TomBlees’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Dr. X, I'm delighted to see your openness to this new technology. As for whether we should use them to first replace working LWRs or coal, I would submit to you that getting coal plants offline is Job 1. The nuclear power industry, even with the current LWRs, has a safety record of zero fatalities (despite Harvey Wasserman's ludicrous claims that thousands died at TMI, where of course nobody was hurt at all). While I admit that NRC oversight should be beefed up, the system has worked and containment buildings are there in case it doesn't. (Chernobyl, as you probably know, had no containment building and was a design that the US had long ago determined was unsafe and would never be built here.) By the time we get IFRs into mass production, most of the LWRs are going to be pretty close to the end of their service lives anyway. At that point we can look at the associated infrastructure (turbines, which will in many cases have already been replaced), cooling systems, switchyards, etc. If it seems economical and sensible to continue to use/rebuild that infrastructure, it'll be easy enough to do a retrofit. But we've got to get the coal plants shut down ASAP. I know it's a psychological leap to support nuclear power when you've been opposed to it for years. But being able to look at this new technology and reject a knee-jerk aversion to it is something that many, many people have been struggling with and accomplishing. It's not just a matter of disposing of nuclear waste. It's a question of whether you want to live in an energy-rich or an energy-poor world. There is no question that this system will work, it was proven in spades. Just last week South Korea announced that they're planning on using the IFR to solve their own energy challenges, including spent fuel from LWRs. What would be ideal would be for the USA to build the commercial prototype that could become the world standard design, since we already designed it and it's safer than any nuclear power plant design ever conceived (according to the risk assessment studies). As things stand now, South Korea and India and China and others are working to reinvent the wheel. The USA could lead the world to that energy-rich future if we decide to do it. I sincerely hope we will make that decision in the affirmative.On Renewables are inevitable, transmission is optional posted 3 weeks, 5 days ago 72 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  DrX writes: You will need to actually state your solution for waste Tom. It makes no sense to talk about any increase in nuclear power or even keeping the status quo system going without it. Is it to build waste neutralizing reactors that retrofit into existing nuclear sites? As far as I can see it is the only way to deal with the waste problem and it will also generate power. You've seen enough of what I've written here, X, to know. The Integral Fast Reactor is a proven technology from our own Argonne National Laboratory, where our top nuclear scientists recycled tens of thousands of fuel pins during and after the IFR project. Just because our government foolishly decided not to follow through for political reasons with a commercial facility in no way validates your claim "that this technology does not exist in any affordable, safe, mass producible form." The electrorefining process is simple and used on a daily basis by numerous companies. The components are fully modular and can be readily mass-produced. The amount of material that would be recycled in a 2 gigawatt IFR power plant would amount to only about a gallon a day. These facilities could be housed in a space not much bigger than a garage. Before we use these reactors to retrofit current light water reactor power plants, we should most certainly use them to retrofit coal-fired power plants, both here and overseas. That way we can avoid the massive stranded costs that would be the result of shutting down serviceable but polluting coal plants, and create zero-emission power plants that use the same cooling systems, generators, switchyards, etc. Only the burner changes.On Renewables are inevitable, transmission is optional posted 3 weeks, 5 days ago 72 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  John Farrell writes: All that's need to sell me on nukes is for someone to prove they are renewable (i.e. inexhaustible fuel supply) and that we have a safe place to put the waste. Wonderful! Then consider yourself sold on newks. Read this book, and open your eyes to a brighter future. Welcome to the revolution!On Renewables are inevitable, transmission is optional posted 3 weeks, 6 days ago 72 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Dan writes:Tom Blees says, in effect, IFR are limitless, safe and produce no waste. With such a record and opportunity it would appear there is no reason not to build. Where are constructed examples of this reactor type located at the current time and how much power are they producing? It's always helpful to see real life examples producing real power with no waste. As for the 60-80 life without concern over embrittlement, what happens to the facility at the end of its useful life? I never said they produce no waste, only that the small amount they do produce is easily managed. Just because a commercial-scale version of the IFR isn't built yet doesn't mean its construction isn't perfectly feasible. The EBR-II ran just fine for 30 years, and sodium-cooled fast reactors have over 300 reactor-years of use, including the BN-350, the BN-600 (Russia's most reliable reactor of any kind), and the Phenix, which has run since 1972 in France and is 2/3 the size of the PRISM reactor many of us hope to see built soon. The PRISM has critical advantages over any of these, however, particularly its metal fuel. This is proven technology, not pie in the sky. If not for the shortsightedness and ignorance of Congress and Clinton in 1994 we'd have them running today. As for decommissioning, there won't be all that much radioactive material left when you take these apart: stainless steel vats and the reactor core itself. You could bury it at WIPP or dump it into the mud the Seabed Working Group recommended, and be done with it. This is definitely NOT a deal-breaker. Dan also writes: Tomblees: Concern over allocation suggests that we get to direct resources to one technology to the exclusion of all others as might be done in a totalitarian or communist regime; the reality is that people will decide based on a series of factors how to allocate resources. That's an absurd strawman to equate concern over allocation to communist central planning. Governments pick winners all the time, and allocate resources accordingly, be they dictatorships or democracies. And who said anything about excluding all the others? When a country makes decisions like Germany that results in increased carbon emissions and stratospheric costs in the name of environmental correctness, I'd say there have definitely been some allocation issues that were mishandled, especially when at the same time they're planning to shut down some of the best nuclear power plants on the planet. "The real point is that we need to move away from the endless bickering over which choices to make. They're all out there and theoretically possible. The people who are going to invest in them will look carefully and make those decisions. In recent years that choice has been made in favor of wind and natural gas power primarily, with a small percentage new coal. There must be reason that this pattern of investment is being made." The people who invest in these technologies do not all look carefully. Many of them are snowed by zealots who convince them (the politicians and the public) that pie in the sky will work just fine. It doesn't matter if technologies are theoretically possible. They have to be at least marginally practical and economical, otherwise they're a bad choice. The fact that wind and natural gas and coal have been the gainers in recent years doesn't mean that they're the best. If the government decides to dictate big feed-in tariffs and subsidies, somebody like T. Boone will gladly launch some big wind project that'll sell a lot of his gas and reap a lot of subsidies. It doesn't mean it's the best idea for the public. And in fact T. Boone's backed out even with all those positives. What does that tell you? Nuclear power has languished in the USA because of obstacles thrown up by environmentalists and the accompanying bars thrown in the wheels by governments unwilling to establish any sort of support to give utility companies a reasonable expectation that their plants, once invested in, will be able to be finished and operated without constant harassment, lawsuits, and stoppages. It's not because nuclear power is inherently untenable. Look at the economic fiascos of the solar industries in both Spain and Germany and the wind industry in Denmark, and then look at the country that sits between them, humming along on nuclear power with the cleanest air in Europe. Every one of those countries made decisions about allocation of resources for their energy supplies. And we're making those decisions here in the States, too. Which one would you rather emulate? Having a reasoned debate using actual data in order to make rational decisions about allocation of resources is not bickering. It's responsible.On Stewart Brand's nuclear enthusiasm falls short on facts and logic posted 3 weeks, 6 days ago 197 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Dan writes: So much of the debate these days seems to be how to do it best with one technology. The real answer is all, fast, and without too much bickering. That's true to a point, but one must consider allocation of resources. When Germany commits 70 billion Euros to solar panels to provide less than 2% of their electrical demand (at today's levels, no less), one must consider the 70% of their electrical demand that could be met 24/7 with nuclear power plants if they'd used that 70 billion for them instead. See this link for a discussion of that quandary.On Stewart Brand's nuclear enthusiasm falls short on facts and logic posted 1 month ago 197 Responses