Nuclear Energy Reactors

[DaVinci]

Worldwide, energy consortiums plan new reactors.

Discuss this.


My opinion (no, it's knowledge within finance-experts): Such reactors aren't properly financable. The private investors of those reactors are and were always dependent on subventions of the state (tax-money), the costs of the so-called cheap nuclear energy was/is subvented. Nuclear energy was and is always "well-counted", if the true costs are considered.

And please come not with "and what is the alternative for the energy-hunger of our civilisations?" ... that would be another thread.

[Elfdude]

I don't understand what your opinion is. For or against nuclear? What do you mean by true costs?

[DisgruntledGoat]

Riight. Not financially viable. Maybe the problem is the system running the facilities rather than the technology itself. Considering the overwhelming success of nuclear power in France and Japan I think its clear that nuclear is the way of the future.

[Pra]

I thought this would be a thread about how to design reactors. Which I could help you with.

[Sphere]

Actually, in terms of emissions free power production, modern nuclear power production is cost competitive

Wind, solar, Hyro and Carbon Capture coal are all more expensive. Only Geothermal, Carbon Capture Natural Gas and Biomass can beat it out, but those only have limited applications. If you don't mind staying dirty, coal and natural gas will always win the cost battle but still its only by 20-30%.

So nuclear is a rather logical option to go with right now. Its the only real solid source that can provide a "green" power grid backbone. Supplemental renewables could help but there is no clear idea of how they could really change the game. Coal and Gas are going to stick around for a long time, perhaps with more some increased carbon capture (though I'm skeptical), but hopefully nuclear can eat up much of the production in the future.

[HansDuet]

Nuclear power itself is very competitive and developing better ways to use it is clearly the future.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

Worldwide, energy consortiums plan new reactors.

Discuss this.


My opinion (no, it's knowledge within finance-experts): Such reactors aren't properly financable. The private investors of those reactors are and were always dependent on subventions of the state (tax-money), the costs of the so-called cheap nuclear energy was/is subvented. Nuclear energy was and is always "well-counted", if the true costs are considered.

And please come not with "and what is the alternative for the energy-hunger of our civilisations?" ... that would be another thread.

the only sources cheaper than fission are coal and HEP.

gas is way more expensive, and every other thing is more expensive than gas

[SinerAthin]

Nuclear power is plenty, efficient and enviromental friendly(if properly cared for).

Unfortunately, it also carries a heavy responsability which not every man can handle.

[DaVinci]

I don't understand what your opinion is. For or against nuclear? What do you mean by true costs?

I'm against nuclear power ... of course it is an intertesing field for physics, but it is clearly too hot to handle.

So that was't actually my point for the thread ... where you guys compare with other energy forms etc..

I wanted you to discuss nuclear energy reactors by themselves as well as the energy efficience, and the management of them, the electrictiy costs for the consumer, in the end all in regard of cost efficience.

Again, finance-experts have researched, that nuclear power as option is not cost-efficient, if all costs are considered.

All true costs: Here we have not only the facilitymanagement etc., but also the huge tax-subventions, and not at last the costs for the end-lager (sp? edit: waste-storage), and the destruction-costs etc., altogether is meant = the whole life-cicle costs of nuclear reactors incl. insurence/accident costs.

With well-counted i meant, that it is quite easy for the nuclear consortiums, to consider certain costs alone, and present us cost-efficience .. . that's what they do, and tell us: the future is nuclear power, and even use cheap arguments like "it's a green bridge" to the century (or future) of "renewable" energies. My opinion here is (and not only mine), that the nuclear industry simply wanna make money as long as uran is available.

And do not forget: this energy industry was and is a subventioned one by the state(s) (our tax-money). So every little tax-cent that goes into the nuclear industry, is a cent that goes not into the researchment/development of "renewable" energy technology.

And last but not least: Give me somebody a location, where we can savely "compost" the nuclear-trash (edit: waste-storage). We have not a single one on this earth.

[Hakkapeliitta]

Well, nuclear energy is the best source of energy we have, it's clean, extremely efficient, and ultimately cheap, and the fuel won't run out in millions of years, and waste can be recycled or stored away safely. So nuclear Yay!

Here's an entertaining piece about how anti-nuclear advocates are often hypocritical http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/01/1...-of-the-antis/

[DaVinci]

Sorry, that's a simple and uncritical view of the things.

As we have here mainly americans, who get currently around 20 % electricity out of the nuclear industry (i guess the highest value in the world despite France, Japan and Germany) here a link (an american organisation)

http://www.americanprogress.org/issu...ar_energy.html

with some relevant points.

[DaVinci]

Riight. Not financially viable. Maybe the problem is the system running the facilities rather than the technology itself. Considering the overwhelming success of nuclear power in France and Japan I think its clear that nuclear is the way of the future.

It's only a question of time, when and where the next nuclear reactor has a big uncontrollable accident, or may "the mighty god" prevent it, a terror-attack on a reactor happens or a crazy group threatens with a nuclear-weapon attack (might they have stolen the nuclear material and built their own weapon or have just bought bombs/rockets). Do you call it then still "overwhelming success"?

[GrnEyedDvl]

It's only a question of time, when and where the next nuclear reactor has a big uncontrollable accident,

Thats a pretty strong opinion, not with nothing to really back it up. Its only a matter of time before the next gas station blows up when someone is fueling their car. Its only a matter of time before some nuclear warhead sitting in a missile somewhere blows up all on its own. Its only a matter of time before the next big tragic whatever...

Thats a very weak argument.

or may "the mighty god" prevent it, a terror-attack on a reactor happens

Possible, but not very probable. If they were that easy to hit, they would have been hit already.

or a crazy group threatens with a nuclear-weapon attack (might they have stolen the nuclear material and built their own weapon or have just bought bombs/rockets).

That is a far different issue. Having material for a power plant is not the same as having the material for making a weapon.

Do you call it then still "overwhelming success"?

Absolutely.

[Jack04]

Nuclear reactors are perfectly safe when run properly. Serious accidents have only ever occurred when people started fiddling with the settings without proper instruction. If you want electricity for your future, you're going to have to start accepting the necessity of large scale fission based power.

... and a nuclear weapon requires >20% enriched fuel, nuclear fission for energy production requires less than 5% (in almost all cases but never significantly more).

[xcorps]

Sorry, that's a simple and uncritical view of the things.

As we have here mainly americans, who get currently around 20 % electricity out of the nuclear industry (i guess the highest value in the world despite France, Japan and Germany) here a link (an american organisation)

http://www.americanprogress.org/issu...ar_energy.html

with some relevant points.

That's a pretty biased sourse, hard left politically and run by lawyers.

[CerealGuy]

Riight. Not financially viable. Maybe the problem is the system running the facilities rather than the technology itself. Considering the overwhelming success of nuclear power in France and Japan I think its clear that nuclear is the way of the future.

where shall we put all the radioactive materials

a trip to space with the is farrrr to costly

and throwing down a volcano would have unforseen conseqences

I say we learn how to convert mass into energy

I beat you all of heard E=mc^2 (energy = mass times the speed of light to the second power if i recall)

now find the mass of a block of lead now fill out the equation and solve I mean if you converted me into energy you would destroy an entire city. and I dont weigh much.


but thats years away.

[DAVIDE]

Well, nuclear energy is the best source of energy we have, it's clean, extremely efficient, and ultimately cheap, and the fuel won't run out in millions of years, and waste can be recycled or stored away safely. So nuclear Yay!

Here's an entertaining piece about how anti-nuclear advocates are often hypocritical http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/01/1...-of-the-antis/

and where did you put the radioactive waste then? What about Uranium reserves which are not for sure endless? What about the cost of Uranium already increased??? i wont imagine the cost in 2020 for example. Uranium is not the answer. But alternative energies as the solar

[DaVinci]

Thats a pretty strong opinion, not with nothing to really back it up. Its only a matter of time before the next gas station blows up when someone is fueling their car. Its only a matter of time before some nuclear warhead sitting in a missile somewhere blows up all on its own. Its only a matter of time before the next big tragic whatever...

Thats a very weak argument.





Possible, but not very probable. If they were that easy to hit, they would have been hit already.





That is a far different issue. Having material for a power plant is not the same as having the material for making a weapon.

All your points are built on the principle "hope". They are in a far lower wise arguments compared to mine, which are built on "possibility" - they are even options which are considered in serious scenarios for accidents etc. and (partly) in reactor insurences (where it concerns reactors, or as you call them: plants). And of course, some of them are excluded by insurences, because no company wants to take the risk. Inform yourself, please, about such matters.

Conventional nuclear reactors are based on fatal possibilities. To compare that with a gas explosion or similar is absurd. Sorry, that shows your lack of knowledge about what nuclear technology really is.
So, my points are arguments, serious arguments in fact, worst case points, where your principle "hope" doesn't work.

Btw., i do not talk about fusion or fission tech here, which are techs that could work well, some day in future.

Absolutely.

Lol ... that actually made me laugh, thanks

Edit

That is a far different issue. Having material for a power plant is not the same as having the material for making a weapon.

Wrong. Every nuclear reactor technology has the option to make nuclear-weapon material. You can even make such weapons with the waste-material. Ie. it calls plutononium.

Edit2

Possible, but not very probable. If they were that easy to hit, they would have been hit already.

Nope. That is the same thing, as somebody would indeed fire up a nuclear bomb or rocket ... there is still scruple even within the most slim terrorists to do that (same thing as with fatal chemical or even bio-weapons).
Fyi: The mantles of nuclear reactors (plants) can't hold back a jet-attack as happened with 9/11, not to speak about a real rocket or bomb attack.

That's a pretty biased sourse, hard left politically and run by lawyers.

Nonetheless, they are true. Perhaps read again, as well (ex-)managers of nuclear reactors (plants) speak there.

And "sure", everything that is progressive and seeks for solutions is left and surely therefor bad ... lol.

[GrnEyedDvl]

All your points are built on the principle "hope". They are in a far lower wise arguments compared to mine, which are built on "possibility" - they are even options which are considered in serious scenarios for accidents etc. and (partly) in reactor insurences (where it concerns reactors, or as you call them: plants). And of course, some of them are excluded by insurences, because no company wants to take the risk. Inform yourself, please, about such matters.

No, mine are based on fact.

Fact: The number of terrorist attacks at a nuclear facility = 0.
Fact: There has never been a Chernobyl style meltdown at any other facility.
Fact: Statistically, nuclear reactors are safer than both cars and airplanes. You cant beat the math on it.

Conventional nuclear reactors are based on fatal possibilities. To compare that with a gas explosion or similar is absurd. Sorry, that shows your lack of knowledge about what nuclear technology really is.

Because I disagree with you doesnt mean I know any less about it, and the tactic of demeaning someone who disagrees with you is not only a bad debating tactic, but shows a resistance to the actual facts before you. Such tactics do not work with me, I suggest you try something else.


Conventional nuclear reactors are based on science and math, not possibilities. Its not "possible" that there will be a reaction when they build a reactor, its a known and definable entity.

So, my points are arguments, serious arguments in fact, worst case points, where your principle "hope" doesn't work.

Yours are arguments of fear. There "might" be an accident so we shouldnt do this...

Wrong. Every nuclear reactor technology has the option to make nuclear-weapon material. You can even make such weapons with the waste-material. Ie. it calls plutononium.

Wrong. Its called P-239, which is enhanced uranium.

Pu-239 is produced artificially in nuclear reactors when a neutron is absorbed by U-238, forming U-239, which then decays in a rapid two-step process into Pu-239. It can then be separated from the uranium in a nuclear reprocessing plant.

As you can see, a nuclear reactor cannot do this reprocessing, and does not just magically poduce P-239. The technology and ther plants to do this are VERY expensive, to the point that only a government could come up with the funds to do it. This is why so few countries have weapons programs in the first place. The real problem is the countries that sell this technology.

The only countries with facilities manufacturing weapons-grade nuclear material today are the United States, United Kingdom, France, India, Germany, Russia, North Korea, Pakistan, Israel and China. Syria and Iran allegedly also have or are developing facilities. Of these countries, only the governments of France and Russia are known to sell their manufacturing expertise to other countries.

I too would like to get to fusion, but right now fission is what we have, and what we will have for the forseeable future. But dont kid yourself that fusion is that much safer.

[DaVinci]

Its called P-239, which is enhanced uranium.

It's still plutonium (i typed bad plutononium ), and calls Pu-239 (just the tech-term).

Dear GrnEyedDvl, as for nuclear reactors and its risks, it goes all about the possible biggest uncontrollable accident (if not caused by an attack or terror-act, but that can have the same results):

The split materials it sets free, which cause nuclear radiation with thousands to millions half-life, or as i call it half-value-time (directly transl. from the german term), from which we can't escape.
This of course is meant, when i say "built on fatal possibilities", and not the tech, that sticks in it

A nuclear reactor has the potencial to set free more longtime radiation than any usual atomic bomb, in the case of the biggest uncontrollable accident.
It wouldn't blow away people instantly like a bomb, but then kills for ages like a bomb.

And i assume you know how the japanese call the atomic bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima: The bombs that never stop to kill - the radiation goes into every organism and material, and keeps their "life" there.

The same happens in the case of the biggest uncontrollable accident. To say, the latter "is not possible, cannot happen because the tech is that secure nowadays", is what i call the principle "hope", and every sane techy wouldn't ever claim that. It is simply like shut-down-your-eyes vs. the unspoken evil, so to speak. You call me a fear-maker, no i'm a realist, and you are imo. the "hopist". Actually statistics of the past are nothing worth here. And again, comparing that with any other killing/destruction-events is a very cheap argument, and imo. not an argument in such a discussion about energy technology - see again the point of radiation and half-life, and then look also at the waste-storage problem, it's not comparable with your examples of other deaths and destructions that happen all the time.

Edit

The technology and ther plants to do this are VERY expensive, to the point that only a government could come up with the funds to do it. This is why so few countries have weapons programs in the first place. The real problem is the countries that sell this technology.

Right. And that calms you?
You surely know, which countries do have nuclear reactors and the weapons. You indeed believe, that it's not possible that people (on whatever way) trade with it, or simply with weapon-capable waste-storage, ie. for building the so-called dirty-bomb.