On 09/04/14 17:57, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes

snip
These are probably totally impractical but the point is that throwing
money at one way of doing it hasn't worked: we need tp literally dream
up another, and a bloke in a garden sipping a cup of tea is as likely
to do that as 1000 scientists and engineers in a research lab.

You mean di-lithium crystals are not just around the corner?

Once you HAVE a viable methodology, well then yes, DEVELOPING it is
worth spending billions on

And THAT technology is nuclear fission: we know HOW to build reactors
that work. WE want better safer cheaper and cleaner reactors.

OK. I thought we had spent all we needed there. The problem seemed to be
in persuading commercial generators to invest their shareholders money.
Maybe we should build our own and undercut coal and gas?

There are two things making current reactors effin expensive

1/. they are virtually all; one offs to a not totally common design
2/. No nuclear regulation has ever been revoked because it was
superseded or shown to be irrelevant.


The way out of this nightmare given that joe public still thinks he will
glow in the dark and give birth to william hague lookalikes if there is
one within a thousand miles of him, is to go for a more expensive
technology, but one that can be pre-assembled in a factory and get TYPE
approval.

he theory is then that you can lay down a basic concrete shell and ship
in te reactor pressure vessels, most of the pipewpork and the
containment and just drop them in place and then install standard fuel
rod handling gantries to service and refuel them. All the 'hot' stuff is
then preassembled and tested.
The target would be 'cheaper than coal' at high capacity factors (over 60%).





So I say spend millions on a few scientist to dream up a way to make
fusion work, but spend the billions on new fission reactor design and
big engineering teams to handle it, because that WILL produce results.

Is there a better way of doing it? I note your comments about excessive
safety regulation but what could realistically be changed to save
significant sums without Joe public running for the horizon?



--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.