U.S. Freezes All Nuclear Reactor Construction & Operating Licenses

[QuantumPion]

The thing is that in about 10 years in some areas Solar will about the same price as Nuclear. Safer when deployed as well.

If we started building Thorium nuclear plants they'd be done by the time solar became cheap enough to be an alternative to nuclear.

Additionally France, with the help of many other contributing nations, is building a Fusion Reactor Prototype.

http://www.iter.org/


Thorium is an interesting technology that should've been pursued earlier instead of extending the life of uranium fueled fission plants.

Solar power will never be as cheap as base load generation. It is too diffuse a source. Even in maximum optimal conditions, e.g. desert sun, no clouds, 16 hours per day, solar is still ~4x more expensive than nuclear.

 

[Darwin333]

This is pseudoscience, it takes far more uranium to feed the thorium cycle producing far more waste then you "burn off" in the actual thorium reactor itself.

I debunked this industry meme just a few posts ago.

It would literally mean building reactors that make our current ones look tiny to maintain one thorium cycle. Creating far more waste.

Imagine the subsidies to build such boondoggles!

The reprocessing industry REALLY loves this, the commercial plants CEOs would LOVE all that taxpayer money to build them, and the profits to USE the power. We paid for.

WIN WIN! (for everyone but us)

This is how the industry rolls.

Not that I am trying to say that you are wrong because I simply do not know the facts behind it but when I started learning about Thorium reactors there were a handful of scientists pushing it and NOT the industry. Hell, I still haven't seen "the industry" pushing it.

And do you have links about it requiring a lot more refined or reprocessed or whatever uranium? I watched quite lengthy scientific discussions on it (one hosted by google a while back was great) and I don't recall anything of the sort being required. I might have missed it or I might have forgotten it but I would like to learn if you have any resources.

 

[QuantumPion]

Not that I am trying to say that you are wrong because I simply do not know the facts behind it but when I started learning about Thorium reactors there were a handful of scientists pushing it and NOT the industry. Hell, I still haven't seen "the industry" pushing it.

And do you have links about it requiring a lot more refined or reprocessed or whatever uranium? I watched quite lengthy scientific discussions on it (one hosted by google a while back was great) and I don't recall anything of the sort being required. I might have missed it or I might have forgotten it but I would like to learn if you have any resources.

The power companies don't design new reactors, that's the job of the vendors (GE, Westinghouse, Areva, etc). The vendors are invested in making their current technology profitable and staying in business. Right now I doubt any of them are willing to bet on new nuclear technology getting past the NRC in its current state. It will take act of congress/executive order/other political intervention to make that sort of policy change happen.

 

[slayernine]

This is pseudoscience, it takes far more uranium to feed the thorium cycle producing far more waste then you "burn off" in the actual thorium reactor itself.

I debunked this industry meme just a few posts ago.

What you call debunking, to me sounds more like your opinion on the matter and lacks factual traction.

We have lots and lots of spent uranium that can be used in thorium reactors and you don't even need uranium to keep the reaction going as there are alternate methods to do so. The real problem is that nobody has built a viable reactor of this type for use in electricity generation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium_fuel_cycle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor

 

[blankslate]

Solar power will never be as cheap as base load generation. It is too diffuse a source. Even in maximum optimal conditions, e.g. desert sun, no clouds, 16 hours per day, solar is still ~4x more expensive than nuclear.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...-than-fossil-power-in-five-years-ge-says.html

I personally think this guy is overly optimistic but as extraction of fuels go up for both fossil and fission (you have to dig the uranium out and then process it for nuclear after all); it'll be easier for solar to become as cheap as the other sources with innovation.

As far as cheap fuel costs of nuclear and fossil. It's not only fuel costs that make up the overall costs of those power generation methods. Solar has almost no accident costs unless one takes place at a solar cell manufacturing plant.

We have seen major stories about the unexpected costs of both fossil and nuclear in 2010 and 2011.

*edit*

Oh yeah solar may not be available at all hours but periods of high demand tends to be when solar can generate it's power from sunlight.

 

[werepossum]

What you call debunking, to me sounds more like your opinion on the matter and lacks factual traction.

We have lots and lots of spent uranium that can be used in thorium reactors and you don't even need uranium to keep the reaction going as there are alternate methods to do so. The real problem is that nobody has built a viable reactor of this type for use in electricity generation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium_fuel_cycle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor

The CANDU reactors can burn it as well. With either, we'd also get the benefit of having the spent fuel rods (which still contain mega butt loads of energy and are quite dangerous) no longer sitting in temporary-cum-long term storage. As we saw with Japan, accepted practices and regulations on spent fuel rods are insanely low. It's a win-win situation.

Regarding solar, comparing it to centralized power generation is misleading. The very fact that it's a diffuse type of generation is an advantage. Megawatts traveling over miles of aluminum is NOT a feature, it's a necessary evil, so even if that capacity has to be there for backup, we wouldn't be losing as much in transmission losses when solar was producing.

One thing that worries me is the potential for hail damage. Both our truck and our Tracker got seriously dinged by hail this spring. I can only imagine the damage done by hail storms to solar arrays.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

One technology not mentioned but may knock out photovoltaics is artificial photosynthesis. Efficient and China can screw themselves with their rare earths.

 

[Steeplerot]

One thing that worries me is the potential for hail damage. Both our truck and our Tracker got seriously dinged by hail this spring. I can only imagine the damage done by hail storms to solar arrays.

They flip for cleaning and storms. You can have this automated to face the sun too throughout the day if you want to make a few more bucks. (I used a old pool filter timer forever)

 

[Infohawk]

Once again, the old line of "its in the realm of the supernatural, you serfs COULDNT understand it."

Bullshit. You could of at least used the nuke industry apologist term "radiophobia" they use to distract from what they are pulling on us in plain sight.

It's the opposite of being in the supernatural. It's science.

I'm not saying the average person shouldn't participate in the discussion, but you have to at least get beyond black and white thinking which it doesn't seem like you've done. If you're going to say no to nuclear, you have to explain why you don't think the other current sources are going to cause the same or more harm.

 

[Steeplerot]

If you're going to say no to nuclear, you have to explain why you don't think the other current sources are going to cause the same or more harm.

No I don't. Why? Should I suggest who should take over Obama's office, how the chairs should be set, what is to be cooked at the formal dinner, every time I criticize the prez?

total nonsense.

Fallacies, attack the messenger, and act like people are too stupid to bother with the subject -so ignore it.

Anyone see the problem here? Oh well.

 

[Infohawk]

No I don't. Why? Should I suggest who should take over Obama's office, how the chairs should be set, what is to be cooked at the formal dinner, every time I criticize the prez?

http://files.sharenator.com/wtf_is_this_shit_Very_Disturbing_Childrens_Book-s400x297-59009.jpg

Fallacies, total weaksauce.

So basically you only want to have a superficial discussion where you label nuclear energy "bad."

 

[Steeplerot]

So basically you only want to have a superficial discussion where you label nuclear energy "bad."

If superficial if that is what you take from what I wrote in the thread -then that is on you and your comprehension. Or selective one rather.

 

[mect]

Solar power will never be as cheap as base load generation. It is too diffuse a source. Even in maximum optimal conditions, e.g. desert sun, no clouds, 16 hours per day, solar is still ~4x more expensive than nuclear.

I don't think this is true. It all depends on how cheap we can make the panels and how durable we can make them. If we can make panels that last 100 years maintaining 75% of their efficiency (definitely feasible, as there are no moving parts), that would cover it right there. Now take into consideration the move to thin film panels, and you've removed a lot of the material cost. Now imagine you can make inorganic thin film solar panels reel to reel printing the circuitry from solution precursors instead of using techniques like molecular beam epitaxy, and now you've just made it so that instead of multimillion dollar fabs, you've got a $20k ink jet printer. Now you manipulate the local solid structure to adapt the properties, so instead of using CIGS (copper indium gallium sulfide/selenide), you are instead using maybe a copper aluminum sulfide or some other derivative that due to the manipulated structure now has comparable electrical properties for 1/10th the cost. There is a lot of room for technology to make an impact in this field. I would never say something is impossible, there is just a lot left to do.

 

[DCal430]

After what has happen in japan, how can ANYONE say the nuclear energy is economically viable. The people of japan will be paying for decades to come.

 

[chucky2]

They flip for cleaning and storms. You can have this automated to face the sun too throughout the day if you want to make a few more bucks. (I used a old pool filter timer forever)

How do the solar panels know to flip at 3:28 PM when the storm cell blows in dropping golf or larger sized hail? They somehow do this automagically?

 

[Howard]

After what has happen in japan, how can ANYONE say the nuclear energy is economically viable. The people of japan will be paying for decades to come.

After what happened to the dinosaurs, how can ANYONE say the capacity for life on earth is there.

(many sic)

 

[Infohawk]

After what has happen in japan, how can ANYONE say the nuclear energy is economically viable. The people of japan will be paying for decades to come.

Economically viable compared to what? Do you know what the costs of coal plants are? Just because the harm seems out slowly doesn't mean it's not harmful. That's the real problem that nuclear has. Humans naturally overreact to acute events.

 

[DCal430]

Economically viable compared to what? Do you know what the costs of coal plants are? Just because the harm seems out slowly doesn't mean it's not harmful. That's the real problem that nuclear has. Humans naturally overreact to acute events.

They current estimated clean up cost is 250 billion dollars, do you know how many wind and solar plants that could have been built with that.

Imagine this happening every 15 years, that is the current estimate of how often it will happen.

 

[SparkyJJO]

They current estimated clean up cost is 250 billion dollars, do you know how many wind and solar plants that could have been built with that.

Imagine this happening every 15 years, that is the current estimate of how often it will happen.

Show me where Japan has the massive amounts of real estate necessary for solar and wind.

By the way, windmill farms kill flocks of birds. Little bit of a nasty side effect there.

I admittedly don't know a lot about it but I'm liking the sound of thorium reactors.

 

[Jaskalas]

Imagine this happening every 15 years

If that were true, and so far it has not been, then they'd quickly run out of locations to place reactors that are not already exclusion zones.

 

[mect]

They current estimated clean up cost is 250 billion dollars, do you know how many wind and solar plants that could have been built with that.

Imagine this happening every 15 years, that is the current estimate of how often it will happen.

Estimate from whom? Some blogger on the internet?

 

[bfdd]

What you call debunking, to me sounds more like your opinion on the matter and lacks factual traction.

We have lots and lots of spent uranium that can be used in thorium reactors and you don't even need uranium to keep the reaction going as there are alternate methods to do so. The real problem is that nobody has built a viable reactor of this type for use in electricity generation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium_fuel_cycle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor

You mean he's talking out his ass? I'm not saying tax dollars need to fund this completely or at all, but if you opened it up for someone to build one, when they figure it out they will. Same goes for solar, now if you want to push solar, then I want to push thorium reactors and I can say fuck your science just as much as you can say fuck mine.

After what happened to the dinosaurs, how can ANYONE say the capacity for life on earth is there.

(many sic)

btw straight lol'd

 

[Infohawk]

They current estimated clean up cost is 250 billion dollars, do you know how many wind and solar plants that could have been built with that.

Imagine this happening every 15 years, that is the current estimate of how often it will happen.

You're still ignoring the costs of other fuel sources. Your mind can't help but focus on a sensational tidal wave (while ignoring the fact that engineering improvements could make nuclear safer).

 

[chucky2]

We have tidal waves in the US?