Nuclear anyone?

[Yander]

Not in the U.S. The peanut farmer president fordid U.S. nuclear fuel reprocessing in the 1970s.

He was almost as destructive to our country as 46. Actually, not nearly as but still was a suck Pres.

 

[Yander]

It turns out 3 mile Island was more fear mongering than anything else. A small amount of steam escaped. There have been a bunch of studies of people around there and no ill-effects can be attributed to it.

Our country would never fear monger! What would be the benefit in doing that?

I mean, our government has our best interest in mind. They would never use fear to, I don't know, drive energy where it is most profitable for them or healthcare to where it is profitable to them and their lobbyists. They would never use climate change as a fear tool for making money or the USDA food pyramid to keep us fat and on meds and diabetic or use a pandemic to get us all vaxed and sick from vax so we need more meds.

Not our country!

 

[KennyG]

The USNRC did not build the reactors at the Savannah River Site. It was their precedecessor, the Atomic Energy Commission. The reactors there were NOT for electric power production. They were to produce Plutonium and Tritium for bomb production.

The weapons reactors and processing equipment is, in many ways, much more complex than commercial reactors. Technically, the NRC and AEC, as government agencies (thankfully) have never built anything. The AEC and today the Dept of Defense only financed the weapons plants. The NRC only regulates civilian use of nuclear technology. Many people don't realize that the NRC budget is essentially all funded by the industries they regulate, so it's probably the only revenue neutral segment of the government.

 

[Chewwy]

. . .

Many people don't realize that the NRC budget is essentially all funded by the industries they regulate, so it's probably the only revenue neutral segment of the government.

TVA is also revenue neutral. It is funded by its energy sales. Being revenue neutral also means less congressional oversight.

 

[gsganzer]

They actually have been recycling the fuel. It turns out they can use it up until the half life is considerably less than the fear we were pitched as kids.

Processing of Used Nuclear Fuel - World Nuclear Association

Used nuclear fuel has long been reprocessed to extract fissile materials for recycling and to reduce the volume of high-level wastes. New reprocessing technologies are being developed to be deployed in conjunction with fast neutron reactors which will burn all long-lived actinides.

world-nuclear.org

I worked on a project years ago where they were vitrifying nuclear waste. Essentially stabilizing it in glass so it isn't leachable. Apparently, that's how the Europeans do it, but the US had to conduct our own multi-million dollar studies to also prove it works.

 

[hosspuller]

I lived in eastern PA when 3 mile island hit the news. The media was interviewing children to broadcast their "feelings" Of course, they were scared. The media was reinforcing the narrative that the Nuclear power was dangerous to the public. There's talk about converting a coal fired gen station about a mile from me to nuclear.. I'm all for it.

 

[lilranch2001]

Anyone with just a little bit of common sense would be concerned when an incident like 3 mile island happened, but to not see it as a milestone, rather than I lifelong threat seems to be a little bit over the top in my humble opinion

 

[gsganzer]

Anyone with just a little bit of common sense would be concerned when an incident like 3 mile island happened, but to not see it as a milestone, rather than I lifelong threat seems to be a little bit over the top in my humble opinion

I agree. And what a lot of people don't understand, is that the nuclear plant technology of those plants versus today is like comparing a Model A versus a BMW. Those plants are utilizing 75 year old technology. A modern SMR doesn't even compare to the old plants.

I'm a firm believer that we should be tapping the brakes on decommissioning the coal plants, until a standardized SMR design is approved and can be retrofitted in their same real estate and locations. The power transmission nodes are already at those locations, as are any water/cooling infrastructure.

You plan to decommission a 600MW coal plant, you drop in (2) 300MW SMR units (or more) in their place.

 

[Torvy]

If the stated goal is to move toward more electric vehicle, appliances, etc., we should be waiting to decommission any coal until that plant has been replaced with 150-200% output in nuclear. Every state/region should have its own grid that can be manually connected to others in an emergency, but that will limit the impact of grid damage (natural or sabotage).

Even that old tech worked in 1979. It did what it was supposed to do and contained the issue.

Nuclear waste is also mis-imagined by people who watch too many bad movies and think there is some goo involved.

 

[workinonit]

The USNRC did not build the reactors at the Savannah River Site. It was their precedecessor, the Atomic Energy Commission. The reactors there were NOT for electric power production. They were to produce Plutonium and Tritium for bomb production.

I know who built them and what they were built for. I worked there for Dupont and WSRC for 20 years. First of all I didn't say NRC built them, I said "they" which was referring to Dupont. I also never said they were for power production because I know better. But....they are nevertheless nuclear reactors that are under the control of DOE and the NRC. Carry on.