New nuclear fuel source would power human race until 5000AD • Hacker News Board

Re: New nuclear fuel source would power human race until 5000AD

#111

Post by lutusp » Thu, Aug 23, 2012, 9:29 AM UTC

rosser wrote: post #6

lutusp wrote: post #4

This idea only makes sense if the used-fuel disposal problem is resolved, and it is not at all resolved. It would be like claiming that the coal supply is unlimited, but without addressing the problem of emissions.

The used-fuel problem is already solved. The solution is just effectively permanently blocked by NIMBY-ism.

> The used-fuel problem is already solved. The solution is just effectively permanently blocked by NIMBY-ism.

Translation: "The used-fuel problem isn't solved." One mustn't dismiss the power of NIMBY. Now that Nevada voters have blocked any further development of Yucca Mountain, the U.S. has no repository at all, and waste continues to pile up at various locations near operating plants.

It is a very serious problem.

Re: New nuclear fuel source would power human race until 5000AD

#112

Post by JoeAltmaier » Thu, Aug 23, 2012, 10:45 AM UTC

ars wrote: post #76

mrinterweb wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can not figure out why more effort is not put into thorium nuclear technology research. The only reason I have heard why thorium is not being considered is because it is not weaponizable. Are there any other reasons why thorium based nuclear fission is not being pursued as an energy source?

> Are there any other reasons why thorium based nuclear fission is not being pursued as an energy source? Mainly because we don't need it. It's got some advantages, sure, but not enough of them to make it worthwhile to spend on the money on it.

It can't melt down, it has relatively save spent fuel, its plentiful, reactors can be turned on and off with a switch, a Thorium reactor can be constructed at any size efficiently. Seems like a lot of advantages.

Re: New nuclear fuel source would power human race until 5000AD

#113

Post by rbanffy » Thu, Aug 23, 2012, 1:26 PM UTC

maxerickson wrote: post #107

rbanffy wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the point - the retrofitted reactors are much safer than the original design. Even if 10 are still in operation, they are much safer (and better staffed).

I took "Chernobyl like" to mean "of the same design family".

Sorry. For me it means something that shares the design, the flaws and the criminally undertrained operators. While I wouldn't rate its current relatives as safe, at least they aren't disasters waiting to happen.

Re: New nuclear fuel source would power human race until 5000AD

#114

Post by justin66 » Thu, Aug 23, 2012, 5:50 PM UTC

ZoFreX wrote: post #16

anigbrowl wrote: post #10

I'm pro-nuclear, but I can't take this writer's hand-wavey dismissal of the risks seriously.

Honestly, I don't think it's that hand-wavey when nuclear has killed less people ever than coal does every year.

The risks of both nuclear and coal tend to be treated in hand-wavey ways. It's very unfortunate in either case.