Nuclear Power Output Steadily Climbing Worldwide

[sendler]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Saying that solar is cheaper than nuclear is just creative lieing.
Solar costs about $1 per watt to install. Nuclear also costs about the same.

Solar grid scale farms in the USA completed in 2015 are still running at $3.30/ watt to build. Nameplate capacity. Actual capacity factor is 25%. Worldwide it is 20%.
.
We are totally blowing it by not developing GenIV nuclear with an all in international commitment.

[oil pan 4]

Well I did say most of them fall into the 3 to 5 dollar per watt range.
The only place where they do it for near $1 per watt is where most of what the solar power company needs is already in place. Acres of bare roof top, facilities with multi mega watt power service already connected.
Connecting aground up built wind or solar farm to the grid can soak up between 1/3 and 2/3 of the budget.

Too many people completely ignorant and terrorified
of nuclear power in charge and voting to advance gen 4.

I think if we had gen 4 reactors up and running we would be running away from gen 3 as if they all were blowing up like fukushima.

[rmay635703]

Originally Posted by California98Civic

Any real cost analysis will take into account the costs of mining, transport, and waste/pollution mitigation. I hardly think nuclear is so cheap, when we consider the utter lack of solutions for storage of spent fuel. .

MSR Thorium make 99% less spent fuel than traditional fission
Further MAR reactors can use spent fuel rods from other reactors as apart of its fuel.

And the waste from MSR is suitable for passive nuclear power systems until it degrades.

Too bad the stuff we did in the 50’s is too complex for us today.

[sendler]

Originally Posted by rmay635703

MSR Thorium make 99% less spent fuel than traditional fission
Further MAR reactors can use spent fuel rods from other reactors as apart of its fuel.

Is also able to run on depleted uranium stocks that we have already sitting around.

[California98Civic]

Originally Posted by rmay635703

MSR Thorium make 99% less spent fuel than traditional fission
Further MAR reactors can use spent fuel rods from other reactors as apart of its fuel.

And the waste from MSR is suitable for passive nuclear power systems until it degrades.

Too bad the stuff we did in the 50’s is too complex for us today.

That's fine, if we can be certain they will use such fuel. But the total costs still need to be part of any comparison. And I mean an actuarial risk assessment of possible meltdown or other failures. We should be skeptical of any industry claim of safety without cross examination. I live beside a reactor built on the same design as the Fukushima plant. It is on the beach. A few mikes from some of the most destructive potional off shore faults in the USA. Like Fukushima, it has a completely inadequate sea wall. Yet, like Fukushima, GE insisted it was completely safe. And the power company insisted it was completely safe even after leaks were detected. I want iron clad proof that such facilities, whatever the industry claims, and in some case whatever regularots claim, is safe and that we know exactly what we will do with all of the almost eternally deadly waste. Until then, I am absolutely opposed to further nuclear plant development. I realize some of you are excited about the tech, but I don't trust the companies or the regulators. And everything I own and everything I love is in their path. I don't trust they give enough of a damn about me, mine, and my people.

[rmay635703]

Depleted Uranium many times has a lot of Thorium in the mix, MSR works best with a lot of Thorium .

MSR Thorium reactors can’t melt down,
The reaction is dependent on being inside the containment vessel to continue,
If the salt breaks through containment it looses critical mass to continue reaction.

MSR Truly is better in every way, too bad the military minds in the 50’s felt the only purpose of a nuclear plant was to make fuel for warheads which MSR cannot do.

I recommend reading the book
SUPERFUEL
On this subject if you want a balanced view of the history on why we use inferior reactors today.

[oil pan 4]

Molten salt thorium reactors can't melt down.
When they get too hot the molten salt loses density, less density and you lose criticality and the fission reaction slows and stops.
The DoE figured out at least this much by the 1960s.

Pressurized water reactor waste isn't dangerous for "eternity" when it's recycled. Once the unwanted waste is separated from the fuel the waste is highly dangerous for about 40 years.
Raw nuclear waste is so dangerous because it's still contains around 90% useable uranium and plutonium fuel.
So when the fuel is recycled the waste is reduced by around 90% and whats left over doesn't stay dangerous for thousands of years.
Once the fuel and waste are separated there is a lot less of it and the waste is a lot safer to handle, store and get rid of.

[California98Civic]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Molten salt thorium reactors can't melt down.
When they get too hot the molten salt loses density, less density and you lose criticality and the fission reaction slows and stops.
The DoE figured out at least this much by the 1960s.

Pressurized water reactor waste isn't dangerous for "eternity" when it's recycled. Once the unwanted waste is separated from the fuel the waste is highly dangerous for about 40 years.
Raw nuclear waste is so dangerous because it's still contains around 90% useable uranium and plutonium fuel.
So when the fuel is recycled the waste is reduced by around 90% and whats left over doesn't stay dangerous for thousands of years.
Once the fuel and waste are separated there is a lot less of it and the waste is a lot safer to handle, store and get rid of.

I just wanna see that demonstrated in detail at legnth before public hearings with input from independent professionals. If they have a safe technology they should make the case. But even if they do, these power companies and the corporations that built the reactors have a public responsibility to clean up their mess: there are spent fuel rods all over the country (the world!) sitting at reactor sites. We the tax payers and rate payers should not be billed for it's cleanup. These companies should pay, and they should get no new plants, no matter what the tech, until they do. If corporations are going to have first amendment rights now, then they have greater responsibilities too. I cannot turn my house into a deadly dump and then abandon it for the government to clean up without consequences. Corporations not be able to either. All this is part of the "cost" of future nuke development in my mind.

It is important to note too that there are significant problems with solar and wind power generation too, just of different types, and not nearly as severe as Cold War nukes. When you put thousands of acres of shade creating panels out in a desert, you can dramatically change the soil and habitat of the desert (for example)

We have to use less energy and do more with it. Isn't that sorta an ecomodder mantra?

[oil pan 4]

No one will fund molten salt reactors.
The DoE is still set on using reactors that breed nuclear fuel for weapons. The entire nuclear industry is designed around this.
Molten salt doesn't have to use fuel rods.

I live in the desert and most animals crave shade during the day. If a lizard, snake or bunny has the choice they will seek shade by the hottest point of the day.
I think most solar panels should be owned by people.
If people put solar on their roof tops there is no desert land scape to alter, no tranamission lines to build, no transmission losses.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by California98Civic

I want iron clad proof that such facilities, whatever the industry claims, and in some case whatever regularots claim, is safe and that we know exactly what we will do with all of the almost eternally deadly waste. Until then, I am absolutely opposed to further nuclear plant development.

There is no such certainty for any technology to be 100% safe. The reason companies don't have to prove things to us customers, but instead must prove their designs with a regulatory agency is because there will always be people among us that are opposed to something, regardless of how safe or beneficial it is to people. You might be opposed to nuclear, but you basically have no say in the matter, though you're free to move wherever you want.

As you mentioned, every technology poses their own risks. It turns out nuclear has been among the least deadly methods of producing power. The Fukushima meltdown killed 0 people directly, and so far an estimated 0 people due to elevated radiation exposure. 70% of residents are cleared to move back into the city.

This isn't an excuse to allow for poor design in the future, but we need to be realistic about risk when making decisions. Despite these poorly engineered reactors that were based on 1950's technology, we've had relatively minor loss of life and environmental damage. Certainly orders of magnitude less loss of life and environmental damage than fossil fuels and coal.

I agree that any proposal for new nuclear plants should undergo rigorous scrutiny. The problem is that conversation doesn't even happen because anti-nuke sentiment is so strong with people that they don't want to even hear it. That's fine though. CA can continue to have among the most expensive electricity in the nation. Who cares that high utility rates have an outsized negative impact on low income families in the state with the largest population?