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

[Lightbringer]

I wonder if California decides to look toward the ocean instead of going nuclear.

 

[katzgar]

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

you process information poorly

 

[moon]

Energy firms demand billions from UK taxpayer for mini reactors

Ministers under pressure to fund new generation of small-scale nuclear power stations

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...d-billions-from-uk-taxpayer-for-mini-reactors

Poor maggot.

 

[cancel2 2022]

Poor maggot.

Yes good, some of that money being funnelled into useless wind turbines could be used to fund SMR technology instead.

 

[Althea]

Brilliant idea Tom. Build nuclear plants on the most earthquake prone part of the country. What could possibly go wrong?

Ask Japan

 

[Althea]

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



https://www.theengineer.co.uk/seaborg-technologies-molten-salt/

They still produce radioactive waste.

 

[cancel2 2022]

They still produce radioactive waste.

Oh boy, what truly baffles me is the info is all out there yet you still spout rubbish, why?

Conventional reactors use solid ceramic fuel rods containing enriched uranium. The fission of uranium in the fuel releases gases, such as xenon, which makes it necessary to remove and replace the fuel rods well before most of the actinides (elements that remain radioactive for thousands of years) such as uranium have fissioned. This is why nuclear waste is radioactive for a very long time.

However, the actinides that remain in the cracked fuel rods is still an excellent source of fuel for reactors. France, for example, recycles the waste instead of burying it so that these actinides can be placed in new fuel rods and used to make more electricity.

Because MSRs use liquid fuel, the release of gases simply bubbles up, typically to an off-gas unit in the coolant loop (not shown in figure) where it can be removed. Since the liquid fuel is unaffected by the releases of gas, the fuel can be left in the reactor until almost all the actinides are fissioned, leaving only elements that are radioactive for a relatively short time (300 years or less). The result is that MSRs have no long term issue with regard to nuclear waste.

Not only do MSRs not have a long term waste issue, they can be used to dispose of current stockpiles of nuclear waste by using those stockpiles as fuel. Even stockpiles of plutonium can be disposed of this way. In fact, conventional reactors typically use only 3-to-5% of the available energy in their fuel rods before the fuel rods must be replaced because of cracking. MSRs can use up most of the rest of the available fuel in these rods to make electricity.

Note: The reason that conventional reactors can’t use up all actinides in their fuel rods is a bit more complex than what is described above. The neutrons in conventional reactors only move fast enough to cause enriched uranium to fission. Fissioning most all of the actinides also requires much faster moving neutrons, which can be achieved in both MSRs and solid-fuel reactors, such as the GE Hitachi PRISM.

www.zmescience.com/ecology/what-is-molten-salt-reactor-424343/

 

[cancel2 2022]

Ask Japan

The Fukushima reactors were taken out by the 12 metre tsunami, which breached the wall surrounding the nuclear plant, not the earthquake!!

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Ask Japan

There is certainly a place for nuclear and developing the technology to be far safer than it currently is and that’s recognizing the tremendous advances in safety it has made.

It however not a a panacea and has extraordinary safety risks and incidents, though rare, are extraordinarily catastrophic.

 

[Althea]

The Fukushima reactors were taken out by the 12 metre tsunami, which breached the wall surrounding the nuclear plant, not the earthquake!!

OK. Baby steps. What caused the tsunami?

 

[cancel2 2022]

OK. Baby steps. What caused the tsunami?

Not interested in playing your stupid mindgames, the whole problem was the siting of the reactors on the Pacific side of Japan. If they had been sited on the Sea of Japan coastline there wouldn't have been any problems.

 

[cancel2 2022]

There is certainly a place for nuclear and developing the technology to be far safer than it currently is and that’s recognizing the tremendous advances in safety it has made.

It however not a a panacea and has extraordinary safety risks and incidents, though rare, are extraordinarily catastrophic.

What safety risks? MSR reactors are many orders of magnitude safer than conventional solid fuel rod reactors.

 

[cancel2 2022]

There is certainly a place for nuclear and developing the technology to be far safer than it currently is and that’s recognizing the tremendous advances in safety it has made.

It however not a a panacea and has extraordinary safety risks and incidents, though rare, are extraordinarily catastrophic.

Extraordinary!!

 

[sear]

Quote Originally Posted by Havana Moon View Post
Jack, welcome back but stay off the crack!! Molten Salt Reactors can use nuclear waste as fuel, bet you didn't know that.

https://www.theengineer.co.uk/seabor...s-molten-salt/

"They still produce radioactive waste." A #106

And there is no device known to Man that will alter or eliminate the half-life of decaying radioactive nuclear commercial power plant ambient waste.

MSR might help slow the per kW/Hr accumulation of ADDITIONAL radioactive waste. It doesn't address the abundant nuclear waste we already have, some of which will remain toxic for millennia.