3 ms·

The same line of reasoning says that we should build conventional light- or heavy-water reactors. The risk is minimal. And they're (a) tested and (b) much cheap

by tlb 4y ago

The same line of reasoning says that we should build conventional light- or heavy-water reactors. The risk is minimal. And they're (a) tested and (b) much cheaper than PACER.

jandrese 4y ago
The advantage of a PACER setup is that you get a lot more bang (heh) per kg of uranium than you do out of a fission reactor. But the cost of uranium is not currently a problem with our fission reactors. We do have a problem with radioactive waste, but even that is way more political than it is technical. I wonder which two senators are going to be ok with detonating 32 bombs in their state every day? This isn't the 50s, NIMBYs know how to make your life a living hell when trying to do anything nuclear.
- cogman10 4y ago
  Future fission reactors both don't need uranium (thorium reactors) and use less of it while waste that isn't radio active for long (breeder reactors).
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    Thorium turns out not to be the solution to any problem.
    - tlb 4y ago
      One problem it solves is making reactors that can't produce material for nuclear weapons. That's pretty important if we want to deploy reactors outside the few countries that already have them.
      - ncmncm 4y ago
        I live near Indian Point, recently shut down. They tried thorium back when it was new. It cost too much then. Nukes of any stripe are not competitive now, and get less so every year. Thorium cannot save them. Solutions that rely on a steam turbine generally lose to those that do not. A need to fool with fuel and security cost even more. Account for the disaster insurance subsidy and decommissioning cost, and they come out a marked drag on society. That is, if you manage to complete one before it gets cancelled because renewables are already doing the job more cheaply than it can. We do better not to spend the initial $billions on what will never produce any marketable power. No such money is ever returned. A nuke that runs only at night costs almost twice as much per kWh.
        tlb 4y ago
        It's possible the economics have changed since the 50s. The non-proliferation argument certainly has: in the US in the 50s, making plutonium was considered a useful feature of power reactors.
        ncmncm 4y ago
        That does happen, but has not in this case.

by tlb 4y ago

The same line of reasoning says that we should build conventional light- or heavy-water reactors. The risk is minimal. And they're (a) tested and (b) much cheaper than PACER.

jandrese 4y ago

The advantage of a PACER setup is that you get a lot more bang (heh) per kg of uranium than you do out of a fission reactor. But the cost of uranium is not currently a problem with our fission reactors. We do have a problem with radioactive waste, but even that is way more political than it is technical. I wonder which two senators are going to be ok with detonating 32 bombs in their state every day? This isn't the 50s, NIMBYs know how to make your life a living hell when trying to do anything nuclear.

cogman10 4y ago
Future fission reactors both don't need uranium (thorium reactors) and use less of it while waste that isn't radio active for long (breeder reactors).
- ncmncm 4y ago
  Thorium turns out not to be the solution to any problem.
  - tlb 4y ago
    One problem it solves is making reactors that can't produce material for nuclear weapons. That's pretty important if we want to deploy reactors outside the few countries that already have them.
    - ncmncm 4y ago
      I live near Indian Point, recently shut down. They tried thorium back when it was new. It cost too much then. Nukes of any stripe are not competitive now, and get less so every year. Thorium cannot save them. Solutions that rely on a steam turbine generally lose to those that do not. A need to fool with fuel and security cost even more. Account for the disaster insurance subsidy and decommissioning cost, and they come out a marked drag on society. That is, if you manage to complete one before it gets cancelled because renewables are already doing the job more cheaply than it can. We do better not to spend the initial $billions on what will never produce any marketable power. No such money is ever returned. A nuke that runs only at night costs almost twice as much per kWh.
      - tlb 4y ago
        It's possible the economics have changed since the 50s. The non-proliferation argument certainly has: in the US in the 50s, making plutonium was considered a useful feature of power reactors.
        ncmncm 4y ago
        That does happen, but has not in this case.