Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
That sounds absolutely wild.That is very fascinating not to mention it had to be extremely stressful.I have very little knowledge of experiences such as you described only some stories and information passed on by acquaintances. That is quite fascinating though. Not just about the nuclear techs and normality that went along with it but the whole thing is honestly very intriguing to me. Thank you.I agree completely. How do you feel about the latest developments in nuclear fusion? Do you see the United States utilizing nuclear energy more in the future? How do you feel about mobile reactors on ships? Do you think nuclear vessels should be more common in commercial or public use? Do you favor any specific reactors, companies, or materials?
How do I feel about nuclear propulsion on ships? Pretty good, made several deployments onboard nuclear aircraft carriers, and never had a problem. How do I feel about commercial ships using nuclear power? If they are as meticulous as Adm. Rickover was in designing and running their nuclear programs, again, I have zero problems. The US Navy has probably the best track record of nuclear power that there ever was, but that is because Rickover personally ran the program with an iron fist and accepted ZERO excuses or mistakes.wI agree completely. How do you feel about the latest developments in nuclear fusion? Do you see the United States utilizing nuclear energy more in the future? How do you feel about mobile reactors on ships? Do you think nuclear vessels should be more common in commercial or public use? Do you favor any specific reactors, companies, or materials?
How do I feel about nuclear propulsion on ships? Pretty good, made several deployments onboard nuclear aircraft carriers, and never had a problem. How do I feel about commercial ships using nuclear power? If they are as meticulous as Adm. Rickover was in designing and running their nuclear programs, again, I have zero problems. The US Navy has probably the best track record of nuclear power that there ever was, but that is because Rickover personally ran the program with an iron fist and accepted ZERO excuses or mistakes.
Out of curiosity what was being on a nuclear-powered ship like? Was there a lot of extra risk or fear about contact? Were regulations different?
Actually, to tell you the truth, for those of us who weren't nuclear techs, it was pretty much like being on a normal ship, and you didn't really notice or think much about being on a nuclear powered vessel. But, if you did get close to where the engine room was, there were people who would kindly tell you that you weren't authorized to be there and to leave. No, never had a fear about nuclear contact, and never felt like there was a risk.
Best part about being on a carrier? You could eat 23 out of 24 hours a day, so you never went hungry, even if you had late watch. Not only that, but the meals that were served in the regular chow line were pretty decent. Out of all the ships I served on, being on a carrier I think was the one I enjoyed the most. And, they rarely rocked, even in really heavy seas.
I was also on the PRP team, which meant that I was one of the personnel that loaded nuclear weapons on the FA-18. Interestingly enough, when we had our drills for loading and checking, we never knew if they were live or if they were just practice dummies. But, we treated each and every one as if they were live. They would seal off one of the hangars, and put armed Marines around the perimeter to keep unauthorized personnel out.
By the way, speaking of how little a carrier rocks, on one cruise we went above the Arctic Circle in the middle of Feb and had seas so rough that the carrier was taking 15 degree rolls, and spray was coming up OVER the front of the flight deck (90 feet off the water). One of the A-6's that was tied down towards the front ended up being encased in a shell of ice a foot thick, and when we got back to the States, it had to be craned off of the ship. I didn't mind though, because 15 deg. rolls is a regular event on smaller ships, which I had served on before going to the carrier. Best part about that is most of the people who had been on carriers all their enlistment got sea sick, which made for only a 10-15 min. wait in the chow line. Normally, you would wait anywhere from 30 - 45 min. in line. Read a lot of Tom Clancy novels standing in line for chow.
I cannot imagine being on a ship that moves so violently. If I had the time I would very much like to spend a summer on a transport ship just to have that experience but I have no clue how that would go. I've heard the arctic circle is very beautiful alongside extremely dangerous. A friend of mine had a brother posted on a ship off of the Alaskan Coast and mentioned it was extremely beautiful including the girls when they docked. I know not too much more of his time spent out there except that he enjoyed it. I bet the line didn't last long, that's some violent water. I never heard of the occurrence of a frozen A-6 that really baffles me. Never read Tom clancy however several friends of mine love his works.
Violent? 15 degree rolls are nothing. If you really want to have an experience, try being on a smaller ship on the edge of a hurricane when you are taking 25 to 35 degree rolls. I remember one time during those kind of rough seas, I opened the door to the bridge, we took a roll, and I saw 2 people fall down and slide from one side of the bridge to the other, smacking into the opposite bulkhead.
As far as a frozen aircraft making the news? Nope, that isn't really anything to report, other than to the maintenance folks who have to repair the aircraft.
I really enjoyed the 20 plus years I spent in the Navy. Not only did it provide me with a steady retirement (especially useful in these times of the virus), but I also got to travel to 26 different countries, and 49 different states, only missing Alaska. Not bad for a poor country boy from Montana who wanted to travel the world. As far as which country had the most beautiful women in my opinion? I'd have to say it's a toss up between Italy and Israel. They had some really attractive ladies in those countries, and no, I've never been to Sweden or Norway, but I hear they are gorgeous up there.
That sounds absolutely wild.That is very fascinating not to mention it had to be extremely stressful.I have very little knowledge of experiences such as you described only some stories and information passed on by acquaintances. That is quite fascinating though. Not just about the nuclear techs and normality that went along with it but the whole thing is honestly very intriguing to me. Thank you.I agree completely. How do you feel about the latest developments in nuclear fusion? Do you see the United States utilizing nuclear energy more in the future? How do you feel about mobile reactors on ships? Do you think nuclear vessels should be more common in commercial or public use? Do you favor any specific reactors, companies, or materials?
How do I feel about nuclear propulsion on ships? Pretty good, made several deployments onboard nuclear aircraft carriers, and never had a problem. How do I feel about commercial ships using nuclear power? If they are as meticulous as Adm. Rickover was in designing and running their nuclear programs, again, I have zero problems. The US Navy has probably the best track record of nuclear power that there ever was, but that is because Rickover personally ran the program with an iron fist and accepted ZERO excuses or mistakes.wI agree completely. How do you feel about the latest developments in nuclear fusion? Do you see the United States utilizing nuclear energy more in the future? How do you feel about mobile reactors on ships? Do you think nuclear vessels should be more common in commercial or public use? Do you favor any specific reactors, companies, or materials?
How do I feel about nuclear propulsion on ships? Pretty good, made several deployments onboard nuclear aircraft carriers, and never had a problem. How do I feel about commercial ships using nuclear power? If they are as meticulous as Adm. Rickover was in designing and running their nuclear programs, again, I have zero problems. The US Navy has probably the best track record of nuclear power that there ever was, but that is because Rickover personally ran the program with an iron fist and accepted ZERO excuses or mistakes.
Out of curiosity what was being on a nuclear-powered ship like? Was there a lot of extra risk or fear about contact? Were regulations different?
Actually, to tell you the truth, for those of us who weren't nuclear techs, it was pretty much like being on a normal ship, and you didn't really notice or think much about being on a nuclear powered vessel. But, if you did get close to where the engine room was, there were people who would kindly tell you that you weren't authorized to be there and to leave. No, never had a fear about nuclear contact, and never felt like there was a risk.
Best part about being on a carrier? You could eat 23 out of 24 hours a day, so you never went hungry, even if you had late watch. Not only that, but the meals that were served in the regular chow line were pretty decent. Out of all the ships I served on, being on a carrier I think was the one I enjoyed the most. And, they rarely rocked, even in really heavy seas.
I was also on the PRP team, which meant that I was one of the personnel that loaded nuclear weapons on the FA-18. Interestingly enough, when we had our drills for loading and checking, we never knew if they were live or if they were just practice dummies. But, we treated each and every one as if they were live. They would seal off one of the hangars, and put armed Marines around the perimeter to keep unauthorized personnel out.
By the way, speaking of how little a carrier rocks, on one cruise we went above the Arctic Circle in the middle of Feb and had seas so rough that the carrier was taking 15 degree rolls, and spray was coming up OVER the front of the flight deck (90 feet off the water). One of the A-6's that was tied down towards the front ended up being encased in a shell of ice a foot thick, and when we got back to the States, it had to be craned off of the ship. I didn't mind though, because 15 deg. rolls is a regular event on smaller ships, which I had served on before going to the carrier. Best part about that is most of the people who had been on carriers all their enlistment got sea sick, which made for only a 10-15 min. wait in the chow line. Normally, you would wait anywhere from 30 - 45 min. in line. Read a lot of Tom Clancy novels standing in line for chow.
I cannot imagine being on a ship that moves so violently. If I had the time I would very much like to spend a summer on a transport ship just to have that experience but I have no clue how that would go. I've heard the arctic circle is very beautiful alongside extremely dangerous. A friend of mine had a brother posted on a ship off of the Alaskan Coast and mentioned it was extremely beautiful including the girls when they docked. I know not too much more of his time spent out there except that he enjoyed it. I bet the line didn't last long, that's some violent water. I never heard of the occurrence of a frozen A-6 that really baffles me. Never read Tom clancy however several friends of mine love his works.
Violent? 15 degree rolls are nothing. If you really want to have an experience, try being on a smaller ship on the edge of a hurricane when you are taking 25 to 35 degree rolls. I remember one time during those kind of rough seas, I opened the door to the bridge, we took a roll, and I saw 2 people fall down and slide from one side of the bridge to the other, smacking into the opposite bulkhead.
As far as a frozen aircraft making the news? Nope, that isn't really anything to report, other than to the maintenance folks who have to repair the aircraft.
I really enjoyed the 20 plus years I spent in the Navy. Not only did it provide me with a steady retirement (especially useful in these times of the virus), but I also got to travel to 26 different countries, and 49 different states, only missing Alaska. Not bad for a poor country boy from Montana who wanted to travel the world. As far as which country had the most beautiful women in my opinion? I'd have to say it's a toss up between Italy and Israel. They had some really attractive ladies in those countries, and no, I've never been to Sweden or Norway, but I hear they are gorgeous up there.
I've just never even heard of that happening that's crazy to me.
I'm hoping to study abroad in college and visit a lot of the world. So far I think I might be able to travel to Korea and China for political science. I've always wanted to go to Israel I hear it's absolutely stunning not to mention the history there. Sadly, my college deems it to unsafe. I admire all the things you've experienced it is very fascinating to me. Thank you I appreciate it.
I am curious to know people's views on nuclear energy.
How do people feel about worldwide efforts to achieve nuclear fusion? How do people feel about our current state of fission? Do you believe that nuclear has no place in certain areas? ( I.E. naval vessels/aircrafts/ trains/ shuttles and space stations/ etc.) Are there any reactors or materials you take issue with? What causes any reservations if you have any? How do people feel about waste disposal?
I will be doing another one of these posts on other forms of energy.
I am curious to see what people think. This is specifically on nuclear energies and is not limited to problems but extends to any offered solutions, theories, or inquiries.
That is awesome, in the traditional usage of the word. Seeing as it is almost impossible to ask for more information or even an opinion on in-use technology I have to ask your opinion on the tech being researched today. What do you think of the latest advancements in fusion? Are there any materials you would refuse the usage of like uranium or plutonium to replace it with thorium? How do you feel about current policies on regulations and productions? Do you have any opinions on making the policies more effective or prominent? Any configuration you like? ( mini-sun/ITER/ect.) Thank you for the previous in-depth information.I am curious to know people's views on nuclear energy.
How do people feel about worldwide efforts to achieve nuclear fusion? How do people feel about our current state of fission? Do you believe that nuclear has no place in certain areas? ( I.E. naval vessels/aircrafts/ trains/ shuttles and space stations/ etc.) Are there any reactors or materials you take issue with? What causes any reservations if you have any? How do people feel about waste disposal?
I will be doing another one of these posts on other forms of energy.
I am curious to see what people think. This is specifically on nuclear energies and is not limited to problems but extends to any offered solutions, theories, or inquiries.
There is no other future to energy production in the world, currently, other than nuclear power. There is no other source of energy that is as clean, as cheap, and as scale-able as nuclear.
View attachment 433442
This is the solar park in Bhadla India.
View attachment 433445
This is the Perry Nuclear plant in Ohio.
Let's compare the two.
The solar park takes 14,000 acres of land.
The Nuclear plant takes 1,100 acres of land.
That's a huge difference. That's 14,000 acres of land that can't be used for farming, or building housing, or anything.
Comparing production is problematic, because a solar farm requires sun obviously, just like a wind farm requires wind obviously, neither of which are entirely predictable. A nuclear power plant can run non-stop no matter what.
So the Solar park has a 'name plate' value of 2.2 Gigwatts.
The nuclear plant produces 3.75 Gigwatts. But unlike the solar park, that's 3.75 Gigwatts year round, 24/7. And by the way, that's only 3.75 Gigwatts because the idiotic government stepped in and canceled the second reactor (which is why in the photo only one cooling tower is on). It would have been up to 7 Gigwatts 24/7 if the idiots in government hadn't screwed the public.
A solar park on the other hand, produces nothing at night, and if there is a storm, or clouds, the production drops.
By the way, one of the reasons when you see any renewable power, you see it as having a "name plate" capacity. There's a reason for this. It's because none of them actually produce that much power, even in ideal situations.
Nuclear on the other hand, is entirely different. If the production capacity is 3.75 GigWatts, then that plant can produce..... 3.75 Gigwatts.
Now you might be complaining that I'm just attacking renewable power. No, I'm not. In order to see the advantages of nuclear, you have to compare it to something.
That said, pollution wise, nuclear has a clear advantage over all other forms of energy production, in that all pollution is captured.
When you look at spent fuel rods, they are contained, and safe, and stored. People complain, what do we do with the fuel rods? Well there are a million things we can do with them, but at least we can do something with them. What can you do about the smoke coming out of the power plant stack? Nothing, it's in the air and dispersed into the environment.
View attachment 433452
Even solar panels wear out in a matter of years, and are tossed into landfills. Thousands of tons of solar panels are dumped into waste piles like this one.
View attachment 433453
That's a nuclear fuel rod, that will function for years before being replaced. It will produce massive amounts of power, and then can be safely stored after it is spent. (fyi, yes you can hold, and handle nuclear fuel rods).
Contrary to urban myth, spent nuclear fuel is not a gas, that can escape into the environment, and contaminate the planet. Nor is it a liquid that will get into the ground water, and turn all your kids into green glowing monsters.
In fact, they found in a uranium deposit, that a natural nuclear reaction had taken place in nature. They researched this event, and found that the nuclear waste products didn't even contaminate the area far from the reaction.
Point being, it's not like something you see in a cartoon with green glowing ooze that gets into the environment and starts turning everything into monsters. Even if the containment caskets that spent fuel rods are placed in, were somehow to be broken open, the fuel rods are solid. They are not going to 'ooze out' and start contaminating the world.
However, even this is a contrived problem. Nuclear fuel rods can simply be reprocessed. France has been doing this for decades.
You take a spent fuel rod, and you reprocess the fuel. By filtering out the un-usable material, you end up with a new ready to use fuel rod. The remaining material, will be roughly 10% of what you had before. Meaning for every 100 fuel rods, you would end up with 90 ready to use, and 10 waste.
Why don't we do this? Because ignorant people voted for ignorant politicians, that prevent us from using technology.
But you might ask, what can we do with the remaining 10 fuel rods of waste? We can actually use those as well.
There are reactors called MOX, or mixed oxide fuel reactors. We can use that waste, in MOX fuel rods, and create power with them as well.
My understanding is that barely 10% of the waste from reprocessed fuel rods, would be unusable in MOX reactors.
So all the 'nuclear waste' that we have today could be reprocessed, reducing it by 90%, and then that 10% could be processed again reducing that waste by another 90%.
And what is left, that is waste.... can safely be stored in casks until it is no longer radio active.
Now all of that, is to deal with current day in-use nuclear technology.
We have technology that we haven't used, that is safer, and produces even less waste. Such as molten salt reactors, or Thorium reactors, both of which far better.
But regardless of which future tech we use, there is really no alternative to nuclear power. There simply isn't any other fuel source for energy, that provides the most power, for the lowest cost, with the least amount of pollution. It's that simple. There just isn't.
The trip to the mountain sounds pretty awesome. I didn't know that rollerblading was big there. I know very little about Israel's culture and more about their government, economic system, and research. That sounds pretty fun though I wouldn't make it far going down a mountain on blades.That sounds absolutely wild.That is very fascinating not to mention it had to be extremely stressful.I have very little knowledge of experiences such as you described only some stories and information passed on by acquaintances. That is quite fascinating though. Not just about the nuclear techs and normality that went along with it but the whole thing is honestly very intriguing to me. Thank you.I agree completely. How do you feel about the latest developments in nuclear fusion? Do you see the United States utilizing nuclear energy more in the future? How do you feel about mobile reactors on ships? Do you think nuclear vessels should be more common in commercial or public use? Do you favor any specific reactors, companies, or materials?
How do I feel about nuclear propulsion on ships? Pretty good, made several deployments onboard nuclear aircraft carriers, and never had a problem. How do I feel about commercial ships using nuclear power? If they are as meticulous as Adm. Rickover was in designing and running their nuclear programs, again, I have zero problems. The US Navy has probably the best track record of nuclear power that there ever was, but that is because Rickover personally ran the program with an iron fist and accepted ZERO excuses or mistakes.wI agree completely. How do you feel about the latest developments in nuclear fusion? Do you see the United States utilizing nuclear energy more in the future? How do you feel about mobile reactors on ships? Do you think nuclear vessels should be more common in commercial or public use? Do you favor any specific reactors, companies, or materials?
How do I feel about nuclear propulsion on ships? Pretty good, made several deployments onboard nuclear aircraft carriers, and never had a problem. How do I feel about commercial ships using nuclear power? If they are as meticulous as Adm. Rickover was in designing and running their nuclear programs, again, I have zero problems. The US Navy has probably the best track record of nuclear power that there ever was, but that is because Rickover personally ran the program with an iron fist and accepted ZERO excuses or mistakes.
Out of curiosity what was being on a nuclear-powered ship like? Was there a lot of extra risk or fear about contact? Were regulations different?
Actually, to tell you the truth, for those of us who weren't nuclear techs, it was pretty much like being on a normal ship, and you didn't really notice or think much about being on a nuclear powered vessel. But, if you did get close to where the engine room was, there were people who would kindly tell you that you weren't authorized to be there and to leave. No, never had a fear about nuclear contact, and never felt like there was a risk.
Best part about being on a carrier? You could eat 23 out of 24 hours a day, so you never went hungry, even if you had late watch. Not only that, but the meals that were served in the regular chow line were pretty decent. Out of all the ships I served on, being on a carrier I think was the one I enjoyed the most. And, they rarely rocked, even in really heavy seas.
I was also on the PRP team, which meant that I was one of the personnel that loaded nuclear weapons on the FA-18. Interestingly enough, when we had our drills for loading and checking, we never knew if they were live or if they were just practice dummies. But, we treated each and every one as if they were live. They would seal off one of the hangars, and put armed Marines around the perimeter to keep unauthorized personnel out.
By the way, speaking of how little a carrier rocks, on one cruise we went above the Arctic Circle in the middle of Feb and had seas so rough that the carrier was taking 15 degree rolls, and spray was coming up OVER the front of the flight deck (90 feet off the water). One of the A-6's that was tied down towards the front ended up being encased in a shell of ice a foot thick, and when we got back to the States, it had to be craned off of the ship. I didn't mind though, because 15 deg. rolls is a regular event on smaller ships, which I had served on before going to the carrier. Best part about that is most of the people who had been on carriers all their enlistment got sea sick, which made for only a 10-15 min. wait in the chow line. Normally, you would wait anywhere from 30 - 45 min. in line. Read a lot of Tom Clancy novels standing in line for chow.
I cannot imagine being on a ship that moves so violently. If I had the time I would very much like to spend a summer on a transport ship just to have that experience but I have no clue how that would go. I've heard the arctic circle is very beautiful alongside extremely dangerous. A friend of mine had a brother posted on a ship off of the Alaskan Coast and mentioned it was extremely beautiful including the girls when they docked. I know not too much more of his time spent out there except that he enjoyed it. I bet the line didn't last long, that's some violent water. I never heard of the occurrence of a frozen A-6 that really baffles me. Never read Tom clancy however several friends of mine love his works.
Violent? 15 degree rolls are nothing. If you really want to have an experience, try being on a smaller ship on the edge of a hurricane when you are taking 25 to 35 degree rolls. I remember one time during those kind of rough seas, I opened the door to the bridge, we took a roll, and I saw 2 people fall down and slide from one side of the bridge to the other, smacking into the opposite bulkhead.
As far as a frozen aircraft making the news? Nope, that isn't really anything to report, other than to the maintenance folks who have to repair the aircraft.
I really enjoyed the 20 plus years I spent in the Navy. Not only did it provide me with a steady retirement (especially useful in these times of the virus), but I also got to travel to 26 different countries, and 49 different states, only missing Alaska. Not bad for a poor country boy from Montana who wanted to travel the world. As far as which country had the most beautiful women in my opinion? I'd have to say it's a toss up between Italy and Israel. They had some really attractive ladies in those countries, and no, I've never been to Sweden or Norway, but I hear they are gorgeous up there.
I've just never even heard of that happening that's crazy to me.
I'm hoping to study abroad in college and visit a lot of the world. So far I think I might be able to travel to Korea and China for political science. I've always wanted to go to Israel I hear it's absolutely stunning not to mention the history there. Sadly, my college deems it to unsafe. I admire all the things you've experienced it is very fascinating to me. Thank you I appreciate it.
Israel was an outstanding place to visit. Not only were the people friendly, but there was LOTS of good food to be had. One of my better memories of Israel was when we pulled into Haifa, and a friend of mind and I rode the tram to the top of Mt. Carmel to go rollerblading. Well, we had so much fun that we missed the last tram going back down the mountain, so we decided to rollerblade back down on the roads criss crossing the side of the mountain. Took a couple of hours, and there was a fall or two when we ended up hitting higher speeds than we anticipated or wanted to hit.
I also remember one time during my first visit, I stopped to ask an attractive woman in a uniform how to get to a place I wanted to go. She was friendly, and when she started to give me directions, she pointed down the street, her coat fell open, and I saw an Uzi hanging from her shoulder. Found out later that it's not uncommon for armed military to be walking around with the regular population.
Places on the coast, I felt pretty safe about, but hearing some of the stories from the people that flew in to Tel Aviv to meet the ship, that is one place I wouldn't want to have to go, as they said it was pretty dangerous.
That is awesome, in the traditional usage of the word. Seeing as it is almost impossible to ask for more information or even an opinion on in-use technology I have to ask your opinion on the tech being researched today. What do you think of the latest advancements in fusion? Are there any materials you would refuse the usage of like uranium or plutonium to replace it with thorium? How do you feel about current policies on regulations and productions? Do you have any opinions on making the policies more effective or prominent? Any configuration you like? ( mini-sun/ITER/ect.) Thank you for the previous in-depth information.I am curious to know people's views on nuclear energy.
How do people feel about worldwide efforts to achieve nuclear fusion? How do people feel about our current state of fission? Do you believe that nuclear has no place in certain areas? ( I.E. naval vessels/aircrafts/ trains/ shuttles and space stations/ etc.) Are there any reactors or materials you take issue with? What causes any reservations if you have any? How do people feel about waste disposal?
I will be doing another one of these posts on other forms of energy.
I am curious to see what people think. This is specifically on nuclear energies and is not limited to problems but extends to any offered solutions, theories, or inquiries.
There is no other future to energy production in the world, currently, other than nuclear power. There is no other source of energy that is as clean, as cheap, and as scale-able as nuclear.
View attachment 433442
This is the solar park in Bhadla India.
View attachment 433445
This is the Perry Nuclear plant in Ohio.
Let's compare the two.
The solar park takes 14,000 acres of land.
The Nuclear plant takes 1,100 acres of land.
That's a huge difference. That's 14,000 acres of land that can't be used for farming, or building housing, or anything.
Comparing production is problematic, because a solar farm requires sun obviously, just like a wind farm requires wind obviously, neither of which are entirely predictable. A nuclear power plant can run non-stop no matter what.
So the Solar park has a 'name plate' value of 2.2 Gigwatts.
The nuclear plant produces 3.75 Gigwatts. But unlike the solar park, that's 3.75 Gigwatts year round, 24/7. And by the way, that's only 3.75 Gigwatts because the idiotic government stepped in and canceled the second reactor (which is why in the photo only one cooling tower is on). It would have been up to 7 Gigwatts 24/7 if the idiots in government hadn't screwed the public.
A solar park on the other hand, produces nothing at night, and if there is a storm, or clouds, the production drops.
By the way, one of the reasons when you see any renewable power, you see it as having a "name plate" capacity. There's a reason for this. It's because none of them actually produce that much power, even in ideal situations.
Nuclear on the other hand, is entirely different. If the production capacity is 3.75 GigWatts, then that plant can produce..... 3.75 Gigwatts.
Now you might be complaining that I'm just attacking renewable power. No, I'm not. In order to see the advantages of nuclear, you have to compare it to something.
That said, pollution wise, nuclear has a clear advantage over all other forms of energy production, in that all pollution is captured.
When you look at spent fuel rods, they are contained, and safe, and stored. People complain, what do we do with the fuel rods? Well there are a million things we can do with them, but at least we can do something with them. What can you do about the smoke coming out of the power plant stack? Nothing, it's in the air and dispersed into the environment.
View attachment 433452
Even solar panels wear out in a matter of years, and are tossed into landfills. Thousands of tons of solar panels are dumped into waste piles like this one.
View attachment 433453
That's a nuclear fuel rod, that will function for years before being replaced. It will produce massive amounts of power, and then can be safely stored after it is spent. (fyi, yes you can hold, and handle nuclear fuel rods).
Contrary to urban myth, spent nuclear fuel is not a gas, that can escape into the environment, and contaminate the planet. Nor is it a liquid that will get into the ground water, and turn all your kids into green glowing monsters.
In fact, they found in a uranium deposit, that a natural nuclear reaction had taken place in nature. They researched this event, and found that the nuclear waste products didn't even contaminate the area far from the reaction.
Point being, it's not like something you see in a cartoon with green glowing ooze that gets into the environment and starts turning everything into monsters. Even if the containment caskets that spent fuel rods are placed in, were somehow to be broken open, the fuel rods are solid. They are not going to 'ooze out' and start contaminating the world.
However, even this is a contrived problem. Nuclear fuel rods can simply be reprocessed. France has been doing this for decades.
You take a spent fuel rod, and you reprocess the fuel. By filtering out the un-usable material, you end up with a new ready to use fuel rod. The remaining material, will be roughly 10% of what you had before. Meaning for every 100 fuel rods, you would end up with 90 ready to use, and 10 waste.
Why don't we do this? Because ignorant people voted for ignorant politicians, that prevent us from using technology.
But you might ask, what can we do with the remaining 10 fuel rods of waste? We can actually use those as well.
There are reactors called MOX, or mixed oxide fuel reactors. We can use that waste, in MOX fuel rods, and create power with them as well.
My understanding is that barely 10% of the waste from reprocessed fuel rods, would be unusable in MOX reactors.
So all the 'nuclear waste' that we have today could be reprocessed, reducing it by 90%, and then that 10% could be processed again reducing that waste by another 90%.
And what is left, that is waste.... can safely be stored in casks until it is no longer radio active.
Now all of that, is to deal with current day in-use nuclear technology.
We have technology that we haven't used, that is safer, and produces even less waste. Such as molten salt reactors, or Thorium reactors, both of which far better.
But regardless of which future tech we use, there is really no alternative to nuclear power. There simply isn't any other fuel source for energy, that provides the most power, for the lowest cost, with the least amount of pollution. It's that simple. There just isn't.
A was unaware of a lot of the government policy on waste disposal because most of the companies I have become familiar with are not in the United States. I completely and totally agree with the idea that science needs to progress unhindered. I also agree with your standpoint on all material used. Thank you. I look forward to hearing any more information or opinion you have in this post and elsewhere in the future.That is awesome, in the traditional usage of the word. Seeing as it is almost impossible to ask for more information or even an opinion on in-use technology I have to ask your opinion on the tech being researched today. What do you think of the latest advancements in fusion? Are there any materials you would refuse the usage of like uranium or plutonium to replace it with thorium? How do you feel about current policies on regulations and productions? Do you have any opinions on making the policies more effective or prominent? Any configuration you like? ( mini-sun/ITER/ect.) Thank you for the previous in-depth information.I am curious to know people's views on nuclear energy.
How do people feel about worldwide efforts to achieve nuclear fusion? How do people feel about our current state of fission? Do you believe that nuclear has no place in certain areas? ( I.E. naval vessels/aircrafts/ trains/ shuttles and space stations/ etc.) Are there any reactors or materials you take issue with? What causes any reservations if you have any? How do people feel about waste disposal?
I will be doing another one of these posts on other forms of energy.
I am curious to see what people think. This is specifically on nuclear energies and is not limited to problems but extends to any offered solutions, theories, or inquiries.
There is no other future to energy production in the world, currently, other than nuclear power. There is no other source of energy that is as clean, as cheap, and as scale-able as nuclear.
View attachment 433442
This is the solar park in Bhadla India.
View attachment 433445
This is the Perry Nuclear plant in Ohio.
Let's compare the two.
The solar park takes 14,000 acres of land.
The Nuclear plant takes 1,100 acres of land.
That's a huge difference. That's 14,000 acres of land that can't be used for farming, or building housing, or anything.
Comparing production is problematic, because a solar farm requires sun obviously, just like a wind farm requires wind obviously, neither of which are entirely predictable. A nuclear power plant can run non-stop no matter what.
So the Solar park has a 'name plate' value of 2.2 Gigwatts.
The nuclear plant produces 3.75 Gigwatts. But unlike the solar park, that's 3.75 Gigwatts year round, 24/7. And by the way, that's only 3.75 Gigwatts because the idiotic government stepped in and canceled the second reactor (which is why in the photo only one cooling tower is on). It would have been up to 7 Gigwatts 24/7 if the idiots in government hadn't screwed the public.
A solar park on the other hand, produces nothing at night, and if there is a storm, or clouds, the production drops.
By the way, one of the reasons when you see any renewable power, you see it as having a "name plate" capacity. There's a reason for this. It's because none of them actually produce that much power, even in ideal situations.
Nuclear on the other hand, is entirely different. If the production capacity is 3.75 GigWatts, then that plant can produce..... 3.75 Gigwatts.
Now you might be complaining that I'm just attacking renewable power. No, I'm not. In order to see the advantages of nuclear, you have to compare it to something.
That said, pollution wise, nuclear has a clear advantage over all other forms of energy production, in that all pollution is captured.
When you look at spent fuel rods, they are contained, and safe, and stored. People complain, what do we do with the fuel rods? Well there are a million things we can do with them, but at least we can do something with them. What can you do about the smoke coming out of the power plant stack? Nothing, it's in the air and dispersed into the environment.
View attachment 433452
Even solar panels wear out in a matter of years, and are tossed into landfills. Thousands of tons of solar panels are dumped into waste piles like this one.
View attachment 433453
That's a nuclear fuel rod, that will function for years before being replaced. It will produce massive amounts of power, and then can be safely stored after it is spent. (fyi, yes you can hold, and handle nuclear fuel rods).
Contrary to urban myth, spent nuclear fuel is not a gas, that can escape into the environment, and contaminate the planet. Nor is it a liquid that will get into the ground water, and turn all your kids into green glowing monsters.
In fact, they found in a uranium deposit, that a natural nuclear reaction had taken place in nature. They researched this event, and found that the nuclear waste products didn't even contaminate the area far from the reaction.
Point being, it's not like something you see in a cartoon with green glowing ooze that gets into the environment and starts turning everything into monsters. Even if the containment caskets that spent fuel rods are placed in, were somehow to be broken open, the fuel rods are solid. They are not going to 'ooze out' and start contaminating the world.
However, even this is a contrived problem. Nuclear fuel rods can simply be reprocessed. France has been doing this for decades.
You take a spent fuel rod, and you reprocess the fuel. By filtering out the un-usable material, you end up with a new ready to use fuel rod. The remaining material, will be roughly 10% of what you had before. Meaning for every 100 fuel rods, you would end up with 90 ready to use, and 10 waste.
Why don't we do this? Because ignorant people voted for ignorant politicians, that prevent us from using technology.
But you might ask, what can we do with the remaining 10 fuel rods of waste? We can actually use those as well.
There are reactors called MOX, or mixed oxide fuel reactors. We can use that waste, in MOX fuel rods, and create power with them as well.
My understanding is that barely 10% of the waste from reprocessed fuel rods, would be unusable in MOX reactors.
So all the 'nuclear waste' that we have today could be reprocessed, reducing it by 90%, and then that 10% could be processed again reducing that waste by another 90%.
And what is left, that is waste.... can safely be stored in casks until it is no longer radio active.
Now all of that, is to deal with current day in-use nuclear technology.
We have technology that we haven't used, that is safer, and produces even less waste. Such as molten salt reactors, or Thorium reactors, both of which far better.
But regardless of which future tech we use, there is really no alternative to nuclear power. There simply isn't any other fuel source for energy, that provides the most power, for the lowest cost, with the least amount of pollution. It's that simple. There just isn't.
In general, I am against having hard limits on the usage of various fuels, because this limits the ability of science to innovate.
This is the problem with all government regulation and control, is that it eliminates future possibilities.
Yes, today, as things stand we might say that assuming nothing ever changes, we could refuse the usage of plutonium or Uranium.
But how do we know that tomorrow a scientist won't find some amazing usage of either, that could be safer and more power productive than Thorium molten salt?
Well I can guarantee you they won't find a better solution, if we make it illegal, because who would fund that research? Why would any company, or power generation think tank, spend millions come up with a new use for a banned fuel?
This is why I'm even against the mandated end of coal usage. Who is to say that tomorrow some research scientist won't find a method of using coal with zero emissions? Well... if you ban coal, and force every coal power plant shut down... then yeah, I can guarantee no one will come up with a zero-emission use of coal.
Thus specifically to answer your question about government regulations and controls.....
I think they suck. Government created the majority of the problems in the nuclear industry today. For example, do you know why most nuclear companies have very limited plans on how do deal with nuclear waste?
It's specifically because the government told the energy companies that they would handle waste disposal... which has been stuck in government limbo for now over 60 years.
Moreover, do you know why we don't reprocess spent fuel rods like France has since 1969? Because in 1977 Carter banned civilian fuel reprocessing.
Why did he do this? Because of a myth that reprocessing would result in nuclear proliferation. Of course since then many countries have gone nuclear, without the US reprocessing spent fuel rods.
Our regulations and controls have done nothing, but make us stuck on 1950s style nuclear reactors. The regulations make it too expensive to build, and operate a nuclear reactor, despite the fact that technology has advanced 80 years since then.
We are still, to this very day, building Pressurized Water Reactors, with all the inherent safety risks of the design. In 2016, the Vogtle power plant in Tenn started up. The bran new reacters were PWR designs. The PWR design was created in.... 1954.
This would be like, having General Motors, still selling the 1954 Oldsmobile 88 today, with the same bad traction, bad handling, and leaking roof. No company would still be in business selling a product designed in the 1950s... unless government made it impossible to sell something better.
This actually happened in India, with the Hindustan Ambassador car.
Hindustan Ambassador - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
You can look it up. With government regulating everything, Hindustan motors, sold the same car.... from 1958.... to 2014. Same exact car, with barely any changes to the design... for 55 years.
Just like we're still building PWRs designed in 1954, today... because government regulations hinder advancement.
So my views are far more open to less control, and less regulation. Who knows how much safer nuclear power could be already in use today.... if only the government allowed more innovation in the field.
The fact we're still building 1954 designs, is nearly criminal, if not insane.
As for which specific design of nuclear power plant we should move towards, that's a debate for people for more educated and knowledgeable than me.
Even if I were to pick a specific design that I thought best... that would only be based on the what I know today. Just like I said above, who knows what advancements in any other given design could be created tomorrow, if there was more investment in the research? Who knows what break through could happen, to create a even better design without using thorium?
As a general rule, I liked the Thorium molten salt reactors, because in the event of a catastrophic accident, the reduced cooling, would cause an ice plug at the bottom of the reactor to melt, allowing the reactive salt to fall out of the reactor, into a cold containment pool. There it would be cooled by a surrounding water and dissolved. As I'm sure you are aware, spreading the nuclear fuel out, will instantly end the reaction. Moreover, the salt once cold, will solidify. Thus it is unlikely to make it anywhere in the environment, even if some catastrophe allowed it to escape containment.
That's the only design I am familiar with enough, to make a comment. But beyond that, a few of the thorium reactors I've read up on, showed that the waste levels were so low, that people could... though they still shouldn't... handle the radioactive waste by hand. The waste couldn't even really be used as an effective dirty bomb, because the radioactive waste was barely more potent than Granite. It would still be obviously dangerous to inhale, but as far as just contaminating the area, unlikely to cause any real health effects.
But again, while every design has it's strengths and weaknesses, the point is government intervention makes developing better designs difficult or impossible. Again, no car company still builds a 1950s car, to a 2020 society, so why are we still building 1950s reactors? Because government made it that way, and it's stupid.
Self important know-it-alls and crusaders of ignorance, have prevented advancement in nuclear technology. Let science advance, and allow development of any technology.
. . . some say. . . That's what ended Tesla's career.
-
So paid shill it is then. Indeed, I apologize for slowing down enough to respond to your pathetic little nuclear tech pep rally here. Some of us tired of such reruns decades ago.Every decent conversation starts with a question. I prefer to discuss a topic and let it engage in a debate if necessary. While there are several opinions most of them I agree with except for your assessment of the question. It is not based on "if it is better than oil", it is simply engaging in theories and realities of the energy production itself. However, if you feel the need to come in and need any other explanations about the usage of the English language just ask away and I will gladly explain the intent of my vocabulary exchanges to you. We all have to slow down for someone.What are you, a paid shill or just writing a stupid paper? Here's an idea, sparky. If you want to declare something good or a goal, declare first what you're comparing it to. Acknowledge at least one other viable alternative and admit to at least one serious problem or flaw with your favorite puppy. "The Left" says, Merry Xmas all you pansy assed, Trump promoting, victim flakes!
. . . some say. . . That's what ended Tesla's career.
Tesla is on the cutting edge of our future
Tesla, Inc. is an American electric vehicle and clean energy company based in Palo Alto, California. Tesla's current products include electric cars, battery energy storage from home to grid scale, solar panels and solar roof tiles, and related products and services. Wikipedia
View attachment 433817
2019 Tesla Model 3 - Carvana
So paid shill it is then. Indeed, I apologize for slowing down enough to respond to your pathetic little nuclear tech pep rally here. Some of us tired of such reruns decades ago.Every decent conversation starts with a question. I prefer to discuss a topic and let it engage in a debate if necessary. While there are several opinions most of them I agree with except for your assessment of the question. It is not based on "if it is better than oil", it is simply engaging in theories and realities of the energy production itself. However, if you feel the need to come in and need any other explanations about the usage of the English language just ask away and I will gladly explain the intent of my vocabulary exchanges to you. We all have to slow down for someone.What are you, a paid shill or just writing a stupid paper? Here's an idea, sparky. If you want to declare something good or a goal, declare first what you're comparing it to. Acknowledge at least one other viable alternative and admit to at least one serious problem or flaw with your favorite puppy. "The Left" says, Merry Xmas all you pansy assed, Trump promoting, victim flakes!
What ended tesla's career? Nuclear energy?. . . some say. . . That's what ended Tesla's career.
Tesla does make batteries that are now capable of running jointly with solar power to run an island in Hawaii. I'm not saying they solved world hunger but it is pretty cutting edge. Of course, that is more my opinion than a fact.. . . some say. . . That's what ended Tesla's career.
Tesla is on the cutting edge of our future
Tesla, Inc. is an American electric vehicle and clean energy company based in Palo Alto, California. Tesla's current products include electric cars, battery energy storage from home to grid scale, solar panels and solar roof tiles, and related products and services. Wikipedia
View attachment 433817
2019 Tesla Model 3 - Carvana
What are you? A propaganda spokes person for Tesla?
Which company says "We're not on the cutting edge of our future"? Anyone can claim anything. That doesn't magically make it true.
What options do you believe are the best in nuclear waste disposal? I also Completely agree with the future of energy sitting in nuclear fusion.I think nukes are the future and fusion is the goal. New designs for fission will take us there in the meantime. The waste issue is a NIMBY thing, there are plenty of safe economical options.I am curious to know people's views on nuclear energy.
How do people feel about worldwide efforts to achieve nuclear fusion? How do people feel about our current state of fission? Do you believe that nuclear has no place in certain areas? ( I.E. naval vessels/aircrafts/ trains/ shuttles and space stations/ etc.) Are there any reactors or materials you take issue with? What causes any reservations if you have any? How do people feel about waste disposal?
I will be doing another one of these posts on other forms of energy.
I am curious to see what people think. This is specifically on nuclear energies and is not limited to problems but extends to any offered solutions, theories, or inquiries.
What ended tesla's career? Nuclear energy?. . . some say. . . That's what ended Tesla's career.
What ended tesla's career?
I am curious to know people's views on nuclear energy.
How do people feel about worldwide efforts to achieve nuclear fusion? How do people feel about our current state of fission? Do you believe that nuclear has no place in certain areas? ( I.E. naval vessels/aircrafts/ trains/ shuttles and space stations/ etc.) Are there any reactors or materials you take issue with? What causes any reservations if you have any? How do people feel about waste disposal?
I will be doing another one of these posts on other forms of energy.
I am curious to see what people think. This is specifically on nuclear energies and is not limited to problems but extends to any offered solutions, theories, or inquiries.
There is no other future to energy production in the world, currently, other than nuclear power. There is no other source of energy that is as clean, as cheap, and as scale-able as nuclear.
View attachment 433442
This is the solar park in Bhadla India.
View attachment 433445
This is the Perry Nuclear plant in Ohio.
Let's compare the two.
The solar park takes 14,000 acres of land.
The Nuclear plant takes 1,100 acres of land.
That's a huge difference. That's 14,000 acres of land that can't be used for farming, or building housing, or anything.
Comparing production is problematic, because a solar farm requires sun obviously, just like a wind farm requires wind obviously, neither of which are entirely predictable. A nuclear power plant can run non-stop no matter what.
So the Solar park has a 'name plate' value of 2.2 Gigwatts.
The nuclear plant produces 3.75 Gigwatts. But unlike the solar park, that's 3.75 Gigwatts year round, 24/7. And by the way, that's only 3.75 Gigwatts because the idiotic government stepped in and canceled the second reactor (which is why in the photo only one cooling tower is on). It would have been up to 7 Gigwatts 24/7 if the idiots in government hadn't screwed the public.
A solar park on the other hand, produces nothing at night, and if there is a storm, or clouds, the production drops.
By the way, one of the reasons when you see any renewable power, you see it as having a "name plate" capacity. There's a reason for this. It's because none of them actually produce that much power, even in ideal situations.
Nuclear on the other hand, is entirely different. If the production capacity is 3.75 GigWatts, then that plant can produce..... 3.75 Gigwatts.
Now you might be complaining that I'm just attacking renewable power. No, I'm not. In order to see the advantages of nuclear, you have to compare it to something.
That said, pollution wise, nuclear has a clear advantage over all other forms of energy production, in that all pollution is captured.
When you look at spent fuel rods, they are contained, and safe, and stored. People complain, what do we do with the fuel rods? Well there are a million things we can do with them, but at least we can do something with them. What can you do about the smoke coming out of the power plant stack? Nothing, it's in the air and dispersed into the environment.
View attachment 433452
Even solar panels wear out in a matter of years, and are tossed into landfills. Thousands of tons of solar panels are dumped into waste piles like this one.
View attachment 433453
That's a nuclear fuel rod, that will function for years before being replaced. It will produce massive amounts of power, and then can be safely stored after it is spent. (fyi, yes you can hold, and handle nuclear fuel rods).
Contrary to urban myth, spent nuclear fuel is not a gas, that can escape into the environment, and contaminate the planet. Nor is it a liquid that will get into the ground water, and turn all your kids into green glowing monsters.
In fact, they found in a uranium deposit, that a natural nuclear reaction had taken place in nature. They researched this event, and found that the nuclear waste products didn't even contaminate the area far from the reaction.
Point being, it's not like something you see in a cartoon with green glowing ooze that gets into the environment and starts turning everything into monsters. Even if the containment caskets that spent fuel rods are placed in, were somehow to be broken open, the fuel rods are solid. They are not going to 'ooze out' and start contaminating the world.
However, even this is a contrived problem. Nuclear fuel rods can simply be reprocessed. France has been doing this for decades.
You take a spent fuel rod, and you reprocess the fuel. By filtering out the un-usable material, you end up with a new ready to use fuel rod. The remaining material, will be roughly 10% of what you had before. Meaning for every 100 fuel rods, you would end up with 90 ready to use, and 10 waste.
Why don't we do this? Because ignorant people voted for ignorant politicians, that prevent us from using technology.
But you might ask, what can we do with the remaining 10 fuel rods of waste? We can actually use those as well.
There are reactors called MOX, or mixed oxide fuel reactors. We can use that waste, in MOX fuel rods, and create power with them as well.
My understanding is that barely 10% of the waste from reprocessed fuel rods, would be unusable in MOX reactors.
So all the 'nuclear waste' that we have today could be reprocessed, reducing it by 90%, and then that 10% could be processed again reducing that waste by another 90%.
And what is left, that is waste.... can safely be stored in casks until it is no longer radio active.
Now all of that, is to deal with current day in-use nuclear technology.
We have technology that we haven't used, that is safer, and produces even less waste. Such as molten salt reactors, or Thorium reactors, both of which far better.
But regardless of which future tech we use, there is really no alternative to nuclear power. There simply isn't any other fuel source for energy, that provides the most power, for the lowest cost, with the least amount of pollution. It's that simple. There just isn't.
The facts are just so sad compared to all those pretty pictures and their accompanying hyperventilative hypePerry was expected to close in 2021 as it is no longer profitable to run when competing against natural gas plants.[5] To avert this, Ohio House Bill 6 was signed into law in July 2019 which added a fee to residents' utility bills that funded subsidies of $150 million per year to Perry and the Davis–Besse nuclear plant to keep both plants operational.[6][7] However, the bill was alleged to be part of the Ohio nuclear bribery scandal revealed by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) in July 2020.[8][7]
