[dissident]

I am excited by new technology, but a lot of these fancy reactors are in the promise-to-build-prototype phase and are a long time away from being deployed commercially.

The US has almost killed off its nuclear reactor industry:

http://energy.mit.edu/research/future-n ... ned-world/

The reactor deployment in the US gets delayed for periods that basically flush out qualified engineers and technicians from the job pool.

Looking for data on construction of reactors around the world, Google returns two bit propaganda about Putin. Rosatom is not shrinking, it is growing in its global order book and has 67% of the global market. The US has the AP-1000 which receives more lip service than actual orders. PDS like TDS is a form of mental deficiency.

[eclipse]

I hear you, but there are still a pool of great engineers coming out of the navy and that's Ed Pheil's background. His team have something like 300 years experience between them, and while I've been pushing certain safety features like vitrifying the final fission products waste (for storage for 300 years), he pushes back on price. He wants to store it in dry casks in a bunker under the reactor-park. It's only 300 years!

Also, his reactor could be built sooner rather than later as it is so simple and even though a 'breeder' doesn't reprocess fuel on site so there are no proliferation laws against it. I'm hopeful. But even mass producing CAP1400's could get down to $3 bn per 1400 MW reactor!

Lastly, I'm excited by this thread as it is the first time in years I got notified by email by peakoil.com that there was a reply to this thread. Is notification back? Don't get my hopes up peakoil.com!

[StarvingLion]

fancy reactors

There are no fancy reactors. Practically all the fission startups have now gone bankrupt.

Uranium is economically and ecologically useless.

but there are still a pool of great engineers

Actually, the "geniuses" from the useless universities are great at "designing" fission reactors that cannot even be manufactured, nevermind constitute a plausible prototype.

Your MCSFR bullshit is great if you want a reactor that lasts about half a day from corrosion, etc problems. I'm sure stakeholders are eager for something like that in a post-peak world. Even if it did work flawlessly you would require 40 years of proven commercial experience before anyone would commit.

Summary: eclipse is not sane.

[eclipse]

The MCSFR is actually less corrosive than the LFTR, and 'salt' on its own is not that corrosive. If there was water in there, there would be a problem. But there isn't. And contrary to your claims, there are plenty of MSR companies working on various prototypes and this industry is just getting started. Edison took 99 light bulbs to find the one that worked, and people are just beginning to get excited by the MSR! Materials science has progressed remarkably since the 1960s and the original MSR test, and the Chinese are pumping REAL money and Phd's into this. Oh, and there are many others if you bothered to read about it. But even these guys admit "Much less is known about chloride-salt reactors, and alloys for those systems will not be explicitly discussed further here."
https://art.inl.gov/ART%20Document%20Li ... ctural.pdf

In other words, maybe we should be taking nuclear engineer Ed Pheil and his professional opinion seriously when he says chlorides are less corrosive than flourides, and stop behaving like a little child throwing a temper tantrum. Oh, and the CAP1400 can get us a few generations until we DO perfect whatever final breeder reactor we go with. There's a LOT of uranium in seawater!

Sorry dude, but I'm listening to state of the art peer reviewed science and you're just spitting bitter because your precious Apocalyptic Outsider cult-like stance is threatened. Changing your signature over little-ol-me? I should be flattered, but attenting seeking internet trolls are a dime a dozen. Do something unexpected and interesting and reply with a more adult tone and data set.

[jedrider]

True toll of the Chernobyl disaster
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20190725-will-we-ever-know-chernobyls-true-death-toll

Seems to me that we will have trouble dealing with the first generation nuclear technology before we ever have the opportunity to move onto any new generation of the technology.

[dissident]

True toll of the Chernobyl disaster
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20190725-will-we-ever-know-chernobyls-true-death-toll

Seems to me that we will have trouble dealing with the first generation nuclear technology before we ever have the opportunity to move onto any new generation of the technology.

Where are the tears for the millions of deaths from the coal power industry? Some BS hand waving about the unknown Chernobyl death toll does not make nuclear power any sort of problem for humanity. It is rather moron nuclear-phobes who are helping to doom humanity through climate change by attacking the only reliable power source available that avoids climate change.

BTW, in the real world the move to closed cycle nuclear power is happening. That it is not happening in the self-anointed guiding light of humanity colonial powers will just mean that they will crash sooner and harder from their "commanding heights".

[eclipse]

The true death toll of Chernobyl and Fukushima, hey? Such a catchy headline! But how much do you know about radiation? What is the human impact measurement called? How much radiation is in your kitchen? Your backyard? And how does this compare to the exclusion zones of Chernobyl and Fukushima? How many people have died from radiation there? (Hint: vastly more people may have died as a result of depression from the *evacuation* than the *radiation* would have killed!)
https://www.ft.com/content/000f864e-22b ... 8958b189ea
Really, unless you can tell us how radioactive your home city is, you shouldn't be spreading fear about Chernobyl and Fukushima because I'd live there in a heartbeat. A few hot areas would be fenced off, and they could let people back. Indeed, the Japanese government are already letting people live within 4km of the reactor. It's not much more radioactive than my home city of Sydney. If you think Chernobyl and Fukushima are bad, what about RAMSAR INDIA which is 20 times 'hotter'? People must be dying in droves there! Except they're not.
https://eclipsenow.wordpress.com/radiation/

[jedrider]

Until an adequate waste disposal process is in place, I think some skepticism of the benefit equation of nuclear energy is warranted. Our civilization is good at pushing problems into the near future and nuclear energy lent itself to that very well. I am surprised that the Chinese didn't launch themselves into nuclear energy like the French have. I wonder what their reason was?

[Plantagenet]

I am surprised that the Chinese didn't launch themselves into nuclear energy like the French have. I wonder what their reason was?

It takes a while for the Chinese to steal the technology and designs from western countries and then to start building things themselves.

Now that China has acquired nuclear power technology, they are pressing ahead with it. They currently rank third in the world in nuclear power plant capacity, behind the US and France. But France and the US aren't building many nukes these days while China is on track to double the number of their nuclear reactors in the near future. If this trend continues, China will eventually become #1 in nuclear plant capacity.

From Wikipedia: As of March 2019, China has 46 nuclear reactors in operation with a capacity of 42.8 GW and 11 under construction with a capacity of 10.8 GW.[3][4] Additional reactors are planned for an additional 36 GW.....[6]

China ranks third in the world in total nuclear power capacity installed. Around one tenth of global nuclear power is generated in China. Nuclear power contributed 4.2% of the total Chinese electricity production in 2018, with 294.4 TWh.[1] This is an increase from 3.9% and 247 TWh in 2017.[5]

Due to increasing concerns about air quality, climate change and fossil fuel shortages, nuclear power has been looked into as an alternative to coal.[7][8] China's National Development and Reform Commission has indicated the intention to raise the percentage of China's electricity produced by nuclear power from the current 3% to 6% by 2020 (compared to 20% in the United States and 74% in France).[9]... More long-term plans for future capacity are 120-150 GW by 2030.[10] China has two major nuclear power companies, the China National Nuclear Corporation operating mainly in north-east China, and the China General Nuclear Power Group, - formerly known as China Guangdong Nuclear Power Group, operating mainly in south-east China.[11]

Cheers!

[eclipse]

Until an adequate waste disposal process is in place, I think some skepticism of the benefit equation of nuclear energy is warranted. Our civilization is good at pushing problems into the near future and nuclear energy lent itself to that very well. I am surprised that the Chinese didn't launch themselves into nuclear energy like the French have. I wonder what their reason was?

Are you kidding? The Chinese are throwing money at nuclear, building some of the best Gen3+ reactors today and putting heaps of research money into tomorrow's breeder reactors.

Now, nuclear waste = resource. OK? Nuclear breeder reactors that EAT normal nuclear waste burn the longer lived high energy stuff (actinides) to get 90 times the energy from the uranium and thorium. They do leave final waste (called fission products) — but it's only 1 golf ball for your entire lifetime. That golf ball generates abundant, pollution free energy, enough for all your electricity and synthetic liquid fuels for transport. Nuclear waste was a problem of yesterday's reactors. Australia would have 25 million golf balls of fission products waste, filling just 1.25 Olympic swimming pools every 70 years. That's compared to burning 800 ELEPHANTS worth of coal for 1 lifetime of energy, with all the resulting particulate air pollution, lung and throat cancers and fly ash waste resulting from coal - let alone global warming! Nuclear is the CLEANEST form of power generation there is. Solar has 300 times the waste! (It's so dispersed.) Nuclear is cleaner than wind and solar and the final true waste product from breeder reactors only stays radioactive for 500 years. Just melt it down into ceramic blocks and bury it under the reactor. Here's a 4 minute video that explains it. Uranium and nuclear waste and warheads go into the reactor park and never come out again.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlMDDhQ9-pE

[jedrider]

So, technologically, we took the easy route by digging up coal and pumping oil and finding natural gas. I wonder how that happened? Did the oil companies have something to do with it? Did the fact that West Virginia was a company state practically also cement in coal?

A lot of the public was against nuclear reactors, but that should not have stopped the development of better reactor technology.

[Plantagenet]

So, technologically, we took the easy route by digging up coal and pumping oil and finding natural gas. I wonder how that happened? Did the oil companies have something to do with it? Did the fact that West Virginia was a company state practically also cement in coal?

The industrial revolution started in the UK in the 18th century, and was based on using steam power generated from burning coal. Other countries mostly copied the UK until oil drilling was perfected in the United States in the 19th century, and huge amounts of oil became available.

A lot of the public was against nuclear reactors, but that should not have stopped the development of better reactor technology.

Unfortuantely, Obama just about zeroed out the nuclear power research program in the United States. However, as Eclipse notes in his post the Chinese are doing a lot of nuclear research. There are also some "high-tech" startups in the US. One of them is actually funded by Bill Gates.

terrapower a nuclear power startup

[eclipse]

Exactly! We started with the easiest way to boil water and generate steam for turbines, and that's coal. Then later on we progressed to nuclear power but that was via the military route. Unfortunately there's good solid evidence (not tinfoil hat stuff but actually documented here in the real world) that the military concerns about obtaining enough plutonium for bombs meant we went down the uranium pathway instead of the thorium breeder reactor pathway. There's even phone conversations revealing how Nixon closed the Molten Salt Reactor program to fund different nuclear concerns in politically sensitive, job-craving seats. Now, eventually that lead to the Integral Fast Reactor, still a VERY good breeder reactor that burns nuclear waste! The EBR2 was a little trooper, and they tested it with power outages as bad as at Fukushima and it 'politely declined' to melt down. It's a great reactor, and GE have the S-PRISM ready to go in the first nation that approves it. (Based on decades of testing the EBR2.)

BUT!

We could have had a world of Molten Salt Reactors by now. I mean, this is the chief MSR engineer Alvin Weinberg showing a certain someone around the prototype MSR!

[jedrider]

So, the USA was hell bent on building bombs and nuclear energy took a back seat.

Climate change went on the radar in 1980 and, so, nuclear should have received a big boost starting then.

It didn't. Probably, too late, though. China will take the lead because they have the will and we don't.

I wouldn't blame it on conservatives nor republicans, though. Short-term thinking was probably the culprit.

[StarvingLion]

Exactly! We started with the easiest way to boil water and generate steam for turbines, and that's coal. Then later on we progressed to nuclear power but that was via the military route. Unfortunately there's good solid evidence (not tinfoil hat stuff but actually documented here in the real world) that the military concerns about obtaining enough plutonium for bombs meant we went down the uranium pathway instead of the thorium breeder reactor pathway. There's even phone conversations revealing how Nixon closed the Molten Salt Reactor program to fund different nuclear concerns in politically sensitive, job-craving seats. Now, eventually that lead to the Integral Fast Reactor, still a VERY good breeder reactor that burns nuclear waste! The EBR2 was a little trooper, and they tested it with power outages as bad as at Fukushima and it 'politely declined' to melt down. It's a great reactor, and GE have the S-PRISM ready to go in the first nation that approves it. (Based on decades of testing the EBR2.)

BUT!

We could have had a world of Molten Salt Reactors by now. I mean, this is the chief MSR engineer Alvin Weinberg showing a certain someone around the prototype MSR!

eclipse is a genius. Why posting photos from 60 years ago about junk nuclear tech surely must mean ...

The Progress Hoax is just that.

[eclipse]

Did you read the text with the pretty picture?

[eclipse]

M King Hubbert himself foresaw the nuclear era lasting thousands of years into the future! He starts talking about nuclear on page 28 of the following PDF, and breeder reactors breeding "fertile" nuclear products up to "fissile" on page 30.
https://web.archive.org/web/20080527233 ... 6/1956.pdf
That turns the 'problem of nuclear waste into today's energy solution.

[dissident]

Breeder reactors and fuel reprocessing to extract 50 times more energy from a kg of uranium is a reality. France would have been established in this technology by 1990 if not for the lunatics claiming to be environmentalists. Seriously, what sort of retarded f*cks attack technology that gets rid of the nuclear waste "problem"?

Anyway, the BN-800 is in full operation and its purpose is to fine tune the design of the commercial BN-1200 which will be deployed around 2025. It is not merely a prototype. That stage ended with the BN-600. At least one country is doing something right. Self-anointed do-gooders like those in Germany are just increasing coal use.

And nuclear is not mutually exclusive with solar and wind power alternatives. The world still needs a transition stage away from fossil fuels. Alternatives currently are not able to do this. In the future when they are harnessed to produce NH3 or some other stable liquid fuel to power fuel cells, they will be able take up the slack. But not in the next 20-40 years.

[eclipse]

The BBC world news this morning (podcast I listen to while doing dishes) mentioned the Russians have launched a floating reactor ship. Ship built nukes seems to be the way of the future with Canadian Thorcon wanting to use shipyard block building assembly lines to build SHORT lived MSR nukes built to last just 10 years. There's no problem with salt corrosion and embrittlement if the thing is being recycled after just 10 years. This amazes me, as usually the goal is a longer lasting plant to bring costs down. But they've found a way to bring it down to 7 c per kwh if their estimates are right. They have a deal with Indonesia and hope to start supplying them with boat-nukes floating into harbour and plugging into their grid in 7 years. This super-low cost and mass production approach could really get the world's attention! But even though it has the advantages of molten salt reactor passive safety, these are not breeders. They're super-cheap reactors that can be built super-fast, just what we need. But I think every nation will still need the much larger and longer lived MSCFR to burn up all the wastes.

[MaqFot]

One of the big problems with nuclear plants is that they construct them to be extra strong with grossly excessive concrete and structure which then makes them expensive to demolish at the end of the plants life.