“by 2050, we should have lead-bismuth fast reactors that can use up this stuff and burn it completely so there is zero real nuclear waste ove time.”
Interesting...did not know that. That should reduce costs...shouldn’t it?
“People are paid for solar because it is a taxpayer-funded boondoggle. yet solar gives us less than 1% of our energy. meanwhile nuclear generates 20% of our power”
I’ve heard people say nucluer is a taxpayer boondoggle as well. Not sure how the math works out on that, but it seems nucluer adds more to the system then it takes out...although I’m not quite sure what the truth is.
“With all the money we waste on ‘alternative energy’ and ethanol subsidies, we could redirect is on cost-effective nuclear power and end forever the ‘threat’ of global warming.”
Biofuels will likely be really important....especially algae biomass. I’d much rather congress award based on results ie if you meet a particular standard that’s competitive or semi-competitive to our current energy...you get capital.
I don’t think it’s in our interest to depend on foreign petro...but then again just throwing money at the problem isn’t the most efficient way of changing things. For some reason I’m not as worried about electricity than petro. Maybe because we have the means to survive on our resources.
I just don’t think the dems have the political capital to fight companies in that sense. We’ll have electrical energy at home...but the petro is another issue in itself.
“by 2050, we should have lead-bismuth fast reactors that can use up this stuff and burn it completely so there is zero real nuclear waste ove time.”
Interesting...did not know that. That should reduce costs...shouldn’t it?
COST: The key drivers for nuclear energy cost are thermal efficiency and complexity of the plant construction. Another secondary one is refueling and fuel efficiency use.
heavy metal nuclear reactors were used in Russian subs but otherwise not pursued; commercial nuclear plants in the west are based on pressurized water reactors or boiling water reactors. Heavy metal reactors have real promise in the future for many reasons, mainly to do with the above factors. Lead as the moderation fluid means that you have a non-pressurized vessel that has a safe operating range to very high temperatures, since lead is liquid up to 1700C.
It also doesnt react badly to air, as liquid sodium does.
This is much more stable situation than other reactor types.
Such reactors are ‘fast’ reactors, since lead has low neutron profile. This means they could be used to burn up the fuel more efficienctly and/or be run as ‘burners’ or ‘breeders’ of actinide fuel. The safe operating range means they can run hotter, which means higher thermal efficiency, which means more economical system overall (using a gas/CO2 as heat transport mechanism to a Brayton-combined-cycle turbine, paper studies show a 50% efficiency at 600C or so).
This has been studied by MIT and Argonne National Lab. Such reactors don’t exist except on paper, but the technology is part of the “Generation IV” reactor concepts that may get built in the next 10 years or so, thus it is conceivable that in 3 decades or less, such reactors become commercially viable.
“People are paid for solar because it is a taxpayer-funded boondoggle. yet solar gives us less than 1% of our energy. meanwhile nuclear generates 20% of our power”
“I’ve heard people say nucluer is a taxpayer boondoggle as well. Not sure how the math works out on that, but it seems nucluer adds more to the system then it takes out...although I’m not quite sure what the truth is.”
A) The anti-nuclear folks claim that Govt is paying for waste disposal, when in fact the nuclear industry is paying their own way - they pay .0001/Kw into a fund for it that covers the cost.
B) Nuclear generates 20% of our electricity. If it didn’t pay its own way, it wouldnt be used that extensively. Consider the property taxes and utility company corporate taxes that are paid by it.
C) Govt does spend money on nuclear research, but the cost pales in comparision to the ethanol boondoggle and is less than subsidies and grants for ‘renewables’. Note that we even pay for coal tehcnology research etc., so it is spread around.
Les compare costs:
“EPRI estimates that a 500-MW solar plant would cost about $1.5 billion, or $3,000/kW, Bedard said. A just-built 64-MW solar plant in Nevada cost about $4,000/kW, he said. Nevada Power is buying the output from the Nevada Solar One project.
EPRI has had little involvement with solar power in the last decade, Bedard said. But climate change and renewable portfolio standards have renewed utility interest in the technology.
Currently, electricity from a CSP plant costs about 16 cents/kWh, compared with 7 cents/kWh for wind and 5.5 cents/kWh for coal, he said.”
Nuclear operation costs are so low these days that older plants cost under 4cents/KWh. New nuclear plants can be built for under $2000/Kwh.
Solar is very far from competitive.
“Biofuels will likely be really important....especially algae biomass. I’d much rather congress award based on results ie if you meet a particular standard that’s competitive or semi-competitive to our current energy...you get capital.”
The best way to keep a level playing field is to focus Govt spending solely on R&D (no subsidies), tax fossil fuels and/or imports to discourage them, and let the free market and efficiency factors do the rest. Private capital will step up if the solution is a competitive one.