19 ms·
China Says It's Closing in on Thorium Nuclear Reactor
- j_walter 5y agoNuclear is far from the best source of electricity, but it is far less damaging to the environment than coal or NG if handled and designed properly. If countries can work together to put them in places that protect from major earthquakes or other natural disasters then I think we can get some decent movement on reduce GHG emissions from power plants.
- timbit42 5y agoHow long does it take to plan and build a nuclear plant? At the rate solar, wind and energy storage are improving, will it be worth the wait? Solar has dropped in price by more than 80% in the past 10 years.
- DennisP 5y agoPresent-day reactors, a long time. Small modular reactors built in factories or shipyards could be pretty quick. Some of those designs are MSRs like China's reactor.
- seiferteric 5y agoCompare the EROEI on solar (~10) vs nuclear (~100), and LFTR (~1200 maybe...) in particular, there is no comparison. In the future we will need far more electrical energy, it's not enough to just replace what we currently have. Also if we want to actively remove carbon from the atmosphere, we will need a tremendous amount of power.
- Tade0 5y agoProblem is, we might not be able to build them fast enough. China is currently the leader in deployment of nuclear power, but even there wind power overtook it in terms of GWh delivered in 2013 and the difference was been widening ever since. Similarly within a decade solar went from delivering 1% of the energy nuclear did, to 70%. At this rate it will close the gap before 2025.
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 5y agoIf there is a will, there is a way. The US invented the nuclear bomb in just a few years with the Manhattan project. The biggest obstacle has been the anti-science FUD spread largely by environmental groups.
- pfdietz 5y agoNo, the biggest obstacles has been the gross economic failure of nuclear. The claims it would be cheap were always lies, although the boosters increasingly desperately blame anyone else they can.
- not2b 5y agoIt's seems it would suffice to have enough nuclear power to keep the grid going when the sun is down and the wind isn't blowing. You could then have a zero-carbon system. You'd need designs that you can turn on and off easily. Maybe a bit of battery storage to handle transitions smoothly.
- seiferteric 5y agoIt's a fair point, but we just don't know yet, which it is important for research to continue. From an intuitive sense though, I think our economic growth and our standard of living is tied to energy costs, and being tied to a low EROEI system means to me that it will limit our potential since a larger % of the economy must be devoted to building/replacing them rather than doing other things.
- j_walter 5y agoUnfortunately a lot of nuclear plants went offline and very few were built in the last 20 years. As they aged they were deemed to much of a risk and shut down. If they had continued to have been built then Solar would not have gained so much, but there was too much push back on nuclear after the Fukushima incident. https://www.powermag.com/taiwan-shuts-another-reactor-as-part-of-nuclear-free-goal/ https://www.powermag.com/taiwan-shuts-another-reactor-as-par...
- mdorazio 5y agoYou need to qualify a few statements there. Total electricity consumption peaked in Western nations over a decade ago and has basically been flat or dropping since [1][2]. So when you say, "In the future, we will need far more electrical energy" it's missing ... "in the developing world." Which, personally, is not my first choice for where to put nuclear reactors. Second, we don't actually need to use a bunch of electricity to remove carbon from the atmosphere - I'm not sure what technology you're referring to there. The easiest way to do it is by growing as many trees as we can, which doesn't really take power at all aside from the initial planting. [1] https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/use-of-electricity.php https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/use-of-elect... [2] https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Electricity_production,_consumption_and_market_overview https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php...
- seiferteric 5y agoWe definitely should plant more trees, but the idea that it is the solution to removing carbon I think has been pretty debunked at this point. Between increase in forrest fires, lack of rainfall, lack of available and viable land to grow trees and other issues, it just is not even close to the whole solution.
- lenkite 5y agoActually farming carbon consuming crops and then burying them instead of harvesting them is a probable/workable solution under research. Soil Sequestration. Done properly, it has benefits as read from this balanced article: https://www.greenbiz.com/article/carbon-sequestration-farms-actually-working-fight-climate-change https://www.greenbiz.com/article/carbon-sequestration-farms-...
- pfdietz 5y agoBiomass for CO2 sequestration is garbage -- it uses far too much land and sequesters far too little CO2.
- deleted 5y ago
- AtlasBarfed 5y agoI am a massive LFTR stan, but we have to recognize that, EROEI aside, the total economics of nuclear aren't competitive in the current regulatory framework in the US versus alternative energy. I agree that theoretically those EROEI figures are correct/achievable, but PWR/LWR has so poisoned the brand of fission that we can't get those right now. We'll need a stable price target (and maybe paranoia of the Chinese) to get LFTR and better reactor design actually economical and the necessary political reforms.
- pfdietz 5y agoEROEI of 100 is not 10x better than an EROEI of 10, though. There is diminishing returns on EROEI. Relevant figure could be "net energy delivered" (or some such) that goes from .9 to .99, a 10% improvement. Also, I believe the EROEI of 10 for solar is for PV operated in Europe. But there's no reason to put the solar-powered PV factories in relatively bad locations like Europe.
- Meandering 5y agoLarge reactors currently take at least 10 years to construct. The new small reactors are estimated to take at least 2-5 years. These plants offer continuous power with minimal maintenance. Renewable equipment needs to be replaced and repaired at a higher frequency. They will also need storage and grid upgrades to stand as a direct replacement. They absolutely have a place in the energy profile. But, nuclear provides a type of base power that cannot be easily or cost efficiently accomplished by renewable technologies. We need to take advantage of the pros and mitigate the cons of each technology.
- fy20 5y ago> nuclear provides a type of base power that cannot be easily or cost efficiently accomplished by renewable technologies I'm pro nuclear, but the numbers I'm seeing say this statement isn't true. The UK is currently building a new nuclear power station, being called the most expensive nuclear power station in the world by the media. It has a strike price (guarantee wholesale rate) of £90/MWh[0], where as offshore wind has a strike price of £40/MWh[1], and will probably get cheaper. I understand this isn't the whole picture, as wind energy isn't a constant supply, but the UK is well placed to transition to a smart grid to adjust a large amount of demand dynamically (a lot of homes have electric heating which was designed to be switched on remotely 'off peak' [2]). I wouldn't say the UK is against nuclear, and this plant is being built by the French multinational EDF - they have some experience building and running nuclear power stations. So why is it so expensive? Where are all these cheap nuclear power stations? [0] https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN_Strike_price_deal_for_Hinkley_Point_C_2110131.html https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN_Strike_price_deal_for_... [1] https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-record-low-uk-offshore-wind-cheaper-than-existing-gas-plants-by-2023 https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-record-low-uk-offshore-... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_7 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_7
- petre 5y agoBig = expensive. We are talking about two EPR 1600 MWe gen3 reactors here. The parent is talking about SMRs, small modular reactors. "The plant, which has a projected lifetime of 60 years, has an estimated construction cost of between £19.6 billion and £20.3 billion" "Financing of the project is still to be finalised, but the construction costs will be paid for by the mainly state-owned EDF of France and Chinese state-owned China General Nuclear Power Group (CGN)" "In September 2019, further costs were identified that bring the estimated total to £22.9 billion, and may further delay operations. The involvement of state-owned CGN was also questioned after it was sanctioned by the United States government for espionage." "The European Commission has previously estimated £24.5 billion, including financing costs during construction" So, an additional £2.6bn (~13%) cost overrun and geopolitics involving China. The EU estimation is +£4.2 bn. There were also competions ahead of schedule despite the pandemic, so it's not all that bad [1]. UK offshore wind also has a capacity factor of <40% [2]. Wind will also be sold cheaper, because when wind blows all over Europe, everyone wants to sell their wind generated electricity. For these reasons comparing the wholesale rates is kind of short sighted. I'm not picking one over of the other, but stressing that a balanced energy mix needs both. The UK's geographic position also enables the usage of offshore tidal plants. They just launched one of the biggest tidal plants recently, the Orbital O2 [3]. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_station 2. https://energynumbers.info/uk-offshore-wind-capacity-factors 3. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-57991351
- DennisP 5y agoOne nice thing about a molten salt reactor like China is building is that the dangerous fission products are chemically bound in the salt. If some external event breaks the reactor wide open, the salt cools and you just have radioactive rocks there on the site, instead of a radioactive cloud over a large region.
- ggm 5y agoLook, I want to agree and I'm neither a geologist nor a nuclear scientist but I think you're fantasising if you think there will be no particulate, dispersed matter. The salt mix even if the lower temp melting mixtures is 200°C or more above ambient. It will explode on contact with moisture. There will be clouds of burning materials. If you say LESS dispersed radiation? Sure. None... sorry not chemically or mechanically or hydraulically or meteorologically plausible. The elephants foot degrades over time into dust. Radiation causes stress fractures in solids, crystalline structure disturbs. It's going to "decay" in the non radiative sense of the word. Btw I am pro nuke, in Hypothesis. In my economy (oz) it would have been ideal 30 years ago. Now, with zero power nukes (only one medical manufacturer with a dido type swimming pool reactor) the build out is probably economically infeasible after lawsuit attack, compared to solar, wind and battery. But I remain hopeful of this new stuff, and the PBMR
- chasil 5y agoActually, one safety feature of an MSR is a "salt plug" that melts at a higher temperature. When the plug melts, the contents of the reactor flow into a boron containment. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306454919303573 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030645491...
- letitbeirie 5y agoIf its design allows it to somehow avoid a BLEVE [0] from whatever fluid it uses to move energy from the reactor to the generator being suddenly liberated. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_liquid_expanding_vapor_explosion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_liquid_expanding_vapor...
- 5y ago
- vbezhenar 5y agoFusion electricity is what will provide humanity with energy for centuries to come. It'll be available very soon and until then it does not really matter whether we will use nuclear or coal. We just need a final push for 50-100 years and energy issue will be solved once and forever. All the environment issues will be dealt with, when we will have a free energy and better technologies. Spending too much effort on cleaning environment now is not wise.
- godelski 5y ago> Nuclear is far from the best source of electricity Just to be clear, this is a universal statement. The issue is that there are many factors to consider. There's cost, storage, total output, CO2 and waste production, physical footprint, environmental factors, local resources, and many other parameters that need to be considered when determining what _combination_ of energy sources should be used for an area. I believe that often people abstract these variables out and only concentrate on cost and a secondary factor that supports their point for the specific conversation. We should not be naive and recognize that these are extremely complex systems with equally complex solutions that require significant amounts of nuance to accurately discuss.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- tpmx 5y agoThat would be awesome, but unfortunately the CCP have proven to us that we can't trust their word.
- jdavis703 5y agoThey say they’re 9 years away. That’s a long enough date that I’d be skeptical of any government that was giving a prediction for nearly a decade out.
- zepto 5y agoThat’s far enough away to be essentially meaningless because nobody will remember the claim.
- bell-cot 5y agoThis. Is there any organization on earth - government, corporation, whatever - with even a mediocre track record for commercial-scale deployment of (fairly) radical new nuclear power technologies?
- tablespoon 5y ago> That would be awesome, but unfortunately the CCP has proven to us that we can't trust their word. Over and over again. IMHO, claims like this from them should be believed 100%, because to do otherwise invites complacency.
- smhost 5y agothis also isn't the type of thing that governments tend to lie about. it's not like a scenario where a contractor overpromises and underdelivers and government media has to do damage control. they're also not announcing some new leap in scientific understanding. it's old science.
- wolverine876 5y ago> this also isn't the type of thing that governments tend to lie about This is the sort of thing governments lie about, IME - big, sensational achievements that enhance their status.
- guscost 5y agoThis could also be a feint to get DoD money into the technology.
- apatheticonion 5y agoI have been doing my best to find critical information on the viability of Thorium based nuclear reactors (because they sound too good to be true). Everyone sings their praises, but what engineering challenges are there and are those engineering challenges large enough to discourage their development/adoption? The biggest thing I have found is that the salt solution for Thorium reactors is quite corrosive and that is challenging to contain. It generally sounds really promising - even the Wiki page for thorium MSR sings its praises. Why wouldn't it work? Why isn't the world throwing shit-loads of money at this? Is China enlightened or is this some kind of meme-ware technology they fell for (or are trying to convince others to waste their money on)?
- NonContro 5y agoBecause corrupt politicians close down existing nuclear power industries and force their countries to import natural gas. They then get cushy roles at those foreign natural gas companies once their political career is over: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/dec/13/russia.germany https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/dec/13/russia.germany And if something goes wrong with Nuclear, they get the blame, whereas climate change cooks the frog slowly and blame and impacts are distributed across the entire planet.
- philipkglass 5y agoHere's a well cited perspective, written by one of HN's own active commenters: https://whatisnuclear.com/thorium-myths.html https://whatisnuclear.com/thorium-myths.html
- godelski 5y agoHas anyone seen AcidBurn recently? They've been notably absent for some time. They used to appear in essentially any HN forum with nuclear. I miss their expert insight.
- acidburnNSA 5y agoI'm around. I thought there were just fewer nuclear articles going around! I guess I missed some.
- NonContro 5y agoIts not enough to have designs and test plants. We need scale, and that means at least 1 new plant beginning construction each year. This is what the French did in the 70s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_commercial_nuclear_reactors#France https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_commercial_nuclear_rea...
- defaultprimate 5y agoChina says a lot of things
- fallingfrog 5y agoChina built the world’s largest high speed rail network (24,000 miles of tracks) and the first rails were laid down in 2007. If you think they can’t do this in 9 years, you haven’t been paying attention.