This is a great intro John. I'd be most interested in both the 4th generation differences/improvements and the spent fuel rod reharvesting technology. If you aren't going to cover that, do you have a good source for info appropriate for the lay person?
I grew up with Three Mile Island, "The China Syndrome " and Chernobyl. So I'm leary of having one on my backyard. Although we did move here with Vermont Yankee in full operation, I did audibly sigh with relief when it closed despite knowing the financial and energy outcomes. I would really like to hear more because Fukushima wasn't inspiring.
lol: "Fukushima wasn't inspiring...." Still isn't.
I have a piece coming out that reviews some of the designs and new technologies, with links to some good sources -- there are a number of designs. I'm also working on a piece about nuclear fusion, which promises to be much safer but faces some daunting technological challenges, such as maintaining a temperature of 180 million degrees within which to initiate the reaction. But there have been some fantastic recent advances in the technology, and some believe it will one day be a thing. (I remain skeptical that it can be achieved at scale).
This is a great article and so important. I was aware of the attitude change about the use of nuclear energy. America is ill positioned to transition back to nuclear energy as the infrastructure is almost non-existent. While other countries didn't bend the knee to activists bent on ending nuclear power and therefore are prepared. The transition back will be long and extremely expensive. Another factor is that these power plants need uranium, which America doesn't have. I believe Russia is rich in uranium and has supplied America with Uranium in the past.
Their plan is to build a whole new line of reactors with improved infrastructure. I question whether it can be done in time to fill the whole being left in fossil fuels. I have another article in the pipeline discussing the "new generation" or reactors. Thanks for commenting!
I’m all for nuclear power done safely. When and if that does happen and sustained electric power using that tech is plentiful, I’ll still drive a gas car. Fossil fuels are abundant and reliable. Statist desire to tell me how to live is non- negotiable. Convince me with reasoned argument, don’t put me under a thumb and force me. That’s a recipe for disaster.
Implicit in all the climate alarmism is a siren's song that we MUST give up individual liberties (including consumption choices) for the greater good of the climate collective. Gore and Shwab as much as say so.... I'm working on an article addressing this attack on individual liberties (and "democracy") in the name of saving the world. Can people actually be this stupid to embrace this ruse?
The new "microreactor" designs seem especially promising. Self adjusting, gas cooled, 1-30MW able to fit on a standard trailer, 8-10 years with no refueling, before it is returned and replaced with a new factory fresh unit.
While nuclear is a potential answer, it is not optimal either. The elephant in the room is the development of electromagnetic Nicola Tesla energy technology. There is no need to burn anything for energy. We are surrounded by it. The issue with moving in this direction is that it is basically free, other than the devices that will harness it in each home. Thus the resistance to move in this direction. He who controls energy, controls the population. I
It is not basically free when sold for a profit. Mankind has been trying to get rich with a (free) perpetual motion machine for hundreds of years..... :)
I've been a proponent of nuclear power for years as the only viable solution. Hopefully we will be soon able to speak the word without censure.
The combination of improved technologies and growing awareness of the comparative environmental costs of fossil fuels will increase the shift....
This is a great intro John. I'd be most interested in both the 4th generation differences/improvements and the spent fuel rod reharvesting technology. If you aren't going to cover that, do you have a good source for info appropriate for the lay person?
I grew up with Three Mile Island, "The China Syndrome " and Chernobyl. So I'm leary of having one on my backyard. Although we did move here with Vermont Yankee in full operation, I did audibly sigh with relief when it closed despite knowing the financial and energy outcomes. I would really like to hear more because Fukushima wasn't inspiring.
lol: "Fukushima wasn't inspiring...." Still isn't.
I have a piece coming out that reviews some of the designs and new technologies, with links to some good sources -- there are a number of designs. I'm also working on a piece about nuclear fusion, which promises to be much safer but faces some daunting technological challenges, such as maintaining a temperature of 180 million degrees within which to initiate the reaction. But there have been some fantastic recent advances in the technology, and some believe it will one day be a thing. (I remain skeptical that it can be achieved at scale).
That sounds compelling. Looking forward to reading more!!
I look forward to reading the article. Thank you!
This is a great article and so important. I was aware of the attitude change about the use of nuclear energy. America is ill positioned to transition back to nuclear energy as the infrastructure is almost non-existent. While other countries didn't bend the knee to activists bent on ending nuclear power and therefore are prepared. The transition back will be long and extremely expensive. Another factor is that these power plants need uranium, which America doesn't have. I believe Russia is rich in uranium and has supplied America with Uranium in the past.
Their plan is to build a whole new line of reactors with improved infrastructure. I question whether it can be done in time to fill the whole being left in fossil fuels. I have another article in the pipeline discussing the "new generation" or reactors. Thanks for commenting!
I’m all for nuclear power done safely. When and if that does happen and sustained electric power using that tech is plentiful, I’ll still drive a gas car. Fossil fuels are abundant and reliable. Statist desire to tell me how to live is non- negotiable. Convince me with reasoned argument, don’t put me under a thumb and force me. That’s a recipe for disaster.
Implicit in all the climate alarmism is a siren's song that we MUST give up individual liberties (including consumption choices) for the greater good of the climate collective. Gore and Shwab as much as say so.... I'm working on an article addressing this attack on individual liberties (and "democracy") in the name of saving the world. Can people actually be this stupid to embrace this ruse?
The new "microreactor" designs seem especially promising. Self adjusting, gas cooled, 1-30MW able to fit on a standard trailer, 8-10 years with no refueling, before it is returned and replaced with a new factory fresh unit.
https://inl.gov/trending-topics/microreactors/
While nuclear is a potential answer, it is not optimal either. The elephant in the room is the development of electromagnetic Nicola Tesla energy technology. There is no need to burn anything for energy. We are surrounded by it. The issue with moving in this direction is that it is basically free, other than the devices that will harness it in each home. Thus the resistance to move in this direction. He who controls energy, controls the population. I
It is not basically free when sold for a profit. Mankind has been trying to get rich with a (free) perpetual motion machine for hundreds of years..... :)
And this is the paradigm that we are about to change.