Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Won't we run out of uranium fuel? I've heard of breeder reactors, but they seem to be politically unpopular. France had one but it was shut down, if I'm not mistaken.
The Molten Salt Reactor's do not us uranium for fuel. They can actually use spent fuel rods from high pressure water reactors that are in use today. Because these reactors are cooled by molten salt, if a breach did occur, the salt would cool and crystallize. Even in water. This would contain the radiation and make cleanup much easier. If Fukushima was Molten Salt, non of the coolant would have leaked into the ocean, or the ground water. The salt would have stayed there at the site, and cooled, creating its own cap. From articles I have read on the subject, there is enough nuclear waste right now to power hundreds of Molten Salt Reactors for hundreds of years.
The Molten Salt Reactor's do not us uranium for fuel. They can actually use spent fuel rods from high pressure water reactors that are in use today. Because these reactors are cooled by molten salt, if a breach did occur, the salt would cool and crystallize. Even in water. This would contain the radiation and make cleanup much easier. If Fukushima was Molten Salt, non of the coolant would have leaked into the ocean, or the ground water. The salt would have stayed there at the site, and cooled, creating its own cap. From articles I have read on the subject, there is enough nuclear waste right now to power hundreds of Molten Salt Reactors for hundreds of years.
The salts concerned as primary coolant, mostly lithium-beryllium fluoride and lithium fluoride, remain liquid without pressurization from about 500°C up to about 1400°C, in marked contrast to a PWR which operates at about 315°C under 150 atmospheres pressure.
More from the article.
Molten salt reactors operated in the 1960s. They are seen as a promising technology today principally as a thorium fuel cycle prospect or for using spent LWR fuel. A variety of designs is being developed, some as fast neutron types. Global research is currently led by China. Some have solid fuel similar to HTR fuel. Others have fuel dissolved in the molten salt coolant.
Another website, written by a PhD whom I am pretty sure knows what he is talking about.
Benefits of Molten Salt Reactors
Sustainability Online fission product removal Good utilization of Thorium No neutron losses in structure
Economics Online refueling No fuel fabrication High temperatures possible Smaller containment
Safety Very low excess reactivity Negative temperature coefficient of reactivity Low pressure No chemical reactivity with air or water Drain tank failure mechanism
Crystalline silicon modules located in extreme climates showed high degradation rates. For very cold climates, panels subjected to heavy wind and snow loads suffered the most. On the other hand, panels in similar climates that were installed in a facade, eliminating the snow load, had very low rates of degradation. At the other extreme, panels in desert climates exhibited large decreases in production over time - close to 1% per year - mainly due to high levels of UV exposure. Panels in more moderate climates such as the northern United States had degradation rates as low as 0.2% per year. Those panels could retain 96% of their production capabilities after 20 years.
So I stand corrected on temperate climates, but guess what, I live in Montana. So what I have been advised by companies that install and sell solar panels is correct here, where winter temps get well below 0, and summer temps can reach 105.
As for birds, you can read it for yourself.
From abcbirds.org
The United States is now the world's leading producer of wind energy, with tens of thousands of wind turbines in operation and many more planned. As a result, bird mortality from collisions is escalating every year, especially in areas where turbines and their associated power lines and towers have been poorly sited from the perspective of bird conservation.
The annual loss of birds from wind turbines was estimated as high as 573,000 in 2012. However, vastly more turbines are in operation now, and more than 1.4 million bird deaths are projected by 2030 or earlier if the U.S. meets its goal of producing 20 percent of electrical energy with wind. If that figure reaches 35 percent, as new Department of Energy projections suggest, up to 5 million birds could be killed annually. These estimates do not include birds that are killed by collisions with associated power lines and towers, which could be in the hundreds of thousands or even millions annually.
From savetheeaglesinternational.org
America’s wind farms are actually slaughtering millions of birds and bats annually
By Mark Duchamp
Originally published by The ECO Report
The Obama administration is issuing 30-year permits for “taking” (killing) bald and golden eagles. The great birds will be legally slaughtered “unintentionally” by lethal wind turbines installed in their breeding territories, and in “dispersion areas” where their young congregate (e.g. Altamont Pass).
By chance (if you believe in coincidences), a timely government study claims wind farms will kill “only” 1.4 million birds yearly by 2030 (1). This new report is just one of many, financed with taxpayers’ money, aimed at convincing the public that additional mortality caused by wind plants is sustainable. – It is not.
Dr. Shawn Smallwood’s 2004 study, spanning four years, estimated that California’s Altamont Pass wind “farm” killed an average of 116 Golden Eagles annually (2). This adds up to 2,900 dead “goldies” since it was built 25 years ago. Altamont is the biggest sinkhole for the species, but not the only one, and industry-financed research claiming that California’s GE population is stable is but a white-wash.
Thanks for all of the personal attacks, makes me feel better knowing that there are plenty of moron's still left on this planet to keep me entertained.
I stand by my original statement that once petroleum and coal are gone, there will be no other way to power large metropolitan areas without nuclear power. It WILL be cost effective at that point. There is simply no other way to transmit the massive amounts of power needed by cities such as New York, Tokyo, Los Angeles, etc. Transmission losses over long distances are huge.
you really are out of control technically.
I would think in the end game for now we will end up with PV being obsoleted by technology rather than degrading past continued use. Eventually a product good for 50 years or so is probably a reasonable goal. Given present value of the future money however it is probably not a big driver of anything.
As for birds the bigger arrays are actually slower and will likely reduce the bird count. The losses however are not significant. You ever check how cats do?
It isn't nonsense, anyone can look it up on the internet. I have saved you the trouble.
I don't have to read Internet blabber, I'm a qualified Chief Engineer on naval nuclear propulsion plants. I understand reactors just fine. To correct just a few of your statements
1. Molten Salt reactor certainly do run on uranium. Both U-235, which is our most common fission fuel and potentially U-233, which is a decay product of the thorium cycle you referred to earlier. These two fuels are essentially interchangeable in water moderated reactor, but very few thorium cycle reactor have ever been built due to a lack of need.
2. Liquid Metal and Salt Reactors have all of the radioactivity issues that light water reactor have, plus there is no operational experience with long term maintenance. Several of our liquid metal reactors built in the past used Sodium as a coolant and there were very significant maintenance issues associated with them.
3. No US or European firm will build anything but light water reactors due to the huge financial risk associated with nuclear construction. They can't even successfully build a light water reactor today after 50+ years of practice. All end up costing way more than is expected and economic.
Your posts are proof of the fallacy that all one needs is the Internet. Lots of misinformation out there.
I don't have to read Internet blabber, I'm a qualified Chief Engineer on naval nuclear propulsion plants. I understand reactors just fine. To correct just a few of your statements
1. Molten Salt reactor certainly do run on uranium. Both U-235, which is our most common fission fuel and potentially U-233, which is a decay product of the thorium cycle you referred to earlier. These two fuels are essentially interchangeable in water moderated reactor, but very few thorium cycle reactor have ever been built due to a lack of need.
2. Liquid Metal and Salt Reactors have all of the radioactivity issues that light water reactor have, plus there is no operational experience with long term maintenance. Several of our liquid metal reactors built in the past used Sodium as a coolant and there were very significant maintenance issues associated with them.
3. No US or European firm will build anything but light water reactors due to the huge financial risk associated with nuclear construction. They can't even successfully build a light water reactor today after 50+ years of practice. All end up costing way more than is expected and economic.
Your posts are proof of the fallacy that all one needs is the Internet. Lots of misinformation out there.
What's your take on "breeder" reactors? It's my understanding that France had one, but it was shut down due to political pressure.
What's your take on "breeder" reactors? It's my understanding that France had one, but it was shut down due to political pressure.
Breeder reactors work fine. We don't have any in the United States because we have decided not to reprocess spent fuel from a proliferation concern. I don't know much directly about France's breeder program. EDF operates plants all over the country so I don't really see much political pressure that would be against any given reactor.
The salts concerned as primary coolant, mostly lithium-beryllium fluoride and lithium fluoride, remain liquid without pressurization from about 500°C up to about 1400°C, in marked contrast to a PWR which operates at about 315°C under 150 atmospheres pressure.
More from the article.
Molten salt reactors operated in the 1960s. They are seen as a promising technology today principally as a thorium fuel cycle prospect or for using spent LWR fuel. A variety of designs is being developed, some as fast neutron types. Global research is currently led by China. Some have solid fuel similar to HTR fuel. Others have fuel dissolved in the molten salt coolant.
Another website, written by a PhD whom I am pretty sure knows what he is talking about.
Benefits of Molten Salt Reactors
Sustainability Online fission product removal Good utilization of Thorium No neutron losses in structure
Economics Online refueling No fuel fabrication High temperatures possible Smaller containment
Safety Very low excess reactivity Negative temperature coefficient of reactivity Low pressure No chemical reactivity with air or water Drain tank failure mechanism
I'm a qualified engineer from the United States Navy. What you have posted is 99% nonsense.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
