New nuclear fuel could increase nuclear capacity without building new plants

[FBaggins]

(Note - Title modified to fit field. Full title below)
Lightbridge planning first full scale nuclear reactor tests for metallic fuel that could uprate existing reactors by 10 to 17%

Lightbridge, a nuclear engineering company based in Tysons Corner, Virginia, is planning the first tests in a full-scale reactor of new fuel rods that have been engineered to boost power output of existing nuclear reactors by 10 to 17 percent. Crucially, the tests will determine whether the technology can work safely. Inserted in a conventional reactor, the new fuel could boost power 10 percent. Replacing equipment including turbines with larger-size ones would increase that to 17 percent, Lightbridge say

Currently the US generates 800 Terawatt hours per year from nuclear reactors. Boosting nuclear power by 10 to 17 percent would be 80 to 136 Terawatt hours per year in the USA. The US generated 176.8 Terawatt hours in wind power for the 12 months ended July 2014. The Lightbridge nuclear uprate could enable pressure water reactors to uprate as much as 30% but that would require upgrading more equipment. Worldwide nuclear power production was 2356 TWh in 2013. This was in spite of 50 nuclear reactors being shutdown in Japan. A global 10% boost would be 235 TWh and a 17% boost would be 400 TWh.

if Lightbridge’s fuel works, it would be like adding 10 new plants in the United States—or 40 more in the world—without even having to build one.

http://nextbigfuture.com/2014/09/lightbridge-planning-first-full-scale.html

[upaloopa]

1. What if we use more solar and wind energy

instead? Why do we need to increase nuclear output? We should be working to close all nuclear power generating plants.
Nobody wants the spent fuel rods stored in their backyards and the danger of contamination can't be dealt with.

[FBaggins]

2. Why instead?

<i>Why do we need to increase nuclear output?</I>

Because the plants are already there... so it's massive amounts of carbon-free generation without new units.

Uprates of existing nuclear plants have historically been some of the cheapest power sources available. Just take a look at how a 10% increase in nuclear generation compares to the amount of solar/wind we've added combined.

So I say... why "instead" when it can easily be "do both!" ? Let's close the coal plants instead.

[upaloopa]

3. That's the problem the plants are already there

I never understand why that is such a difficult thing to understand.
Nuclear waste nuclear contamination
And no it was and is not cheap rates went way up to pay for the building and maintaining them. Three Mile Island Chernobyl Fukushima costs will continue way into the future to those injured extraneous cost are never considered by people like you. You just pass them on and cover your eyes and ears
And storing the waste how much does that cost in your cheap scenario? You want it in your town?
What if energy companies had no caps on the amount of damages they would have to pay for? You think they would still operate them! You think insurance companies would insure them? No of course not.