Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Environment & Energy

Showing Original Post only (View all)

Rhiannon12866

(204,606 posts)
Wed Mar 13, 2013, 01:04 AM Mar 2013

Safer Nuclear Power, at Half the Price [View all]

Transatomic, an MIT spinoff, is developing a nuclear reactor that it estimates will cut the overall cost of a nuclear power plant in half. It’s an updated molten-salt reactor, a type that’s highly resistant to meltdowns. Molten-salt reactors were demonstrated in the 1960s at Oak Ridge National Lab, where one test reactor ran for six years, but the technology hasn’t been used commercially.

The new reactor design, which so far exists only on paper, produces 20 times as much power for its size as Oak Ridge’s technology. That means relatively small, yet powerful, reactors could be built less expensively in factories and shipped by rail instead of being built on site like conventional ones. Transatomic also modified the original molten-salt design to allow it to run on nuclear waste.

High costs, together with concerns about safety and waste disposal, have largely stalled construction of new nuclear plants in the United States and elsewhere (though construction continues in some countries, including China). Japan and Germany even shut down existing plants after the Fukushima accident two years ago (see “Japan’s Economic Troubles Spur a Return to Nuclear” and “Small Nukes Get Boost”). Several companies are trying to address the cost issue by developing small modular reactors that can be built in factories. But these are typically limited to producing 200 megawatts of power, whereas conventional reactors produce more than 1,000 megawatts.

Transatomic says it can split the difference, building a 500-megawatt power plant that achieves some of the cost savings associated with the smaller reactor designs. It estimates that it can build a plant based on such a reactor for $1.7 billion, roughly half the cost per megawatt of current plants. The company has raised $1 million in seed funding, including some from Ray Rothrock, a partner at the VC firm Venrock. Although its cofounders, Mark Massie and Leslie Dewan, are still PhD candidates at MIT, the design has attracted some top advisors, including Regis Matzie, the former CTO of the major nuclear power plant supplier Westinghouse Electric, and Richard Lester, the head of the nuclear engineering department at MIT.


http://www.technologyreview.com/news/512321/safer-nuclear-power-at-half-the-price/?utm_campaign=newsletters&utm_source=newsletter-daily-all&utm_medium=email&utm_content=20130312


I'm not trying to start anything here, just thought this was too noteworthy not to post.

34 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Safer Nuclear Power, at Half the Price [View all] Rhiannon12866 Mar 2013 OP
A video on the topic was also posted... PoliticAverse Mar 2013 #1
Don't know how I missed this! Thanks so much! Rhiannon12866 Mar 2013 #2
This message was self-deleted by its author guyton Mar 2013 #3
Makes sense to me... Rhiannon12866 Mar 2013 #4
One of the advantages of the thorium cycle wtmusic Mar 2013 #11
Really? kristopher Mar 2013 #13
Yes... really. FBaggins Mar 2013 #21
Getting to the Sun from Earth is remarkably energy intensive Fumesucker Mar 2013 #29
This message was self-deleted by its author guyton Mar 2013 #30
Beware kristopher Mar 2013 #5
Thank you! Rhiannon12866 Mar 2013 #6
At the sales stage they always sound great. kristopher Mar 2013 #7
I agree, may sound promising when still in the planning stage Rhiannon12866 Mar 2013 #8
The liquid salt reactor, if implemented, could be a successful connection between jonthebru Mar 2013 #9
The future energy source is well known - renewables. kristopher Mar 2013 #10
Highly radioactive cooling salt pscot Mar 2013 #27
thanks for posting wtmusic Mar 2013 #12
You're welcome Rhiannon12866 Mar 2013 #15
Half the price but just as deadly to the human race. nt ladjf Mar 2013 #14
I dunno. Fossil fuels are pretty damned deadly, and getting deadlier. hunter Mar 2013 #17
Fossil fuels are very deadly, but the effects aren't as long lasting. However, the obvious answer ladjf Mar 2013 #18
Actually, the effects are longer lasting. hunter Mar 2013 #19
The negative effects of the Chernobyl will last for about 48,000 years. ladjf Mar 2013 #22
And the half life of mercury is forever. hunter Mar 2013 #24
You've got my vote! Nihil Mar 2013 #28
Why is it just as deadly? FBaggins Mar 2013 #20
The Chernobyl disaster will impact the environment for about 48,000 years. ladjf Mar 2013 #23
Sometimes the bullshit gets so thick you have to respond. wtmusic Mar 2013 #25
Thousands of posts on the INTERNET state that it will take about 48,000 years for all of the ladjf Mar 2013 #31
Oh! Why didn't you say so??? FBaggins Mar 2013 #32
‘Scientists don’t know why’: Cesium-137 in soil near Chernobyl has half-life of 180 to 320 years, ladjf Mar 2013 #33
That's just nuts. Sorry. FBaggins Mar 2013 #34
And CO2 will impact for 150,000 years or more NickB79 Mar 2013 #26
morning kick Cooley Hurd Mar 2013 #16
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»Safer Nuclear Power, at H...»Reply #0