really surprised at the number of nuclear plants. I work in Oil & gas and honestly believe that has the most potential for long term clean energy on a massive scale. A lot of industries spending lots of dollars to keep the public/government thinking that Chernobyl is right around the corner if we use nuclear.
I got a great look at the Hells Canyon dams on my flight into Seattle yesterday. Sucks what they did to the salmon but zero carbon is a plus
I am not well versed in nuclear energy but isn’t the big issue that the only option we currently have to deal with the waste is to bury it in the earth and hope it’s all good? Not bashing it at all, in fact I’d say it’s my preference outside of solar, wind, and water, but if that’s our only option then we need to find a better option.
True but the process is so much more efficient I terms of energy production and produces less radioactivity than a coal plant.
Yeah it does suck with the salmon. However, there are a few projects to where they are adding fish ladders to dams. Would be nice to get good salmon runs again.
The startup costs for Nuclear are astronomically high though. That's not including storage and containment of waste. There is a leaky waste vessel at the Hanaford Site where the US gov't made nukes on the Columbia River in Washington (yeah great plan putting nuke waste on a major river). The cleanup and storage is expected to cost nearly $600 billion and expected to last until 2079. Cost for solar and wind is getting much more affordable, energy storage is the inhibitor though.
I would think in the not too distant future we could put it in space at a more affordable clip. Fuck aliens.
I'm not sure why the cost is so high when there are literally hundreds of small reactors in aircraft carriers and submarines.
They have an unlimited budget and only refuel every 25 years. That’s what having weapons grade uranium in a reactor will do for you.
It is difficult for me to accept the premise that "nuclear is safe", when a. the savannah river site has been leaking radioactive material into the river and surrounding property for years b. right now there's radioactivity leaking into the groundwater, south of Columbia, at a westinghouse nuclear facility. It's been happening for years and nobody there bothered to do anything about it, or even notify regulators. c. the total clusterfuck of the V.C. Summer plant construction and these are just things i've read about, in my own state. this doesn't inspire confidence in me about the state of the nuclear industry. Nor am I confident in the practices of the energy generation industry. Duke can't even take care of their coal ash properly.
The shit deal is there’s really no energy production that doesn’t have deleterious consequences besides maybe solar and to some extent wind. Dams fuck up natural waterways, nuclear can be catastrophic, and fossil fuels are obvious. Hydro is by far the worst “clean” energy.
and yet the only two that are 'clean' can't come close to supporting the public. I choose the ability to operate at max output and continue to drive innovation forward, instead of trying to put a cap on output in the meantime while we figure out a way to make inefficient energy streams more efficient. has been a solid debate in here though. no one tell dbl
I tend to fall on the side of nuclear even though it's potentially catastrophic. Even over hydro. Hydro has had such a negative impact on the ecology of a bunch of regions. And it's nearly immediate and a certainty. Nuclear has potentially catastrophic concerns but they're at the very least uncertain.
i agree, and I say that as a petroleum engineer. I think a NGL/Nuclear combination could be a solid option for super efficient/powerful energies that aren't near as damaging as some of the current means.
I like hydro. Been great in Arkansas imo river was damned anyway for navigation. Couple of other ones here created beautiful lakes and kick ass trout fisheries
Really the only problem is energy is for profit and nuclear costs a shit load more. There is no other reason it's not the predominant supplier
I am all in on Nuclear until solar + batteries can take over. Info for scale... solar panels with today's technology the size of texas would power the entire plant hypothetically. This is only getting better, albeit our energy demands are not going down.
nuclear is better for the environment when operating as-intended, with no mistakes or catastrophes. however its potential for environmental damage, (i.e. the worst case scenario) is far greater. And we build these things in some pretty risky places. And from what I saw in that SC reactor situation, the nuclear industry has its fair share of incompetent and greedy people making big decisions.
One of my professors/advisers in school invented a clean-burning coal technology and has raised a gazillion dollars over the last decade. Guy is probably the smartest person I've ever met. If it's possible, then he's the one that could do it. He says the technology has never been a problem. It's been an issue of getting governmental approvals. As soon as you mentioned "new coal refinery," the meeting is over. Here's a link to his company if anyone is interested https://www.netpower.com/
Not to mention the nuclear bomb that was lost in the waters off Tybee island where the savannah river meets the Atlantic. They still have never found that thing.
Dams always have unintended consequences though. Hydro has been terrible for the PNW rivers, as well. For instance, losing salmon runs have not only impacted the salmon but also the habitat where the salmon die. They serve as fertilizer for the trees and now that’s gone. It’s impacted entire ecosystems in that way. Also, when you look at the lakes and trout fisheries, do you know how it’s impacted other native species and their spawning activity? Migratory birds? Other animals that called those rivers home? How about flooding as a result of damming activities? We fuck all sorts of stuff up all the time so it’s not limited to hydro dams but they often have so many unintended ecological consequences that hydro is way down the list for me. https://www.seattletimes.com/sponso...-of-salmon-decline-this-isnt-just-about-fish/
TL;DR Orcas being on the endangered species list is very likely at least partially a result of hydroelectric dams killing salmon runs.
I don't disagree with that. We don't have salmon runs. Why haven't fish ladders or whatever they are called been put on all the damn out there, I think on the east coast too
The salmon ladder at the Ballard Locks in Seattle is fascinating. I could spend all day watching those salmon, and props to them because it looks fucking exhausting.
Ballard Locks has 21 steps to their fish ladder (elevation change of 9 feet), I would imagine a fish ladder over a typically large dam would have hundreds to thousands of steps
Most common spoken languages in every state not named Spanish or English. https://www.businessinsider.com/what-is-the-most-common-language-in-every-state-map-2019-6