Well, what do you expect? You spend over half a billion dollars on upgrades designed to make the plant run another 20 years, then, a year later you get shut down and told you could be on the hook for hundreds of millions more that simply wouldn't be recouped before the end of life on the reactors.
The problem is, your "assuming" is a pure fantasy.
You cannot generate 100% of your power with wind/hydro/geothermal/solar.
Wind is out because the wind doesn't always blow or blow in the proper direction or blow at the proper speed ratings for a wind farm to take advantage of.
Solar is out because the sun isn't always shining overhead. Not to mention it's affected by weather/climate conditions as well (panels buried under a foot of snow don't function well, if at all).
Hydro is out because we're already tapped about 99% of the viable hydro in this country. And the environmentalists are wrangling amongst themselves because hydro destroys the local ecology. Pretty much guaranteeing that any remaining possible sources of hydro are NOT going to be exploited.
Geothermal's out because there's a limited number of places you can actually, viably put these. And there is documented ecological damage from existing geothermal installations. Not to mention the fact that you get hydrogen sulfide and, oh yeah, CARBON DIOXIDE emissions from geothermal. Also, geothermal has water consumption issues. Not to mention the fact that there's good evidence that, since you have to site geothermal on geologically active sites, geothermal leads to increases in earthquake frequency/severity.
So, in another few decades we're hooked on yet another non-renewable resource.
As for the price nuclear power "can't hit", discuss it with me once we have a few next-gen designs in place and all the monetary impediments imposed on the industry have been stripped away.
Is there a reason it can't work on this platform? Yes. What's the reason? We don't want it to. Is there a TECHNICAL reason that it can't work on this platform? Yes. What's the reason. Technically, we don't want it to. Is there any reason, BESIDES your not wanting it to, that it can't work on these platform? Yes. What's the reason? Because if we don't want it to, remove the apps, and strip out support, it simply can't!
Uhm. I think the stats provided above put a lie to that assertion.
Even if there was no opposition from environmentalists or fear in the general population, people wouldn't invest in nuclear power.
That would mean no obstructionist agenda hyper-inflating the price at every turn. As such, your 10K/kw would be a ludicrously high estimate.
Solar and wind are getting cheaper. But solar and wind CANNOT BE USED AS BASELINE POWER. PERIOD. Which means when the sun isn't shining or the wind isn't blowing you have to augment the grid for the power these sites are now NOT generating.
And guess who's got the in there.
Natural gas. Yet another expensive non-renewable with dramatic environmental impacts.
There's also the fact that air and solar just don't have the energy density that a nuclear plant does.
As for the costs of the fuel. Right now this country has suspended rare earth mining because of how much potential nuclear fuel is coming up with the other rare earths. And we have a massive national stockpile. The fact is, the tailings from just a couple mines could run enough Thorium reactors to meet the nation's entire power needs for at least a year (if not longer).
As for the continuous talk about disasters.
The problem is, the idiots crapping their drawers over nuclear disasters are the same people blocking the industry from creating and building safer, better designs.
We also expect to be hit by large asteriods in certain periods of time. Does that mean we build each and every building to be strike-resistant on a multi-millennial basis?
This is why your argument that we must build everything as if it were going to be slapped by a 9.0 every day is bull.
All of which is well understood and wasn't under debate.
If you're trying to blame earthquake damage for the failure at Fukushima.
Japan also had a 9.0 earthquake about 300 years ago, and another 300 years before that. They were due for another. It was predictable. When nuclear power plants are not even prepared for routine events, why should we trust them to withstand something unforeseen?
So you're telling me that a building with a 30-50 year lifespan should be constructed in such a way as to anticipate something that happens on a 300+ year timeframe.
What is under debate is the assertion that large magnitude quakes are so unusual that they cannot or should not be planned for.
Nowhere did I say this. But planning for an event isn't the same thing as requiring that something be built to always withstand such an outlier event REGARDLESS of additional data.
Actually, in Fukushima's case, you're then arguing into the realms of fantasy.
As for the POSSIBILITY of generator failure, this is also one of the reasons I'm a big fan of the MSR concept.
No water to explode. Power failure results in shutdown with a clean dump to the dump tank. Or, at worst, into the outer containment vessel which then drains into the dump tank.
Okay we need to be able to scale them UP as well. Because singular large installations tend to cut down on points of failure.
The US is currently consuming around 4 BILLION megawatts of power a year.
While I'm not saying small or portable MSRs couldn't be HUGE business for portable power (and overall grid diversity), we need to look at replacing the existing nuclear, coal and oil capacity we already have with something that is hopefully superior in overall output, cheap and simple enough to maintain.
The "plug" is yet more of the salt matrix. It's simply cooled to the point where it's no longer molten. So you're not worried about wear and tear on the plug.
And if something bad DOES happen, the plug stops getting cooled, the plug melts, you default to a safe drain-off of the fuel.
So. Do you want to try your "no suitable materials exist" line again?
As for the reprocessing of fuel requiring high energies and temperatures. You mean like the reactor itself? Nasty chemicals, you mean like the catalyst stack?
I'm not ignoring anything. I don't believe it's anywhere near as easy as push a button and power magically comes out. You're simply taking the limited information I've provided thus far, as I'm not writing a scientific paper here for you, as ignorant fanboyism.
Just as you're assuming that complete dismantling and cleanup of a MSR would happen in-situ. As opposed to the reactor and catalyst stack being boxed and shipped back to the factory for disassembly, cleanup and possible reprovisioning in a safe and controlled environment.
As for your last point. It's called "moving the goalposts".
We argued successful MSR designs. Then, after the point has been established you start adding additional criteria as it suits you.
How about this. The original MSR was a success. As for scalability, there's a current Gen IV design available for an MSR with a base output of 1000MW.
Now please, start adding further criteria to "prove" yourself "right".
As for taking them commercial, this is why dialog is needed with the NRC. And the NRC's time isn't free. But maybe you didn't know that.
Besides. The actual shock that hit the Fukushima area was a 6.6 (as it was over a hundred miles from the epicenter). That ISN'T what damaged the reactor.
The reactor going into overheat, and the cooling system overheating and exploding (water does that when you put it under pressure and heat it up) is what destroyed the plant. The reason it went into overheat was because the sea wall wasn't built high enough and couldn't protect from the Tsunami that swept through and swamped the facility.
The largest nuke mankind has ever set off was 50 megatons. So strap 9 of those bad boys together and that's what you're trying to engineer against. Ask an actual engineer about the logistics of building for something like that.
Well I am an actual engineer.
You'll forgive me if I don't take the word of "A. Random Guy" trying to win an argument on the internet.
Can you at least give me a time code to the portion that supports what you're saying?
Every other source I read talks about it like this:
9.0 Quake happens, hits at 6.6 in Fukushima, 110-ish miles from the epicenter. G-Force tolerances were exceeded and shock parameters were still within tolerance. Reactors 4-6 already shut down. Reactors 1-3 SCRAMed.
50 minutes later the tsunami arrived. It topped a too-short sea wall and flooded the facility. When the generators were flooded it tripped over to battery backup designed to run 8 hours.
More batteries were brought in and an attempt was made to bring in alternate pumping equipment. They were hampered by the flooding in the lower areas of the plant and the damage to the surrounding area.
Roughly a day later, the battery backup ran down, and the plant went into overheat. Eventually the pressurized water cooling system overheated and exploded, being responsible for most of the physical destruction on site.
Seriously, not being a dick. If you can provide time codes for those videos that show it NOT to be the case, you'll be the first.
We HAVE tried this form of reactor before. It IS proven technology.
What needs to happen now is the R&D to mass produce and up-scale.
Oh yes, and the time and bribes necessary to get the uber-paranoid NRC to agree to anything. Because you say "nuclear" to the NRC right now and they automatically shift into "Nope, Nope, Nope, Nope" mode.
How exactly does an earthquake or a fire or poor maintenance damage...GRAVITY?
If there's a loss of power to the reactor, the salt plug melts, and whoosh, into the dump tanks goes the fuel.
Because you spend all your effort securing the reactor and forgot about the on-site reprocessing system that is an absolute necessity for any MSR.
Most of which happens in-situ, as opposed to reprocessing in solid fuel setups.
As for safety. You're splitting hairs. Sure, if you blow up a reactor and spray fuel all over the place, the environmental impact is ridiculous. Hence why we should be building a reactor that doesn't (and can't) blow up.
As for your assertions about multiple designs and MSR projects. The US has already had SUCCESSFUL MSR projects. All that needs to happen now is to hash out the technology to mass-produce and scale up reactors in size and power output.
And your assertion that "no private investor" is sorta put to the lie by the thread starter. Granted, it isn't TONS of money.
Slashdot Mirror
only until efficient power storage is solved.
Which would ALSO factor into the costs associated with these power generation technologies.
all those methods will generate more power than needed
You hope.
at certain times of the day so if the excess is stored, problem solved.
Until the systems are actually, you know, INVENTED, TESTED and INSTALLED, no, the problem is NOT solved.
And until then, anyone talking about Wind and Solar are actually talking about Wind-Plus-Natural Gas and Solar-Plus-Natural Gas.
Oh yes. And the byproducts of natural gas consumption? CO2 and Water Vapor (greenhouse gasses anyone?)
So, please, keep hyping your pie in the sky as a fait accompli.
How about we do the same thing with geothermal?
And factor in the costs of even one destructive earthquake?
Well, what do you expect? You spend over half a billion dollars on upgrades designed to make the plant run another 20 years, then, a year later you get shut down and told you could be on the hook for hundreds of millions more that simply wouldn't be recouped before the end of life on the reactors.
The problem is, your "assuming" is a pure fantasy.
You cannot generate 100% of your power with wind/hydro/geothermal/solar.
Wind is out because the wind doesn't always blow or blow in the proper direction or blow at the proper speed ratings for a wind farm to take advantage of.
Solar is out because the sun isn't always shining overhead. Not to mention it's affected by weather/climate conditions as well (panels buried under a foot of snow don't function well, if at all).
Hydro is out because we're already tapped about 99% of the viable hydro in this country. And the environmentalists are wrangling amongst themselves because hydro destroys the local ecology. Pretty much guaranteeing that any remaining possible sources of hydro are NOT going to be exploited.
Geothermal's out because there's a limited number of places you can actually, viably put these. And there is documented ecological damage from existing geothermal installations. Not to mention the fact that you get hydrogen sulfide and, oh yeah, CARBON DIOXIDE emissions from geothermal. Also, geothermal has water consumption issues. Not to mention the fact that there's good evidence that, since you have to site geothermal on geologically active sites, geothermal leads to increases in earthquake frequency/severity.
So, you're saying we should use non-renewable, polluting alternatives just so it's a better match with wind and solar?
Seriously?
SERIOUSLY?
Not to mention the environmental impact of producing all those wind turbines and solar panels.
They're NOT eco-friendly in the slightest.
Yep, nice cheap, non-renewable natural gas.
So, in another few decades we're hooked on yet another non-renewable resource.
As for the price nuclear power "can't hit", discuss it with me once we have a few next-gen designs in place and all the monetary impediments imposed on the industry have been stripped away.
Sorry, but if it's not handling things "properly", while it may not have an actual exploit or security vulnerability, it doesn't mean it's "complete".
Yeah. No such animal.
Is there a reason it can't work on this platform?
Yes.
What's the reason?
We don't want it to.
Is there a TECHNICAL reason that it can't work on this platform?
Yes.
What's the reason.
Technically, we don't want it to.
Is there any reason, BESIDES your not wanting it to, that it can't work on these platform?
Yes.
What's the reason?
Because if we don't want it to, remove the apps, and strip out support, it simply can't!
Here's the answer.
*Plays loop of loud, sarcastic laughter*
NOPE NOPE NOPE NOPE!
Sorry, NOT playing that game again.
Crappy product from a customer-hostile company?
Fuck that noise.
Maybe AMD will make a sound marketing choice based on sound engineering again. But I'm not going to volunteer to hold my breath.
Nuclear is dying because it is just too expensive
Uhm. I think the stats provided above put a lie to that assertion.
Even if there was no opposition from environmentalists or fear in the general population, people wouldn't invest in nuclear power.
That would mean no obstructionist agenda hyper-inflating the price at every turn. As such, your 10K/kw would be a ludicrously high estimate.
Solar and wind are getting cheaper. But solar and wind CANNOT BE USED AS BASELINE POWER. PERIOD. Which means when the sun isn't shining or the wind isn't blowing you have to augment the grid for the power these sites are now NOT generating.
And guess who's got the in there.
Natural gas. Yet another expensive non-renewable with dramatic environmental impacts.
There's also the fact that air and solar just don't have the energy density that a nuclear plant does.
As for the costs of the fuel. Right now this country has suspended rare earth mining because of how much potential nuclear fuel is coming up with the other rare earths. And we have a massive national stockpile. The fact is, the tailings from just a couple mines could run enough Thorium reactors to meet the nation's entire power needs for at least a year (if not longer).
As for the continuous talk about disasters.
The problem is, the idiots crapping their drawers over nuclear disasters are the same people blocking the industry from creating and building safer, better designs.
As soon as we can discuss TEPCO being idiots for ignoring their engineers and not building the infrastructure as required.
Maybe we should also talk about the costs then? Nuclear is EXPENSIVE.
No. Nuclear is an economy on a different scale than than non-renewables.
It costs more going in, but you get more coming out.
If we could just stop the unwarranted fear of the technology from dictating public policy, it'd be even more economical.
What is under debate is the assertion that large magnitude quakes are so unusual that they cannot or should not be planned for.
And maybe I will. At another time. I'm currently at work and not able to burn 50 minutes watching a video.
Hence my asking for a quick link to the portion that discusses the damaged done directly to the plant by the quake, in support of your assertion.
Instead I get "The truth is out there, look it up yourself".
Thanks for nothing.
We also expect to be hit by large asteriods in certain periods of time. Does that mean we build each and every building to be strike-resistant on a multi-millennial basis?
This is why your argument that we must build everything as if it were going to be slapped by a 9.0 every day is bull.
All of which is well understood and wasn't under debate.
If you're trying to blame earthquake damage for the failure at Fukushima.
Japan also had a 9.0 earthquake about 300 years ago, and another 300 years before that. They were due for another. It was predictable. When nuclear power plants are not even prepared for routine events, why should we trust them to withstand something unforeseen?
So you're telling me that a building with a 30-50 year lifespan should be constructed in such a way as to anticipate something that happens on a 300+ year timeframe.
What is under debate is the assertion that large magnitude quakes are so unusual that they cannot or should not be planned for.
Nowhere did I say this. But planning for an event isn't the same thing as requiring that something be built to always withstand such an outlier event REGARDLESS of additional data.
Actually, in Fukushima's case, you're then arguing into the realms of fantasy.
As for the POSSIBILITY of generator failure, this is also one of the reasons I'm a big fan of the MSR concept.
No water to explode.
Power failure results in shutdown with a clean dump to the dump tank. Or, at worst, into the outer containment vessel which then drains into the dump tank.
Okay we need to be able to scale them UP as well. Because singular large installations tend to cut down on points of failure.
The US is currently consuming around 4 BILLION megawatts of power a year.
While I'm not saying small or portable MSRs couldn't be HUGE business for portable power (and overall grid diversity), we need to look at replacing the existing nuclear, coal and oil capacity we already have with something that is hopefully superior in overall output, cheap and simple enough to maintain.
The "plug" is yet more of the salt matrix. It's simply cooled to the point where it's no longer molten.
So you're not worried about wear and tear on the plug.
And if something bad DOES happen, the plug stops getting cooled, the plug melts, you default to a safe drain-off of the fuel.
So. Do you want to try your "no suitable materials exist" line again?
As for the reprocessing of fuel requiring high energies and temperatures. You mean like the reactor itself?
Nasty chemicals, you mean like the catalyst stack?
I'm not ignoring anything. I don't believe it's anywhere near as easy as push a button and power magically comes out.
You're simply taking the limited information I've provided thus far, as I'm not writing a scientific paper here for you, as ignorant fanboyism.
Just as you're assuming that complete dismantling and cleanup of a MSR would happen in-situ. As opposed to the reactor and catalyst stack being boxed and shipped back to the factory for disassembly, cleanup and possible reprovisioning in a safe and controlled environment.
As for your last point. It's called "moving the goalposts".
We argued successful MSR designs. Then, after the point has been established you start adding additional criteria as it suits you.
How about this. The original MSR was a success. As for scalability, there's a current Gen IV design available for an MSR with a base output of 1000MW.
Now please, start adding further criteria to "prove" yourself "right".
As for taking them commercial, this is why dialog is needed with the NRC. And the NRC's time isn't free.
But maybe you didn't know that.
Do a little research on Molten Salt reactors.
You'll see the two statements aren't as diametrically opposed as you'd like them to be.
And a 9.0 earthquake is NOT a "routine event".
Maybe not routine but certainly expected.
Bull.
Besides. The actual shock that hit the Fukushima area was a 6.6 (as it was over a hundred miles from the epicenter).
That ISN'T what damaged the reactor.
The reactor going into overheat, and the cooling system overheating and exploding (water does that when you put it under pressure and heat it up) is what destroyed the plant.
The reason it went into overheat was because the sea wall wasn't built high enough and couldn't protect from the Tsunami that swept through and swamped the facility.
The largest nuke mankind has ever set off was 50 megatons. So strap 9 of those bad boys together and that's what you're trying to engineer against. Ask an actual engineer about the logistics of building for something like that.
Well I am an actual engineer.
You'll forgive me if I don't take the word of "A. Random Guy" trying to win an argument on the internet.
Can you at least give me a time code to the portion that supports what you're saying?
Every other source I read talks about it like this:
9.0 Quake happens, hits at 6.6 in Fukushima, 110-ish miles from the epicenter.
G-Force tolerances were exceeded and shock parameters were still within tolerance.
Reactors 4-6 already shut down.
Reactors 1-3 SCRAMed.
50 minutes later the tsunami arrived.
It topped a too-short sea wall and flooded the facility.
When the generators were flooded it tripped over to battery backup designed to run 8 hours.
More batteries were brought in and an attempt was made to bring in alternate pumping equipment. They were hampered by the flooding in the lower areas of the plant and the damage to the surrounding area.
Roughly a day later, the battery backup ran down, and the plant went into overheat.
Eventually the pressurized water cooling system overheated and exploded, being responsible for most of the physical destruction on site.
Seriously, not being a dick. If you can provide time codes for those videos that show it NOT to be the case, you'll be the first.
That's the thing.
We HAVE tried this form of reactor before. It IS proven technology.
What needs to happen now is the R&D to mass produce and up-scale.
Oh yes, and the time and bribes necessary to get the uber-paranoid NRC to agree to anything. Because you say "nuclear" to the NRC right now and they automatically shift into "Nope, Nope, Nope, Nope" mode.
Assuming that the system isn't damaged....
How exactly does an earthquake or a fire or poor maintenance damage...GRAVITY?
If there's a loss of power to the reactor, the salt plug melts, and whoosh, into the dump tanks goes the fuel.
Because you spend all your effort securing the reactor and forgot about the on-site reprocessing system that is an absolute necessity for any MSR.
Most of which happens in-situ, as opposed to reprocessing in solid fuel setups.
As for safety. You're splitting hairs. Sure, if you blow up a reactor and spray fuel all over the place, the environmental impact is ridiculous.
Hence why we should be building a reactor that doesn't (and can't) blow up.
As for your assertions about multiple designs and MSR projects.
The US has already had SUCCESSFUL MSR projects. All that needs to happen now is to hash out the technology to mass-produce and scale up reactors in size and power output.
And your assertion that "no private investor" is sorta put to the lie by the thread starter. Granted, it isn't TONS of money.