Mark Schneider’s Green Nuclear Deal

Science & Technology
1

Effects of global warming and pollution need to be addressed, but we need to address them in a way that is economically beneficial. This is where Mark Schneider’s #GreenNuclearDeal comes in.

Gen IV nuclear energy is our future. The newest nuclear reactors are completely safe from meltdown, they can use nuclear waste as nuclear fuel, they can ramp up and down with power needs and can offer 24/7/365 energy, and best yet, they are economically friendly.

Mark Schneider (he’s a nuclear power plant operator) has said that their internal research shows that nuclear power plants are the most profitable. Not just out of wind and solar, but that includes coal, oil and gas as well. It takes about about 20-25 years for a nuclear power plant to break even, but they can now operate for around 100 years. The amount of energy that can be provided can also lower the costs for the consumer.

But that’s not all! There is a somewhat new concept for nuclear reactors called a small modular reactor (SMR). These reactors can be fit in the back of a semi and hauled around where needed. Just imagine how much grid stability we could add where we could switch over to mainly nuclear energy and put up SMRs all over the country. These could run 24/7/365 at a cost-efficient rate. If anything does happen due to natural disaster, EMP attack or whatever, we could simply move SMRs around Preventing pain we would have with other forms of energy.

Many ask about SMRs raising costs because typically the bigger the cheaper due to economy of scale. Well, SMRs can actually reduce costs. Right now, every nuclear reactor is completely unique based on the placement, type, and many other factors. SMRs could basically standardize everything and we could effectively create an assembly line for nuclear reactors. Pump them out of a factory and then haul them where they need to be by semi. This would lead to an immense drop in cost. That would also cut financing costs, which right now make up 30% of the cost of a nuclear reactor.

I know many of you are skeptical of global warming, but you really don’t have to believe in global warming to believe that the #GreenNuclearDeal is good for our country. It’s good for our economy, it’s good for the consumer, it’s good for energy production, it’s good for grid stability, we can lessen smog by having less air pollution, etc. The #GreenNuclearDeal is the perfect deal to bring Climate Change advocates and those prioritizing the economy together.

2

I have yet to see any proof that it is a threat and that man is the cause of global warming, the science is not settled on the latter question. Also how can so called climate change be addressed when China and India who are the biggest polluters are basically getting a blind pass?

3

BlockquoteI have yet to see any proof that it is a threat and that man is the cause of global warming,

That’s not what my post is about. You don’t have to believe global warming is man-made to buy into the #GreenNuclearDeal, because the #GreenNuclearDeal is more economically beneficial than our current system, which is only going to get more expensive with time.

Also how can so called climate change be addressed when China and India who are the biggest polluters are basically getting a blind pass?

The great thing about the #GreenNuclearDeal is that it can be easily exported to any part of the world.

4

I am open to the idea of nuclear as an alternative source of energy and in fact have been for quite some time but would like to see more evidence that it is safe, mind you we are not too far removed from the Fukushima fiasco so the skepticism is warranted!

Also it was you who said climate change is an issue, regardless what your intended meaning is, I was challenging that assumption, because as I said before, this is a contentious narrative that hasn’t been settled with hard facts!

1 Like
5

Blockquote Also it was you who said climate change is an issue,

I mentioned it quickly just as I mentioned economics. This debate about climate change has been had over and over, so why devolve the conversation into the same old conversations when I’m introducing new information into the conversation?

But to take the bait so I don’t completely ignore what you obviously care about, Venus is extremely hot. In fact, it’s much hotter than it should be if the only variable was distance from the sun. So what is different? Venus’s atmosphere is almost completely made up of Carbon Dioxide. So Carbon Dioxide does have some role, and we are releasing Carbon Dioxide due to our activities. This means we have some impact.

The question is really how much impact do we have. That is greatly disputed. I don’t know the answer, but I’m pretty sure we have more than 11 years. lol I honestly don’t think we’d disagree on very much unless you deny that Carbon Dioxide has greenhouse gas effects completely and then we are way off. But again, even if you think the Earth isn’t warming at all or whatever, the #GreenNuclearDeal still makes sense due to pollution that harms air quality and economics.

Blockquote mind you we are not too far removed from the Fukushima fiasco so the skepticism is warranted!

Did you know that the people that died from the Fukushima incident didn’t actually die from the reactor meltdown, they died from the panic when the government evacuated them? Did you also know that evacuation was unnecessary? Even when these meltdowns happen, the surrounding public doesn’t get hit with very much radiation.

What happened in Fukushima couldn’t happen with a Gen IV reactor. They were old water designs. There are new designs that don’t use water but instead use things like molten salt or molten lead. This means that they can handle much hotter temperatures, and they would shut down before ever exploding. Almost all disasters have come from procedural issues that have been engineered out in new reactor designs. Meltdown is literally not possible with new reactors. You could bomb a Gen IV reactor and it wouldn’t meltdown.

6

I am big on nuclear. With enough nuclear power plants across the world, we would could power everything, with extremely low costs, only the cost of maintenance and overhead. No more miners dying in coal mines, no more oil spills, no more foreign oil dependency. Nuclear power straight to electric is where the future is at…or at least that’s the direction we should be heading. We won’t though because of lobbyists.

2 Likes
7

Wanting nuclear power does not make someone a climate hoax believer.

If you are concerned about the safety and efficiency of nuclear, don’t be. Thorium based nuclear reactors fix all previous concerns.

1 Like
8

Efficient nuclear power will never happen because it will take longer than one election term to build a new nuclear power plant. Politicians are only interested in quick wins that they can achieve while they’re in office. They won’t hand a victory to someone else. The days of mega construction projects for infrastructure are over. This is why these idiots push windmills and solar farms.

9

Thorium is interesting, but it has issues, and it’s really unnecessary. I mean, if we can use Thorium that’s great, but do you know they turn Thorium into a nuclear fuel? They turn it into Uranium. So supporting Thorium is fine, but I don’t see it as a reason not to support Uranium-based forms of reactors. Some reactors can use Thorium, Uranium or Plutonium as fuel, but right now Thorium is not as efficient.

10

You don’t have the complicated waste issues with thorium that you do with uranium or plutonium.

1563862007940
1563862007940872×734 143 KB

1 Like
11

Your diagram specifically talks about waste and how it has to be removed. You are literally turning Thorium into Uranium to fuel the nuclear power plant. Plus, waste is fuel. We can take the waste we have now and put it back through the Gen IV reactors to provide power for 10,000 years, and what’s left will only survive for 300 years after that.

12

Right. I was specifically talking about the waist removal process and how it is much less complicated using a thorium reactor. The whole idea is the conversion. It makes the waste products much smaller and much more manageable.

1 Like
13

That, and I believe a lot of people believe nuclear power is dangerous. They think Chernobyl and Fukushima. They want nothing to do with this being in their backyard and I’m not sure they could understand the science as to why it is safe.

I’m pro nuclear as well, but I don’t have a grasp on the science behind it, either.

14

How is Thorium less complicated? A “Thorium Reactor” is a nuclear reactor. Again, Thorium is turned into Uranium in order to be usable for fuel. Some reactors can even use Thorium, Uranium or Plutonium and all of them get converted into Uranium. Thorium doesn’t make waste management any more manageable than other new nuclear reactors.

15

I am much more optimistic than you and dman. Look at how everybody who has commented so far has been pro-nuclear. We’re already winning the battle. Politicians are already switching stances on nuclear. Nuclear wasn’t as safe back in the day as it is now, so it makes sense that we would have work to do to convince people, but that is already happening and there is no reason the masses can’t be convinced. We’re examples of the masses being convinced.

16

Benefits of Thorium Power:

  • Reactors cannot melt down

  • Abundant fuel

  • No risk of nuclear proliferation

  • No carbon or air pollution

  • Cheaper than even coal or natural gas

Why shill for uranium or plutonium when thorium is the only non shit tier politically viable option for the 2020s?

17

Let’s hope you are correct.

18

You should add cleaner/healthier food to your list. Food can be grown indoors without pesticides at a lower cost than outdoor agriculture.

19

Thorium is a meme. Thorium has minimal benefits over existing fission technology. The money spent on developing and advancing Thorium technology would be much better spent on improving existing nuclear technology or…on fusion.

20

This is true for all of the fuel types. Thorium reactors don’t meltdown because of the design of Gen IV reactors, not because of the Thorium fuel. Again, Thorium fuel is converted into Uranium. How many times do I have to say this. So why stand against Uranium fuel and then shill for Thorium fuel, which is then converted into Uranium?

I did want to touch more on the nuclear proliferation aspect more. None of the fuel types can be used for nuclear proliferation in the normal Gen IV designs. It takes special enrichment reactors that are different than those used for energy. However, if a country has those special enrichment reactors, they absolutely can enrich Thorium to be used for nuclear proliferation.

So to answer your question, I shill for Uranium and Plutonium reactors (as well as being open to Thorium) because they are the most efficient and work commercially while having the same benefits. Thorium is still not really used commercially and has some technical issues with Thorium. One question is what is the neutron generation per fission of U-233. Neutrons per U-233 atom are Plutonium is 2.91 and U-235 is 2.48. So what is it for Thorium? The higher the better.