Japan is turning back on their nuclear reactors

[Blebekblebek]

Have been saying this for years, we have a massive desert unoccupied, why do we not have massive solar farms?!?!

the problem with solar power is the battery where those power need to be stored, because it's technically impossible to deliver constant output without it.

[sqwidee]

NO. We need more nuclear power. I want they entire world to be powered by either thorium or if we must uranium reactors. But maybe put them in a safer spot. Idk in a desert without tectonic activity or something.

 

Thorium pls let's go.

 

Solar and wind are nice thoughts but DAMN can you get a shitload of power using thorium.

 

the next generation nuclear reactions use molten salt instead of heavy water and would be much safer.

 

hell yeah

[TheMidnightNarwhal]

in a desert without tectonic activity or something.

 

Japan here buddy. They don't have much choice of deserts... 

[Doobeedoo]

I've heard back then that they're going to make entire new design of those nuclear plants since old ones were, well quite old and not safe.

[Zah]

The LFTR for a Thorium reactor doesn't work via water cooling. 

 

-snip-

 

Its incredibly safe and much more powerful than a Plutonium and Uranium reactor.  

Thorium isn't naturally fissionable though.  It's more expensive.  The problem is that it also creates nuclear waste, more than Uranium.

[TheUzu]

Shit load of wind farms, solar panels and a lot of energy storage would be an idea.

Thorium is decades away.

[Doughnutnator]

Thorium isn't naturally fissionable though. It's more expensive. The problem is that it also creates nuclear waste, more than Uranium.

It's more common than Uranium, also iirc it produces less waste than U. LFTR are a pretty solid option, less dangerous.

One thing though: They're not that useful on bombs or military stuff. Maybe that's why we don't see a lot about them.

Anyways take what I say with lots of salt, maybe i'm wrong, but i'm going to reasearch a bit.

[deviant88]

They should build fake island off shore on the west side of the mainland and move all nuclear power plants there, UAE keeps building fake islands for turism Japan should be able to do it for reactors.

[Colonel_Gerdauf]

This is an apparently unpopular opinion, but I hold the belief that nuclear energy should be phased out over other sources. Now before you start attacking me like barbarians, please hear me out on this. I understand that it is very cheap energy, with less than five cents per kilowatt-hour of operational cost per plant, but you guys need to understand it's limitations.

For example, I have been hearing over and over again that it produces very little radioactive waste for the power generated. While that is true, it does not do much to mitigate a key problem. Nuclear fuel has an operational lifespan of 9 to 12 months, and the nuclear waste, however small it is, will remain dangerously radioactive for at least a thousand years, as it is mostly high-level waste.

So one to a thousand year ratio is pretty massive, and you will end up stockpiling the amount of waste (unless you reuse it, but you can only do so much with that). And one thousand years on its own is a pretty massive amount of time to keep the spent fuel out of harms way.

To add to the stockpiling waste issue, I cannot stress this point enough that nuclear energy is NOT A RENEWABLE SOURCE. The nuclear reactors are powered by uranium and plutonium. Even if you switch to thorium, the supply of energy cells is finite, and you will run out of it soon enough.

[Prophet of Entropy]

Thorium isn't naturally fissionable though.  It's more expensive.  The problem is that it also creates nuclear waste, more than Uranium.

"thorium isn't naturally fissionable" true that's what makes it safer then uranium or PU reactors. no runaway reaction.

 

"Its more expensive"  if you factor then environment into things coal is more expensive then nuclear.

 

"it also creates nuclear waste, more then uranium"  depending on what type of reactor your using this could be true. (I'm not a nuclear engineer, but I don't think you are either) but current style uranium fuel rod reactors only use a tiny portion of the fuel in a rod, (0.5% of the uranium in a rod is consumed before its considered spent IIRC).

 

the problem with using current nuclear plants for power is they are all based on a tech line that was focused on creating something that exploded.  not on something that is safe. 

[ofr057]

Perfect conditions in Australia to lead the way with just about any power technology we want (including thorium) and for whatever reason we can't get the government to even talk about it. :angry:

yup, theres abbott talking about developing the north. Most of which involves coal mines and coal power.

[Prophet of Entropy]

. Even if you switch to thorium, the supply of energy cells is finite, and you will run out of it soon enough.

the current level of stockpiled thorium in LFTR reactors could power all of the current earths needs for 400 years.

 

we don't look for thorium atm, its a mining by product.

[Curufinwe_wins]

Wth is wrong with you people????

Not a single death has been attributed to the partial meltdown.... Not one.

100 people died trying to evacuate the area from a disaster that didn't kill anyone.

16000 people died in what was the second largest earthquake in recorded human history and you want to whine about something as utterly insignificant to human safety as this reactor.

Nuclear power even with "all accidents" thrown in is orders of magnitude safer than every single other form of energy we have. Not to mention that it releases lower radiation per KWH than all other forms of energy.

You know what would have happened if that was a fossil fuel plant instead of a nuclear plant (generating the same amount of energy)? It literally would have exploded. Killing many. Don't agree? Look up the Cosmo oil refinery fire, a fire then explosion that occured as a direct result of the earthquake and tsunami.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=peQ_AXfzNBw

Also sorry for the rage, but at some point in time people need to stfu and think about the actual cost of the alternatives we use.

[Curufinwe_wins]

This is an apparently unpopular opinion, but I hold the belief that nuclear energy should be phased out over other sources. Now before you start attacking me like barbarians, please hear me out on this. I understand that it is very cheap energy, with less than five cents per kilowatt-hour of operational cost per plant, but you guys need to understand it's limitations.

For example, I have been hearing over and over again that it produces very little radioactive waste for the power generated. While that is true, it does not do much to mitigate a key problem. Nuclear fuel has an operational lifespan of 9 to 12 months, and the nuclear waste, however small it is, will remain dangerously radioactive for at least a thousand years, as it is mostly high-level waste.

So one to a thousand year ratio is pretty massive, and you will end up stockpiling the amount of waste (unless you reuse it, but you can only do so much with that). And one thousand years on its own is a pretty massive amount of time to keep the spent fuel out of harms way.

To add to the stockpiling waste issue, I cannot stress this point enough that nuclear energy is NOT A RENEWABLE SOURCE. The nuclear reactors are powered by uranium and plutonium. Even if you switch to thorium, the supply of energy cells is finite, and you will run out of it soon enough.

Thorium is 3x more common in the earths crust than hydrocarbons while being 20 million times more energy dense....

Suppose you say worst case we have only 10 years of fossil fuels left in the world...

That means we have 600million years of thorium reserves at constant 100% nuclear consumption

We have plenty for orders of magnitude longer than humans will be using fission.

Also I am sorry to say that your assessment of waste is unequivocally wrong and very much forgetful of context.

But hey, I'be actually spent years studying and working with nuclear so my opinion is biased and my facts must be wrong.

[Slinkey]

Nuclear energy is the future!

[Photonic]

[Glenwing]

Not tech news, moved to OT.

[Curufinwe_wins]

Not tech news, moved to OT.

Nuclear energy isn't a technology?

[Glenwing]

Nuclear energy isn't a technology?

It's not computer technology.

[Curufinwe_wins]

It's not computer technology.

Fair enough, might be a good feedback idea to higher ups to clarify what should and shouldn't go in that forum (as far as what constitutes technology news).

[JAKEBAB]

the problem with solar power is the battery where those power need to be stored, because it's technically impossible to deliver constant output without it.

Yes but could they not do a government funded battery rebate or something for every home kinda like the tesla thing?

[Curufinwe_wins]

Yes but could they not do a government funded battery rebate or something for every home kinda like the tesla thing?

That isn't the only problem with solar and that would be so insanely expensive you have no idea. Also solar is just nuclear from a 90 million mile away source, not like we lose any efficiency with it being so far away right???

[Colonel_Gerdauf]

Thorium is 3x more common in the earths crust than hydrocarbons while being 20 million times more energy dense....

Suppose you say worst case we have only 10 years of fossil fuels left in the world...

That means we have 600million years of thorium reserves at constant 100% nuclear consumption

We have plenty for orders of magnitude longer than humans will be using fission.

Also I am sorry to say that your assessment of waste is unequivocally wrong and very much forgetful of context.

But hey, I'be actually spent years studying and working with nuclear so my opinion is biased and my facts must be wrong.

Ok then...

Instead of throwing around condescending remarks, can you elaborate on how and why my assessment is wrong and what context I missed?

I would be happy with having a constructive discussion as long as the other parties are also willing to do so.

[JAKEBAB]

That isn't the only problem with solar and that would be so insanely expensive you have no idea. Also solar is just nuclear from a 90 million mile away source, not like we lose any efficiency with it being so far away right???

Yes i know it would be expensive but the government is/was rolling out fiber to all of us and they have done solar panel rebates before also have done insulation bats rebates aswell, im guessing this would be more in the ball park of the fiber expense which is $40b give or take a few billion. Yea i know solar panels aren't the most efficient atm but still it's about setting up an infrastructure for the future, we both know one day solar panels will be a very viable option so why not invest now? Hell our government wants to enclose wind farms with massive sheds, so i don't think it would be too hard to persuade them to do this. Idk im not all that knowledgeable about this particular thing so excuse me if this is out of this world.

[Curufinwe_wins]

Ok then...

Instead of throwing around condescending remarks, can you elaborate on how and why my assessment is wrong and what context I missed?

I would be happy with having a constructive discussion as long as the other parties are also willing to do so.

Example. If 100% of your per capita US (which is the highest in the world) energy use (including industrial production) over your LIFETIME was generated from nuclear, the total radioactive waste would fit within a soda can... (this is assuming the shitty gen 2 reactors are in use which they won't be by the time you die etc) 

 

Now consider the volume (or mass) of pollution you create in a single DAY from fossil fuels. And that pollution doesn't magically disappear and treat itself. Just because you can not see it doesn't mean it isn't there, and unlike solid nuclear waste which can EASILY be stored and transported to facilities, air pollution is insanely difficult to treat.

 

INB4 someone says renewables:

 

http://www.nei.org/Issues-Policy/Protecting-the-Environment/Life-Cycle-Emissions-Analyses/Comparison-of-Lifecycle-Emissions-of-Selected-Ener

 

http://www.nei.org/Issues-Policy/Protecting-the-Environment/Life-Cycle-Emissions-Analyses

 

Think it's propaganda... Nuclear energy is 200,000,000x more energy dense than fossil fuels, OFC it generates less waste. BTW if it interests you the per annum per capita US energy use is ~313M Btu which is about .1 GWH which if you look at the first link, should really put into perspective just how much pollution you are actually making.

 

Also wind alone is 'cleaner' (by 6% or so), but wind has godawful land usage foot prints.

 

Let me clarify, nuclear waste is not a difficult problem technically. It is politically because irrational and truly WRONG impressions and fears of the scale. Hell, every single nuclear plant in the country is currently storing waste on site (with decades of operation resulting in total volumes less than weekly shipments of coal) and has such for decades.

 

People worry about the radiation from nuclear and its waste, but massively miss the big picture

 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/

 

Also I really feel I ought to point out that current reactors use only a small fraction of their enriched fuel, and that gen 4 (advanced reactor designs like breed-n-burn fast reactors, HTGR's etc) create around 3-10x less waste while particular continuous separation reactors (like LFTR etc) not only create up to 10000x less transuranium actinides (the 'high-level waste' you mentioned, which strictly speaking isn't the proper definition but I digress) but have overall waste streams that not only generate around 200-250x less waste, but that waste only 'requires' storage for around 100 years before it reaches radiation levels less than that of the original ore it was mined from.

 

 

And you might ask yourself, why am I only going after fossil fuels here... clearly renewables are the way to go. But renewables CANNOT peak on demand, they CANNOT provide baseload power (outside of hydro plants, but not surprisingly humans have actually harvested most of that available resource), the two single most important features in the energy grid. And batteries are inefficient (like you throw away 15% of the energy you put into it) and the CHEAPEST batteries in existence (lead-acid batteries like that in your car) cost around 120-300 (depending on type) dollars per KWH.

 

Now this doesn't seem like that big of a deal when you think how often they may be used... But suppose a battery costing 150 USD/KWH with 85% efficiency could drain 600 times before needing replacement (if you look of Depth of Discharge charts for lead acid batteries, you will find this is actually quite generous), what is the cost per KWH output of battery storage?

 

150.00/600= 29.4 cents per KWH output.

Add to that the nominal cost of the energy input (say using my home-states industrial rate of 12.0 c/KWH) 12.0/.85=14.1 c

 

Break even point of this battery is then 43.1 cents per KWH compared to the direct rate of 12.0 cents/KWH. Obviously not competitive.