6 ms·

And just imagine how many miles nuclear powered Aircraft Carriers have traversed without significant incident since the 1960’s.

ok_dad 4y ago
Navy nuclear safety is the result of planning and engineering and obscene amounts of money. There is no way commercial energy plants could profit if they spent the resources the navy does.
- arrosenberg 4y ago
  Maybe energy production shouldn’t be viewed as a profit center? Socializing the thing modern civilization depends on makes sense - with unlimited energy there would be plenty of other ways to make money.
  - windows2020 4y ago
    If it wasn't a profit center we may still be burning wood.
    - arrosenberg 4y ago
      Maybe, but since its not 1715 any more, I’m going to focus on what makes sense currently.
- jvanderbot 4y ago
  ok. how about France? They get 70% of their power from Nuclear, starting in 1962.
  - byroot 4y ago
    Over half our reactors are currently stopped because of various corrosion issues, we regularly have to stop some because of drought, etc. France might have been the poster child for nuclear energy, but it’s on the verge of becoming a poster child for what happens after you over rely on it for two decade.
    - jvanderbot 4y ago
      Sure, they wear out. Nobody said otherwise. But I haven't heard of a major incident in either the US Navy or France, the nation.
    - maccard 4y ago
      > but it’s on the verge of becoming a poster child for what happens after you over rely on it for two decade. No, it's on the verge of becoming a poster child for what happens if you _neglect it_ for two decades.
      - danielbln 4y ago
        So, how do you get large energy conglomerates and oligopolies from neglecting this infrastructure? Mega corps, especially energy corps in the US, aren't exactly known for playing by the book and are very much known for cutting every available corner. The proponents of nuclear fission often forget that greed and neglect runs rampant.
        maccard 4y ago
        > So, how do you get large energy conglomerates and oligopolies from neglecting this infrastructure? This isn't unique to private sector - public infrastructure suffers from underinvestment too. The same way that you get GCHP, coal, wind and solar infrastructure, or roads and rail infrastructure supported - long term backing from governments. > The proponents of nuclear fission often forget that greed and neglect runs rampant. And the opposers will point at the failures and ignore the huge successes of decades of low cost, low carbon electricity globally around the world. Looking at the UK (where I live, purely because I'm familiar with the situation here) the newest currently operating nuclear plant here was built in 1995, meanwhile the oldest gas plant in the country was built in 1993. The operating lifespan of the majority of these power stations has been 50 years, meanwhile we're still building them and struggling to build _one_ nuclear plant here in the last 30 years. So to answer your original question - stop having them build gas power plants and have them invest in nuclear plants instead.
    - homonculus1 4y ago
  - adrianN 4y ago
    They get 70% of their electricity from nuclear. Only about a third of France's power is nuclear: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/energy-consumption-by-source-and-region?country=~FRA https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/energy-consumption-by-sou...
    - shawabawa3 4y ago
      "power" means electricity A third of their energy usage is nuclear. This will change as electric cars become more common
      - adrianN 4y ago
        Yeah, it will go down. France is not building enough new nuclear to replace aging reactors. They'd have to build way more to replace oil and gas.
- nerdponx 4y ago
  Isn't the US Navy somewhat notorious for misusing its money?
  - mpyne 4y ago
    Yes, but the 'nuclear Navy' is practically a whole separate branch-within-a-branch of the Navy.
- mpyne 4y ago
  It's true that the Navy spends a lot of money, but it's also true that the Navy can be (and has been) wasteful in terms of spending. What this means is that commercial power can in principle achieve the same safety outcomes with planning and engineering and maybe something south of 'obscene' amounts of money. This is actually what happened when the commercial power industry first started. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yankee_Rowe_Nuclear_Power_Station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yankee_Rowe_Nuclear_Power_Stat... There's also the fact that a lot of the expense for the nuclear Navy is having to achieve militarized and maritime variants of gear that can be produced much more simply for civilian applications on land. Fitting anything into a submarine is going to be expensive, including diesel engines, but we don't use that as a reason to say diesel is not practical for civilian transport elsewhere.
tarte-au-poire 4y ago
Fair; but at the same time I have a feeling we would not hear much about it if theirs was issues

ok_dad 4y ago

Navy nuclear safety is the result of planning and engineering and obscene amounts of money. There is no way commercial energy plants could profit if they spent the resources the navy does.

arrosenberg 4y ago
Maybe energy production shouldn’t be viewed as a profit center? Socializing the thing modern civilization depends on makes sense - with unlimited energy there would be plenty of other ways to make money.
- windows2020 4y ago
  If it wasn't a profit center we may still be burning wood.
  - arrosenberg 4y ago
    Maybe, but since its not 1715 any more, I’m going to focus on what makes sense currently.
jvanderbot 4y ago
ok. how about France? They get 70% of their power from Nuclear, starting in 1962.
- byroot 4y ago
  Over half our reactors are currently stopped because of various corrosion issues, we regularly have to stop some because of drought, etc. France might have been the poster child for nuclear energy, but it’s on the verge of becoming a poster child for what happens after you over rely on it for two decade.
  - jvanderbot 4y ago
    Sure, they wear out. Nobody said otherwise. But I haven't heard of a major incident in either the US Navy or France, the nation.
  - maccard 4y ago
    > but it’s on the verge of becoming a poster child for what happens after you over rely on it for two decade. No, it's on the verge of becoming a poster child for what happens if you _neglect it_ for two decades.
    - danielbln 4y ago
      So, how do you get large energy conglomerates and oligopolies from neglecting this infrastructure? Mega corps, especially energy corps in the US, aren't exactly known for playing by the book and are very much known for cutting every available corner. The proponents of nuclear fission often forget that greed and neglect runs rampant.
      - maccard 4y ago
        > So, how do you get large energy conglomerates and oligopolies from neglecting this infrastructure? This isn't unique to private sector - public infrastructure suffers from underinvestment too. The same way that you get GCHP, coal, wind and solar infrastructure, or roads and rail infrastructure supported - long term backing from governments. > The proponents of nuclear fission often forget that greed and neglect runs rampant. And the opposers will point at the failures and ignore the huge successes of decades of low cost, low carbon electricity globally around the world. Looking at the UK (where I live, purely because I'm familiar with the situation here) the newest currently operating nuclear plant here was built in 1995, meanwhile the oldest gas plant in the country was built in 1993. The operating lifespan of the majority of these power stations has been 50 years, meanwhile we're still building them and struggling to build _one_ nuclear plant here in the last 30 years. So to answer your original question - stop having them build gas power plants and have them invest in nuclear plants instead.
  - homonculus1 4y ago
- adrianN 4y ago
  They get 70% of their electricity from nuclear. Only about a third of France's power is nuclear: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/energy-consumption-by-source-and-region?country=~FRA https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/energy-consumption-by-sou...
  - shawabawa3 4y ago
    "power" means electricity A third of their energy usage is nuclear. This will change as electric cars become more common
    - adrianN 4y ago
      Yeah, it will go down. France is not building enough new nuclear to replace aging reactors. They'd have to build way more to replace oil and gas.
nerdponx 4y ago
Isn't the US Navy somewhat notorious for misusing its money?
- mpyne 4y ago
  Yes, but the 'nuclear Navy' is practically a whole separate branch-within-a-branch of the Navy.
mpyne 4y ago
It's true that the Navy spends a lot of money, but it's also true that the Navy can be (and has been) wasteful in terms of spending. What this means is that commercial power can in principle achieve the same safety outcomes with planning and engineering and maybe something south of 'obscene' amounts of money. This is actually what happened when the commercial power industry first started. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yankee_Rowe_Nuclear_Power_Station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yankee_Rowe_Nuclear_Power_Stat... There's also the fact that a lot of the expense for the nuclear Navy is having to achieve militarized and maritime variants of gear that can be produced much more simply for civilian applications on land. Fitting anything into a submarine is going to be expensive, including diesel engines, but we don't use that as a reason to say diesel is not practical for civilian transport elsewhere.

tarte-au-poire 4y ago

Fair; but at the same time I have a feeling we would not hear much about it if theirs was issues