Current Events > US Congress passes bill to help advanced nuclear power

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/09/us-congress-passes-bill-to-help-advanced-nuclear-power/

Illinois finally doing something right.
---

Cool
---

I'm in favor of nuclear power but I don't trust Republicans to properly regulate it.
---

Good
---

Nuclear power is very safe if well regulated. Yeah I don't know if the republicans are up to that task.
---

Imagine polluting this topic with bullshit about Republicans, rather than just enjoying the good news for a change.
---

It's called being honest. Nuclear power is a good thing. If handled correctly.
---

the criticism regarding the fast neutron reactor is probably warranted.

What may not be clear from the name is that this facility itself would be an experimental fast reactor, likely fueled with weapon-usable plutonium. Compared to conventional light-water reactors, fast reactors are less safe, more expensive, and more difficult to operate and repair. But the biggest problem with this technology is that it typically requires the use of such weapon-usable fuels as plutonium, increasing the risk of nuclear terrorism. Regardless, the House passed the bill with scant consideration of the risks and benefits of building it. Hopefully, the Senate will conduct a due diligence review before taking up a companion bill. Caveat emptor.

Based on what little public information there is available about the plans for this facility, it would be a fast reactor of at least 300 thermal megawatts (or about 120 MW of electricity if it is also used for power generation). This power level is the minimum necessary to achieve the desired rate of neutron production. This would make the reactor about five times larger than the last experimental fast reactor operated in the United States, the EBR-II, which shut down in 1994. One proposed design, called FASTER, would have a peak power density three times higher than the EBR-II, making it much more challenging to remove heat from the core. This design would require about 2.6 metric tons of metallic fuel containing about 500 kilograms of plutonium per year. One third of the reactor fuel would be replaced every 100 days. (The DOE also is apparently considering a different fast reactor design that would use high-assay, low-enriched uranium fuel, but this material is in short supply and a new production source would have to be established. In any case, the DOE has not yet determined if it is feasible to use low-enriched uranium.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_of_Concerned_Scientists
https://allthingsnuclear.org/elyman/a-misguided-nuclear-reactor-project

the subsidies in illinois seem to be a step in the right direction though.
---

in the United States, nuclear plants with a combined capacity of 20 gigawatts have operating deficits of less than $12 per megawatt-hour

Maybe the better idea would be enabling consumer choice, instead of piling everything onto the single 'grid'.

Questionmarktarius posted...

in the United States, nuclear plants with a combined capacity of 20 gigawatts have operating deficits of less than $12 per megawatt-hour

Maybe the better idea would be enabling consumer choice, instead of piling everything onto the single 'grid'.

Sometimes the consumer isn't educated/informed enough to know what the best solution is though. In things that involve large-scale infrastructure that affects everyone, we really need panels of experts/legislators/regulators to work together with input from top scientists.
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

in the United States, nuclear plants with a combined capacity of 20 gigawatts have operating deficits of less than $12 per megawatt-hour

Maybe the better idea would be enabling consumer choice, instead of piling everything onto the single 'grid'.

Sometimes the consumer isn't educated/informed enough to know what the best solution is though. In things that involve large-scale infrastructure that affects everyone, we really need panels of experts/legislators/regulators to work together with input from top scientists.

"Here's a powerline that runs on nuclear. It'll cost you half a cent per kwh, but there's a $5000 fee upfront to cover the cost of the reactor."
"Here's a powerline that runs on solar. It'll cost you 6 cents per kwh."
"Here's a powerline that runs on coal. It'll cost you 3 cents per kwh."
"Here's a powerline that runs on the tears of orphans. It'll cost you 1 cent per kwh."

You forgot the part with solar where your bill decreases due to putting power back into the grid.
---

Kineth posted...

You forgot the part with solar where your bill decreases due to putting power back into the grid.

That only works if its your panels.

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Imagine polluting this topic with bullshit about Republicans

But it's the Republicans who are against regulations, and who think the free market will keep corporations from putting short term profit above long term safety.
---

Questionmarktarius posted...

"Here's a powerline that runs on nuclear. It'll cost you half a cent per kwh, but there's a $5000 fee upfront to cover the cost of the reactor."
"Here's a powerline that runs on solar. It'll cost you 6 cents per kwh."
"Here's a powerline that runs on coal. It'll cost you 3 cents per kwh."
"Here's a powerline that runs on the tears of orphans. It'll cost you 1 cent per kwh."

That doesn't work out well. It adds needless complexity and overly duplicated infrastructure which increases costs. A significant loss of customers to one of the competitors could force a power company to raise prices due to having a smaller pool to distribute costs over. This can create a run-away feedback loop that results in the plant being shut down. Each group would need to maintain excess capacity to allow for expansion and to cover consumption spikes. This means the power system as a whole is operating at reduced efficiency
---

uwnim posted...

That doesn't work out well. It adds needless complexity and overly duplicated infrastructure which increases costs. A significant loss of customers to one of the competitors could force a power company to raise prices due to having a smaller pool to distribute costs over. This can create a run-away feedback loop that results in the plant being shut down. Each group would need to maintain excess capacity to allow for expansion and to cover consumption spikes. This means the power system as a whole is operating at reduced efficiency

it would also mean vast swaths of the country would become incredibly under-served, as the costs of covering rural populations without a guaranteed return would not be worth while for anyone, just like it wasn't before the gubmint stepped in in the first place
---

it also sounds a lot like the current ISP situation which I'm not sure I've heard anyone say anything good about ever
---

@Questionmarktarius, tell me you're joking with this multiple grid stuff.
---

Nuclear is, somewhat ironically given the push back against it, the cleanest energy.
---

mustachedmystic posted...

@Questionmarktarius, tell me you're joking with this multiple grid stuff.

It's a logistics nightmare of an idea, but an idea nonetheless.
We complain and whine when there's only one cable or internet company in a town, but don't seem to care when it's electricity or water.

bump
---

Questionmarktarius posted...

It's a logistics nightmare of an idea,

That's a understatement, to say the least.

Questionmarktarius posted...

but an idea nonetheless.

A bad one, how can multiple companies afford to build out separate grids if they have to compete against each other for customers?

Questionmarktarius posted...

We complain and whine when there's only one cable or internet company in a town

Since Internet, and pay TV can be delivered through telephone, cable, and via satellite, everyone should have those 3 options.
---

when nuclear power was first offered so many years ago it was supposed to be a cheaper form of energy, but electric bills keep going up and never down, whats up with that?
---

god damn stupid to sink money into 60 year old technology when countries around the world are working with LFTR reactors that are far safer, produce far less nuclear waste, and are easier to fuel. we're falling behind here.
---

monkmith posted...

god damn stupid to sink money into 60 year old technology when countries around the world are working with LFTR reactors that are far safer, produce far less nuclear waste, and are easier to fuel. we're falling behind here.

IIRC we produce more electricity by nuclear than any other country
---

monkmith posted...

god damn stupid to sink money into 60 year old technology when countries around the world are working with LFTR reactors that are far safer, produce far less nuclear waste, and are easier to fuel. we're falling behind here.

We should be on Molten Salt based Thorium Reactors.

But that's on the "To Do" list in terms of research.
---

Just dont lose power to the plant...
---

skermac posted...

when nuclear power was first offered so many years ago it was supposed to be a cheaper form of energy, but electric bills keep going up and never down, whats up with that?

The Three Mile Island incident enabled NIMBYs, and Chernobyl gave then superpowers.

monkmith posted...

god damn stupid to sink money into 60 year old technology when countries around the world are working with LFTR reactors that are far safer, produce far less nuclear waste, and are easier to fuel. we're falling behind here.

That, and there's apparently quite a bit of it:
https://mobile.wnd.com/files/2012/12/ThoriumDeposits.jpg

FLUFFYGERM posted...

monkmith posted...

god damn stupid to sink money into 60 year old technology when countries around the world are working with LFTR reactors that are far safer, produce far less nuclear waste, and are easier to fuel. we're falling behind here.

IIRC we produce more electricity by nuclear than any other country

and that changes my point how? why are we sinking money into rebuilding old infrastructure to use more dangerous forms of power generation that leaves end products we have no fucking plan to deal with? we're stockpiling more and more nuclear waste, the plans to store it long term have been killed since nevada blocked the yucca mountain project, and all this article talks about is setting up plants that will produce even more of it.

why the fuck aren't we funding LFTR reactors, they're cheaper/safer/less wasteful.

KamenRiderBlade posted...

We should be on Molten Salt based Thorium Reactors.

But that's on the "To Do" list in terms of research.

we've been sitting on this tech since the 50s because they cant product weapons grade fissionable material, hell they actively burn tiny amounts of it as a starter fuel. had the US funded throium reactors decades ago there'd be no nuclear issues with iran or NK, because we could easily plop down LFTR reactors safe with the knowledge they weren't using them to breed uranium/plutonium for missiles.
---

monkmith posted...

we've been sitting on this tech since the 50s because they cant product weapons grade fissionable material, hell they actively burn tiny amounts of it as a starter fuel. had the US funded throium reactors decades ago there'd be no nuclear issues with iran or NK, because we could easily plop down LFTR reactors safe with the knowledge they weren't using them to breed uranium/plutonium for missiles.

Either way, we're on the Molten Salt based Thorium reactor tech tree now.

But it's not going to happen over night.
---

Questionmarktarius posted...

Kineth posted...

You forgot the part with solar where your bill decreases due to putting power back into the grid.

That only works if its your panels.

My bad.
---