Breakthrough in battery tech.

[FireJack]

The fact that the battery need "a lot more research" puts it into my "I'll probably never hear about this again" box.

 

I want to add the big problem with solar/wind is that it is not even close to covering all our (and growing) power need any time in the near future. Maybe in 50 years or something but we are going to have to have some other way of producing power in the mean time.

[AresKrieger]

Chernobyl was the largest tragedy to date and it was dealt with the worst. The only reason Chernobyl is still radioactive is because they could not contain the core, it fully melted down and is still splitting, that's why it will always be radioactive (by always I mean till the end of earth as we know it), however they are building a new sarcophagus for it which will stand for a couple hundred years and the surrounding area already almost decayed to habitable levels. 

You also have to realize that there is no reason to repopulate Chernobyl area even if it clears up pretty soon, Ukraine is not densely populated and Chernobyl was a nuclear reactor city, there is no reactor anymore, there is no need for that city. 

 

 

In other news Fukushima melted down too, but the reactor was newer and they dealt with it so much better. Fukushima exclusion zone will be repopulated pretty soon even though it was second worst incident since Chernobyl and it was caused by a massive natural disaster. It just goes to show how much better new technology is. 

 

I'm aware that Chernobyl was dealt with badly, I was trying to state that even with as bad of a situation as Chernobyl in the grand scheme of things nuclear power isn't as bad as people seem to think, while stating thorium based nuclear as an alternative if they didn't believe me, and yes they have made great improvements for sure, just look at France, isn't 75% of their power generated from nuclear plants, and to my knowledge they haven't had a major accident.

 

So yes I agree the tech has improved drastically, I'm just a proponent of thorium due to it's benefits such as shorter waste fuel lifespan, and thorium's higher abundance.

[ZetZet]

I'm aware that Chernobyl was dealt with badly, I was trying to state that even with as bad of a situation as Chernobyl in the grand scheme of things nuclear power isn't as bad as people seem to think, while stating thorium based nuclear as an alternative if they didn't believe me, and yes they have made great improvements for sure, just look at France, isn't 75% of their power generated from nuclear plants, and to my knowledge they haven't had a major accident.

 

So yes I agree the tech has improved drastically, I'm just a proponent of thorium due to it's benefits the main benefits such as shorter waste fuel lifespan, and thorium's higher abundance.

There is less Thorium than Uranium and Thorium reactors still need Uranium to work. Not to mention it's a whole new category you would need to research. 

 

 

We should stick with our current reactors and invest into reactors that run on nuclear waste instead. 

 

 

But there is no need for that at the moment. Running current reactors is safe and efficient enough. And like I said before, nuclear waste is really meh. It's blown way out of proportion. 

[AresKrieger]

There is less Thorium than Uranium and Thorium reactors still need Uranium to work. Not to mention it's a whole new category you would need to research. 

 

 

But there is no need for that at the moment. Running current reactors is safe and efficient enough. And like I said before, nuclear waste is really meh. It's blown way out of proportion. 

 

They are just U-235 reactors that need a catalyst to start, it's not that complicated (once you use it once you'll have uranium so you won't need more), as for how common it is well that depends on where we are talking, most places haven't estimated their thorium reserves, but in the US the ratio is 2 to 1 in favor of thorium, but based on official world wide estimates at this time you are currently right, however thorium in theory should be more abundant than uranium on average in nature so likely we just haven't found it and or bothered to measure the reserves.

[HalGameGuru]

-snip-

I think you have that reversed. Although there is a lot more of both than just what can be mass mined.

 

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/current-and-future-generation/thorium/

 

EDIT: Currently USABLE stores of Uranium are higher, and its easier to concentrate, but both have ample natural deposits and thousands of years worth dispersed through sea water and sands.

[ZetZet]

I think you have that reversed. Although there is a lot more of both than just what can be mass mined.

 

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/current-and-future-generation/thorium/

Okay, that's newer data. Still though, we have so much work put in Uranium reactors I see no real reason to turn towards thorium. Molten salt reactors can run on current nuclear waste too so why bother with Thorium. 

 

 

Molten salt reactors have other problems that need solving though. 

[DXMember]

Good. However these things always come 10 years later just because of the amount of research needed.

you mean the amount of oil companies that are buying these things out and closing them before production

[HalGameGuru]

Okay, that's newer data. Still though, we have so much work put in Uranium reactors I see no real reason to turn towards thorium. Molten salt reactors can run on current nuclear waste too so why bother with Thorium. 

 

 

Molten salt reactors have other problems that need solving though. 

The thing with Thorium is that its use in nuclear reactors turns it into a uranium analog to then be fissioned as normal Uranium is. Apparently an avenue for use of Thorium as a generator fuel with no atomic change has yet to be found. It is not fissile but fertile. It cannot react on its own, but if bombarded with neutrons some changes to uranium allowing fission to start and continually bombarding more of the thorium into its "protactinium-233" isotope allowing its use as a normal uranium type fuel.

[ZetZet]

you mean the amount of oil companies that are buying these things out and closing them before production

Not really. 

 

The thing with Thorium is that its use in nuclear reactors turns it into a uranium analog to then be fissioned as normal Uranium is. Apparently an avenue for use of Thorium as a generator fuel with no atomic change has yet to be found. It is not fissile but fertile. It cannot react on its own, but if bombarded with neutrons some changes to uranium allowing fission to start and continually bombarding more of the thorium into its "protactinium-233" isotope allowing its use as a normal uranium type fuel.

Yes, but molten salt reactors can run on nuclear waste we have lying around too so why bother with thorium at all? 

 

The problem isn't thorium or uranium, it's the molten salt reactor. 

[AresKrieger]

Yep and apparently we can do it all with solar

 

http://www.techinsider.io/map-shows-solar-panels-to-power-the-earth-2015-9

 

 

 

One problem power doesn't stay on power lines for very long and losses from long distance transport would make that next to impossible to actually implement in that manner, not to mention the issues of storage and variability associated with solar energy, on top of that solar panels don't last that long in the grand scheme of things (around 20 years and not peak efficiency over all 20 of those years), frankly we need to improve solar power methods before they will have the potential to be viable everywhere. And frankly without subsidies solar power is still not cost effective, I still think nuclear is our best alternative (whether thorium based or not)

[HalGameGuru]

 

Not really. 

 

Yes, but molten salt reactors can run on nuclear waste we have lying around too so why bother with thorium at all? 

 

The problem isn't thorium or uranium, it's the molten salt reactor. 

 

MSR isn't the only reactor type that can make use of Thorium. And specific uses of Thorium right now aren't an issue, we're sitting on enough fissile material in waste dumps and nuclear weapons to generate power for decades if not centuries, but Thorium is in massive enough quantities we could produce 100% of our power, many times what we use now, for tens of thousands of years, on top of the tens of thousands available from Uranium. Oil and Coal got us into the information age, Nuclear is what will get us out of it, and push us through the next 2 or 3 ages.

[ZetZet]

One problem power doesn't stay on power lines for very long and losses from long distance transport would make that next to impossible to actually implement in that manner, not to mention the issues of storage and variability associated with solar energy, on top of that solar panels don't last that long in the grand scheme of things (around 20 years and not peak efficiency over all 20 of those years), frankly we need to improve solar power methods before they will have the potential to be viable everywhere. And frankly without subsidies solar power is still not cost effective, I still think nuclear is our best alternative (whether thorium based or not)

Not to mention that map is ridiculous. Yes it looks like tiny squares, but those squares are hundreds of kilometers big. The one in the sahara desert is as big as my fucking country.

 

MSR isn't the only reactor type that can make use of Thorium. And specific uses of Thorium right now aren't an issue, we're sitting on enough fissile material in waste dumps and nuclear weapons to generate power for decades if not centuries, but Thorium is in massive enough quantities we could produce 100% of our power, many times what we use now, for tens of thousands of years, on top of the tens of thousands available from Uranium. Oil and Coal got us into the information age, Nuclear is what will get us out of it, and push us through the next 2 or 3 ages.

yes, we should definitely research thorium for now, but there is no rush to implement it like some people make it sound. 

[ALwin]

Good. However these things always come 10 years later just because of the amount of research needed.

 

Research into making it easier to mass produce, make it "profitable", make it economically feasible...

[Arty]

The topic of your "article" isn't news to my knowledge. If you truly want to say green, purchase a bicycle.

 

Just saying.

even greener 

would be to walk everywhere 

[HalGameGuru]

 

Not to mention that map is ridiculous. Yes it looks like tiny squares, but those squares are hundreds of kilometers big. The one in the sahara desert is as big as my fucking country.

 

yes, we should definitely research thorium for now, but there is no rush to implement it like some people make it sound. 

 

Implementation would help those nations who have ample supply of Thorium but lack much natural access to Uranium and wish to make domestic use of their resources for safe power generation. It's one of the reasons India is pushing Thorium so hard for their new Advanced high pressure Water reactors, they have massive deposits of Thorium in their Southern Provinces.

[ZetZet]

Research into making it easier to mass produce, make it "profitable", make it economically feasible...

Yup. All those things. Make equipment to mass produce, bring the costs down, investigate security concerns etc etc etc. 

 

Implementation would help those nations who have ample supply of Thorium but lack much natural access to Uranium and wish to make domestic use of their resources for safe power generation. It's one of the reasons India is pushing Thorium so hard for their new Advanced high pressure Water reactors, they have massive deposits of Thorium in their Southern Provinces.

Well, India definitely needs power, China too. 

[HalGameGuru]

even greener 

would be to walk everywhere 

Nah, then you're huffing and puffing everywhere, shoes, medicine, crutches when you invariably break an ankle. And now that they are building bicycles out of bamboo, bikes are going to be interesting for less densely populated urban areas and well contained communities.

[ManWithBeard1990]

Yep and apparently we can do it all with solar

 

http://www.techinsider.io/map-shows-solar-panels-to-power-the-earth-2015-9

I agree. Personally I'm all for nuclear powerplants because the infractructure to make it work is easier, since there is no need to store energy for the night, but from a power production perspective, it's entirely feasible with just solar.

[steini1904]

Yep and apparently we can do it all with solar

 

http://www.techinsider.io/map-shows-solar-panels-to-power-the-earth-2015-9

 

 

Well, lets put that into perspective.

 

I'm just going to use US numbers here.

 

In 2014 about 175,000 people were working in the solar industry (population about 319,000,000).

 

Lets scale that to the world population of about 7,390,000,000 people. That would be ~ 4,060,000 people working in the solar industry.

 

Let's say everyone of those was through amazing teamwork, skill and dedication capable of producing, transporting and installing 3m² of solar panels per day on average.

 

These people would need almost 112 years for filling the space, claimed by the article to produce enough energy in 2030, with solar panels.

 

Believing the claims on some green-energy-activist's sites, a solar panel can be expected to operate efficiently for 40 years. That means, only a bit more than about a third of the required area can stay operational at the same time.

 

.

 

Not trying to shame anyone, but the area claimed to be required for producing enough energy is ~65% of world's average country size. And there are countries massive in size like Russia, Antarctica, Canada, China and the US.