Still think TITNC3: Return of the Iceberg was peak

Dammit the posts are backwards. I’m leaving it

 

most plants are in the south and southeast
TX, FL, MS, GA, SC, NC

 

I’d take one in my backyard if I got free electricity

 

the old ones are dying...
they shut down san onefre a few years ago for leaky pipes...
too expensive to fix...cheaper to shut down

 

Oh and if anyone is looking for a great movie… And by that I mean you enjoyed movies like bone Tomahawk I recommend Mel Gibson’s dragged across concrete

 

We used to do testing for the Seabrook and Yankee coolant systems looking for trace amounts of metals in the coolant water indicators of corrosion. We still have the geiger counter at work but we never need it anymore

 

That’s an excellent rundown on the difficulties of of building and bringing new reactors online. I have friends that worked on those two projects as well, the stories they tell..

 

nice...
i did a bunch of nuclear work back in those days...
shit ton of drilling...
worked on site for VC summer as well...got to see that massive crane they had...#2 in world i think...

 

Nuclear is overrated. Efficient and way better than coal or diesel plants, hell yea by a lot. BUT it doesn't really help any climate issue. Still just taking potential energy from the ground and converting it to other energy types with a huge byproduct of thermal energy. Ideally we gotta figure out how to do solar, hydro, wind power without major complications

 

I know some guys working nuclear who drive Tacoma’s, some of them its been almost their whole careers lol.

 

yea...that shit was lucrative... is lucrative? i've been out of that industry for a few years now...
SMRs are the next hope for sure...

 

Solar- still expensive if you include battery storage costs expecting power after the sun goes down, covers acres of ground impacting the environment the way it’s being done by the utilities companies. Some solar designs do involve thermal energy. If breakthroughs in efficiency and battery storage are solved it has potential. I much prefer solar panel rooftops over still being hostage to the utility companies if solar cost and battery costs come down. Biggest problem- not everyone lives where there’s lots of sunshine and even if you do there will be days where it’s cloudy and rainy. Oops - no power and no energy storage big enough to last that long.
Wind power - noise, ugly blight on the landscape, bird kills. Wind dies down at night - oops again - no power. Hate them.
Hydro - as good as it gets if done right, but limited water resources especially out West.
Nuclear- the climate issues aren’t blamed on thermal energy it’s blamed on emissions and nuclear solves that. California shut down nuclear plants and replaced with natural gas plants, carbon emissions increased significantly.
https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/...s-higher-due-to-nuclear-closures-1901177.html

 

there's murmers about pumped storage...but hasn't quite grabbed hold yet

 

You’re right, and flywheel storage as well. Company I worked for built a pumped storage hydro plant in the mountains many years ago.

 

That's...just...wrong.

The story is global warming is caused by greenhouse gasses, not by emitting thermal energy. Coal emits a lot of those gasses. Natural gas emits some of them. Nuclear emits zero of them.

If we really believed climate change is the crisis it's made out to be, we'd have gone all nuclear decades ago. But profiting off a crisis is preferable to solving it, apparently.

 

A lurker has entered the chat. And spoken wisely.

The problem is with the industry as well as the powers that be. Design once, build many was the dream but we just never did it that way. Multiple designs, changing regulations, design improvements and changes along the way, most builds became a semi-custom job and costs continued to escalate with every new nuclear plant. Add to that excessive regulations (not just NRC but every federal and state agency under the sun). SMRs just might achieve the goal of design once build many part of that. I hope they do.

 

If you’re wondering about the difference between nuclear and fossil fuel balance a combustion reaction and look at how much carbon dioxide is generated per carbon unit of energy. It’s quite a lot. Nuclear is just taking water, boiling it, and using the steam to move turbines. The heat created boils the water. The water cools and comes back down as rain later. You can even use the excess heat to desalinate water Via distillation. California could solve their power and water issues all in one facility.

 

Absolutely right. Real science vs political emotional pseudo-science is all that’s needed.
https://world-nuclear.org/informati...plications/industry/nuclear-desalination.aspx

 

Your other points are pretty good. The bold bit i'm convinced is just lies to support some kinda agenda though. It's still just taking energy from the ground and using it, and like 90% of those uses let off heat that ends up in the atmosphere. No way it couldn't be a significant factor even if it isn't as great as chemical emissions

 

so thermal energy just goes away? it's gotta go somewhere