James Lovelock: Why are we so afraid of nuclear power?

Bigdog said:
That's good.

One of my concerns is that terrorists will try to steal nuclear materials for dirty bombs.

Don't SMRs come in a variety of different types of reactors?
Click to expand...



Here are a few more concerns for you- and everybody else, apart from those that wallow in maggot-shit.

Shortcomings and Downsides of SMRs
Significant drawbacks of SMRs are their high capital cost per Megawatt output and the risks that come with mass manufacturing them. Supporters of SMRs contend that their modular nature would allow them to be mass manufactured which would reduce overall capital requirements for construction. Although possible in theory, the reality is that there would need to be a standardized SMR design in order to realize savings through mass manufacturing, but there are currently dozens of designs. Traditional reactors are large because of economies of scale related to reactor construction and operation. [2] Currently, there is no reliable market for SMRs which creates a two-sided economic challenge to their implementation: without manufacturing facilities, SMRs cannot achieve the cost reductions that compensate for their poor economies of scale, and without cost reductions there will be no large number of orders to stimulate the investments needed to set up the initial supply chain. [4] Even if mass manufacturing is realized how proponents plan, SMRs would have to be manufactured for the price per kilowatt to be comparable to a traditional reactor. Each kilowatt hour of electricity produced by an SMR would cost anywhere from 15% to 70% more than the same amount coming from a traditional reactor. [5] For example, an 1100 megawatt plant would cost about 3 times more to construct as an 180 megawatt plant but would produce 6 times the amount of energy meaning that the capital costs per power output would be twice as much for smaller plants. [2] Recent experiences support the skepticism around mass manufacturing of SMRs; NuScale recently announced that their pilot project to construct 12 reactors would be delayed to 2030 and costs would rise from $4.2 billion to $6.1 billion. [1]

In addition, errors made in a mass manufacturing process could propagate through an entire fleet of reactors and lead to costly fixes and widespread safety issues. Designs for light water SMRs (Fig. 1), including NuScales, rely on pressurized water reactors which if not functioning properly can be very costly to fix. In the last decade, steam generators in similar systems have been needed to be replaced prematurely and led to the shut down of two nuclear plants in San Onofre, CA. [6]

Issues regarding long-lived radioactive waste and safety are also a concern with SMRs. Radioactive waste will continue to be generated by SMRs that operate with pressurized water reactors, yet there is still no solution for how to safely store such waste. In fact, SMRs based on light water designs will produce more waste per MWh of electricity produced and the United States government is already paying billions of dollars in fines for not fulfilling their waste disposal obligations. The United States has been searching for a permanent nuclear waste repository since the mid 1980s and much of the country's waste currently sits in cooling pools that potentially leave Americans at great risk of radioactive exposure. [7] In addition, NuScale claims that because SMRs produce less amounts of radioactive waste and can be sited underground, there does not need to be as tight security measures for SMRs. This type of claim from SMR proponents has led to sharp criticism from nuclear experts who believe that as long as terrorism threats exist, it is simply irresponsible to reduce security measures for nuclear reactors of any size. [2] Furthermore, proponents of SMRs like to claim that the natural circulation cooling in SMRs makes them inherently safe, but there are accident scenarios in which heat transfer conditions could be less than ideal or an error in the reactor design could occur. No design comes with zero safety risks or is 100% reliable and marketing SMRs as inherently safe is misleading. [2] Lastly, nuclear plants withdraw large amounts of water roughly 400 gallons of water are consumed per megawatt-hour of electricity generated which adds construction and operation costs to the plant as well. [8]
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Primavera said:
Yes they do, and they will all have that capability as well. Molten salt reactors are especially secure in that respect, as the fuel is bound up with the molten metal salts. There is a plug at the bottom which melts if the reactor overheats and everything goes directly into a drain sump where it solidifies.
Click to expand...

MSRs, like thorium, don't seem to be very common.

"Why don't we use molten salt reactors?
These problems remain relevant. Even today, no material can perform satisfactorily in the high-radiation, high-temperature, and corrosive environment inside a molten salt reactor.Jun 20, 2022

Molten salt reactors were trouble in the 1960s—and they remain trouble ...https://thebulletin.org › 2022/06 › molten-salt-reactors-we..."
 
Bigdog said:
MSRs, like thorium, don't seem to be very common.

"Why don't we use molten salt reactors?
These problems remain relevant. Even today, no material can perform satisfactorily in the high-radiation, high-temperature, and corrosive environment inside a molten salt reactor.Jun 20, 2022

Molten salt reactors were trouble in the 1960s—and they remain trouble ...https://thebulletin.org › 2022/06 › molten-salt-reactors-we..."
Click to expand...

The Bulletin seriously? You can't get anymore anti-nuclear than them

There were corrosion problems initially back in the 60s but all that was worked out long ago, there are many alloys that are suitable for the task.

https://nucleus.iaea.org/sites/fusi...shop Coolants/Presentations/6.07/Surenkov.pdf

Here is a fascinating article in Interesting Engineering, well worth reading.

https://interestingengineering.com/...could-lead-to-the-next-energy-production-boom

Thorcon is an American company that is working on a thorium based MSR, their first customer in Indonesia expects delivery in the mid 20s.

https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Empresarios-Agrupados-contracted-for-first-ThorCon
 
Last edited:
Primavera said:
The Bulletin seriously, you can't get anymore anti-nuclear than them

There were corrosion problems initially back in the 60s but all that was worked out long ago, there are many alloys that are suitable for the task.

https://nucleus.iaea.org/sites/fusi...shop Coolants/Presentations/6.07/Surenkov.pdf

Here is a fascinating article in Interesting Engineering, well worth reading.

https://interestingengineering.com/...could-lead-to-the-next-energy-production-boom

Thorcon is an American company that is working on a thorium based MSR, their first customer in Indonesia expects delivery in the mid 20s.

https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Empresarios-Agrupados-contracted-for-first-ThorCon
Click to expand...

I did not know that about thebulletin, thanks.

I only looked at the first link. The hot salt tanks are pretty cool.

I wish them luck in making those technologies commercially competitive someday.
 
"Why are we so afraid of nuclear power?"

Cuz nothing can make anyone visit lower michigan?

And then there's the whole liability in war time, issue....

How many complete and total fkups has humanity had with nuclear power so far?

Can you just imagine CA when the warheads finally start raining down?

Mmmmmmmmmm...... that feels nice actually. I vote for more CA nuclear power plants.
 
Because radical Leftists, like Moon for example, are not just anti-science, they are imbeciles incapable of even beginning to understand how nuclear power actually works.

There was a joke that went around in the engineering and science majors when I was in college. I can't find a sample of it online, but it was an integration (eg., calculus--something foreign and scary to liberal arts majors) that went as GPA went from 4.0 to 0 major went from engineering / science, to business, to liberal arts, to fine arts. That is, it implied that the stupid part of the campus was where the liberal arts and fine arts majors hung out.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Because radical Leftists, like Moon for example, are not just anti-science, they are imbeciles incapable of even beginning to understand how nuclear power actually works.
Click to expand...

Anti BAD SCIENCE, dumbass.

Climate Deniers are the same people who were pandemic deniers and peddle the lie that nuclear pollution is good for us.


Haw, haw..............................haw.
 
moon said:
Anti BAD SCIENCE, dumbass.
Climate Deniers are the same people who were pandemic deniers and peddle the lie that nuclear pollution is good for us.
Haw, haw..............................haw.
Click to expand...

There's a huge difference between "climate deniers" and people who are skeptical of the single-source theories that CO2 is the problem. This is particularly true as there is good, even excellent, science on the effects of methane, water vapor, aircraft contrails, etc., that people like you ignore out of political expediency wanting your preferred solutions regardless of science.

Whirligigs and sunshine cannot power the industrial world. It's that simple. It's scientific illiterates like you that cannot grasp reality and science.
 
There are many components, true- and it's dumbasses who REFUSE to change their lifestyles and alter the direction of ' progress ' that are threatening the rest of us. They are the enemy- and must be treated as such.
 
Biden's new IRA law will extend the lives of our remaining nuclear power plants, and incentivize building new nuclear power plants. trump talked about doing something, but did nothing... And proposed doing real damage to nuclear power. Biden has actually done some good.
 
Bigdog said:
MSRs, like thorium, don't seem to be very common.

"Why don't we use molten salt reactors?
These problems remain relevant. Even today, no material can perform satisfactorily in the high-radiation, high-temperature, and corrosive environment inside a molten salt reactor.Jun 20, 2022

Molten salt reactors were trouble in the 1960s—and they remain trouble ...https://thebulletin.org › 2022/06 › molten-salt-reactors-we..."
Click to expand...

So far, but that's changing here is but one example.

Thorizon raises funds for MSR development
23 August 2022

Thorizon of the Netherlands has raised EUR12.5 million (USD12.4 million) for the development of a thorium molten salt reactor (MSR). Thorizon is a spin-off from the Nuclear Research and Consultancy Group (NRG), the organisation that operates the High Flux Reactor in Petten.

Thorizon said the investors "are a strong team of private and public sector parties". The private investors are venture capital fund Positron Ventures (lead investor), impact investor Invest-NL, one private investor, and the company Huisman which not only invests but will also become an industrial supplier. The public sector investors are the two provincial funds PDENH (lead investor) and Impuls Zeeland.

The company said it has been working on a thorium molten salt reactor "for several years". Its design uses a mixture of existing long-lived waste and the abundant metal thorium, whereby "a large amount of the long-lived waste can be turned into short-lived waste and CO2-free energy".

The EUR12.5 million investment, it said, will fund essential tests and research to complete the design of a first prototype. Thorizon aims to construct a pilot reactor system before 2035.

For the development of this technology, Thorizon will collaborate closely with several parties, such as France's Orano and NRG, the Dutch producer of medical isotopes and operator of nuclear research infrastructure. Together with EPZ, operator of the Borssele nuclear power plant, Thorizon will investigate the possibility of building the first reactor on the plant site. A broader consortium of research institutions including TU Delft and DIFFER, component suppliers and industrial service providers are supporting this development.

"What started as a good idea several years ago has developed into a very promising reactor design, we are very happy with the confidence of our investors and partners," said Thorizon co-founder Lucas Pool.

MSRs use molten fluoride salts as primary coolant, at low pressure. They may operate with epithermal or fast neutron spectrums, and with a variety of fuels. Much of the interest today in reviving the MSR concept relates to using thorium (to breed fissile uranium-233), where an initial source of fissile material such as plutonium-239 needs to be provided. There are a number of different MSR design concepts, and a number of interesting challenges in the commercialisation of many, especially with thorium.

The salts concerned as primary coolant, mostly lithium-beryllium fluoride and lithium fluoride, remain liquid without pressurisation from about 500°C up to about 1400°C, in marked contrast to a pressurised water reactor which operates at about 315°C under 150 atmospheres pressure.

The main MSR concept is to have the fuel dissolved in the coolant as fuel salt, and ultimately to reprocess that online. Thorium, uranium, and plutonium all form suitable fluoride salts that readily dissolve in the LiF-BeF2 (FLiBe) mixture, and thorium and uranium can be easily separated from one another in fluoride form. Batch reprocessing is likely in the short term, and fuel life is quoted at 4-7 years, with high burn-up.

https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Thorizon-raises-funds-for-MSR-development
 
maggot;
"What started as a good idea several years ago has developed into a very promising reactor design, we are very happy with the confidence of our investors and partners," said Thorizon co-founder Lucas Pool.
Click to expand...


Haw, haw.......................................haw.

Every ' investor and partner ' hasn't agreed to take a share of the waste shit nor a share of the costs of environmental damage left by the LAST bunch of asshole ' investors and partners '
 
Last edited:
THE WORLD
NUCLEAR WASTE
REPORT 2019

With reactors across the world approaching the end of their lives, decommissioning and dismantling of nuclear power plants will become increasingly important. This process will produce even more radioactive waste. In absence of final disposal sites, most of the high-level waste and spent nuclear fuel must be stored for many decades, challenging the safety requirements for storage facilities and causing much higher costs than previously estimated.

https://worldnuclearwastereport.org/


Secret nuclear waste disposal sites revealed

The highly sensitive shortlist of 12 sites where the UK nuclear industry wanted to dispose of its dangerous radioactive waste has been unveiled after being kept a closely guarded state secret for more than 15 years.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7504-secret-nuclear-waste-disposal-sites-revealed/

NUCLEAR WASTE I: FINAL DISPOSAL SITE - THE OCEANS

The US demonstrated very early on how to quickly and cost-effectively dispose of nuclear waste: In 1946, the US put radioactive waste in 200-liter barrels and dumped them into the Pacific Ocean near the Farallon Islands, about 50 kilometers off the coast of California. As a result, the ocean became a nuclear waste dump. Decades later, the US government admitted to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that up until 1970, the country had disposed of 90,000 barrels at different locations in the Pacific and the North Atlantic.

https://www.nuclear-free.com/uraniu...r-waste-i-final-disposal-site-the-oceans.html
Click to expand...



Haw, haw..................................haw.
 
Primavera said:
So far, but that's changing here is but one example.


Thorizon of the Netherlands has raised EUR12.5 million (USD12.4 million) for the development of a thorium molten salt reactor (MSR). Much of the interest today in reviving the MSR concept relates to using thorium (to breed fissile uranium-233), where an initial source of fissile material such as plutonium-239 needs to be provided. There are a number of different MSR design concepts, and a number of interesting challenges in the commercialisation of many, especially with thorium.


https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Thorizon-raises-funds-for-MSR-development
Click to expand...

The Dutch, eh. I'm glad they are researching it. I assume a commercial plant will cost Billions?

Here's an article I'd like to hear your opinion on. Yes, it's anti nuke.



"Anti-nuclear campaigner Peter Karamoskos goes further, dismissing a 'dishonest fantasy' perpetuated by the pro-nuclear lobby.

Thorium cannot in itself power a reactor; unlike natural uranium, it does not contain enough fissile material to initiate a nuclear chain reaction. As a result it must first be bombarded with neutrons to produce the highly radioactive isotope uranium-233 – 'so these are really U-233 reactors,' says Karamoskos.

This isotope is more hazardous than the U-235 used in conventional reactors, he adds, because it produces U-232 as a side effect (half life: 160,000 years), on top of familiar fission by-products such as technetium-99 (half life: up to 300,000 years) and iodine-129 (half life: 15.7 million years).Add in actinides such as protactinium-231 (half life: 33,000 years) and it soon becomes apparent that thorium's superficial cleanliness will still depend on digging some pretty deep holes to bury the highly radioactive waste."

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...n itself power,233 reactors,' says Karamoskos.
 
Bigdog said:
The Dutch, eh. I'm glad they are researching it. I assume a commercial plant will cost Billions?

Here's an article I'd like to hear your opinion on. Yes, it's anti nuke.



"Anti-nuclear campaigner Peter Karamoskos goes further, dismissing a 'dishonest fantasy' perpetuated by the pro-nuclear lobby.

Thorium cannot in itself power a reactor; unlike natural uranium, it does not contain enough fissile material to initiate a nuclear chain reaction. As a result it must first be bombarded with neutrons to produce the highly radioactive isotope uranium-233 – 'so these are really U-233 reactors,' says Karamoskos.

This isotope is more hazardous than the U-235 used in conventional reactors, he adds, because it produces U-232 as a side effect (half life: 160,000 years), on top of familiar fission by-products such as technetium-99 (half life: up to 300,000 years) and iodine-129 (half life: 15.7 million years).Add in actinides such as protactinium-231 (half life: 33,000 years) and it soon becomes apparent that thorium's superficial cleanliness will still depend on digging some pretty deep holes to bury the highly radioactive waste."

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...n itself power,233 reactors,' says Karamoskos.
Click to expand...

Well first things first, the article is over 11 years old and it's the Guardian!

Thorium reactors like all others needs fissile material to get started. Thorium itself is a neutron poison and needs to be irradiated by neutrons, it is referred to as fertile rather than fissile like uranium or plutonium. The key advantage of thorium fuel is it allows breeding with slow neutrons, hence using far less fissile material than you'd need in a fast breeder reactor.

Thorium can in fact be used in many types of reactor, seven to be precise, not just MSRs. This article explains that in detail.

Reactors able to use thorium

https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/thorium.aspx
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top