New thread since hit the bump limit.
The previous thread was quite interesting and well-attended, so I think there is potential for more.
Topics:
>Why is/isn't nuclear energy superior to other energy sources?
>reactor design and safety, especially MSR and other gen IV designs
>reprocessing of spent fuel and disposal of nuclear waste
>Russia's Akademik Lomonosov power barge
and whatever else is relevant to nuclear technology
Other urls found in this thread:
ejatlas.org
reuters.com
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
forbes.com
qz.com
en.wikipedia.org
youtube.com
inhabitat.com
twitter.com
nuclear is based it's the reason france btfos germany in the energy sector
Please learn what a "general" thread is.
There is by far not enough discussion on the subject on this board to warrant anything close to a recurring thread, if you want to talk about a specific topic make a thread about that topic.
France is absolutely based. While everybody in Europe poops their panties over >muh Chernoshima, they operate more nuclear power plants than any other European country, including Russia.
How did France even end up achieving this much.
afaik France generated the majority of its electricity from oil, until some oil crisis in the 1970s or so. Because of that they went full nuclear and put power stations all over France.
France has the world record for nuclear energy production per population.
Uranium from colonies and a favorable political climate following the first oil crisis. the right wanted nuclear to have energetic independence and the left wanted it because that's what the USSR was doing
What happens with nuclear waste? I think I read somewhere that it's stored in some kind of "pools" underground at very low temperatures
>tfw nuclear power has been banned twice with referendum in your country
>surrounded by foreign nuclear plants anyway
I think Sweden has a relatively higher share of nuclear on their grid, they just use less power nominally. Also bunch of hydro on them nice snowy fjords
is it possible to make a stable mini nuclear reactor in your backyard?
sure lad go for it
You just put yourself on a list
of course dude, include me in the screencap btw
That's fantastic! Some cares about what I do, heartwarming.
That's great for encouragement but I wanted to know if the smaller size and potency increases the risk of kaboom
Where do you plan to get your fission material from, user? Asking for a friend
It's fairly simple but varies from country to country. You can either enrich spent fuel back to usable levels, or store it.
The former is a touchy subject because it can lead straight to nuclear weapons (the Iran deal was all about Iran wanting to do that and the US wanting them not to, and since the deal was cancelled Iran had to rev up their enrichment to keep their power plants going, Israel has also been pointing their fingers towards Iran for decades claiming that their nuclear program isn't only civilian in nature)
The latter includes storing the spent fuel there until better methods of reusing it are developed. They used to just put them in the mines where the fissile material was dug from in the first place, but with times new regulations made it so tougher and tougher storage methods had to be built. Modern nuclear plants and storage facilities are often required to be mini fortresses, designed to be easily defensible in case of literal terrorist attacks and natural disasters. Storage on pools full of water is the norm because water absorbs lots of neutrons and can absorb a lot of energy before heating up, which is something that spent fuel does.
All of the above depends on local legislation. Some countries are okay with storage and others are not, so they ship their waste to other countries for a fee. Some are okay with enrichment (and being observed by some 3rd party authority on nuclear power that makes sure you're enriching more than you need) and some countries are not okay with it, so they just let other countries handle the enrichment and just purchase the fuel. Waste is often the one big elephant in the room that makes nuclear not going through, one way or another.
>makes sure you're enriching
you're not*
AAAAAAA I WANT NUKES IN MY COUNTRY
MAKE IT HAPPEN YOU FUCKS IT'S BEEN 7 YEARS
I've thought about going nuclear at home too, but there's no way I can get the materials I need where I live (and collecting smoke detectors like that one dude is not an option). Also, I'm paranoid that somebody will find out and the police will come and buttfuck me.
here
ejatlas.org
pretty close to me
But seriously, if this is going to be a general, there needs to be motivation to make something, otherwise this would be better in /sci/
Is there any material that can substitute uranium for low productions? Preferably non radioactive.
>France is absolutely based
Not absolutely. Their dumb politics killed their fast program for no reason. What a shame.
buy uranium on ebay and extract good uranium yourself
then use it to enrich common uranium
>We need more ticking mega nuclear bombs next to our cities
>He didn't watch the HBO special
One of these things almost wiped out half of Europe.
We need to be talking about how to remove these things not make more.
Whoever wrote this is probably getting paid to advocate for nuclear power by billion dollar energy companies.
bad bait
bad bait x2
Any paper published that compares electric bills in towns with Nuclear plants over shitty electric plants?
please learn to fuck off
It garnered enough attention to go 10% past the reply-bump limit, stay page-1 active for nearly 3 days, and keep continuous on topic conversations. At the very least OP continuing the threads until/if we've argued ourselves to death is a valient effort, and it assuredly is more a fresh and informative technology duscussion than the 5 years of mouse threads.
If you're a mod with the authority to state such a ruling you are required to post with your ID active. If you aren't, get the attention of one or keep it to yourself.
>pic related
Only water-cooled reactors like Chernobyl and Fukushima blow up.
Metal/salt/gas/supercritical water-cooled reactors don't have such problem.
The size of reactors relative to their output efficiency becomes atrocious as you go down to house-capable generation. You would, to be fundamentally safe, need to dig a whole sub basement floor for the support machinery and failsafes. The reactor itself may be smaller than a sub compact car from the 90s, but at that small size you'd be getting 20% or less heat>electric conversion. On top of that, reactors take a long time to change power levels. For a "failsafe no-touch" system to work it would either always be oversupplying, and thus need considerably more support (cooling and steam regulation mainly), or it would always run at a typical 1.5-1.8KWe baseline, and you'd be drawing from the grid to cover peaks and sustained overage. I guess with the advent of Powerwalls and the like it isnt an issue anymore.
Anyways, you would have to cool almost 10Kw of heat at 1.8KWe and in a way that dumps the heat outside the home. This would be the equivalent of two to three midsize sedan cooling systems (car at idle with no airflow)
It's technically possible, and WRT nuclear power not difficult. Would probably cost more than an average house is worth if it were legal
>Jow Forums discussing nuclear energy
Oh god, why is this a thing?
We'll need the energy to power our next-gen GPUs
bad bait
The jew wants to suppress nuclear. The jew wants the US to be thirsty for oil so they have a continuous involvement in the middle East.
An energy independent US means no protection for the Jew.
Isn't france planning on getting off of nuclear?
>nuclear is so reliable and future-proof and our best bet against global warming
>unless the weather is too hot, in that case we must shut them down
Literally NO other energy source has that problem.
Source: reuters.com
Aside from nuclear don't we have natural gas plants with literally 0 carbon emissions. Environmentalists still fucking hate it of course but if we really should be worried about climate change it would be worth it as a stop gap until battery technology makes solar and wind actually usable.
They love enriching
Uranium, muslims, you name it
How do the nuclear powered rovers work then?
RTGs are quite interesting, single purpose power sources.
Interesting. So I just cover radioactive polonium with peltier devices.
And then I can still use the heat to boil water and power a turbine. Hmm....
yeah but pu-238 costs 8 million USD per kilo and you'd need oh, about ten kg not to mention a house capable unit would be the size of...a house.
Aside from nobody letting anyone near weapons grade material,
I think you have a shot at RTGing your home.
Not a fundamental problem.
It's just those specific plants weren't designed for that specific temperature.
They can be modernized.
>0 carbon emissions
>Natural gas (also called fossil gas) is a naturally occurring hydrocarbon gas mixture consisting primarily of methane, but commonly including varying amounts of other higher alkanes, and sometimes a small percentage of carbon dioxide, nitrogen, hydrogen sulfide, or helium.
Dude.
>the fast reactor project was a failure
>”politics”
This is normal, shutting down nuclear power for weather related safety reasons is not a big deal and happens all the time. I live in Nebraska and once we shut down our only nuclear plant for a few days just because flooding. Nobody's power bill was affected and there weren't any black/brown outs.
It wasn't a failure at all. The physicists and engineers had figured everything out. There literally was no reason to cancel it.
This one?
en.wikipedia.org
The big one
en.wikipedia.org
Hey man I'm no scientist I'm just going off things I've read online.
forbes.com
qz.com
Would this effect thorium molten salt reactors the same?
>gainst a background of ongoing protest and low-level sabotage, on the night of January 18, 1982 an RPG-7 rocket-propelled grenade attack was launched against the unfinished plant. Five rockets were fired across the Rhône at the incomplete containment building. Two rockets hit and caused minor damage to the reinforced concrete outer shell, missing the reactor's empty core. Initially there were no claims of responsibility.
>These sales bring the cost of electricity from NET Power's plant down to 1.9¢ per kilowatt hour, Goff said, compared to 4.2¢ for a traditional combined cycle natural gas plant, making this the cheapest source of electricity, and with no carbon emissions.
Dunno, sounds fishy. But if it scales well then might be interesting. Let's wait until a full-sized plant.
First of all, your article literally says "it uses oxygen instead of air" as an oxidizer.
Second of all, your article literally says that the power plant in question ONLY produces water and CO2, they then bury the CO2 underground and hope that nothing bad happens.
>muh muh Nuclear waste increases earth's temperature by 10 degrees we're all gonna die
How do you even deal with these people.
The temperature of the earth is going to go slightly up until 2099 when just about everyone will be likely driving Hydrogen.
It will be incredibly sad if jets don't run on Hydrogen by 2099.
It's not a problem specific to any type of reactor. It's just that those specific plants need a temperature differential in their secondary cooling loops that the river water wasn't able to provide. You can in theory design a plant to be cooled by water of any temperature that's slightly cooler than the water in the cooling loop, despite this not necessarily being practical.
>First of all, your article literally says "it uses oxygen instead of air" as an oxidizer.
Okay? What's bad about that?
>Second of all, your article literally says that the power plant in question ONLY produces water and CO2, they then bury the CO2 underground and hope that nothing bad happens.
It says that the CO2 it produces would be pipelined and reused in other industrial processes or be put underground. Certainly both are better than releasing it into the atmosphere.
Slightly up is enough. Though I don't see how nuclear waste contributes to global warming.
>Though I don't see how nuclear waste contributes to global warming.
I'd assume they have some seriously flawed notions on how much decay heat is generated, over what kind of timespan that decay takes place, and where this waste is suppose to be stored.
There aren't enough processes to support such production, the overwhelming majority is going underground, and that's bad. It's better to just not make the CO2 in the first place.
>It says that the CO2 it produces would be pipelined and reused in other industrial processes or be put underground. Certainly both are better than releasing it into the atmosphere.
You're underestimating the amount of CO2 we're releasing.
It's more than 30 gigatons every year.
Let's say we replace every old gas/oil/coal plant with these new ones that capture CO2.
What are you even going to do with 30 gigatons of CO2? Every year?
It would make the nuclear waste problem(puny 500k tons over the last 60 years) look like a fucking joke.
>HBO
>Basng your opinion on literal propaganda
At least they don't like to burn coal.
Once LFTR has a design that can be reproduced easily we will be able to reach a world where energy meeting isn't a thing anymore.
Same way you pay for internet bandwidth, you will pay for energy bandwidth instead of meetering it.
We need an order of magnitude increase like this so we can move into a pre-post scarcity world.
>solar only works half the day if the weather is nice.
>turbines require strong winds
>oil and coal are cancer
>they had to turn the reactor off for a couple days, holy shit shut it all down!
Hybrid reactors are even better and can make the bright fusion future closer.
en.wikipedia.org
I'm still amazed that people really think renewables will be able to cover the worlds growing energy needs. Over 10 billion people by 2100 and they all will want to live our energy intensive first world lifestyles, and we are also growing in energy needs each year.
Stopping this growth means rationing for our descendants, the cognitive dissonance between what is being proposed and the outcome is massive.
I'm a data analyst with power engineering masters degree. Please tell me there is a startup somewhere developing nuclear power.
>a
There are dosins.
youtube.com
It didn't wipe anything. It had the residual radiation of a chest X-ray. You're delusional.
I don't take the West seriously anymore. Even pajeets are not that stupid, what the hell.
Chernobyl was a lot worse than that, but far from that other user's "wipe half of europe" bullshit.
Fukushima, on the other hand, was in fact that little of a deal, and was about the level of a chest X-ray. A few emergency workers got more than their yearly allotted dose, however.
Seriously, India has 7 nuclear power stations. If Pajeet and Ranshid are able to keep them running without blowing up half India, why wouldn't we be able to?
Meanwhile renewablecucks are shilling their inferior tech and get massive support, what the fuck?
That was in 73 when the Arab countries told the rest of the world No More Oil For You
>I'm still amazed that people really think renewable will be able to cover the worlds growing energy needs.
I'm still amazed how much ignorance there is about the current potential of renewable.
70 GWh of wind power projection, only on the doggerbank.
Deep sea wind turbines with 64% of capacity factor.
Solar in the Sahara desert, world energy 100% covered.
Tesla megapack for grid stability and storage.
inhabitat.com
It's a matter of philosophy
>Make a huge effort and barely meet existing needs
Or
>Pursue abundant energy and start consuming hundreds times more
>Chernobyl was a lot worse than that
RBKM can't explode. The situation is well under control. You're delusional.
Take him to the infirmary.
Transporting energy from remote places is very expensive. In many countries the grid cost is significantly more than the energy itself.
Storing energy in batteries is a meme if you want to be environmentally friendly.
If you cover the Sahara desert with PV solar, you'll do well more than barely meet existing meets.
Nuclear is not ready. It's slow as fuck. The HTR-PM is still not ready. I'm waiting for this shit since 2012. EPR is a joke. Fast breeders are still 20 years from now. Small modular reactors are not really competitive against offshore wind turbines. The third world is too retarded for nuclear, but solar suits them perfectly. A literal 95 IQ engineer could operate a PV solar station.
>Transporting energy from remote places is very expensive.
HVDC.
That HBO miniseries you're referencing was written by someone who WANTS you to use nuclear power.
Stop acting like a scared boomer.
"""OHH NO THE TV SHOWED ME SOME BAD THINGS BAN IT BAN IT BAN IT!!!"""
Sure, just plaster the desert full of highly toxic solar panels. Not to forget that the countries there are well known for being politically stable and not having any trouble with terrorism at all. A really good area for critical infrastructure the entire world is supposed to depend on. Also, power transmission from the Sahara to the places that actually need the power is as easy as burying a long wire in the ground, it's cheap and and won't fuck with the voltage at all.
Power efficiency losses become significant at long distances. No one lives in the desert, so there's no one to use it. This is why all '"eco friendly"" power solutions are built in populated areas.
Again, the grid is is much more complicated to run from remote locations. Even fucking Germany can't transport their energy created by turbines in the north to the consumers in the south. Just think, Germany of all countries can't solve it.
Also the grid is much more expensive and complicated to run with renewables because of their dynamic production. 3rd world countries can't do it.
With nuclear you just install it where you need the energy and you have constant output, grid is cheap and easy to run.
The problem of nuclear is that on paper it seems like an engineer dream. But in reality, you didn't really benefit from the increase of productivity induced by Capitalism. In Capitalism, the huge increase of productivity from decade to decades comes from automation. Problem, a traditional nuclear reactor is built "on site". This means traditionnal building of the vessel and containment structure, by manual workers. This is slow as fuck and costly.
This contradict the constrant increase of productivity in factories do to constant automation of production.
Nuclear tried to solve this problem with small nuclear reactor. Because with those small nuclear reactor, the entire construction is done on-site, and thus can benefit from the increase of producivity due to automation in factory lines. Once made the small nuclear reactor is shipped as is and then connected to the grid. Unfortunately, small nuclear reactor are, to this day, a failure.
PV and wind turbines don't suffer from this. Contruction is done in the factory, thus allowing constant increase of productivity due to automation. Especially for solar. The setting of solar panel, on the PV power station, is very fast, and very cheap. That is why, PV solar and wind will prevail. Not because it is superior on paper. But realistically, it is cheaper and faster to built and connect to the grid. Faster return on investment.
HVDC.
> well known for being politically stable and not having any trouble with terrorism at all.
I agree with this. That's why first the dogger bank will be covered with wind turbines first, then deep sea turbines, then only we'll see what to do with the Sahara.
In any case, drones should patrol the PV infrastruture constantly. Terrorist shouldn't be able to do much damage since the area covered would be huge. So if they blow something, it will be a tiny fraction of the total PV pannels.
Without subsidies there's very limited countries where PV and turbines actually pay off in their lifetimes.
Without subsidies these factories would just close.
RBKM did explode. That's why there was an explosion. It exploded.
IT DIDN'T.
>hydroelectric dam bursts
>some chink village downstream drowns
>wind turbine catches fire
>just some birds get grilled
>Chernobyl explodes
>kino like STALKER and HBO's Chernobyl are made
Yeah I'm thinking nuclear is based.
It's definitely not the same everywhere in NA.
And again, don't forget the grid. There's no use of having a low cost energy source if you end up paying more than double for the infrastructure.
Kindly fuck off with your unfunny memes.
>RBKM
RBMK