The 'advanced' nuclear power sector is fuelling climate change, and WMDs

[NeoGreen]

https://reneweconomy.com.au/the-advanced-nuclear-power-sector-is-fuelling-climate-change-and-wmds-40205/?fbclid=IwAR0h6DfAqvO9j1ufeP-871cBGUIceyBRRLLFhiwPjZmT5wls5FW7B9rgP4U

The ‘advanced’ nuclear power sector is fuelling climate change, and WMDs
Jim Green 11 September 2019

Last year, a documentary called New Fire was released promoting new types of nuclear power reactors.

The heroes of the film were young entrepreneurs Leslie Dewan and Mark Massie, founders of a start-up called Transatomic Power that was developing a ‘Waste-Annihilating Molten-Salt Reactor’.

Problems arose during the long gestation of New Fire. Transatomic Power had given up on its plan to use nuclear waste as fuel after its theoretical calculations were shown to be false, and the waste-annihilating reactor was reinvented as a waste-producing, uranium-fuelled reactor.

Worse was to come: just before the release of New Fire, Transatomic went bust and collapsed altogether.

The Australian parliament’s ‘inquiry into the prerequisites for nuclear energy in Australia‘ is shaping up to be another epic fail.

The premise of the inquiry is that “new technologies in the field are leading to cleaner, safer and more efficient energy production.”
Fuelling climate change

But the ‘advanced’ nuclear sector isn’t advanced. The next ‘advanced’ reactor to commence operation will be Russia’s floating nuclear power plant, designed to help exploit fossil fuel reservesin the Arctic ‒ fossil fuel reserves that are more accessible because of climate change.

That isn’t ‘advanced’ ‒ it is dystopian.

(snip)

Fusion, thorium, and high-temperature zombie reactors

Fast reactors are demonstrably failed technology. SMRs have failed previously and are in the process of failing yet again. What else is there in the ‘advanced’ nuclear sector?

Fusion? At best it is decades away and most likely it will forever remain decades away. Two articles in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists by Dr. Daniel Jassby ‒ a fusion scientist ‒ comprehensively debunk all of the rhetoric spouted by fusion enthusiasts.

Thorium? There are no fundamental differences between thorium and uranium, so building a thorium fuel cycle from scratch to replace the uranium fuel cycle would be absurd ‒ and it won’t happen.

High-temperature gas-cooled reactors (HTGRs) including the pebble-bed modular reactor sub-type?

This zombie concept refuses to die even as one after another country embarks on R&D, fails, and gives up. As mentioned, China is building a prototype but has dropped plans for further HTGRs.

(snip)

Paper reactors

Claims that new nuclear technologies are leading to “cleaner, safer and more efficient energy production” could only be justified with reference to concepts that exist only as designs on paper.

As a nuclear industry insider quipped: “We know that the paper-moderated, ink-cooled reactor is the safest of all. All kinds of unexpected problems may occur after a project has been launched.”

There’s nothing that can be said about ‘advanced’ reactor rhetoric that wasn’t said by Admiral Hyman Rickover ‒ a pioneer of the US nuclear program ‒ all the way back in 1953:

“An academic reactor or reactor plant almost always has the following basic characteristics: (1) It is simple. (2) It is small. (3) It is cheap (4) It is light. (5) It can be built very quickly. (6) It is very flexible in purpose (‘omnibus reactor’). (7) Very little development is required. It will use mostly off-the-shelf components. (8) The reactor is in the study phase. It is not being built now.

“On the other hand, a practical reactor plant can be distinguished by the following characteristics: (1) It is being built now. (2) It is behind schedule. (3) It is requiring an immense amount of development on apparently trivial items. Corrosion, in particular, is a problem. (4) It is very expensive. (5) It takes a long time to build because of the engineering development problems. (6) It is large. (7) It is heavy. (8) It is complicated.”

[Miguelito Loveless]

2. I keep pointing these facts out to nuclear proponents

Nukes CANNOT exist and operate economically without subsidies. They cannot be built fast enough to replace FF plants. They NEVER come in on time, or on budget.

Fusion, at best will have a prototype reactor in 5-10 years, which will consume way more power than it produces. It will take at least another decade, to create a reactor that "breaks even". Then another 5-10 years to build another prototype that is self-sustaining. Then another decade or two to build commercial reactors to add to the grid. By then, many coastal cities will already be doomed.

Solar/win/batteries - Available now, getting cheaper and more efficient every year. Fast build time, on schedule, and on or under budget. Zero fuel cost, and the fuel source is delivered to the generator free of charge.

Why is this still a debate?