controlled fusion reaction, then my above statement may be reconsidered.
Actually, Hydroelectric > Geothermal > Nuclear

Geothermal energy has the habit of releasing shitloads of dangerous gases. We've had a kind of smog cloud in the city from the gases released by a nearby geothermal site when the wind direction was just right.

The only pollution from hydroelectric plants is visual pollution which doesn't count IMO. Most dams look awsm.
I know it's an extreme example but check out 3 Gorges please.

Dams do a fuckton of environmental damage.

Jesus christ, that looks like the chernobyl equivalent of a hydroelectric plant.

At least we know how to keep our dams aesthetic here

https://www.vst-rafteikning.is/media/myndasafn/76/7610/7610%20Hrauneyjafossvirkjun/large/Hrauneyjar-956.jpg

https://www.vst-rafteikning.is/media/myndasafn/98/9809-burfellsvirkjun/large/Burfellsvirkjun-0328.JPG

First is 150MW, second is 270MW.

edit: here's two Icelandic geothermal plants

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3b/Krafla_geothermal_power_station_wiki.jpg

https://iga.igg.cnr.it/geoworld/galleria/igaice1.gif

Last edited by Sydney (2009-04-26 06:14:18)

2009-04-26 06:09:14

#19

FatherTed: xD; +3,936|6802|so randum

You're so lucky living in Iceland, from a geographers pov. It's a wet dream as far as field trips go.

Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella

2009-04-26 06:11:28

#20

Flecco: iPod is broken.; +1,048|6967|NT, like Mick Dundee

Sydney wrote:
Flecco wrote:
Dams do a fuckton of environmental damage.
Jesus christ, that looks like the chernobyl equivalent of a hydroelectric plant.

Basically it is. They were told in several studies that 5 or so smaller dams would work a lot better and not wipe out so much land/archaeological sites/animals but did the PRC listen?

Nope. Crazy commies.

Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.

2009-04-26 06:13:04

#21

Sydney: 2λчиэλ; +783|7145|Reykjavík, Iceland.

FatherTed wrote:
You're so lucky living in Iceland, from a geographers pov. It's a wet dream as far as field trips go.

I know, rite

I love to visit geothermal and hydroelectric power plants and take a tour, it's awesome to see the huge generators inside, etc.

2009-04-26 06:50:37

#22

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6713|'Murka

Poseidon wrote:
Whatever happened with Yucca Mountain anyways? Did they can the project?

One of the first acts by the new Energy Secretary was to kill the Yucca Mountain project.

Last edited by FEOS (2009-04-26 06:52:38)

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2009-04-26 06:55:32

#23

Sydney: 2λчиэλ; +783|7145|Reykjavík, Iceland.

Why not just dump all the nuclear waste in Utah? Nobody would care

2009-04-26 07:02:36

#24

Mekstizzle: WALKER; +3,611|6923|London, England

Need to invest more in cold fusion. The problem with generating energy is that environmentalists are pretty much against everything. Wind farms are "ugly" on the landscape, as are solar panels/solar farms, you can't build Dams for obvious reasons, nuclear is a big no, they never seem to complain about all the coal/oil/gas plants though.

I've come to the conclusion that these environmentalist types are nothing but people paid by the big Oil and Coal companies to destroy all the alternatives to electricity generation. Nothing else can explain why so few have such a large influence on government policy on energy generation. Especially on this country, I think the government just recently said they're going to build some "clean" coal plants, and nobody says anything. Where are all the idiots who complain about the wind/solar/nuclear plants etc? Exactly, nobody says fuck all when it comes to these shitty fossil fuel power plants, what the flying fuck is up with that shit

Meh, if countries can't sort themselves out and fix the energy problem then they deserve to fail and crash in a spectacular fashion. Infact, I'd go as far as saying that we all really need a massive crisis to get things rolling

2009-04-26 07:19:09

#25

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6713|'Murka

Mekstizzle wrote:
Need to invest more in cold fusion. The problem with generating energy is that environmentalists are pretty much against everything. Wind farms are "ugly" on the landscape, as are solar panels/solar farms, you can't build Dams for obvious reasons, nuclear is a big no, they never seem to complain about all the coal/oil/gas plants though.

Uh...wut? I won't even address the latter portion of the post because the bolded section is so utterly incorrect.

You could have summarized your entire post by modifying your second sentence as follows:

"The problem with generating energy is environmentalists."

They do nothing but complain, but when cleaner alternatives are proposed, they shoot those down for other reasons, resulting in no progress on the environmental front, which they supposedly support. I swear those groups are made up of bipolar, passive-aggressive nutcases who couldn't hold down real jobs in the real world.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

BF2S Forums GOP: 100 new nuclear power plants, please

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Time magazine wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:

kylef wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:

Sydney wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:

Flecco wrote:

Sydney wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:

Sydney wrote:

Flecco wrote:

FatherTed wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

Mekstizzle wrote:

Board footer