As to fusion? It was 30-40 years away when I was in college, nearly 40 years ago. The recent net-positive energy result doesn't make me think it's much closer. It's going to require an invention, IMO.
Imagine if we hadn't derailed nuclear power in the 70s with that stupid movie, where we'd be today after 50 years of intensive development of this technology. Modern, modular, self-contained, failsafe, totally secure mini-reactors would dot the landscape - no more high power transmission lines, negligible transmission loss, no power outages during storms, fuel recycling on 10-year intervals - and MUCH lower electricity costs. But we wouldn't have stopped there, of course. Because money follows things we use: research and development into micro-reactors would place the source of power wherever it is used - literally "at home" and powering your buildings at work. And beyond - with direct induction technology advancements, power would be supplied at the point of use - built into electricity-consuming devices themselves, no need for electrical wiring! No - we're not on the verge of this today, far from it - but we might have been. But for that stupid movie...
The Reason vid notes one of the big fallouts (pun intended) from TMI: a massive growth in regulatory oversight and burden.
I remember TMI happening, and the massive fear-mongering that went with it, and I think that'd have happened even without TCS, so I do figure nuclear power would have slowed regardless. But, yeah, I think it's obvious that the movie really ****ed the country over.
Nuclear power makes a lot of sense but don't you still have to store the waste for thousands of years? This is a honest question not an attack on going with nuclear power plants.
Nope. Indeed, if you read through the links near the end of the OP, you'll see discussions about how waste can be reprocessed and reused.
We also know how to process the bits of waste that currently cannot be repurposed to where it doesn't have to be stored for thousands of years - if that's how it shakes out.
And on top of all that, even if we did have to store it long-term, we know how. Yucca Mountain was built for that reason, but Harry Reid's NIMBYism killed it.
Finally, today's trash is tomorrow's gold. A century from now, it'd be very likely that someone would come along and say "I can turn that waste into energy."
Nuclear waste is not a technical problem. It is only a political problem.
Nicely done as usual, Peter. Two comments:
1. As my bumper sticker says “More people died at Chappaquiddick than at Three Mile Island”.
2. Is production scale nuclear fusion STILL 40 years away?
As to fusion? It was 30-40 years away when I was in college, nearly 40 years ago. The recent net-positive energy result doesn't make me think it's much closer. It's going to require an invention, IMO.
Imagine if we hadn't derailed nuclear power in the 70s with that stupid movie, where we'd be today after 50 years of intensive development of this technology. Modern, modular, self-contained, failsafe, totally secure mini-reactors would dot the landscape - no more high power transmission lines, negligible transmission loss, no power outages during storms, fuel recycling on 10-year intervals - and MUCH lower electricity costs. But we wouldn't have stopped there, of course. Because money follows things we use: research and development into micro-reactors would place the source of power wherever it is used - literally "at home" and powering your buildings at work. And beyond - with direct induction technology advancements, power would be supplied at the point of use - built into electricity-consuming devices themselves, no need for electrical wiring! No - we're not on the verge of this today, far from it - but we might have been. But for that stupid movie...
The Reason vid notes one of the big fallouts (pun intended) from TMI: a massive growth in regulatory oversight and burden.
I remember TMI happening, and the massive fear-mongering that went with it, and I think that'd have happened even without TCS, so I do figure nuclear power would have slowed regardless. But, yeah, I think it's obvious that the movie really ****ed the country over.
Nuclear power makes a lot of sense but don't you still have to store the waste for thousands of years? This is a honest question not an attack on going with nuclear power plants.
Nope. Indeed, if you read through the links near the end of the OP, you'll see discussions about how waste can be reprocessed and reused.
We also know how to process the bits of waste that currently cannot be repurposed to where it doesn't have to be stored for thousands of years - if that's how it shakes out.
And on top of all that, even if we did have to store it long-term, we know how. Yucca Mountain was built for that reason, but Harry Reid's NIMBYism killed it.
Finally, today's trash is tomorrow's gold. A century from now, it'd be very likely that someone would come along and say "I can turn that waste into energy."
Nuclear waste is not a technical problem. It is only a political problem.
https://www.heritage.org/environment/commentary/recycling-nuclear-fuel-the-french-do-it-why-cant-oui
Wow! That's very good news. Thank you for the link and for taking the time to answer my question.
Almost everything I've learned about nuclear energy I've learned from you Peter. Very much appreciated!