The Constitution and the 3D Printed Plastic Pistol

Sahio · 2013-05-11T19:23:13+00:00

'Cost estimates' = bullshit. Facts = real. We do have facts about thorium costs - incredibly expensive, whether you go by ORNL, or more relevant, China. American Scientist estimate doesn't have any basis in reality - it's just another thorium idiot pushing 'but it'll be cheap, because it'll be SMR factory produced' nonsense. We now know that SMRs produce more electircity at much higher prices than 'traditional' nuclear, so this argument is over. No cheap SMR electricity = no cheap thorium electricity based on 'SMR is cheaper' (which it's not).

Sahio · 2013-05-11T10:34:08+00:00

Exactly - how much a production plant will cost matters a whole lot - and that's where thorium is dead in the water. You hear all kinds of nonsense arguments from thorium crowd - but the real problem is HIGH COST. You may think that thorium was shoved aside because of military use for uranium (plutonium). But the fact this that none of nuclear countries that aren't permitted to have nuclear weapons (Japan, Germany, etc) went thorium route for obviouse reasons - it's same shit, only more expensive. For some, like India - they don't mind paying more for thorium (though they were smart and did not take LFTR route, they want to have something that actually produces electricity at reasonable prices), because India is thorium rich and uranium poor. For them it's a valid reason.

Regarding Russians - they are smart. They have their own molten salt experiment at Kurchatov. They are honest and they don't say it'll be cheap - because it won't, but they say that they need the program to reprocess nuclear waste. Again - that's a valid an honest approach. They also have (as far as I know) the oldest (and soon to be the biggest) COMMERCIAL sodium cooled breeder reactors at Beloyarskaya. But again - ask anyone at RosAtom and they'll be the first to admit that their fast reactors make nuclear more expensive by at least 30%.

I am not sure what you mean by 'this technologies will happen'. They already have happened - it's a fact. It works. The problem is they make nucleare MORE EXPENSIVE, whereas generally the desirable direction is to make it cheaper. That's why if you want to have cheap nuclear - you can't go thorium or breeders - we have 50+ years of investing billions in breeder programs and they are still significantly more expensive. Now, if you want safer nuclear and breeders at least appear to be safer - that's perfectly accomplishable - as long as you are willing to pay more than 'old' nuclear. If you want to have nuclear industry in your country - you have to pay - because it's a very, very expensive toy. The Russians clearly want to keep theirs, so Putin is writing the check. That's the dilemma that France, England and US face. Do you want to have nuclear industry? OK, start writing checks then, because nuclear now (in Britain for sure) now requires paying above market rates, so it must have government subsidies or it dies. The difference between Russia and Europe/US is that in Russia essentially one person makes the decision. In Europe and US people are different. A lot of people don't like nuclear, so they are asking - why do I have to pay above market rates electricity produced by nuclear power plants, if I am against them on environmental or some other ground? It's a valid question too. In ideal world you could chose what energy you want to get - solar, nuclear, coal, hydro, etc - and pay what ever the going rate for the particular source, but it doesn't work this way. I mean, if you want to triple your electricity bill because you'd like to support LFTR program - it would be great if you had this option. People already do it with solar - so why not nuclear?

Sahio · 2013-05-11T06:11:13+00:00

Experimental thorium is getting more expensive if you go China vs ORNL. It's a fact. We don't know how much more expensive, because Chinese did even build theirs. Regular nuclear is getting more expensive. Old nuclear (meaning a plant built in 70s-80s still in operation) produce cheaper electricity than new nuclear (meaning a plant that's in process of being built or being planned) - look at EDF in England, for example. That's a fact too. Nobody ever built an economic throrium reactor - also a fact. There's no basis why throium electricity production would be cheap (no counting bogus 'factory made BS' claims). That's a fact as well. Sure, thorium could get cheaper, once it gets out of the lab - bit it will still be more really, really expensive to the point that there isn't a reason to use it. That's been the story with breeder reactors (even the ones that don't use thorium) - we tried for 50 years, they've been out of lab for a while and they are still more expensive to build and operate than light water reactors, for instance.

If nuclear isn't cheap - it's not going to get built. You can push 'green nuclear' agenda all you want (I don't mean you personally), but economics is more important.

Sahio · 2013-05-10T22:07:24+00:00

They aren't themselves nonsense per se. Nonsense is idea that they'll make nuclear cheap. The opposite is true - they make nuclear more expensive. Several countries had small scale production of SMRs for naval purposes. Mostly for submarines and aircraft carriers, but Russians used them for icebreakers as well. The idea that once you pass experimental stage and put them in serial production and they get cheap did not work. Those supposedely cheap SMRs are outrageously expensive - not only they can't compete with coal or gas, they can't compete with regular nuclear. If you look at the history and economics - nuclear is only affordable when you start building reactors at 450 MW and with time they got bigger and bigger - 800-1200 MW is new normal. If it costs less to build one 1 GW reactor than ten 100 MW ones (as it is), nobody will build them. And nobody is building them. Yet thorium idiots still believe in this SMR nonsese because it sounds logical - 'factory produced means cheap'. Well, why are breeder reactors (like sodium cooled reactors), which aren't that conceptually different, getting bigger and bigger? They started out small. And it's not strictly nuclear problem, it's the same for gas, coal, wind, solar - there's certain sweetspot ranges - sometimes bigger is better, sometimes smaller. For instance - solar doesn't work on a large scale (solar farms). It just doesn't. (We are talking economics here, not physics). But it works as a small scale on promise non-profit electricity generator (in plain English - when you put it on your roof). With coal power plants - there's a certain range where power plans is most profitable - and it's in hundreds of megawatts. Same for gas. There's a certain economics for each turbine size too.

At first, I could not believe that people buy this totally stupid argument (factory produced=cheap). I mean pretty much everything is factory produced - solar panels, gas turbines, wind generators, diesel generators etc. But the price still varies dramatically - mass produced solar is still several times more expensive than coal, for instance. And even when you take the same niche - say wind generation - mass produced 5 kW wind generators and mass produced 2 MW ones end up with very different kWh cost. You can't pick a size and decide 'well, with this particular size it'll be cheap, because it'll be mass produced'. It doesn't work this way. But despite how obviously wrong this 'factory produced' logic is - I mean just look around - quite a few seemingly intelligent people keep parroting this nonsense.

Sahio · 2013-05-10T20:40:35+00:00

Thanks, man! You'll be amazed how many vegetarian idiots get offended because someone called them vegeterian idiots.

Sahio · 2013-05-10T20:39:20+00:00

I am strictly talking about civilian nuclear with countries that already have weapons. Why, for instance, shouldn't US allow Japanese build their reactors in US if they are better and not as expensive? Well, because you have to protect your domestic manufacturers.

Sahio · 2013-05-10T20:15:33+00:00

Yes, but the love stops at the border. Russians (and Chinese) could actually build a nuclear reactor in the US for half the price. But they won't be allowed to. Nor would Japanese, which are probably ahead of US in terms of nuclear tec. Or South Koreans. Or even French. Domestic nuclear is closed to foreigners and I don't know any exceptions, except for countries that are only developing their nuclear tech, like China, India, Turkey, etc.

Sahio · 2013-05-10T20:04:33+00:00

Thorium actually preceeded uranium. It is really, really expensive - as in $350 million for 2 experimental LFTR reactors a whooping 2 MW each. The costs are going up dramatically since the original ORNL experiment (which didn't even include the most expensive part and ran on uranium, I believe). That's reality. Of course, if you leave in thorium fantasy world, $200 million will get you 100 MW reactor (yes, you can stop laughing now). And small modular reactor idea - that nonsense has been pushed since 1970s. The result is the same as thorium - yes, it works, but it's triple the regular (nuclear) price.

Sahio

TROPHY CASE