On Fri, 03 Feb 2017 21:33:40 +0000, Chris Hogg wrote:

snip

Nuclear engineers are able to make a good estimate
of disposal costs and they're included in the cost of the electricity
generated.

I am afraid that is far from true.

If it were then we would not be looking forward to paying 70 or 80 billion
pounds to clean up.


The costs of cleaning up Winscale (oh - sorry Sellafield - that sounds much
nicer) goes up every time it is calculated.


I wonder what the original estimate for disposing of waste from Calderhall was.

On 07/03/17 07:10, Brian Gaff wrote:
Are I love the word Sludge, so descriptive.
The whole issue of radiation is a thorny one. If we had a means of removing
the material which is in effect unstable and decaying from the rest of the
material then we might be getting somewhere.
Maybe much like food packaging we need to aim for a fuel pure enough not to
leave any waste or at least to leave something we can use behind.
Brian

Sigh.

The radiation is something you will never get away from. Radiation
pervades the universe, and the universe runs on nuclear power.

The uranium we burn is already nuclear waste. In fact the whole ****ing
planet is made of nuclear waste.

Just what is so different about some nuclear wste that has had some
energy removed from it is hard to fathom rationally.

But then reason never comes into the nuclear debate does it?

What is at stake is the faux meme that what Nature does - stuff like
cholera and malaria worms and fleas and animals ripping each other to
shreds is all 'cool' and what humans do like keeping animals healthy and
content and then eating them, or using stuff they find lying around to
make life better, is all massively unnatural and a huge Sin Against Gaia.

Harry and his ilk is suffering from religious intolerance that's all.

Don't join him



--
"When one man dies it's a tragedy. When thousands die it's statistics."

Josef Stalin

En el artículo , Chris Hogg
escribió:

I'm surprised that sludge is easier to deal with than swarf,
radioactive or otherwise

I guess sludge is more pipeable/vacuumable and it reduces the need to
find some way to manipulate (mechanically handle) bits of swarf. Suck
the gloop up along with its radioactivity-shielding water, transfer into
barrels, store in a deep hole in the ground.

I wonder if that's the plan for Sellafield's legacy ponds.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) systemd: the Linux version of Windows 10
(")_(")

On 07/03/17 11:41, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artÃ*culo , Chris Hogg
escribió:

I'm surprised that sludge is easier to deal with than swarf,
radioactive or otherwise

I guess sludge is more pipeable/vacuumable and it reduces the need to
find some way to manipulate (mechanically handle) bits of swarf. Suck
the gloop up along with its radioactivity-shielding water, transfer into
barrels, store in a deep hole in the ground.

I wonder if that's the plan for Sellafield's legacy ponds.

Nope.

Right now nuclear waste is not ready to be disposed of: efforts are
really going into stabilisation in terms of short to medium term storage.

The ponds were just where stuff was dumped. There is nothing special
about the sludge, its just that as in the granny joke, they've cleaned
up all the big bits and sludge is what's left.

Sellafield is having funding it needs provided and is in a slow steady
and measured way sorting out a legacy from the cold war of loads of
waste varying from barely worth a mention to quite hot really.


Since it needs funding anyway to clear up the cold war legacy, we might
as well have a vibrant nuclear industry to leverage a necessary facility
and help pay for it.


--
"If you dont read the news paper, you are un-informed. If you read the
news paper, you are mis-informed."

Mark Twain

On 07/03/17 11:39, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Tue, 7 Mar 2017 09:21:47 +0000, newshound
wrote:

On 3/7/2017 8:36 AM, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Tue, 7 Mar 2017 00:24:48 +0000, Steve Walker
wrote:

On 04/02/2017 08:12, harry wrote:

The nuclear energy costs the industry likes toignore is that of dealing with the nuclear waste.
This is unquantified (though huge) because they don't know how to do it.
If they did, they'd be doing it but they aren't.
It is just in temporary storage at the moment.

That temporary storage serves two important purposes. For instance, the
Magnox swarf that remains after the fuel is decanned has spent decades
in temporary storage in water filled silos. That reduces the level of
activity over time and also allows the swarf to corrode into a sludge
that can be dealt with far more easily.

SteveW

I'm surprised that sludge is easier to deal with than swarf,
radioactive or otherwise. I would have expected the opposite. Do you
speak from experience and inside knowledge, or is it just something
you read somewhere?


You perhaps don't realise that the swarf is a magnesium alloy. It's a
bit difficult to get alight, but once you get it going, it burns very
well. Actually some of the swarf storage has been in dry concrete
"vaults", these need fire detection and suppression systems. Wet storage
is less problematic provided care is taken to vent hydrogen.

The swarf inevitably contains some radioactive dust. Keeping it wet
means it doesn't become airborn.

Also, when it is under a few feet of water that provides very effective
radiation shielding against gamma, so you can approach it, and
electronics in TV cameras or other instrumentation don't degrade.

A pilot system at one station bubbled carbon dioxide (readily available,
as it is the reactor coolant) into the system, the increased acidity
speeds up the corrosion of the metal into "sludge".

All is explained. Thanks.


http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/WR...-02031602.html

http://www.world-nuclear.org/informa...lear-fuel.aspx

http://www.world-nuclear.org/informa...-overview.aspx


--
"Anyone who believes that the laws of physics are mere social
conventions is invited to try transgressing those conventions from the
windows of my apartment. (I live on the twenty-first floor.) "

Alan Sokal

On 07/03/2017 13:02, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 07/03/17 11:41, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artÃ*culo , Chris Hogg
escribió:

I'm surprised that sludge is easier to deal with than swarf,
radioactive or otherwise

I guess sludge is more pipeable/vacuumable and it reduces the need to
find some way to manipulate (mechanically handle) bits of swarf. Suck
the gloop up along with its radioactivity-shielding water, transfer into
barrels, store in a deep hole in the ground.

I wonder if that's the plan for Sellafield's legacy ponds.

Nope.

Right now nuclear waste is not ready to be disposed of: efforts are
really going into stabilisation in terms of short to medium term storage.

The ponds were just where stuff was dumped. There is nothing special
about the sludge, its just that as in the granny joke, they've cleaned
up all the big bits and sludge is what's left.

Sellafield is having funding it needs provided and is in a slow steady
and measured way sorting out a legacy from the cold war of loads of
waste varying from barely worth a mention to quite hot really.


Since it needs funding anyway to clear up the cold war legacy, we might
as well have a vibrant nuclear industry to leverage a necessary facility
and help pay for it.



I was wondering about this the other day. Long term solutions for energy
seem to require either the fabled fusion or new breeder reactors.

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.

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.

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


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



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...

--
"Women actually are capable of being far more than the feminists will
let them."

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.

En el artículo , Nick
escribió:

I'm always a bit shocked that fission reactors aren't currently cheaper.

I suspect elfin safety is the biggest proportion of cost by far.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) systemd: the Linux version of Windows 10
(")_(")

On 07/03/17 14:28, 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.


They can. Its the inefficiencies of massive overregulation that do for
reactors.
2/3rd of the time after the cost of getting approval in the first place
is spent making sure the reactors not only meet the regulations, but
have the paperwork to prove it.

Sneeze on the construction site and thats probably a days worth of paperwork

--
Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have
guns, why should we let them have ideas?

Josef Stalin

On 07/03/2017 07:10, Brian Gaff wrote:
Are I love the word Sludge, so descriptive.
The whole issue of radiation is a thorny one. If we had a means of removing
the material which is in effect unstable and decaying from the rest of the
material then we might be getting somewhere.
Maybe much like food packaging we need to aim for a fuel pure enough not to
leave any waste or at least to leave something we can use behind.
Brian


Its already done..

but why do it the very expensive way when the material is extremely
radioactive when you can leave it in a pond for a decade or three and
then do it when its much easier and cheaper?

On 07/03/2017 09:32, Judith wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2017 21:33:40 +0000, Chris Hogg wrote:

snip

Nuclear engineers are able to make a good estimate
of disposal costs and they're included in the cost of the electricity
generated.

I am afraid that is far from true.

If it were then we would not be looking forward to paying 70 or 80 billion
pounds to clean up.


The costs of cleaning up Winscale (oh - sorry Sellafield - that sounds much
nicer) goes up every time it is calculated.


I wonder what the original estimate for disposing of waste from Calderhall was.

Don't forget that most of the stuff at Windscale is nuclear weapons
waste, and nothing to do with power.

Calder Hall would be a better measure - though I wouldn't be surprised
to find some of that stuff at Windscale...

Andy

On 3/7/2017 11:41 AM, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artículo , Chris Hogg
escribió:

I'm surprised that sludge is easier to deal with than swarf,
radioactive or otherwise

I guess sludge is more pipeable/vacuumable and it reduces the need to
find some way to manipulate (mechanically handle) bits of swarf. Suck
the gloop up along with its radioactivity-shielding water, transfer into
barrels, store in a deep hole in the ground.

I wonder if that's the plan for Sellafield's legacy ponds.

That's roughly, if not exactly right. I believe that all the Magnox
station ponds have been cleaned up, they were not as "sludgy" as the
Sellafield weapons program ponds, but the waste included things like
rust, paint and concrete debris "scabbled" off the walls. Like the
sludge, this is may be intermediate level waste (high dose, but
negligible heat). In the UK, the plan is to put it into steel containers
which are filled with grout, and thus solidified. They are relatively
safe above ground, and are self-shielding. It's assumed that in the long
term they can be put underground in a suitably designed repositary which
is eventualy sealed.

Other materials which are handled in a similar way are the ion exchange
resins which are used for cleaning both ponds and reactor coolant in
water reactors.

I assume that similar things are going on at Sellafield and Dounreay.

A quick google shows that there is much less information readily
available in the public domain than there used to be, presumably a
reflection on the times. Not that nuclear waste (or nuclear power
stations) are terribly good terrorist targets (apart from the publicity
value).

This gives a very high level view with little detail

http://www.world-nuclear.org/nuclear...ar-wastes.aspx

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.

--
Johnny B Good

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.

On 3/8/2017 2:22 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
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.


+1. If it is so wonderful, why are there no serious commercial plants
operating more than 50 years after the first prototypes were built.
Bradwell was operating commercially only six years after the start of
Calder Hall.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor

On 08/03/2017 13:15, newshound wrote:
On 3/8/2017 2:22 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
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.


+1. If it is so wonderful, why are there no serious commercial plants
operating more than 50 years after the first prototypes were built.
Bradwell was operating commercially only six years after the start of
Calder Hall.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor

There are a lot of reasons.

1) Nuclear innovation stalled after three mile island and pretty much
stopped after Chernobyl.

2) Alternatives technologies were prioritized, e.g. Liquid Metal.

3) Less concern over long lived actinide waste

4) Uranium fuel was so cheap there was no need for breeder technology.

5) Less safety concern over high pressure systems.

6) Less concern over carbon emissions.

The point is the world has changed and different requirements may make
them more desirable now. I think it is probably worth investigating them.

En el artículo , Nick
escribió:

1) Nuclear innovation stalled after three mile island and pretty much
stopped after Chernobyl.

2) Alternatives technologies were prioritized, e.g. Liquid Metal.

3) Less concern over long lived actinide waste

4) Uranium fuel was so cheap there was no need for breeder technology.

5) Less safety concern over high pressure systems.

6) Less concern over carbon emissions.

7) Pipework corrosion issues - this is the showstopper.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) systemd: the Linux version of Windows 10
(")_(")

On 3/8/2017 9:00 PM, Nick wrote:
On 08/03/2017 13:15, newshound wrote:
On 3/8/2017 2:22 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
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.


+1. If it is so wonderful, why are there no serious commercial plants
operating more than 50 years after the first prototypes were built.
Bradwell was operating commercially only six years after the start of
Calder Hall.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor

There are a lot of reasons.

1) Nuclear innovation stalled after three mile island

1979, the industry was pretty mature by then with a relatively small
number of designs considered economic

and pretty much
stopped after Chernobyl.

A hiatus, certainly, but there are several good Gen 3 designs from
countries with an actual long term energy strategy


2) Alternatives technologies were prioritized, e.g. Liquid Metal.

because it was judged to be commercially viable, particularly against
supposedly rising uranium costs. But the technological difficulties were
greatly underestimated, even by the Americans, British, and French.


3) Less concern over long lived actinide waste

I'm not convinced they are such a problem.


4) Uranium fuel was so cheap there was no need for breeder technology.

I can see why countries like India and China are doing research into
very long term options.

5) Less safety concern over high pressure systems.

Yes, high pressure brings its problems. But there hasn't, in fact, been
any major incident associated with a reactor pressure system failure.
I'd maintain that MSR is likely to have its own challenges.


6) Less concern over carbon emissions.

Red herring.


The point is the world has changed and different requirements may make
them more desirable now. I think it is probably worth investigating them.


If you are saying, see if you can build prototypes successfully at the
10 to 100 MW level, I have no problem with that. They might turn out to
be scaleable, or an option as an SMR. There are, however, some people
who claim they are immediate alternatives to the modern, licensed
systems. I don't believe it.

On 08/03/2017 23:07, newshound wrote:

If you are saying, see if you can build prototypes successfully at the
10 to 100 MW level, I have no problem with that. They might turn out to
be scaleable, or an option as an SMR. There are, however, some people
who claim they are immediate alternatives to the modern, licensed
systems. I don't believe it.


I was making a comparison between Fusion and Fission reactors as a
potential long term clean solution to our energy needs.

Governments fund fusion research with things like ITER my idle pondering
was that it might be good to have international projects like this for
sustainable fission energy research of which the MSR is one potential
variety.

I'm very disappointed to see the guaranteed energy cost of Hinkley C,
and other low carbon projects. I suspect that nuclear could be much
cheaper and would have been if governments had had the foresight to
continue research from the end of the 70's

I was not suggesting replacing Hinkley C with a MSR just promoting
research into cheap fission breeder solutions.

On 09/03/17 09:30, Nick wrote:
On 08/03/2017 23:07, newshound wrote:

If you are saying, see if you can build prototypes successfully at the
10 to 100 MW level, I have no problem with that. They might turn out to
be scaleable, or an option as an SMR. There are, however, some people
who claim they are immediate alternatives to the modern, licensed
systems. I don't believe it.


I was making a comparison between Fusion and Fission reactors as a
potential long term clean solution to our energy needs.

Governments fund fusion research with things like ITER my idle pondering
was that it might be good to have international projects like this for
sustainable fission energy research of which the MSR is one potential
variety.

All major fusion research is international.

I'm very disappointed to see the guaranteed energy cost of Hinkley C,
and other low carbon projects. I suspect that nuclear could be much
cheaper and would have been if governments had had the foresight to
continue research from the end of the 70's

I was not suggesting replacing Hinkley C with a MSR just promoting
research into cheap fission breeder solutions.



Nothing is cheap when ,massive amounts of bureaucracy planning
permission Elfin Safety and so on is slapped on top.

Nuclear isn't expensive because of the technology, but because of the
bureaucracy.


--
If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will
eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such
time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic
and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally
important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for
the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the
truth is the greatest enemy of the State.

Joseph Goebbels