Is Nuclear Power Worth the Risk?

[Cow Poke]

Is Nuclear Power Worth the Risk?

Not vouching for the article at all, but the topic is interesting.

Seems like even some of the "greenies" who opposed nuclear power in the past now see it as a viable - maybe even preferable - option.

Comments?

[Sparko]

tl;dr

I hear the newer reactors are a lot safer and don't produce waste that will poison the land for a millennium.

[shunyadragon]

Nuclear energy is a reality now and in the future. It depends on how we can deal with it and make it safe through technology.

[Leonhard]

Is Nuclear Power Worth the Risk?

Not vouching for the article at all, but the topic is interesting.

Seems like even some of the "greenies" who opposed nuclear power in the past now see it as a viable - maybe even preferable - option.

Comments?

Some of the new fast breeder reactors use a lot less fuel. The TPW style breeders use about a milk crate sized block of depleted uranium per month per gigawatt. The waste produced only has to be stored for 300 years instead of 100000 years before it is safe to handle.

Nuclear power is far safer as an energy compared to coal and gas, and that includes all the deaths from all the nuclear accidents ever recorded, even Chernobyl.

[Teallaura]

I find thorium interesting.

[Cow Poke]

I find thorium interesting.

More interesting than Dilithium?

[rogue06]

Is Nuclear Power Worth the Risk?

Not vouching for the article at all, but the topic is interesting.

Seems like even some of the "greenies" who opposed nuclear power in the past now see it as a viable - maybe even preferable - option.

Comments?

Seen the shift taking place over the past few decades

[Leonhard]

I find thorium interesting.

I prefer a U238-Pu239 breeder cycle to the Th232-U233 cycle. We have plenty of uranium, and the designs of the molten salt breeder reactors have advanced a long while. We have uranium ore to satisfy our energy needs for millions of years, and even the depleted uranium that the US has in stock is enough to keep reactors supplying energy to the entire country for ten thousand years.

Another advantage, other than simplicity, is that thorium reactors can be used to breed pure U233 which can be used to make nuclear weapons. This isn't a problem in the US as it already has weapons grade material, however for other countries like Denmark we would in principle get the ability to make nuclear weapons if we got thorium cycle nuclear reactors.

With the old U238-Pu239 cycle you can salt the plutonium with Pu240 which is not fissile, and which has been judged infeasible to separate.

[Cow Poke]

I prefer a U238-Pu239 breeder cycle to the Th232-U233 cycle. We have plenty of uranium, and the designs of the molten salt breeder reactors have advanced a long while. We have uranium ore to satisfy our energy needs for millions of years, and even the depleted uranium that the US has in stock is enough to keep reactors supplying energy to the entire country for ten thousand years.

Another advantage, other than simplicity, is that thorium reactors can be used to breed pure U233 which can be used to make nuclear weapons. This isn't a problem in the US as it already has weapons grade material, however for other countries like Denmark we would in principle get the ability to make nuclear weapons if we got thorium cycle nuclear reactors.

With the old U238-Pu239 cycle you can salt the plutonium with Pu240 which is not fissile, and which has been judged infeasible to separate.

Very interesting. Thank you, sir. And Merry Christmas.

[Teallaura]

I prefer a U238-Pu239 breeder cycle to the Th232-U233 cycle. We have plenty of uranium, and the designs of the molten salt breeder reactors have advanced a long while. We have uranium ore to satisfy our energy needs for millions of years, and even the depleted uranium that the US has in stock is enough to keep reactors supplying energy to the entire country for ten thousand years.

Another advantage, other than simplicity, is that thorium reactors can be used to breed pure U233 which can be used to make nuclear weapons. This isn't a problem in the US as it already has weapons grade material, however for other countries like Denmark we would in principle get the ability to make nuclear weapons if we got thorium cycle nuclear reactors.

With the old U238-Pu239 cycle you can salt the plutonium with Pu240 which is not fissile, and which has been judged infeasible to separate.

The advantages I've heard are readily and inexpensively available fuel, less waste and safety. Nuclear treaties are going to involve oversight regardless - without it, the reactor inside may not be what the counntry claims - so I'm not seeing much advantage to building reactors that can't create fissible materials as built.

[NorrinRadd]

I find thorium interesting.

Ol' thunderbutt gets all the hype. Meanwhile, it was his brother who avenged dad by ripping Fenrir's head off and survived Ragnarok. Why is there no Vidarium?

[NorrinRadd]

Interesting discussion.

[Leonhard]

The advantages I've heard are readily and inexpensively available fuel, less waste and safety. Nuclear treaties are going to involve oversight regardless - without it, the reactor inside may not be what the counntry claims - so I'm not seeing much advantage to building reactors that can't create fissible materials as built.

The fuel is more inexpensive, however the older reactors could only burn the U235 fuel, which is only 0.7% of naturally occurring uranium. Modern reactors can turn the other 99.3% of U238 into Pu239 and then burn that. Meaning when you refuel a reactor you can keep it running for twenty years without a need for refueling.

U238 is inexpensive. Its stockpiled all over the place. Just what's left over from refining ordinary reactor fuel. So the price of the fuel is insignificant.

All that matters is the costs associated with approval, construction, decommissioning and long-term storage.

Here both thorium cycles and plutonium cycles have an advantage in that the fuel only has to be stored 300 years. And the quantity that needs to be stored is around 1% of the volume from traditional powerplants. This can be done in a huge cement warehouse, easily.

They're equally complex in decommissioning.

However in construction the plutonium cycle has an advantage as the fuel types have been worked with in the past, so there's industry expertise floating around, and existing industrial means.

In approval its strongly in favor of the plutonium cycles which are already advanced enough to proceed to construction, where as thorium reactors are still in an experimental phase.

[Teallaura]

Ol' thunderbutt gets all the hype. Meanwhile, it was his brother who avenged dad by ripping Fenrir's head off and survived Ragnarok. Why is there no Vidarium?

[demi-conservative]

The real risks under consideration are proliferation of nuclear weapons. The big powers probably won't allow it for most nations.