1 Like
Not really. Thorium experimental reactors have run in the past several times, even decades ago I think. The USA, I think India ran one as well, probably other countries too. This is as far as I know a first for China, and maybe the specific reactor design has new advanced features that count as breakthroughs, but it’s an evolution rather than a revolution.
But history teaches us they couldn’t escape if they wanted to
1 Like
Having studied in detail at all the different nuclear technologies over the years, there are some promising things on horizon. Molten salt reactors are basically meltdown proof, thorium looks promising as well. A nuclear reactor is a very steady baseload for power generation.
However, as some have eluded to, the big problem (apart from waste) is the startup cost. Given the cheaper options in wind and solar, it would be very difficult to get a nuclear option funded. Personally i think wind/solar/battery technology is the way to go. Large scale batteries have a bit to go, but the investment in that industry is huge, and it will be worked out I think.
The near perfect option would be nuclear fusion. But it is such a difficult thing to do on earth, I am not sure it will ever be possible outside of research institutions. ITER may prove me wrong, but even if viable, the cost would be astronomical.
2 Likes
Ha!
What about ARC ? Or actually SPARC ?
It is promising as well. but long way off viability. Need a sustained nuclear fusion reaction, longer than a minute. All bar one experiment, the net energy going in was more than what was coming out.
1 Like
From the good people over at the World Nuclear Association;
" The basic economics metric for any generating plant is the levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) . It is the total cost to build and operate a power plant over its lifetime divided by the total electricity output dispatched from the plant over that period, hence typically cost per megawatt hour. It takes into account the financing costs of the capital component (not just the ‘overnight’ cost).
On a levelized ( i.e. lifetime) basis, nuclear power is an economic source of electricity generation, combining the advantages of security, reliability and very low greenhouse gas emissions. Existing plants function well with a high degree of predictability. The operating cost of these plants is lower than almost all fossil fuel competitors, with a very low risk of operating cost inflation. Plants are now expected to operate for 60 years and even longer in the future. The main economic risks to existing plants lie in the impacts of subsidized intermittent renewable and low-cost gas-fired generation. The political risk of higher, specifically-nuclear, taxation adds to these risks."
The French have had some wins along the way. Nothing comes immediately to mind but I’m sure they have.
Worked fine for Tony Stark
Worked great, considering he built it in a cave, and strapped it to his chest. kudos to him…
3 Likes
if only we weren’t a country with some of the most abundant solar wind and hydro resources going. that way we could use coal guilt free.
“Industry body thinks the industry they’re paid to represent is terrific”
Wonderful stuff.
1 Like
They argue that only renewables and gas are cheaper. Guess what everyone had been building.
pfftt…what would Germans know about technical stuff.
1 Like