TerraPower to build demo nuclear plant in WY

[Moonbeam]

@hal2kilo: https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ncy-interview-cheapest-safest-cleanest-crisis

"
The most energy-inefficient design of all, he says, may be nuclear power, which is heavily subsidised, costly and pushed by a politically powerful lobby. Using it to address shortages of electricity or to counter climate change, he argues, is like offering starving people rice and caviar when it’s far cheaper and easier to give just rice.
“When you have a climate and energy emergency, like now, you need to invest judiciously, not indiscriminately, to buy the most efficient solution. Far better to deploy fast, inexpensive and sure technologies like wind or solar than one that is slow to build, speculative and very costly. Anything else makes climate change worse than it needs to be.”
He demolishes the technology with statistics. “In 2020 the world added 0.4 gigawatts more nuclear capacity than it retired, whilst the world added 278 gigawatts of renewables – that’s a 782-fold greater capacity. Renewables swelled supply and displaced carbon as much every 38 hours as nuclear did all year. Where nuclear is cheap, renewables are cheaper still and efficiency is cheaper than that. There is no new type or size or fuel cycle of reactor that will change this. Do the maths. It is game over.”

 

[hal2kilo]

@hal2kilo: https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ncy-interview-cheapest-safest-cleanest-crisis

"
The most energy-inefficient design of all, he says, may be nuclear power, which is heavily subsidised, costly and pushed by a politically powerful lobby. Using it to address shortages of electricity or to counter climate change, he argues, is like offering starving people rice and caviar when it’s far cheaper and easier to give just rice.
“When you have a climate and energy emergency, like now, you need to invest judiciously, not indiscriminately, to buy the most efficient solution. Far better to deploy fast, inexpensive and sure technologies like wind or solar than one that is slow to build, speculative and very costly. Anything else makes climate change worse than it needs to be.”
He demolishes the technology with statistics. “In 2020 the world added 0.4 gigawatts more nuclear capacity than it retired, whilst the world added 278 gigawatts of renewables – that’s a 782-fold greater capacity. Renewables swelled supply and displaced carbon as much every 38 hours as nuclear did all year. Where nuclear is cheap, renewables are cheaper still and efficiency is cheaper than that. There is no new type or size or fuel cycle of reactor that will change this. Do the maths. It is game over.”

There's another way. More money, time, and a new understanding of some fundamental physics.
This is just our governments efforts.

A Review of U.S. Government LENR Energy Involvement (Greg Goble) | (e-catworld.com)

 

[fskimospy]

@hal2kilo: https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ncy-interview-cheapest-safest-cleanest-crisis

"
The most energy-inefficient design of all, he says, may be nuclear power, which is heavily subsidised, costly and pushed by a politically powerful lobby. Using it to address shortages of electricity or to counter climate change, he argues, is like offering starving people rice and caviar when it’s far cheaper and easier to give just rice.
“When you have a climate and energy emergency, like now, you need to invest judiciously, not indiscriminately, to buy the most efficient solution. Far better to deploy fast, inexpensive and sure technologies like wind or solar than one that is slow to build, speculative and very costly. Anything else makes climate change worse than it needs to be.”
He demolishes the technology with statistics. “In 2020 the world added 0.4 gigawatts more nuclear capacity than it retired, whilst the world added 278 gigawatts of renewables – that’s a 782-fold greater capacity. Renewables swelled supply and displaced carbon as much every 38 hours as nuclear did all year. Where nuclear is cheap, renewables are cheaper still and efficiency is cheaper than that. There is no new type or size or fuel cycle of reactor that will change this. Do the maths. It is game over.”

While he could be right (I don't know enough to be sure) his statistics do not support his argument. His statistics here say because people are building a lot of renewables that renewables are better, which is nonsense. 'This is a popular choice therefore this is the right choice' is not a good argument.

 

[Moonbeam]

While he could be right (I don't know enough to be sure) his statistics do not support his argument. His statistics here say because people are building a lot of renewables that renewables are better, which is nonsense. 'This is a popular choice therefore this is the right choice' is not a good argument.

This makes sense if what he describes as the right choice is because it is a popular choice, but I don't think that is his argument. I think what he is saying is that it is a popular choice because it works, it is happening, it is improving constantly, and more and more energy is being produced that way in compared to what nuclear is achieving. He is saying also that it is right because the people pushing nuclear have are beating a dead horse, that renewables and energy efficiency don't need political support other than to get out of the way. The financials on nuclear require government subsidies and a lobby industry to provide.

Creating radioactive waste is criminal. It is like putting land mines in a pig sty. We just went through all that again in the Ukraine.

What statistics do not support his argument?

 

[Moonbeam]

There's another way. More money, time, and a new understanding of some fundamental physics.
This is just our governments efforts.

A Review of U.S. Government LENR Energy Involvement (Greg Goble) | (e-catworld.com)

 

[Moonbeam]

There's another way. More money, time, and a new understanding of some fundamental physics.
This is just our governments efforts.

A Review of U.S. Government LENR Energy Involvement (Greg Goble) | (e-catworld.com)

I don't see a lot of real world commercial applications. Sound like, if I understand what I read without too much thinking, that it would decrease existing radio isotopes rather than make new ones which sounds good.

 

[Moonbeam]

The biggest problem I have with renewables is the land area they require. I think best use would be on architectural surfaces facing the sun and on greenhouses. This would provide food and distributed energy production much better for national security. Nuclear power plants are unmarked bulls eyes but targeted none the less.

 

[fskimospy]

This makes sense if what he describes as the right choice is because it is a popular choice, but I don't think that is his argument. I think what he is saying is that it is a popular choice because it works, it is happening, it is improving constantly, and more and more energy is being produced that way in compared to what nuclear is achieving. He is saying also that it is right because the people pushing nuclear have are beating a dead horse, that renewables and energy efficiency don't need political support other than to get out of the way. The financials on nuclear require government subsidies and a lobby industry to provide.

It may very well be more efficient but that doesn’t obviate the need for nuclear for base load generation.

Ironically he does not address the reasons nuclear is expensive, which is basically all the same reasons he says other things are energy inefficient, etc.

I’m 100% onboard with efficiency and renewables as our primary focus going forward but I have not seen a convincing case from anyone that we can mitigate climate change in the timeframe we need to using them alone. If anything recent history shows we can’t, or at least don’t. When we shut nuclear plants their power isn’t replaced by renewables, it’s replaced by fossil fuels. See Indian point.

Creating radioactive waste is criminal. It is like putting land mines in a pig sty. We just went through all that again in the Ukraine.

What statistics do not support his argument?

Creating radioactive waste is fine in the near term. People often do not understand how absolutely huge the earth is. Climate change is the threat, and we need to look behind every door to stop it.

 

[Zorba]

It may very well be more efficient but that doesn’t obviate the need for nuclear for base load generation.

Ironically he does not address the reasons nuclear is expensive, which is basically all the same reasons he says other things are energy inefficient, etc.

I’m 100% onboard with efficiency and renewables as our primary focus going forward but I have not seen a convincing case from anyone that we can mitigate climate change in the timeframe we need to using them alone. If anything recent history shows we can’t, or at least don’t. When we shut nuclear plants their power isn’t replaced by renewables, it’s replaced by fossil fuels. See Indian point.


Creating radioactive waste is fine in the near term. People often do not understand how absolutely huge the earth is. Climate change is the threat, and we need to look behind every door to stop it.

Yup. We had a solution to nuclear waste that was pretty decent and we walked away from it. We could also reprocess a lot of the waste, but we refuse to do that as well.

I wish we would dump more money into researching some of the safer proposals out there.

 

[Moonbeam]

Yup. We had a solution to nuclear waste that was pretty decent and we walked away from it. We could also reprocess a lot of the waste, but we refuse to do that as well.

I wish we would dump more money into researching some of the safer proposals out there.

Economics and motivation. Lots of money in building nuclear, no money in cleaning up nuclear waste. That is a money drain and never "MY PROBLEM". We leave that to others unborn to fix that.

Why nuclear power will never supply the world's energy needs

(PhysOrg.com) -- The 440 commercial nuclear reactors in use worldwide are currently helping to minimize our consumption of fossil fuels, but how much bigger can nuclear power get? In an analysis to be published in a future issue of the Proceedings of the IEEE, Derek Abbott, Professor of...

phys.org

The great thing about nuclear energy is that a lot of very smart people work in that field and they can come up with all kinds of pipe dreams about how great it is, all they while having the emotional maturity and understanding of children. Look at the world. Nuclear is way way to hard to build. But it would be OK with me if built in the heart of high density cities and the waste disposed of locally.

 

[Moonbeam]

7 reasons why conventional nuclear energy is not the answer to solve climate change | One Earth

Conventional nuclear doesn’t just have one problem. It has seven. Here are the seven major problems with conventional nuclear energy and why it is not a solution to the climate crisis.

www.oneearth.org

 

[hal2kilo]

I don't see a lot of real world commercial applications. Sound like, if I understand what I read without too much thinking, that it would decrease existing radio isotopes rather than make new ones which sounds good.

That's the deal. Nuclear with almost no gammas or neutrons. Light and heat. Theoretically can be used to change bad isotopes to not bad ones. I will not use the A word. Newton was fond of it though.
Edit: Not all of those patents are strictly CF/LENR some involved higher energy fusion, fission/fusion, and the resultant radioactivity which is not the goal most LENR researchers are looking for.

 

[EduCat]

 

[hal2kilo]

Three Mile Island took 12 years and 973 million dollars to clean up.

ANS / Public Information / Resources / Special Topics / History of Three Mile Island / The TMI-2 Cleanup: Challenging and Successful

The clean-up of the damaged nuclear reactor system at TMI-2 took nearly 12 years and cost approximately $973 million. The clean-up was uniquely challenging technically and radiologically. Plant surfaces had to be decontaminated. Water used and stored during the clean-up had to be processed. And about 100 tonnes of damaged uranium fuel had to be removed from the reactor vessel – all without hazard to clean-up workers or the public.

 

[sdifox]

The biggest problem I have with renewables is the land area they require. I think best use would be on architectural surfaces facing the sun and on greenhouses. This would provide food and distributed energy production much better for national security. Nuclear power plants are unmarked bulls eyes but targeted none the less.

There is plenty of non arable land that is suitable for wind and solar.

 

[Moonbeam]

There is plenty of non arable land that is suitable for wind and solar.

There is also plenty of farm land that solar greenhouses could protect from pests and inclement weather and produce food water and power, not to mention supporting rural life.

Transparent solar panels for agrivoltaics

Romande Energie and Swiss research institute Agroscope are testing startup Insolight’s transparent PV panels in an agrivoltaic project. The modules are replacing the plastic covers used to grow strawberries and raspberries.

www.pv-magazine.com

 

[JTsyo]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/smr-nuclear-power-provinces-canada-1.6399928

might get them in 20 years

By then I would just opt for fusion.

 

[hal2kilo]

That's the deal. Nuclear with almost no gammas or neutrons. Light and heat. Theoretically can be used to change bad isotopes to not bad ones. I will not use the A word. Newton was fond of it though.
Edit: Not all of those patents are strictly CF/LENR some involved higher energy fusion, fission/fusion, and the resultant radioactivity which is not the goal most LENR researchers are looking for.

Nice basic view of Lattice Confinement (not technically CF due to use of gammas).

Fusion 3.0: Uncovering NASA's Nuclear Breakthrough - YouTube

 

[KMFJD]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/smr-nuclear-power-provinces-canada-1.6399928

might get them in 20 years

Actually, it looks like they'll have the first one built in 6 years!

A first for Canada: New type of nuclear plant opening by 2028 - The Weather Network

Small, transportable modules could emerge as future nuclear plants are distributed across Canada.

www.theweathernetwork.com

 

[sdifox]

Actually, it looks like they'll have the first one built in 6 years!

A first for Canada: New type of nuclear plant opening by 2028 - The Weather Network

Small, transportable modules could emerge as future nuclear plants are distributed across Canada.

www.theweathernetwork.com

It's Canada, 6 will turn into 20.

 

[thilanliyan]

By then I would just opt for fusion.

We are 50 yrs away from commercial fusion, and in 20 yrs we'll still be 50 yrs away from commercial fusion.

 

[Paratus]

We are 50 yrs away from commercial fusion, and in 20 yrs we'll still be 50 yrs away from commercial fusion.

No! There’s been huge breakthroughs in fusion recently. Now we are only always 15 years away.

 

[hal2kilo]

We are 50 yrs away from commercial fusion, and in 20 yrs we'll still be 50 yrs away from commercial fusion.

As long as we continue with magnetic confinement technology.

 

[thilanliyan]

As long as we continue with magnetic confinement technology.

What are the other methods?

 

[hal2kilo]

What are the other methods?

One of the possible paths. The coulomb barrier can be collapsed in other ways.

Lattice Confinement Fusion - Glenn Research Center | NASA