91–100 of 323 posts
The topic is small modular reactors, which are defined as reactors producing less than 300 MW. The Voyager RTGs generate "a few hundred watts" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_ge... ). The Virginia class submarines use a GE S9G, which produces 150 MWt. Power output is a mix of electric and shaft torque ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S9G_reactor ) The Los Angeles class submarines use a GE S…
Bill Gates' foundation was ready to build a thorium reactor. Canada should investigate using that design.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TerraPower
Sorry about the confusion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Many nuclear power-plant projects, conducted by experts, are way late and over-budget. See Olkiluoto, Flamanville. Many potential units are purely and simply cancelled because they are too financially risky (notwithstanding other risks) given the falling costs of solar and wind. The hot nuclear waste disposal challenge is not solved, wherever you check (France and the US, experts both are "in the process of solving i…
The waste disposal problem has been solved at the Onkalo Nuclear Waste Repository in Finland. It's a deep geologic repository without the political fights associated with Yucca. Deep geologic repositories are basically a consensus solution now. Finns chose to solve the nuclear waste issue and did it. Fukushima killed up to 1 person from radiation. Meanwhile fossil is killing 4.3 million people per year via air pollut…
> France and most of Europe use Urenco.
I'm French, and can see the result: waste is piling up nearby the plants. Deep geological repositories are given as the ultimate solution since the 1970's at least, and there is _NO_ exploited site. Cigéo/Bure (in France) is only a project. Yucca Mountain never ran and is halted.
On a similar vein see the Superphenix financial and industrial disaster. It was a french project, aiming at (there were other objectives) reusing waste and enriched uranium, and the French know about nuclear power. Net result: 60 billion French Francs lost.
There is NO currently exploited solution for all the waste. No real breeder, no repository, nothing. This is Huge Establishment mismanagement at its best.
> The integral molten salt reactor has these advantages and > should be comercialy available wothin 10 years.
Molten-salt reactor R&D started in the 1960's, and stopped 30 years later. AFAIK with some complication and no industrial application(?)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten-Salt_Reactor_Experiment...
I'm sorry to repeat myself, but there is no present and current solution.
Promises are fun, and the nuke sector is prone to them, see the waste management farce resumed above. See also the nuclear fusion joke, periodically presented as the ultimate solution nearly every year... since 1940... and counting (mainly taxpayer's money for costly research).
> I don't buy that waste is a serious problem
Central administrations (in France, the US...) consider them to be a problem, even if most of them are pro-nuke. There must be something here.
A tiny amount of hot waste reaching a phreatic zone, for example, is a very, very serious concern.
> If your only point of comparison is 60 year old computers > you might argue that computers will never be economical to use.
The quest for perfectly sure nuke plant, and for a sure way to manage waste (especially hot) started at the very least 50 years ago.
> The waste disposal problem has been solved at the Onkalo Nuclear Waste Repository in Finland.
It is "the first such repository in the world for high level waste, and currently under construction". It may start in 2023. This means that it is the most advanced project (it began in 1983, building began in 2004), but not yet in operation, and already under scientific criticism (copper capsules corrosion).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repo...
Concise version: nuke plants are vomiting hot stuff for decades and a potential and very local solution (AFAIK it is not intended to store US, French or other waste) may start in 4 years.
Who thinks that this is adequately managed?
> Fukushima killed up to 1 person from radiation.
This is some official thesis, there huge scandals tied to many official theories about this disaster, and also much more stern counter-theories.
AFAIK nobody knows for sure because the amount of dead/sick persons or animals, and various cleanup costs, may only be known when the last contaminated particle which escaped will be inert. No expert judges that we can neglect those particles, therefore they probably aren't innocuous and huge efforts are made trying to clean up
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_disaster_cleanup
Many are now in the ocean. Some of it inducing solid cancers, which develops after 10+ years.
> Meanwhile fossil is killing 4.3 million people per year via air pollution.
Indeed, however tt doesn't imply nuke plants are a necessity, we have ways (solar, wind...), we may save energy, research to be able to obtain better ways to store it... Nuke distracts resources from those less dangerous and more realistic approaches which, moreover, are progressing impressively (efficiency up, total cost down, more and more effective deployments...)
> Small reactors have less radioactive source in them and are proportionally less radiologically impactful than larger higher power reactors in the event of military/terrorist attack.
Most of the existing ones use highly enriched uranium, and such material falling in the wrong hands will have effects quickly leading you to radically change your mind about this.
> Wind and solar are doing amazing. ((...)) require massive energy investment in"non-productive" equipment like batteries
Indeed, and this is a reason to invest into R&D on energy-saving, efficiency, energy storage... instead of pouring even more billions into already-explored dead-ends.
If we don’t build it China will.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/11/27/china-readies-nu...
A few years ago Toshiba was going to build a small reactor in Alaska. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galena_Nuclear_Power_Plant But it got canceled, and for the life of me I can't understand why anyone thinks its better to truck in heavy fuel oil for generators vs having a small reactor buried in the ground for 30 years. I've been saying for a few years now that green energy only advocates are basically on the side of…
The pace wasn't however particularly impressive back then already as technology, safety and waste management limitations became clear.
A few years ago Toshiba was going to build a small reactor in Alaska. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galena_Nuclear_Power_Plant But it got canceled, and for the life of me I can't understand why anyone thinks its better to truck in heavy fuel oil for generators vs having a small reactor buried in the ground for 30 years. I've been saying for a few years now that green energy only advocates are basically on the side of…
> A few years ago Toshiba was going to build a small reactor in Alaska. What an understatement. Let's quote one of the sources there: > But the project never began the mandatory, lengthy and extremely costly process of gaining approval by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. > This would include a site license, which takes tens of millions of dollars and several years, as well as a design permit. No design of this type…
You're thinking of fusion.
Reading the comments here from France where 80% production is nuclear with a nuclear waste reprocessing site it feels like the USA problem has more to do with local regulations than technology.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
After a bunch of mishaps (Fukushima being the more recent) it becomes more and more difficult to pretend that nuke plants aren't dangerous. It justifies fear. Moreover the waste management problem is not solved. During the last decades more and more citizen are less and less willing to pay for nuke plants. In democracies imposing is pretty difficult, and IMHO it's a good thing. In the same timeframe wind, and even mo…
Except nuclear energy is the safest form of power: https://ourworldindata.org/what-is-the-safest-form-of-energy As for Fukushima, more died as a result from it being shut down than in the disaster: https://www.economist.com/asia/2019/11/07/was-shutting-japan... Furthermore, it lead to a surge in imports of dirty fuels. More coal and oil.
As for Fukushima there are many hypothesis about the real impact until now, and even more for the future. Believing the effects are already fully known is at best 'weird'. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disa...
Thinking that we can only replace fossil fuel with nuke is not even funny, as solar and wind soar. In Europe solar and wind already produce as much electricity than nuke plants, and sail around while nuke plants are shutting down.
Storage is indeed a challenge, and the real choice is between our capacity to lower nuke-induced risk (waste, disasters...), which seems low after decades of efforts, and on the other hand our capacity to further enhance existing other energy 'sources', which are progressing at a very fast pace.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Many nuclear power-plant projects, conducted by experts, are way late and over-budget. See Olkiluoto, Flamanville. Many potential units are purely and simply cancelled because they are too financially risky (notwithstanding other risks) given the falling costs of solar and wind. The hot nuclear waste disposal challenge is not solved, wherever you check (France and the US, experts both are "in the process of solving i…
A recator that can be passively cooled and operates at atmosphere pressure will not have the problems of these big reactors. A small design that can be produced in a factory will make the cost reasonable and preictable. The integral molten salt reactor has these advantages and should be comercialy available wothin 10 years.