DailyDirt: The Future Of Nuclear Energy
from the urls-we-dig-up dept
The nuclear power industry is currently dominated by light-water reactor designs from the 1940-50s. These reactors use ordinary water (aka light water) as the fluid for transferring thermal energy to turbines that generate electricity, but there are other nuclear reactor designs that could be safer and produce less problematic radioactive waste. Fusion reactors aren't ready to generate any energy yet, but they're getting closer (just another 30 years, promise). If you're interested in atomic energy, check out the links below.- The National Ignition Facility (NIF) has achieved the breakthrough milestone of creating more energy from a fusion reaction than was used to start the reaction, but it's not quite the break-even point yet due to energy losses in the 192 lasers used to zap the hydrogen isotopes. Still, this is the closest that a fusion reactor of any design has ever come to the point of generating energy. [url]
- Alternative nuclear fission technologies may be getting a second chance as more people realize that nuclear energy is a viable option for replacing energy generated from fossil fuels. Molten salt reactors, fast reactors, high-temperature reactors, small modular reactors and other alternatives to conventional light-water reactors still have plenty of regulatory hurdles to overcome, but next generation nuclear power plants could become a significant source of energy in the coming decades. [url]
- France is well-known for its significant investments in nuclear energy and relying on nuclear power for about 75% of its energy needs. However, the French could be leaning away from nuclear energy and moving more towards solar and wind, possibly shifting some nuclear technology leadership to China and South Korea. [url]
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: atomic energy, breeder reactor, energy, fission, fusion, ignition, molten salt, nif, nuclear, reactor, renewable energy
Reader Comments
The First Word
“It's fission or global warming
I consider myself to be an environmentalist, and at one time I opposed nuclear power. But I'm now convinced that unless we develop 4th generation nukes, we will simply wind up burning more coal, oil and natural gas, with the disastrous result of global warming.Yes, I know all about wind and solar. I've even installed solar panels. You can get some intermittent power this way and it's better than nothing, but it's insufficient to power even a normal household let alone factories, railroads and the Internet. If we have to rely on wind/solar, get used to frequent brownouts, blackouts and economic collapse.
I don't necessary like nukes, but the 4th generation designs like the IFR (Integral Fast Reactor) go a long way to solving problems of safety and nuclear waste disposal. But it's hard to say that in public without immediately getting attacked by people who are too lazy to even google "IFR" to find out what it is.
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
$3 BILLION to fake fusion.
This NIF scam has cost THREE BILLION to this point, which is only enough to fake up results for continued funding -- that's the only reason for this press release. It's welfare for "physicists". It will never lead to practical fusion power. -- I doubt that anything will. Upwards of ten million degrees K is necessary. No known or conceived material could form a container; the only pontential way is magnetic confinement, having its own set of inherent problems. Even if fusion itself were practical, converting the literally star level temperature heat into electricity is an entire area not even yet begun.
Don't look for fusion power in your lifetime. Sixty years of "progress" has only gotten enough results to fool free-spending politicians.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: $3 BILLION to fake fusion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: $3 BILLION to fake fusion.
So $3Billion over 60 years (I guess that is what you are implying) is next to NOTHING.
BTW: look up continuous plasma fusion reactors.
BTW:2. Hydrogen does not have a solid state, even when cooled to almost absolute zero it forms a superfluid.
After that it forms a Boise-Einstein condensate.
It's sad that you think it is a form of 'welfare' to fund science! sad and untrue.
just keep in mind.
$10 billion A MONTH for one
$3 Billion for "Sixty years of "progress"".
Mankind 'discovered' fire, then went no further!!
here we are in 2013 and we are still digging up shit and putting a match to it for our primary source of energy.
Just like the cave man picking up wood, oh how we have progressed as a technological society.
I can imagine in 100 years, when there is no oil, gas or coal, and people looking back on our time and thing WTF were they thinking ??
And their answer to that question is NOTHING clearly.
But you can spend $10 BILLION PER MONTH to find a war in Iraq to help keep control of the shit you dig up and burn.
also consider the 'safety' of nuclear compared to other sources of energy such as coal. Even the worst nuclear accidents (Chernobyl) directly killed well less that 100 people. Coal industry kills probably that figure A MONTH world wide, probably far more.. probably over 1000.
There is simply no comparison, mining of coal and its application kills far more people A MONTH that nuclear has EVER KILLED in power generation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The prospect of having a central energy source run by the US government scares me though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's fission or global warming
Yes, I know all about wind and solar. I've even installed solar panels. You can get some intermittent power this way and it's better than nothing, but it's insufficient to power even a normal household let alone factories, railroads and the Internet. If we have to rely on wind/solar, get used to frequent brownouts, blackouts and economic collapse.
I don't necessary like nukes, but the 4th generation designs like the IFR (Integral Fast Reactor) go a long way to solving problems of safety and nuclear waste disposal. But it's hard to say that in public without immediately getting attacked by people who are too lazy to even google "IFR" to find out what it is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's fission or global warming
...depends on the house:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_building
I agree that factories and transportation are problems yet to be solved, but a 40% reduction of energy consumption could prevent many power plants from being necessary in the first place.
As for green alternatives (I don't consider nuclear green), there are plenty... have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power, which also states "As of 2011, the cost of PV [photovoltaic systems] has fallen well below that of nuclear power and is set to fall further."
IMHO, Concentrating Solar Power (CSP) and geothermal energy systems ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_energy ) are the most unknown while very promising alternative energy sources.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's fission or global warming
I'm all for solar and wind power, but I'm more then willing to leave that to those who know what they're doing and can spread the cost of the system across several thousand customers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It's fission or global warming
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's fission or global warming
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
LFTR/MSR
alvin weinberg and/or crew ran one back in the sixties at oak ridge for five years
check out gordon mcdowell's youtube channel and flibe energy
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXIdM7ABQ8b9FI495vbsHkA
http://flibe-energy.com/
re gards
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: LFTR/MSR
The real problem is the damn investors. Like with electric cars, investors can't make money on servicing the reactors, because of how easy and cheap they run. A damn shame!
Crowd-funding for MSRs!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: LFTR/MSR
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: LFTR/MSR
Iran should adjust their nuclear program based on the fact that it can't be weaponized (and demand "donations" from the loudest, biggest croakers: Israel, USA) and build the worlds first thorium reactor.
Now, if only they would read Techdirt XD
I sent a tweet to Javad Zarif, but I doubt it will do any good : ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
we've had these technologies for decades now, but scare-mongering by the media and political weakness has mothballed it, so france stole the technology and has been using it. again, good on them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Iran should adjust their nuclear program (and demand "donations" from the loudest critics, eg: Israel, USA) and build the worlds first thorium reactor.
Now, if only they would read Techdirt XD
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]