I’ll post some links and sources later but I’m 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’t have been an issue at all.

I’m 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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Fusion yes.
Fission no.
No plants until viable waste depository is in place.

Support. Yes

Will they ever build another plant? Probably not.

Gas, wind, solar is the future mix.

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

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

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.

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.

Looks like a breakthrough has been made in fusion. The US department of energy will be announcing the findings tomorrow around noon. Hopefully it’ll be something good.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2022/12/11/fusion-nuclear-energy-breakthrough/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=news_tab&fb_news_token=bNqD78FnZEu2m%2BlIuDqUJQ%3D%3D.BB6ry D4R%2BGNViNUEcUlLNkopVprBSDFmi7kqq0RPV6D3D1m%2BI21 axEw2rf0fmVvkyJoAzyLZ3%2BFfk4iEhCTZCH8I719ZuDdYezj iF1D2iNnDKxkjBVE8JtYcxwcEjFicRsAjgemw4VAZc6ElzQqGg HYh%2F1n7brTY9l4kEgV1qJj9Sru6ANzPh9H4s0mzadLMU%2Bv A2Y7hDfvdhEmlDDMxjWmFp7xJ3EA4UKzoOlAbRycaDHH5%2Bn7 bsxIM3wCGNwqH1IW6qmkNUcdkU1nHk%2FAAZQ4uc61huuMZ0ud N9ClHicodcPC6jFnfhYg%2Bi33oA3Nw2cPzZOd%2FGYs8fhI6U PY0Jw%3D%3D

Looks like a breakthrough has been made in fusion. The US department of energy will be announcing the findings tomorrow around noon. Hopefully it’ll be something good.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2022/12/11/fusion-nuclear-energy-breakthrough/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=news_tab&fb_news_token=bNqD78FnZEu2m%2BlIuDqUJQ%3D%3D.BB6ry D4R%2BGNViNUEcUlLNkopVprBSDFmi7kqq0RPV6D3D1m%2BI21 axEw2rf0fmVvkyJoAzyLZ3%2BFfk4iEhCTZCH8I719ZuDdYezj iF1D2iNnDKxkjBVE8JtYcxwcEjFicRsAjgemw4VAZc6ElzQqGg HYh%2F1n7brTY9l4kEgV1qJj9Sru6ANzPh9H4s0mzadLMU%2Bv A2Y7hDfvdhEmlDDMxjWmFp7xJ3EA4UKzoOlAbRycaDHH5%2Bn7 bsxIM3wCGNwqH1IW6qmkNUcdkU1nHk%2FAAZQ4uc61huuMZ0ud N9ClHicodcPC6jFnfhYg%2Bi33oA3Nw2cPzZOd%2FGYs8fhI6U PY0Jw%3D%3D

It's a breakthrough, but not really.

Here's a thread from Bloombergs energy reporter.

I have written only one story about fusion energy. For my university's newspaper 25 years ago. Thankfully, it isn't online.

Since then, I'm skeptical of surprisingly well-timed announcements by budget-starved laboratories about breakthroughs for technologies decades away |
��1/10 But first, the FT story (confirmed now by others, including Bloomberg) about the US Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory near San Francisco set to announce that a fusion experiment released more energy than the lasers used in the experiment emitted

2/10 US scientists boost clean power hopes with fusion energy breakthrough
Net energy gain shows technology could provide an abundant zero-carbon alternative to fossil fuels
There's a caveat to the story. The same laboratory announced a slightly different breakthrough nearly a decade ago (by Nature), announcing it achieved a net energy output vs the energy **absorbed** by the fuel. The new breakthrough is superior |

3/10 If confirmed, the breakthrough is quite important, putting the world into the realms of "fusion ignition", and perhaps in the future into a sustained and controlled fusion reaction. Sustained is a key word there. The current experiment lasted a fraction of a second |

4/10 There a few extra caveats. What net energy means? The lasers used by the Lawrence Livermore laboratory are extremely inefficient, so although the experiment produced net energy compared to what the laser delivered, the lasers consumed a LOT more before to charge |

5/10 The experiment released 2.5 megajoules vs 2.1 MJ of laser energy. But due to inefficiencies, the lasers consume ~330 MJ to charge, with the energy stored in 3,840 high-voltage capacitors for 60 seconds before being released in a 400-microsecond burst https://lasers.llnl.gov/about/how-nif-works/power-conditioning

6/10 Even by those caveats, the experiment is a massive scientific breakthrough -- but don't think you are about to enjoy free and clean energy tomorrow. Or next year. Or in 20 years or, perhaps, even 50 years. Commerciality is far, far away. If ever. Many obstacles remain

7/10 One example, the current lasers used in the experiment can fire, at best, only **once a day**. For commerciality, they will need to fire several times **per second**. That's a sign of the many and further breakthroughs they are needed to secure clean and free energy |

8/10 Should we spend some billions in fusion research when fision energy is readably? Yes, we should, but we should too keep building fision nuclear power plants. Science is about discovery: let scientists experiment -- and wait. Many scientific breakthroughs came as a surprise |

9/10 But from all what we know today, we still need to wait more time for a fusion energy-version of the famous line:

"The Italian navigator has just landed in the New World" end 10/10

https://twitter.com/JavierBlas/status/1602263157677985793?s=20&t=hJ7tGmuYOwhocVhFmcdyeQ

There are plenty of ships and sub's running on nuclear power without a hitch. No problem.

There are plenty of ships and sub's running on nuclear power without a hitch. No problem.
Yes there are.
It's taken me awhile to like the idea of nuclear power. I saw the last few years of the Cimmaron plant clean-up first hand. Then became responsible for what was left of the buildings after the NRC released them. It was a disaster. And inside any of the buildings I kept thinking "Is it really all gone?". But I'm past that and see many places have safe nuclear processing plants and power plants. No reason why we can't do it.

Nuclear waste is the main problem along with danger to plants from natural disasters. However, nuclear waste can be recycled into energy-producing material and the leftover is far less dangerous than the original waste so, with the likelihood of commercial nuclear fusion power still years down the road, I would be in favor of more fission plants to tide us over.

For the first time Nuclear Fusion is produced in a lab in California. This is wild.
https://youtu.be/acgZLO4t19E

It's a breakthrough, but not really.



Sure, its not going to result in powering homes or powering electric vehicles tomorrow, but its a huge scientific breakthrough.

We often get short sighted due to the energy discussion. These discoveries often lead to other discoveries.

https://www.alternet.org/nuclear-fusion-wont-save-climate/

"In truth, any fusion breakthroughs are potentially of critical importance not as a remedy for our warming climate but for a future apocalyptic world of war. Despite all the fantastic media publicity, that’s how the U.S. government has always seen it and that’s why the latest fusion test to create “energy” was executed in the utmost secrecy at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. One thing should be taken for granted: the American government is interested not in using fusion technology to power the energy grid, but in using it to further strengthen this country’s already massive arsenal of atomic weapons."

https://www.alternet.org/nuclear-fusion-wont-save-climate/

"In truth, any fusion breakthroughs are potentially of critical importance not as a remedy for our warming climate but for a future apocalyptic world of war. Despite all the fantastic media publicity, that’s how the U.S. government has always seen it and that’s why the latest fusion test to create “energy” was executed in the utmost secrecy at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. One thing should be taken for granted: the American government is interested not in using fusion technology to power the energy grid, but in using it to further strengthen this country’s already massive arsenal of atomic weapons."

No disrespect but this article is fear-mongering.

In order to weaponize fusion we must first learn how to ignite fusion without an initial fission reaction, more than one time. Secondly, once we do that, we then need to minimize the materials needed in order to generate the weapons that are spoken about in this article.

At this point in time, we are in no possible way able to scale this up in terms of generating power for cities. This also applies in the sense that we must also scale down the process in order of which we create this energy, hence the reason why nuclear fusion powering the world is still currently an impossible task. I mean it took 35 nations collaborating to be able to build the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor, or ITER, so in what way is it realistic to worry about us being able to scale down this technology enough in order to put it into a bomb, or some other type of weapon?

This is plausible to worry about, maybe, 30-50 years from now? We already have plenty of bombs that can decimate the world in a few minutes notice, while at the same time we can use that same technology to create relatively incredible amounts of power. This really isn't any different. Any technological breakthrough in human history has mostly likely had attempts and successes at weaponizing them.



also as a registered democrat i can tell by just looking at the headlines and word choice of the other articles in that news service that it is HEAVILY skewed to the left in the same way that newsmax is heavily skewed to the right and so i wouldnt use it as a reliable source of information tbh

^^^ In order to do *anything* with fusion, it needs to happen more than one time and we need to minimize the materials....

And yes, either fusion weapons or fusion power is a few decades off.

Alternet sourced the article from TomDispatch, that's what it was originally written for, and yes, Alternet is left, and TomDispatch is too, but that doesn't mean the article doesn't have truth behind it. Weaponizing fusion is entirely plausible and probable, in my opinion.

https://i.pinimg.com/736x/ad/98/4a/ad984adff701f26c9154fa49b127fc0c--nuclear-energy-nuclear-power.jpg

Black Fox Nuclear Power Plant (Inola, Oklahoma): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Fox_Nuclear_Power_Plant

THE REAL OBSTACLE TO NUCLEAR POWER (https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2023/03/climate-change-nuclear-power-safety-radioactive-waste/672776/)

Good article discussing the history of nuclear power, current innovations, and changing attitudes.


Or rather, to be more precise, what is newest and potentially most significant about Kairos’s test is not a technological invention. Rather, it is innovation more broadly conceived. First and foremost, Kairos is devising not a nuclear technology but a business technology: a method of organizing a very complex project to be faster, simpler, more efficient, and cheaper. This kind of process innovation may not look like much, but it’s what nuclear power needs if it is to fulfill its extraordinary promise.

^^^ In order to do *anything* with fusion, it needs to happen more than one time and we need to minimize the materials....

And yes, either fusion weapons or fusion power is a few decades off.

Alternet sourced the article from TomDispatch, that's what it was originally written for, and yes, Alternet is left, and TomDispatch is too, but that doesn't mean the article doesn't have truth behind it. Weaponizing fusion is entirely plausible and probable, in my opinion.

Do you mean a fusion weapon without a fission primary? Because we already have fusion weapons.... We have for decades.

Do you mean a fusion weapon without a fission primary? Because we already have fusion weapons.... We have for decades.

Yes, fusion without fission is the gist of the article, whether it be for power generation or weapons.