Comments on Next Big Future: Deep burn and seriously scaling nuclear power to 2...

Photovoltaics ("solar cells") are decreasing expon...

2008-10-26T23:00:00.000-07:00

Photovoltaics ("solar cells") are decreasing exponentially in cost. In a few years they'll be cheap enough to cap oil prices. A few more years and there won't be much reason to develop any other kind of energy. They'll stop pumping oil because it will be uncompetitive. Build nukes? Forget it, won't be cost effective by the time the agressive build program would be able to get seriously underway.

Solar and wind are not viable for baseload, and wi...

2008-08-03T16:50:00.000-07:00

Solar and wind are not viable for baseload, and will not be in 20 years.

at any rate, wind and solar will ALWAYS remain niche, and will never become mainstream sources of energy.

As civilization progresses, demand for electricity(energy in general, electricity being its most pliable form) will only increase, and most likely, exponentially. afaik - we only have so many deserts and roofs, and their area isnt growing exponentially.

Solar first needs to mature to the point where commercial solar plants that are competitive (without incredible subsidies solar enjoys today)with nuclear power plants at _midnight_. Then it might be considered to have become mainstream source of energy. Until then - it's a very nice, very useful technology, but a niche one.

Wind - useless, and will always be, in my opinion. With that much materials required for inefficient and unstable power output - it's only viable because of current political climate, and general hysteria regarding nuclear power.

Read up on incredible failure of wind in Denmark.

Denmark - highest electricity costs. France - lowest.

France - nuclear. Denmark - wind.

I don't know how to explain it any better.

Once reality kicks in, people will wise up. we just need wait.

Also, I find it very odd that while CO2 is considered to be the devil himself, yet, disrupting winds that even out temperatures and climate across the entire globe is somehow OK.

The real target is aneutronic fusion, preferably compact.

Will,While you are right about some viable applica...

2008-08-03T16:13:00.000-07:00

Will,

While you are right about some viable applications for wind and solar - and I've never said otherwise - most of the proponents of these technologies do believe that they can. They argue that nuclear is in fact unnecessary because of this.

I have been debating this issue all over the net for many years and found this to be a recurring theme. The problem is that the more hope is pinned on wind and solar, the latter the real solutions will wait.

As Cyril r and DV8 2XL (cute screen name that; I l...

2008-08-03T13:38:00.000-07:00

As Cyril r and DV8 2XL (cute screen name that; I like it) illustrate, there are basicly two separate arguments being conflated in the energy debate.

The one regards wind and solar, which have a reasonably well established viable application at the individual user level of application. The most common examples being for remote locations or as a back-up system for emergency individual circumstance.

The other is the industrial application and the population-dense urban consumer market. For this, the level of production requirements far outweigh any forseeable development in solar or wind technology. Thus, nuclear seems to be the best (from a variety of perspectives) option to develop into the future.

Proponents of one application arguing with those from the other don't offer any sort of positive contribution to the discussion.

Of either.

Let's at least try to keep our arguments orderly, shall we? Yeah, I know, good luck with all that! :)

Cyril, when you can prove that these sources can p...

2008-08-02T20:33:00.000-07:00

Cyril, when you can prove that these sources can provide the energy you think they do I will change my tune in an instant. The problem for me is that I have the education and the practical knowledge developed over several years in industry to evaluate what the facts are in alternate energy and right now it could not hope to replace any fossil fuel generation or even slow the its growth in any meaningful way.

Posturings from people that are antinuclear and claims from those selling these systems don't cut it for me, and they shouldn't for you.

The sooner this pipe dream of windmills and solar ...

2008-08-02T13:54:00.000-07:00

The sooner this pipe dream of windmills and solar panels is abandoned, the sooner the real work to secure our energy future can begin in earnest.

The sooner people will stop thinking like that, the sooner the real work to get rid of dirty coal will begin in earnest.

No, too much to ask. Everyone is biased.

Hi BrianDeep Burn uranium reactors could burn uran...

2008-07-29T16:56:00.000-07:00

Hi Brian

Deep Burn uranium reactors could burn uranium from sea-water for billions of years, because of the continually regenerated nature of the uranium dissolved - it comes from the continents via erosion and thus is a renewable resource. The annual inflow is roughly ~60,000 tons per year, which is the energy equivalent of ~ 172 TW.yr - almost 12 times current energy usage globally. That should be enough for everyone on Earth to live reasonably well.

The nuclear plant build rate in the 1970s-80s was ...

2008-07-29T09:50:00.000-07:00

The nuclear plant build rate in the 1970s-80s was greater than 30 per year if we include the plants manufactured but construction not completed because of the overbuilding of baseload capacity, high interest rates, and the Chernobyl accident, especially in Europe and the Soviet Union.

A much more aggressive build-up can be achieved, although the annular fuel conversion, if achieved, will required a great many turbines.

See an article on building 5000 to 6000 (1 GW equivalent) nuclear plants by the 2050s at:

http://www.radscihealth.org/rsh/papers/Muckerheide05_21stC-6000plants.pdf

Note that the oceans inventory of uranium is a fun...

2008-07-29T09:39:00.000-07:00

Note that the oceans inventory of uranium is a function of chemistry, U solubility. Seawater contains a relatively constant 3.3 ppb U, roughly 4.5 billion tons U.

As U is removed from seawater (as it is taken up by corals and other marine life, and decays) dissolution of U in ocean silts and discharges from deep hydrothermal vents and continental shelf cold seeps, and from rivers, etc., are dissolved into the oceans.

As a billion tons of U is removed from the oceans, the oceans are likely to contain about 4.5 billion tons of U at 3.3 ppb.

Good post and excellent review of the situation to...

2008-07-28T12:27:00.000-07:00

Good post and excellent review of the situation to date.

There are no real technical obstacles to a nuclear.electric energy economy, only political, and these are slowly giving way to to the reality that this is the only real path. Unfortunately misinformation has led to the widespread belief that there is a way to meet our needs through wind, solar and other renewable sources, and that is shaping up to be the biggest opposition to perusing the nuclear option as vigorously as it should be. As long as people believe that these alternatives are viable, nuclear will face an uphill battle.

The sooner this pipe dream of windmills and solar panels is abandoned, the sooner the real work to secure our energy future can begin in earnest.

Someone tell Virginiatwo. Yeay, NIMBY will not di...

2008-07-28T12:05:00.000-07:00

Someone tell Virginiatwo. Yeay, NIMBY will not die.

I hope some of the really cool energy tech I've seen on this blog and elsewhere (like Blacklight Power or Polywell) bears fruit, but it's good to know that we've got plenty of options without having to depend on hope. Now all we have to do is hope that politics doesn't kill the technologically feasible.

Russia has had the BN600 running since the 1980s. ...

2008-07-28T11:39:00.000-07:00

Russia has had the BN600 running since the 1980s. They are building the BN800 and have a BN1200 in the planning stages. They also are working on the Brest 300MW version of a fast neutron reactor. The link the fast neutron reactor article covers this.

Russia has been running fast nukes since 1973. BN-...

2008-07-28T11:22:00.000-07:00

Russia has been running fast nukes since 1973. BN-350 achieved criticality in early 70ies.