Nucular Powaaaaah (git gud 'murica)

[archibaldcrane]

Thorium is great, but it's overhyped a bit simply because it's solving problems that are already acceptably managed (meltdown risk and proliferation) in existing GenIII designs. China isn't the only game in town for Thorium either, India is making a huge push for Thorium reactors as well.

[thetruepandagod]

Thorium is great, but it's overhyped a bit simply because it's solving problems that are already acceptably managed (meltdown risk and proliferation) in existing GenIII designs. China isn't the only game in town for Thorium either, India is making a huge push for Thorium reactors as well.

Am I mistaken in thinking that one of the benefits of thorium is that it can't be weaponized unlike current nuclear energy?

[archibaldcrane]

Right, that's what I meant by "proliferation". We've been using nuclear power with isotopes that could be weaponized for 60 years...and haven't had a real problem with it falling into the wrong hands.

"weaponized-risk-free nuclear power" is a solution in search of a problem.

[Churchill]

It does mean that you can leave a reactor in bum-fuck Africa and ol' jihadi can't do anything with it but keep the lights on when he's fucking goats.

[archibaldcrane]

Not exactly lol. http://phys.org/news/2012-12-thorium...nder-fuel.html

[archibaldcrane]

Although since so much of the resistance to nuclear energy is messaging, if enviros decide Thorium is "the safe kind of nuclear energy" then sure it's definitely the best way to go.

[Athas]

While I agree nuclear power is safer the many of it's opponents make it out to be, it still doesn't seem like the better option between other forms of green energy. Wind, solar etc are cheaper and only getting more so and more efficient besides, nuclear material isn't overly expensive I grant you, but plants are costly and time consuming to build and there's all the associated costs of security and risks of cyber attacks as well. Seems to me we ought to be pushing new technologies further and exploring new ones - geothermal say - instead.

[archibaldcrane]

Intermittent power generation (solar/wind) cannot provide the backbone for a national power grid without massive, as-of-yet imaginary, energy storage - which further compounds the cost of these types of generation.

Nuclear, hydro (where available - common), and geothermal (where available - sparse) are the types of carbon-free generation capable of providing baseload power.

Your assertion that solar and wind are "more efficient" - what do you mean by that?

[Tarage]

While I agree nuclear power is safer the many of it's opponents make it out to be, it still doesn't seem like the better option between other forms of green energy. Wind, solar etc are cheaper and only getting more so and more efficient besides, nuclear material isn't overly expensive I grant you, but plants are costly and time consuming to build and there's all the associated costs of security and risks of cyber attacks as well. Seems to me we ought to be pushing new technologies further and exploring new ones - geothermal say - instead.

When was the last time a Nuclear Power Plant started killing humanity?

Spoiler: show

[Rooney]

As someone who works with the electric grid, archi is absolutely right. There is so little storage capacity as to be completely negligible. Any power source that doesn't produce 24/7/365 is simply not viable as a main power source until that is changed.

[BerenTebogo]

Correct. People proposing we invest in "green energy" at the expense of all other endeavors don't have a fucking clue.

It is decades off. Decades where we still will have a growing demand for power. Decades before it is even viable as a legitimate option, not as a replacement.

Need to do that homework, not just drink the kool-aid from headlines you see posted on facebook.

[Churchill]

I typed a long response, but basically:

It would be easier to just buy Uranium and run it through centrifuges, all of which can be pretty easily done, than to try to siphon the Pa-233 from an MSR.

What would basically happen is that the reactor would become inefficient, require more fuel, generate less/more power, etc, all things that are easily noticeable to any oversight or inspection.

If you run Uranium through centrifuges, you don't have to worry about whether or not you managed to not fuck up getting the Pa-233 at the right time. Then you just have to do all your maths, create your device, and watch the fireworks.

If you go Pa-233->U-233, and I'm shooting from the hip, but you need 99.x% purity for U-233 to be relevant for a bomb. The good news is, if you let any of it turn into U-232, you and your jihadi bros in the basement are basically dead.

[archibaldcrane]

Correct. People proposing we invest in "green energy" at the expense of all other endeavors don't have a fucking clue.

This is pretty much what all western governments and NGOs are resorting to regarding the developing world - it's pretty sick.

Hey, you earn a dollar a day? Well, I'm sure you'd like to transition out of poverty with manufacturing, but that requires grid power! Here, have a solar lantern that you can charge a cellphone with, that will make your subsistence poverty 10% more tolerable!

[Waraji]

Wish we would have kept innovating with nuclear some 40 years ago before the fucking racket that is the Nuclear Regulatory Commission started knocking down new future designs. At least that's what I understood happened way back when. Doesn't Oak Ridge have like experimental reactors that never got funded because of those assholes holding a monopoly on Uranium?

[archibaldcrane]

The US has 4 of these GenIII+ beauties going up by 2020: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AP1000#United_States - 2 in Georgia, 2 in South Carolina

But that's about it for new nuclear plans. Watts-Bar in Tennessee just finally finished their 2nd reactor, 40 years in the making (seriously) that is about to come online, but it's an old Gen II design.

Unfortunately there is roughly a dozen plants that are likely to be decomissioned early, just like the Vermont Yankee plant that Bernie helped kill was, and the San Onofre plant in California that got shut down a few years ago. Activists are trying to Fukushima-scare the Diablo Canyon plant (California's lone remaining nuclear plant) into early closure because it's near the ocean and OMG TSUNAMI, but the fact that it's 250 feet above sea levels where a tsunami could reach 90 feet tops doesn't seem to deter them.

[zoobernut]

The US has 4 of these GenIII+ beauties going up by 2020: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AP1000#United_States - 2 in Georgia, 2 in South Carolina

But that's about it for new nuclear plans. Watts-Bar in Tennessee just finally finished their 2nd reactor, 40 years in the making (seriously) that is about to come online, but it's an old Gen II design.

Unfortunately there is roughly a dozen plants that are likely to be decomissioned early, just like the Vermont Yankee plant that Bernie helped kill was, and the San Onofre plant in California that got shut down a few years ago. Activists are trying to Fukushima-scare the Diablo Canyon plant (California's lone remaining nuclear plant) into early closure because it's near the ocean and OMG TSUNAMI, but the fact that it's 250 feet above sea levels where a tsunami could reach 90 feet tops doesn't seem to deter them.

There were all sorts of safety issues with the Diablo plant based on how it was built that make it a relatively unsafe plant compared to other plants. They might have solved most of those issues by now but fears about the Diablo plant were not completely unfounded and most of them had nothing to do with tsunami dangers.

[archibaldcrane]

There very well may be legitimate concerns about Diablo Canyon, but noone currently trying to get it closed can make it two sentences without saying the word Fukushima and it's gross.

[Athas]

Intermittent power generation (solar/wind) cannot provide the backbone for a national power grid without massive, as-of-yet imaginary, energy storage - which further compounds the cost of these types of generation.

Nuclear, hydro (where available - common), and geothermal (where available - sparse) are the types of carbon-free generation capable of providing baseload power.

Your assertion that solar and wind are "more efficient" - what do you mean by that?

I meant that solar and wind energy are continuing to become more efficient, not in relation to nuclear. And I didn't mean to assert that wind and solar alone could provide all or most of the nations power demands, at least not at present.

But that they are cheap and quick to build and generally provide power during peak consumption hours makes them easy to slot into our power infrastructure. They can be used when it's practical but the main thrust of my argument is that I believe we ought to invest more in discovering and implementing new technologies and that nuclear power's drawbacks (again safety not among them) make them a sub-optimal choice to take up a large share of our energy grid in my view.

[Churchill]

What are Nuclear's drawbacks, with safety not being among them

[zoobernut]

There very well may be legitimate concerns about Diablo Canyon, but noone currently trying to get it closed can make it two sentences without saying the word Fukushima and it's gross.

Good point. I am so tired of the Fukeshima fear mongering.