Breakthrough: Newfangled reactors will slash costs of nuclear power

[FreakinDJ]

Breakthrough: Newfangled reactors will slash costs of nuclear power

Environmentalists are increasingly emerging from the closet to back nuclear power for a low carbon energy future that staves off the ravages of CO2-induced climate change.

Yet some green campaigners who accept the nuclear argument still oppose the technology because, they say, nuclear reactors require a king's ransom to build.

Now, the Breakthrough Institute - a youthful group dedicated to "an ecologically vibrant planet" - has given those holdouts a good reason to drop their final objections and join the nuclear cause.

In their new report, How to Make Nuclear Cheap, Breakthrough notes that a number of alternative reactor types - the sort that regular SmartPlanet readers will recognize - augur affordable nuclear power.

http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/bulletin/breakthrough-newfangled-reactors-will-slash-costs-of-nuclear-power/?tag=search-river

[stevenleser]

1. No offense, but

[antiquie]

3. ~

[Savannahmann]

22. Um...

A Lead balloon can fly just fine thanks.

[Agschmid]

59. That's awesome!

[PoliticAverse]

63. Considering the number of leaks, I'd say it was a good analogy to Fukushima... n/t

[Savannahmann]

66. They were using lead foil roughly as thick as aluminum foil.

It was beyond delicate, but it was pure lead. It weighed 11 Kilos according to the show.

[EOTE]

2. I'm not sure that monetary cost is the biggest issue with nuclear reactors.

I really doubt that most people are thinking: "Fukushima would be great, if only it had cheaper construction."

There are myriad issues with nuclear that seem to be ignored by this article.

[greenman3610]

4. cost is by far the obstacle

read the linked article in the OP:
"One big stumbling block: The alternative nuclear movement will require a lot of investment before it hits the low cost sweet spot. To that end, the Breakthrough report points out that it is crucial for policymakers "to identify the technologies most amenable to commercialization and deployment," and to "support a broad commitment to nuclear innovation aimed at expanding, rather than restricting, technological options.""


so, same old shit.
They have this breakthrough. All they need is 20 years and a trillion dollars to prove it.

[EOTE]

5. Nuclear power is one of the most cost effective ways of producing power already.

Especially given a small amount of time. The one issue that it definitely fails and will continue to fail is in terms of environmental costs. Yes, it seems like a few token advances have been made, but until the environmental costs have been extremely reduced, nuclear power is not something we need to be investing in now or probably ever, especially considering the alternative already available.

As you said, SOS.

[randome]

6. Ship the shit to the Moon. Problem solved (largely).

Also make sure every reactor is earthquake/tsunami proofed.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"If you're bored then you're boring." -Harvey Danger[/center][/font][hr]

[Wounded Bear]

16. And what happens when that 5 tons of nuclear waste...

blows up on takeoff?

[FreakinDJ]

8. How Much Global Warming Is Guaranteed Even If We Stopped Building Coal-Fired Power Plants Today?

How Much Global Warming Is Guaranteed Even If We Stopped Building Coal-Fired Power Plants Today?

Humanity has yet to reach the point of no return when it comes to catastrophic climate change, according to new calculations. If we content ourselves with the existing fossil-fuel infrastructure we can hold greenhouse gas concentrations below 450 parts per million in the atmosphere and limit warming to below 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels—both common benchmarks for international efforts to avoid the worst impacts of ongoing climate change—according to a new analysis in the September 10 issue of Science. The bad news is we are adding more fossil-fuel infrastructure—oil-burning cars, coal-fired power plants, industrial factories consuming natural gas—every day.

A team of scientists analyzed the existing fossil-fuel infrastructure to determine how much greenhouse gas emissions we have committed to if all of that kit is utilized for its entire expected lifetime. The answer: an average of 496 billion metric tons more of carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere between now and 2060 in "committed emissions".

That assumes life spans of roughly 40 years for a coal-fired power plant and 17 years for a typical car—potentially major under- and overestimates, respectively, given that some coal-fired power plants still in use in the U.S. first fired up in the 1950s. Plugging that roughly 500 gigatonne number into a computer-generated climate model predicted CO2 levels would then peak at less than 430 ppm with an attendant warming of 1.3 degrees C above preindustrial average temperature. That's just 50 ppm higher than present levels and 150 ppm higher than preindustrial atmospheric concentrations.

Still, we are rapidly approaching a point of no return, cautions climate modeler Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution for Science's Department of Global Ecology at Stanford University, who participated in the study. "There is little doubt that more CO2-emitting devices will be built," the researchers wrote. After all, the study does not take into account all the enabling infrastructure—such as highways, gas stations and refineries—that contribute inertia that holds back significant changes to lower-emitting alternatives, such as electric cars.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=guaranteed-global-warming-with-existing-fossil-fuel-infrastructure

[EOTE]

11. Certainly we need to move away from carbon based fuels as well.

I think we need to be investing massively in alternative fuels, coal and nuclear have no part in that.

[FreakinDJ]

19. USA might be able to move away from them - but what of the rest of the developing world

Personally I'm all in favor of population reductions - but you should see the response to that idea here on DU

Go ahead - try it - post a thread saying you are in favor of a 1 child policy and see what happens

[EOTE]

26. I believe in ZPG, so you'll get no qualms from me regarding that.

But yes, I was primarily talking about the U.S., but I certainly think that the Chinese are stabbing themselves (as well as a significant portion of the world) in the foot. Granted we were just as bad during our industrial revolution, but at least we could kind of claim ignorance then.

[FreakinDJ]

33. 27% Reduction in World Crop Yeilds due to Global Warming by 2050

No couple that to rising populations

http://www.fao.org/docrep/w5183e/w5183e0b.htm

[EOTE]

38. Yep, again, I think carbon based fuels need to go as well.

And there are lots of alternatives available and the quicker we adopt them, the better we all fare in the end run. I think investing in environmentally destructive fuel sources right now is fairly stupid.

[FreakinDJ]

48. Not going to happen in our life time and certainly not before a predicted 4 Deg C rise Globaly

You got any answers

[EOTE]

49. It's already happening in large amounts.

A number of countries receive very little of their overall power from carbon based fuel sources. So my answers would be for the rest of the countries of the world to step up their games and move into the 21st century.

[FreakinDJ]

51. OK I'm from the Show me State

[RC]

31. Too many people is the root of all our problems.

Everything from starvation, to global warming, to destroying whatever existing environment is left.
you are correct, births, even multiple birth are still celebrated as some kind of miracle, instead of a fact of biology.

[FreakinDJ]

36. I agree - but Rightwingers stop any reasonble effort to curb over population

[RC]

42. In fact those Right-winger are root not being able to apply working solutions to our problems,

no matter what the problems are.
That also ties into overpopulation.

[bluestate10]

68. China and India will adopt new technologies faster than we will if those technologies look

to be low cost. I don't buy the rest of the developing world argument. Chinese officials are coming under increasing pressure as the middle class in that country grows, so are Indian officials. Those government people respond to pressure, if their citizens don't want to breath fouled air, the governments will adopt technologies that get rid of air pollutants.

[FreakinDJ]

69. Mainland China has 17 nuclear power reactors in operation, 30 under construction

Mainland China has 17 nuclear power reactors in operation, 30 under construction and more about to start construction.

•Additional reactors are planned, including some of the world's most advanced, to give a four-fold increase in nuclear capacity to at least 58 GWe by 2020, then possibly 200 GWe by 2030, and 400 GWe by 2050.

•China has become largely self-sufficient in reactor design and construction, as well as other aspects of the fuel cycle, but is making full use of western technology while adapting and improving it.

•China’s policy is for closed fuel cycle.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Countries-A-F/China--Nuclear-Power/

[bluestate10]

65. And you ignored the fact that the technologies are completely different than that used to build

the Fukushima reactors. Denying facts don't help solve problems. The new technologies seem promising and should be investigated by the federal government.

[FreakinDJ]

10. Nor is Co2

[FreakinDJ]

15. Bury it in the ground always was a Stupid Idea

http://www.anl.gov/articles/nuclear-fuel-recycling-could-offer-plentiful-energy

[FreakinDJ]

27. 95% less waste with 95% shorter Half-Life is all that is on the table - for now

Fusion energy

One of the most important promises of hydrogen fusion is its long-term potential to produce clean, safe and abundant energy. Nuclear fusion drives the sun, and it drives most of the energy in the universe. The fusion of deuterium and tritium is the simplest fusion process – as deuterium is readily available from seawater. Lithium, a relatively abundant resource, can be transformed to tritium and thus supplies of fuel for fusion energy could be virtually limitless. An added bonus is that a fusion reactor would produce no greenhouse gases or other air pollutants and would generate significantly shorter-lived and less hazardous waste than current operational fission reactors.

http://www.ingenia.org.uk/ingenia/articles.aspx?index=466

In 2010 Congress defunded Dr Moses's work on the LIFE Reactor

[FreakinDJ]

34. Already been acheived - NIF

Fusion milestone reached, but shutdown stymies further progress

http://www.nbcnews.com/science/fusion-milestone-reached-shutdown-stymies-further-progress-8C11381186

Congress defunded it in 2010

[FreakinDJ]

40. They were seeking "Sustained Fusion" and No they didn't achieve that

Their research is now limited to "Materials" - aka: Bombs

September, the amount of energy released by the reaction exceeded the amount of energy that was absorbed by the fuel capsule.

That was the 1st milestone - if only for a fraction of a second.

But more importantly it "Burned Spent Nuclear Fuel"

[FreakinDJ]

47. 2028 soon enough

Fusion reactor achieves tenfold increase in plasma confinement time

http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/11/fusion-reactor-achieves-tenfold-increase-in-plasma-confinement-time/

Its not so much I am advocating in favor of nuclear power as I am against the ensuing Climate Warming and resulting 27% decrease in Global Crop Yields. Which is a disaster many here on DU and my children will see in their life time

And yes some of the Fusion Reactor Designs burn what Nuclear Waste is left over from the 95% recycle rate further reducing the "Waste"

[FreakinDJ]

53. Answer me this - Got any answers to this problem

How Much Global Warming Is Guaranteed Even If We Stopped Building Coal-Fired Power Plants Today?

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=guaranteed-global-warming-with-existing-fossil-fuel-infrastructure

Over 27% reduction in Global Crop Yields with 4 deg C rise in Global Temps

http://www.fao.org/docrep/w5183e/w5183e0b.htm

The World Health Organization estimates that one-third of the world is well-fed, one-third is under-fed one-third is starving- Since you've entered this site at least 200 people have died of starvation. Over 4 million will die this year.

http://library.thinkquest.org/C002291/high/present/stats.htm

They are going to burn what ever they can to TRY and better their living situation

Do you have an effective answer for them Other than "Stop Breathing"

[FreakinDJ]

57. So in other words You don't have an answer

I hate to be a realist - but I am

The US could go on quite nicely with what we have. Yes there will be some economically driven conservation, we won't have to build any nuke plants - we have abundant sources of coal and they are fracking more gas every day.

But as for the developing countries they will resort to what ever means they have to modernize their society and together we will fight for the ever shrinking piece of the proverbial pie

[FreakinDJ]

61. I do but you don't like them

but at least MY answers have humane treatment for the world's population

[snooper2]

18. North Dakato, like 4 people live there LOL

[RC]

35. Hey, North Dakotans are survivors.

I know, I lived there for 45 years. -43° Keeps out the Riff-Raff. The fact that the first snow in the fall, is the last to melt in the spring, is a good thing. Keeps the bodies of outsiders buried long enough to think up a reasonable alibi. That is why the crime rate is so low.

[bluestate10]

70. Did you read the article.

The author did some cheer leading, that is why all claims must be soundly verified. But the article clearly pointed out that some of the new technologies burn spent fuel to create more energy. My guess is that as time goes on and the technologies are examined and improved, it would be possible to do secondary and high level burns of spent fuel until it gets to the point where a block of it can be placed on a busy Manhattan street and harm no one, including pets.

[bhikkhu]

9. If all it takes for a "breakthrough" is an idea put down on paper...

Anyone who follows the science news would probably agree - good ideas are a dime a dozen, and breakthroughs happen all the time - on paper. It doesn't really count or make a bit of difference until its been built and proven.

Not to be overly negative, as I am very much in support of research and all the science that goes into these things, but for every lithium ion battery out there, there's a hundred or a thousand cold fusions.

[jwirr]

12. Ok, but will they slash the amount of nuclear waste they produce? Seems to me they are working on

the wrong problem first.

[FreakinDJ]

14. 95% Recycle Rate is 20 yr old technology

Imagine the mess if we mined one ton of coal, burned five percent of it for energy, and then threw away the rest.

That is what happens with uranium for nuclear fuel today. Currently, only about five percent of the uranium in a fuel rod gets fissioned for energy; after that, the rods are taken out of the reactor and put into permanent storage.

There is a way, however, to use almost all of the uranium in a fuel rod. Recycling used nuclear fuel could produce hundreds of years of energy from just the uranium we’ve already mined, all of it carbon-free. Problems with older technology put a halt to recycling used nuclear fuel in the United States, but new techniques developed by scientists at the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Argonne National Laboratory address many of those issues.
http://www.anl.gov/articles/nuclear-fuel-recycling-could-offer-plentiful-energy

[Cal Carpenter]

17. Cheap? How about SAFE? n/t

[FreakinDJ]

21. Depends mostly on the type of reactor

Last edited Fri Dec 6, 2013, 01:12 PM - Edit history (1)

I would NOT depend on the safety of a 70 yr old design

[upi402]

20. "What? Nuclear power and you haven't invented 'Nuke-way' yet?"

"What? Nuclear power and you haven't even invented 'Nuke-way'?"

-Mork

[Tikki]

24. It's always COULD..nothing about nuclear reactor construction, maintenance and clean up is cheap...

Another scam on the tax payers....fool you once and so on…



The Tikkis

[SomethingFishy]

25. I followed the author to a foundation he writes for and the first sentence

On the web page is "Japans close call notwithstanding nuclear will remain an important baseload power source worldwide.. "

What close call? You mean the radiation that is spilling into the ocean? That "close call"? No one even knows what the extent of the damage is from Fukushima and probably won't know for a long time to come.

Fuck Nuclear power. We have the brains, and the ideas to convert to clean energy. All we need is the investment.

[djean111]

28. This is just to continue the flow of taxpayer money into nuclear reactors.

They are addicted to the money coming in with no real strings attached, for "research".
Plus - it is nuclear waste that is the problem, not the money.

eta - "newfangled" just sounds so cute and harmless, though!

[magical thyme]

30. I have no memory of environmentalists opposing nuclear primarily due to its cost to build

It's due to the potential irreversible damage to the environment and due to failure even now to come up with a solution to nuclear waste. The financial costs of building, running, and attempting to clean up after the occasional disaster are just another argument against it.

Maybe the "smartplanet" people are confusing green (dollar) people with Green (Environment) people.

[PeoViejo]

32. So, what's with all the excitement about Thorium Reactors?

It's really about Rare Earths.

They are in great demand, especially for making the powerful magnets that are used to make the Wind Turbines that provide a lot of our Green Energy.

The biggest problem to producing these Magnets is that China controls the supply of Rare Earths and pretty much sets the price and availability.

There's no lack of sources for Rare Earths in the US and elsewhere. The biggest problem is where to put or what to do with the substantial amounts of byproduct Elements that have no current use. The primary byproduct Element is Thorium.

Get the hint?

[Kelvin Mace]

39. While it is quite possible that scientists and engineers

could design safer nuclear power plants, we can NEVER trust private corporations to build and operate them since the profit motive will always result in cutting corners.

[FreakinDJ]

41. Good Point

[bigbrother05]

46. Ding, ding, ding - we have a winner

3 mile island's failure was traced to forged weld inspections in cooling supply lines. During the investigations it was found that the x-rays were copies of one good weld passed off as proof that all were inspected and passed.

Anything to save a nickle will be used by a company that's only loyalty is to max profits. Even the three levels of safety built into reactor facilities is not enough to guaranty safety through the life of the plant. Follow on inspections will also suffer from the pursuit of bottomline profits, think of the Challenger disaster.

[FreakinDJ]

54. That wasn't the cause of 3 mile island's problems

Bad Design - pure and simple

relying on a "single pressure transmitter" to monitor the internal pressure was a mistake a 5th grader could find

[Kelvin Mace]

56. Until Challenger

NASA did its own safety work and kept a tight rein on the contractors it worked with. Before that, the lost ONE space craft and performed an engineering miracle and saved Apollo 13. If the same crew had been in charge of the Columbia mission, I think we would have save the ship and the crew.

It is pretty sad, since I have looked at the designs of 4th Generation reactors and they are orders of magnitude safer, but only if they are built and run by someone who puts safety above profit.

[stevenleser]

43. I know someone who really gets a kick out of nuclear power...

[DrDebug]

44. Did they add the costs when things go wrong?

I remember seeing something a couple days ago...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/101679658

A little $2,000,000,000.- band-aid(!) for Chernobyl. That's excluding the loss of lives, evacuation of an entire city, the first band-aid (sarcophagus) and the - still unsolved - more sophisticated solution... and the original price for that reactor...

[JEB]

52. Until the proponets of Nuclear are willing

to suck the radioactive waste up their own asses, I'm against it.

[Egalitarian Thug]

58. Complete BS when the actual costs, including those externalized costs that are

always overlooked by the nuclear industry, are counted. Even the so-called thorium reactors generate unaccounted costs that continue for centuries beyond the reactor's production life.

[hunter]

62. Providing civilization holds together (doubtful) someone will build these.

Russia? Korea? China? India?

And U.S.A. climate refugees fleeing to Alaska will be fighting for low wage jobs in factories powered by these reactors.

This is probably one of the nicer future scenarios.

We're not choosing any good future so long as fossil fuels are legal.

[FreakinDJ]

67. Stop it - your being too much of a Realist