FUSION POWER now being touted to make Green New Deal Null& Void.

Good luck getting them to abandon the green new deal for anything given that it’s nothing more than a massive redistribution of wealth scheme.

 

The biggest laugh I've gotten out of this thread is the notion that energy costs to the consumer will plummet....yeah, you can use those savings to buy a gumball now and then.

 

I'll bet Trump lives closer to a nuclear plant than you do.

 

I grew up next to one-

NPTU New York - Naval Sea Systems Command
https://www.navsea.navy.mil › Home › New-York
Official website of the Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA), the largest of the U.S. ... Commanding Officer, Nuclear Power Training Unit, Ballston Spa, N.Y.

I basically lived on top of two nuclear reactors for 3 years of my life.

USS Long Beach (CGN-9) - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › USS_Long_Beach_(C...
USS Long Beach (CLGN-160/CGN-160/CGN-9) was a nuclear-powered guided missile cruiser in the United States Navy and the world's first nuclear-powered surface ...

I also lived within a mile of one when I lived on Long Island-

Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Shoreham_Nuclear_Po...
The Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant was a completed General Electric nuclear boiling water reactor located adjacent to Long Island Sound in East Shoreham, ...

But that nuke plant never split a single atom. 6 billion dollars, 0 watts of electricity generated.

Thank you, stinky hippies.

 

I'd gladly live next door to a nuclear plant if it meant I didn't have to pay $10/gallon for gas because of the Democrat's unicorn farts green energy pipe dreams.

 

Question: In terms of your percent of labor needed to fulfill your energy need, do you think that this percentage was higher in the 1700s, when people had to chop trees for wood, or now, when they can fill up their gas tank 3-times for $100 each, which is the energy equivalent of a cord of wood?

The answer is: The cost per energy equivalent DOES go down during transitions to higher quality energy sources, otherwise the transition would be senseless in the first place.

 

I bet Trump doesn't have a nuclear plant next door

 

it does bring down house prices that cheaper living

 

I'll bet you don't either.

 

and I bet I would not be happy if one was to be built....

not many wants to live next door to one, cause no matter how safe they say they are, we have seen what has happened in the past

it's like when they were building the pipeline near an Indian reserve and said it was safe, then they asked them why not build it near the nearby town.... lol.... it's not that safe

 

The beauty of nuke plants is they take up a relatively small footprint of real estate, and they generate absolutely astonishingly-large amounts of power.

Unlike wind and solar farms, which occupy honking big swaths of real estate, and generate relatively puny amounts of power compared to nukes.

So if it's a question of NIMBY, wind and solar requires much, much more "backyard space" than nukes.

 

regardless, all I was saying, is if you want to gain trust on their safety, build them in rich neighborhoods first

 

Nuclear power has been incredibly safe in the US.

Coal and gas plants have killed and poisoned far more people than nuke plants have in the US. Nuclear is even safer than solar.

Rooftop solar is several times more dangerous than nuclear power and wind power. It is still much safer than coal and oil, because those have a lot of air pollution deaths. Rooftop solar can be safer [0.44 up to 0.83 death per twh each year). ... In the USA about 30,000 deaths/year from coal pollution from 2000 TWh.Mar 14, 2008

Deaths per TWh for all energy sources: Rooftop solar power is ...

 

Most nuclear power plants we have are well beyond their projected life span, shutting them down and decommissioning them is way too expensive and time consuming.

 

and when the rich start demanding them in their neighborhoods as a reliable power source, we will know they are safe

 

Or you could just look at the facts to know they're safe.

 

who tries to raise oil prices? this was Trump last year....

"Trump told Saudi: Cut oil supply or lose U.S. military support"

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...se-u-s-military-support-sources-idUSKBN22C1V4

"Trump threatens 'very substantial' tariffs on imported oil if Saudi Arabia and Russia can't reach a deal to push prices back up"

https://www.insider.com/trump-threatens-saudi-arabia-russia-oil-tariffs-2020-4

 

The Commonwealth Fusion site is projecting first commercialization starting in 2025.

 

I posted a link to some new technology in the works, those would be safe, maybe we should wait

 

Not commercial, only experimental.

If everything goes well with the prototype, THEN they'll start trying to figure out how to turn it into an actual power plant.

 

How long should we wait?

AOC's countdown clock has what? 10 years left?

 

That's not necessarily true. There had been proposed a type of fission plant that was ultra-safe, and which actually used the leftover, radioactive rods from other nuclear fission plants, for its fuel, that is, rendered those rods safe, in the process. The scientists behind this were, as in the idea from the OP, from a prestigious university, and I was a booster for it. Then I found out that their data didn't back up their claims.

 

You are probably talking about breeder reactors. The fast breeders were fashionable for a while, because, unlike the common light water reactors, which extract only <1% of the energy in the uranium fuel, they can extract up to 70% of the stored energy, resulting in less nuclear waste and less need for nuclear fuel. Now, there have been problems with breeder reactors that have prevented widespread adoption. However, I am not an expert in these reactors, so I don't know exactly what the technical problems are. One big problem, however, is that fissible plutonium is produced in the breeder process, which can be used to make weapons.

 

I got excited about the breeder reactors myself, but yeah, they've got kinks that need to be worked out.

 

Fusion only generates electricity which is the energy, it would replace other forms of generation. I have seen no evidence that the electricity produced would cost 1/10 current generations so the entire argument here is based on an unproven assertion. And no I have made no such proposal. My proposal is that if my energy cost were cut to 1/10 I would use 10 times more energy I would take the money and save it or spend it elsewhere.