Obama Administration Takes Action on Climate Change--Big Time

[russ]

While I think that nuclear power is great, unless you put your plant on a fault line or near a tsunami prone area, the proven reserves of uranium don't make nuclear a long term viable solution based on current technology.

Side note: bolding your thoughts doesn't make sounds any less vacuous.

Get real, learn and get a life - your fault line garbage I can remember even from when I was a little kid - not a big deal

The tsunami - if it were not for the yes man culture of Japan we would have never heard of that. Kind of like the idiot Air Asiana pilots that seems to think they were getting paid to just sit in the cockpit.

There are plenty of reserves - read something other than the standard green blurbs.

[billvon]

Not true, half life from Thorium is 30 years.

The half life of thorium is 14 billion years.

Thorium isn't the issue anyway. Thorium reactors don't use thorium as a nuclear fuel, and if you built a reactor with thorium it would just sit there and do nothing. Thorium is, however, fertile - when you put it in _another_ reactor it will absorb neutrons and turn into uranium-233, which will fission and create energy (and more neutrons.) Most thorium reactors use a small startup reactor/addition (called a "seed") that starts the conversion process.

And U-233 isn't the issue either, since it is used up in the reaction. The issue is all the _other_ radioisotopes caused by the neutron bombardment that results from U-233 fission. For example, U-232 is created also and is one of the most dangerous radioisotopes out there since it's a gamma emitter. It has a half life of 70 years which means it is dangerous for centuries.

In addition, most thorium reactor designs use a molten core; molten thorium and uranium are used as the fuel and are circulated through a stationary moderator core. Thus the mass of waste that needs to be disposed of is large.

All that being said, thorium reactors generate fewer dangerous isotopes than LWR reactors do, although you end up with more waste total. So it's something of a wash. And given the availability of fuel it's a very good avenue to research.

Just keep the waste on site and when the reactor life ends in 30 to 50 years, just bury the waste under the new reactor built on top of it at the existing site. Easy Peasy.

We said that about LWR waste . . . . probably worth expending the effort to do the job right up front.

[SunEagle]

Well, with current technology (light water reactors) we can easily use MOX (reprocessed/blended fuel) and extend our fuel supplies a pretty long way. CANDU reactors can burn fuel that other plants can no longer use.

In the longer term, thorium reactors would give us almost unlimited power - but with additional problems with waste disposal and safety.

What about an LMFBR? Looks like Russia is investigating using that technology again.

[JCP]

Get real, learn and get a life - your fault line garbage I can remember even from when I was a little kid - not a big deal

The tsunami - if it were not for the yes man culture of Japan we would have never heard of that. Kind of like the idiot Air Asiana pilots that seems to think they were getting paid to just sit in the cockpit.

There are plenty of reserves - read something other than the standard green blurbs.

About you enlighten us with your knowledge and show us those sources of Uranium. Again, since you seem to lack basic reading skills, I like nuclear energy.

[billvon]

What about an LMFBR? Looks like Russia is investigating using that technology again.

Most LMFBR's are cooled by sodium So from a fuel cycle perspective they are great. From a safety perspective, not so much. There is no way even a minor leak of liquid sodium coolant ends well.

There are a large number of fuel cycles for reactors that are very attractive from a purely theoretical angle. The devil is always in the details - which is why current light water reactors (perhaps burning MOX as well as regular LEU) are our best choice from an economics/safety perspective now. A modern AP600 is about as safe as they come, and is the result of five decades of experimentation, design and sometimes (unfortunately) trial and error. As we research other fuel cycles we will gain experience with them as well, but as our experience has shown, even the most promising technology has unexpected 'gotchas' that can result pretty severe results.

[Ian S]

The half life of thorium is 14 billion years.

Thorium isn't the issue anyway. Thorium reactors don't use thorium as a nuclear fuel, and if you built a reactor with thorium it would just sit there and do nothing. Thorium is, however, fertile - when you put it in _another_ reactor it will absorb neutrons and turn into uranium-233, which will fission and create energy (and more neutrons.) Most thorium reactors use a small startup reactor/addition (called a "seed") that starts the conversion process.

And U-233 isn't the issue either, since it is used up in the reaction. The issue is all the _other_ radioisotopes caused by the neutron bombardment that results from U-233 fission. For example, U-232 is created also and is one of the most dangerous radioisotopes out there since it's a gamma emitter. It has a half life of 70 years which means it is dangerous for centuries.

In addition, most thorium reactor designs use a molten core; molten thorium and uranium are used as the fuel and are circulated through a stationary moderator core. Thus the mass of waste that needs to be disposed of is large.

All that being said, thorium reactors generate fewer dangerous isotopes than LWR reactors do, although you end up with more waste total. So it's something of a wash. And given the availability of fuel it's a very good avenue to research.



We said that about LWR waste . . . . probably worth expending the effort to do the job right up front.

But, but, but Sunking promised me a thorium reactor in my basement!!!

[Robert1234]

Interesting observation....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/greenpolitics/10965887/People-who-claim-to-worry-about-climate-change-use-more-electricity.html

[ChrisOlson]

I really don't think there's much of a problem finding fission material for reactors. The biggest problem is bombs and the US. The US think they control the rest of the world on who can have bombs and who can't, and therefore who can use nuclear power and who can't. If the nation is buddies with the US everything is cherry. If they're not buddies then the US tries to control what they do - even invading other countries under the guise of Weapons of Mass Destruction when no such thing even exists.

You've all been lied to - Big Time. And you continue to let your government get away with it. It is so bad today that the general public does not know where the lies end and the truth starts. When China finally kicks the US's a$$ and puts it back in its place, then we might finally get somewhere.

[billvon]

I really don't think there's much of a problem finding fission material for reactors. The biggest problem is bombs and the US.

The projections that I have seen that show that we have enough LWR fuel for the next 100 years or so assume that we USE those bombs. Plutonium fission bomb pits (and fission cores used in fusion primaries) have a shelf life of about 75-100 years (obviously the exact numbers aren't revealed to us) and many are approaching 50 years old. In addition old bomb cores are always becoming available as newer weapons replace them. Since they are generally highly enriched, a small amount of old bomb core goes a long way when making MOX fuel.

[ChrisOlson]

Well, what I'm saying is that the Nuclear Energy Institute provides a different viewpoint. They say:

Uranium is one of the world’s most abundant metals and can provide fuel for the world’s commercial nuclear plants for generations to come. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in 2010 jointly produced a report on uranium resources: "Uranium 2009: Resources, Production and Demand." It says that uranium resources are adequate to meet nuclear energy needs for at least the next 100 years at present consumption levels. More efficient fast reactors could extend that period to more than 2,500 years.

The big issue is who's got control of it. The US only has about 3% of the known uranium deposits on earth. Some of the US' less favorite people (like Russia and China) got way bigger reserves. So if it comes to a pi$$in' match, and it will, guess who loses? The US may have recently become the largest oil producer on earth. But the bully methods the US uses to try and push the little guys around aren't gonna work when it comes to full-scale nuclear power against Russia and China. They'll tell the US to go take a hike. I'm pretty sure, as it is, Putin kicks back with his feet in the air sipping on a vodka and has a good laugh at the leadership situation here.

[JCP]

The projections that I have seen that show that we have enough LWR fuel for the next 100 years or so assume that we USE those bombs. Plutonium fission bomb pits (and fission cores used in fusion primaries) have a shelf life of about 75-100 years (obviously the exact numbers aren't revealed to us) and many are approaching 50 years old. In addition old bomb cores are always becoming available as newer weapons replace them. Since they are generally highly enriched, a small amount of old bomb core goes a long way when making MOX fuel.

I've read somewhere 80 years, but that's only based on current proven reserves. And those reserves will likely go up as we do more exploration. Then again, if we build more nuclear power plants, the additional reserves may just keep pace with the additional requirements. What's the take from those that follow that stuff closely?

[ChrisOlson]

Then again, if we build more nuclear power plants, the additional reserves may just keep pace with the additional requirements. What's the take from those that follow that stuff closely?

The take in the US is that it is a failure. The technology continues to be controlled by and managed by the government - mostly because of weapons. And private industry can't operate that way. Forbes said back in 1985, quote:

The failure of the U.S. nuclear power program ranks as the largest managerial disaster in business history, a disaster on a monumental scale … only the blind, or the biased, can now think that the money has been well spent. It is a defeat for the U.S. consumer and for the competitiveness of U.S. industry, for the utilities that undertook the program and for the private enterprise system that made it possible........

The only way it will every work is to get the management problem - the government - out of it. But we all know that's never going to happen. There are no new reactors built here since 1974. All new projects have been cancelled, except for five that only in the proposal stage. Meanwhile, France produces 75% of their power from nuclear, China has 32 new reactors being built. South Korea, India, Russia all actively building new reactors.

None of this is going to change any time soon.

[Sunking]

I've read somewhere 80 years, but that's only based on current proven reserves. And those reserves will likely go up as we do more exploration. Then again, if we build more nuclear power plants, the additional reserves may just keep pace with the additional requirements. What's the take from those that follow that stuff closely?

The reserves numbers are a joke. The US has not looked for any in decades. Largest known reserves are in Canada and Australia.

Point is just like oil and coal. In the 70's the USA thought we had ran out of oil and low sulfur coal because we could buy it cheaper elsewhere and were not looking for it. Anyone remember the Traitor Jimmy Carter? Today we have the largest known reserves because we started looking for it again. Uranium is one of the worlds most abundant minerals which can be extracted from sea water. The USA quit looking for it because of the price dropped to $10/ton which made it uneconomical to mine and look for in the USA.

[Sunking]

Chris I agree with you on some of th epoints you bring up, but there are some countries who should not be allowed to have reactors. Iran and North Korea are two that come to mind.

[SunEagle]

But, but, but Sunking promised me a thorium reactor in my basement!!!

Don't forget you lead underwear.