On 08/03/17 01:59, Johnny B Good wrote:
On Tue, 07 Mar 2017 14:28:29 +0000, Nick wrote:

On 07/03/2017 13:52, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 07/03/17 13:32, Nick wrote:
Long term solutions for energy seem to require either the fabled
fusion or new breeder reactors.


Depends how long is long.

Right now spoiled for choice. U235 or plutonium are both fairly
plentiful and will both run non-breeders and there is so much U238 and
thorium its unlikely to run out in 10,000 years even if we never get
fusion working


Once it is over a few hundred years it is effectively infinite, a
problem for future generations. Who knows what technology will be like
in 200 years?


AIUI breeder reactors will potentially produce far less waste and much
of the current waste is potentially usable fuel. We appear to have
enough Uranium and Thorium for thousands of years. Unlike fusion
technology the engineering of such reactors appears to be relatively
achievable at what will probably be a reasonable cost.

Breeders produce just as much waste in the end But tehy can burn some
of it


I also thought they tended to burn the most obnoxious waste.


Fusion on the other hand seems to be tremendously complex, if even
achievable, and hence likely to be very expensive. So what is the
point of massive funding for ITER as opposed to funding more
achievable fission designs.

Fusions is dead simple,. Build box, light sun in it.

Its just the building of the box...


Yep but the essence of my thought was even if they can build the box it
is still likely to be expensive. Hence fission will still be cheaper.
It's like even if they get to the mountain top they will just think well
what was the point?

I'm always a bit shocked that fission reactors aren't currently cheaper.
I find it hard to believe that economies of scale can't bring fission
prices close to coal prices.

MSR technology (aka LFTR) is the way to go if you want a nuclear fission
based solution safe enough to be usable as an upgrade to existing coal
fired power stations.

That is the current myth: The reality is that in many ways LFTR is more
dangerous than current GENIII/GENIV reactors. And generates uglier waste
too.


Just to get it approved is probably 15-20 years let alone building a
reactor.

Unless the current political climate of kindergarten like protection of
the public not just from danger, but from even THINKING there MIGHT be
danger, changes, its unlikely we will even get Hinkley built.



--
No Apple devices were knowingly used in the preparation of this post.