Slashdot Mirror


Nobody Builds Reactors For Fun Anymore

stox tips an article from Nobel Week Dialogue about the biggest problem of the nuclear power industry: it's not fun anymore. The author, Ashutosh Jogalekar, expands upon this quote from Freeman Dyson: "The fundamental problem of the nuclear industry is not reactor safety, not waste disposal, not the dangers of nuclear proliferation, real though all these problems are. The fundamental problem of the industry is that nobody any longer has any fun building reactors. Sometime between 1960 and 1970 the fun went out of the business. The adventurers, the experimenters, the inventors, were driven out, and the accountants and managers took control. The accountants and managers decided that it was not cost effective to let bright people play with weird reactors." Jogalekar adds, "For any technological development to be possible, the technology needs to drive itself with the fuel of Darwinian innovation. It needs to generate all possible ideas – including the weird ones – and then fish out the best while ruthlessly weeding out the worst. ... Nothing like this happened with nuclear power. It was a technology whose development was dictated by a few prominent government and military officials and large organizations and straitjacketed within narrow constraints. ... The result was that the field remained both scientifically narrow and expensive. Even today there are only a handful of companies building and operating most of the world's reactors. To reinvigorate the promise of nuclear power to provide cheap energy to the world and combat climate change, the field needs to be infused with the same entrepreneurial spirit that pervaded the TRIGA design team and the Silicon Valley entrepreneurs."

12 of 326 comments (clear)

  1. Slight change in title, if I may by tanujt · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Nobody *does science* for fun anymore.

    1. Re:Slight change in title, if I may by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How can they? Our STEM programs today like to drain all the creativity from their students. They're all aimed at creating lab drones who dream of being in charge. No one dreams of discovery anymore.

      Yes, priorities are truly fucked nowadays. A Nobel to these folks is the ultimate line on a resume. Not a sign that they may have played some roll in the advancement of humankind.

    2. Re:Slight change in title, if I may by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 5, Informative

      Learning is slowly being made illegal and replaced with schooling.

      Chemistry sets were effectively banned a long time ago as a side effect of the war on drugs.

    3. Re: Slight change in title, if I may by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Whole physics and chem books have been outlawed due to forbidden knowledge about poisons, explosives and nuclear stuff.

      I have old school books that would mark me as a terrorist nowadays.

      It's a new dark ages of science. This time not caused by the catholic pedophiles but by the anal retentive governments and a retarded zero risk fetishism society.

    4. Re:Slight change in title, if I may by ridgecritter · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Completely agree. As a child, I learned a good deal about chemistry and explosives through DIY activities. Those childhood lessons (nobody got hurt) have gotten me some good jobs at major aerospace companies and at a space startup. A kid doing today what I did back when would be instantly jailed and put on the terr'ist list forever. Hell, I fear what would happen if DHS were to find my oxy/acetylene welding set in my home shop. Our increasingly Draconian restrictions are fencing off ever more sources of inspiration and creativity.

    5. Re:Slight change in title, if I may by garyebickford · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Indeed. Try to find a chemistry set that contains potassium permanganate and glycerin these days, much less the ingredients for gunpowder.
      We had science fair experiments in sixth grade that today would get you into the newspapers and black SUVs showing up. And going back before my time, my somewhat older neighbor built a pipe cannon back in the 1940s that fired rocks over a mile.

      But there's always the Internet, where you can find the free e-book "Ignition" by John Clark. Very funny history of liquid rocket propellants from the 1940s through to the early 1970s. Any discipline where red fuming nitric acid is considered one of the more stable, tractable ingredients is going to be interesting. (compare with Chlorine Trifluoride)

      --
      It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
  2. Where's the kaboom? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 5, Funny

    There is supposed to be a big kaboom.

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    1. Re:Where's the kaboom? by Mashiki · · Score: 5, Funny

      That's earth shattering kaboom, you insensitive clod. Now where's my illudium Q-36 explosive space modulator.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
  3. Re:What would you expect? by MtViewGuy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    There's still one nuclear reactor technology they haven't actually scaled up yet: the molten-salt reactor, where the nuclear fuel is dissolved in molten fluoride salts. Alvin Weinberg's experimental reactor at Oak Ridge National Laboratory was only a small 5 MW unit that actually ran successfully but was shelved because it couldn't produce fissile material for nuclear weapons.

    I'd like to see someone scale up MSR technology as a technology demonstrator to prove it can work to generate large amounts of electricity, at least in the 85 to 100 MW range. If they can do that, that could mean we can get far safer nuclear power plants, especially since shutting down the reactor is very easy to do (just drain the liquid nuclear fuel from the reactor) and it only generates a very small amount of radioactive waste, waste that has a radioactive half-life of around 300 years.

  4. Re:What would you expect? by LWATCDR · · Score: 5, Informative

    Yes.
    The design uses a "salt" plug that is cooled. Cooling shuts off the plug melts and the fuel drains into a tank that lacks a moderator so the reaction stops. There is no water to boil and fuel is already melted. It will then cool and solidifies.

    As long as you have gravity then you are good. Now if all of a sudden gravity stops working then we have much bigger problems.

    --
    See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  5. The industry wants expensive Nuclear Power by macpacheco · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It's interesting the bait model employed today by GE and Westinghouse.
    They sell reactors at essentially cost price, then overcharge for the nuclear fuel.
    They have zero interest in reactors that use liquid fuel, since there's almost no money to be made in the fuel.
    Specially reactors that can run on cheap thorium (LFTR-Salt cooled), waste from water nuclear reactors, plutonium (IFR-Sodium cooled).
    If they have something interesting, they are waiting for a big govt handout to actually start it (GE-Hitachi S-PRISM).

    And govt aren't helping either... S-PRISM promisses to extract 100x more energy from uranium than water cooled/moderated reactors, theoretically they're also a solution to the nuclear waste storage problem. But if it really were that great (with no hidden catch), then why shouldn't GE take one or two billion out of their huge cash reserves and make it happen quickly ?

    That's the final point, those huge corporations always have some hidden poop hidden in the thing. Like the true cost of water nuclear plants considering there's no standardized nuclear fuel market (GE fuel can't be used in Westinghouse plants and vice-versa).

  6. An A C Gilbert Chemistry Kickstarter Project by westlake · · Score: 5, Informative

    Chemistry sets were effectively banned a long time ago as a side effect of the war on drugs.

    This fully funded Kickstarter project is an authentic recreation of an A C Gilbert chemistry set from the 1920s to 1940s.

    Chemical List Arranged in the order originally published by the A.C. Gilbert Company along with their item number and the 1936 pricing)

    Heirloom Chemistry Set