Gillette WY to start building nuclear power plants

Funny you should ask, there is no water in Gillette, literally none. They have a large pipeline that brings water in from Belle Fourche, South Dakota. Maybe they can recycle the water, maybe there's water there but unfit to drink, but could be used for cooling?

Lots of water from oil/gas production [in the area] Would have to clean it up though...
 
I don’t know guys, I think we should just follow California’s lead, there is sun everywhere and it’s free, and I think when all of their cars are green (pretty soon obviously) they will have power for at least a couple hours a day… every day

We all need to get with the times, they have the blueprint, we just have to do it

NE might be clean and overall safe, but I’m sticking with solar as the answer since it’s been so flawless in Cali, they lead by example
 
I'll just put this here:
Fukushima, Three Mile Island, and Chernobyl familiar to anybody?

They plan to use the reactors to power coal/methane facilities around the state.
And those were all facilities that were designed and built 60 years ago. Technology has advanced dramatically since then, modern tractors are extremely safe to run. The only reason they aren't being built is because of waste.
 
They will be manufacturing them in Gillette for distribution elsewhere. Possibly for powering Trona mines that consume lots of electricity. Small portable semi-transported nuclear reactors are either already in use or pretty far along in development. We need all the help we can get for power in the future because we can't seem to stop procreating.
 
Now take a nuclear reactor stuff in in a steel hull send it out to sea and down to crush depth maneuver it all over the globe pop up under the ice cap and go home... Sounds crazy it will melt down,

US has somewhere around 64 nuclear subs in service, Soviets are different.

So a nuclear plant sitting still on solid ground should be pretty safe. Lets build
 
I've long since solved three problems we have - lack of electrical power, rising oceans, and scarce water.

1. Build nuclear power plants.
2. Build RO plants. Desalinize ocean water and provide for common use. Power those RO plants with electricity generated from the nuke plants.

I'm somewhat tongue-in-cheek on this suggestion. Waiting for the environmentalists to cry foul on potential for nuclear disaster and "OMG what do we do with all that salt and brine?!?!"

(dry the brine and then you sell hippies the sea salt...!)
 
I've long since solved three problems we have - lack of electrical power, rising oceans, and scarce water.

1. Build nuclear power plants.
2. Build RO plants. Desalinize ocean water and provide for common use. Power those RO plants with electricity generated from the nuke plants.

I'm somewhat tongue-in-cheek on this suggestion. Waiting for the environmentalists to cry foul on potential for nuclear disaster and "OMG what do we do with all that salt and brine?!?!"

(dry the brine and then you sell hippies the sea salt...!)

That's cool, I've thought of something similar - putting a pebble-bed reactor on an offshore platform, desalinating with that power, and pumping fresh water ashore and then overland. Do it at a scale where getting water to grow food in our deserts is simply a secondary concern, like putting in electricity and fiberoptic cable across the US into every tiny town.
 
I was a subcontractor at a nuclear plant for 20 years. More electricity in a smaller footprint. I will take it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CMF
I've long since solved three problems we have - lack of electrical power, rising oceans, and scarce water.

1. Build nuclear power plants.
2. Build RO plants. Desalinize ocean water and provide for common use. Power those RO plants with electricity generated from the nuke plants.

I'm somewhat tongue-in-cheek on this suggestion. Waiting for the environmentalists to cry foul on potential for nuclear disaster and "OMG what do we do with all that salt and brine?!?!"

(dry the brine and then you sell hippies the sea salt...!)
Please quantify the cost for RO using saltwater. A 1.5 gal system in my area without install runs 5,500 for a home system, I mean if Ukraine didn’t get a couple trillion we would all have one.
 
I’ve been a big proponent of nuclear energy in our area for awhile, the “disasters” mentioned above were mainly negligence. Nuclear power is the future and much better for the environment than windmills, hydro, and panels. There’s a reason why the EU has been heavily investing into nuclear.
 
Nuclear should have been the primary energy source from the get go. I don't know why small minds are so scared.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CMF
Nuclear should have been the primary energy source from the get go. I don't know why small minds are so scared.

Bad side of nuclear is the obvious, but the not so obvious is the loss of jobs.

Oil for instant creates a ton more jobs than nuclear average could.

But for the greenies, nuclear is the best and least destructive unless a catastrophe happens


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 
Nuclear energy is the best! Only downside is where to safely dump the very small, but highly radioactive waste for thousands of years. I don’t think any has ever left any of the plants, because no one wants it. Nevada was considered decades ago.
 
I've long since solved three problems we have - lack of electrical power, rising oceans, and scarce water.
That’s brilliant, lowering the rising oceans to provide more potable water and sell salt to the hippies to buy propeller beanies to placate the Wind Farm Greenie Communists!!!
 
Last edited:
Back
Top