Nuclear power

[Peebothuhlu]

For a given value of "short-term". Existing resources could run our entire power grid for millennia. The climate crisis that fossil fuels has produced needs fixing within decades. OK, decades ago, but you get the sense of immediacy. We can implement nuclear now or we can suck back another few decades of CO2 emissions as the sea levels rise. Those may not be palatable options to you but they're what's on the table for our energy-hungry society.

And, you've proven my point.  Replace the 200+ coal plants in the United States with nuclear power ones.  The coal that exists all throughout the United States will still be mined and will be shipped overseas to be burned in coal fired plants elsewhere.

Hi again.

Okay, as has been pointed out. Becuase of the higher energy density you can replace mulitple coal burning plants with fewer nuclear plants. It's not a one for one deal.

I undestand you're possibly being a tad flippant but you'd have to agree that less plants making more power is a good thing?

Yes, coal in all ocuntry's will continue to be mined. Simply for the fact that it has more than just burning in in coal plants uses.

Heck, should certain things continue along current veins we'll be diggin up coal to 'Gassify' and convert into petrolium products so that we can continue to run deisil/petrol/et all systems. Heck we might even end up needing to convert coal into plastics to keep things going in some sectors.

But, at this point, we're circling around what seems to be your "Nuclear icky" sentiments and that's cool/okay.  

Hope things are great for you and yours.

Not at work.

[Jehanne]

If Humanity burns all of the fossil fuels that are available, then it is conceivable that we will annihilate ourselves; that's the issue here. You can build all the nuclear power plants that you want; there won't be enough of them to supply the entire World with the energy levels of Western consumption. As such, if we do not consume the fossil fuels, the rest of the World will.

[polymath257]

The actual amount of highly radioactive material is quite low. And the lower level stuff is less dangerous overall than a lot of the stuff emitted by conventional plants.
People tend to freak out about radioactivity, but you get more from a stone wall than you would get from most man-made sources. And definitely more if you ever fly in an airplane.

Allow me to play devil's advocate a bit here. (For rhetorical purposes.)

First, we can acknowledge that, with climate change on our plate, the benefits outweigh the risks of nuclear power. But there are still risks. Chernobyl. Fukushima nuclear disaster.

And isn't solar activity a concern? (I'm asking. Because I don't really know the science involved.) Isn't it bad if we install mini nuclear plants all over the place and then get hit with a barrage of solar activity? Couldn't that lead to potential meltdowns all over the place?

Again. I'm just being rhetorical here, and maybe hoping to learn something.

Yes, there are risks. But the risks depend, to some extent, on the type of plant built. Chernobyl didn't have many safeguards that are standard today.

Fukushima, on the other hand, was a major disaster. But even there, we can compare the damage done to what a coal plants emits on a daily basis.

As for solar activity, I have no idea what you are saying. I guess there is a possibility of a large solar flare taking out the electric grid, but that wouldn't make the nuclear plants any more or less risky. It depends on what safety measures they have installed for the case of a power failure.

[The Grand Nudger]

The difficulty increasing energy production four times over (about what we'd have to do if everyone accounted for as much consumption as the average american) would be trivial compared to sourcing similarly increased rates of food and water for those same people. Nuclear power is precisely the sort of thing that could supply the whole world many times over at a fraction of the cost and with less risk than the way we currently do it - but that wouldn't put and end to fossil fuels.

As you note - there are compelling reasons to use them even if we had that nuclear capacity. Countries are developed using fossil fuels. Tanks and jets consume them. Our food is made from them and with them. After having burnt a metric shit-ton of fossil fuels to reach not only our current state - but some hypothetical future state of effectively limitless green power generation - it may be even more difficult to tell other countries not to do the same - precisely because those people would like to quadruple their own rates.

Ultimately, though, that's the play. We need to stop telling people that conservation is the way to solve the climate crisis. To have and use less, in any context by any terms. It's not. It's in having more. More for everyone. More all the time. More of all of the things. We burn fossil fuels to get things. Provide for those things and you'll wipe the earth very nearly clean of the entire industry.

As far as risks, seems like a moot point. Even the great and mighty chernobyl failed to off as many humans as the fossil fuel industry crushes on any given hour. Wars are fought over it. People are subjugated in it's service. The labor force is chronically ill, and uniformly impoverished. Then there's the whole -this could kill alot of us- thing going.

[Anomalocaris]

Allow me to play devil's advocate a bit here. (For rhetorical purposes.)

First, we can acknowledge that, with climate change on our plate, the benefits outweigh the risks of nuclear power. But there are still risks. Chernobyl. Fukushima nuclear disaster.

And isn't solar activity a concern? (I'm asking. Because I don't really know the science involved.) Isn't it bad if we install mini nuclear plants all over the place and then get hit with a barrage of solar activity? Couldn't that lead to potential meltdowns all over the place?

Again. I'm just being rhetorical here, and maybe hoping to learn something.

Yes, there are risks. But the risks depend, to some extent, on the type of plant built. Chernobyl didn't have many safeguards that are standard today.

Fukushima, on the other hand, was a major disaster. But even there, we can compare the damage done to what a coal plants emits on a daily basis.

As for solar activity, I have no idea what you are saying. I guess there is a possibility of a large solar flare taking out the electric grid, but that wouldn't make the nuclear plants any more or less risky. It depends on what safety measures they have installed for the case of a power failure.

Well, Chernobyl accident actually occurred during a test of the ability of the plant to safely shutdown in the case of massive power failure on the power grid.

admittedly the staff at Chernobyl completely ignore the checklist for how to shut down the reactor in such an emergency, and in addition undertook a series of highly unusual operating decisions before the test, that all contributed to the accident.    

it may be funny to say, but if they just left the controls to the 1960 era soviet computer that normally babysat the plant, everything would have been fine.    that is a data point on safety of human/computer control that seems to always be left out of discussions on the topic.

[Mister Agenda]

If Humanity burns all of the fossil fuels that are available, then it is conceivable that we will annihilate ourselves; that's the issue here.  You can build all the nuclear power plants that you want; there won't be enough of them to supply the entire World with the energy levels of Western consumption.  As such, if we do not consume the fossil fuels, the rest of the World will.

The same logic applies to solar and wind. I hope you're mistaken.

[Jehanne]

If Humanity burns all of the fossil fuels that are available, then it is conceivable that we will annihilate ourselves; that's the issue here.  You can build all the nuclear power plants that you want; there won't be enough of them to supply the entire World with the energy levels of Western consumption.  As such, if we do not consume the fossil fuels, the rest of the World will.

The same logic applies to solar and wind. I hope you're mistaken.

I hope that I am mistaken, too! Considering that one of the seminal papers on global warming was published in Science in May 1967 (five months prior to my birth) does not give me good hope that Western capitalism is going to address the crises that is ahead of us.

[vulcanlogician]

As for solar activity, I have no idea what you are saying. I guess there is a possibility of a large solar flare taking out the electric grid, but that wouldn't make the nuclear plants any more or less risky. It depends on what safety measures they have installed for the case of a power failure.

The reason I asked was because of the recent concerns over Chernobyl. And, yes, I meant a solar flare.

I mean, some people think a solar flare would carry a huge death toll, even without factoring in nuclear meltdowns. Last time a huge solar flare occurred (the Carrington Event) most of the world relied on firewood for heat. Not so anymore. It is likely that many could freeze to death since we depend more on electric heat.

It seems to me, if the OP's video describing a bunch of "mini-nuclear plants" all over the place were ever put into practice, measures should be put in place to address the possibility of a solar flare. Not that such a thing is likely or anything.... just because it would be horrific if we didn't have measures in place... (or would it be? That's what I was asking.)

[Anomalocaris]

The main impact of solar flare on nuclear power plant would be in the form of electric grid collapse cutting power to the power plant. But this is certainly not the first or only time when many nuclear power stations faced the need to shutdown quickly and simulate doubly due to power grid collapse. In 2003 14 nuclear power plants in the northeastern US had to shut down in a few minutes due to electric grid collapse. During 2011 japan earth quake. I believe all of Japan’s 50 odd nuclear powerplants shut down in a few minutes.

In all these cases, backup internal power immediately kicked in to restore required internal plant services required to safe the reactors, except the Fukushima plant, where the backup internal power also failed because the tsunami overtopped the sea wall around the plant and drowned the backup diesel generators.

In the unrelated case of Chernobyl, the operators actually took the extraordinary step of shutting off the backup diesel generator during a simulated black out, more or less to see what will happen, while also simultaneously running the reactor well outside of its designed range of safe operating levels. So they spiked the power of the reactor while there was no cooling water circulating in the reactor.

[Paleophyte]

If Humanity burns all of the fossil fuels that are available, then it is conceivable that we will annihilate ourselves; that's the issue here.  You can build all the nuclear power plants that you want; there won't be enough of them to supply the entire World with the energy levels of Western consumption.  As such, if we do not consume the fossil fuels, the rest of the World will.

Fossil fuels currently account for 60% of global energy production. Nuclear accounts for 10%. Explain to me why those fossil fuels can't be replaced by nuclear. I see no physical reason.

For a given value of "short-term". Existing resources could run our entire power grid for millennia. The climate crisis that fossil fuels has produced needs fixing within decades. OK, decades ago, but you get the sense of immediacy. We can implement nuclear now or we can suck back another few decades of CO2 emissions as the sea levels rise. Those may not be palatable options to you but they're what's on the table for our energy-hungry society.

And, you've proven my point.  Replace the 200+ coal plants in the United States with nuclear power ones.  The coal that exists all throughout the United States will still be mined and will be shipped overseas to be burned in coal fired plants elsewhere.

Stop mining coal in the US. For that matter, stop mining it everywhere. All you need to do is regulate it a tenth as strictly as the nuclear industry and it ceases to be profitable.

Right now the big problem is China, which accounts for roughly 2/3rds of global coal consumption. They're trying to ween themselves off of it, which we should be encouraging.

And if all you're going to do is run around throwing up roadblocks and wailing that the sky is falling then you aren't terribly useful. Try proposing some useful solutions.