tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post2808385156960373063..comments2024-02-16T17:52:44.944-06:00Comments on The Nuclear Green Revolution: A response to Peter Lang on Coal and Nuclear CostsCharles Bartonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01125297013064527425noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-39642706812198987032011-02-17T03:37:10.314-06:002011-02-17T03:37:10.314-06:00Bill Gates has enough money to support both. Let&#...Bill Gates has enough money to support both. Let's hope he responds to the Chinese announcement.Rick Maltesehttp://thoriummsr.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-88624991423277817632011-02-15T12:16:25.165-06:002011-02-15T12:16:25.165-06:00Charles, in this post and your previous post you h...Charles, in this post and your previous post you have zeroed in on our best chance for a quick transition away from fossil fuel into a cheaper cleaner energy technology. The improvements you cited since ORNL-TM-3832 was written, combined with the improvements in Instrumentation, Control and robotic systems technology make the uranium burning MSR a slam dunk candidate for the Model T nuclear power reactor.<br /><br />That said, we spend about $1.5 trillion on energy per year in the U.S. We should be spending $0.1 trillion per year on a Manhattan project level program pushing every energy technology as hard as possible including the MSR, IFR, lead/bismuth reactors, advanced solar, advanced wind, storage etc. it is the one investment we can make that will pay off many times over each year, and help our descendents pay off the enormous debt we are racking up.<br /><br />That said, I wish the Chinese good luck. We will be better off buying the technology from them than not having it at all. It’s too bad Bill Gates did not pick this technology to support instead of the TWR.Bill Hannahanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01432345218291338368noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-82897635619488771962011-02-14T03:03:30.168-06:002011-02-14T03:03:30.168-06:00Indians are fully committed to breeders and thoriu...Indians are fully committed to breeders and thorium fuel. However they have not tried out molten salt reactors in spite of the advantage of constant removal of Xe neutron poison. This could be due to uncertainty of handling salts and the corrosion problems.<br />Perhaps chlorides with isotope Cl37 could provide better liquid fuels. The technology of separating Cl37 will have to be developed.jagdishhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15126711161372003634noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-37986881250028082252011-02-13T18:18:38.447-06:002011-02-13T18:18:38.447-06:00well in that case the spell checker managed to tra...well in that case the spell checker managed to transform commute into compute. That is what will happen when a man who is too blind to read the newspaper tries to write.Charles Bartonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01125297013064527425noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-34493720756520584322011-02-13T01:52:26.639-06:002011-02-13T01:52:26.639-06:00"Factory employed workers compute to work fro..."Factory employed workers com<b>p</b>ute to work from their homes..."<br /><br />These must be really advanced factories where the workers don't even need to go in and can do everything by telecomputing. No, hang on. Shouldn't that be telecom<b>m</b>uting?The Jasonatornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-40448585796065919292011-02-12T05:25:06.368-06:002011-02-12T05:25:06.368-06:00Barry, I suspect we will continue to debate the IF...Barry, I suspect we will continue to debate the IFR-MSR issue for some time to come. From My perspective, the show stoppers are more likely to emerge on the IFR side than on the MSR side, although the LFTR still requires R&D, research on MSR technology is far enough advanced, that viable and low cost MSRs seem possible now, without further research, and with minimal development. At the moment commercial sub-breeder IFRs and MSRs - the ARC-100 and the FUJI - have been proposed, and these reactors have similar features. Thus it would appear that the IFR and the MSR are at similar places in their respective development cycles. As more details about the proposed reactors emerge, it should be possible to compair heir respective costs.Charles Bartonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01125297013064527425noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-69709152602008179852011-02-11T21:15:55.756-06:002011-02-11T21:15:55.756-06:00As to my view, I really hope you turn out to be ri...As to my view, I really hope you turn out to be right about MSR costs and our ability to churn these out on a production line. It seems likely that this sort of wholesale, cost-effective approach to nuclear will be the only way to totally replace fossil fuels by 2060.<br /><br />As to whether the MSR or IFR ends up being the technology to achieve this, is a matter of debate. For various technical and historical reasons, I suspect the IFR has the most promising overall chance of success, with the lowest chance of technical failures/showstoppers, which is why I'm putting my efforts behind getting it fully demonstrated and built, both in the US and internationally. I'll detail more on this in the coming months on my blog. <br /><br />But it's great also to see China giving the MSR a real shot. Here's hoping.Barry Brookhttp://bravenewclimate.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-41391778656811331452011-02-11T21:12:10.974-06:002011-02-11T21:12:10.974-06:00Peter replied to you over on BNC:
"Charles B...Peter replied to you over on BNC:<br /><br />"Charles Barton,<br /><br />Thank you for your thoughts on what Gen IV might cost and when they could be commercially available.<br /><br />I have to admit I am very sceptical about what you say.<br /><br />Firstly, I have asked before on BNC for links to some cost estimates that have been done properly by properly qualified estimators. It appears they have not been done. They cannot be done without proper detailed, final designs.<br /><br />Secondly, It takes decades to progress a technology from R&D to commercially viable. It took five decades to progress nuclear to where it is now. It takes many years to make slight improvements to gas turbine generators and coal power technologies. It takes decades to make bigger ships.<br /><br />So my smell test as Barry sometimes calls it, doesn’t accept the times scale or the cost for Gen IV. I can be persuaded to change my mind, but only by properly prepared cost estimates by engineering organisations nd estimators that I would trust to be doing the estimates impartially and competently.<br /><br />About 5 years ago Ziggy Switkowski said “dont expect to see Gen IV commercially viable before about 2030″. I suspect he is correct.<br /><br />So, I believe we need to focus on getting acceptance for Gen III (or Gen II if is will have lower LCOE). And we need to focus on the politics of how to win acceptance. For many (perhaps most) that means show us that nuclear can be cheaper than coal."Barry Brookhttp://bravenewclimate.comnoreply@blogger.com