4 ms·

Is anyone else in asshole mode like me where I'd rather see all unsafe plants replaced before breaking new ground? This, let's ignore our ticking time bombs app

Is anyone else in asshole mode like me where I'd rather see all unsafe plants replaced before breaking new ground? This, let's ignore our ticking time bombs approach doesn't fly with me, lest we forget Fukushima is still a thing.

AtlasBarfed 4y ago
I am in this camp. I want a "modern" nuclear design that isn't rooted in what the previous regime considered "safe". I want near 100% fuel consumption so there's no or far far less nuclear waste. LFTR allegedly does this (allegedly can use old solid fuel rod waste too) I want meltdown-proof design inherent to the reactor. LFTR has a self-moderating design and has a plug leading to a pool that separates the fluid fuel so it no longer is fissile. I want is scalable in size. And it has to be economical with solar/wind. LFTR probably has materials problems, but the chinese are giving one a go. We'll see. I don't think nuclear will cost competitive without a new round of approaches/designs. I don't think any current design will cut it, economically, safety in operation, safety in waste reduction/no transport, etc.
- AstralStorm 4y ago
  Even without LFTR, the new liquid metal/salt cooled reactors have a self-moderating design. (LMFR or LMFBR respectively) They could be modified to be multipass reactors too, and already reduce waste a lot. The problem with multipass reactors is that fuel enrichment is the way to explosives... It took a long time to achieve safety with these liquid metal/salt cooled reactors, as Japanese can tell.
pdonis 4y ago
> Fukushima is still a thing There's an easy way to avoid future Fukushimas that has nothing to do with any change in nuclear reactor design: don't site your backup power switchgear in a place that could get inundated with water. (Note that all of the other reactors at the Fukushima site had this--and none of them had any problems after the earthquake and tsunami.) "Ticking time bombs" is not a valid description of any commercial nuclear plant. Building newer, safer designs in the future is great, but even without considering any of those designs, nuclear energy is by far the safest form of energy per unit of energy generated. Imagine if we had been smart in the 1970s and 1980s and started building nuclear reactors everywhere to replace coal and oil. We could be in a position now where no fossil fuels needed to be burned anywhere on the planet. To deny ourselves this because "Fukushima!" is foolish.
p1mrx 4y ago
When building new nuclear plants, a good question to ask is "can you shut it down passively, without adding water?" I'd much rather live near a nuclear plant with an 'off' button that works.
- stop50 4y ago
  There are designs that allow that. With liquid salts in which the fuel is in the reactor is said to self-regulate with minimal problems, the problem with this is the trash. Recent studies say that they generate more nuclear waste than "normal" reactors. The reason we mostly have water based Reactors is that an army general responsible for nuclear reactors in submarines was also part of the comitee for the civilian usage of nuclear energy and they had water based reactors because the scientists thought the marine would know water.
bee_rider 4y ago
If we go around replacing unsafe coal plants with safe nuclear ones, we'll definitely save a ton of lives, good idea.

AtlasBarfed 4y ago

I am in this camp. I want a "modern" nuclear design that isn't rooted in what the previous regime considered "safe". I want near 100% fuel consumption so there's no or far far less nuclear waste. LFTR allegedly does this (allegedly can use old solid fuel rod waste too) I want meltdown-proof design inherent to the reactor. LFTR has a self-moderating design and has a plug leading to a pool that separates the fluid fuel so it no longer is fissile. I want is scalable in size. And it has to be economical with solar/wind. LFTR probably has materials problems, but the chinese are giving one a go. We'll see. I don't think nuclear will cost competitive without a new round of approaches/designs. I don't think any current design will cut it, economically, safety in operation, safety in waste reduction/no transport, etc.

AstralStorm 4y ago
Even without LFTR, the new liquid metal/salt cooled reactors have a self-moderating design. (LMFR or LMFBR respectively) They could be modified to be multipass reactors too, and already reduce waste a lot. The problem with multipass reactors is that fuel enrichment is the way to explosives... It took a long time to achieve safety with these liquid metal/salt cooled reactors, as Japanese can tell.

pdonis 4y ago

> Fukushima is still a thing There's an easy way to avoid future Fukushimas that has nothing to do with any change in nuclear reactor design: don't site your backup power switchgear in a place that could get inundated with water. (Note that all of the other reactors at the Fukushima site had this--and none of them had any problems after the earthquake and tsunami.) "Ticking time bombs" is not a valid description of any commercial nuclear plant. Building newer, safer designs in the future is great, but even without considering any of those designs, nuclear energy is by far the safest form of energy per unit of energy generated. Imagine if we had been smart in the 1970s and 1980s and started building nuclear reactors everywhere to replace coal and oil. We could be in a position now where no fossil fuels needed to be burned anywhere on the planet. To deny ourselves this because "Fukushima!" is foolish.

p1mrx 4y ago

When building new nuclear plants, a good question to ask is "can you shut it down passively, without adding water?" I'd much rather live near a nuclear plant with an 'off' button that works.

stop50 4y ago
There are designs that allow that. With liquid salts in which the fuel is in the reactor is said to self-regulate with minimal problems, the problem with this is the trash. Recent studies say that they generate more nuclear waste than "normal" reactors. The reason we mostly have water based Reactors is that an army general responsible for nuclear reactors in submarines was also part of the comitee for the civilian usage of nuclear energy and they had water based reactors because the scientists thought the marine would know water.

bee_rider 4y ago

If we go around replacing unsafe coal plants with safe nuclear ones, we'll definitely save a ton of lives, good idea.