If They Bet On Nuclear, Not Renewables, Germany & California Would Have 100% Clean Po

cancel2 2022

Canceled
If They Bet On Nuclear, Not Renewables, Germany & California Would Have 100% Clean Po

Had California and Germany invested $680 billion into new nuclear power plants instead of renewables like solar and wind farms, the two would already be generating 100% or more of their electricity from clean (low-emissions) energy sources, according to a new analysis by Environmental Progress.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michae...ld-already-have-100-clean-power/#26098db9e0d4
 
the thing with nuclear is that it only takes one disaster to sour everyone on it.

Also im still a bit freaked out that ISIS or something targeted a nuclear plant in belgium a couple of years back.
 
Had California and Germany invested $680 billion into new nuclear power plants instead of renewables like solar and wind farms, the two would already be generating 100% or more of their electricity from clean (low-emissions) energy sources, according to a new analysis by Environmental Progress.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michae...ld-already-have-100-clean-power/#26098db9e0d4
Brilliant idea Tom. Build nuclear plants on the most earthquake prone part of the country. What could possibly go wrong?
 
Brilliant idea Tom. Build nuclear plants on the most earthquake prone part of the country. What could possibly go wrong?

Right, so you think they would build them directly over an active fault? Did you know that the incidence of earthquakes in San Diego county is exceedingly low, probably not? I might also remind you that Fukushima survived the magnitude 9.0 earthquake comfortably, it was the subsequent 12 metre tsunami that killed the standby diesel generators. Third generation nuclear reactors like the AP1000 have totally passive control systems that shutdown automatically without any operator intervention or need for standby generators?

Do you know how many reactors China has and are building? As of August 2018, China has 43 nuclear reactors operating with a capacity of 40 GW and 14 under construction providing another 15 GW. Additional reactors are planned for an additional 36 GW capacity.

I don't suppose you've heard of the ThorCon project either, that wouldn't surprise me! They can be built completely underground and utilise no new technology.

Safe

ThorCon is a simple molten salt reactor. Unlike all current reactors, the fuel is in liquid form. If the reactor overheats for whatever reason, ThorCon will automatically shut itself down, drain the fuel from the primary loop, and passively handle the decay heat. There is no need for any operator intervention. In fact there is nothing the operators can do to prevent the drain and cooling. ThorCon is walkaway safe.

The ThorCon reactor is 30 m underground. ThorCon has three gas tight barriers between the fuelsalt and the atmosphere. Two of these barriers are more than 25 m underground. Unlike nearly all current reactors, ThorCon operates at near-ambient pressure. In the event of a primary loop rupture, there is no dispersal energy and no phase change. The spilled fuel merely flows to a drain tank where it is cooled. The most troublesome fission products, including strontium-90 and cesium-137, are chemically bound to the salt. They will end up in the drain tank as well.

No New Technology

ThorCon is all about NOW. ThorCon requires no new technology. ThorCon is a straightforward scale-up of the successful Molten Salt Reactor Experiment (MSRE). The MSRE is ThorCon’s pilot plant. There is no technical reason why a full-scale 250 MWe prototype cannot be operating within four years. The intention is to subject this prototype to all the failures and problems that the designers claim the plant can handle. This is the commercial aircraft model, not the Nuclear Regulatory Commission model. As soon as the prototype passes these tests, full-scale production can begin.

Rapidly Deployable

The entire ThorCon plant including the building is manufactured in blocks on a shipyard-like assembly line. These 150 to 500 ton, fully outfitted, pre-tested blocks are barged to the site. A 1 GWe ThorCon will require less than 200 blocks. Site work is limited to excavation and erecting the blocks. This produces order of magnitude improvements in productivity, quality control, and build time. ThorCon is much more than a power plant; it is a system for building power plants. A single large reactor yard can turn out one hundred 1 GWe ThorCons per year.

Fixable

No complex repairs are attempted on site. Everything in the nuclear island except the building itself is replaceable with little or no interruption in power output. Rather than attempt to build components that last 40 or more years in an extremely harsh environment with nil maintenance, ThorCon is designed to have all key parts regularly replaced. Every four years the entire primary loop is changed out, returned to a centralized recycling facility, decontaminated, disassembled, inspected, and refurbished. Incipient problems are caught before they can turn into casualties. Major upgrades can be introduced without significantly disrupting power generation. Such renewable plants can operate indefinitely; but, if a ThorCon is decommissioned, the process is little more than pulling out but not replacing all the replacable parts.

Cheaper than Coal

ThorCon requires less resources than a coal plant. Assuming efficient, evidence based regulation, ThorCon can produce reliable, carbon free, electricity at between 3 and 5 cents per kWh depending on scale.

homepage_20150208-1.jpg




http://thorconpower.com/
 
Last edited:
Could we dump all the used radioactive shit in England?

Jack, welcome back but stay off the crack!! Molten Salt Reactors can use nuclear waste as fuel, bet you didn't know that.

By using thorium as a catalyst, the reactor is able to burn nuclear waste from conventional reactors, meaning it could help to reduce the problem of radioactive waste storage.

“We take waste from existing nuclear power plants and we burn the transuranic elements of it, the longest-lasting part of the waste,” said Schönfeldt.

What’s more, while conventional nuclear reactors must operate at very high pressures, MSR reactors operate at just one bar atmospheric pressure, making them simpler to construct.

https://www.theengineer.co.uk/seaborg-technologies-molten-salt/
 
Thanks. And, no I didn't.
I've always been under the impression that Nuclear Reactors are only good for 30 or so years and then they are too radioactive for further use. And the radioactive material is dangerous for the next 10,000 years.

SMRs have many advantages, they can use spent fuel, can be built below grade, are constructed in factories and do not require large amounts of water as a coolant, so can be located in desert areas.

http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2015/ph240/tan2/
 
Calling nuclear reactors "clean" is either ignorant or treacherous.
You can call nuclear waste "clean" all you like.
But lethal waste that remains dangerous for 5,000 years may be worse than "dirty".

How much Plutonium do wind-turbines and photo-voltaic panels produce?

So what's your objection to solar panels? They're a prominent feature of the ISS. I haven't noticed a lot of protests up there about them.
 
Right, so you think they would build them directly over an active fault? Did you know that the incidence of earthquakes in San Diego county is exceedingly low, probably not? I might also remind you that Fukushima survived the magnitude 9.0 earthquake comfortably, it was the subsequent 12 metre tsunami that killed the standby diesel generators. Third generation nuclear reactors like the AP1000 have totally passive control systems that shutdown automatically without any operator intervention or need for standby generators?

Do you know how many reactors China has and are building? As of August 2018, China has 43 nuclear reactors operating with a capacity of 40 GW and 14 under construction providing another 15 GW. Additional reactors are planned for an additional 36 GW capacity.

I don't suppose you've heard of the ThorCon project either, that wouldn't surprise me! They can be built completely underground and utilise no new technology.






http://thorconpower.com/
Tom despite the considerable advances in safety in nuclear technology you’re still glossing over the considerable and very real health and safety risks still associated with nuclear technology, nor the security risks and you didn’t even address the huge problems of solid waste disposal of both HLW and LLW.

You’re bias against renewables is funny. Yes you have some legitimate criticisms but that’s an absurd reason to not develop these technologies and the notion your trying to present that nuclear is a perfectly safe, clean and cost affective alternative is also absurd.
 
Had California and Germany invested $680 billion into new nuclear power plants instead of renewables like solar and wind farms, the two would already be generating 100% or more of their electricity from clean (low-emissions) energy sources, according to a new analysis by Environmental Progress.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michae...ld-already-have-100-clean-power/#26098db9e0d4

No, they made the right bet on renewable energy. Germany produced so much energy that electricity prices dropped below zero, meaning customers were essentially paid to use electricity. And California is producing so much from solar their electrical grid literally can't handle it. The arguments about the efficacy of renewable energies are unfounded.

Meanwhile, it's still not safe to live anywhere near Fukishima or Chernobyl. :palm:
 
Tom despite the considerable advances in safety in nuclear technology you’re still glossing over the considerable and very real health and safety risks still associated with nuclear technology, nor the security risks and you didn’t even address the huge problems of solid waste disposal of both HLW and LLW.

You’re bias against renewables is funny. Yes you have some legitimate criticisms but that’s an absurd reason to not develop these technologies and the notion your trying to present that nuclear is a perfectly safe, clean and cost affective alternative is also absurd.

Alternative energy as it exists now exports a lot of its pollution to China. It isn't nearly as Green as portrayed. Not saying I oppose it, just that people need to be realistic. My primary complaint about it is that the government still focuses on maintaining the current tax the consumer and reward big power mentality instead of supporting and encouraging end-user generation. My city has a solar farm but is still very hostile to people wanting to install solar in their homes....and my city controls the utilities. Imagine that.
 
Tom despite the considerable advances in safety in nuclear technology you’re still glossing over the considerable and very real health and safety risks still associated with nuclear technology, nor the security risks and you didn’t even address the huge problems of solid waste disposal of both HLW and LLW.

You’re bias against renewables is funny. Yes you have some legitimate criticisms but that’s an absurd reason to not develop these technologies and the notion your trying to present that nuclear is a perfectly safe, clean and cost affective alternative is also absurd.

Holy shit, molten salt reactors can use spent fuel, how many times do you have to be told that? Anyway, China, India and Canada will move ahead developing SMR technologies. You're just being a dinosaur Mott, renewables are far too flakey doesn't the disaster of the Energiewende in Germany even cause you to think again? You might also tell me how a reactor buried 30 metres below grade cannot be totally safe. You're blinkered as far as I am concerned, fortunately people like Bill Gates totally disagree with you. Molten Salt technology is not even new, they had a working reactor at Oak Ridge in the 60s. Can you tell me why you are so set against reactors which can be built nearly anywhere, even deserts, far from population centres? Do you actually know what fully passive shutdown means, because you don't seem to understand the concept at all? You're like a first world war general attempting to use cavalry in WW2.
 
Last edited:
Holy shit, molten salt reactors can use spent fuel, how many times do you have to be told that? Anyway, China, India and Canada will move ahead developing SMR technologies. You're just being a dinosaur Mott, renewables are far too flakey doesn't the disaster of the Energiewende in Germany even cause you to think again? You might also tell me how a reactor buried 30 metres below grade cannot be totally safe. You're totally blinkered as far as I am concerned fortunately people like Bill Gates totally disagree with you. Molten Salt technology is not even new, they had a working reactor at Oak Ridge in the 60s. Can you tell me why you are so set against reactors which can be built nearly anywhere, even deserts far from population centres? Do you actually understand what fully passive shutdown means, because you don't seem to understand the concept at all? You're like a first world war general attempting to use cavalry in WW2.

I'll ask you some questions Mott, but I doubt you'll answer. Do you think a company with the prestige of Rolls Royce would be involved with unsafe technology? They have been building SMR reactors for submarines for many decades. Ever heard of one blowing up?

https://www.rolls-royce.com/innovation/smr.aspx#overview
 
Had California and Germany invested $680 billion into new nuclear power plants instead of renewables like solar and wind farms, the two would already be generating 100% or more of their electricity from clean (low-emissions) energy sources, according to a new analysis by Environmental Progress.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michae...ld-already-have-100-clean-power/#26098db9e0d4

giphy.gif
 
Back
Top