I don't think this is even close to grid level storage, at all. For instance, in Austin this year, between 4 and 5 p.m we consumed 66,867 megawatts. For those who are counting, that is over 33k of these things. Lets talk about storing them. Each container would be 40x8x8 feet; or 2,560 cubic feet. Lets just say we need 1 hours worthish of power, so 33k of them. That is 84 million cubic feet! For reference, the Empire State building is 37 million cubic feet. So for one hour of power here in Austin, we would need about 3 Empire state buildings of liquid metal batteries, unless my math is wrong (someone check me!) If my math is right, this isn't even close to a grid level storage ability. Your going to need density on the order of 1000 better to even be reasonably sized at 84k cubic feet (about the size of a large factory, or concert hall).

The only reason to try and investigate battery grid backup is to address the issue of wind and solar being so energy inefficient, and volatile. It is a better solution to just have them generate secondary power and let new fission based technologies take hold; best of both worlds. Then again, I have a personal bias

>> ^ulysses1904:

As Mr Burns said "we don't call it a meltdown, it's a unrequested fission surplus".


"NUCULAR POWAH"

As Mr Burns said "we don't call it a meltdown, it's a unrequested fission surplus".

@Spacedog79

Indeed, this takes a different approach than a LFTR, I wasn't meaning to suggest this would solve a parallel set of problems. And I don't know if the complexity of it should be a deal breaker right away, look at combustion engines, Diesel is by far simpler than Gasoline engines, however both have their uses; complexity alone can't be the deciding factor.

Also, from my understanding...and let me point out again that I am no expert, but it seemed that while they are indeed firing protons, they are firing them at a heavy metal, and through the spallation effect, producing a beam of neutrons (or that is the plan, they currently are just beaming electrons I believe). Either way, it is a complex way to go about fission; but very much like Gas Vs Diesel with the lack of a perfectly sustained reactor (Uranium or Thorium) of perfect ability, research in this quasi-dieselesk solution might not be a terrible waste of time and money.

There is also a "problem" of using the fissile we have today, as far as I understand it. As they are mixed with many other undesirable fissile and non-fissile fission products in a chemical stew. So to use that, you would need a secure, safe, and practical way to go about reconditioning and reconstituting it in a form you could use. Once again, not a deal breaker for that to happen either, but you have to keep your mind and options open for good technologies that offer a different game plan. Ultimately, I think a critical reactor is the way you want to go if you can get the engineering and physics behind you, if not, or in certain situations, perhaps sub-critical will offer some unique solutions.

Thanks for the well wishes, apparently, one of the better nuclear schools is in my state...score! And one of the others is near my family...double score!

No doubt ADSR would produce some great science, but it wouldn't address chemistry issues, or any other important issue any better than a LFTR project. It seems to me that it just introduces large amounts of extra complexity and cost. Particle accelerators are big unreliable machines, hence the need for 3 of them for redundancy and they could well reduce safety if something goes wrong. They are not even particularly suited to breeding, as they produce protons which as the name suggests are charged and so need to be very high energy to hit a nucleus and cause fission. The cynic in me says the whole idea was cooked up by the nuclear energy industry to ensure costs could be kept high, and so turn them and their friends in other energy industries a bigger profit (or even just a profit?). My understanding is also that between the various stockpiles of fissile we have, and high breeding ratios from early LFTRs startup fuel should not be a big issue.

I wish you all the best in your learning, I can think of few endeavors more worthy of changing your life's direction >> ^GeeSussFreeK:

>> ^Spacedog79:
The ADSR or "Accelerator Driven Sub-critical Reactor" is unfortunately a massive waste of time. Why not build a properly configured LFTR reactor and it does just the same thing and you don't need to build 3 large particle accelerators to do it.

I agree in one sense, but in another, the chemistry of the LFTR might prove impossible to solve (though this is hardly even a fear atm), so divesting in a "less" effective way to fission isn't a complete waste. Also, you could use this just to breed thorium which would be handy if you hand thousands of thorium generators to start up (you need a good deal of U233 to start the reaction as Thorium is only fertile, not fissionable). This also would be a good way to burn up waste before we get a highly functional LFTR's with the ability to siphon in fission products. In the end, no road should be left uncharted when the end result maybe the salvation of the energy crisis and a life like star trek
I play to dedicate most of my laymen efforts over the next couple of months in learning more about fission for use in determining if I want to drop my life for what is it now and pursue nuclear physics. Pretty sharp turn from where I am now, but I almost feel morally compelled to do so.

>> ^Spacedog79:

The ADSR or "Accelerator Driven Sub-critical Reactor" is unfortunately a massive waste of time. Why not build a properly configured LFTR reactor and it does just the same thing and you don't need to build 3 large particle accelerators to do it.


I agree in one sense, but in another, the chemistry of the LFTR might prove impossible to solve (though this is hardly even a fear atm), so divesting in a "less" effective way to fission isn't a complete waste. Also, you could use this just to breed thorium which would be handy if you had thousands of thorium generators to start up (you need a good deal of U233 to start the reaction as Thorium is only fertile, not fissionable). This also would be a good way to burn up waste before we get a highly functional LFTR's with the ability to siphon in fission products. In the end, no road should be left uncharted when the end result maybe the salvation of the energy crisis and a life like star trek

I plan to dedicate most of my laymen efforts over the next couple of months in learning more about fission for use in determining if I want to drop my life for what is it now and pursue nuclear physics. Pretty sharp turn from where I am now, but I almost feel morally compelled to do so.

>> ^bmacs27:

>> ^Boise_Lib:
>> ^bmacs27:
I'm pro-nuclear with almost any modern nuclear technology. In fact, if there is anything I'm against, it's preventing the creation of new capacity that could replace old nuclear plants (and maybe more importantly coal plants).

The main reason that Uranium plants were promoted was because they produce Plutonium for bombs. Still all for them?

You didn't seem to understand what I meant by modern. I'd like to see most of the currently operating nuclear plants taken offline and replaced with things like breeder reactors, or passively safe designs. I am for repurposing weaponized material for fuel however, and burning the "waste" problem in reactors that can use them. I haven't crunched the numbers, but I'd wager burning coal has released more radioactive material over the course of human history than nuclear power plants.
Or we could keep waiting for technologies that don't exist while we blow up our mountain tops to burn our coal. Your choice.


I'm sorry for the glib response.

Uranium fission still produces Plutonium and a don't trust that all of it will go into power production. Burning coal probably has released more radioactivity than fission plants (slowly and widely dispersed), BUT fission has produced huge amounts of long-term, radioactive waste which is haphazardly stored in an unsafe manner. If even one of the many storage pools is breached the release will completely swamp all other releases of radioactivity by humans.

Fission runs on Uranium enriched in U235. The same process can enrich Uranium enough to make a bomb. Plutonium is produced which can be used to make a bomb. The whole Uranium fission process was originally engineered in order to make bombs. Thorium reactors have never had proper government backing to be developed enough to produce power--any connection between these two facts?

Thanks for the promote, fission!

In reply to this comment by fissionchips:
*promote

There's a common fallacy here: that "doing something - even if it's not effective - is better than doing nothing". That's not the case.

Lots of the measures people have and are suggesting for combating greenhouse gasses have significant costs and deliver nothing other than relieving the pressure to "do something".

We could completely gut the economy with taxes on transportation, heating, and other uses of energy - and still only slightly delay climate change. And, no, that isn't better than doing nothing. And saying you're committed to something and then not getting results is not better, in any way, than being honest and saying there's nothing significant you can do right now.

It's like we've lost control and we're driving towards a cliff, and some politicians are saying "ok... let's put our hands out the window and wave so we slow down". And then most of them don't even do that. The only real solution is to fix the steering wheel so we can turn.

How do we turn? We commit the same economic resources that would be used to cut energy, run ads, and fund recycling programs and instead find a new energy source that can meet the needs of humanity going forward. This is almost certainly fusion or novel means of fission. But it's easier to sell recycling, LED lights, and 20% more efficient cars than it is to sell scary new nuclear power.

So we're screwed. Thanks idiots!

Also, I believe it was sea-water with a certain level of boron that was added. The boron helps absorb neutrons to slow down the fission.

remember kids, this isn't a meltdown, like a classic Chernobyl, meltdown, where the core fissions like a overcooked egg and throws radioactive fallout over half the world. This is just a partial meltdown where the fuel cools slowly in the open air, letting the birds and bees inhale a slight radioactive mist. Quite romantic.

oh, and you might like this about the fissions in japan.

I mean the reactors about to melt down
http://my.firedoglake.com/scarecrow/2011/03/11/two-japanese-nuclear-units-still-at-serious-risk/

McBoinkens: think of hydrogen as having potential nuclear energy. In the same way that wood or paper has chemical energy, i.e.

C + O2 + activation threshold energy --> CO2 + additional energy given off

then, from a nuclear perspective,

H + H + activation threshold energy --> Helium + additional energy given off.

but in this case, the element hydrogen becomes helium not by changing or sharing electrons but by jamming two nuclei into one atom.

All elements have potential nuclear energy and if you pump energy in they get closer to iron on the periodic table. Higher-level elements give off additional energy when they undergo fission (e.g. uranium in power plants). Lower-level elements give off additional energy when they undergo fusion (e.g. hydrogen in a hydrogen bomb).

The only thing that you have to do is provide sufficient energy to overcome the threshold. That can be a very big amount, but if you harness it, you can use it to keep the process going in the same way that you can use a pile of wood to keep a campfire going because it generates its own heat. The sun essentially works like this.

@bcglorf

About 85,000 used nuclear fuel bundles are generated in Canada each year.

As of December 32, 2007, there were over 2,000,000 nuclear fuel bundles in Canada.

(source)

RADIOACTIVE WASTES
High Level Waste

Over 99 percent of the radioactivity created by a nuclear reactor is contained in the spent fuel. An unprotected individual standing one metre from a CANDU fuel bundle just out of the reactor would receive a lethal dose in seconds. This intensely radioactive material is called high level nuclear waste.

Spent fuel contains hundreds of radioactive substances created inside the reactors: (1) when uranium atoms split, the fragments are radioactive; these are the "fission products"; (2) when uranium atoms absorb neutrons without splitting, they are transmuted into "transuranium elements" such as plutonium, americium, and curium.

Due to the presence of these toxic materials, spent fuel remains extremely dangerous for millions of years.

RADIOACTIVE WASTES
Decommissioning Wastes

Structural materials in the core of an operating reactor become radioactive from neutron bombardment. The cost of dismantling such a radioactive structure approaches the cost of building it in the first place.

Current plans are to wait forty years, then use underwater cutting techniques to minimize radiation exposures to the workers. Hundreds of truckloads of radioactive rubble will result from each dismantled reactor.

(source)

And I'd like to see your work regarding the claim of how dirty or dangerous solar cells are.

And let's keep in mind cells are not the only form of solar energy.

And don't try to deny the fact that your solution to replace a dangerous, dirty energy technology (coal & oil) was to use an already existing dangerous and dirty energy technology (nuclear).

>> ^lampishthing:

Does anyone else disagree with the characterisation of nuclear (fission) power as renewable?
I'm still for it but that annoys me.
Also, I'd like to see costs. I was always under the impression that nuclear power was cheaper.


Seeing as how much there is, it is quite renewable:

How long can Uranium last for nuclear power ? 5 billion years at double current world electricity usage.

Breeder reactors can transmute non-fissile Uranium to fissile Uranium. So that means you can burn up almost all the Uranium. This includes all the so called nuclear waste. This can also be burnt in a similar process, leaving you with virtually no waste.