DailyDirt: Towards Safer Nuclear Energy
from the urls-we-dig-up dept
Nuclear energy has the obvious drawbacks of dealing with its waste (potentially for hundreds of years) and getting political support. But on the other hand, nuclear power can be more convenient as a power source compared to alternatives like solar or wind. Newer nuclear power plant designs are supposedly much safer than any of the current commercial reactors in operation, but there's no operational history for power plants that haven't actually been built. Here are just a few links on building safer nuclear reactors.- Smaller, more efficient nuclear reactor designs promise to reduce nuclear waste significantly and become competitive with some fossil fuels for producing electricity at similar costs. However, the startup costs for a nuclear power plant are still much higher than power plants running on coal or natural gas. [url]
- Next generation nuclear reactors could be made from more radiation-tolerant metals that can withstand the effects of constant radiation. Nanotwinned metals retain their mechanical properties better than typical metals, but it might take some time to make these materials economical as building materials. [url]
- Thorium has been touted as a "wonder fuel" for next generation nuclear power, but it isn't as resistant to being used in weapons as some folks might believe. Nuclear energy experts point out that *just* 1.6 tons of thorium metal can be used to produce enough uranium-233 (about 8kg) for a viable bomb in less than a year. [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: energy, nanotwinned metal, nuclear, nuclear proliferation, nuclear reactor, nuclear waste, thorium, uranium-233, weapons
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Nuclear has different problems: proliferation (ironically the countries whining the loudest are the same with the most nuclear weapons), cost of fuel, which is relatively rare and needs further processing, waste disposal, accidents are more dangerous because of the radiation.
Thorium would be a step up in nuclear fuels. Unfortunately we have legacy players here too (processing uranium and handling waste is apparently profitable business) and ones who would lose influence and $$ if cheap electricity replaced oil, coal and gas.
The result is fearmongering and much handwaving.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
How safe is the spent fuel?
My folks helped develop U235 isolation, their hand isolated Uranium fissiles were the only ones ever detonated over a civilan population. It is my opinion that "safety" and "nuclear" pretty much don't co-exist.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: How safe is the spent fuel?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: How safe is the spent fuel?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Where to Put the Power Plants
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: How safe is the spent fuel?
The damaged cooling pond was damaged because of a major earthquake and tsunami, and as yet has not killed anyone.
The earthquake and tsunami killed tens of thousands, and the nuclear plant was not the only power plant to have issues. Almost a dozen were killed as a result of a hydro-dam breaking at the same time, and yet no-one's hitting on hydro-power, despite it being much more deadly (not just now, but in general).
I haven't done the maths you suggest, but I have worked in that field, developing some things at a different location that may be in use there now for this (I don't know how specific I'm allowed to go) and that's WHY people like me worked on the things we did.
Also, if your folks worked on the first two cores (and, I'd assume, the Demon Core?) you'd know just how NOT actually lethal it is until it reaches its criticality point.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Coal power stations
you don't need weapons grade nuclear material for power generation, or anything close to 'critical mass'.
as for cost, that equation will not last that long after the reserves of fossil fuels are depleted.
Thorium, there is enough in Australia alone to provide the worlds power requirements for the next 1000 years.
much more than the 100 years or so for fossil fuels.
It really is stupid to think fossil fuels are somehow better than nuclear power, a massive loss for our environment, and we are just starting to pay the impossible to fix cost of this stupidity.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: How safe is the spent fuel?
How many people do you know of that have been killed in the extraction of coal ?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: How safe is the spent fuel?
Or the pacific islands that are no longer habitable because in high tide the entire island is below sea level !!
not the mention the fossil fuelled wars and the thousands of lives that has taken.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Where to Put the Power Plants
BTW, guess where the only cases of uranium poisoning of residents in the last 10 years in the state of Georgia happened? 2 years ago, within 5 miles of the coal plant.
Of course, yes, this is a tea-party district (I don't live here by choice) being covered by both Austin Scott, and Paul Broun.
The real problem most people have with nuclear power though is one of ignorance, and I partly blame superheros. Hulk, invisible man, fantastic 4, Spiderman, Sam Beckett, Alex Mac, Dr Manhattan etc... They all give the idea that 'radiation does things and changes you', and so people get afraid, because they don't know the reality. And unfortunately, in this area, people cherish their ignorance (my landlord is PROUD of the fact he's 84, and has got through life with only a 4th grade education)
That's actually the wider problem now. People in the US think that education means elitism, and that it's somehow 'wrong'. At least, that's the impression in the south.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: How safe is the spent fuel?
How many did chernobyal kill ?? less than 100 directly, (the workers that went into the chamber just after the explosion). (probably more like less than 50 actually)..
The nuclear bogyman is really casper the friendly ghost.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
sorry if that does not fill me with terror !!!!
I actually find that quite amusing !!!!
whats this "less than a year business" ?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: How safe is the spent fuel?
Personally - none.
But there are plenty of people who have died from DU munitions that exist because of the search for fissionable U.
So does that get to count in this ****-waving contest?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: How safe is the spent fuel?
And the shortened lives don't count?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: How safe is the spent fuel?
Right after you talk to the Navajo people and the effects of the Uranium mining.
not the mention the fossil fuelled wars and the thousands of lives that has taken.
With many taken with Depleted Uranium rounds. Say, do the mutated children in the DU used towns get to talk about the heavy metal mutations of Uranium?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Coal power stations
*coff*
Fukushima
*coff*
Chernobyl
So ANY is wrong on its face.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Where to Put the Power Plants
I've heard that there are parts of the country that have this attitude, but it certainly isn't true across the whole nation. I only rarely see this where I live, and those that express this opinion are usually laughed at.
That's where I hear that this attitude exists. I would suggest living elsewhere.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
How safe...
I'd suggest doing the bit of math about the mass of SNF, it's an impressive number.
Fukushima is a glossy example of human failing: old cash cow power plants that have flawed designs like Fukishima's, where the diesel powered cooling systems failed and the core melted down, are run by humans with a profit motive. The US is relicensing most of its old plants, though some are simply closing because they are not profitable to maintain.
Good luck arguing that the molten cores, SNF, and primary coolant leaks are not a nuclear safety issue, however they happen.
Nuclear power is the poster child for hubris-from "Atoms for Peace" to "Megatons to Megawatts", we divert fissiles to make bombs to be 'safe', we divide the world into haves and have-nots (E.G: Israel, Iran), we tax ourselves to build HEU stockpiles that we then tax ourselves to downblend. Most of the Pu ever reprocessed remains on shelves, hoping no one steals it. The A.Q. Kahns of the world pretty much assure that the means and methods, once developed, will get around to your friends and enemies in time.
I've been to Uravan, and boated the Deloras River: Uranium mining in the US is a checkered mess. The Navajo miners' Radon and Uranium epidimiologies are well documented, and the regions scarce water resources are challenged by new mining plans. As mining goes, Uranium mining is dirtier than most.
No-one with a clue argues that coal is clean: coal combustion puts more radionuclides into the air than the nuclear industry - that coal has a radiation problem has no bearing on whether small nuclear reactors are a good idea.
As one who lives in the Appalachian coal fields, there is a parallel between the coal and nuclear energy industries: the revolving shell game of holdings and liabilities that coal companies employ (try following the ownership of the "Arch Minerals" familiy of businesses), and with the link between undercaptialization and pollution. Look up "L.D. Gorman" and the "2 acre exclusion" to see how small energy producers worked out in the Appalachian coal fields. Basically, post mining remediation never happened, the small operators just went bust. When small nuclear reactor operators go bust, it will be more expensive for the public to redress an underfunded nuclear cleanup than some 2 acre strip job. Given the paucity of strip mine "orphan land" reclamation, there is little to suggest that "orphan reactors" would get cleaned up readily either.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: How safe is the spent fuel?
Many dollars cancers and lives latter not to mention food chain contamination... Possibable mutant DNA ...
I have a theory that the politicians that propose these ideas have big egos lack scientific knowledge about these matters and dramatically discount the risks.
Planes cars trains boats are all supposed to be "safe" yet we accept accidents occurr....however accidents in any nuclear situation are clearly not acceptable...the only way to avoid a nuclear accident is not to not to construct future nuclear power industry....nothing is 100percent safe nuclear risks outway any future energy gains...plus results can last thousands of years!
[ link to this | view in thread ]