Compared to what? How would you produce the same amount of electricity with less risk?

Your concluding that nuclear is currently safe the way it's implemented.
Ok. Your entitled to your view.

 

https://oilprice.com/Alternative-En...ant-Cuts-Output-After-Prices-Go-Negative.html

[T]he transition from testing to regular output last month saw Finland's first nuclear power-plant drive electricity prices dramatically lower.

Since then prices for power in Finland have continued to plunge as the efficiency of the plant flooded the grid with 'new' energy.

So much in fact that early on Wednesday of last week, the market price for electricity dropped below zero cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh) and for hours after that the price was only 0.3 cents per kWh at its highest, according to the country's grid operator, Fingrid.

 

https://oilprice.com/Alternative-En...ant-Cuts-Output-After-Prices-Go-Negative.html

the thread question is , when if not now, do we think nuclear will be safe ?
Agreed nuclear is a big generator of electricity
and by comparison, Finlands neighbor is almost totally renewable,

https://www.fornybarnorge.no/om-oss...ction is almost,per cent stems from windpower.

 

What everyone seems to be forgetting is in the end nuclear power is really steam power. With the reactor making the heat instead of coal or other fossil fuel. Fossil fuel boilers wear out and need replacing, so do nuclear power plants. it used to be that replacement was figured into the cost of the electricity sold, now instead of figuring for replacement the whole amount of selling goes into someones pocket.

That would be very true. Not too far up the road from you is the old power generating station in Eastlake, Ohio. I visited it several times before it closed for good. What I remember most is the endless lines of coal trains on the incoming side loaded with coal. The outgoing rails empty coal cars going out for refill every day all day. Everything wears out and eventually is abandoned or replaced. Even with the scrubber technology we have today there are still emissions which are not desirable.

Yepper, heat makes steam be it nuclear generated heat or fossil fuel heat. With nuclear fuel there is no line of coal trains. With nuclear fuel making the steam there are some advantages, especially true with Naval Reactors. Any ship running on fossil fuel needs a large storage area to put the fuel. This is especially true with for example an aircraft carrier. You have an embarked air wing and since we can't nuclear power a jet plane they need fossil fuel. Running on nuclear fuel that leaves enough room for an additional million gallons of jet fuel. In perspective a nuke propulsion carrier can carry a million more gallons of fuel for its aircraft.

the thread question is , when if not now, do we think nuclear will be safe ?
Agreed nuclear is a big generator of electricity
and by comparison, Finlands neighbor is almost totally renewable,

When do I think nuclear will be safe? I have thought it safe for decades but at the same time there are those who thing it is unsafe. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. My opinion is based only on my own experiences working with and around it.

Ron

 

Your concluding that nuclear is currently safe the way it's implemented.
Ok. Your entitled to your view.

For every TWh of coal power not converted to nuclear, 32 humans are condemned to death.

You're not entitled to your own facts.

 

For every TWh of coal power not converted to nuclear, 32 humans are condemned to death.

You're not entitled to your own facts.

Thank you @joeyd999
Your happy with Nuclear as it is , I get that .

 

Thank you @joeyd999
[You're] happy with Nuclear as it is , I get that .

And you appear to be happy with death.

 

And you appear to be happy with death.

Im afraid @joeyd999 , your humor escapes me,
Yes 4 years ago I did have to plan my own funeral as I was given 26 weeks to live,
but would not say I'm happy with the idea of death.
Thank you ,

 

...but would not say I'm happy with the idea of death.

You have been debating against the proliferation of technology that has demonstrably saved lives (and made many lives better) by its use.

There was no humor in my comment. It saddens me greatly that our civilization has not progressed far enough from the dark ages that it still superstitiously guards itself against advanced life-saving and life-promoting technologies.

 

There is another somewhat unnoticed new source of power. Wood waste. Pulp mills have always used bark boilers to eliminate waste and generate usable steam but wood harvesting and milling has changed quite a bit in the last 50 years. What used to be a significant amount of wood waste and sawdust is now used as boiler fuel instead of being left to rot or piled up and burnt. First it was sawdust waste from sawmills being used on site as boiler fuel to drive steam turbine generators. After that, instead of piling limbs and stumps from harvesting into piles to be burned as waste, it is now dumped into a portable on-site grinder and the wood chip waste is sold and trucked to wood fired generation plants. Sure, it generates carbon, but so did open burning without any net energy result or profit. Old sawmill piles of sawdust still exist from the early 1900s and after 20-30 years of rotting they generate enough internal heat to self-ignite and smolder for decades as the burn off. Unfortunately, old rotting sawdust is not profitable to harvest and use as fuel so they are left to rot and burn unlike fresh chips and sawdust.

 

You have been debating against the proliferation of technology that has demonstrably saved lives (and made many lives better) by its use.

And yet you seem to resist the upcoming electric vehicle mandate. Oh wait I get it cars use oil not coal! Drill baby drill, even though there are ~9000 unused drilling permits, but there could be more if you had your way.

 

You have been debating against the proliferation of technology that has demonstrably saved lives (and made many lives better) by its use.

There was no humor in my comment. It saddens me greatly that our civilization has not progressed far enough from the dark ages that it still superstitiously guards itself against advanced life-saving and life-promoting technologies.

What technology do you think Im arguing against ?

 

what do you think we should think? check the first post in the thread, by .. you.

 

Your concluding that nuclear is currently safe the way it's implemented.
Ok. Your entitled to your view.

You dodged the question. It's not "my view" that matters, it's the facts. How exactly would you increase public safety by replacing nuclear energy with any other source?

 

Just wait and see what happens to public safety in 1000 years after we have extracted all of the heat out of the earth using Geothermal.

 

Just wait and see what happens to public safety in 1000 years after we have extracted all of the heat out of the earth using Geothermal.

By that time we'll be pumping oil on Titan.
https://www.esa.int/Science_Explora...urface_organics_surpass_oil_reserves_on_Earth

Saturn’s orange moon Titan has hundreds of times more liquid hydrocarbons than all the known oil and natural gas reserves on Earth, according to new Cassini data. The hydrocarbons rain from the sky, collecting in vast deposits that form lakes and dunes.

 

Just wait and see what happens to public safety in 1000 years after we have extracted all of the heat out of the earth using Geothermal.

There are so many ways to be doomed.

I just wish that asteroid would hurry up and take us all out so I don't have to worry about it anymore.

 

what do you think we should think? check the first post in the thread, by .. you.

Where does it say I'm against ?

 

nuclear power or nuclear energy,it is all the matter :-/

 

View attachment 294772

I read from this that coal and oil are dangerous.
whilst solar is the safest,