Nuclear Holy Grail

A Nobel Prize winner says it might be possible to cut the lifespan of radioactive waste to minutes. Here. Now that wouldn't be very good news for renewables, would it?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Marina Schwarz said:

A Nobel Prize winner says it might be possible to cut the lifespan of radioactive waste to minutes. Here. Now that wouldn't be very good news for renewables, would it?

It really depends on the cost for developing this. And whether somebody will throw money at it. 

And on a sidenote - if it was cheap enough it would be equally bad for FF, why do you only see it as bad news for renewables? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because it's renewables that are being hailed as the energy of the future, not fossil fuels. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Marina Schwarz said:

Because it's renewables that are being hailed as the energy of the future, not fossil fuels. 

Uranium and fossil fuels are both finite, so with a long enough perspective none of them will be the fuel of future. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So are the materials from which solar panels and wind turbines are made. Nothing lasts forever.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

Uranium and fossil fuels are both finite, so with a long enough perspective none of them will be the fuel of future. 

Current ancient pressure water crap reactors use U235.... 0.07% of available Uranium at pathetically low energy conversion...  Modern reactor will be liquid fuel, liquid salt, Thorium/U233 breeder thermal reactors.  For your information that is 99.3% of available Uranium and 100% of Thorium which is a waste product out of every mine on earth totaling many times the volume of all known Uranium.  It is found on 100% of the surface of the earth.  You are standing/sitting on some right now.  On top of this, the Breeder thermal reactors are MANY times more efficient and create very short life daughter products.  Article claims even shorter...

It would never run out.  The earth's magnetic field would die first before we ran out of Uranium, let alone Thorium. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Wastral said:

Current ancient pressure water crap reactors use U235.... 0.07% of available Uranium at pathetically low energy conversion...  Modern reactor will be liquid fuel, liquid salt, Thorium/U233 breeder thermal reactors.  For your information that is 99.3% of available Uranium and 100% of Thorium which is a waste product out of every mine on earth totaling many times the volume of all known Uranium.  It is found on 100% of the surface of the earth.  You are standing/sitting on some right now.  On top of this, the Breeder thermal reactors are MANY times more efficient and create very short life daughter products.  Article claims even shorter...

It would never run out.  The earth's magnetic field would die first before we ran out of Uranium, let alone Thorium. 

Thank you for pointing this out. Seriously.  

However, the context for this article seemed to be that by reducing the lifespan of nuclear waste then current nuclear tech would be competetive. i understand that molten salt reactors could essentially also dispose of nuclear waste.

I am in no way against nuclear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

Thank you for pointing this out. Seriously.  

However, the context for this article seemed to be that by reducing the lifespan of nuclear waste then current nuclear tech would be competetive. i understand that molten salt reactors could essentially also dispose of nuclear waste.

I am in no way against nuclear.

As far as I am concerned we should be pouring Billions into making the Thorium liquid salt liquid fuel reactors a reality and decommission the dangerous pressure water reactors ASAP.  What is near criminal is the USA nearly had a complete reactor working in the 70's where they were doing long term corrosion testing and only had to implement the removal of daughter products(tritium mainly).  Have personally worked on the modular reactor concepts and they are even worse than what we have today and barely any safer by the advent that their efficiency is even poorer. 

PS: The nuclear waste as a problem is an absurd joke of epic proportions.  It is a pathetic excuse.  Drill a hole for a couple million bucks 20,000ft down, dump in, cover.  End of Story.  Dead simple.  And on a humorous note: There is more nuclear "waste" in a single coal fly ash pile from a coal fired plant than the entirety of the worlds nuclear "waste".  Its just not "as" radioactive...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not very clear how the laser would change a nucleus . I would tend to depend on chemical processing and recycling. Some fission products leftover could be treated by laser, if feasible, or buried deep.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0