Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

[deleted] t1_jdi53hw wrote

Nuclear energy could be such a great asset then people cut corners and screw things up. So many nuclear advocates on Reddit, but none in this comments section.

96

withoutapaddle t1_jdiuld1 wrote

Right here.

Nuclear is still the best high output energy options we have until renewables can be more widely rolled out and decentralized all over the country. Prove me wrong.

Anyone who actually is reading the facts of this incident will know that the radiation levels are extremely minor, like the stuff you get everyday anyway. There is no major health risk here. The irony of all the panic is that if it DID reach the Mississippi, it would be diluted even more by billions of gallons of water as it went through the state and country, making it less radiation that eating a banana once a year...

38

[deleted] t1_jdixd5e wrote

Cutting corners in the name of profits when it comes to nuclear can have REALLY bad REALLY long lasting results. I think nuclear energy is fantastic, I think people are not reliable especially when corporations having high demands and hiding stuff. I don't think nuclear power plants should be leaking and apparently they don't either now finally that's why they're powering it down.

40

withoutapaddle t1_jdiyvw0 wrote

Oh yeah, I would never want my support of nuclear energy to be misconstrued as approving of corner cutting. The return on investment of nuclear energy takes like a decade, because the plants CANNOT be cutting any corners, and cost so much to properly design, build, and commission.

If anything, I would expect the greediest, most irresponsible corporations to be lobbying for more fossil fuel burning, which is actually orders of magnitude more dangerous than nuclear. It's just that the victims of fossil fuels are spread out over millions of cases over decades instead of 1 big headline-grabbing accident every few years, most of which results in little/no deaths (Chernobyl NPP being the obvious exception). For example, Fukushima had 1 casualty, and that was a pretty major incident.

8

deadlylegacy t1_jdnyyz5 wrote

The issue can often be detection as well. Our blowdown line (the line that pumps non-radioactive water from our cooling lake which we use as a dilution source for our liquid releases) releases ~25,000 gpm through a 4 foot wide concrete pipe. We release at most 20 gpm of heavily diluted waste water into this 25k gpm which then further dilutes in the river we make up/letdown to which has flows between 450,000 to 9,000,000 gpm.

The problem is detecting a 1-2 gpm leak through the pipe into the ground when you're pumping tens of thousands of gallons per minute.

2

Picasso5 t1_jdluf2w wrote

Where are you hearing that they cut corners? Nuke plants are extremely expensive and are built by experts.

0

Cyclonitron t1_jdj5epq wrote

> The irony of all the panic is that if it DID reach the Mississippi, it would be diluted even more by billions of gallons of water as it went through the state and country, making it less radiation that eating a banana once a year...

The sad irony is that the Mississippi is already so polluted if the radioactive water actually did reach it it would probably reduce the pollution on a whole.

10

withoutapaddle t1_jdj7r29 wrote

Well the Monticello NPP is pretty close to the beginning of the Mississippi, compared to its entire run through the US, (it is significantly before even Minneapolis/St.Paul), so the river is actually quite clean up there in comparison to its state by the time it hits the Gulf.

2

systemsfailed t1_jdixbbn wrote

The issue here is more so that this leak happened more than once, and they themselves said it wasn't worth notification of the public.

An individual leak is not life ending, but as was shown by Indian point, these companies cannot be trusted to fucking do the right thing, and that is scary in the event a larger incident occurs.

Nuclear energy has a bad rap, and requires public trust. Fucking hiding your incidents isn't going to help that, nor is being a condescending twat about it.

1

withoutapaddle t1_jdiyzlj wrote

I'm sorry, but this is misinformation. GTFO.

They reported it IMMEDIATELY. It just didn't grab headlines until later.

14

whofusesthemusic t1_jdibuob wrote

how am i supposed to squeeze every drop of potential profit out of it? the current system dictates that nothing is allowed to exists without generating a profit. What if the line doesnt go up?

16

SpaceTabs t1_jdjoz4n wrote

Not in the US. Two new plants under construction in SC went bust at a cost of $9 billion.

12

-FullBlue- t1_jearst5 wrote

If you're referring to Vogtle, it's in Georigia and the total cost is 30 billion for 2 reactors. Even after rate hikes, the price of power in the area remains substantially cheaper than in the state of California.

1

ProfessionEuphoric50 t1_jdjc6ia wrote

More energy in the US comes from renewables than Nuclear. It's gone from 1.1% in 2007 to 11% in 2019. Meanwhile nuclear has stagnated. The construction times for nuclear are just too high.

11

[deleted] t1_jdje0as wrote

Oh I know the timelines and costs are just too much and renewable is cheaper. Nuclear would have been great to implement decades ago. However some people early on decided to cut corners, things didn't work out well and everyone got scared.

6

Picasso5 t1_jdluoyu wrote

Who are these people that cut corners? Specifically.

1

Ameisen t1_jdlpxn2 wrote

More than 50% of my state's energy comes from nuclear.

1

TechFiend72 t1_jdkz8rp wrote

I like nuclear power! Done correctly. not the way we do it in the US but more like the way France does it or some non-backwards-ass politically driven engineered design.

1

[deleted] t1_jdllrau wrote

[removed]

1

Picasso5 t1_jdluwqo wrote

Nuclear waste is a made up issue. Considering what’s coming for us when the climate shifts radically, the nuclear waste issue is nothing. We can safely store waste, and eventually, it will be fuel for certain types of reactors.

−1

[deleted] t1_jdjggf1 wrote

[removed]

−7