Nuclear energy:

[OP !oLledMj9g2 No.8468971]

What is the future of nuclear energy technology and will it ever experience a 'boom' period of rapid growth?

[Anonymous No.8469325]

>>8468971
>What is the future of nuclear energy technology

1. Higher Efficiency turbines. Super-critical or Brayton cycle turbines can bring efficiency to +40%. Save money, increase profits.

2. More Compact designs and Digital Controls. Save money and improve safety.

3. Standardization on fewer models. Easier maintenance and supplier predictability, lower costs.

4. Lower Enriched Uranium or Thorium fuels. Lower processing/mining costs.

5. Thermal/Fast spectrum breeders. Will increase fissile material and extend the sustainability of existing fuel for a very long period of time.

>will it ever experience a 'boom' period of rapid growth

It is booming in Russia, Korea, China, and India right now. Western countries are no longer leaders in this technology. They will probably start adopting it after they realize there is no other realistic alternative, and learn from their Eastern counterparts. Unless Fusion can happen commercially, instead of being an eternal meme.

[Anonymous No.8469499]

>>8468971
It experienced a boom in the 1960s and 1970s in the US, and in the 1970s and 1980s in France and Japan. It's currently experiencing a boom in China.

[Anonymous No.8469501]

>>8469499
Cont.

That said, I think over regulation - despite the lowest fatality rate of any energy source - is the death of Western nuclear. Any thoughts of reducing regulation is political suicide. The best way would be to avoid it would be to move towards liquid fueled reactors that need less expensive safety systems.

[Anonymous No.8469522]

>>8469501

It's not really dead, even with overregulation. It has to do with how energy policy works in America, east of the Mississippi but south of the Mason-Dixon local power authorities (like the TVA) are publicly owned and far more willing to put cash into nuclear power because it's clean and works on the same principles (ie a big heat source moving turbines) as gas or coal fired plants. It's only dying on the west coast because California has a hard on for solar at the moment, which in the short term has resulted in a threefold increase in NG power and in the long term will likely go the same way as nuclear (as issues with PV panel disposal become better understood. It won't be as bad as nuclear but it'll be one of those cost prohibitive things that would prevent a private utility from refurbishing a plant).

Additionally a major issue with US nuclear power is the need for onsite storage, a problem that would have been solved a decade ago if not for the work of Senator Harry Ried who successfully stalled the project. Thankfully he retires this year.

[Anonymous No.8469524]

>>8468971
>What is the future of nuclear energy technology

In the USA? very good with Trump's election

[Anonymous No.8469525]

>>8469501
>>8469522

Also, I reckon that the capital costs of plants will come down as modular reactors spread. This will mean much cheaper construction and maintence costs as it removes most of the custom equipment. But we won't see them until the late 2020s at the earliest.

[Anonymous No.8469526]

>>8469524

Trump is a friend of the oil and coal lobbies. The only way nuclear benefits from him is if he enacts an oil tariff which will cause energy prices to rise.

[Anonymous No.8469570]

>>8469525
The regulatory environment won't permit SMRs cost effectively in the US. Every time you build a reactor - even if it's on an existing reactor site and identical to the existing reactor - you have to start the licensing process from scratch.

It's part of why nuclear reactors are so damn large. No other electricity generators uses such large units.

[Anonymous No.8469632]

>>8468971
It has no future. If you like it or not, the public's mind is already made up. They think it's dangerous and should be abandoned.

[Anonymous No.8469774]

>>8469570

It's also why modular reactors (and an accompanying expedited licensing process for them) will probably solve that issue.

>>8469632

Again, it depends on where you live. Most Americans are indifferent as long as power is cheap, and themselves never get to choose unless they own property and can afford solar. Down south, utilities are public operations and they build nuclear. It's out west where the market is more intense, mostly due to infatuation with subsidized roof PV (whose subsidies will be gone in ten years) and private utilities which give much more power to NG.

[Anonymous No.8469992]

>>8469632
>Implying democrazy will last forever
Political conditions will be good enough sooner or later and science will walk one more step,

[Anonymous No.8470004]

>>8469325
the west will just use oil forever

[Anonymous No.8470041]

>>8469992

People don't vote on nuclear power. It's a thing decided by operate accountants who are always shy towards large capital costs. The only reason it remains in America is because shit states (ie the south) have public utilities who get tax money.

[Anonymous No.8470044]

>>8469992

People don't vote on nuclear power. It's a thing decided by corporate accountants who are always shy towards large capital costs. The only reason it remains in America is because shit states (ie the south) have public utilities who get tax money.

>>8470004

Depends if there's an oil tarriff. If the US oil industry gets protection energy prices will be high enough where oil is not competitive and NG is far less choice than it is now.

[Anonymous No.8470988]

>>8469526
>>8469524
What exactly is his policys regarding this stuff? Beyond making it great and huge and grabbing it by the kilowatt?

[Anonymous No.8471020]

>>8470044
its nothing to do with corporate anything
It's to do with the NRC sitting on permits for a decade, until the companies in question give up

[Anonymous No.8472185]

ohai

[Anonymous No.8472277]

F-F-F-FUSION

[Anonymous No.8472379]

>>8468971
It's over. Trump is bringing back coal, no need for nuclear power anymore, we have coal

[Anonymous No.8472488]

>>8470988
It will be a tremendous success

[Anonymous No.8472752]

>>8472379
Do you really think it'll be THAT EASY to bring it back?

[Anonymous No.8472782]

>>8470988
He will hire good people

[Anonymous No.8473028]

too political radioactive(kek) until an energy shortage crisis and climate change forces it upon us.

[Anonymous No.8473031]

>>8472277
>>8472185
He3 fusion

1% of the energy is carried by fast neutrons. So it is a lot fucking safer than hydrogen fusion.

>>8472379
>>8472752
natural gas fracking will kill coal on its own. so long as CNG is cheaper than coal.

no one is building coal fired power plants in the USA.

[Anonymous No.8473835]

When oil runs out, it's simple as that.
Bot fusion and renewable will remain memes.

[Anonymous No.8473837]

>>8473031
>>8472752
Are you guys saying Trump wont do what he promised over and over?
Thats heresy

[Anonymous No.8473918]

>>8473031
> He3 fusion
> 1% of the energy is carried by fast neutrons.
That's 1% of the energy of the D-3He reaction.

But you can't easily avoid D-D reactions, for which ~34% of the energy is neutrons (although only ~2MeV, which is comparable to 235U fission, rather than 15MeV for D-T).

Also, D-3He produces Tritium, which needs to be removed if you don't want D-T fusion.

On the plus side, the D-D reactions produce 3He, and the Tritium decays to 3He, so you only need enough 3He to bootstrap the reaction.

On the minus side, everything that isn't D-T has a power density that's 2 or 3 orders of magnitude worse than D-T.

[Anonymous No.8473925]

>>8468971
Stop making nuclear threads and go back to your containment board >>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.8475166]

>>8473925
You're a faggot.

[Anonymous No.8475486]

>>8471020

Wrong. The NRC is certainly not perfect but they're not themselves killing projects. Where projects often get fucked is when the EIS is done and they go to build. This is when activsts sue and the legal battle begins. The same is true of any large project but nuclear is where they find the most success. On the flip side, activists find the least success trying to stall the gas pipelines built after nuke plants are cancelled or shut down.

Also the affect of private utilities cannot be understated. They only care about money and thus have a natural aversion to anything capital-intensive. They're also prone to be friends with the oil industry.

>>8473925

energy is a /sci/ topic, quit being stupid

[Anonymous No.8475686]

>>8475486
>The NRC is certainly not perfect but they're not themselves killing projects

The NRC are the textbook example of regulatory ratcheting. Yes they are.