Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

America Risks Missing Out On A Global Nuclear Power Revival

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • America Risks Missing Out On A Global Nuclear Power Revival

    Great piece by the Council of Foreign Relations.


    Background reading on the future of the global nuclear trade and the commercial opportunities and national security risks that it presents to the United States.

  • #2
    That's because of the Greentards on the two coasts mostly... And of course, the Left-wing of the Democrat party.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
      That's because of the Greentards on the two coasts mostly... And of course, the Left-wing of the Democrat party.
      Yes and no.

      1. Permitting and paperwork processing. Read more: http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2017/ph241/park-k2/

      and https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fullctext/u2/a240634.pdf

      2. Now a days if a facility has Air Gap Networking it does not make it immune from hacking. Only a handful of countries have the capability to produce SCADA computers. (SCADA runs the critical components in a nuclear facility). https://www.nti.org/analysis/atomic-...-should-we-be/

      and https://www.neimagazine.com/features...een-it-before/

      3. Nuclear waste. Where is the storage going to go if Australia continues to hold out on Pangea? Pangea is a proposed facility that aims to be constructed in a special type of environment found in Australia. The problem is Australia does not want to be a nuclear waste dump. Not to mention the projections of the Pangea project are lofty. No human structure has ever lasted as long as the publicly disclosed blueprints have suggested. Read more: https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCL...3/31033869.pdf

      and https://www.foe.org.au/import-waste

      Comment


      • #4
        We believe our own storage facility will last at least ten thousand years, but we aren't willing to use it.

        Best storage space ever? Launch the stuff into the Sun.
        Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

        Comment


        • #5
          4th generation nuclear plants would actually consume existing nuclear waste, we are talking about molten salt thorium reactors.
          We hunt the hunters

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
            We believe our own storage facility will last at least ten thousand years, but we aren't willing to use it.

            Best storage space ever? Launch the stuff into the Sun.
            Mars has lava we can send it to. Why terraform it? We should save our planet first....

            I'd generally agree with your answer but we'd need a fail proof safe launch vehicle. So far the latest rocket launches by Tesla, Facebook, and others have an inconsistent success rate.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Ace of Spies View Post

              Mars has lava we can send it to. Why terraform it? We should save our planet first....

              I'd generally agree with your answer but we'd need a fail proof safe launch vehicle. So far the latest rocket launches by Tesla, Facebook, and others have an inconsistent success rate.
              Agreed, and that's a problem, but imagine the tree-huggers allowing us to pollute the surface of Mars. Venus or Mercury would work better.
              Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
                4th generation nuclear plants would actually consume existing nuclear waste, we are talking about molten salt thorium reactors.
                So they say. But when the reactor itself is past its servicable life? What then? Any type of nuclear reactor needs to be built deep underground which is prohibitively costly, but infinitely safer.

                Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

                  So they say. But when the reactor itself is past its servicable life? What then? Any type of nuclear reactor needs to be built deep underground which is prohibitively costly, but infinitely safer.
                  If you are looking for perfect solutions you are living in the wrong world.
                  We hunt the hunters

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

                    Agreed, and that's a problem, but imagine the tree-huggers allowing us to pollute the surface of Mars. Venus or Mercury would work better.
                    I can't wait till they start making Thorium powered vehicles. Imagine the fuss they'll make...

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post

                      If you are looking for perfect solutions you are living in the wrong world.
                      I look for practical/workable. Nothing is perfect.
                      Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

                        I look for practical/workable. Nothing is perfect.
                        Keep burning coal then.

                        I would simple recommend that at least one liquid salt reactor be built.
                        We hunt the hunters

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post

                          Keep burning coal then.

                          I would simple recommend that at least one liquid salt reactor be built.
                          Keep burning coal? Why not chop down trees instead? Better yet, let's all go back to wearing animal furs.

                          What part of practical solutions as it refers to nuclear power is unclear? Where did I recommend retrogressing technology?

                          How safe will your recommended technology be in the hands of the Russians or the Japanese, who have an appalling record of nuclear non-safety? Keeping in mind that Murphy's Law is the basic rule of the universe?

                          "Me thinks thou dost protest too much."
                          Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

                            Keep burning coal? Why not chop down trees instead? Better yet, let's all go back to wearing animal furs.

                            What part of practical solutions as it refers to nuclear power is unclear? Where did I recommend retrogressing technology?

                            How safe will your recommended technology be in the hands of the Russians or the Japanese, who have an appalling record of nuclear non-safety? Keeping in mind that Murphy's Law is the basic rule of the universe?

                            "Me thinks thou dost protest too much."
                            I was serious, burning coal doesn't bother me that much.

                            Molten salt is not impractical, do you know anything about it?

                            Molten salt reactors are perfectly safe technology to export because no material that could be used for nuclear weapons is produced. Giving the technology to the nations that currently have nuclear reactors would make the world safer because they cannot melt down.

                            The MSR concept deserves renewed interest and re-evaluation, because it can satisfy today's priorities to (Moir et al., 2008): minimize weapons useable material in storage, minimize need for high level waste repository space, increase the proliferation resistance of nuclear energy make beneficial use of spent fuel from LWRs, increase resource utilization, greatly expand non-carbon based energy (electricity and hydrogen production) at a cost competitive with alternatives.
                            https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...87850713000101
                            We hunt the hunters

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Nuclear power is cheap and safe if it is installed and operated efficiently and correctly. The expense comes at the front end when the power plant is built. Afterwards it is relatively cheap to run.

                              Too many people get scared when they hear the word 'nuclear.' Until that perception changes, which can be done with common sense education, the US won't adopt nuclear power as the way to go for energy.
                              We are not now that strength which in old days
                              Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
                              Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
                              To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X