4 ms·

The latest generation of Nuclear power plants are full cycle, produce close to nothing amount of waste

thatsit 9mo ago
And you can buy them and use them right now, as i can go and shop some solar panels, inverters, batteries, some cables put them about anywhere and just have free electricity after the initial expense?
micw 9mo ago
Sources?
- sethops1 9mo ago
  [flagged]
  - pfdietz 9mo ago
    The person he was responding to is wrong, as you might have discovered had you actually tried to provide information.
    - gregbot 9mo ago
      Well if by close to nothing he means waste lasting 300 years instead of 10,000 years and by latest generation he means gen IV reactors like bn-800, superpheonix, oklo, moltex etc sure he is basically correct. Here’s a source where you can read more about breeder reactors: (which is what he is referring to) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor
      - pfdietz 9mo ago
        These aren't nuclear power plants. They're designs of nuclear power plants. None have been constructed (well, aside from old plants like Superphenix, which was a failure, so much so that the French have mothballed their fast reactor program.) Moreover, they would be considerably more expensive than existing plants (especially if fuel is to be reprocessed), so they're nonstarters.
        gregbot 9mo ago
        Ah yes. “Old” plants. This plant is “old” so we could never build more like it. What an argument. And no, they would not be “considerably more expensive” because we wouldnt build a fleet of them until uranium was expensive enough that they would be cheaper. Thats why most countries have put off breeder reactor development not because they were “failures” whatever that is supposed to mean.
        pfdietz 9mo ago
        "Old" as in "we built it and discovered it's not wanted". The French basically gave up on the idea of fast reactors (as did the Japanese, although their fast reactor program appears to have been an excuse to obtain a stockpile of separated plutonium in case they need to make bombs). There's no market for them. The Russians have continued to try, but they're selling LWRs. The big problem with fission is that it's too expensive. Fast reactors make that main problem worse. There is no economic margin to do fancy (and expensive) things to try to address the lesser issue of nuclear waste.
        gregbot 9mo ago
        >There's no market for them In an economic sense, when compared to burner reactors, this is correct. As the rise of wind and solar has shown however, political will and popularity matter more than pure economics. Burner reactors are more of a 22nd century technology, assuming the grid storage problem doesn’t get solved by then and we just go full renewable on economics. But nothing is set in stone
        pfdietz 9mo ago
        What nonsense. What solar and wind have shown is the overwhelming importance of economics. They are dominating now because they have become cheap, not because of some sort of "triumph of the will". And they have become cheap because they are inherently the kind of technologies that has good experience curves. Unlike nuclear.
pfdietz 9mo ago
Plants being built these days are thermal burner reactors. They are no more "full cycle" than any other nuclear power reactors that have been built. And (like earlier reactors) reprocessing their spent fuel has no economic case.

And you can buy them and use them right now, as i can go and shop some solar panels, inverters, batteries, some cables put them about anywhere and just have free electricity after the initial expense?

micw 9mo ago

Sources?

sethops1 9mo ago
[flagged]
- pfdietz 9mo ago
  The person he was responding to is wrong, as you might have discovered had you actually tried to provide information.
  - gregbot 9mo ago
    Well if by close to nothing he means waste lasting 300 years instead of 10,000 years and by latest generation he means gen IV reactors like bn-800, superpheonix, oklo, moltex etc sure he is basically correct. Here’s a source where you can read more about breeder reactors: (which is what he is referring to) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor
    - pfdietz 9mo ago
      These aren't nuclear power plants. They're designs of nuclear power plants. None have been constructed (well, aside from old plants like Superphenix, which was a failure, so much so that the French have mothballed their fast reactor program.) Moreover, they would be considerably more expensive than existing plants (especially if fuel is to be reprocessed), so they're nonstarters.
      - gregbot 9mo ago
        Ah yes. “Old” plants. This plant is “old” so we could never build more like it. What an argument. And no, they would not be “considerably more expensive” because we wouldnt build a fleet of them until uranium was expensive enough that they would be cheaper. Thats why most countries have put off breeder reactor development not because they were “failures” whatever that is supposed to mean.
        pfdietz 9mo ago
        "Old" as in "we built it and discovered it's not wanted". The French basically gave up on the idea of fast reactors (as did the Japanese, although their fast reactor program appears to have been an excuse to obtain a stockpile of separated plutonium in case they need to make bombs). There's no market for them. The Russians have continued to try, but they're selling LWRs. The big problem with fission is that it's too expensive. Fast reactors make that main problem worse. There is no economic margin to do fancy (and expensive) things to try to address the lesser issue of nuclear waste.
        gregbot 9mo ago
        >There's no market for them In an economic sense, when compared to burner reactors, this is correct. As the rise of wind and solar has shown however, political will and popularity matter more than pure economics. Burner reactors are more of a 22nd century technology, assuming the grid storage problem doesn’t get solved by then and we just go full renewable on economics. But nothing is set in stone
        pfdietz 9mo ago
        What nonsense. What solar and wind have shown is the overwhelming importance of economics. They are dominating now because they have become cheap, not because of some sort of "triumph of the will". And they have become cheap because they are inherently the kind of technologies that has good experience curves. Unlike nuclear.

pfdietz 9mo ago

Plants being built these days are thermal burner reactors. They are no more "full cycle" than any other nuclear power reactors that have been built. And (like earlier reactors) reprocessing their spent fuel has no economic case.