Atomic Show #242 – Moltex Energy – Ian Scott and John Durham
Moltex Energy has developed a unique conceptual design for a molten salt reactor called the Stable Salt Reactor. In this design, the fuel salt is loaded into tubes that resemble the standard cladding tubes into which solid pellets are loaded in a conventional water cooled reactor. The tubes are arranged into assemblies that resemble the assemblies used in conventional reactors. The coolant that moves on the outside of the tubes is also a molten salt operating at essentially atmospheric pressure.
I first learned about Moltex Energy while reading a report issued in July 2015 titled MSR Review: Feasibility of Developing a Pilot Scale Molten Salt Reactor in the UK. That report evaluated about half a dozen different molten salt reactor concepts and decided that the Moltex concept was the one that would best suit the UK’s core competencies in terms of its readiness to develop and deploy at a pilot scale.
The more I read, the more interested I became in the concept. Though many of my friends and associates who are enthused about the capabilities of molten salt technologies have assured me it is not a problem to move fuel salt around, and they have developed plans that seem to avoid most of my concerns about systems full of mobile fission products, I’m a bit of a traditionalist. It is reassuring when reactors are designed to keep fission products in a known location and surrounded by a layer of high quality material that keeps them from moving around.
Aside: I’ve also been convinced by designers at ThorCon and Terrestrial Energy that their designs address my concerns, they just use a larger container as their sealed initial fission product barrier. End Aside.
On August 31, 2015, I had a lengthy conversation with Dr. Ian Scott, the designer of the Moltex concept, and John Durham, Moltex’s initial funding supplier and business strategy developer.
I think you’ll enjoy learning about their design and finding one more example of the kind of innovative thinking that is percolating within the nuclear technology sector.
Ian and John admit that they are in the very early stages of development and have a long road in front of them, but their enthusiasm and vision is infectious.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 48:32 — 44.6MB)
Subscribe: RSS
This is quite similar to the dual-fluid MSR design being promoted in Germany.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2KzC3LC2AI
first word of the article should be moltex, rather than molten
I look forward to hearing the show when I get a chance, since I am a MSR fan in general and the LFTR in specific. I am still reviewing some Moltex docs, but I wonder why they seem to disfavor Li7 when I’ve typically understood that chlorine also needs to be isotopic separation lest some is transmuted into sulfur, which would be corrosive in this application. Also, I thought that the variety of chloride compounds that can be formed with the wide variety of elements created by fission was largely unknown vs. fluorides, but that may be mitigated by containment in fuel rods compared to a pumped fluid circuit?
I do have to admit that although I generally like the IFR, using molten salts to consume actinides appeals to me more than using molten metals like sodium.
Because only with chlorides you can get a fast spectrum that allow you to have a practical iso-breeder (basically, with no fuel processing) and burn-up nuclear waste, i.e. transuranics + U-238/depleted uranium from LWR or Candus. Furthermore, to minimize or completely avoid S issue, you don’t need to go to very high enrichments, 97% is enough and 99% still optimal, while you need at least 99,999% enrichment for lithium. Btw, the raw material as chlorine, unlike lithium, is basically unlimited
@Alex:
I might be misunderstanding your comment. 97% enrichment is very high. What material are you talking about enriching to that level?
Rod
I obviously meant *chlorine* vs lithium enrichment (not uranium enrichment, if that’ s what you ask for…). Chlorine-37 is about 1/4 while Cl-35, the isotope we want to avoid/minimize, is about 3/4 of total chlorine, so not that bad, considering that tail enrichments are not even a issue (unlike uranium !). You don’ t need to go to very high enrichment, as for Li-7. Historically, chlorine has been the first element to be isotopically separated, even before the invention of nuclear energy (if I remember correctly…)
I obviously meant *chlorine* vs lithium enrichment (NOT uranium enrichment, if that’ s what you ask for…). Chlorine-37 is about 1/4 while Cl-35, the isotope we want to avoid/minimize, is about 3/4 of total chlorine, so not that bad, considering that tail enrichments are not even a issue (unlike uranium !). And you don’ t need to go to very high enrichment, as for Li-7. Historically, chlorine has been the first element to be isotopically separated, even before the invention of nuclear energy (if I remember correctly…)
BTW, a Japanese study addressed this particular issue : 99% enrichment is practically the same as 100% chlorine-37, but perhaps even 97% is optimal
http://www.j.sinap.ac.cn/nst/EN/10.1007/s41365-020-0740-x
This is obviously much easier than almost pure lithium-7 for Li
Good show. Glad to hear more from the Moltex guys – or any SMR or Gen4 group. I really believe that the mid to late 2020’s will be the public beginning of society’s energy transformation away from the dominance of fossil fuels. I only hope this revolution will be in time to avoid the worst effects of global warming & ocean acidification.
BTW – nice ending theme. I don’t recall hearing that long version before. Appreciated the leisurely pace as well as the lyrics within the verses. Thanks!
Ah, John, the constant attempt to confuse the issues and overstate a case. Do you really like the straw stickling out of your hat?
This is an academic reactor about which Rickover has written so eloquently: http://ecolo.org/documents/documents_in_english/Rickover.pdf
That said, John Galt’s sarcastic comment is very misleading. Nuclear power plants routinely vent radioactive gases as part of normal effluents pursuant to their Offsite Dose Calculation Manuals / Radological Effluent Technical Specs. The amount of radiation received from the radioactivity released is dwarfed by what is already present in the environment, and has an essentially zero impact on both environment and human life. Your continued detraction against nuclear energy is unworthy of the Ayn Rand whom your pseudonym seeks to emulate, and more typical of the liberal progressive eco-wacko environmentalists currently dominate in the Obama Administration.
The problem I have with this particular new design in this blog post is that it is unproven and undemonstrated unlike the molten salt design that the US built back in the 1960s. Going with tradition has much merit (but lacks the pizzazz of being innovative) especially in today’s climate of detractors like the so-called “John Galt.” People who have worked not one day in a commercial nuclear power plant, and who spent but 2 or 3 years in any commercial company should beware and be humble before self-appointment as the nuclear guru of the 21st century. There is a world of difference between a small ship-board reactor whose design experts have already figured out to the nth degree and what is needed for large-sustained, economic electrical power generation.
@JohnGalt
You are mischaracterizing my position. (Which is hardly surprising.)
Low levels of radiation (below ~ 100 mGy whole body gamma/month) are not dangerous and won’t harm human health. There is no reason to scare people about invisible effects if they are inadvertently or purposefully — for medical reasons — exposed to similar levels.
There is no reason for a regulatory limit that is perceived as a safety-based limit for lower doses.
That doesn’t mean I advocate casually releasing large quantities of radioactive material or even advocate losing control over that material. It’s better for everyone if we keep it where it can be measured and monitored.
@ JohnGalt
“…releasing more effluents.”
And how would they be doing that?
We had decay tanks (PWR) that could be procedurally released after 30 days (provided they were below limits, which they always were) but we wouldn’t release them until we began to run out of room…perhaps after 4 months or more. There was no monetary advantage to releasing them early.
What you’re stating might be the case on new construction where because of higher effluent limits, less decay tanks might be installed, but not on plants already built.
Liquid effluents, on the other hand, might rise as the time and expense of ion exchange could and might be shortened. Keeping in mind that low levels of radiation are not dangerous, particularly when diluted in a large body of water, this proposal poses no additional risk to the public.
Rod can speak for himself on the matter but I see no inconsistency in his statement.
An aside, I appreciate that you took the time to answer my questions…you are the first to ever do so and I’ve asked a lot of people.
None of the molten salt designs of which I am aware intend to vent
any fission product gases to the environment. The good designs have at least as
many gas-tight barriers between the fuel and the outside as a LWR.
And they operate at garden hose pressure. If there is a major primary loop
rupture there is nil pressure energy, no phase chance, no chemical reactions,
and the bad guys Cs, Sr, and I are chemically bound to the salt.
@JohnGalt
You’re wearing out your welcome. What is the idea of calling me and my colleagues in Scientists for Accurate Radiation Information a “cabal?” I have no need to accept slurs from an anonymous Internet commenter who has never revealed any information about his profession, his education or his motive for visiting Atomic Insights. It’s pretty obvious that you are not here to learn or to contribute meaningful commentary.
Yeah, John, here is the acceptable standard of behaviour here….
“Stick it where the sun don’t shine”
“you’re a very proud and stubborn old fart, but there are drugs that doctors can prescribe to combat dementia. You should look into them. There’s no shame. It might help prevent you from citing “reports” by the Union of Corrupt Shills, and it might help your very creepy problem of addressing comments to my name when you are replying to comments that I didn’t make”
“The animus is because you’re an anti-nuclear bigot who won’t learn, and we’re tired of you and your repeatedly-debunked claims that you won’t drop. All you are is a troll who wants to wear us down emotionally. Now do the world a favor and get lost”
“Liberal. Progressive. Democrat. You are the reason for nuclear having been stymied during the reign of Barack Hussein Obama”
How dare you use the term “cabal”, John! Wise up, man. Get with the program!
If you’re gonna spit on thr sidwalk here, ya gotta stick to the rules. You only get to spit if Rod agrees to the target.
@poa
If you’re gonna spit on thr sidwalk here, ya gotta stick to the rules. You only get to spit if Rod agrees to the target.
It is, after all, a sidewalk where I pay for all of the maintenance costs. It is not a public thoroughfare except through my generosity.
None of the examples you cite in your comment use profanity to make their point. You can react to them in the same way that I reacted to JohnGalt’s use of the word “cabal” to describe a group of professionals or retired professionals working hard in the open, public domain to spread accurate information about a technical topic in which they have demonstrated expertise.
Here is the current list of SARI members http://radiationeffects.org/members/.
It is inaccurate and purposely offensive to refer to them as a “cabal,” a word that has the following definitions:
1. a small group of secret plotters, as against a government or person in authority.
2. the plots and schemes of such a group; intrigue.
3. a clique, as in artistic, literary, or theatrical circles.
POA – If you’re so into quotes, how about this one:
“I’m done here. … Screw ’em.”
So much for promises.
Ha!!!!!
Well, applying transparently hypocritical criteria to your moderation here isn’t a practice that I expected of you. Obviously a comment being “offensive” is only censored or criticized if its offensive to you. But extremely offensive comments, rendered one commenter towards another, is perfectly allright with you. In fact, it “makes sense” to you, by your own admission.
My suggestion, not that you care; read through the thread, slowly, carefully. Then do a bit of reflection. Just sayin’.
Oh, gosh John, my favorite was when Brian threatened to withhold participation and contributions because Rod had the audacity to inquire from what source Brian got his “news” from. Never got an answer, either. Not that we needed one. Pretty obvious who’s programming him.
Even Rob Gauthier returned to comment again since then.
Which new design (of any type) will be the first to start commercial operations? Any prognosis of, or bets on when?
Any thoughts on how the renewable energy mandate in CA will effect proposed new reactors?
@david Davison
I won’t make any bets or predictions, but I will say that NuScale has been making progress for more than a decade. They still have a way to go, but seem to have th e required endurance to reach the finish line.
WRT CA – a renewable energy mandate won’t have any effect on new nuclear their until they stop prohibiting new nuclear based on a lack of waste disposal.
@ Rod
It was my understanding that once the NRC made the ruling that SNF could remain on site indefinitely, the prohibition against new nuclear was lifted. That obviously doesn’t change the political climate but it does seem to solve the regulatory one.
No, that’s not quite right. California’s law say that the NRC must approve a method for permanent disposal of high-level waste (e.g. Yucca Mountain). Here’s the text: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PRC§ionNum=25524.2.
Fortunately, the NRC would only have to *approve* Yucca Mountain. “Nothing in this section requires that facilities for the application of that technology or means be available at the time that the commission makes its findings.” So there is no requirement that Yucca Mountain actually be constructed and ready to receive spent fuel, which be yet another massive political barrier.
Seems to me that when you start talking “an additional billion” and “a four year extension”, than you’re talking about mismanagement, dismal planning, and problematic design.
Cost over-runs of a billion bucks don’t bode well for the industry. The paragraph I offer, above, is probably the reaction most lay people such as myself would have upon being made aware of such over-runs. And passing the cost of mismanagement and poor planning onto the consumer only further irritates the lay observer. Perhaps the inept contractor, or contractors, should be forced to eat these over-runs? Or don’t ethics and fairness enter into it?
However, I suspect, with these huge money projects, the contractors purposely understate cost in order to win the project, realizing that cost over-runs will be tolerated and passed on to the consumer. After all, who will shut down a ten billion dollar project for want of another billion or two?
I’d say the industry needs to get its act together. Theres a reason renewables are kicking your asses.
“I’d say the industry needs to get its act together. Theres a reason renewables are kicking your asses.”
Just curious if anybody knows:
Are these projects considered time and materials or are they hard money (firm bid)? Are the contractors making up a low bid on extras? Have they been able to charge extra for acceleration or delay?
Lots of projects can run over if major components have problems, need rework or there are supply problems.
Rod had a story about the choice of a one of a kind pump a few weeks ago. Are there other components that are extremely unique? Has the A/E produced complete design documents or are they relying on the contractor to design parts of the plant and produce as-builts?
With the harsh focus that the public has on nuclear plants, you’d think they would have had all their ducks in a row up front prior to shoveling the first shovelful of dirt.
Btw, I just watched a large solar field on the west end of the San Joaquin Vally get built in far less than two years.
Don’t think for a moment that John Q doesn’t notice. Particularly when projects such as that are bordering main highways. That solar project is adjacent to Highway 58, and is seen by thousands of travelers daily. Voila, it magically appears in nothing flat, on visually boring farmland that has lain fallow for a number of years. (Drought? Don’t know.) Eenie meenie, minie moe…..nuclear…..renewables….what’s Mr. Q and his wife Betty to think?
@ POA
“…what’s Mr. Q and his wife Betty to think?”
We know what they’ll think when their frig., computer, TV, and lights, have no power. At that point, they won’t care where it comes from.
And just twenty miles east, while heading to connect with the 14 and head back to L.A., they had passed through the wind farms outside of Tehachapi. Then, merging onto the 14, twenty miles closer to their destination, they view another large solar array, with hundreds of wind turbines as a backdrop.
Back at home in front of the TV, when coal and hydro kick in to block the outage that doesn’t happen, John and Betty still see the solar farm and the turbines in their mind’s eye. They don’t know that coal and hydro saved them from the shortcomings of the renewable energy fields that they passed through. They haven’t experienced the outage you describe.
Then, they get their newspaper, and find out they they are paying for the incompetence of NPP bidders and contractors. David, I strongly recommend you go to the site Galt linked to, and read the comments following the article. Its a real eye opener if you’re curious what these cost over-runs REALLY cost the NE industry in regards to public opinion.
@ POA
If only life could be as rosy as the cozy scenario you constructed.
In the Jan. 2014 time frame, the country experienced a cold snap that reduced the Natural Gas supplies to CA, most of which is imported from out of state. We came a whisker away from a power outage in Southern CA. I don’t doubt, in fact I expect, that those who are forced to pay higher electric rates because of the mistakes of others, are going to be upset. But what upsets a consumer more, paying higher rates for what one receives, or paying for a commodity they fail to receive? Had San Onofre been on line, there would have been no threat of power loss. Perhaps next time John and Betty won’t be so lucky.
Relying on the unreliables is not wise.
David…..
From what I’ve read, the polar vortexes, although severe and taxing gas supply, caused only voluntary cut-backs in power usage, and no actual outages occurred here in Cal. I even read one article that claimed wind power, in one area, actually saved the day…..
http://www.triplepundit.com/2015/01/wind-power-polar-vortexes-price-gouging/
Not knowing the source, I leave it up to the experts here to judge the veracity of the piece.
There has been much said here about a conspiracy by the fossil fuel powers to malign and stifle the use of NE. I see that Koch Industries is being accused of doing the same to the renewable sector. This being a site promoting NE, it is predictably and neccessarily open to suspicion as well. Anyone truly interested in the facts must keep in mind the motive here, and without closing one’s mind, check the opinions and assertions of the host and his guests to the best of one’s ability. Rod has earned my trust. Although we have some disagreements politically, and his bubbling optimism seems a bit naive and unrealistic to me, I believe he thinks for himself, and is an honest man.
But here, in the comment section, I have found unbridled ignorance, blind bias, embarrasing extreme religious zealotry, and the partisan recitation of propaganda and outright lies. Of course not all here are engaged in such practices, and overall I enjoy my participation here. And more important, I have learned alot on a lay level, and my opinion of NE has been altered considerably from when I first arrived here. But that process of enlightenment has been slowed and damaged by the “us against them” attitude many of you hold against the renewable industry. What blows my mind is the idiocy of it, this self destructive mindset that some of you so voraciously practice and defend to your own liability. For instance, as far as your argument above, you don’t seem to realize that the important thing about John and Betty is what they actually THINK, not what is occurring beyond their sphere of knowledge. And that is where you are losing the battle. And when you make enemies of those they see as white knights, then you make enemies of John and Betty as well. John and Betty have no idea that they came close to a dead TV screen, if in fact you haven’t exaggerated what actually occurred. All they know is that they see, on their trips to visit uncle Bernie, more and more turbines going up, and acres upon acres of solar panels marching across what was previously sage brush and rattlesnakes. So, in their minds, it must work, and work well. I mean, hey, why else would these facilities be expanding at such a rate?
@ POA
“I leave it up to the experts here to judge the veracity of the piece.”
In a two day course on system operator training, the instructor relayed the above account as an example of how grid instability is not just a summer time (for CA) phenomenon. I’ve invited him to participate here as it would be nice to hear directly from one who has to deal with renewables on a daily basis (my apologies for any here who fit that description).
I speak only for myself when I say that I’m for what works and currently, nuclear power is the best energy source to power an energy hungry world. I’m not against wind and solar, I’m against those who naively believe it capable of replacing coal, NG, and nuclear.
“I have found unbridled ignorance, blind bias…”
Excepting yourself of course.
“…the “us against them” attitude many of you hold against the renewable industry.
Was it an “us against them” attitude when the producers of Pandora’s Promise, leaders in the environmental community, highlighted solar and wind’s incapability of solving our energy problems? Do we display this attitude when we simply tell the truth that solar and wind are unreliable? That they are not as clean as their promoters would like the public to believe? That without subsidies solar and wind aren’t going to be built? That the only competition wind and solar present to nuclear is in the arena of PR and here it is largely due to nuclear being completely AWOL and a victim of the “if it bleeds it leads” mentality?
It is also my understanding that as built today, solar panels provide no VAR support though this capability exists, for a price, to do so.
“…you don’t seem to realize…is what they actually THINK, not what is occurring beyond their sphere of knowledge.”
You’re always assuming you know your audience…and assuming wrong. From the tenor of your illustration, you also assume John Q sees windmills and automatically thinks they’re great…that white knight. This assumption is wrong.
Netflix had a documentary (whose name escapes me) that detailed one rural New York town torn apart by conflict over windmills. A great many people don’t want their landscape covered in a forest of windmills whether they turn or not and regardless of whether they’re on bare desert or mountain top ridges. If you think I exaggerate, check out all the groups organizing against windmills, or pylons as they’re referred to in Ireland.
https://www.wind-watch.org
http://quixoteslaststand.com/worldwide-anti-wind-groups/
http://www.npr.org/2015/01/07/375672044/cape-cods-offshore-wind-project-in-jeopardy
As usual, you have it completely backwards. The “renewables” promotors have been using anti-nuclear disinformation literally for decades, and this video shows that grudge. When people on the side of nuclear start trying to fight that disinformation with facts, you cry “no fair!”. Stick it where the sun don’t shine.
“That without subsidies solar and wind aren’t going to be built?”
http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear-power/cost-nuclear-power/nuclear-power-subsidies-report#.VerdpBDn_qA
An excerpt…..
Government subsidies to the nuclear power industry over the past fifty years have been so large in proportion to the value of the energy produced that in some cases it would have cost taxpayers less to simply buy kilowatts on the open market and give them away, according to a February 2011 report by the Union of Concerned Scientists.
The report, Nuclear Power: Still Not Viable without Subsidies, looks at the economic impacts and policy implications of subsidies to the nuclear power industry—past, present, and proposed.
How would you like your subsidy?
Nuclear power subsidies vary by type of ownership (public or private), time frame of support (legacy, ongoing, or new), and the type of cost (or “attribute of production”) they address—from startup capital to decommissioning and waste disposal. Subsidies can take many forms, including tax breaks, accident liability caps, direct payments, and loan guarantees.
While the exact value of these subsidies can be difficult to pin down, even conservative estimates add up to a substantial percentage of the value of the power nuclear plants produce—approaching or even exceeding 100 percent in the case of legacy subsidies and subsidies to new privately-owned reactors (see chart).
“You’re always assuming you know your audience…and assuming wrong. From the tenor of your illustration, you also assume John Q sees windmills and automatically thinks they’re great….”
http://www.gallup.com/poll/108121/Majority-Americans-Support-Drilling-OffLimits-Areas.aspx
An excerpt…..
Americans Favor Green Policies
Americans’ collective interest in alternative energy sources is reinforced by the responses to a question asking Americans if they favor or oppose nine specific proposals dealing with energy and the environment. Two-thirds of Americans favor increased government spending to develop solar and wind power, and spending more to develop alternative fuels for cars has the same level of support.
Additionally, more than 60% of Americans favor a variety of proposals that would regulate or limit fossil fuel emissions, including setting higher pollution standards for business and industry. These results are consistent with Gallup’s earlier findings that Americans prioritize the environment over economic growth.
At the same time, the majority of Americans favor the idea of opening up land owned by the federal government for oil exploration. This break from a more conservationist view is consistent with Americans’ support for other proposals to increase oil and gas production, including support of offshore drilling.
Expanding the use of nuclear energy is the only proposed policy that the majority of Americans oppose, albeit by a slim margin. Attitudes toward this question have remained more or less unchanged since 2001, when 51% of Americans opposed it, except for a brief increase in favorability in 2006.
“A great many people don’t want their…….”
Yes, and “a great many people” own appaloosas too, but the majority doesn’t.
Do a poll search, David. Virtually every poll taken on a nationwide basis favors the development of renewables. You are being disingenuous in the way you are presenting your argument.
“Stick it where the sun don’t shine”
Atta boy, EP, you tell ‘im, by golly !!!
“When people on the side of nuclear start trying to fight that disinformation with facts, you cry “no fair!”. ”
No fair?? I’e never said, or insinuated such a thing here. Actually, what I’ve said is that what you are doing, isn’t working.
You can load John Q with all the facts you want, if you’ve got the money, the PR talent, and the media’s cooperation. And you obviously ain’t got any of that. So if you wanna get all hot and bothered when someone points out the obvious to you, so be it. But really, your reaction to my comments underscores what I am saying. I’m not expressing hostility towards NE here, yet here you are telling me to shove it. Great tactic, EP. That kinda stuff really helps your cause. Like I said above, its idiocy. Intellect doesn’t breed common sense, I guess, EP. Wise up, I’m not the enemy.
Er … Your link says that a majority of Americans support more drilling for oil.
Or maybe that’s what you consider to be a “green policy”? Frankly, I can’t tell what you stand for anymore.
Seriously, POA, I know that you’re a very proud and stubborn old fart, but there are drugs that doctors can prescribe to combat dementia. You should look into them. There’s no shame. It might help prevent you from citing “reports” by the Union of Corrupt Shills, and it might help your very creepy problem of addressing comments to my name when you are replying to comments that I didn’t make.
It’s not too late to get help.
“Or maybe that’s what you consider to be a “green policy”? Frankly, I can’t tell what you stand for anymore.”
Actually, Brian, I am merely posting the results of a poll. The facts about this poll may be unpleasant to you, but thats no reason to insult me, or try to divert attention away from how this poll directly refutes David’s prior assertion, that I was responding to by posting the poll results.
How you responded makes no sense. Its an attack, nothing more. It contributes nothing.
@poa
For the record, Brian’s comment makes sense to those of us who know that polls generally reflect what the poll taker wants them to reflect, and that the UCS — aka Union of Concerned Scientists or Union of Compromised Shills — has been fighting nuclear energy since the early 1970s.
At that time, TWO people, Daniel Ford, an antinuclear activist and Henry Kendall, a wealthy heir of a large fortune from Curity, the band-aide competitor, assumed the name of UCS, a nearly defunct antinuclear weapons group. They decided to make a big splash with highly publicized lawsuits and public hearings.
I take all of their polls with a huge helping of salt.
That is all you need to know right there. UCS is an organization of disinformation artists, professional liars.
The standard western limited-liability corporation normally restricts liability to the value of the corporation; if someone gets a big judgement against it the shareholders can (and do) say, “Okay, it’s yours now.” In the case of industrial disasters, the value in the corporation can be minuscule; the liability coverage of the West Fertilizer Company was a mere $1 million.
Federal law requires each nuclear plant to have literally hundreds of times as much insurance coverage as West Fertilizer Company had, and further spreads liability to all operating nuclear plants if that coverage is inadequate. Your whining is all about nuclear exceptionalism, demanding absolute perfection while allowing the rest, including fossil and “renewables”, to be totally inadequate.
This engineer is pissed off at your dishonesty, Mr. soi-disant POA.
So Brian’s personal attack “makes sense”, eh Rod? Obviously none of you have bothered to google polls on this subject, because across the board nationally, no matter who is conducting the poll, the results show that the american people want to see renewables utilized and developed, and that nuclear does not enjoy the same kind of majority opinion.
Then theres EP who accuses me of dishonesty and tells me to shove it??? What dishonesty? Why the animous? Go f*** yourselves.
Carry on, preach to the choir, Rod. Read this thread through, and do a little introspection. You jackasses need it.
@poa
You’ve been interacting here for quite a while, but you still don’t get it. Many nukes have endured a lifetime of slurs while knowing — through experience, formal education and individual study — that our technology provides exactly the kind of clean, reliable, affordable, abundant energy that people both need and want.
Sure, marketers of natural gas, wind and solar have done a good bamboozling job and convinced people that their wares work. In some cases, they’ve also done a good job scaring the crap out of people about our useful tech while attacking our personal integrity and professional credibility.
Public opinion is a terrible way to make technical decisions, but I recognize it cannot be ignored. I also recognize it CAN be shaped and changed with effective strategies that work best when they are truthful. (Those same strategies work reasonably well to spread lies if no one challenges or exposes the purveyors.)
It is dishonest to pretend that you are just repeating what others say when you’ve had plenty of time and instructional opportunity to learn the truth.
Btw Rod, the poll I posted is a gallup poll, it had nothing to do with the Union of Concerned Scientists. You might want to actually read the comments and links before offering a rebuttal.
Tell me, if new nuclear power plants did not get government subsidies, would they get built? Isn’t that a fair question, considering that that is a common gripe here in opposition to renewables?
@poa
I can’t speak for other developers, but Adams Atomic Engines, Inc. Had no provisions for subsidies and no illusions about the risks of building a business dependent on them.
We just wanted a less obstacle strewn path to getting permission to build. We didn’t succeed, but maybe someday…
“It is dishonest to pretend that you are just repeating what others say when you’ve had plenty of time and instructional opportunity to learn the truth”
Horseshit. Do a poll search , Rod. I am arguing about what people THINK IN THE MAJORITY, and why they think that way. It has nothing to do with dishonesty. This thread has taken a very ugly turn that was totally unnecessary and unwarranted. And it really underscores what I have long argued here, that you guys are cutting your own throats with your my way or the highway bullshit.
You went backwards today Rod. Not that you care. Oh well, eh?
@poa
I addressed the “popularity” issue. Skilled marketing and effective FUD.
Actually…..
I just did a deeper poll search, using 2015 as one of the criterias, and discovered that I am wrong, if I consider the most recent gallop poll. It stands at 51% of those polled favoring the development of NE.
However, in 2010 it was at 62%. Obviously Fukushima must have played a part in the diminishing numbers. How you folks recover from that is up to you. If you want an example of how NOT to recover from that, read through this thread.
And by the way, Eino has asked some civil and sincere questions.
You might consider giving him the courtesy of a response. I recommend you refrain from telling him to shove it, but hey, whatever floats your boat.
Among other things, you cite UCS as a source. You repeat and endorse their disinformation.
The animus is because you’re an anti-nuclear bigot who won’t learn, and we’re tired of you and your repeatedly-debunked claims that you won’t drop. All you are is a troll who wants to wear us down emotionally. Now do the world a favor and get lost.
Here ya go….
Shove these EP..
http://tinyurl.com/reademanweep-rod
Amazing, ain’t it? Pages upon pages of polls, from all over the united states and the free world, all coming up with the same results.
My gawd what a huge conspiracy, Rod!! Just imagine the effort it took to corrupt the results of all them polls.
I’d tell you all to shove it, but this thread pretty much illustrates that you already have your heads inserted neck deep, so you don’t really need any lubricate to ease the insertions. ‘Cept maybe Rod, because he just bent over and let a coupla posters give this site a royal reaming. Amazing how quick respect can get flushed down the toilet.
@poa
Yes, it has been a long, well-planned, and consistently executed “conspiracy.”
Do you honestly believe it’s been easy to suppress a technology where a few dollars worth of uranium can produce — without any pollution — as much energy as a few hundred thousand dollars worth of oil?
The story is rather amazing. I believe it will have some effect when it’s finally told in its entirety.
So, these poll results are all inaccurate, eh Rod? All of them, carefully crafted and manipulated to arrive at inaccurate results?
Bullshit.
I won’t argue the fact that FUD and pro renewable propaganda has influenced the overall sentiment that these poll results reflect, but for you to argue that the poll results are all corrupted is baseless paranoia on your part. In fact, it is ridiculous. It makes your credibility lower than a slug’s belly.
I accept a conspiracy against NE undoubtedly exists. But for you and your compatriots to deny the success of that conspiracy, by completely ignoring the huge stock of evidence that exposes the idiocy of such a denial, robs this site of the privilege of being taken seriously.
When you get uncomfortable of the facts, you crawl in bed with some pretty slimey bedmates, Rod. I thought better of you.
@poa
What makes you think I was denying all of the poll results? I said I acknowledge that public opinion is FOR gas, wind and solar and not so favorable for nuclear.
I challenged the UCS poll you shared. MANY of the others on your search results page were also commissioned by “conservation” groups with a long history of opposing nuclear and favoring weak, inconsistent power sources, but not all of them.
We have a PR problem and those in the industry with money aren’t doing much to address the issue. Part of my personal mission is to wake them up and provide some advice on telling people about the benefits of the technology.
If you polled a carefully-selected representative sample of a million people in the world, and 80% said that the earth was flat, would that be inaccurate?
Inaccurate how? Of course it would be utterly reliable as to the opinion of the average human. That the average human is igorant and relatively stupid is irrelevant to the reliability of that figure. It’s just that the figure has nothing at all to do with reality.
Oops, meant EAST end of the valley.
Coincidentally, that end of the valley is literally the smoggiest place in the United States. What a PR bonanza for the renewable industry, eh? I can just imagine the effective bill boarding that can be placed near this solar facility.
All this emotional discussion has me wondering which option is better for the consumer? EP linked to a video that promoted replacing all of the coal and nuclear plants with gas turbines. These would respond to the needs of the wind and solar producers to fill in the gaps when they couldn’t produce.
Nuclear promises a world of clean energy, but it seems to be coming at a very high cost at least in Western countries. Nuclear power plants run a very long time and take up a small amount of land.
As a consumer, I am concerned with my power bill. I don’t want to be paying off excessively priced nuclear plants. I also don’t wish to subsidize solar and wind plants that don’t operate when I need the power and never actually pay for themselves. I particularly don’t want to be replacing the existing coal and nuclear infrastructure to cater to windmills.
I love the way the price of gas has dropped. I like the extra money in my pocket. I’m sure it has had a Keynesian effect on the United States economy. Which power option puts more money in the consumer’s (John & Betty’s) pocket?
Whats this? Gads, Eino, are you actually trying to institute a civil and constructive debate? Careful man, or they’ll brand ya a troll.
Good questions in your post, Eino. Maybe we need all the options operating and evolving, eh? Seems to me that David, above, actually pointed out that the wind and solar facilities assisted the gas facilities in blocking outages during the polar vortexes of 2014. If in fact wind and solar provided
Oops…..finger slipped…
….provided even a small percentage of the power in Jan 2014, according to David’s assertion of how close we were to outages, then one must assume wind and/or solar was instrumental in us avoiding those outages.
Fact is, if the polls are to be believed, americans overwhelmingly favor the development of renewables over fossil fuel energy expansion, or more use of NE. I’m not opposing NE when I offer that evidence in my commentary. I’m merely stating the facts. If NE’s dismal PR efforts are the cause, than NE’s failure to compete with renewables are the effect. Advocating slanting polls by repetitive participation, as I’e seen advocated here, or simply ignoring the polls, or citing local polls that do not represent the national concensus, is not a strategy that makes alot of sense in this debate.
So, maybe the way to win the debate is by telling people to shove it. I mean hey, its really working on the renewable folks, right? I mean golly, NE is really kicking ass over its competition, eh?
” I mean golly, NE is really kicking ass over its competition, eh?
By what measure? If you measure success by the polls which are a popularity contest, then nuclear power is not doing so well. However, if you measure it by long term cost, it may do better.
I certainly have to agree with you about the PR. I turned my cable box in a couple of months ago, but I can still picture the lean tall blonde woman that used to tout natural gas. The statement was made that natural gas was a bridge to renewables. This immediately made natural gas an ally in the eye of the public which has been fed this horse puckey about how “natural” and clean wind and sunshine are. Images of smiling children and nature scenes were in these ads.
Where is the nuclear PR? Nuthin! The only thing I’ve seen on TV are hydrogen explosions at Fukushima. Some very good ads could be made for nuclear power if they tried. There certainly have been beau coup good reasons to build nukes given on this website. Most people do not have the time nor interest to ferret out this information. It must be shown to them.
Gas turbine plants are cheap to construct, Gas turbine plants operate with a small staff. There is an apparent ample supply of inexpensive natural gas ready to fuel these plants. Gas turbine plants can be built with a high thermodynamic efficiency. Gas turbine plants do not face the regulatory hurdles that nuclear (& even coal) does. Less efficient gas turbines can ramp up in load very quickly. So maybe, the information given by the tall blonde woman wearing the dark suit in the gas ads should be accepted as being correct.
(I do not work for the gas industry or at a gas generation station.)
“By what measure?”
I was being facetious, Eino.
I see where a huge gas field has been discovered in Egypt, scuttling Israel’s plan to sell gas to the egyptians on a large scale. It seems that NG is plentiful at this point, in many regions at this time. I see too, researching David’s comments on the 2014 polar vortex thing, that California has four huge storage facilities, that were not tapped during the 2014 “emergency”. I wonder if the energy contributions of the renewables actually played a part in us not having outages, and not having to tap into the NG reserves? If it was as close a call as David says, one must assume it was a good thing the renewables made a contribution, even if it was small.
@ POA
“…then one must assume wind and/or solar was instrumental in us avoiding those outages.”
With the caveat that the instructor didn’t elaborate on what “saved the day”, his extremely low opinion of wind and solar is perhaps a clue that it wasn’t from these sources. Help, yes, instrumental, hardly. Had San Onofre been on line, they wouldn’t have been scrambling. Let me just add here that this “instructor” was only an instructor for the day…his principle job is sitting in the chair helping to manage the grid.
I think we can all agree that the nuclear industry is PR challenged.
As to your poll results, I think you’re making more of them than is warranted, at least in the poll you cited. You may view this response as an excuse for not receiving the results I like…an understandable conclusion, but I am certain you could tell ME why they are of limited value. You did catch the date for the survey, right?
The NIMBY syndrome is strong and while there may be folks who, generally speaking, view wind and solar positively, apart from roof top, they’re a little reticent to have a turbine in their back yard.
I leave you with Ivanpah solar plant. In my opinion, it is the wrong way to produce power and even using my rapidly diminishing math skills, John Q should come to the same conclusion. Also, 2014 was not a good first year for the plant, the sun just didn’t cooperate.
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/188328-californias-new-solar-power-plant-is-actually-a-death-ray-thats-incinerating-birds-mid-flight
David, thanks for the reasonably civil response. And for the link to that site. The bird thing is a tragedy, no matter the numbers. However, I know from talking to many wind farm workers that the cost to the bird of prey population here around Tehachapi is greatly exaggerated by those using it as a rationale for oppositoon to wind. Actually, there is a robust population of birds of prey in the area, and workers tell.me they rarely see corpses in and around the wind farm areas. Inam not saying that the article you link to is exagerating the figures. I simply don’t know. I think a guy would have to actuslly talk to some of the workers at Ivanpah, to make that determination. I note the site you linked to is very pro nuclear. In enjoyed the article I will link to below this post. Easily understood with no over the top scientific lingo or concepts, it is the kind of article that can grab and maintain the interest of Betty and John, and even ‘ol uncle Bernie. I hope you and Rod will have a gander at it, and reflect on how your message can be composed to resonate with John Q, without having to attack your competition with animosity and derision.
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/147814-the-nuclear-power-vendetta-or-the-greatest-environmentalist-hypocrisy-of-all-time
A GREAT ARTICLE!
@ POA
“A GREAT ARTICLE!”
It is a great article and one I think the majority here would fully endorse. It is the message that Atomic Insights readers, in my opinion, have been promoting. As the article suggests, nuclear power can meet our growing energy needs, wind & solar cannot. Although wind and solar have a roll to play, countering the limitless faith and outright lies by some of its adherents can appear to be an “us vs them” mentality; I prefer the characterization, truth vs untruth.
truth vs untruth…..
“Seriously, POA, I know that you’re a very proud and stubborn old fart, but there are drugs that doctors can prescribe to combat dementia. You should look into them. There’s no shame. It might help prevent you from citing “reports” by the Union of Corrupt Shills, and it might help your very creepy problem of addressing comments to my name when you are replying to comments that I didn’t make.”
Hmmmm. Does that qualify as truth vs untruth? Or Rod accusing me of posting polls I didn’t actually post? Such as his claim that I posted a poll conducted by UCS?
I’m done here. This thread was taken in a direction it should have never gone, thanks to Brian, EP, and Rod. Screw ’em.
This site deserves a few more Paul Primiveras. He’s a perfect fit.
@poa
I’ve finally had time to read through the full thread instead of just stealing a few minutes here and there during a family and friends filled Navy football weekend.
I got confused between a UCS report that you posted and the links to polls conducted by groups like Gallup for unnamed customers. (I might be wrong, but most polling organizations charge someone or some group for their work; they don’t make the calls just out of curiosity.)
UCS was apparently not the payer for any of the particular polls to which you linked and I apologize for claiming it was.
I do not, however, apologize for deleting comments that cussed at me for my statement.
I’m kind of a weird former sailor, but I am haunted by one of my first Executive Officers who frequently said that “Profanity is the crutch of a crippled conversationalist.”
Promises … promises.
And the crutch that Brian is propping up his contribution with? What do you call that?
Or basing a series of rebuttals on just a cursury examination of what you are actually rebutting? What do you call that?
And deleting a comment that was not profane, but merely pointed out that the poll you were referring to DID NOT EXIST? What do you call that?
I’ve lost my respect for this site, Rod. So whats the point? Smile man, I’m making EP, Brian, and Paul Primivera very happy. Maybe the can run off a few more fence sitters for you.
@poa
Feel free to post or not. It’s up to you, but the above is a direct quote of a comment I deleted as being a bit offensive and profane.
@JohnGalt
You’re catching on. This is not a public forum. It is my forum. I’m the host, so purposely aiming insults my way or at my friends might get you booted from the party.
“……so purposely aiming insults my way or at my friends might get you booted from the party”
So I guess all your “friends”, and you, must be far right wing christian conservative republicans, considering who loannes consistently aims his insults at. Or you woulda “booted” him by now.
@poa
In the context of Atomic Insights, my friends are those people who recognize that our current energy supply system is in need of improvement and additional reliable options. They either already know that nuclear energy has the characteristics that most people desire in an energy source — reliability, cleanliness, geographic flexibility, abundance, affordability, inexhaustible fuel sources, controllability by automatic systems or operators, power density (enabling modest footprint), etc — or they are willing to learn from experts who understand both strengths, history and limitations.
My opponents are those who refuse to learn and keep accusing my friends of being dishonest or hiding something.
Please understand, neither I nor my friends claim that nuclear energy is perfect and has no room for improvement. At the very least, we agree that it has sufficient merit to be a part of any future energy system. Most of us have made the judgement that information about its technical merits has been suppressed for a variety of reasons. Those technical merits, if more widely understood, should result in a growing portion of the world’s energy supply being provided by atomic fission, to the financial detriment of all other sources of energy.
That’s the way commodity competition works; there is not an infinite amount of demand. Control of access to markets is just as important as control of the resource base. When a new player enters, someone has to lose market share and probably actual sales volume. In the context of the world power structure, nuclear energy is disruptive and shifts resources from haves to have nots.
So, no. Whether or not someone is a friend or an opponent has nothing to do with their position on the political spectrum.
That was an interesting podcast / interview. Thanks.
One of the points I took out of this was that the UK GDA process is technology neutral, and in theory, the ONR can license a MSR just as well as a PWR. This is completely different to the USA’s NRA, which is much more prescriptive.
However, the ONR doesn’t know much about molten salts, and any licensee will have to pay them to learn about the subject.
The other issue is that the GDA process is focused on licensing by analysis – the entire GDA is based on a set of CAD files, finite element analysis, stress calculations, and various computer models. Most things, from shower valves to cars to aircraft, are licensed by testing prototypes to destruction. Small modular reactors have the advantage that that is feasible, but to what extent can the GDA process accommodate that.
The UK’s DECC has just initiated a study into SMRs (not specifically MSRs) that is meant to look into these issues and make recommendations for any changes.
In the mean time, we don’t know what a MSR will cost to license, or how long the licensing process will take. That makes MSRs in the UK impossible to fund, unless this uncertainty can be somewhat removed. That said, the situation appears to be better than in the USA.
No one seems to be commenting on the fact that the Moltex Reactor is a fast reactor. Does this make it better at ‘burning up’ spent nuclear fuel than the WAMSR designed by Terrestrial Energy? Any other advantages? Any costs to this approach?
Absolutely, a fact spectrum is intrinsically better to burn-up TRUs and/or depleted/U-238. They have even invented a process to recycle plutonium and other actinides from Candus (where Pu is less than 0.5%)
In the end, is a Moltex reactor, that uses chlorides fuel/coolants as well, more or less compact than an ordinary molten chloride fast rector (for example, Terra Power’ s MCFR or Elysium’ s MCSFR) ? For istance, what is the maximum power (or the optimal max power size) they envisage that can be installed per *single* reactor ?