Live data from Hacker News

Norway is building thorium reactor

smartplanet.com

11–20 of 102 posts

Re: Norway is building thorium reactor

#11
post #7

While germany is getting out of nuclear power altogether... their "Energiewende" plan is very ambitious but i wonder if its not better to invest into nuclear power to make it saver instead of getting rid of it completely. I dont know much about it though, what do experts think?

Is that an offer to pay all the external costs of nuclear power? I mean, all of them. From final deposit, over insurance policies in case of a meltdown to environmental consequences of the entire nuclear supply chain?

Nuclear power is just too expensive for an economy. Nuclear power is limited, there is just not endless amount of uranium on the planet. Also globally nuclear power is pointless, IIRC nuclear power has a global market share of 6% for primary energy. Too believe it could solve our energy needs sounds weird to me.

Also nuclear power is inefficient. Efficiency is usually way below 50%, since nuclear power plants are far away from anything you can't usually use the heat an nuclear power plant produce for anything productive, so it's lost.

But of course there are new and better plants in development, they are safer and bigger and produce less waste. But the old plants still exist. You can't replace them within a few years, it takes decades. And the costs for such a programme will be very high.

Since 2005, there is a nuclear power plant being build in Finland, called Olkiluoto III. The reactor was priced at three billion euros, currently the price increased to about six billion. The reactor might go online in 2015, a decade after the construction started.

The reactor will provide 1600 MW of electrical power. For comparison, in 2011 alone wind power plants were build with the combined power of 9600 MW (Europe wide, Germany about 2000 MW, GB about 1300 MW).

I know, this is not directly comparable but it gives you a hint, that you could have easily get the 1600 MW in ten years with renewable sources.

Nuclear power might be an interesting technology, but for me it is just a steam machine, which leaves a huge pile of waste behind. Nobody knows how to handle it, and people got it wrong. Search for Asse II if you want to know more about it. For Germany it will be very hard to find a safe final deposit for all the nuclear waste.

Re: Norway is building thorium reactor

#12
post #6
post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

awww, i got all excited :(

Still a step closer. I'm not a genuine nuke geek, but hopefully there are a few around who can shed some light into what sort of impact the commercial use of thorium as a fuel is on the viability of the fuel in the long-run.

Kirk Sorenson has calculated that in a new molten salt thorium reactor, the thorium burned would be worth 5x its weight in gold, based on 10 cents per kWh.

I am a huge advocate of thorium as a fuel. Unfortunately, using thorium in any reactor today only gives marginal benefits. The CANDU reactors in Canada can and do already take thorium in their fuel cycle.

In the long run, you only have to store the waste for 100 years before it is safe. This is because you can re-use the waste, creating further efficiency and less storage time.

China has stockpiled thorium since 1999, and started a MSR program in the past few years. That shows how far behind we are in this tech, even when we pioneered it (I am referring to molten salt technology). The head of the program got a phd in electrical engineering from Drexel. Oh, and is the son of some finance? minister as well, so it definitely has the political clout to be accomplished. China desperately needs clean energy - they are making water plants, for coal plants, for manufacturing plants. And each of these stresses out the environment in so many ways, it's very risky to the long term health of the region. Visit circleofblue.org to learn more about the water-energy nexus.

And sorry, but not really a step closer. Everyone in the nuke world has known thorium can be used. Like I said before, it will only provide marginal benefits. Did you know, thorium is 3-4x more present in the earth's crust than uranium?

If instead of those loans to all those solar companies, and put $50 billion to a Thorium program, and made a space race effort, I can confidently say we would be energy independent in 10 years. Five years to develop, Five years to build. With all these new advances in materials and alloys (which was the main issue), there would be very little problem. Instead, we are making private companies do this, by specifically targeting military applications.

How sad would it be if Thorium molten salt technology was developed in the US, and we sold it overseas first?

Re: Norway is building thorium reactor

#13
post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A good starting point is Bill Gates TED Talk Innovating to Zero. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaF-fq2Zn7I

Great talk. Gates's foundation has made a handful of bad investments (generally small) but I'm generally really impressed with the thought they put into where to invest and why. While it's a little bit scary that Japan and Germany are both trending (more than trending) away from nuclear, maybe that's not the worst thing in the world. Neither country will go for coal. Both countries will need to invest in other techno…

I'm more scared about countries who start using nuclear power.

Re: Norway is building thorium reactor

#14
post #11
post #7

While germany is getting out of nuclear power altogether... their "Energiewende" plan is very ambitious but i wonder if its not better to invest into nuclear power to make it saver instead of getting rid of it completely. I dont know much about it though, what do experts think?

Is that an offer to pay all the external costs of nuclear power? I mean, all of them. From final deposit, over insurance policies in case of a meltdown to environmental consequences of the entire nuclear supply chain? Nuclear power is just too expensive for an economy. Nuclear power is limited, there is just not endless amount of uranium on the planet. Also globally nuclear power is pointless, IIRC nuclear power has…

I think many nuke advocates go much too far in the "nuclear power will solve all our problems!"

That said, the strongest arguments for nuclear power has always been as part of a balanced energy diet, not as the off the shelf answer to everything. So, how do we figure out where it's appropriate and where not?

Properly price carbon, and remove all distorting subsidies to all forms of energy, from fossil fuels to solar to wind to nuclear. Then let the market do what it does best: figure out the best way to allocate capital to produce goods.

Nuclear certainly needs proper regulation and safety requirements, but contemporary designs are much lower risk than the Fukushima reactor from the 1970s or the ancient design of Chernobyl: despite that, they're nearly impossible to build. I've heard it wouldn't even be allowed, in the current regulatory regime, to replace those old plants with new ones. Something's broken there.

Re: Norway is building thorium reactor

#17
post #14
post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that an offer to pay all the external costs of nuclear power? I mean, all of them. From final deposit, over insurance policies in case of a meltdown to environmental consequences of the entire nuclear supply chain? Nuclear power is just too expensive for an economy. Nuclear power is limited, there is just not endless amount of uranium on the planet. Also globally nuclear power is pointless, IIRC nuclear power has…

I think many nuke advocates go much too far in the "nuclear power will solve all our problems!" That said, the strongest arguments for nuclear power has always been as part of a balanced energy diet, not as the off the shelf answer to everything. So, how do we figure out where it's appropriate and where not? Properly price carbon, and remove all distorting subsidies to all forms of energy, from fossil fuels to solar…

Dear fellow free market enthusiast,

I fear it is not possible to determine a price for the storage of nuclear waste, because it needs to be taken care of so long. If one could estimate a price, I would doubt that any of todays companies companies is yet big enough to pay for it.

If you look at germany for instance: We are using nuclear power since decades, in almost 20 plants. Yet there is no solution for waste storage, so far. And it will be society paying for it, not the companies.

Re: Norway is building thorium reactor

#18
post #14
post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that an offer to pay all the external costs of nuclear power? I mean, all of them. From final deposit, over insurance policies in case of a meltdown to environmental consequences of the entire nuclear supply chain? Nuclear power is just too expensive for an economy. Nuclear power is limited, there is just not endless amount of uranium on the planet. Also globally nuclear power is pointless, IIRC nuclear power has…

I think many nuke advocates go much too far in the "nuclear power will solve all our problems!" That said, the strongest arguments for nuclear power has always been as part of a balanced energy diet, not as the off the shelf answer to everything. So, how do we figure out where it's appropriate and where not? Properly price carbon, and remove all distorting subsidies to all forms of energy, from fossil fuels to solar…

Markets can only work, if the prices for something tell the truth about the costs of something. You won't solve that with just cutting subsidies for all energy sources.

And carbon emissions are not everything. The idea to reduce them by trading certificates collapsed in the minute when the total amount of certificates were not lower than the amount of carbon emissions in the past or when it was not adjusted for the solar and wind power which were build over time. If you would cut the amount of certificates in half and auction them off, it might work. Otherwise the market will fail.

Re: Norway is building thorium reactor

#19
post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A good starting point is Bill Gates TED Talk Innovating to Zero. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaF-fq2Zn7I

Great talk. Gates's foundation has made a handful of bad investments (generally small) but I'm generally really impressed with the thought they put into where to invest and why. While it's a little bit scary that Japan and Germany are both trending (more than trending) away from nuclear, maybe that's not the worst thing in the world. Neither country will go for coal. Both countries will need to invest in other techno…

"Neither country will go for coal."

Uh? Not only does Germany rely on coal energy (more so since they plan to get rid of nuclear) they also export it (which is great for politicians in Sweden, cut back on nuclear and call yourself green is great PR (then import coal energy from Germany)).

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-19/merkel-s-green-shif...

Post reply on HN