BYU professors create reactor designed to safely produce nuclear energy
ksl.com
ksl.com
Except for this one. Pinky promise.
Source: rethinkx.com
I'm guessing the solar panel waste would be quite a bit more.
The solar panel can be made into more solar panels (or bottles or any other use for glass which is 95% of the material) at a profit. One person needs 1-3t of them to exist (about 9t if you throw them all away) to provide their energy plus about 1-3t of some kind of frame (usually steel).
The kg or so of uranium is spent fuel which is the really dangerous stuff. Then you have 10-100x as much moderate level waste. 10kg of depleted uranium (still a toxic heavy metal) and 30 tonnes of mining tailings including 1t of ultra toxic heavy metal sulfuric acid sludge and 2-4 tonnes of the reactor itself (of which about half is recyclable).
Add to that, with solar, you will also need a lot of lithium and whatever other noxious chemicals for all the batteries for when the sun isn't out.
There isn't much of a solar recycling industry because there are very few worn out Monocrystalline solar panels (the type that makes up the majority of installed panels and almost all new production have only been common for 10 years, they haven't worn out yet). And it's not hypothetical, it's legally mandated and there are companies scaling up to deal with it now http://www.solarwaste.eu/in-your-country/united-kingdom/ Unlike the nuclear industry that doesn't even have a permanent plan for burying the much larger quantity of waste it generates (much of which is still long lived low level waste).
> Add to that, with solar, you will also need a lot of lithium and whatever other noxious chemicals for all the batteries for when the sun isn't out.
A kilogram of lithium is much less toxic to mine than a kilogram of natural uranium.
1kg of natural uranium can provide about 150g of fuel producing 1kW for 6 years and then it's high level waste that has to be handled for millenia.
The lithium on the other hand can provide about 8kWh of storage for 10 years and non toxic prussian blue/sodium ion batteries are having 100s of GWh/yr of production built out for 2026. At the end you still have it if needed (or you can just leave it somewhere until you do need it).
...the molten salt nuclear reactor design not only has the potential to eliminate dangerous nuclear waste but turn its byproducts into valuable commodities that can be harvested from the salt and sold.
Molybdenum-99, for example, is an extremely expensive element — $30 million per gram — that can only be bought from the Netherlands and is used in approximately 20 million medical imaging procedures and scans each year. It can be extracted with Memmott's design.
"We can now go to that salt and apply specific electrochemistry to pull out pieces one at a time, or groups at a time. So this nuclear waste — which is really just a mix of uranium and all these different components — we can now pull those out and separate and sell them," Memmott said. "Not only do we have a reactor that's really resistant to accidents, but now we can actually separate out those components and sell them and make a profit from the other pieces and then we're left, potentially, with no nuclear waste."
Many decades ago people stopped iterating on nuclear. There is no law of nature that says nuclear can't get cheaper by a factor of 100. It's just technology.
As for safety, I personally trust the NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission). If they say something it's safe, I'll take them at their word. There's no need for any pinky promise on the side of the industry.
If you can find any source that claims the NRC are lax, I'd like to see that. Everywhere I looked I saw the opposite complaint, that they are unreasonably strict. I'm personally ok with them being too conservative. I looked at the documents related to the safety approval of NuScale's SMR [1], and they seem competent to me.
[1] https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/smr/licensing-acti...
This is patently untrue, countless billions have been spent on molten salt and molten sodium reactors. Almost as much has been spent on various breeder reactors that don't work or have never been used for breeding like Superphenix, IFR and the BN program as was spent on the entire PV revolution (except PV as actually generated some power with their subsidies unlike breeder programs). More time and money spent on fission just reveals more ways it is dangerous and reveals previously hidden costs of keeping them safe.
If you want an undeveloped technology that will improve with investment go put a single nuclear reactor's worth of money into tidal.
But China did invest. It hooked up a high temperature gas cooled reactor to the grid one year ago [1]. It is not talked about a lot, but this is leapfrogging the West by 20 years.
[1] https://www.powermag.com/china-starts-up-first-fourth-genera...
Another advantage is the fact this is a Small Modular Reactor. China wants to build 18 by the end of the decade. That is iteration. That's how you drive the cost down.
SpaceX is said to build one Raptor per day. Even without reusable boosters, just this pace of iteration means their workers and processes became much more efficient at building the engines. With a bit of googling around you can find the cost of a Raptor is 5-10 times lower than the cost of comparable engines, per unit of thrust. It is very likely this cost advantage will only increase going forward.
No it doesn't. The really bad waste (because it outmasses the rest by four orders of magnitude) is in a tailings pond that will be 'remediated' by pulling a plastic sheet over it in Namibia, or being pumped into the ground water in Kazakhstan, or spilled onto the farm land in Navajo. Higher enrichment means more of that.
Reducing high grade waste by 20% at the cost of doubling that seems like a step backwards. Don't you keep saying the amount of high grade waste is completely insignificant? How would reducing something completely insignificant help? It'd be like touting a new solar panel using half the boron dopant reducing it to a microgram at the expense of using 10x as much silver as a nuclear plant rather than 5x.
> Another advantage is the fact this is a Small Modular Reactor. China wants to build 18 by the end of the decade. That is iteration. That's how you drive the cost down.
How much does fabricating the microspheres and then the pebbles cost? How much does de-fabricating them to achieve 'less waste' cost?
I seem to have found the actual upside. It's designed to be a drop in replacement on a coal generator. This makes sense and reduces radioactive waste slightly (or rather puts it in the ground in Niger rather than the air in china).
If it outmasses the others by four orders of magnitude, it means on average from each 10000 tons of dirt we extract 1 ton of Uranium, right? And we are left with 9999 tons of the original dirt. Why is that dirt so bad? If anything it has less Urnanium in it, not more. It can't be more radioactive than the thing it initially was, can it?
The toxic slurry is then left in a poorly maintained pond which leaks into farm land where all the other poisonous elements (some of which are also radioactive) bioaccumulate into food.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Rock_uranium_mill_spi...
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/amaravati/uranium-t...
In ISL they just let the toxic sulfuric acid slurry soak into the ground water and objections of hydrology engineers pointing out that most of the ISL mines don't meet the very specific conditions that keep it contained are met with 'it attenuates' with no further discussion or scientific evidence.
This is in addition to the decomissioning and other low level or non-radioactive waste which is more than the solar panels even if they aren't recycled.
Nuclear is not clean. It just puts the filth elsewhere. Similarly solar and wind aren't clean, but they are significantly better over all and are rapidly improving. This is why step one is reduction.
A very cheap drop in replacement for a coal boiler would be a good thing, but it's not a panacea and it's not an alternative to renewable energy -- merely a step towards it. MSRs or LFTRs might be, but there's no indication they're achievable, and the mining involved for current liquid salt concepts is even worse (beryllium). Plus the odds the 7 or so nuclear countries would let anyone else have plutonium breeding capability are effectively nil, so it's not a global solution anyway.
What I'm looking forward to is fast reactors. They can burn U238, and leave very little waste (transuranic elements). We would not need to mine any new uranium, because we have huge stocks of depleted Uranium. Wikipedia has a list [1], and the top 2 countries, the US and Russia, have about half a million tons each, and France has about 200k more.
Two such reactors are in the R&D stage in the US, the Natrium one by Terrapower, and the Molten Chloride Fast Reactor, by Terrapower+Southern Company [2].
Edit: Terrapower is more or less owned by Bill Gates. He's using his own money to advance nuclear reactor design.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium#Production_an...
[2] https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/infographic-advanced-reac...
On the other hand, they're only asking for a few tens of millions which is miniscule compared to the public funds going to much worse ideas. So why not? As long as they demonstrate the whole fuel cycle including waste separation and refuelling, and can get their own funding for construction of plants after POC then go for it. Ideally they'd be able to be financially solvent without Price-Anderson too (but with whatever REC or similar scheme that wind and solar get), but we can't have everything.