Is Fourth gen Nuclear power the answer?

General news and discussion.

Is Fourth gen Nuclear power the answer?

Postby steve » Mon Jan 26, 2009 10:06 am

Some interesting debates around the possibility of modern nuclear at the moment. Ardent climate scientist James Hansen clearly supports what is called 4th generation nuclear power.

Apparently the new reactors (admittedly not yet developed but much more realistic than Fusion reactors) burn the waste of existing reactors and do so much more efficiently than existing light water reactors (LWRs). In fact they're about 100 to 300 times more efficient. This means that fossil fuels don't need to be burnt to mine for nuclear material and the problem of nuclear waste is solved. Although not sustainable they could supply electrical energy for the world for around 1000 years it is claimed.

The new reactors are called Integrated Fast Reactors (IFRs) and Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors (LFTRs). According to Hansen:
Both IFR and LFTR have the potential to be air-cooled and to use waste heat for desalinating water.


Hansen is very against coal and says:
Coal burning has released and spread around the world more than 100 times more radioactive material than all the nuclear power plants in the world. Mercury released in coal burning contaminates the world ocean as well as our rivers, lakes and soil. Air pollution from coal burning kills hundreds of thousands of people per year. If
such consequences were occurring from nuclear power, nuclear plants would all be closed. Mining of coal, especially mountaintop removal, causes additional environmental damage and human suffering. It is time for all the coal plants to be closed, indeed, averting climate disasters demands that all coal emissions be phased out. Coal is best left in the ground.

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/ ... _Obama.pdf


There's also an article on LFTR technology on the Oil Drum which provoked some 450 comments. Despite the abundant expertise there seemed to be no decisive argument against against LFTR:
Excitement has recently been rising about the possibility of using thorium as a low-carbon way of generating vast amounts of electricity. The use of thorium as a nuclear fuel was extensively studied by Oak Ridge National Laboratory between 1950 and 1976, but was dropped, because unlike uranium-fueled Light Water Reactors (LWRs), it could not generate weapons' grade plutonium.


PS. James Hansens other talks etc can be found here: http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/
steve
 
Posts: 108
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 12:00 pm

I doubt it...

Postby chris » Tue Jan 27, 2009 11:00 am

New generations of nukes have been promised for as long as I can remember, the evidence points to nuclear power being a fossil fuel energy sink not a energy source.
chris
 
Posts: 106
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 12:24 am


Return to News and Discussion



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron