The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
© 2021 AFPHere
and
Now
opinions
Nuclear option: Earth's climate panacea or poison?
By Julien MIVIELLE PARIS©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.
12 Comments
Login to comment
Skeptical
While this article well served its purpose in reviewing the state of nuclear reactor energy, it could have mentioned the promise that current research gives us in other nuclear technologies.
Research coming from NASA's Glenn Research Center, for instance, is interesting. Specifically, they are looking into Lattice Confinement Fusion - a method for triggering nuclear fusion in the space between the atoms of a metal solid - for future potential applications for power / propulsion systems in space exploration, and on Earth for electrical power or creating medical isotopes.
Early, but interesting.
https://www1.grc.nasa.gov/space/science/lattice-confinement-fusion/
warispeace
Nuclear seems only to be an option if we want to keep on consuming and populating the planet at the same rate as now. With the loss of species and ecological collapse occurring, this is really not an option, which means we must decrease the human population and our over-consumption of natural resources. Few want to have this talk, but the whole world should adopt a one child policy.
Express sister
It's too late for nuclear energy to be a realistic option. Only renewables can be of use now.
1glenn
In the short run, we need to try to keep the nuclear reactors that we are using, useful, but safe. As dangerous as they are, coal is killing us, while nuclear is only potentially deadly.
In the long run, if there is a long run, we are better off replacing nuclear with renewable energy.
mobius217
I don't know about that zichi. The recent energy supply crunch is forcing EU countries to reconsider their nuclear phase out plans. Oh and Germany is planning to burn more coal to save up their gas reserves for the winter and they cannot rely on wind power because the North Sea is not as windy as it was before. Where is wind power when you need it? How could we has possibly have failed to foresee this? /s
As you pointed out high cost vs energy output is one issue. Nuclear paranoia is another. But also nuclear is good at baseload supply, but coal and gas plants output can be throttleable, making them very realiable. Also they cost less than nuclear.
But this is being worked on by the Chinese. The success or faliure of the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR) in Wuwei will have great implications on the future of nuclear power and the global energy mix.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZR0UKxNPh8
This is a great video I found on LFTR. It's an hour long but well worth the watch.
Sal Affist
Great, let's build new nuclear plants. But they can't be on a major seismic fault. They can't be in an unstable country where the fission process or waste products could be weaponized. And they can't be anywhere near a mass of developed and fearful Westerners who don't want it in their backyards. And we have to make sure that the operators have more intelligence than Homer Simpson. Are there any locations left?
mobius217
@Sal Affist
Please do some more research on the developements made in the nuclear industry.
Not a problem with modern Gen 3+ models in operation and upcoming Gen 4 models. They have passive safety designs that Gen 2 and Gen 1 did not have. I am assuming your worry is based of Fukushima. That was a 40 year old design that should have been decomissioned in the early 2000's. And let's not forget that the insideous malpractice and incompetence of TEPCO led to this disaster as the backup pumps that should have pumped water out of the containment building was placed under the facility. They got inundated. That kind of malpractice is what happens when Japan Inc has no independant regulatory comissions.
Please watch this video by engineer Kirk Sorensen
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZR0UKxNPh8
Firstly, the actual proprortion of nuclear waste that is dangerous is Transuranics which forms about 5% of nuclear waste. The rest is recyclable metals and unused uranium. Secondly about ploriferation. This is unfortunate but the way our nuclear industry is today is becuase it was born and bred through the cold war. Governments wanted uranium thermal reactors becuase they could work in tandem with nuclear weapons programs to get the bomb. If circumstances were diffrent in the 1950's we could have gone the route of LFTR reactors which are safer, more effective, cheaper and ploriferation resistant. That is the struggle that the nuclear industry is going through today. They are trying to recreate that panacea that should have been taken 70 years ago. If LFTR became the mainstream back in the 60's then 60% or more of the worlds electricity mix could have been nuclear. We would not be talking about global warming becuase a solution to that problem would be right in our hands. But alas, that is in another time, in another life.
Human ignorance and irrationality get in the way of progress. I wonder, are there any "100%" wind and solar supporters or anti-nuclear supporters taking note of what is happening right now in europe? Will those same people be willing to be held accountable 50 years from now when we fail to meet emissions targets because they are unwilling to admit they are wrong about nuclear power.
I am not kidding when I say that Gen 4 reactor can be run by a bunch of monkeys and nothing would happen. It will not blow up. It's a little something called passive safety design. In a molten salt reactor this consists of a freeze plug. If a runaway reaction occurs, the freeze plug will melt and gravity will dump all that fuel into a storage tank. The reaction stops. It's a simple, elegant and extremely effective safety feature.
With Gen 4 models? Anywhere on the planet. Previously nuclear reactors were limited to being built near water sources for cooling. With LFTR you can build them in a desert. That is exactly what China is doing.
mobius217
Well I adressed this in my previous comment. Feel free to add any other reasons why.
Yes you are correct. Still proves that it was a flawed, outdated system.
BTW zichi, what do you make of the commitments by China and an alliance of European nations led by France to build more advanced reactors to combat energy crisis?
Germany seems to be the only country that is hostile to this. They seem to have wishful thinking that winds in the North Sea will pick up so that more wind power can be used to save up on gas reserves. Meanwhile they are still trying to burn more coal with the 2030 phaseout deadline looming.
https://fortune.com/2021/09/16/the-u-k-went-all-in-on-wind-power-never-imaging-it-would-one-day-stop-blowing/
mobius217
Replacing ALL other forms of energy is not the intention of the nuclear industry. The goal of the nuclear indsutry is to replace the role of coal and gas power plants. There are even plans in the works for Gen 4 designs to have supplementary roles as desalination plants, using excess baseload power to synthsise methanol fuels (can be used for aviation) by carbon capture and creating ammonia ( for fertiliser as an example, as currently we use fossile fuels to make them).
As for the rest of your comment, this stagnation in the nuclear industry is due to high cost, nuclear paranoia and lack of political will. Did you watch the video I recommended?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9M__yYbsZ4
Here is a more updated one. It may change your mind.
Also, zichi, what is the solution to Europe's energy crisis?