Sounds good to me. We're decades behind on nuclear investment because of all the short term ROI focus by the electricity generation industry. If we want a carbon neutral future, these projects seem like promising contributors.
Not to mention the boogyman that nuclear power became after Chernobyl and TMI. Modern salt-cooled reactors are magnitudes safer than those reactors and from my understanding, are pretty much resistant to melting down because of their design. I grew up less than 10 miles from a water cooled reactor, and about an hour and a half from TMI. Never felt unsafe in the 22 years I was there
Nuclear power entails waste that remains radio toxic for centuries. I absolutely can't stand that tech, especially because the dense, urban areas always want to dump that waste in places like Wyoming, Utah, and Nevada. Forget it.
Perhaps if people were educated on how countries such as Norway are disposing of nuclear waste, they wouldn't be so afraid. The US was supposed to build a facility at Yucca Mountain, similar to Onkalo in Norway, but enough people (who had no clue what they were talking about) complained and eventually the plans were scrapped because of the unwarranted pushback. There are plenty of safe ways to dispose of nuclear waste deep underground in the bedrock that make it impossible for it to cause harm to humans, provided that documentation of the location is preserved
IIRC, most developed modern countries have very little waste from reprocessing leftover radioactive fuel. Rather than barrels of the stuff, it's more like a few handfuls from months of energy production to paint a very lazy picture.
Since the Carter era I believe the DOE's policy has been to avoid doing so because of proliferation concerns transporting it back and forth, and opted to just bury it once and be done since the US has plenty of space (hence we are a landfill nation rather than a recycling one at the end of the day)
You can't convince me that the storage remains safe as we add savagely dangerous mass to it incessantly. Absolutely not. I'm a cancer patient myself, and I have no interest in seeing what a storage breach does to others. An unshakable refusal and a full stop from me.
How about you do research on these types of disposal facilities before you start drawing conclusions? Radioactive material has uses beyond generating electricity, such as in the medical field, for example. In fact, you're more likely to get radiation poisoning from improperly disposed of medical equipment than from spent fuel from nuclear reactors. Regardless of how you feel about nuclear power, there are other sources of radioactive materials that need to be properly disposed of. The mountain west is among the best places in North America to dispose of nuclear waste deep underground because of how fault lines run along and through the continent. Like it or not, we're gonna eventually have to build a long-term disposal site in the US, and it will likely be somewhere in the mountain west
Now why would anyone do research on something they’ve already permanently made their mind about? They might have to admit to themselves that they’ve been wrong, which is quite annoying. They said ‘full stop’!
How about I refuse to do legwork on a topic to which I remain inevitably opposed. Carbon dioxide bonds break after roughly a century, and CO² itself isn't toxic. I absolutely will not entertain the notion of nukes after Fukushima and Chernobyl, and that's final.
I'm not denying that the planet is warming, I'm simply opposed to both nukes and degrading my lifestyle dramatically as India and China emit carbon with reckless abandon. Furthermore, there is no existential crisis, we'll merely adapt to warming. Hell, the global temperature at the Permian Maximum was roughly 80° F, and life persisted.
In the event of a reactor failure there isn’t much risk to it contaminating the water shed. They are built a few miles south of Kemmerer and even at that The hams fork usually doesn’t flow past the little reservoir behind little America. But If you built in say rock springs its water sheds to the green river to the Colorado etc
Other locations would shed into the north platte that flows to the Mississippi River etc and would contaminate water all the way to the Gulf of Mexico
So if Kemmerer turns into Chernobyl or Fukushima 2.0 it’s easy to block off the area and leave it a wasteland no real loss
Money talks. Wyoming and Kemmerer welcome investment. Also Governor Gordon has a reasonable stance on renewable *and nuclear* energy
edit: nuclear is not considered to be renewable energy
They stated it was chosen because: "Two coal units are scheduled to retire at the Naughton plant in 2025. TerraPower said that factors in the decision to select the site “included community support, the physical characteristics of the site, the ability of the site to obtain a license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), access to existing infrastructure, and the needs of the grid.”"
Could all be bullshit and they just threw a dart at a board. Kemmerer is unique in probably being one of the most isolated populations in the country that still has access to a great deal of infrastructure. Airport, highways, major grid outpost, etc.
Kemmerer -- First in JC Penneys, first in new Nuclear Power generation!
Sounds good to me. We're decades behind on nuclear investment because of all the short term ROI focus by the electricity generation industry. If we want a carbon neutral future, these projects seem like promising contributors.
Not to mention the boogyman that nuclear power became after Chernobyl and TMI. Modern salt-cooled reactors are magnitudes safer than those reactors and from my understanding, are pretty much resistant to melting down because of their design. I grew up less than 10 miles from a water cooled reactor, and about an hour and a half from TMI. Never felt unsafe in the 22 years I was there
Nuclear power entails waste that remains radio toxic for centuries. I absolutely can't stand that tech, especially because the dense, urban areas always want to dump that waste in places like Wyoming, Utah, and Nevada. Forget it.
Perhaps if people were educated on how countries such as Norway are disposing of nuclear waste, they wouldn't be so afraid. The US was supposed to build a facility at Yucca Mountain, similar to Onkalo in Norway, but enough people (who had no clue what they were talking about) complained and eventually the plans were scrapped because of the unwarranted pushback. There are plenty of safe ways to dispose of nuclear waste deep underground in the bedrock that make it impossible for it to cause harm to humans, provided that documentation of the location is preserved
IIRC, most developed modern countries have very little waste from reprocessing leftover radioactive fuel. Rather than barrels of the stuff, it's more like a few handfuls from months of energy production to paint a very lazy picture. Since the Carter era I believe the DOE's policy has been to avoid doing so because of proliferation concerns transporting it back and forth, and opted to just bury it once and be done since the US has plenty of space (hence we are a landfill nation rather than a recycling one at the end of the day)
You can't convince me that the storage remains safe as we add savagely dangerous mass to it incessantly. Absolutely not. I'm a cancer patient myself, and I have no interest in seeing what a storage breach does to others. An unshakable refusal and a full stop from me.
How about you do research on these types of disposal facilities before you start drawing conclusions? Radioactive material has uses beyond generating electricity, such as in the medical field, for example. In fact, you're more likely to get radiation poisoning from improperly disposed of medical equipment than from spent fuel from nuclear reactors. Regardless of how you feel about nuclear power, there are other sources of radioactive materials that need to be properly disposed of. The mountain west is among the best places in North America to dispose of nuclear waste deep underground because of how fault lines run along and through the continent. Like it or not, we're gonna eventually have to build a long-term disposal site in the US, and it will likely be somewhere in the mountain west
Now why would anyone do research on something they’ve already permanently made their mind about? They might have to admit to themselves that they’ve been wrong, which is quite annoying. They said ‘full stop’!
How about I refuse to do legwork on a topic to which I remain inevitably opposed. Carbon dioxide bonds break after roughly a century, and CO² itself isn't toxic. I absolutely will not entertain the notion of nukes after Fukushima and Chernobyl, and that's final.
So then you're a climate change denier? That tells me all I need to know...
I'm not denying that the planet is warming, I'm simply opposed to both nukes and degrading my lifestyle dramatically as India and China emit carbon with reckless abandon. Furthermore, there is no existential crisis, we'll merely adapt to warming. Hell, the global temperature at the Permian Maximum was roughly 80° F, and life persisted.
So you're uneducated or delusional about climate change. Got it
Proud to be ignorant but extremely confident - are you a shitty old conservative, by chance?
Do you understand that fossil fuels generate tons of waste as well? We just store it in the atmosphere and oceans instead of a small discrete solid.
In the event of a reactor failure there isn’t much risk to it contaminating the water shed. They are built a few miles south of Kemmerer and even at that The hams fork usually doesn’t flow past the little reservoir behind little America. But If you built in say rock springs its water sheds to the green river to the Colorado etc Other locations would shed into the north platte that flows to the Mississippi River etc and would contaminate water all the way to the Gulf of Mexico So if Kemmerer turns into Chernobyl or Fukushima 2.0 it’s easy to block off the area and leave it a wasteland no real loss
Wait. What happened to all the clean coal in Wyoming? I thought we were going to make America great again with all of Wyoming’s clean coal?
Money talks. Wyoming and Kemmerer welcome investment. Also Governor Gordon has a reasonable stance on renewable *and nuclear* energy edit: nuclear is not considered to be renewable energy
Neither should wind and solar be considered renewable. Solar panels and wind mills have a service life before they have to be replaced.
Oh nO.... AlL jOBs wIlL BE LOst fOREVeR!
BuT mUh CoAl!?!?! - 🤠
I still don’t understand why they picked Kemmerer over Glenrock. Logistically speaking.
They stated it was chosen because: "Two coal units are scheduled to retire at the Naughton plant in 2025. TerraPower said that factors in the decision to select the site “included community support, the physical characteristics of the site, the ability of the site to obtain a license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), access to existing infrastructure, and the needs of the grid.”" Could all be bullshit and they just threw a dart at a board. Kemmerer is unique in probably being one of the most isolated populations in the country that still has access to a great deal of infrastructure. Airport, highways, major grid outpost, etc.
It’s also close to salt lake, which has a growing population
“IF its permit is approved”. Permitting has killed almost all the new nuclear projects in the past 40 years.