I already provided you numbers. It is more than economically viable in Russia and gives stable profit. IDK, if US have some strange tradition to overprice every nut and bolt for any more or less serious tech and have no tech to use depleted fuel, it does not mean that NPP is not profitable. It means that US economy is broken.
I believe the nuclear shilling is just a diversion to tie up money while not creating a solution.
Nuclear power is too old to be a diversion for anything. It does not differ much from coal burning power plants nowdays.
Meanwhile, do you know that ash dump of regular coal power plant is more radioactive than working NPP?
IDK, if US have some strange tradition to overprice every nut and bolt for any more or less serious tech and have no tech to use depleted fuel, it does not mean that NPP is not profitable. It means that US economy is broken.
Exactly the issue. There is so much red tape involved that it bankrupted Westinghouse in 2017. Smaller scale thorium reactors are entirely feasible but it won't ever be implemented.
Most interesting thing for me is why US nearly banned all research on fast-neutron reactors (breeders). Looks like a treason to me.
Shortly, fast-neutron reactor fuel is depleted fuel from regular reactors. And fast-neutron reactor waste is a fuel for regular reactors. That way you could utilise more than 30% of stored energy from uranium ore, instead of 3% in one-way fuel cycle.
To close fuel cycle you need 1 fast-neutron reactor for approx. 10 regular ones. In the end you get much less harmful waste with short-living isotopes that have to be hold in storage for few years only to become harmless. Aside of that, this waste is a source of very rare elements, like technetium or extremely rare rare-earth metals.
In Russia there are 2 commercial fast-neutron reactors on Beloyarsk NPP that work on nuclear waste from other NPPs and provide heat and electricity to Ekaterinburg region. There plans to build more to completely close local nuclear fuel cycle and use foreign nuclear waste as fuel. And as a result get not only electricity, but also new fuel for regular NPPs. Just think a little - west wil give us nuclear fuel and pay us for taking it. IDK, looks like very interesting business, isn't it?
Why other countries that own advanced nuclear tech like France or US just abandoned that ultimate stuff years ago, despite relatively good results? France even had a most powerful fast-neutron reactor in the world, but ran it only in test mode and despite good and stable results it was suddenly shut down and disassembled 1998. Old small one, working from 1972 again only in testing mode was closed in 2009. And all research in that direction was stopped. US closed two unfinished projects of fast-neutron reactors without waiting any results.
Looks like some insanity, really. Especially when at the same time, same countries cry about nuclear waste problem.
I have nothing against coal. I consider burning coal even useful, because it returns useful CO2 into Earth atmosphere making Earth greener and with better climate in some distant future. I want my grandchildren live on Earth that is green from pole to pole, not on that half dead Earth we live now.
But having nothing against coal does not mean that I have to have something against NPPs or hydroelectric, or natural gas or black oil power stations. They are all good things, that provide energy to people.
I already provided you numbers. It is more than economically viable in Russia and gives stable profit. IDK, if US have some strange tradition to overprice every nut and bolt for any more or less serious tech and have no tech to use depleted fuel, it does not mean that NPP is not profitable. It means that US economy is broken.
Nuclear power is too old to be a diversion for anything. It does not differ much from coal burning power plants nowdays.
Meanwhile, do you know that ash dump of regular coal power plant is more radioactive than working NPP?
Exactly the issue. There is so much red tape involved that it bankrupted Westinghouse in 2017. Smaller scale thorium reactors are entirely feasible but it won't ever be implemented.
Most interesting thing for me is why US nearly banned all research on fast-neutron reactors (breeders). Looks like a treason to me.
Shortly, fast-neutron reactor fuel is depleted fuel from regular reactors. And fast-neutron reactor waste is a fuel for regular reactors. That way you could utilise more than 30% of stored energy from uranium ore, instead of 3% in one-way fuel cycle. To close fuel cycle you need 1 fast-neutron reactor for approx. 10 regular ones. In the end you get much less harmful waste with short-living isotopes that have to be hold in storage for few years only to become harmless. Aside of that, this waste is a source of very rare elements, like technetium or extremely rare rare-earth metals.
In Russia there are 2 commercial fast-neutron reactors on Beloyarsk NPP that work on nuclear waste from other NPPs and provide heat and electricity to Ekaterinburg region. There plans to build more to completely close local nuclear fuel cycle and use foreign nuclear waste as fuel. And as a result get not only electricity, but also new fuel for regular NPPs. Just think a little - west wil give us nuclear fuel and pay us for taking it. IDK, looks like very interesting business, isn't it?
Why other countries that own advanced nuclear tech like France or US just abandoned that ultimate stuff years ago, despite relatively good results? France even had a most powerful fast-neutron reactor in the world, but ran it only in test mode and despite good and stable results it was suddenly shut down and disassembled 1998. Old small one, working from 1972 again only in testing mode was closed in 2009. And all research in that direction was stopped. US closed two unfinished projects of fast-neutron reactors without waiting any results.
Looks like some insanity, really. Especially when at the same time, same countries cry about nuclear waste problem.
I have nothing against coal. I consider burning coal even useful, because it returns useful CO2 into Earth atmosphere making Earth greener and with better climate in some distant future. I want my grandchildren live on Earth that is green from pole to pole, not on that half dead Earth we live now.
But having nothing against coal does not mean that I have to have something against NPPs or hydroelectric, or natural gas or black oil power stations. They are all good things, that provide energy to people.