How to make Nuclear Power safer

[Amaranthus (Barry)]

1. Uneconomic 2. Not commercialised.

[sn1987a (Barry)]

Fair enough, keep burning increasingly expensive to mine coal and building government/taxpayer insurer of last resort nuclear power stations then.

[Amaranthus (Barry)]

Build inherently safe nuclear power like the IFR (where safety systems rely on the laws of physics, as discussed at the start of this thread) -- if the whole world ran on these, there would be a TMI level incident ever 500,000 years or so. Insurance concerns become a moot point.

[clive milne]

Originally Posted by Amaranthus

-- if the whole world ran on these, there would be a TMI level incident ever 500,000 years or so. Insurance concerns become a moot point.

I was curious to learn the extent of global uranium reserves. I was of the understanding that if global energy demand was serviced entirely by nuclear power we would have somewhere between 50 and 100 years before it ran out. I was surprised to read the claim that land based reserves are but a fraction of what is available. The uranium dissolved in the oceans could power us for 10's of thousands of years according to the claim but at double the extraction/processing cost. They further claim that this would increase the total energy generation cost by 5% above conventional nuclear power.
Personally I am of the opinion that it is utter foolishness to determine our national energy policy from an isolationist perspective when the problem can only be solved at a global level with all the deferred costs included in the equation. The reality is that we cannot burn anything more than a small fraction of our known fossil fuel reserves without incurring an unthinkable penalty later. In that context, the wholesale cost of energy derived from it is meaningless. I am ambivalent about nuclear mostly because I don't think it would be possible to put enough infrastructure on the ground in the time required. But I agree that if it is viable then the debate should be free of anti nuclear ideology.

[clive milne]

Double post please ignore

[sn1987a (Barry)]

If power prices keep going up I'm going to go nuclear and instal solar PV, batteries and increase efficency and the power companies can go ...... themselves. I'm the customer and I'm always right.

[Amaranthus (Barry)]

Clive, an great factoid: even given the amount of energy in already mined uranium (used nuclear fuel, dismantled weapons, depleted uranium tails) we have enough of a stockpile of fuel accumulated to run the whole world for about 500 years if using IFRs with full fuel recycling. We could cease all uranium mining for half a millennia. Amazing but true.

[Nikolas (Nik)]

Originally Posted by avandonk

If you really want to get scared. Small particle pollution (>2 micron) MIGHT BE the major cause of Autism and many other brain dysfunctions. It MAY affect embryo growth after being ingested by the mother.


Where does this pollution come from? Diesel and petrol driven vehicles. You can make up the rest.

Bert

Thought I'd add balance to your absolutes.

[el_draco (Rom)]

Originally Posted by sn1987a

If power prices keep going up I'm going to go nuclear and instal solar PV, batteries and increase efficency and the power companies can go ...... themselves. I'm the customer and I'm always right.

.... and I completely AGREE with you, though grid connect is currently a better option than batteries.

[PeterEde (Peter)]

Watch the video Barry posted. Very insightful.
I want nuclear for 2 reasons
1 it's clean
2 it's baseload

[clive milne]

I was of the understanding that the technical challenges associated with closing the fuel cycle had not been overcome yet?

Incidentally, I have just finished reading a book about South Africa's covert nuclear program (at the end of the apartheid era) I highly recommend it. The basic thrust of the investigation is that SA was for a time at the forefront of advanced nuclear weapon development with full knowledge of the other nuclear club members. The case is fairly convincingly made that they were successful in their quest to make fusion devices that didn't require a fissile trigger. Sam Cohen has previously acknowledged that the Soviets had done exactly the same thing. Without getting in to a discussion over the military implications, it would revolutionize the energy industry if it was ever let into the civilian domain. I suppose what it would imply to the global power balance would ensure that it is unlikely to ever happen.

[PeterEde (Peter)]

According to what I read recently the cycle problem was sorted during Carters administration and hushed up. They didn't want the world to know they had discovered the "secret" to recycling spent fuel or warhead waste. Which allowed the US to stockpile spent fuel. This is the reason I feel Australia will never become the worlds dump.

[clive milne]

If the fuel cycle was closed, wouldn't the value of fuel basically drop to zero?

[Amaranthus (Barry)]

Of mined uranium, yes. A 1GW reactor would then require just over a milk crate worth of fuel per year. And it could be recycled spent fuel or DU.

[Amaranthus (Barry)]

Clive, the PRISM reactor for fuel recycling is ready to be built: http://gehitachiprism.com/what-is-pr...fits-of-prism/

All the key R&D for pyroprocessing (hot electrorefining) of the fuel cycle was done at Argonne National Labs in the 1980s-1990s.

[el_draco (Rom)]

One issue that should be considered, apart from the fact that the problem is population growth, rather than generation, is the method of supply. A lot of people are talking big complex systems here and they wont solve the problem. One way to make a real dent is to change the rationale. Instead of massive concentrated systems, why not go the other way and build small integrated systems for MOST power supply, like a distributed network similar to the internet. More robust, less complex, lots of efficiencies etc etc...

[Amaranthus (Barry)]

Interestingly Rom, the IFR is built around the SMR (small modular reactor) principle. Although still 'largeish' (at 310 MWe), some of the Gen IV SMR designs are in the 25-50 MWe range - the output of perhaps 10 large wind turbines (when they're running at full tilt, at least! )

[el_draco (Rom)]

Originally Posted by Amaranthus

Interestingly Rom, the IFR is built around the SMR (small modular reactor) principle. Although still 'largeish' (at 310 MWe), some of the Gen IV SMR designs are in the 25-50 MWe range - the output of perhaps 10 large wind turbines (when they're running at full tilt, at least! )

Maybe, but I prefer the old adage KISS....

I'd do micro hydro, photovoltaic, wind, tide, biomass, geothermal etc etc in preference to even a small nuclear wherever possible.

Interesting story on the idiot box a while back talking about energy issues related to natural disasters which, will inevitably increase with climate change. The article looked at the impact of loss of power from super storm Sandy and the push for small scale systems in the area. Its a common theme and makes a lot of sense.

[PeterEde (Peter)]

Just finished watching the discussion. Very informative. A must see for anyone with an anti nuclear POV. Most are uneducated and just bleat on about Chernobyl and Fukushima with no real data to back up their stand.
Any real Greenie has to consider nuclear the only current real alternative. That's not to say though by the time if we ever do decide to build that some alternative energy wont be more viable. But on a terawatt per acre ratio, I'd much rather see a single nuclear plant than a thousand wind turbines dotted across my country side.

[xelasnave]

Originally Posted by PeterEde

Just finished watching the discussion. Very informative. A must see for anyone with an anti nuclear POV. Most are uneducated and just bleat on about Chernobyl and Fukushima with no real data to back up their stand.
Any real Greenie has to consider nuclear the only current real alternative. That's not to say though by the time if we ever do decide to build that some alternative energy wont be more viable. But on a terawatt per acre ratio, I'd much rather see a single nuclear plant than a thousand wind turbines dotted across my country side.

At the risk of bleating are not those disasters something worthy of consideration.. even without data one can guess that the damage suffering and cost to be not
Insignificant
To dismiss concerns of the uneducated will not put their minds at ease.
Whatever power station you opt for no one wants it in their back yard...maybe hydro if there are fish in the supply dam.