So, Fukushima...

[Junkenstein]

Thinking purely about currently nuclear countries switching to renewable sources, would there actually be a net loss of jobs? Given that the projects are vast, the decommissioning process is unlikely to happen until the new sources are running to a point where thy can reliably providing the equivalent energy. I would guess the best way forward would be to run a cross-over period where you are creating large amounts of surplus energy that you can shift onto the world market at whatever price you choose. It's all pure profit anyway.

Job creation in the manufacturing sectors and the workforce required to keep the project maintained and operational I would guess to be at least equal to those involved in nuclear. I really have no idea, I've not looked at the numbers for nuclear and haven't a clue about how to calculate potential employment figures for a hypothetical offshore project.

[Faust]

Thinking purely about currently nuclear countries switching to renewable sources, would there actually be a net loss of jobs? Given that the projects are vast, the decommissioning process is unlikely to happen until the new sources are running to a point where thy can reliably providing the equivalent energy. I would guess the best way forward would be to run a cross-over period where you are creating large amounts of surplus energy that you can shift onto the world market at whatever price you choose. It's all pure profit anyway.

Job creation in the manufacturing sectors and the workforce required to keep the project maintained and operational I would guess to be at least equal to those involved in nuclear. I really have no idea, I've not looked at the numbers for nuclear and haven't a clue about how to calculate potential employment figures for a hypothetical offshore project.

The manufacturing of offshore wind turbines is a very specific skill set, one the US hasn't got an awful lot of experience in. Although if the US was to do 5000 of them it would be worth learning how to do it right as it would create some employment for a long term.

Because of the nature of wind turbines compared to what is a large processing plant, there is less admin work, less maintenance, no cleaning crews, no long term on site staff thats where the loss of jobs comes in. I've no idea how a cross over period of exporting the power would work but its possible.

[Doktor Howl]

Solar. Wind. Somethin'...

Still need consistent and constant power generation.

Renewable energy can meet four times the current energy requirements of the USA.

No argument there.  That should be started on immediately.

However, the reactors are in place right now, and we still need power while we put in the infrastructure to make power.

Also, modern pebble bed reactors aren't nearly as dangerous as the antique they had running in Japan (or North Dakota, for that matter).

[Doktor Howl]

Realistically the decommissioning of existing plants for offshore would result in a loss of jobs.

Jobs, IMO, aren't a consideration, here.

To my mind, the top two priorities are:

Keep the lights on.
Don't poison whole cities.

[P3nT4gR4m]

Realistically the decommissioning of existing plants for offshore would result in a loss of jobs.

Jobs, IMO, aren't a consideration, here.

To my mind, the top two priorities are:

Keep the lights on.
Don't poison whole cities.

This! Jobs are important but only when there's employees left alive to do them.

[Doktor Howl]

Realistically the decommissioning of existing plants for offshore would result in a loss of jobs.

Jobs, IMO, aren't a consideration, here.

To my mind, the top two priorities are:

Keep the lights on.
Don't poison whole cities.

This! Jobs are important but only when there's employees left alive to do them.

Also, energy companies should not be allowed to run museum pieces.  As safer tech becomes available, they should be forced to impliment it, at least within a reasonable time frame.

It's not like any of them are going broke.

[P3nT4gR4m]

You obviously know more than me about different kinds of power stations and how safe they are. All I know is my argument hasn't changed since the days of the cold war where people were constantly trying to freak me out with the prospect of a nuclear war.

Death by nuclear war requires someone somewhere to press a button

Death by nuclear reactor requires someone somewhere to forget to press a button

[Doktor Howl]

You obviously know more than me about different kinds of power stations and how safe they are. All I know is my argument hasn't changed since the days of the cold war where people were constantly trying to freak me out with the prospect of a nuclear war.

Death by nuclear war requires someone somewhere to press a button

Death by nuclear reactor requires someone somewhere to forget to press a button

When pebble beds fail, they stop reacting.

Thing is, the Fukishima plant was a disaster waiting to happen.  They had the spent fuel rods stored on the roof, and the emergency power generators located on the ground.  Given that a tsunami was the "emergency" they were planning for, it seems that Mike the engineer from my plant had to have thought that scheme up.

Wave comes through, trashes generators.  Pumps stop.  Old fuel rods start to heat up.  Hello, nurse!

A few simple changes would have prevented the disaster.

1.  Spent fuel rods stored in separate buildings, and moved to a proper facility as soon as possible.

2.  Generators on the roof, away from potential flooding.

This was just an example of piss-poor design.  Hell, the reactors themselves did fine.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Solar. Wind. Somethin'...

Still need consistent and constant power generation.

Renewable energy can meet four times the current energy requirements of the USA.

No argument there.  That should be started on immediately.

However, the reactors are in place right now, and we still need power while we put in the infrastructure to make power.

Also, modern pebble bed reactors aren't nearly as dangerous as the antique they had running in Japan (or North Dakota, for that matter).

We absolutely need power until the new infrastructure is in place, partly because we HAVE to kept the spent fuel cooled. There are a lot  more reasons than that, of course, but that one's pretty fucking critical.

As for not running antiques, every power plant built is going to be an antique in fifty years, with no budget to decommission or replace it.

[Faust]

Realistically the decommissioning of existing plants for offshore would result in a loss of jobs.

Jobs, IMO, aren't a consideration, here.

To my mind, the top two priorities are:

Keep the lights on.
Don't poison whole cities.

This! Jobs are important but only when there's employees left alive to do them.

Also, energy companies should not be allowed to run museum pieces.  As safer tech becomes available, they should be forced to implement it, at least within a reasonable time frame.

It's not like any of them are going broke.

But that's not how they will see it and they are the main opposition. To be honest the management involved with those should have been shoved into the reactor years ago alongside Ayn rands festering corpse. If you can overcome them then, you can ignore the screaming tea party crowd who will invariably be against the idea.

[Doktor Howl]

Solar. Wind. Somethin'...

Still need consistent and constant power generation.

Renewable energy can meet four times the current energy requirements of the USA.

No argument there.  That should be started on immediately.

However, the reactors are in place right now, and we still need power while we put in the infrastructure to make power.

Also, modern pebble bed reactors aren't nearly as dangerous as the antique they had running in Japan (or North Dakota, for that matter).

We absolutely need power until the new infrastructure is in place, partly because we HAVE to kept the spent fuel cooled. There are a lot  more reasons than that, of course, but that one's pretty fucking critical.

As for not running antiques, every power plant built is going to be an antique in fifty years, with no budget to decommission or replace it.

This is why - in a sane world - they'd be forced to budget for retrofits & replacements.

I mean, the pebble bed design is damn near perfect, but something better will be along, and eventually everything wears out anyway.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Solar. Wind. Somethin'...

Still need consistent and constant power generation.

Renewable energy can meet four times the current energy requirements of the USA.

No argument there.  That should be started on immediately.

However, the reactors are in place right now, and we still need power while we put in the infrastructure to make power.

Also, modern pebble bed reactors aren't nearly as dangerous as the antique they had running in Japan (or North Dakota, for that matter).

We absolutely need power until the new infrastructure is in place, partly because we HAVE to kept the spent fuel cooled. There are a lot  more reasons than that, of course, but that one's pretty fucking critical.

As for not running antiques, every power plant built is going to be an antique in fifty years, with no budget to decommission or replace it.

This is why - in a sane world - they'd be forced to budget for retrofits & replacements.

I mean, the pebble bed design is damn near perfect, but something better will be along, and eventually everything wears out anyway.

Not if we put funding into something that doesn't have disastrously toxic waste products. Saying that nuclear could be perfectly safe and efficient if only we utilized all these safeguards and regulations and planned ahead and the plants were run properly and we figured out a permanent and safe solution for waste disposal is no different from saying that a Libertarian free market could be a perfect system if everybody behaved themselves.

[Doktor Howl]

Solar. Wind. Somethin'...

Still need consistent and constant power generation.

Renewable energy can meet four times the current energy requirements of the USA.

No argument there.  That should be started on immediately.

However, the reactors are in place right now, and we still need power while we put in the infrastructure to make power.

Also, modern pebble bed reactors aren't nearly as dangerous as the antique they had running in Japan (or North Dakota, for that matter).

We absolutely need power until the new infrastructure is in place, partly because we HAVE to kept the spent fuel cooled. There are a lot  more reasons than that, of course, but that one's pretty fucking critical.

As for not running antiques, every power plant built is going to be an antique in fifty years, with no budget to decommission or replace it.

This is why - in a sane world - they'd be forced to budget for retrofits & replacements.

I mean, the pebble bed design is damn near perfect, but something better will be along, and eventually everything wears out anyway.

Not if we put funding into something that doesn't have disastrously toxic waste products. Saying that nuclear could be perfectly safe and efficient if only we utilized all these safeguards and regulations and planned ahead and the plants were run properly and we figured out a permanent and safe solution for waste disposal is no different from saying that a Libertarian free market could be a perfect system if everybody behaved themselves.

You're getting no argument from me...Mostly because there are 2 perfectly safe methods of disposing of nuclear waste, but the NRC refuses to even look at them, because if they were implimented, 1/3rd of the NRC would be out of work.

So, yeah, any system based on expecting people to behave themselves is, as we have pointed out many times before, automatically a failed system...And while there is risk in any energy generation system, the risk in nuclear systems is so much higher than the alternatives that it should be replaced.

I make two exceptions for this:

1.  Remote site energy generation, where it is not feasible to bring power in or use safer forms of power, and

2.  Space-based energy generation.  Solar energy works really well in the short term on satellites & space stations, but the panels degrade extremely quickly, and are not sufficient in any long term application.

However, in the meantime, we have to come up with alternate energy sources before we start shutting down reactors.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

What are the two safe disposal methods?

I would absolutely so not be at all down with space-based nuclear. Holy shit. What's the rationale there? I can't even see how it would be managed, and anything that's in orbit is at risk of, at some point, coming down. Adding a massive layer of shit that could go catastrophically wrong to something that can go catastrophically wrong seems to be, putting it mildly, not a good idea.

[Doktor Howl]

What are the two safe disposal methods?

1.  Put the waste in silica & lead, and fuse the sand into glass, stack blocks out in the salt flats, or

2.  Dig a 2 mile bore hole, and drop the shit down.  Given time, it will eventually pass into the Earth's mantle, where most of the world's radioactives are.

Both methods allow you to recover the material, which might be important.  If it's hot, it still has energy, and we might need that later.

I would absolutely so not be at all down with space-based nuclear. Holy shit. What's the rationale there? I can't even see how it would be managed, and anything that's in orbit is at risk of, at some point, coming down. Adding a massive layer of shit that could go catastrophically wrong to something that can go catastrophically wrong seems to be, putting it mildly, not a good idea.

Depends how you do it.  Any real space platform would be at a Lagrange point, and would thus never come down unless you made it come down.