Discussion on:

Fukushima's Lesson: 'Alternative' nuclear, not 'no' nuclear

The current predominant reactor design did not "take root" because it produced "weapons-grade spent fuel" as stated. The driving force for development of this concept was the nuclear submarine powerplant. The first commercial reactors (and most current reactors) were based on this design. Probably no weapons-grade material has been produced in these plants, but in special-purpose designs whose spent fuel could be removed after fairly short irradiation times.

Has anyone come up with the 10,000 year sign warning people (only our species ?), of the dangers we have already created? How can any warning sign communicate the dangers for the next 10.000 years. What language do we use to tell birds, animals, plants, wind, rain to stay away from the danger.
Are there any efforts to neutralize our current uranium mess, or do we keep our minds & eyes closed and say "Oh well. - Lets move forward and hope that we can bury our problems for the next 10,000 year?"

lynn: One of the main benefits of molten salt reactors is that they will be able consume the long-term nuclear waste from conventional reactors as fuel, while producing only a minuscule amount of waste themselves.

If you really hate nuclear waste then you would be clamoring for the roll-out of molten salt reactors. They will convert the waste you love to hate from a 300-century problem into a 300-year problem.

We have these different types of power plants, why not take away (I don't think you can just pull the plug though, lots of people will be affected since Big Oil will try and cut off expenses to maintain the high level of profit) all of the subsidies from oil and other destructive practices and funnel them into safer alternatives. People think that renewables is only limited to what my friend jokingly calls treehugging power (solar, wind, etc.). People need more education to make more informed decisions. Cheers, great article!

Juan Miguel Ruiz
GreenJoyment.com

The hurdles for nuclear power are many, from designs to the permit process. There are a couple of problems that still need to be addressed and those are a long term disposal facility and the decommisioning of old reactors.

The current storage of spent fuel and waste has not changed; the Yucca mountain storage facility had problems both physical and political. There are very few alternative storage solutions beyond storing in the cooling tanks.

Decommissioning a reactor takes a lot more time and expense than given when the reactor facility is proposed. Decommissioning a reactor is similar in concept to cleaning up asbestos contaminated buildings, both use stringent methods to contain the mess and also deal with the collected wastes. Decommissioning a reactor can take as long as a decade with similar problems with dealing with the radioactive wastes.

The alternate nuclear technology may help get all of us through the end of the era of cheap oil. But, there needs to be a good answer to waste disposal and decommissioning.

Minor detail: fission adds a particle to an atom that makes it unstable and causes it to split into two or more smaller atoms (e.g. U235 + neutron ==> U236* (*=excess energy) ==>fissions Kr90 + Cs139 + 2.4 neutrons). Fusion takes two smaller atoms and makes at least one larger atom, but often a smaller particle comes out too (e.g. H2 + H3 ==> He4 + n) . For p-B11, it is H1 + B11 ==> C12* ==> Be8* + He4 ==> 3He4, so B11 is like U235 and C12* is like U236*, and 3He4's are all smaller than the original B11. The reasons this tends to be called fusion is that you need a fusion like reactor to get the two charged particles together (like fusion), and there is no self-sustaining reactions from excess neutrons, like most fission reactions. There might even be some desire to keep p-B11 separate from fission because of the bad connotation of fission as dangerous, and fusion as clean.

I believe the half-life of Harry Reid and his puppet Jackzo is much shorter than the half-life of the fission products, and even of the Yucca Mtn project, even though we are not happy to be manipulated like that.

I see that nuclear is gaining a bit more traction lately - or maybe the publicity is being built up to generate a perception of new respectability for nuclear.

I am unconvinced, at this time anyway, that any nuclear is safe, whether it be thorium, uranium or waste material. At this time I believe it is correct to say that the technology is still short of what is needed.

I am concerned that nuclear is so easily portrayed as a "fix" for our energy issues. Fully deployed, it will certainly reduce our need for fossil-fuelled power generation - but if the lead time for say a "new" reactor is 15-20 years, wide scale deployment of the new reactors will take years. I was told once (sorry no source) that right now we would need ~100,000 nuclear reactors to totally displace coal. Sound a lot, and since I don't have a source, let's just say we need half that number. How many can we build per year? Can we build enough to slow down carbon dioxide sufficiently? I have my doubts. And if I am right, that logistically we are too late, nuclear is not a fix. We are betting on technology that has yet to be proven, so don't relax yet.

U can use nuck??lear energy without the risks of nuclear power plants. Most of the heat in the earth comes from radioactive decay. This heat can be used in geothermal power plants. You don't need nuclear power plants any more, if you use renewable energies, including geothermal!