5 ms·

Wow this is an insane view point, I actually thought you were going to suggest the opposite... Frankly the potential capability of nuclear far outweighs anythi

Wow this is an insane view point, I actually thought you were going to suggest the opposite... Frankly the potential capability of nuclear far outweighs anything else. If the gen public were more on board with it, nuclear could be rolled out and be the main source of power in the world in 30-40 years, removing the need for fossil fuels for power generation. Even building them in remote locations and taking the transmission losses would be better than diving head first into wind and solar, do you have any idea how destructive the mining is to get the elements required for some of the solar and wind solutions?

eloff 8y ago
The economics aren't there. Solar and wind are well below the costs of nuclear and still dropping fast. Costs of energy storage are dropping fast as well. I think the window has closed on nuclear for the time being. Thinking as an investor it's too risky and too expensive to produce the same fungible commodity as a solar cell + battery. We're fast getting to the point where wind and solar is going to wipe out fossil fuel generation - for new construction - in some places it already has. Never mind nuclear, nuclear just isn't in the game anymore.
zipwitch 8y ago
My big problem with nuclear (fission) is that while on paper it looks like a great solution, in practice our civilizational apparatus does not appear to be up to the task of long-term responsible implementation. Fission power looks like a long game of hot potato, where everyone hopes they won't be the ones on the hook when the eventual equipment failure, natural disaster, or time to decommission eventually arrives. (And, as an observer outside the industry, building a plant while taking all those into account in advance seems to be something we are either unable or unwilling to do.)
- fromMars 8y ago
  I posted further up thread, and I am not an expert, that thorium based nuclear power may be safer with less dangerous waste and potential for weaponization.
  - acqq 8y ago
    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/jun/23/thorium-nuclear-uranium https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/jun/23/thorium-... "Don't believe the spin on thorium being a greener nuclear option" and https://thebulletin.org/2018/08/thorium-power-has-a-protactinium-problem/ https://thebulletin.org/2018/08/thorium-power-has-a-protacti... "Protactinium separations provide a pathway for obtaining highly attractive weapons-grade uranium 233 from thorium fuel cycles. The difficulties of safeguarding commercial spent fuel reprocessing are significant for any type of fuel cycle, and thorium is no exception."
    - fromMars 8y ago
      What I got from the first article you linked is that Thorium reactors produce less radioactive waste but are unproven technologies.
      - acqq 8y ago
        Don't stop at the first sentence. Read the whole article. It answers the propaganda claim of "less radioactive waste": "Less" is only if need thorium would magically materialize out of nothing, that is, if you ignore the whole process. In reality, thorium inevitably has to be prepared with uranium rectors: "Thorium cannot in itself power a reactor; unlike natural uranium, it does not contain enough fissile material to initiate a nuclear chain reaction. As a result it must first be bombarded with neutrons to produce the highly radioactive isotope uranium-233 – 'so these are really U-233 reactors,' says Karamoskos. This isotope is more hazardous than the U-235 used in conventional reactors, he adds, because it produces U-232 as a side effect (half life: 160,000 years), on top of familiar fission by-products such as technetium-99 (half life: up to 300,000 years) and iodine-129 (half life: 15.7 million years). Add in actinides such as protactinium-231 (half life: 33,000 years) and it soon becomes apparent that thorium's superficial cleanliness will still depend on digging some pretty deep holes to bury the highly radioactive waste." Not to mention that these hypothetical reactors simply don't work: if they would be viable means to produce energy, nobody would wait for the taxpayer subsidies, there's enough money which couldn't wait to make huge profits, if they were possible: "'Without exception, [thorium reactors] have never been commercially viable, nor do any of the intended new designs even remotely seem to be viable. Like all nuclear power production they rely on extensive taxpayer subsidies; the only difference is that with thorium and other breeder reactors these are of an order of magnitude greater, which is why no government has ever continued their funding.'"

eloff 8y ago

The economics aren't there. Solar and wind are well below the costs of nuclear and still dropping fast. Costs of energy storage are dropping fast as well. I think the window has closed on nuclear for the time being. Thinking as an investor it's too risky and too expensive to produce the same fungible commodity as a solar cell + battery. We're fast getting to the point where wind and solar is going to wipe out fossil fuel generation - for new construction - in some places it already has. Never mind nuclear, nuclear just isn't in the game anymore.

zipwitch 8y ago

My big problem with nuclear (fission) is that while on paper it looks like a great solution, in practice our civilizational apparatus does not appear to be up to the task of long-term responsible implementation. Fission power looks like a long game of hot potato, where everyone hopes they won't be the ones on the hook when the eventual equipment failure, natural disaster, or time to decommission eventually arrives. (And, as an observer outside the industry, building a plant while taking all those into account in advance seems to be something we are either unable or unwilling to do.)

fromMars 8y ago
I posted further up thread, and I am not an expert, that thorium based nuclear power may be safer with less dangerous waste and potential for weaponization.
- acqq 8y ago
  https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/jun/23/thorium-nuclear-uranium https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/jun/23/thorium-... "Don't believe the spin on thorium being a greener nuclear option" and https://thebulletin.org/2018/08/thorium-power-has-a-protactinium-problem/ https://thebulletin.org/2018/08/thorium-power-has-a-protacti... "Protactinium separations provide a pathway for obtaining highly attractive weapons-grade uranium 233 from thorium fuel cycles. The difficulties of safeguarding commercial spent fuel reprocessing are significant for any type of fuel cycle, and thorium is no exception."
  - fromMars 8y ago
    What I got from the first article you linked is that Thorium reactors produce less radioactive waste but are unproven technologies.
    - acqq 8y ago
      Don't stop at the first sentence. Read the whole article. It answers the propaganda claim of "less radioactive waste": "Less" is only if need thorium would magically materialize out of nothing, that is, if you ignore the whole process. In reality, thorium inevitably has to be prepared with uranium rectors: "Thorium cannot in itself power a reactor; unlike natural uranium, it does not contain enough fissile material to initiate a nuclear chain reaction. As a result it must first be bombarded with neutrons to produce the highly radioactive isotope uranium-233 – 'so these are really U-233 reactors,' says Karamoskos. This isotope is more hazardous than the U-235 used in conventional reactors, he adds, because it produces U-232 as a side effect (half life: 160,000 years), on top of familiar fission by-products such as technetium-99 (half life: up to 300,000 years) and iodine-129 (half life: 15.7 million years). Add in actinides such as protactinium-231 (half life: 33,000 years) and it soon becomes apparent that thorium's superficial cleanliness will still depend on digging some pretty deep holes to bury the highly radioactive waste." Not to mention that these hypothetical reactors simply don't work: if they would be viable means to produce energy, nobody would wait for the taxpayer subsidies, there's enough money which couldn't wait to make huge profits, if they were possible: "'Without exception, [thorium reactors] have never been commercially viable, nor do any of the intended new designs even remotely seem to be viable. Like all nuclear power production they rely on extensive taxpayer subsidies; the only difference is that with thorium and other breeder reactors these are of an order of magnitude greater, which is why no government has ever continued their funding.'"