OT True cost of nuclear power.

harryagain wrote:

    Harry, can't you get used to the idea that you are going to die anyway? The chance of it being due to radiation is so small that it can be ignored. The people living on granite are generally getting far larger natural radiation doses than those living next to or working in nuclear power stations. We don't see them whinging.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote in message

The MOX fuel consists only of a tiny percentage of plutonium.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 22/02/2014 09:42, harryagain wrote:

..

So, we need a LOT more nuclear power stations.
Colin Bignell
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Hear hear.
--
bert

Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 22 Feb 2014 11:12:07 +0000, Nightjar

Quite obviously, LFTR designs which, afair, can be used to 'burn down' the long lived isotopes to shorter lived ones (half lives of days to years for the various fission products produced).
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LFTR>
Saves me regurgitating all the benefits of this half century old nuclear power technology. The first paragraph nicely sums it up. Unlike the Cold War based legacy designs we're currently living with, essentially no high pressures on the nuclear side of the process (no need for a large and expensive high pressure containment vessel nor hydrogen explosion hazard - neatly eliminates Fukushima type accidents).
There are plenty of articles on the subject available on the internet (google or Bing using "LFTR") to provide further reading for anyone with the slightest interest or concerns over the future of nuclear power.
<http://energyfromthorium.com/ has a video of an interesting presentatiion on the subject by Kirk Sorenson
<
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v
—GtL98kmPA>

--
Regards, J B Good

Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload


Pity you never read it all. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LFTR#Difficulties
So the present nuclear reactors are no good and now we must start again? Heh, Heh. So what do with the pile of nuclear waste we already have?
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 23 Feb 2014 19:16:05 -0000, "harryagain"

I did read it all (and, not for the first time). My comprehension of this section was that it listed the various, surmountable, problems the designers would have to consider to create a fully functioning and _safe_ LFTR.
A lot of such problems being ones that had been overlooked/ignored in the current crop of LWR designs which lead to the need to store considerable amounts of high and low level radioactive wastes as a result of the higher than expected maintenance requirements.
The 'problems' are now being considered in the light of 50 years operational experience with LWR and similar reactor designs so it's not too surprising that the list of problems seems to be so impressively long.
What's encouraging is that there'll be solutions to each and every problem, helped not least by the 40 odd years of materials development in the nuclear power industry and the better understanding of the various risks inherent in _any_ nuclear reactor design.

In essence, yes. The good news is that the LFTR project can now be resumed after a 40 odd year hiatus with the benefit of hindsight gained by operating all those cold war driven designs (which weren't a complete waste of space).

I don't know why you think this is funny. ISTM that you're laughing at others' misfortune (demonic cackling laughter is how that comes over to me).

Burn it down to shorter lived radioactive isotopes in the LFTRs we'll be building by the thousands over the next century. It won't totally eliminate _all_ of the high level waste but, by hell, it'll reduce the size of the problem by an order or two of magnitude thus making safe and expensive disposal a more practical solution.
Your point seems to have been that nuclear energy is a "White Elephant" technology now showing its real operating costs in the form of the necessary decommissioning expenses to the embarrassment of the pro-nuclear politicians.
You seem to forget that the Cold War created a need for some rather pragmatic 'solutions' where such problems were simply 'swept under the carpet' in the hope that improvements in the technolgy would come up with the solution. As it turns out, a fulfilled hope if LFTR technology is allowed to be fully developed and utilised.
The cleanup costs are simply the price being paid for the necessary research required to develop inherently safe nuclear fission power plant technology. It could have been a lot cheaper but for the Cold War placing LFTR 'On Hold' for the last 40 odd years or so.
Just because the Cold War driven designs of the current nuclear power stations have revealed their many safety flaws, this is no reason to dismiss all nuclear fission reactor technology out of hand. LFTR offers a much safer way to meet our ever increasing demand for power in a practical way. Hopefully, long enough for mankind to realise the 'Holy Grail' of "Safe, Clean, Fusion Power" before the Thorium runs out sometime during the next millenium or three.
--
Regards, J B Good

Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Which is unsurprising. Only in harry's world do you go from the Wright Brothers to today's jets in one step.
If harry had been around in 1954 or whenever it was, he would be telling us that the Comet crashes "proved" that we shouldn't be using jets or trying to fly above 10,000 feet.
--
Tim

"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 24 Feb 2014 14:54:39 +0000, Tim Streater

It's funny, but a similar analogy came to mind whilst I was composing my reply. I just couldn't see a succinct way to phrase it at the time so didn't bother. Yours nicely sums it up though. :-)

That's my impression too. I think Harry is what you might call a "Happy Pessimist".
--
Regards, J B Good

Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I might call him that. Then again, I might call him something else.
--
"People don't buy Microsoft for quality, they buy it for compatibility
with what Bob in accounting bought last year. Trace it back - they buy
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Like FIT thief for example?
--
bert

Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

If you think that's a good analogy you are as dimwitted as he is.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 2 Mar 2014 10:17:11 -0000, "harryagain"

And, it took you nearly a week to arrive at this conclusion?
--
Regards, J B Good

Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sunday, 2 March 2014 13:08:20 UTC, Johny B Good wrote:

maybe more inverter problems on the FIT leccy?
Jim K
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Maybe, but it's given him plenty of time to 'mull things over'.
--
Regards, J B Good

Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

What a stupid comparison. Shows how thick you are. The Wright brothers made their aircraft out of recyclable materials.
We're stuck with poisonous radioactive waste, maybe forever ,with no likely solution in sight..
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload


Few of the problems have been resolved. Probably because there is no solution. So why proceed and make matters worse? If what you say is true, why is the Hinkley reactor not thorium? Because the technology is far away in the future, if it can work at all. You must be naive to think there will be (once again) no unforseen problems.
The nuclear industry has lied in ther past, and therefore is likely still lying and will lie in the future. So long as they can make money. They don't give a toss, in the end the taxpayer will face the continuing storage/processing bill. Maybe forever. Which means the cost of nuclear power is infinitely high.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 22/02/14 11:12, Nightjar wrote:

+1
--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) – a system of government where the least capable to
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 22/02/2014 09:42, harryagain wrote:

Between 5 and 10 percent, which isn't "tiny".
--
Tciao for Now!

John.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Define tiny.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.