3 ms·

My stance is that if society has decided it's serious about CO2, it is necessary to put a whole lot more effort into next-gen nuclear than has been done so far.

My stance is that if society has decided it's serious about CO2, it is necessary to put a whole lot more effort into next-gen nuclear than has been done so far. Even so, small companies like ThorCon, Terrestrial Energy and others are making good progress. The next step is a plan for a major, worldwide rollout of (mostly modular) nuclear reactors. That avoids the issue of a possible decrease in the standard of living, and provides an affordable mechanism that doesn't involve coal for India, Indonesia and other countries that need to build out their electric grid. Lots of good info here: http://thorconpower.com/news http://thorconpower.com/news Video from ThorCon CEO making his case: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4xjQWBw7i0&feature=youtu.be https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4xjQWBw7i0&feature=youtu.be

fencepost 9y ago
One of the problems with thorium nuclear reactors is that they seem to be a perpetual "10 years" thing, and even with a huge increase in development funding we're probably 20+ years from viable commercial builds - and a lot further from getting a significant percentage of energy from them. By the time that can happen we're likely to see huge changes in renewables and even bigger changes in energy storage and usage efficiency. Thorium may end up as a good viable option eventually, but I suspect that it'll probably never be more than a niche option for as long as most of us are likely to be alive. Oh, and that 20 years? "Hi regulatory body, we'd like approval to build a brand new type of nuclear reactor in your state, close enough to a major population center for transmission losses to not be too high. What do we need to do to make that happen?"... And that's before you get to the billion+ of construction costs even if the new reactors only cost 10% of current designs.
StillBored 9y ago
Why wait for next gen nuclear? I will eat my words if in a few days South Texas Nuclear generating station melts down (because its being hit by a category 4 hurricane as I type this).. But right now the technology we _HAVE_ is sufficiently safe.
- flgb 9y ago
  But not sufficiently cheap, compared to alternatives.
  - PeterisP 9y ago
    Fossil fuels are cheaper than nuclear only if you treat the (huge) environmental effects as costing nothing.

fencepost 9y ago

One of the problems with thorium nuclear reactors is that they seem to be a perpetual "10 years" thing, and even with a huge increase in development funding we're probably 20+ years from viable commercial builds - and a lot further from getting a significant percentage of energy from them. By the time that can happen we're likely to see huge changes in renewables and even bigger changes in energy storage and usage efficiency. Thorium may end up as a good viable option eventually, but I suspect that it'll probably never be more than a niche option for as long as most of us are likely to be alive. Oh, and that 20 years? "Hi regulatory body, we'd like approval to build a brand new type of nuclear reactor in your state, close enough to a major population center for transmission losses to not be too high. What do we need to do to make that happen?"... And that's before you get to the billion+ of construction costs even if the new reactors only cost 10% of current designs.

StillBored 9y ago

Why wait for next gen nuclear? I will eat my words if in a few days South Texas Nuclear generating station melts down (because its being hit by a category 4 hurricane as I type this).. But right now the technology we _HAVE_ is sufficiently safe.

flgb 9y ago
But not sufficiently cheap, compared to alternatives.
- PeterisP 9y ago
  Fossil fuels are cheaper than nuclear only if you treat the (huge) environmental effects as costing nothing.