[Lore]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Simon_R', 'A') Few Questions
How much nuclear fuel do we have currently (in years)
if we start to ramp up nuclear to replace FF ... how much
what if those pesky guys in the 3rd world want some of this .... how much

thanks

Simon

[Simon_R]

So According to the NEA, to have any meaningful reduction in CO2 emissions we need to take 10years and billions of dollars to build stations that can only have a life measured in years and those few years (call it 20) would be expensive (supply and demand).

Unless we can persuade the 3rd world to stay dark for us, doesn't seem a sound investment.

Makes you wonder why our president (france) tried so hard to stop those Iranians having nuclear power (tinfoil hat on !!)

[yellowcanoe]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Lore', ' ')Then there's breeder reactors which pose their own problems. They have major technical hurdles in that breeder reactors produce even more heat, and cannot be cooled by plain old water. Generally the cooling media preferred seems to be liquid sodium and since it catches fire on exposure to air you can imagine the nightmare that would happen if a nuclear accident were to occur as in Japan.

[ralfy]

Given a global capitalist economy and the use of money, one can only earn if more spend. The implication is that if most in poor countries spend less, then the middle class and the rich lose.

[Lore]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Simon_R', 'S')o According to the NEA, to have any meaningful reduction in CO2 emissions we need to take 10years and billions of dollars to build stations that can only have a life measured in years and those few years (call it 20) would be expensive (supply and demand).

Unless we can persuade the 3rd world to stay dark for us, doesn't seem a sound investment.

Makes you wonder why our president (france) tried so hard to stop those Iranians having nuclear power (tinfoil hat on !!)

[Tanada]

To put it succinctly, Horse Pucky.

We already have reactors designed to be at convertor level of efficiency. That means for every atom of Uranium or Plutonium they fission another atom of fuel is manufactured from a different isotope of Thorium or Uranium. To continue pretending that the 1965 designs that were only 0.65 convertors is modern technology is ridiculous in the extreme, that is like saying a 1965 Mustang is as good as automobile technology has ever gotten or will ever get.

We have plowed this ground about 100 times in the last 9 years, look up Uranium as a search term and you will get literally thousands of posts that include hundreds of links. Repeating miss-truths, half-truths and out right lies will not make them into truth.

1) modern reactor designs are extraordinarily fuel efficient compared to 1965
2) modern mining techniques are extraordinarily more efficient compared to 1965
3) nobody is building 1965 reactor designs or using 1965 mining technology any longer
4) spent fuel is a political issue, not a technology issue
5) reprocessing fuel is a political issue not a technology issue
6) fear mongering has delayed nuclear fission deployment in the USA for two generations and made GHG emission far worse

[KaiserJeep]

I agree on the above points Tanada made and I will add:

Nuclear Power does require a large capital investment some years before the plant goes online to produce power. It is unlikely that any country except the First World plus China, India, etc (i.e. the existing "nuclear club") will ever build one. Since the older designs produce Plutonium which is easily made into weapons, the nuclear club is not accepting any new members.....unless Vladimir Putin sells some in the Middle East.

That would be ...... very bad.

[Lore]

I agree too, why plow the same ole ground again about the issues which are meaningless in the light of the fact that we will do nothing to further any significant advancement in nuclear energy before its far too late. As I've said; private investment is just not there. It's not there, aside from the expense, but because every nuclear reactor, no matter what type, creates fission products, which are highly radioactive materials, some short-lived, some long-lived, to make energy. They all are complicated dangerous and expensive to manage no matter what the technology.

I'm talking about practical implementation in time to save our energy and environmental future. Nuclear power whether it's developing experimental breeder reactors or revisiting again alternative nuclear fuels such as thorium, which by the way is not a fissile material, you actually need either plutonium or enriched uranium to start it. does not get us to where we need to be in the time we need it to. It cannot and will not scale in time.

Whereas, wind, solar, geothermal, some bio, while more expensive, can be deployed right down to a private individual's needs. Not in ten years, but could be done today.

[careinke]

I think nuclear reactors (especially pebble reactors), are way better from an environmental standpoint than other alternatives . However, there is one big BUT.........collapse.

Personally, I am not sure humanity is going to be around for the next 100 years without a major collapse. Who safely decommissions these things in the event of a major collapse? Do you really think in say, a smallpox type event (like the Native American went through, with a 90% mortality rate, those of us left could safely power these things down?

Now put the same question to solar, or wind, or even coal. For those, it would be a non event. When they stop working no big deal, a nuke on the other hand not so much.

Not that I can change things, but in the end, sticks will probably be our main energy source. Sustainable, easy to produce through coppicing, and if burned right, will also sequester carbon.

[Plantagenet]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Lore', ' ')As I've said; private investment is just not there.

[Lore]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('careinke', 'I') think nuclear reactors (especially pebble reactors), are way better from an environmental standpoint than other alternatives . However, there is one big BUT.........collapse.

Personally, I am not sure humanity is going to be around for the next 100 years without a major collapse. Who safely decommissions these things in the event of a major collapse? Do you really think in say, a smallpox type event (like the Native American went through, with a 90% mortality rate, those of us left could safely power these things down?

Now put the same question to solar, or wind, or even coal. For those, it would be a non event. When they stop working no big deal, a nuke on the other hand not so much.

Not that I can change things, but in the end, sticks will probably be our main energy source. Sustainable, easy to produce through coppicing, and if burned right, will also sequester carbon.

[yellowcanoe]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Lore', ' ')

I'm talking about practical implementation in time to save our energy and environmental future. Nuclear power whether it's developing experimental breeder reactors or revisiting again alternative nuclear fuels such as thorium, which by the way is not a fissile material, you actually need either plutonium or enriched uranium to start it. does not get us to where we need to be in the time we need it to. It cannot and will not scale in time.

[Tanada]

Iran side topic was moved over to the nuclear Iran thread.
the-iran-the-nuclear-factor-thread-pt-2-merged-t63690-120.html

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Lore', 'G')ood point too. Here in Michigan we closed the Big Rock Point Nuclear Power Plant back in 1997 after a 35 year run. The first plant in Michigan and the fifth in the country. It was suppose to be decommissioned in the year 2000 but proved to be unprofitable and so was shut down early. Decommissioning costs totaled $390,000,000 and took two years.

[Lore]

I believe half a billion in today's dollars is talking real money?

The point again is that nuclear power is ultimately expensive and unpredictably dangerous. Big Rock may be dead and gone, but its radioactive waste will live on for many, many generations.

Then again, this is just arguing semantics since there are no resources financially, intellectually or physically to put a chain of nuclear power plants together in time to make an impact on a global, let alone a national scale.

[KaiserJeep]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Lore', 'I') believe half a billion in today's dollars is talking real money?

The point again is that nuclear power is ultimately expensive and unpredictably dangerous. Big Rock may be dead and gone, but its radioactive waste will live on for many, many generations.

Then again, this is just arguing semantics since there are no resources financially, intellectually or physically to put a chain of nuclear power plants together in time to make an impact on a global, let alone a national scale.

[Plantagenet]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Lore', '
')The point again is that nuclear power is ultimately expensive and unpredictably dangerous.

[Lore]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('KaiserJeep', '
')You just refuse to let go of your irrational prejudices, don't you?

[KaiserJeep]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Lore', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('KaiserJeep', '
')You just refuse to let go of your irrational prejudices, don't you?

[Scrub Puller]

Yair . . . KaiserJeep. You post seemingly with authority but one only has to go to Wiki to call you out on bullshit . . . not saying that Wiki is all that flash but I would trust information from there more than your illogical rants.

Would you care to justify this statement . . . . just how many of these modular PBNR's are up and running and where and how are the depleted pebbles stored.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Y')our point about modern reactors taking a long construction cycle and costing too much are not valid at all. Modern PBNR's (pebble bed nuclear reactors) are modular, standardized, and inherently safe. Even if abandoned, they can never experience a "China Syndrome" meltdown.

[Keith_McClary]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('KaiserJeep', 'Y')our point about modern reactors taking a long construction cycle and costing too much are not valid at all. Modern PBNR's (pebble bed nuclear reactors) are modular, standardized, and inherently safe. Even if abandoned, they can never experience a "China Syndrome" meltdown.