fredgiblet wrote:... I don't think Germany is wrong to drop nukes. I think they are hasty, I think they are doing it for the wrong reasons (fear and overreaction Fukushima)
No, it´s not that. It´s our industry. Fuckupshima was their opportunity to kick off BIG business in that new direction. And of course to cash in subsidies for big-scale projects like off-shore windparks, new powerlines and research.
But i´m fine with that, some of those projects had to be done anyway, and the funny thing is that the biggest chunk of progress will come from the small scale/private sector. Even despite the fact that they cut all small-scale private subsidies - it doesn´t matter anymore, solar panels and wind-generators became so efficient that they amortize anyway.
And of course i hate nukes, because in their todays form they´re crap.
That´s what i say as an engineer.
Furthermore it´s a mad industry, and it´s one ugly manifestation of the military-industrial complex.
fredgiblet wrote:The key point is that renewables are not enough. The only reliable renewables that I'm aware of are hydro and geothermal, both of which have their own significant issues. The point is that there must be something to back up the renewables
No. Today it is not necessary to think about that, because there´s still plenty of diversification (and at least here in Germany an incredibly huge cold reserve, a relict from the cold war), and tomorrow there will be huge international powergrids and energy-storage in industrial scales.
fredgiblet wrote:and the best choice for that is nuclear, particularly with new designs that eliminate most of the flaws of the old designs and future designs that will clear up the remainder of the flaws and reverse the isseus with the older designs.
No.
But:
Let´s say something new comes up; maybe a new technology that requires sh*tloads of energy on the spot, more than the grid can serve, and oil or coal isn´t the weapon of choice - then i as an engineer would opt for
LFTRs today.
Why?
First of all: Thorium decay chain. (Only) 360 years, and nearly everything harmful is gone.
Gone - not half-life. No "Endlager" necessary. No comparison to those 300.000+ years for plutonium.
Second: Not less important: No fuel rod industry, because it´s online-processing. No fuel rods - no waste - no incompetence - no castor-transports - no SFPs - less mistakes. Makes it less complex and much safer overall.
Third: No pressure. They only need a small amount of technical pressure to prevent moisture sneaking in.
And fourth: They´re hot. In the sense of the carnot cycle. Which means efficency. Today´s nuclear immersion heaters run at only 270°, which means 33% efficiency, a pretty standard LFTR would make 580°, and there are plans for 800°. The latter would mean at least 70% efficiency.
And a thousand other technical details.
But more PWRs or BWRs? Or more RBMKs? Hell, no, thanks.
(Edit: Sadly LFTRs have no chance. Because they´re not dual use, and they would be a smart solution - and we all know that politicians never choose those.)