3 ms·

This is the core of how the system is broken: > A specific challenge would-be-conversions must face is that the NRC’s standards—both for atmospheric pollution

This is the core of how the system is broken: > A specific challenge would-be-conversions must face is that the NRC’s standards—both for atmospheric pollution and for the amount of radiological material a reactor can release—are much tighter than federal standards for coal plants.

credit_guy 4y ago
But that's not such a challenge. Nuclear power plants don't release atmospheric pollution. As for the radiological material they release, that is generally Tritium; that's in minute quantities, and they have experience dealing with the NRC in this regard.
- Godel_unicode 4y ago
  I read that as saying this is why coal plants are so popular, we’ve been grading on a curve.
- ars 4y ago
  He's saying that a coal plant is permitted to (and actually does) release more radiation than a nuclear plant is. Either tighten the standards for coal, or loosen them for nuclear, but the current situation is not logical.
  - arcticbull 4y ago
    Nuclear power plants don't emit radiation, so it's really not an issue that those standards are tighter as far as I know. We just need to end coal plants, immediately. Coal plants kill 25 people per TWH generated and spread nuclear radiation all over the nearby area. Nuclear plants kill 0.03 people per TWh (between wind and solar), including Chernobyl (killed 4000) and Fukushima (killed 1). [1] [1] https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
chasil 4y ago
Regardless of the brokenness, the fact remains: https://xkcd.com/1162/ https://xkcd.com/1162/ This is everything we need. Harnessing this maturely, appropriately, means that we don't burn < 10% of the power before disposal. This means that we use molten salt, not pressurized water, and we leave the technology of the 1950’s behind.
- hedora 4y ago
  One conversion the article mentions is this molten salt technology: https://www.terrapower.com/our-work/natriumpower/ https://www.terrapower.com/our-work/natriumpower/
  - jabl 4y ago
    That's a sodium cooled reactor, not a molten salt reactor. Sodium is a metal, not a salt.
    - hedora 4y ago
      Correct, but here is the source of my confusion: > which features a cost-competitive sodium fast reactor combined with a molten salt energy storage system The molten salt is basically a big thermal battery.
downrightmike 4y ago
That's good, The engineers are good people, the energy owners are the worst humans on earth and don't care if a melt down is likely, because they are bleeding money when it isn't running. No time to do it right. Instead: Make energy all public, sure pay out the leaches to get rid of them, and run things correctly.

credit_guy 4y ago

But that's not such a challenge. Nuclear power plants don't release atmospheric pollution. As for the radiological material they release, that is generally Tritium; that's in minute quantities, and they have experience dealing with the NRC in this regard.

Godel_unicode 4y ago
I read that as saying this is why coal plants are so popular, we’ve been grading on a curve.
ars 4y ago
He's saying that a coal plant is permitted to (and actually does) release more radiation than a nuclear plant is. Either tighten the standards for coal, or loosen them for nuclear, but the current situation is not logical.
- arcticbull 4y ago
  Nuclear power plants don't emit radiation, so it's really not an issue that those standards are tighter as far as I know. We just need to end coal plants, immediately. Coal plants kill 25 people per TWH generated and spread nuclear radiation all over the nearby area. Nuclear plants kill 0.03 people per TWh (between wind and solar), including Chernobyl (killed 4000) and Fukushima (killed 1). [1] [1] https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

chasil 4y ago

Regardless of the brokenness, the fact remains: https://xkcd.com/1162/ https://xkcd.com/1162/ This is everything we need. Harnessing this maturely, appropriately, means that we don't burn < 10% of the power before disposal. This means that we use molten salt, not pressurized water, and we leave the technology of the 1950’s behind.

hedora 4y ago
One conversion the article mentions is this molten salt technology: https://www.terrapower.com/our-work/natriumpower/ https://www.terrapower.com/our-work/natriumpower/
- jabl 4y ago
  That's a sodium cooled reactor, not a molten salt reactor. Sodium is a metal, not a salt.
  - hedora 4y ago
    Correct, but here is the source of my confusion: > which features a cost-competitive sodium fast reactor combined with a molten salt energy storage system The molten salt is basically a big thermal battery.

downrightmike 4y ago

That's good, The engineers are good people, the energy owners are the worst humans on earth and don't care if a melt down is likely, because they are bleeding money when it isn't running. No time to do it right. Instead: Make energy all public, sure pay out the leaches to get rid of them, and run things correctly.