Solid state batteries will make electric expedition vehicles practical.

[Jupiter58]

Three Mile Island reactor 2 (1979). The subsequent restart of reactor 1 was mind boggling.

Half the locations near and downwind of test sites in Nevada, Bimini Island, etc.

Closing of Yankee Row, Elk River, Fermi 1, Three Mile Island 1 (2019) and any number of other nuclear power stations across the country. For what reasons exactly?

Chernobyl at Pripyat (1986). Not US but had far reaching effects beyond the Soviet border. See anybody living in that zone yet?

Fukushima 2011. Three reactor meltdowns after a tsunami and resultant radiation into the ocean that causes the FDA to have to check food imported from that region for radionuclides to this day.

It's really kind of up to the nuclear industry to prove to people it is safe technology. Not for supposed environmentalists to simply state that it is green, when at one point, it was considered the bane of environmentalists everywhere. Tell me, what changed? How is nuclear is all of a sudden considered safe?

You tell me.

TMI is the only applicable one. The others are either not commercial or not in the USA.
There was not just ‘one’ event that caused that. There are plenty of detailed reports on that if you wish to read any of them. The last time we had this discussion I linked numerous articles from town, county, state, federal and private organizations with studies over decades that state there was no evidence of any environmental or health damage to anything or anyone. No one died, no one was injured , no short or long term effects.
The plant closures were simply ones of economics, they could not get a purchase power agreement that made it profitable to run those sites.
There are several which are being evaluated to be restarted simply because large data centers are being proposed nearby specifically because they want to buy the power from these plants and the current grid will not support it. They will remove any impact from the grid and make them economically feasible.

Again, what do any of those other situations have to do with commercial nuclear power in the USA????
Chernobyl was a design that has been outlawed in the USA since Jimmy Carter was president and in every western country at about the same time except the Soviet Union. Which violated everyone of their own processes and procedures resulting in the meltdown.

Fukushima had no or inadequate processes or equipment in place to protect the plant from that event. Seems silly doesn’t it???
All US plants had equipment and processes in place to respond to an event like that and since have doubled and tripled down on them.
These original US plants have operated for decades safely and have proven themselves. Anything that happens anywhere in the world to a plant is dissected and analyzed. If there is a design or process that needs to be changed or implemented it is codified by the NRC and becomes a legal requirement to be implemented with a definitive timeline.

The new AP 1000,’s (2 of which are operating in Georgia and another half dozen or so around the world) have significantly reduced the amount of operator actions and redundant safety equipment required. Amazing designs. I just left a contract working on those units scheduling out their first refuelings. I had to become very familiar with their design and their operating license requirements as I was tasked with laying out a plan for taking those systems out of service and performing required maintenance and surveillances (basically verifying they will operate correctly when required.)
I am not licensed to operate an AP 1000 but I dug into the design and requirements and worked with licensed operators to get the plan approved. Nothing like that goes anywhere without senior licensees approval.
Every day, whether operational or shutdown, a risk analysis is performed to ensure the plant is in a safe condition to operate or protect the fuel. And that is re-evaluated anytime any condition changes.

It is also unlikely they will be doing atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons in anyone’s neighborhood. Unless it is from some foreign entity.

 

[Jupiter58]

Nevemind environmentalists, it's gets worse ...

https://www.cbc.ca/radio/thecurrent/generative-ai-and-nuclear-energy-1.7362127

That is something isn’t it??? Who would have thought those companies would be proposing new nuclear plants?
Unfortunately, data centers require lots of reliable power 24 hours a day 365 days a year and unless you go gas or coal nuclear is the only viable option.
It is important to note that these companies will be taking on some financial risk for building these.
First, none of these designs have ever operated. It is going to be very expensive to build the first dozen or so.
They may get to the point where they are economically feasible for larger utilities to build them, but at this time they will not get a return on their investment unless someone outside provides financial incentives.

 

[ThundahBeagle]

TMI is the only applicable one. The others are either not commercial or not in the USA.
There was not just ‘one’ event that caused that. There are plenty of detailed reports on that if you wish to read any of them. The last time we had this discussion I linked numerous articles from town, county, state, federal and private organizations with studies over decades that state there was no evidence of any environmental or health damage to anything or anyone. No one died, no one was injured , no short or long term effects.
The plant closures were simply ones of economics, they could not get a purchase power agreement that made it profitable to run those sites.
There are several which are being evaluated to be restarted simply because large data centers are being proposed nearby specifically because they want to buy the power from these plants and the current grid will not support it. They will remove any impact from the grid and make them economically feasible.

Again, what do any of those other situations have to do with commercial nuclear power in the USA????
Chernobyl was a design that has been outlawed in the USA since Jimmy Carter was president and in every western country at about the same time except the Soviet Union. Which violated everyone of their own processes and procedures resulting in the meltdown.

Fukushima had no or inadequate processes or equipment in place to protect the plant from that event. Seems silly doesn’t it???
All US plants had equipment and processes in place to respond to an event like that and since have doubled and tripled down on them.
These original US plants have operated for decades safely and have proven themselves. Anything that happens anywhere in the world to a plant is dissected and analyzed. If there is a design or process that needs to be changed or implemented it is codified by the NRC and becomes a legal requirement to be implemented with a definitive timeline.

The new AP 1000,’s (2 of which are operating in Georgia and another half dozen or so around the world) have significantly reduced the amount of operator actions and redundant safety equipment required. Amazing designs. I just left a contract working on those units scheduling out their first refuelings. I had to become very familiar with their design and their operating license requirements as I was tasked with laying out a plan for taking those systems out of service and performing required maintenance and surveillances (basically verifying they will operate correctly when required.)
I am not licensed to operate an AP 1000 but I dug into the design and requirements and worked with licensed operators to get the plan approved. Nothing like that goes anywhere without senior licensees approval.
Every day, whether operational or shutdown, a risk analysis is performed to ensure the plant is in a safe condition to operate or protect the fuel. And that is re-evaluated anytime any condition changes.

It is also unlikely they will be doing atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons in anyone’s neighborhood. Unless it is from some foreign entity.

I see what you are writing. I have no reason to disbelieve you per se. Seems like you are in the industry and I am not. Call it a product of growing up in the 70's and 80's if you want, but I just cant seem to think Nuclear is safe. Maybe very few bad things happen, but when they do, it can affect an area for well past our lifetime.

What is the worst that happens when other power plants "blow"? Just the consequences dont seem as bad as the worst possible scenario of a Nuclear plant problem

 

[Jupiter58]

I see what you are writing. I have no reason to disbelieve you per se. Seems like you are in the industry and I am not. Call it a product of growing up in the 70's and 80's if you want, but I just cant seem to think Nuclear is safe. Maybe very few bad things happen, but when they do, it can affect an area for well past our lifetime.

What is the worst that happens when other power plants "blow"? Just the consequences dont seem as bad as the worst possible scenario of a Nuclear plant problem

Typically they result in deaths to onsite personnel and some environmental damage if a fossil fuel is involved.
The nuclear reactors are in buildings designed to contain a hydrogen explosion, steam explosions are easily contained in those buildings. You have to try real hard to put radioactive stuff into the atmosphere. The plants should take care of themselves with just a few remote operator actions. When the plants are operating there is no one in the containment so it is very unlikely for a person to be injured.
No real containment to speak of at Chernobyl.

 

[plainjaneFJC]

 

[DirtWhiskey]

Interesting convo about nuclear, which is without question the most safe form base load electrical generation on the planet, even including Fukushima (whose release actual impact on sea life was negligible and barely above background levels) and Chernobyl, which were designs from the late 1940s installed in the 1960s. 4th gen designs are walk away safe. There is no logical safety argument against nuclear power. Only cost and timeframe arguments, much of that tied to the absolutely wild levels of regulatory blockage of this tech, again tied to outdated paranoia.

It's coming back because we need the power whether you like it or not. Do some, scratch that, lots of reading. BTW hundreds of small modular reactors have been floating around in the ocean for decades in the form of naval submarines. We need to get past the Day After and China Syndrome paranoia of the 1980s. Nuclear is the only carbon free base load power solution that we have right now. We should have been building them for the last three decades and now we are no longer leading in the field. China is. Grid scale renewable battery storage is larger technical and economic challenge than 4th gen nuclear. Every time I hear about "add a battery" to an solar farm, I laugh. It doesn't exist and the tech won't be economical, or even environmentally responsible for at least a few decades if ever.

 

[craig333]

Does anyone run induction cooking outdoors? Since I cook outdoors 90% of the time I can't justify the expense for induction cooking. Generally I boil water for coffee and not much else inside my camper.