View Full Version : Supporting Nuclear Energy



Plutonic Panda
02-16-2021, 12:46 PM
I値l post some links and sources later but I知 curious how many here would support nuclear energy in Oklahoma. We could virtually power over 95% of the state with the cleanest, most efficient, and safest form of energy than exist. Had we at least several candu or perhaps some Westinghouse designed reactors this energy issue wouldn稚 have been an issue at all.

I知 not against renewables for small scale production but I definitely think the wind mill farms should be torn down in now way should rely on renewables for large scale production. That is absolutely moronic, IMO. If we want to combat climate change and really make a dent, nuclear is the answer.

Plutonic Panda
02-16-2021, 12:48 PM
Here’s an article about an expansion of a plant underway in Georgia: https://www.google.com/amp/s/spectrum.ieee.org/energy/nuclear/slow-steady-progress-for-two-us-nuclear-power-projects.amp.html

okccowan
02-16-2021, 01:04 PM
If the environmental movement in the 70s and 80s hadn't been anti-nuclear, and we had built nuclear like France, our carbon emissions would be much much smaller

FighttheGoodFight
02-16-2021, 01:30 PM
You should have a choice that says "Yes but not anywhere near my property" A lot of people want more prisons but not in their towns.

jedicurt
02-16-2021, 01:48 PM
i have always loved that "but not near my property" argument for things. lol. so many people have no clue what is allowed to be built near their property that is way way worse most of the time

Bill Robertson
02-16-2021, 01:52 PM
If nuclear plants built in Oklahoma were absolutely, positively inspected and monitored properly by expert people that are above reproach I would have no problem with nuclear. It can be extremely safe. But that doesn't seem to be the norm in many business sectors in Oklahoma.

SouthOfTheVillage
02-16-2021, 02:05 PM
Problem with Nuclear is it is too expensive to pass on to the ratepayers and/or shareholders. I know Gates has a few Bros working on mini-reactors that sound promising, but the big ones are almost impossible to finance these days.

But sure, if all we cared about was GHG emissions, Nuclear is the move.

Plutonic Panda
02-16-2021, 02:07 PM
You should have a choice that says "Yes but not anywhere near my property" A lot of people want more prisons but not in their towns.
The thing is you get more radiation eating a single banana then you would living next to a nuclear power plant for a year. I’d happily volunteer to let an miniature, modular experimental reactor to be placed in my backyard, with neighbors consent of of course.

catch22
02-16-2021, 02:24 PM
It's not the operating radiation that bothers me, it's the potential meltdown radiation that irks me. Also, the storage requirements for spent material are impactful. The cost to build and maintain probably outweighs the benefits, and the associated risks, while generally low, can have a hefty pricetag in environmental and economic fallout.

I think the future is solar as it is able to move electric generation onsite; which will greatly reduce the load on existing generation plants. Even if it can't meet 100% need of every household, if it could become adopted in a more widespread manner where neighborhoods are generating 40-50% of their peak demand; we can get by with our existing coal and NG facilities well into the future as they will not need to be expanded and running at lower load can increase their life expectancy.

I think an all-of-the-above approach needs to be taken towards energy, with renewables such as wind and solar providing as much as feasible with traditional plants running in the background to help with demand spikes and lower output renewable days (no wind or cloudy/rainy days).

In another thread I started I am exploring solar for my own house. I will likely pull the trigger on that this year or next. The $ amount per month is a wash, however, I would feel better knowing I am producing a significant amount of my usage instead of buying it. The technology is there, why not use our resources as wisely as possible? The wind will always blow and the sun will always shine; let's use as much of that free energy as possible to reduce, not eliminate, our current fuel based production. It's the same principle as having a rain barrel, why not capture some free water? I am not disconnecting my main water, but a light shower can deliver around 50-60 gallons of water off my roof that otherwise goes down my gutter into the street.

FighttheGoodFight
02-16-2021, 03:07 PM
The thing is you get more radiation eating a single banana then you would living next to a nuclear power plant for a year. I’d happily volunteer to let an miniature, modular experimental reactor to be placed in my backyard, with neighbors consent of of course.

I dont have a problem with it personally but from experience I saw people frothing at the mouth when they built a walmart in Edmond along I-35

PoliSciGuy
02-16-2021, 03:16 PM
Yeah NIMBYism would be pretty danged tough to overcome, though given the large amount of relatively sparse land here in the state I'm sure you could find some spots to plop one down.

Jersey Boss
02-16-2021, 03:20 PM
Fusion yes.
Fission no.
No plants until viable waste depository is in place.

gopokes88
02-16-2021, 04:11 PM
Support. Yes

Will they ever build another plant? Probably not.

Gas, wind, solar is the future mix.

gopokes88
02-16-2021, 04:15 PM
Problem with Nuclear is it is too expensive to pass on to the ratepayers and/or shareholders. I know Gates has a few Bros working on mini-reactors that sound promising, but the big ones are almost impossible to finance these days.

But sure, if all we cared about was GHG emissions, Nuclear is the move.

This one is $15 billion over budget.

https://www.powermag.com/georgia-power-new-vogtle-unit-still-set-for-2021-startup/
https://www.wsj.com/articles/tab-swells-to-25-billion-for-nuclear-power-plant-in-georgia-1501691212

Plutonic Panda
02-16-2021, 04:55 PM
Very interesting article about the energy problem and Texas and yes a reactor did trip and was quickly brought back online.

https://atomicinsights.com/?fbclid=IwAR2aNKwBimLeW2tLzqLeZShXZIE_nuKokOcsQR3j O4kq1poqtJUVRrczxF0

jn1780
02-17-2021, 09:14 AM
I'm sure this poll came about from this current energy crisis, but lack of resources isn't the problem. It was the cold weather that took out the supply. All power plants need water to generate power by producing steam, that's a problem when water freezes at 32 and the temps are negative 0. We also have natural gas wells not producing. Obviously natural gas doesn't freeze at these temps, so maybe the pumps, infrastructure stop working?

So we obviously need to winterize things better, but that adds cost to everything.

In terms of nuclear power, if its actually going to have a future, we would need to see major advancements in the thorium fuel cycle.

gopokes88
02-17-2021, 09:28 AM
I'm sure this poll came about from this current energy crisis, but lack of resources isn't the problem. It was the cold weather that took out the supply. All power plants need water to generate power by producing steam, that's a problem when water freezes at 32 and the temps are negative 0. We also have natural gas wells not producing. Obviously natural gas doesn't freeze at these temps, so maybe the pumps, infrastructure stop working?

So we obviously need to winterize things better, but that adds cost to everything.

In terms of nuclear power, if its actually going to have a future, we would need to see major advancements in the thorium fuel cycle.

Production lines exposed to these elements froze up. The NE hardens their infrastructure to protect against these events because they are common. Not so common in Texas.