5 ms·

I think the Fukashima plant didn't help selling nuclear power to governments. Japan is very much a leading 1st world nation however the fact that something like

I think the Fukashima plant didn't help selling nuclear power to governments. Japan is very much a leading 1st world nation however the fact that something like that happened really cause a major local environmental issue. The worst part for Japan was that they have a significant chunk of land that is unlivable now. Land is worth more than money in Japan just because of how little of it there is. So not only did they have to deal with the economic issue surrounding a nuclear meltdown, but they also lost a vital resource.

m0zg 7y ago
Fukushima was built in early 70's. Needless to say _a lot_ of progress has been made since then. Today we have reactors which can't blow up, and work on nuclear waste. Russia has been operating one since 2016. China is building one as well. The US? Our great environmentalist Obama has shut down the program in 2016 due to "cost overruns", according to Wikipedia.
- LeoTinnitus 7y ago
  Yes but that is a nuclear power plant that didn't even operate for 50 years and now completely made the environment uninhabitable, as well as incurred a massive cost to the people to have to rebuild it...again. If that were a coal or natural gas plant, Okuma would still be habitable and everyone wouldn't have needed to been evacuated. Another problem about nuclear power is it's hard to find a reliable resource of uranium. There is a finite amount of it that is not as readily accessible or abundant as all the other resources. Nuclear energy is a pipe dream. Whats the point in even building a cheap reactor (4 million USD) if you need to maintain it and then when demand increases so highly that there isn't enough uranium to go around. What then? Do the people in the north just go cold during the winter? It's no more sustainable than the current system, except there is a definitive projection that it couldn't sustain this population long term. Green renewable energy is clearly the future, however we will never truly be able to convert to it until we can reliable transfer mechanical energy into things like batteries which can power things for a long time. Even major wind farms in Europe only supplement power usage. They cannot keep up with demand since they can only output what the wind gives. We're a long ways out from a green revolution. Energy storage, capacity, 1:1 conversion of energy to power, and reliable power all need to happen first.
  - allovernow 7y ago
    That's simply not true. There's plenty of uranium for hundreds of years of power - not to mention alternatives like thorium which are orders of magnitude more common and don't require the same kind of refinement or pose the same proliferation risk. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_uranium_reserves https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_uranium...
- mikeyouse 7y ago
  Obama didn't shut anything down.. he appointed a nuclear physicist that said we shouldn't slow down nuclear approvals after Fukushima as Secretary of Energy[1]. Hell, read the description of all the Federal support since 2009 for Vogtle 3&4: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vogtle_Electric_Generating_Plant#Construction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vogtle_Electric_Generating_Pla... They still can't get the stupid things built. It's going to finish somewhere about 200% over budget at $25B for 2000MW and nearly a decade late. Just an absolutely calamity. Over $12k per KW. Natural gas is what, $750/KW? Wind near $1,500? Solar near $2,500? Capacity factor can only buy you so much goodwill when you can build 5x the nameplate capacity in 1/10th the time. The best thing the nuclear industry could do to save their technology would be to actually build generating plants for anything approaching the cost or schedule that they commit to when contracted. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Chu#U.S._Secretary_of_Energy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Chu#U.S._Secretary_of_E...
  - m0zg 7y ago
    But, he did shut down fast breeder fuel work, without which there can't be any fast breeder reactors. Google for "GNEP Obama" and "MOX Obama" to find evidence. I'd like to point out as well that the two reasons why nuclear costs so much is the rather grotesque level of government regulation and the lack of production volume caused by aforementioned regulation. It costs a lot of money to build only a few instances of a bespoke design. It costs a lot less per unit to build dozens or hundreds of instances of the same design. And I know you will try to put words in my mouth, so here's a preemptive strike: no, I'm not against government regulation in nuclear. I'd just like to see it brought forward to the realities of the technology we have now rather than what we had 50 years ago. Point being, if we really did want to solve climate change without shutting down the economy and pushing globalist agenda, nuclear energy would be too cheap to meter by now. The fact that nuclear is not being seriously pursued tells you all you need to know about who's serious about climate change and who sees it only as a means to an end. I'd like to make a prediction here: in his second term, Trump will push Gen IV nuclear so hard, you wouldn't believe it. It's politically pernicious to push it before re-election, but after, there's no reason not to pursue a tractable, technological avenue towards reducing emissions. Big beautiful coal will die a natural death, and so will (eventually) fracking and natural gas, if this happens.
Grue3 7y ago
>have a significant chunk of land that is unlivable now It's not that significant (you won't be able to name a single settlement that's currently "unlivable" without looking it up) and it's shrinking all the time. In fact in the March of this year an entire railway line through this "unlivable" zone will be reopened, completely with all three stations that were in the zone and their surroundings.

m0zg 7y ago

Fukushima was built in early 70's. Needless to say _a lot_ of progress has been made since then. Today we have reactors which can't blow up, and work on nuclear waste. Russia has been operating one since 2016. China is building one as well. The US? Our great environmentalist Obama has shut down the program in 2016 due to "cost overruns", according to Wikipedia.

LeoTinnitus 7y ago
Yes but that is a nuclear power plant that didn't even operate for 50 years and now completely made the environment uninhabitable, as well as incurred a massive cost to the people to have to rebuild it...again. If that were a coal or natural gas plant, Okuma would still be habitable and everyone wouldn't have needed to been evacuated. Another problem about nuclear power is it's hard to find a reliable resource of uranium. There is a finite amount of it that is not as readily accessible or abundant as all the other resources. Nuclear energy is a pipe dream. Whats the point in even building a cheap reactor (4 million USD) if you need to maintain it and then when demand increases so highly that there isn't enough uranium to go around. What then? Do the people in the north just go cold during the winter? It's no more sustainable than the current system, except there is a definitive projection that it couldn't sustain this population long term. Green renewable energy is clearly the future, however we will never truly be able to convert to it until we can reliable transfer mechanical energy into things like batteries which can power things for a long time. Even major wind farms in Europe only supplement power usage. They cannot keep up with demand since they can only output what the wind gives. We're a long ways out from a green revolution. Energy storage, capacity, 1:1 conversion of energy to power, and reliable power all need to happen first.
- allovernow 7y ago
  That's simply not true. There's plenty of uranium for hundreds of years of power - not to mention alternatives like thorium which are orders of magnitude more common and don't require the same kind of refinement or pose the same proliferation risk. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_uranium_reserves https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_uranium...
mikeyouse 7y ago
Obama didn't shut anything down.. he appointed a nuclear physicist that said we shouldn't slow down nuclear approvals after Fukushima as Secretary of Energy[1]. Hell, read the description of all the Federal support since 2009 for Vogtle 3&4: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vogtle_Electric_Generating_Plant#Construction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vogtle_Electric_Generating_Pla... They still can't get the stupid things built. It's going to finish somewhere about 200% over budget at $25B for 2000MW and nearly a decade late. Just an absolutely calamity. Over $12k per KW. Natural gas is what, $750/KW? Wind near $1,500? Solar near $2,500? Capacity factor can only buy you so much goodwill when you can build 5x the nameplate capacity in 1/10th the time. The best thing the nuclear industry could do to save their technology would be to actually build generating plants for anything approaching the cost or schedule that they commit to when contracted. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Chu#U.S._Secretary_of_Energy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Chu#U.S._Secretary_of_E...
- m0zg 7y ago
  But, he did shut down fast breeder fuel work, without which there can't be any fast breeder reactors. Google for "GNEP Obama" and "MOX Obama" to find evidence. I'd like to point out as well that the two reasons why nuclear costs so much is the rather grotesque level of government regulation and the lack of production volume caused by aforementioned regulation. It costs a lot of money to build only a few instances of a bespoke design. It costs a lot less per unit to build dozens or hundreds of instances of the same design. And I know you will try to put words in my mouth, so here's a preemptive strike: no, I'm not against government regulation in nuclear. I'd just like to see it brought forward to the realities of the technology we have now rather than what we had 50 years ago. Point being, if we really did want to solve climate change without shutting down the economy and pushing globalist agenda, nuclear energy would be too cheap to meter by now. The fact that nuclear is not being seriously pursued tells you all you need to know about who's serious about climate change and who sees it only as a means to an end. I'd like to make a prediction here: in his second term, Trump will push Gen IV nuclear so hard, you wouldn't believe it. It's politically pernicious to push it before re-election, but after, there's no reason not to pursue a tractable, technological avenue towards reducing emissions. Big beautiful coal will die a natural death, and so will (eventually) fracking and natural gas, if this happens.

Grue3 7y ago

>have a significant chunk of land that is unlivable now It's not that significant (you won't be able to name a single settlement that's currently "unlivable" without looking it up) and it's shrinking all the time. In fact in the March of this year an entire railway line through this "unlivable" zone will be reopened, completely with all three stations that were in the zone and their surroundings.