EUS
Kill cancer
Premium
join:2002-09-10
Montreal, QC
clubs: 
 ·ELECTRONICBOX
| reply to Warez_Zealot
Re: Chernobyl
said by Warez_Zealot  Well nuclear is soon to be a thing of the past regardless. Last I read, there is only about 20 years of easily accessible Uranium (mining wise).
[/BQUOTE :They have next-gen nuclear plants ready to be built that: 1) Use half the fuel that is currently needed for the same output 2) Use the existing "spent" rods the current plants cannot use anymore The are presently designing the plants that will replace the next-gen plants not yet built. Same scenerio; use the "spent" rods from next-gen plants. |
|
Warez_Zealot
Rural land of the rising sun
join:2006-04-19
japan
edit:
April 28th, @12:49PM
| said by EUS :said by Warez_Zealot Well nuclear is soon to be a thing of the past regardless. Last I read, there is only about 20 years of easily accessible Uranium (mining wise).
: They have next-gen nuclear plants ready to be built that: 1) Use half the fuel that is currently needed for the same output 2) Use the existing "spent" rods the current plants cannot use anymore The are presently designing the plants that will replace the next-gen plants not yet built. Same scenerio; use the "spent" rods from next-gen plants. Well that doesn't help the old reactors. Once a steady supply of Uranium is gone, then the old reactors need to go offline.
Building newer ones to re-use the rods will be a costly investment for countries like the US, Canada, Russia etc when they have to build new reactors to replace perfectly operational reactors that can't get a reliable source of fuel.
What I heard is that India is going to be building those new breeder reactors. But to be honest, I think the more reactors built, the faster the recycled rods will be completely used up.. I read an article that it could go from 72 power generating years of avail Uranium down to 12yrs if more countries start building reactors.. Even if you factor in the recycling of used rods, it can't add that much life to fission reactors as a long term power source..
I wish your reasoning would make it that simple though.. |
|
EUS
Kill cancer
Premium
join:2002-09-10
Montreal, QC
clubs:
edit:
April 28th, @01:02PM
| I never said I had any answers, and I'm not a fan of any current technology we use for energy purposes, but I'm just happy they can start reusing the to date garbage. |
|
Snickerdo
Premium
join:2001-02-28
Niagara Falls, ON
 ·Cogeco Cable
| reply to Warez_Zealot
said by Warez_Zealot :Building newer ones to re-use the rods will be a costly investment for countries like the US, Canada, Russia etc when they have to build new reactors to replace perfectly operational reactors that can't get a reliable source of fuel. Costly investment? Every single reactor currently in use in Canada is capable of burning "spent" fuel rods in their existing configuration. In fact, we've been reprocessing spent American fuel for decades. Hell, Canadian reactors have the ability to burn plain ol' out-of-the-ground uranium, burning spent fuel-grade Uranium is a bonus compared to natural Uranium. Breeder reactors aren't new. The "new" reactors have different cooling and delivery methods, but the concept is the same.
--
I swear that I will faithfully and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen. |
|
