To Nuke or Not To Nuke (Generators)

[Kirkhill]

Is nuclear energy green or not? Federal government sending conflicting messages, critics say

At the same time the government invests in small modular nuclear reactor projects, its new planned green bond program specifically prohibits investments in…

nationalpost.com

Talking about a 5 MW package that is about the size of a typical gas fired package boiler for a small factory. It is also the size of a typical windmill.

I prefer the Nuke.

 

[Gunnar]

I’m kinda anti-nuke. It creates toxic waste we can’t get rid of, which lasts (as far as human life is concerned), forever. At least with organic pollutants, there is a hope that the environment might adjust/absorb or dilute it. Not so much with nuclear waste.

Not waving the signs or screaming at politicians about it, I just think it’s a bad idea overall. Can’t say I’ve made much of a study of the alternatives or even a cost/benefit analysis...but not really a nuke fan.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

I am a big fan of the SMNR.

We should have been building these like, yesterday.

 

[Good2Golf]

SMRs are a significant part of the future. Permanent storage of low-dose waste is a stable, known situation deep down in the Canadian Shield…$0.02.

 

[Kat Stevens]

All that hydrogen just floating around out there doing nothing....

 

[brihard]

Within the next 25 years we’ll probably have viable nuclear fusion electricity generation. That will be a paradigm shift in how energy is produced, stored, and used.

 

[GR66]

Within the next 25 years we’ll probably have viable nuclear fusion electricity generation. That will be a paradigm shift in how energy is produced, stored, and used.

Newspaper headline in the year 2050:

"Within the next 25 years we’ll probably have viable nuclear fusion electricity generation."

Don't get me wrong, I'm in favour of continuing research into fusion power technology because of the promise of virtually unlimited clean energy, but we've been promised that it's 25 years out ever since it was theorized. Nuclear fission is probably the only solution available right now to provide carbon-free electricity in the quantity required to maintain our modern lifestyle that can be put in place quickly enough to limit the impacts of climate change.

 

[PuckChaser]

Nuclear energy is something we can do right now to remove coal as a power source. SMRs shortly after to phase out solar and wind projects that just create landfill junk. It will tide us over until Fusion problem can be solved. Thorium reactors could even help solve some of the fissionable waste issues for less politically stable countries, but they're not commercially viable yet.

It's a shame that all the folks beating the climate emergency drum are so singularly focused on failed solar and wind tech that they cannot see the solution is nuclear energy right in front of them.

 

[OldSolduer]

Nuclear energy is something we can do right now to remove coal as a power source. SMRs shortly after to phase out solar and wind projects that just create landfill junk. It will tide us over until Fusion problem can be solved. Thorium reactors could even help solve some of the fissionable waste issues for less politically stable countries, but they're not commercially viable yet.

It's a shame that all the folks beating the climate emergency drum are so singularly focused on failed solar and wind tech that they cannot see the solution is nuclear energy right in front of them.

Something about the forest and the trees?

 

[suffolkowner]

I like nuclear reactors on submarines. There record as electricity generators is a little spotty from a financial standpoint. The waste problem can be dealt with at least partially by reusing it at the cost of increased radiation. There's no electricity generation that doesn't result in environmental degredation of some sort. With nuclear you have the waste, the mining of the uranium, the concrete in the construction. With hydro you have the concrete in the construction, the flooding, and the disruption/blocking of the rivers. They are not easy cut and dried calculations to make. For 60 years I've been hearing about cold fusion and small modular reactors. I won't hold my breath. The one working fusion reactor we know of close by the sun works at 1.5 Billion C

edit i think its actually 15 million C

 

[Good2Golf]

Newspaper headline in the year 2050:

"Within the next 25 years we’ll probably have viable nuclear fusion electricity generation."

Don't get me wrong, I'm in favour of continuing research into fusion power technology because of the promise of virtually unlimited clean energy, but we've been promised that it's 25 years out ever since it was theorized. Nuclear fission is probably the only solution available right now to provide carbon-free electricity in the quantity required to maintain our modern lifestyle that can be put in place quickly enough to limit the impacts of climate change.

Tokamaks are definitely grinding their way towards QE(scientific/engineering/economic) = 1/5/?, but Inertial Confinement Fusion has been a dark horse that may very well sneak past Tokamaks to commercialize first. ICF currently holds the record (heat) energy return, and while Tokamaks theoretically have an edge using full-on tritium fuel because of the charge advantage of magnetic containment, the lasers may keep the practical advantage when using hydrogen/deuterium as the principal fuel that emits the uncharged neutrons to add to the net energy output. Keep an eye out for the Lawrence Livermore team at the National Ignition Facility to see if they keep growing the energy gains as consistently as they have recently.

 

[brihard]

Newspaper headline in the year 2050:

"Within the next 25 years we’ll probably have viable nuclear fusion electricity generation."

Don't get me wrong, I'm in favour of continuing research into fusion power technology because of the promise of virtually unlimited clean energy, but we've been promised that it's 25 years out ever since it was theorized. Nuclear fission is probably the only solution available right now to provide carbon-free electricity in the quantity required to maintain our modern lifestyle that can be put in place quickly enough to limit the impacts of climate change.

Nuclear energy is something we can do right now to remove coal as a power source. SMRs shortly after to phase out solar and wind projects that just create landfill junk. It will tide us over until Fusion problem can be solved. Thorium reactors could even help solve some of the fissionable waste issues for less politically stable countries, but they're not commercially viable yet.

It's a shame that all the folks beating the climate emergency drum are so singularly focused on failed solar and wind tech that they cannot see the solution is nuclear energy right in front of them.

Oh, just to be clear I have no issue with more fission reactors now. The reactors available now ain’t your grampa’s BWRs. There are much safer designs and cleaner fuel cycles available, and I’m good with putting those in play now.

 

[Brad Sallows]

It creates toxic waste we can’t get rid of, which lasts (as far as human life is concerned), forever.

What it does is modify and concentrate a "waste" which already exists in nature. It's easy to store. The ratio of deaths due to carbon emissions versus deaths due to nuclear waste is extraordinarily large.

 

[suffolkowner]

I always though we could take the ceramic or glass nuclear waste and bury it in a subduction zone?

 

[Kirkhill]

I like nuclear reactors on submarines. There record as electricity generators is a little spotty from a financial standpoint. The waste problem can be dealt with at least partially by reusing it at the cost of increased radiation. There's no electricity generation that doesn't result in environmental degredation of some sort. With nuclear you have the waste, the mining of the uranium, the concrete in the construction. With hydro you have the concrete in the construction, the flooding, and the disruption/blocking of the rivers. They are not easy cut and dried calculations to make. For 60 years I've been hearing about cold fusion and small modular reactors. I won't hold my breath. The one working fusion reactor we know of close by the sun works at 1.5 Billion C

edit i think its actually 15 million C

A 5 MW reactor, such as that discussed in the article would power a Walrus class submarine (4 MW)

Type	Diesel-electric attack submarine
Displacement	2,350 t surfaced, 2,650 t submerged, 1,900 t standard
Length	67.73 m (222.2 ft)
Beam	8.4 m (28 ft)
Draft	6.6 m (22 ft)
Propulsion	3 diesels, diesel-electric, 5,430 shp (4 MW), 1 shaft, 5 blades
Speed	13 knots (24 km/h) surfaced, 20 knots (37 km/h) submerged
Range	18,500 km (10,000 nmi) at 9 kn (17 km/h)
Test depth	>300 m (980 ft)
Complement	50 to 55
Sensors and processing systems	Surface Search Radar: Signaal/Racal ZW 07 Sonar Systems: Thomson Sintra TSM 2272 Eledone Octopus GEC Avionics Type 2026 towed array Thomson Sintra DUUX 5 passive ranging and intercept
Armament	4 × 21-inch (533 mm) torpedo tubes (20 × Honeywell Mk 48 or Honeywell NT 37 torpedoes mines, UGM-84 Harpoon SSM)

 

[Kirkhill]

I always though we could take the ceramic or glass nuclear waste and bury it in a subduction zone?

Or find a natural radiation hot spot and bury it there.

 

[Brad Sallows]

The waste isn't ceramic or glass. That sounds like an idea Jerry Pournelle used to mention every once in a while - encase waste in an inert substance and store it. But don't store it where you can't get at it. "Waste" just means "we haven't a use for this/we produce more than we need right now". That can change.

 

[suffolkowner]

As I understand it pretty much every plan in the world is to mix the spent fuel with a glass or ceramic mixture encased in a stainless steel or titanium canister and bury it underground somewhere

 

[Kat Stevens]

The waste isn't ceramic or glass. That sounds like an idea Jerry Pournelle used to mention every once in a while - encase waste in an inert substance and store it. But don't store it where you can't get at it. "Waste" just means "we haven't a use for this/we produce more than we need right now". That can change.

Nah, we can just throw it in a volcano to appease Pele (the Polynesian volcano goddess, not the Brazilian football god). that way the Pacific Rim won't fall in the ocean and Mr Obama's beach hut is safe. That's just science is what that is. I know, before the "weeeell, Technicaleeee..." brigade shows up, his house is on the East Coast but that wouldn't have been as funny.

 

[brihard]

The waste isn't ceramic or glass. That sounds like an idea Jerry Pournelle used to mention every once in a while - encase waste in an inert substance and store it.

Why is Shared Services Canada suddenly breathing heavily?