17 year old advocate for nuclear energy.

[Marc-Antoine]

Nuclear is heavily regulated and very closely kept under surveillance, so you could say it should be safer than many other industrial plants. But it needs massive investments (big money tends to blur and hide things) and the subject is highly political too. Your best bet is that the transparency isn't up to the claim and actually most of us never really know what's going on. We just can hope that this engineering marvel is created by and entrusted to the top notch people / companies existing.

 

[Treeaddict]

The cost is supposed to come down with 4th gen reactors. I’ve read they are being built in Denmark and somewhere else in Europe. Totally modular. Kinda plug and play. Plants are expensive partly because they are individually designed and stick built. Modular “skids” can be produced very efficiently and linked together for Kw.

I’ve heard used ships or barges will be outfitted with reactors and set up in costal waters as well.

 

[gf beranek]

Those modular units are totally cool.

Consider the issues of 'climate change' and the need to take "immediate action" I can't help but wonder why the "nuclear" option is not getting more attention.

If things are so damn "desperate" why not? Something is not adding up.

 

[Bermy]

Did you read Kyles post?

 

[Tree09]

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/349934693_Small_Modular_and_Advanced_Nuclear_Reactors_A_Reality_Check

 

[gf beranek]

Ah, very good. Thanks

Shame it's taking a back seat to "Green"

 

[Tree09]

Yeah, not a lot of pipes in a windmill. It is what it is tho, the world keeps changing, all we can do is try to adapt. We still have a bunch of them around here tho, so there's still work on them a few times a year. The big thing for fitters lately is all the chip and battery plants going up, i guess when they finish it they'll start tearing it out and retooling it for the next years model, so there's constant work on them. There's a pretty big boom going on if one is willing to travel to it.

 

[Ed L]

So company "A" buys a nuke plant form our energy provider, then shuts it down.
They sell it to company "B". Who now is in the process of restarting it (an industry first). They also want to add 2 modular reactors at the site to meet future demand that won't be met by wind and solar....lol
WTF?

Ed

 

[Kaveman]

 

[gf beranek]

I probably wont be around to see it then. Dang it.

I love keeping up with the tech.

Good vid. That guy really put it into perspective.


Thanks.

 

[FireFighterZero]

I just hope the next version of humans don't decide to wage a war on carbon.

We need more carbon....not less.

 

[Tree09]

We need more co2? Really?

 

[CurSedVoyce]

He said carbon

 

[Tree09]

That's what they're waging war on, co2 not carbon. If carbon was the byproduct this wouldn't be an issue.

 

[CurSedVoyce]

Earth needs CO2 for plants and oxy production. Best go look up some real science

 

[Tree09]

Yeah, they're not worried about not having enough carbon in the carbon cycle, the problem is that we're adding a ton of carbon to it by digging up long buried carbon and adding it too, and much faster than plants can possibly sequester it, because when they decay it goes right back into the atmosphere. Co2 levels have doubled since the industrial revolution, and humans are soley responsible for that. More accepted than our theories of gravity, lol real science.

 

[FireFighterZero]

Robots making big macs and zero carbon.

Gawd almighty

 

[FireFighterZero]

You can't "sequester" anything.

My goodness....might as well try to stop a volcano from erupting.

All you can do is try and get the carbon working for you.

 

[lxskllr]

Of course you can sequester carbon. It was tightly bound til it started getting extracted. Just like sewage isn't a problem when it's sequestered in your septic tank, but becomes a huge problem when it's running through your backyard. Where the carbon, sewage, plutonium... is located matters.

 

[FireFighterZero]

You can't sequester carbon with carbon credits...or by using the current model for modern agriculture.

When carbon was "sequestered" times were really shifting bad on the planet.

 

[lxskllr]

You can sequester it by capture and storage. That's the hard way. It's better to not release it in the first place, accept that you royally frigged everything up, and wait it out til everything goes back in balance, and maybe your great, great, great, great, great, great grandkids can have a house that doesn't get periodically flooded and the tops taken out of the trees every summer.

 

[FireFighterZero]

Holy cow!


Man you east coasters have a glum look on things! Hahaha!


If you want to sequester it...like that guy in North Dakota....who is making millions...you should keep recycling so we can pump more plastic into the oceans.


We mustn't sequester the carbon. Its a scam, and a dangerous one at that.

We have to use it.

 

[Tree09]

And how do you suggest we do that?

 

[FireFighterZero]

Well....seeing how we...all of us are carbon....and most of what isn't water on this planet is carbon....and one kind of mean ole carbon isn't really worse than the others...we actually need more life forms on the planet.

The carbon is here. What you might sequester would only go towards making a billionaire richer.

We can't really do much about carbon....so we might as well use it to make life better.



Centralized, industrial, production driven agriculture is worse for the planet than if you were to start burning tires and panda bears for energy.

 

[FireFighterZero]

Not to put too fine a point on it...but soil health will kill us all long before "climate change".