View 13 previous comments
- I'll write something up later about all their advantages. With the knee jerk reactions to Japan, who knows if they'll end up being widely used.Feb 9, 2012
- From Wikipedia: "A 2011 MIT study concluded that although there is little in the way of barriers to a thorium fuel cycle with current or near term reactor designs there is also little incentive for any significant market penetration to occur. As such they conclude there is little chance of thorium cycles replacing conventional uranium cycles in the current state of nuclear technology, despite the potential benefits. Their report analyses only a fuel-rod based system: the LFTR design is not covered by this analysis and there is no discussion of the difference in fuel construction, initiation, processing, or waste disposal issues which are cited as advantageous by LFTR enthusiasts."
If you put solar panels on your home, you are in a sense democratizing energy. It is also distributed, comes online quickly and starts producing power right right away. It takes years if not decades to build a nuclear plant before it starts producing power. Then it produces power for 20 years and needs to be decommissioned which also takes a lot of time and money.
"Historic Crossover" - Report says Solar Energy Now Cheaper Than Nuclear Energy http://www.consumerenergyreport.com/2010/08/01/solar-energy-cheaper-than-nuclear-energy/
Nuclear Impractical — Global Price on Carbon & Solar Grid Parity to Change the World. It won’t be long until solar hits grid parity. And when it does, “the world changes,.. the world changes.” http://cleantechnica.com/2011/11/15/nuclear-impractical-global-price-on-carbon-solar-grid-parity-to-change-the-world-video/Feb 9, 2012
- Laugh. Do the math yourself. Wind generation cost per watt is lower thwn everything but coal generation for many regions including the region im in. Which is probably why i see a new windmill every month on my 11 mile commute.Feb 9, 2012
- I think you need to re-read my original comment about Thorium and fast-breeders. You are attacking a position never taken by me.
I didn't claim that nuclear was the future. The future of energy is too affected by the vagaries of politics and public opinion to be swayed by mere facts, thus it's hard to say with certainty anything about the future of energy.
My claim was that many (most?) anti-nuclear people base their analysis on decades old nuclear reactor technology...that is the Generation I-III designs. Most of the complaints leveled at those reactors don't hold for Gen IV or V reactor technology.
Additionally, the very Wikipedia quote you source seems to contradict your assertion that "Nuclear sucks".
There are many new thorium / fast-breeder reactors being initiated worldwide...just not in the US. China, India, Australia, Czechoslovakia are just a few with thorium reactors of varying types in the planning stages or under construction.
Thorium reactors have almost no waste (and the radioactive waste they do produce is valuable for non-proliferation type industry), are vastly simpler in design, and much safer than currently operating nuclear reactors.
How prolific they become has more to do with regulatory issues, public opinion, and how fast other technologies advance. Very little of their future proliferation has anything to do with them "sucking".
In short, your classic rhetorical technique of throwing a ton of sources into the wind (haha!) to counter your perceived opponents doesn't work because you're fighting a fight that doesn't exist.
I never claimed that wind or solar power wasn't any good. I never claimed that nuclear power would be the future of energy.Feb 9, 2012
- I am not trying to attack you Dustin . There were comments from people in this thread that clearly are not even close to being aware of how fast renewable-s are taking over. I am also just saying that nuclear is just not a good option. It cost to much, and there are benefits to a distributed power model that goes beyond how we see and think about
energy today.. http://p2pfoundation.net/How_Lateral_Power_is_Transforming_Energy,_the_Economy,_and_the_WorldFeb 9, 2012
- Scientists always say that fusion is 20 years away, but this time the physicist says it's for real
Fusion Really Is 20 Years AwayFeb 9, 2012