Solar and wind account for only 2% of Americas current energy consumption. With the increasing reliance of technology, Americas energy consumption is going to increase exponentially in the next 20 years. Solar and Wind power cannot keep up, and fossil fuels will be nearly unattainable in 40 years time. The only answer is nuclear, lifting the ban on the reprocessing of nuclear fuel and giving incentives for students to go into the nuclear industry is the only way we can solve this problem. The amount of nuclear power plant workers retiring in the next 10 years will leave nearly half of the positions unfilled in american nuclear power plants, that is, with the current rate of grads going into nuclear power. Mark my words, If things do not change in 10-15 years time there will be a huge energy crisis in america, due to the apathy of students, the ban of reprocessing of nuclear fuels, and the eventual decline of availability of fossil fuels.
>>75766924
Yeah nuclear energy is great, and very safe.
Problem is liberals and conservatives alike think it's unsafe, and nuclear reactors can just meltdown out of nowhere.
Here is a graph of the age gap I was talking about. The majority of nuclear workers are baby boomers.
>>75767695
I'm pretty sure it used to be easier to get degrees in nuclear engineering. This could be causing it, along with the exponential rise in the cost of tuition.
I think it's 5 years for a bachelors degree, 6.5 for a masters, and over 8 for a P.H D
>>75767837
The Majority of jobs do not require a bachelors, an associates degree in Nuclear Technology is all that is required to work in a nuclear plant (and an NUCP certification).
Can you call it a crisis if it's been going on for years
What really gets me is that people, (typically liberals) think that the wind/solar industry can cover the slack if we get rid of coal/natural gas. When in reality, it cant. Solar/ wind in severely limited in application because 1. the sun has to be out and 2. the wind must blow. They think that hooking up the grid to a large battery would work, when it dosent. It never has and never will work. Fossil fuels/ nuclear is the only way to go. When fossil runs out nuclear can pick up the slack.
>>75767695
>>75767837
Nuke plants don't hire fresh-out-of-college kids. They want people who are able to do maintenance and actually work the plant, not early 20-somethings who have a degree which says how a nuclear reactor/plant works.
>>75768743
This is why in order to graduate the 2 yr nuclear Technology degree program you must spend a semester working in the plant.
>implying we have needed coal, oil, gas, hydroelectric, geothermal, wind , solar or nuclear energy sence the 19th century.
>>75766924
Good, good.
>>75769368
elaborate
The American government ( Mostly Obama) has stacked their cards against nuclear power for 2 reasons. 1. the reprocessing of fuel is prohibited by law and 2. the government refuses to let it be stored anywhere other than in the plant. In fact, the government had a storage facility already completed in Nevada (of which i forgot the name) the Obama closed with an executive order of his.
So the government is saying:
>you cant use the fuel again
>you cant store it anywhere either
>>75769815
I think he's talking out his ass.
The billions pissed away on worthless wind and solar make me question if it's even worth trying to help other people.
>>75766924
Reality is that nuclear energy is one of the safest and most environmental friendly energy there is.
But there's a problem. Liberals think that because of Chernobyl and Fukushima it's dangerous. Both of those accidents were extremely easy to prevent, but they think it's some kind of mass murdering device.
It's kind of like how guns and police in the US gained their reputation, despite not being that bad after all.
>>75771999
>checked
I was just about to say this. The word "nuclear" is associated with terms like "bomb" or "accident". When in reality, the nuclear power industry has had the fewest accidents out of every other power industry. What we need to do to advance nuclear power in america, is to call it by a different name (of which i have no suggestion). Because when I tell people I am currently studying nuclear engineering they think I am going to make bombs, and it pisses me off.
>>75770857
should update your data bro
>>75766924
20 years huh op. well good thing nuclear fusion reactors are suppose to be completed by then.
just start building some thorium plants
its the future till ITER is finished
>>75775617
Im sorry, i have all this shit saved in a folder called " i hate wind power"
>>75776165
hasnt been updated in like 6 years or some shit
>>75775833
Fusion is a child's toy. We will never have a serious fusion reactor.
>>75766924
>With the increasing reliance of technology, Americas energy consumption is going to increase exponentially in the next 20 years.
Someone clearly doesn't understand improving efficiency. Total consumption has been flat since 2000 despite a growing population. Up to 2013 uses data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, after 2013 is projections by the same.
Is nuclear better than what we're doing now? Of course. Is what we're doing now going to stop being feasible in the next 40 years? No. We could fuel our energy consumption with fossil fuels for the next 200 years and would, but other energy sources will eventually become cheaper and replace them due to cost, not limited supply.
>>75766924
>fossil fuels will be nearly unattainable in 40 years time.
Shale oil?
Fracking?
Iran Sanctions?
Russia Sanctions?
There's still a lot of oil to go around, and entirely new technologies that made oil and natural gas more efficient/more accessible.
I am nuclear friendly but wasn't it portugal (who??) that was 100% renewable for like two days?
decentraliztion, better distribution (over earth is 3rd world tier), efficiency and a mix of nuclear, biomass and wind seems sensible. solar panels don't work, but thermal solar tubes etc. save a lot of electricity.
>>75776107
ITER will never be fueled, we haven't the tritium supplies to feed it. It's too big, it was a mistake.
t. PPPL Physicist
>>75776740
The total use is flat because of the 15% reduction from the 2008 crash.
>>75777462
This is the problem with large-scale, multinational projects. They get too big and turn into these bureaucratic clusterfucks. Everything's got to be designed and approved by committee, you've got to write a thousand treaties to govern who gets credit for what, and in the meantime virtually no actual physics gets done. Same shit happened with the ISS - took twice as long, cost twice as much, a third of the modules got scrapped, and so on.
Meanwhile, Wendelstein was planned and built in... what? About 10 years? And it's already running plasmas and that was almost exclusively a German project with some funding from you guys and Los Alamos.
>>75776740
I respectfully disagree with the current projections that you have provided. Too many times have they been wrong in the past to be reliable now.
>We could fuel our energy consumption with fossil fuels for the next 200 years and would...
False. Most experts say 40-50 years from now we will run out. Google it.
>>75776987
Yes.
Yes.
and Yes.
see >>75778406
>>75771999
This is what they want you to think with all their advertising, but in reality it's expensive and risky. It costs a heck of a lot to build and maintain a safe nuclear power plant and the waste it produces needs to be stored somewhere for thousands of years and that somewhere is very deep underground. There's no guarantee that this wont cause problems sometime in the near or far future with all the earthquakes and shit it could even contaminate ground water.
While there are a lot of safety measures there's still chance for things going horribly wrong. French rioters already caused nuclear plant to shut down for a day or two and sea levels are rising due to climate change whether we want it or not so building near the sea is risky at best. Decommissioning the plant is also expensive as hell.
People don't understand that there's technological boom going on with solar power and storing energy. Storing all the power gained from solar has been difficult because there hasn't been much advancement in battery technology in past years. But due to the fact that mobile devices and electric cars are all the rage now tech industry is investing heavily on energy storage tech to provide the customers with extended battery life with all the new features. US has a lot of roads and desert that's great for solar energy applications.
>>75766924
>fossil fuels will be nearly unattainable in 40 years time.
untrue
fossil fuels are incredibly abundant
they will become more expensive as we have to dig deeper, exploit less rich finds and do more ocean exploring but that's really just inflation
This is how all natural resources work, the same happens with mining
>>75766924
I suggested the same thing in a thread last night.
Same guy?
>>75766924
There is more than enough solar and wind energy available for our power needs if we put the money into it.
>>75780287
Finally, someone with the opposing viewpoint to add banter to the thread.
>expensive and risky
Yes, starting up a nuclear power plant is an expensive ordeal, as is decommissioning (I will get to this later). But with the amount of energy created out of such a small fuel source, you will be making money hand over fist. A nuclear plant, like a home or a nice car, ia an investment, you have to put money in to get money out. One fuel pellet of low-enriched uranium supplies the same amount of energy as 205 barrels of oil, and a fuel pellet is half the size of your fist.
As for the storage of the fuel, I am not sure about finnish standards, but in america we have very strict standards of storing fuel. The fuel casks are lined with three inches of steel, then layered with three feet of concrete. They should be able to withstand a direct missile strike ( 10 CFR 20 ?) in the event of a terrorist attack. So the odds of a leakage or rupture is very small.
As for decommissioning expenses, the plant is required by law ( again, not sure how finns do it) to save for a decommissioning fund, which is taken as a certain percentage per KWhr price . So if the Kwhr price is about .19USD then lets say .01USD goes to the decommissioning fund. So funding a decommissioning is not an issue.
As for hooking a giant battery to a power grid, charged by wind and solar simply wont work. Only half the time (at best) will it be charging. Wind and solar ( i think you are trying to imply " solar freakin' roadways) simply do not provide enough energy during the day to surpass the amount of energy currently being used to charge a battery. plus Solar panels and wind turbines have the worst efficiency among all other types of power generation. Don't get me wrong, the concept of a society powered entirely by wind/solar is a nice idea but it just wont work. You would invest to much money to get barely anything in return.
Ignoring abiotic oil, France builds all its nuclear reactors from the same plans. The nuclear reactors in America and Japan suck because the engineers try to reinvent the wheel every time they build one. The French engineers can walk into any nuclear plant and know where everything is.
>>75781248
Nope, I was not on /pol/ last night.
>>75783773
It is painful how right you actually are.
here is your (you)
>>75778406
>False. Most experts say 40-50 years from now we will run out. Google it.
At current prices with current tech discounting all unconventional oil and gas.
So ignore, fracking, oil sands and 4th tier well revivals.
>>75780287
We only have the problems with nuclear power you pointed out if we keep using 1950s submarine engine tech as the base for our power.
Don't use breeder reactors and only use light water enriched uranium reaction.
Also your magic batter tech would be even better for nuclear than it would be for solar or wind. (let alone coal)
>>75766924
>2%
Hahaha, 2%. WTF is wrong with America?
Who cares? Unless we solve our shitskin problem, nothing will matter in 20 years.
>>75766924
>fossil fuels will be nearly unattainable in 40 years time
Source?
>>75768666
The big thing is that they don't even believe in economics, and can't understand that going all "renewable" will increase the price of electricity 10x
Then still result in constant blackouts
>>75786007
http://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs-wm/32334.pdf
http://www.business-standard.com/article/punditry/how-long-will-fossil-fuels-last-115092201397_1.html
http://www.carboncounted.co.uk/when-will-fossil-fuels-run-out.html
Its hard to find an unbiased source but i tried to stay away from the eco crap.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mzzz5DdzyWY
this belongs here
A huge portion of the cost of nuclear power plants is regulation
If they have to spend a decade and billions of dollars(usually tax "subsidies") fighting the NRC to get approval to dig the first load of dirt, then thats all counted as the cost of construction.
New nuclear designs are way better than the old ones too, lower in all costs.
>>75787278
Based CANDU poster
