Nuclear Power: The Clean Energy Everyone Overlooks | Intellections

As the world continues to shift toward low-carbon energy sources, a closer look makes it clear that nuclear power has to be included in order to reduce carbon emissions. Until the problem of long-term power storage is solved, nuclear will remain the only zero carbon base load power source. Given how clean and reliable it is compared to its alternatives, it is far too early to take nuclear power off the table.

Additional resources:

[farlanghn]

I work in the solar industry and I find it incredibly frustrating when people push back on nuclear and insist to only use solar and wind. People obviously don't understand the limits of "rewenables" and due to fear mongering the anti nuclear movement has lied about it's dangers. Has there been disasters with nuclear? Of course! But the real dangers are not having energy at all. There is context when talking about energy and only focusing on the negatives of something doesn't solve the problem. It only prevents us from moving forward and making the tech better.

[andybird]

nuclear is the most bitchin source of electricity

[owlofminerva]

Why do we never talk about the fact that nuclear waste (fission proucts and minor actinides) can be "burned"(not litterally) using neutron radiation? This makes a big difference on how we can look at and handle nuclear energy, as one of the main reasons why ppl hate nuclear, is the waste issue. Which is not really an issue, as you can actually make electricity and even more important: industrial hear by "burning" the waste an this making long-term waste storage obsolete.


And also, why do we never talk about the fact, that electricity is only partly the reason for our CO2 emissions. Using nuclear heat, a lot of industrial processes within the chemical industry and petroleum industry can be made cleaner and CO2 neutral. Something which would NEVER be possible using wind, solar or hydropower. Cause they don't generate heat.

[charleschandlertornadoelec]

Reactive power is lossless, not useless. It can be passed through a resistance and thus converted into real power to illuminate a light bulb or else boil water to drive a steam turbine and replace all nuclear power plants at the very least.

Reactive power is not merely the result, the reaction, to real power. It is also the result of reacting against itself and accumulating without limit due to its lossless condition.

This makes reactive power a self-amplifying proposition if real power is not allowed to get in the way. To achieve this result, it is necessary to ...

Make sure that most of the real power input is thrown away to ground prior to its entry and that an open transmission line connects the source with the input without any return path to discourage a depletion of source. Without any exit, current will be forced to exit through the same point as it entered resulting in a reversal of current if the input is kept low enough so as to not suppress this distinct reversal of current from manifesting itself.

This reversal of current will increase the difference of voltages within this type of circuit rather than neutralizing them. This is what makes reactive power an infinite resource.

Imagine a battery in an electric car which increased its voltage over time whether or not it was drained!

BTW, a battery is another example of a resistive load capable of converting reactive power into real power and, thus, can be recharged with reactive power rather than with real power.

So, we're wasting our dollars recharging our battery-powered, electric cars from a "pay as you go" service, such as: from the power grid.

To learn more, search YouTube for this video title ...
Can Valence Electrons Supply Energy?

[chaptertravels]

Waste is a selling feature for nuclear, not a reason to be against it. The little bit of waste generated from massive amounts of energy produced is all contained and safely stored for future energy use in the new breeder reactors coming out.

[JonGreen]

What is the response to the waste problem?

[hiboomer]

This all seems good and all even with the recyclable waste but






*CHERNOBYL*

[PremierCCGuyMMXVI]

I like Nuclear but we should also include, wind, hydro, solar, and geothermal. All ways are best to stop Global Warming 👍🏼

[Jemalacane]

Nuclear power should provide half of U.S.'s electricity.

[melissasaint]

So. Who wants to talk to me about Fukushima?

[jonathanmendoza]

I feel like the dangers of the radioaxtive substances from nuclear power plants are what scares most people. And for good reason, too. Remember Chernobyl? Yeah... no one wants a repeat of that. Ever. Nuclear shouldn't be ruled out entirely, but precautions must be taken scross the board.

[pittster]

Nuclear power is a bad idea. Its a great carbon free solution, however look at Chernobyl and Fukushima. If an accident happens then you won't have to worry about carbon for 100 years because of radiation

[NukeForBinLaden]

Nuclear energy may be far “cleaner” than a fossil fuel alternative, however it’s anything but waste free. Spent fuel rods are still highly radioactive and take thousands of years to decay. Therefore nuclear waste must be stored in large underground vaults for safe keeping. This also must be done away from aquifers or underground water reservoirs to ensure water is not contaminated by the waste. This isn’t a clean way to produce energy at all.

[PennyLeFerret]

"nuclear is safer than coal or oil" is true until you factor in radioactive waste and the possibility of meltdown. We haven't just forgotten about the places that can't be inhabited now. As for "unreliability" of other renewable sources, you must have been paid a lot to forget what batteries are.