Why nuclear energy is our best option at the moment

Post by ricardobeat » Tue, Nov 03, 2015, 10:53 PM UTC

Retric wrote: post #140

iaw wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The startup capital required for nuclear fission is so immense that it doesn't make sense from an economic time-value perspective. The problem with most renewables (excl. thermal and hydro) is that they are incapable of meeting 100% of electricity demands by their nature without better storage technology. The economics are pushing towards renewables but I feel that nuclear makes more sense for our society in the near…

99% of the worlds grid storage is pumped hydro because nothing else works out. Pumped storage is 70% to 85% efficient, can come online within 15 seconds, and works at scale. The reservoir can provide about 13 GW·h of stored gravitational potential energy (convertible to electricity at about 80% efficiency), or about 2% of China's daily electricity consumption. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tianhuangping_Pumped_Storag…

Post by vlehto » Tue, Nov 03, 2015, 10:57 PM UTC

Retric wrote: post #140

iaw wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The startup capital required for nuclear fission is so immense that it doesn't make sense from an economic time-value perspective. The problem with most renewables (excl. thermal and hydro) is that they are incapable of meeting 100% of electricity demands by their nature without better storage technology. The economics are pushing towards renewables but I feel that nuclear makes more sense for our society in the near…

99% of the worlds grid storage is pumped hydro because nothing else works out. Pumped storage is 70% to 85% efficient, can come online within 15 seconds, and works at scale. The reservoir can provide about 13 GW·h of stored gravitational potential energy (convertible to electricity at about 80% efficiency), or about 2% of China's daily electricity consumption. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tianhuangping_Pumped_Storag…

Post by cthalupa » Tue, Nov 03, 2015, 10:57 PM UTC

yk wrote: post #138

So nuclear is cheaper if one takes the numbers from the industry for cost, while ignoring the problem of spend fuel. And ignoring the actual main cost of nuclear power, which empirically is the property damage in Pripyat and Fukushima.

Post by ricardobeat » Tue, Nov 03, 2015, 10:58 PM UTC

wycx wrote: post #114

brrt wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We burn it! That is, nuclear burn it, not chemically. And what can't be burned can be bombarded with neutrons into radiological inertia. And what can't be neutralized in that sense can be molten into a ceramic, more specifically, a glass, and stored underground. Which is of course where it came from, when you think of it. Seriously, nuclear waste storage is not a problem . This page gives an excellent eplanation: htt…

specifically, NOT a glass: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synroc

Post by cthalupa » Tue, Nov 03, 2015, 11:00 PM UTC

jandrese wrote: post #150

PolLambert wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reverse is actually true. Nobody uses Thorium since you can't make bombs out of them. Thorium is very unsuited to weaponize since one of the byproducts of the fuel process (U-232) decays in to a hard gamma-emitter. This not only makes the material dangerous to handle, it will also wreak havoc with bomb electronics, will require heavy shielding and be very easy to detect. Due to its unsuitability for bombs , the m…

Emitting hard gammas seems like it would be troublesome for a power plant as well.