4 ms·

> terrestrial-based atomic energy... has major advantages when it comes to cost Are we talking public cost? Because that's all that matters. So far the public

by abalone 11y ago

> terrestrial-based atomic energy... has major advantages when it comes to cost Are we talking public cost? Because that's all that matters. So far the public cost of nuclear power has been extraordinary, due to accidents and waste. I understand that some of these startups aim to process existing waste in relatively small distributed reactors but what is the public cost of spreading a bunch of "mini" toxic waste sites around the world that remain hazardous for 100 years, instead of centrally storing it? Plus I've read that although these mini reactors are not directly producing material that could be used in a dirty bomb, that they could be converted to do so if they fell into the wrong hands. I may be oversimplifying here, but the question again is what is the public risk of distributing atomic fuels and reactors in a manner that makes them much less secure? Would this make them more susceptible to "war hacking" and could this be the mini-reactor equivalent of a nuclear disaster? Nuclear costs have always been about the long term public costs, not the short term $/kWh. This is before we even consider the taxpayer cost that's gone into nuclear tech development. I wonder if there will be more public money needed to take this tech to market, even if the test reactors bear fruit.

mooreds 11y ago
Anyone thinking about this needs to watch "Into Eternity", a movie about the Finnish nuclear waste repository: http://www.intoeternitythemovie.com/ http://www.intoeternitythemovie.com/ "In Finland the world’s first permanent repository is being hewn out of solid rock - a huge system of underground tunnels - that must last 100,000 years as this is how long the waste remains hazardous." It was eye opening.
- ageofwant 11y ago
  That's just nonsense. Forth generation breeder reactors burn their own waste to something close to irrelevant. Existing "Waste" should be continually burned and the energy used to sequester C02 from the atmosphere, for example, not uselessly stored in a bunker. There is no reason for that facility to exist.
  - nl 11y ago
    There are plenty of reasons for that facility to exist. Fourth generation reactors (and thorium reactors) do improve the situation considerably (eg, 2 orders of magnitude less waste than a conventional reactor, and the waste stays around hundreds of years instead of tens of thousands[1]). However there is an existing set of reactors that will be in use for decades, and their waste needs storage. There are also existing "temporary" storage facilities that need better long-term solutions. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power#Possible_benefits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power#Po...
- abalone 11y ago
  On a positive note: While I have major questions/concerns about distributing poorly secured fast reactors and toxic waste sites all over the planet, if this tech really does turn out to be a practical way to reduce the half life of waste... Why not just turn the waste storage sites into reactor farms? That would sidestep the problems stemming from decentralization and probably achieve some economies of scale too. Maybe smelt some aluminum with the energy. But even if you essentially threw the energy away, it might be useful as purely a waste cleanup solution.
  - jddw 11y ago
    They are not poorly secured, and the material is not weaponizable. Not to mention they are not toxic sites, the waste is put into a block of metal that is completely passively cooled so it can't melt. It is buried, and it is secured. And they would generally be deployed in multi unit farms. Plus, no need to throw away the energy, especially if it's cheaper than energy from gas or coal.
    - chinathrow 11y ago
      How are they secured in theory then?
      - jddw 11y ago
        Buried, sealed, and guarded with armed former spec ops folks.
        chinathrow 11y ago
        For each and every client worldwide?
        abalone 11y ago
        You're going the secure 1MW reactors with armed special ops ex soldiers? Even if it's a 10MW farm on average, doesn't that explode the cost? And isn't the fact that they'd be "spec ops" caliber guards reflect that there is in fact a security risk with these materials getting into the wrong hands? If so it seems like a committed enemy could attack one of the thousands of these sites successfully. The distributed model seems problematic.
snarfy 11y ago
You could make the same arguments for the long term public costs of burning fossil fuels.
- abalone 11y ago
  Absolutely. But these are questions that must be answered before we can say nuclear has "major advantages when it comes to cost".
nl 11y ago
I agree with this entirely. I think too many self-declared science-minded people buy into the argument that "nuclear is a good solution" without looking at the numbers or risks. Whilst I understand the costs of fossil fuel use, I think that the distribution of risks associated with nuclear power makes cost estimation a lot more difficult that proponents assume (ie, safe almost always, very rare disasters that cause huge disruption). However, my understanding is that Thorium-based fission reactors[1] reduce the risks somewhat. I haven't looked into this enough myself to decide either way, but I do have an open mind. Fusion, OTOH is a totally different story. Maybe, one day we'll get that to work reliably and cheaply. I find it difficult to imagine a more significant change to the world we know. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power
- gh02t 11y ago
  To some degree, thorium is snake oil. They have some interesting properties and there are designs proposed that feature passive safety systems, but they remain largely unproven and they aren't the magic that people seem to often claim. When it comes down to it, power generation is always risky. Reasonable efficiency demands that any power plant tries to maximize energy density, which is fundamentally in conflict with safety. Even solar and wind have risks, though obviously they are smaller than nuclear, coal or natural gas (though wind and solar are a different class of power generation and don't necessarily compete with those). The main risks in nuclear power are loss of coolant, containment breach or a prompt criticality event. Thorium reactors are vulnerable to all of the above, but of course designs exploit various properties to mitigate the risk. The most famous thorium design is the liquid salt design, which is not as susceptible to loss of coolant flow accidents due to a reactivity feedback mechanism (it's subcritical if the liquid fuel stops being circulated), but it isn't inherently superior to other modern passively safe designs. The real reason to be interested in thorium is that it has reduced proliferation concern and also thorium is available in places where uranium is rare (India). But it isn't fundamentally safer.
- jddw 11y ago
  That's why the reactor can use thorium! There are big benefits. But frankly all advanced reactors are cooled by natural forces so are immune to fuel overheating. The challenge is more that the consequences of accidents are way overestimated. Nobody died from radiation at Fukushima, and no one is going to. The land is not uninhabitable, some bureaucrat who sets limits non-scientifically just says it is. If people actually paid attention to data and not just assume things based on what pop culture or some bureaucrat has falsely led them to believe, people would realize the consequences of catastrophic meltdowns just aren't that bad. They shouldn't happen, but we shouldn't speculate wildly about indirect costs that are generally made up and use that as a basis for their thoughts on nuclear power. Your comments are right on in that people need to investigate nuclear. I find most people who do, find it to be a great option, while it is generally those who are opposed that didn't like it at the onset without knowing much about it and then refused to learn about it. That is why the opponents are the significant minority in the US. So your advice is good, but it's directed at the wrong crowd.
jddw 11y ago
First, the reactors are consuming the fuel while deployed, but no waste is stored at the sites. It is stored centrally so there are a few centralized sites that hold the waste for a few hundred years. After which you could make things out of the material and use them around your home without issue. The reactors cannot be deviated for nefarious purposes. And the materials are not less secure. The materials are being consumed by the reactor, and they are not dangerous as they are. In fact these reactors could destroy weapons grade material that is slated to be destroyed for fractions of the cost of programs the US is pursuing. Plus the reactors are secured when deployed. They are also buried and completely cooled by natural forces so they always stay cool. No fuel overheating. The reactors cannot be hacked, and if a bad actor commandeered one, all they could do is turn it off safely. Even if they tried to make it hotter it would just turn off and cool down. There just isn't enough fuel in the core to do anything else.
- abalone 11y ago
  To store it centrally, wouldn't you be transporting nuclear waste that is still toxic for hundreds of years all over the place? What if there's an accident during transportation? More reactors = more transportation = more nuclear waste accidents on the highway. Right? > The reactors cannot be deviated for nefarious purposes. I'm no nuclear expert but a quick search on Thorium reactors brings up some controversy over its potential for weaponization: Thorium, when being irradiated for use in reactors, will make uranium-232, which is very dangerous due to the gamma rays it emits. This irradiation process may be able to be altered slightly by removing protactinium-233. The irradiation would then make uranium-233 in lieu of uranium-232, which can be used in nuclear weapons to make thorium into a dual purpose fuel. [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power#Possible_disadvantages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power#Po... which cites http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a11907/is-the-superfuel-thorium-riskier-than-we-thought-14821644/ http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a11907/is-the... which cites Nature
- chinathrow 11y ago
  All your statements seems to good to be true. Can you back them up with some facts?

by abalone 11y ago

mooreds 11y ago

Anyone thinking about this needs to watch "Into Eternity", a movie about the Finnish nuclear waste repository: http://www.intoeternitythemovie.com/ http://www.intoeternitythemovie.com/ "In Finland the world’s first permanent repository is being hewn out of solid rock - a huge system of underground tunnels - that must last 100,000 years as this is how long the waste remains hazardous." It was eye opening.

ageofwant 11y ago
That's just nonsense. Forth generation breeder reactors burn their own waste to something close to irrelevant. Existing "Waste" should be continually burned and the energy used to sequester C02 from the atmosphere, for example, not uselessly stored in a bunker. There is no reason for that facility to exist.
- nl 11y ago
  There are plenty of reasons for that facility to exist. Fourth generation reactors (and thorium reactors) do improve the situation considerably (eg, 2 orders of magnitude less waste than a conventional reactor, and the waste stays around hundreds of years instead of tens of thousands[1]). However there is an existing set of reactors that will be in use for decades, and their waste needs storage. There are also existing "temporary" storage facilities that need better long-term solutions. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power#Possible_benefits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power#Po...
abalone 11y ago
On a positive note: While I have major questions/concerns about distributing poorly secured fast reactors and toxic waste sites all over the planet, if this tech really does turn out to be a practical way to reduce the half life of waste... Why not just turn the waste storage sites into reactor farms? That would sidestep the problems stemming from decentralization and probably achieve some economies of scale too. Maybe smelt some aluminum with the energy. But even if you essentially threw the energy away, it might be useful as purely a waste cleanup solution.
- jddw 11y ago
  They are not poorly secured, and the material is not weaponizable. Not to mention they are not toxic sites, the waste is put into a block of metal that is completely passively cooled so it can't melt. It is buried, and it is secured. And they would generally be deployed in multi unit farms. Plus, no need to throw away the energy, especially if it's cheaper than energy from gas or coal.
  - chinathrow 11y ago
    How are they secured in theory then?
    - jddw 11y ago
      Buried, sealed, and guarded with armed former spec ops folks.
      - chinathrow 11y ago
        For each and every client worldwide?
      - abalone 11y ago
        You're going the secure 1MW reactors with armed special ops ex soldiers? Even if it's a 10MW farm on average, doesn't that explode the cost? And isn't the fact that they'd be "spec ops" caliber guards reflect that there is in fact a security risk with these materials getting into the wrong hands? If so it seems like a committed enemy could attack one of the thousands of these sites successfully. The distributed model seems problematic.

snarfy 11y ago

You could make the same arguments for the long term public costs of burning fossil fuels.

abalone 11y ago
Absolutely. But these are questions that must be answered before we can say nuclear has "major advantages when it comes to cost".

nl 11y ago

I agree with this entirely. I think too many self-declared science-minded people buy into the argument that "nuclear is a good solution" without looking at the numbers or risks. Whilst I understand the costs of fossil fuel use, I think that the distribution of risks associated with nuclear power makes cost estimation a lot more difficult that proponents assume (ie, safe almost always, very rare disasters that cause huge disruption). However, my understanding is that Thorium-based fission reactors[1] reduce the risks somewhat. I haven't looked into this enough myself to decide either way, but I do have an open mind. Fusion, OTOH is a totally different story. Maybe, one day we'll get that to work reliably and cheaply. I find it difficult to imagine a more significant change to the world we know. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power

gh02t 11y ago
To some degree, thorium is snake oil. They have some interesting properties and there are designs proposed that feature passive safety systems, but they remain largely unproven and they aren't the magic that people seem to often claim. When it comes down to it, power generation is always risky. Reasonable efficiency demands that any power plant tries to maximize energy density, which is fundamentally in conflict with safety. Even solar and wind have risks, though obviously they are smaller than nuclear, coal or natural gas (though wind and solar are a different class of power generation and don't necessarily compete with those). The main risks in nuclear power are loss of coolant, containment breach or a prompt criticality event. Thorium reactors are vulnerable to all of the above, but of course designs exploit various properties to mitigate the risk. The most famous thorium design is the liquid salt design, which is not as susceptible to loss of coolant flow accidents due to a reactivity feedback mechanism (it's subcritical if the liquid fuel stops being circulated), but it isn't inherently superior to other modern passively safe designs. The real reason to be interested in thorium is that it has reduced proliferation concern and also thorium is available in places where uranium is rare (India). But it isn't fundamentally safer.
jddw 11y ago
That's why the reactor can use thorium! There are big benefits. But frankly all advanced reactors are cooled by natural forces so are immune to fuel overheating. The challenge is more that the consequences of accidents are way overestimated. Nobody died from radiation at Fukushima, and no one is going to. The land is not uninhabitable, some bureaucrat who sets limits non-scientifically just says it is. If people actually paid attention to data and not just assume things based on what pop culture or some bureaucrat has falsely led them to believe, people would realize the consequences of catastrophic meltdowns just aren't that bad. They shouldn't happen, but we shouldn't speculate wildly about indirect costs that are generally made up and use that as a basis for their thoughts on nuclear power. Your comments are right on in that people need to investigate nuclear. I find most people who do, find it to be a great option, while it is generally those who are opposed that didn't like it at the onset without knowing much about it and then refused to learn about it. That is why the opponents are the significant minority in the US. So your advice is good, but it's directed at the wrong crowd.

jddw 11y ago

First, the reactors are consuming the fuel while deployed, but no waste is stored at the sites. It is stored centrally so there are a few centralized sites that hold the waste for a few hundred years. After which you could make things out of the material and use them around your home without issue. The reactors cannot be deviated for nefarious purposes. And the materials are not less secure. The materials are being consumed by the reactor, and they are not dangerous as they are. In fact these reactors could destroy weapons grade material that is slated to be destroyed for fractions of the cost of programs the US is pursuing. Plus the reactors are secured when deployed. They are also buried and completely cooled by natural forces so they always stay cool. No fuel overheating. The reactors cannot be hacked, and if a bad actor commandeered one, all they could do is turn it off safely. Even if they tried to make it hotter it would just turn off and cool down. There just isn't enough fuel in the core to do anything else.

abalone 11y ago
To store it centrally, wouldn't you be transporting nuclear waste that is still toxic for hundreds of years all over the place? What if there's an accident during transportation? More reactors = more transportation = more nuclear waste accidents on the highway. Right? > The reactors cannot be deviated for nefarious purposes. I'm no nuclear expert but a quick search on Thorium reactors brings up some controversy over its potential for weaponization: Thorium, when being irradiated for use in reactors, will make uranium-232, which is very dangerous due to the gamma rays it emits. This irradiation process may be able to be altered slightly by removing protactinium-233. The irradiation would then make uranium-233 in lieu of uranium-232, which can be used in nuclear weapons to make thorium into a dual purpose fuel. [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power#Possible_disadvantages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power#Po... which cites http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a11907/is-the-superfuel-thorium-riskier-than-we-thought-14821644/ http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a11907/is-the... which cites Nature
chinathrow 11y ago
All your statements seems to good to be true. Can you back them up with some facts?