5 ms·

We don't need new innovation. Nuclear fission is already here, we don't even need fusion to make oil, coal and gas obsolte. We could mass produce Liquid Molten

by nickik 9y ago

We don't need new innovation. Nuclear fission is already here, we don't even need fusion to make oil, coal and gas obsolte. We could mass produce Liquid Molten Salt Reactors or many other reactors with current technology, current manufacturing processes and replace all carbon we use now and fulfil the growing demand. I simply dont understand why people continue to hope for fusion when they refuse fission.

rm_-rf_slash 9y ago
Weapons-grade byproducts, radiation leaks, Homer Simpson, Chernobyl, Fukushima...list goes on. People have all sorts of deep seated fears about fission. They don't have to be accurate to be afraid. Knowledgeable people are aware that more people have died falling off of roofs trying to install solar panels than have ever died from a nuclear power plant. The problem is insufficient propaganda from the nuclear fission industry. The tech works fine, but people don't believe it.
- icebraining 9y ago
  It doesn't help that governments seem hellbent into destroying its credibility. When the Health Ministry starts distributing iodine tablets "just in case"[1], is it any wonder that people get scared? [1] http://www.dw.com/en/belgium-says-its-nuclear-plants-are-safe-but-here-are-some-iodine-pills-just-in-case/a-19223966 http://www.dw.com/en/belgium-says-its-nuclear-plants-are-saf...
  - altrus 9y ago
    The contingency plans in place to respond to radiation hazards generally focus on the sheltering and evacuation of affected people. Depending on the local geography, population distribution, and infrastructure, it might take several days to evacuate the impacted population, or it might be challenging to ensure comprehensive and uniform resource distribution. Because of the time required to evacuate people from the impacted areas, one of the objectives of a response plan would be to minimize radiation exposure due to contaminated food and water. Providing iodine tablets before an accident is intended to minimize radioactive exposure due to contaminated food and water sources from the time the hazard is discovered to the time you are evacuated, and allows planners to apply those resources that would otherwise be spent distributing those supplies to helping evacuate more people, or responding to the incident.
    - icebraining 9y ago
      Right, and if everyone near got a supply from the start of the operation of the plant, that'd be OK. But when they've been living there with the reactor for 40 years and suddenly they get tablets, then something's changed, and it's normal for people to get scared. And since that's normal and predictable, it should never happen except in cases of major force, like earthquakes and tsunamis. A government should be able to resolve the situation would letting the risk rise to this point.
- fsloth 9y ago
  "The problem is insufficient propaganda from the nuclear fission industry. " And nutty counter-propaganda from the environmental movement.
- throw2016 9y ago
  Are you comparing solar installation accidents to the Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters?
  - Broken_Hippo 9y ago
    Yes and no. They aren't the same thing at all, obviously. But that said, it is much more likely that someone die from installing or servicing solar panels than someone die from a nuclear incident. We tend to be afraid of abnormal but possibly fatal or maiming events - the ones that are newsworthy - compared to the risks we face on a daily basis. Which is why we are cautious when climbing a ladder twice a year but not when we get into the shower as an older adult, even though shower accidents, including broken hips, are incredibly common. The poster is putting the actual risk into perspective.
  - GVIrish 9y ago
    Why not? The point is not that a Fukushima or Chernobyl should be considered to have the same impact as falling off roofs, clearly that's not true. The point is that the risk of death with nuclear plants isn't nearly as high as people feel it is, even when factoring in the high-profile accidents that have occurred. Right now, a lot of people have an irrationally over-inflated perception of the risk posed by nuclear power.
    - throw2016 9y ago
      This is reductive. It's not reasonable to simply ignore the devastating fallout of nuclear accidents beyond human causalities. This doesn't engage with the real world consequences of nuclear accidents that are devastating to life and the environment, long lasting and extremely expensive and complex to cleanup.
      - Nomentatus 9y ago
        Wonderful way to create wildlife refuges, though.
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
- nickik 9y ago
  Maybe instead of continue spreading them you could help inform people. If you can offer cheap power people will usually take it.
stcredzero 9y ago
We could mass produce Liquid Molten Salt Reactors or many other reactors with current technology, current manufacturing processes Well, kinda. Many of the possible revolutionary alternatives in fission reactor design would require new industries and industrial infrastructure. These would be able to build on existing technology and infrastructure, but as we've seen with the evolution of electric cars, this is hardly a trivial matter. (Witness: The Gigafactory.) If it weren't for the pre-existing demand and infrastructure for Li-ion laptop batteries, the current crop of electric cars may never have gotten off the ground. So for fission alternatives to get off the ground, we'd need some entity with really big pockets to "pick a winner" and invest in that infrastructure -- preferably after investing in enough R&D to validate that pick. Either that, or the new alternative needs to be an order of magnitude better than the existing ones. When you account for the infrastructure costs, are any of the new alternatives that much better?
- nickik 9y ago
  Yes, any technology that would change global energy production needs some infrastructure and production. That's not unique to nuclear fission. Nuclear has the advantage that it needs for less then any other infrastructure. > When you account for the infrastructure costs, are any of the new alternatives that much better? Yes, if you calculate it threw based on first principle it is much better. It will talk 100 gigafactories and possible more just to get the required store to balance out wind and solar. 2-5 gigafactories sized reactors production plants could power most of the world in the next 30 years. The scale of difference required in infrastructure, resources and investment is simply on another level. The problem really is that in the west its practically impossible to do privately, and thus most nuclear startups move to the east and the government has no interest in doing it themselves. China is already selling 4th gen pebble bed reactors, and after that they will probably commercialize different forms of MSR. It will however take another 10 years until you can buy them.
philipkglass 9y ago
Number of electricity-generating fusion reactors built: 0 Number of electricity-generating molten salt reactors built: 0 I agree that the challenges of scaling up and industrializing molten salt fission reactors appear significantly less daunting than those of industrializing fusion power. But there is still R&D required. The last molten salt reactor to actually attain criticality shut down in 1969 (ORNL Molten Salt Reactor Experiment). That experiment was too small for direct translation to industrial practice (7.4 MW-thermal, e.g. 3.3 MW-electrical with 45% efficient conversion). It didn't generate electricity, didn't operate long enough to demonstrate industrial durability (only 13,172 hours (1.5 years) of full-power-equivalent operation), and didn't demonstrate the neutron economy of a breeder or even a near-steady-state burner reactor. There are a lot of steps remaining before any molten salt reactor becomes a commercially available product that a utility company can buy from a nuclear supplier. It would take many fewer steps than for a fusion reactor, but saying that molten salt reactors can replace all carbon we use now with current technology and current manufacturing is way overstating their technological maturity and availability.
- Animats 9y ago
  Molten salt reactors require an on-site chemical plant that operates on radioactive salt. Radioactive chemical plants are a pain. Lots of people, lots of plumbing, highly reactive and corrosive materials, risks of leaks. The history of nuclear fuel reprocessing plants isn't good. Most of them are now Superfund toxic waste sites. The good thing about PWR and BWR reactors is that the radioactive portion of the system is mechanically simple. All the complexity is outside. The working fluid is water, which is easy to handle and, other than the production of tritium, doesn't become radioactive. Every reactor design which had complicated stuff happening in the radioactive portion of the system has been a commercial failure.
  - DennisP 9y ago
    LFTRs require on on-site chemical plants but that's not the case for some of the MSRs fueled by uranium.
  - philipkglass 9y ago

by nickik 9y ago

rm_-rf_slash 9y ago

Weapons-grade byproducts, radiation leaks, Homer Simpson, Chernobyl, Fukushima...list goes on. People have all sorts of deep seated fears about fission. They don't have to be accurate to be afraid. Knowledgeable people are aware that more people have died falling off of roofs trying to install solar panels than have ever died from a nuclear power plant. The problem is insufficient propaganda from the nuclear fission industry. The tech works fine, but people don't believe it.

icebraining 9y ago
It doesn't help that governments seem hellbent into destroying its credibility. When the Health Ministry starts distributing iodine tablets "just in case"[1], is it any wonder that people get scared? [1] http://www.dw.com/en/belgium-says-its-nuclear-plants-are-safe-but-here-are-some-iodine-pills-just-in-case/a-19223966 http://www.dw.com/en/belgium-says-its-nuclear-plants-are-saf...
- altrus 9y ago
  The contingency plans in place to respond to radiation hazards generally focus on the sheltering and evacuation of affected people. Depending on the local geography, population distribution, and infrastructure, it might take several days to evacuate the impacted population, or it might be challenging to ensure comprehensive and uniform resource distribution. Because of the time required to evacuate people from the impacted areas, one of the objectives of a response plan would be to minimize radiation exposure due to contaminated food and water. Providing iodine tablets before an accident is intended to minimize radioactive exposure due to contaminated food and water sources from the time the hazard is discovered to the time you are evacuated, and allows planners to apply those resources that would otherwise be spent distributing those supplies to helping evacuate more people, or responding to the incident.
  - icebraining 9y ago
    Right, and if everyone near got a supply from the start of the operation of the plant, that'd be OK. But when they've been living there with the reactor for 40 years and suddenly they get tablets, then something's changed, and it's normal for people to get scared. And since that's normal and predictable, it should never happen except in cases of major force, like earthquakes and tsunamis. A government should be able to resolve the situation would letting the risk rise to this point.
fsloth 9y ago
"The problem is insufficient propaganda from the nuclear fission industry. " And nutty counter-propaganda from the environmental movement.
throw2016 9y ago
Are you comparing solar installation accidents to the Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters?
- Broken_Hippo 9y ago
  Yes and no. They aren't the same thing at all, obviously. But that said, it is much more likely that someone die from installing or servicing solar panels than someone die from a nuclear incident. We tend to be afraid of abnormal but possibly fatal or maiming events - the ones that are newsworthy - compared to the risks we face on a daily basis. Which is why we are cautious when climbing a ladder twice a year but not when we get into the shower as an older adult, even though shower accidents, including broken hips, are incredibly common. The poster is putting the actual risk into perspective.
- GVIrish 9y ago
  Why not? The point is not that a Fukushima or Chernobyl should be considered to have the same impact as falling off roofs, clearly that's not true. The point is that the risk of death with nuclear plants isn't nearly as high as people feel it is, even when factoring in the high-profile accidents that have occurred. Right now, a lot of people have an irrationally over-inflated perception of the risk posed by nuclear power.
  - throw2016 9y ago
    This is reductive. It's not reasonable to simply ignore the devastating fallout of nuclear accidents beyond human causalities. This doesn't engage with the real world consequences of nuclear accidents that are devastating to life and the environment, long lasting and extremely expensive and complex to cleanup.
    - Nomentatus 9y ago
      Wonderful way to create wildlife refuges, though.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
nickik 9y ago
Maybe instead of continue spreading them you could help inform people. If you can offer cheap power people will usually take it.

stcredzero 9y ago

We could mass produce Liquid Molten Salt Reactors or many other reactors with current technology, current manufacturing processes Well, kinda. Many of the possible revolutionary alternatives in fission reactor design would require new industries and industrial infrastructure. These would be able to build on existing technology and infrastructure, but as we've seen with the evolution of electric cars, this is hardly a trivial matter. (Witness: The Gigafactory.) If it weren't for the pre-existing demand and infrastructure for Li-ion laptop batteries, the current crop of electric cars may never have gotten off the ground. So for fission alternatives to get off the ground, we'd need some entity with really big pockets to "pick a winner" and invest in that infrastructure -- preferably after investing in enough R&D to validate that pick. Either that, or the new alternative needs to be an order of magnitude better than the existing ones. When you account for the infrastructure costs, are any of the new alternatives that much better?

nickik 9y ago
Yes, any technology that would change global energy production needs some infrastructure and production. That's not unique to nuclear fission. Nuclear has the advantage that it needs for less then any other infrastructure. > When you account for the infrastructure costs, are any of the new alternatives that much better? Yes, if you calculate it threw based on first principle it is much better. It will talk 100 gigafactories and possible more just to get the required store to balance out wind and solar. 2-5 gigafactories sized reactors production plants could power most of the world in the next 30 years. The scale of difference required in infrastructure, resources and investment is simply on another level. The problem really is that in the west its practically impossible to do privately, and thus most nuclear startups move to the east and the government has no interest in doing it themselves. China is already selling 4th gen pebble bed reactors, and after that they will probably commercialize different forms of MSR. It will however take another 10 years until you can buy them.

philipkglass 9y ago

Number of electricity-generating fusion reactors built: 0 Number of electricity-generating molten salt reactors built: 0 I agree that the challenges of scaling up and industrializing molten salt fission reactors appear significantly less daunting than those of industrializing fusion power. But there is still R&D required. The last molten salt reactor to actually attain criticality shut down in 1969 (ORNL Molten Salt Reactor Experiment). That experiment was too small for direct translation to industrial practice (7.4 MW-thermal, e.g. 3.3 MW-electrical with 45% efficient conversion). It didn't generate electricity, didn't operate long enough to demonstrate industrial durability (only 13,172 hours (1.5 years) of full-power-equivalent operation), and didn't demonstrate the neutron economy of a breeder or even a near-steady-state burner reactor. There are a lot of steps remaining before any molten salt reactor becomes a commercially available product that a utility company can buy from a nuclear supplier. It would take many fewer steps than for a fusion reactor, but saying that molten salt reactors can replace all carbon we use now with current technology and current manufacturing is way overstating their technological maturity and availability.

Animats 9y ago
Molten salt reactors require an on-site chemical plant that operates on radioactive salt. Radioactive chemical plants are a pain. Lots of people, lots of plumbing, highly reactive and corrosive materials, risks of leaks. The history of nuclear fuel reprocessing plants isn't good. Most of them are now Superfund toxic waste sites. The good thing about PWR and BWR reactors is that the radioactive portion of the system is mechanically simple. All the complexity is outside. The working fluid is water, which is easy to handle and, other than the production of tritium, doesn't become radioactive. Every reactor design which had complicated stuff happening in the radioactive portion of the system has been a commercial failure.
- DennisP 9y ago
  LFTRs require on on-site chemical plants but that's not the case for some of the MSRs fueled by uranium.
- philipkglass 9y ago