21 Jun '14 12:38>
http://phys.org/news/2014-06-molten-salt-reactor-concept-transatomic.html
This development could put nuclear power back on the map permanently!
This development could put nuclear power back on the map permanently!
Originally posted by sonhouseI agree it looks good, but I've still got my basic objection to these things which is that we won't see them come on line for another 10 to 20 years (new technology) and we have an energy crisis, or at least the U.K. does since every government since Thatcher's has refused to invest in infra-structure since they seem to think that they can just buy technology from the rest of the world and make money through banking.
http://phys.org/news/2014-06-molten-salt-reactor-concept-transatomic.html
This development could put nuclear power back on the map permanently!
Originally posted by DeepThoughtI completely agree that MSR's [or frankly any nuclear] is going to solve our
I agree it looks good, but I've still got my basic objection to these things which is that we won't see them come on line for another 10 to 20 years (new technology) and we have an energy crisis, or at least the U.K. does since every government since Thatcher's has refused to invest in infra-structure since they seem to think that they can just buy techn ...[text shortened]... banking.
Hmm., bit of a rant there, but it is why we don't have a power strategy in the U.K..
Originally posted by twhitehead
I am not completely anti-nuclear in that given a choice between global warming and nuclear, I would pick nuclear. But 10-20 years from now, solar , wind and other renewables will be far cheaper than nuclear, so we should just stick with renewables.
The biggest problem with solar and wind right now, is that to really make an impact we need to ramp up production significantly, and that too takes time.
wind and other renewables will be far cheaper than nuclear,
Originally posted by humyIf you look through that pdf I linked you will see biomass and hydro. I didn't see geothermal - probably because they only use that for direct heating instead of electricity generation.
As for the issue of renewables being fickle, ....
Originally posted by twhiteheadThere is the other take on it. If we don't switch to some kind of safe salt reactor, there is that much more highly enriched uranium that could end in terrorist hands.
I am not completely anti-nuclear in that given a choice between global warming and nuclear, I would pick nuclear. But 10-20 years from now, solar , wind and other renewables will be far cheaper than nuclear, so we should just stick with renewables.
The biggest problem with solar and wind right now, is that to really make an impact we need to ramp up production significantly, and that too takes time.
Originally posted by sonhouseWell then we should put it in the cards rather than encouraging nuclear technology. I see molten salt reactors as similar to the whole 'hydrogen economy' fiasco in the US. It is a technology that if it pans out, will be in the far future, and it just takes the focus away from what we really should be doing which is electric cars and renewables.
Of course getting rid of nuclear completely would be best and just concentrate on renewables but that is just not in the cards.
Originally posted by twhiteheadYes, and so do house mounted PV cells. The fact remains though that we are already in the middle of a nuclear nightmare and it will take the next 100 years to extricate ourselves fully from that nightmare.
Well then we should put it in the cards rather than encouraging nuclear technology. I see molten salt reactors as similar to the whole 'hydrogen economy' fiasco in the US. It is a technology that if it pans out, will be in the far future, and it just takes the focus away from what we really should be doing which is electric cars and renewables.
And on that note, electric cars have the potential to provide grid storage using thier batteries.
Originally posted by sonhouseInteresting, that's the second time I've heard someone mention a terrorist dirty atom bomb in a couple of days. Where has this new paranoia come from?
Yes, and so do house mounted PV cells. The fact remains though that we are already in the middle of a nuclear nightmare and it will take the next 100 years to extricate ourselves fully from that nightmare.
I think the molten salt reactor can go a long way to make sure no highly enriched uranium ends up in the hands of terrorists.
One A bomb in Pretor ...[text shortened]... s of years.
This is a real risk and we have to do something to eliminate it as a possibility.
Originally posted by sonhouseI really don't see how you think that will work. Having more nuclear reactors does not reduce the risks of enriched uranium getting into the hands of terrorists. Maybe you are claiming that they will replace current reactors, but that would take hundreds of years. First they have to build some test reactors, then they will build new ones, and only later will they start shutting down the old type ones.
I think the molten salt reactor can go a long way to make sure no highly enriched uranium ends up in the hands of terrorists.
Originally posted by DeepThoughtI remember seeing a documentary about various governments researching the threat of a dirt bomb from terrorists and they all concluded that a dirty bomb would be ineffective as a terrorist bomb because the 'dirt' (radioactive contamination ) would actually cause very few deaths even to any people that survived within just meters of the bomb exploding!
Interesting, that's the second time I've heard someone mention a terrorist dirty atom bomb in a couple of days. Where has this new paranoia come from?
The way to make a dirty bomb is to use a conventional bomb to spread radioactive material around. The clean up afterwards isn't as difficult as you might think. It's hard to make a bomb with that muc ...[text shortened]... om bombs is a clean bomb, for the neutron flux.
I think some propaganda's been flying around.
Originally posted by humyIt sounds to me like a perfect weapon for a terrorist. You get all the 'terror' without the deaths.
I remember seeing a documentary about various governments researching the threat of a dirt bomb from terrorists and they all concluded that a dirty bomb would be ineffective as a terrorist bomb because the 'dirt' (radioactive contamination ) would actually cause very few deaths even to any people that survived within just meters of the bomb exploding!
Originally posted by twhiteheadLets hope you are right. One argument in your favor, it hasn't happened in in the 25 years since the end of the Soviet Empire and a LOT of material was lost and for sure is in the hands of terrorists but perhaps they concluded it wasn't effective enough.
I really don't see how you think that will work. Having more nuclear reactors does not reduce the risks of enriched uranium getting into the hands of terrorists. Maybe you are claiming that they will replace current reactors, but that would take hundreds of years. First they have to build some test reactors, then they will build new ones, and only later w ...[text shortened]... old type ones.
And as already mentioned, long before this, solar and wind will have taken over.