4 ms·

The point is that if we haven't had all the opposition we would have been further with our development in this area.

eesmith 9y ago
I understood the point. My response was that there are two options: 1) discover a radioisotope we don't know about, or 2) find some way to reduce the price by a factor of 1,000. The thing is, we know all of the radioisotopes now, at least, all with a lifespan measured in years and which can be made on macroscopic scales. Thus, it can't be #1. (Or, which alternative do you think is better?) Are you proposing that it's #2? If so, why do you think a factor of 1,000 in cost savings is possible? One way to make 238Pu is to start with spent nuclear fuel. If we had enough spent nuclear fuel to make batteries for every household, we would have had far more nuclear power in the first place.
- ThomPete 9y ago
  It's hard to say, thats my point.
  - eesmith 9y ago
    While I disagree and argue that it's easy to say. Yes, certainly it's possible that we would have had something like a Mr. Fusion by now if there hadn't been the public resistance towards nuclear power. But it's much more likely that it's only a fantasy. And if it is a fantasy then your argument falsely maligns anti-nuclear advocates by making them responsible for something which was never going to happen.
    - ThomPete 9y ago
      In other words, you don't know but one thing is certain. The anti-nuclear position has put an effective halt to research and innovation in that area.
      - eesmith 9y ago
        Except that no, there isn't an effective halt. The best that you can argue is that it's been slowed down. However, there is a strong need for 238Pu in RTGs, and the US, Russia (and the Soviet Union before it) and other countries produce 238Pu. Hundreds of millions of dollars are available for RTG development. (Why? Because the Navy, CIA, NSA, and no doubt others need dense power sources, have used RTGs, including in top-secret surveillance like tapping undersea cables.) We know that there are no other possibilities than the handful of radioisotopes that might be an RTG. We also know that the production levels needed to put RTGs in every household would be much more expensive than using the same production methods (mostly nuclear reactors) to generate electricity and deliver it directly to the home. If you continue to blame anti-nuclear activists for something which is not their fault, then people are going to disregard your viewpoints.
        ThomPete 9y ago
        I am not blaming anyone for anything I am saying that it could be argued that because of the anti nuclear protests which lead to much lest investments in this field which can be a reason why we don't see these things. Even if we take out that part the point still stands. There is a whole world of things we didn't get to explore because of the strong anti-sentiment towards nuclear. Whether we would get a 1000 cost saving we don't know who know how other things would have developed if we had abundant and clean nuclear. I will let people decide if they want to do disregard my view or not, don't need you to be the judge of that.
        eesmith 9y ago
        With the same "it could be argued" logic, it could be argued that the anti-nuclear protests mean we don't have more cures for cancer, that we don't have colonies on the Moon, that we wouldn't have global warming, that we haven't landed people on Mars, and that we don't have flying cars. Basically, it posits a fantastic alternative to reality then places the blame for not achieving them on the anti-nuclear protestors, even though in reality there are many better arguments for why those would not have been achieved by now even had there been no reduction in nuclear research. Moreover, it ignores the problems that might have arisen had, say, Project Orion been green-lighted to launch Mars Probe One.

I understood the point. My response was that there are two options: 1) discover a radioisotope we don't know about, or 2) find some way to reduce the price by a factor of 1,000. The thing is, we know all of the radioisotopes now, at least, all with a lifespan measured in years and which can be made on macroscopic scales. Thus, it can't be #1. (Or, which alternative do you think is better?) Are you proposing that it's #2? If so, why do you think a factor of 1,000 in cost savings is possible? One way to make 238Pu is to start with spent nuclear fuel. If we had enough spent nuclear fuel to make batteries for every household, we would have had far more nuclear power in the first place.

ThomPete 9y ago
It's hard to say, thats my point.
- eesmith 9y ago
  While I disagree and argue that it's easy to say. Yes, certainly it's possible that we would have had something like a Mr. Fusion by now if there hadn't been the public resistance towards nuclear power. But it's much more likely that it's only a fantasy. And if it is a fantasy then your argument falsely maligns anti-nuclear advocates by making them responsible for something which was never going to happen.
  - ThomPete 9y ago
    In other words, you don't know but one thing is certain. The anti-nuclear position has put an effective halt to research and innovation in that area.
    - eesmith 9y ago
      Except that no, there isn't an effective halt. The best that you can argue is that it's been slowed down. However, there is a strong need for 238Pu in RTGs, and the US, Russia (and the Soviet Union before it) and other countries produce 238Pu. Hundreds of millions of dollars are available for RTG development. (Why? Because the Navy, CIA, NSA, and no doubt others need dense power sources, have used RTGs, including in top-secret surveillance like tapping undersea cables.) We know that there are no other possibilities than the handful of radioisotopes that might be an RTG. We also know that the production levels needed to put RTGs in every household would be much more expensive than using the same production methods (mostly nuclear reactors) to generate electricity and deliver it directly to the home. If you continue to blame anti-nuclear activists for something which is not their fault, then people are going to disregard your viewpoints.
      - ThomPete 9y ago
        I am not blaming anyone for anything I am saying that it could be argued that because of the anti nuclear protests which lead to much lest investments in this field which can be a reason why we don't see these things. Even if we take out that part the point still stands. There is a whole world of things we didn't get to explore because of the strong anti-sentiment towards nuclear. Whether we would get a 1000 cost saving we don't know who know how other things would have developed if we had abundant and clean nuclear. I will let people decide if they want to do disregard my view or not, don't need you to be the judge of that.
        eesmith 9y ago
        With the same "it could be argued" logic, it could be argued that the anti-nuclear protests mean we don't have more cures for cancer, that we don't have colonies on the Moon, that we wouldn't have global warming, that we haven't landed people on Mars, and that we don't have flying cars. Basically, it posits a fantastic alternative to reality then places the blame for not achieving them on the anti-nuclear protestors, even though in reality there are many better arguments for why those would not have been achieved by now even had there been no reduction in nuclear research. Moreover, it ignores the problems that might have arisen had, say, Project Orion been green-lighted to launch Mars Probe One.