Talk:Nuclear power reconsidered

Purpose of this article

The purpose of this article is to raise questions and establish criteria for evaluating the many nuclear reactor designs that are now being proposed as solutions to the global warming caused by our use of fossil fuels. Answers to these questions should be provided in the subpages on each reactor design. We should not, for example, go into detail on the handling of liquid waste, as that question would only apply to specific reactor designs. That is a topic that might deserve a subpage, however, since many of the new designs use liquid fuel. We want to keep this top article short and non-controversial. There will be plenty of opportunity for questions and comments from skeptics on these discussion pages.

The reactors included in the section "Proposed Designs" can be added or deleted as we get authors to contribute their expertise. My initial choices are just what I think are the most likely to succeed in the next few years. I have also included one gas-cooled reactor, because I am fascinated by the possibility of a really high-temperature reactor generating hydrogen with no CO2 waste. There are many other choices, liquid or solid fuel, thorium or uranium, fast or slow neutrons, breeder or burner, liquid or gaseous coolant, etc. David MacQuigg (talk) 23:06, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Ordering of proposed reactor designs?

Is there a reason (such as priority of interest) in the ordering of the proposed reactor designs? If no particular reason for the current order, might we please alphabetize them? That is what I did over on the Related Articles tab, for now. Pat Palmer (talk) 14:12, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it was just the order that I encountered them, and spent more time developing the articles. There are dozens of these new designs, so perhaps to put them on an even footing, we should move them all to the Related Articles tab. That would also be the place to list dozens of subtopics, which we don't consider worthy of mention in the main article, topics like the world supply of nuclear fuel (unlimited on any timescale we need to worry about). But back to the question of what to highlight in the main article, I would say let's pick the ones our editorial council finds most interesting. That could be 1) Furthest along in providing a near-term climate solution (ThorCon) or 2) Some unique and worthy feature, like ability to burn old bomb cores (MSCFR, Natrium) promise of generating zero-carbon hydrogen fuel (VHTR) or closest to existing reactor technology and thereby maybe more acceptable to regulators with thousands of pages of existing standards (NuScale). Perhaps we should make this ordering a reward to authors who will do a really good job in developing a citable version of an article on their favorite design. For now, we could move the undeveloped articles off the main page. David MacQuigg (talk) 21:16, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

A list of high profile technically expert advocates from outside the industry itself might be helpful

Some very high profile figures have recently begun to advocate for a reconsideration of nuclear power in light of looming climate change, including (for example) Bill Gates. I mention this because Gates is exactly the kind of person, with engineering expertise and deep knowledge about climate change, who has helped highlight the need to reconsider designs. It might be helpful to include a list of high-profile, credible, technical-minded advocates such as Gates, maybe near the end of the article. Or not. Just an idea. Pat Palmer (talk) 14:29, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

How about we put this in a Related Article? I worry that we will dilute the main article in an attempt to include everyone. I did mention Bill Gates as a notable sponsor of the Natrium reactor. I was disappointed in the CNBC article, a typical superficial review, not following up on any of the points raised by Dr. Jacobson: 1) Nuclear fission requires uranium, which is a finite resource. (Uranium and thorium are essentially unlimited on any sensible time scale.) 2) "Climate change is urgent, and new nuclear power plants are expensive and take a long time to build." (He doesn't seem to be aware of the new designs. Surprising for a guy who is writing a book on the topic.) 3) "Nuclear power comes with concerns that renewables don’t have, including weapons proliferation, meltdowns, radioactive waste and uranium mining risks. (Proliferation can be made more difficult than currently available centrifuges. Meltdowns are not possible with most of the new designs. Waste is easily managed. Mining risks? compared to coal???) I'll have to get his book and see if it makes more sense than this CNBC article. David MacQuigg (talk) 21:45, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I just downloaded the book, and read Section 3.3.2.2 Meltdown Risk. Jacobson is talking about the past. He is aware that there are new designs, but just dismisses them as "untested". (Not true.) Luckily the debate on meltdown risk does not have to end in a "he-said - she-said" standoff between experts. Anyone with common sense and a little engineering background can assure the public that a specific design cannot melt down. David MacQuigg (talk) 22:36, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I just read Section 3.3.2.1 Weapons Proliferation Risk “The growth of nuclear energy has historically increased the ability of nations to obtain or harvest plutonium or enrich uranium to manufacture nuclear weapons.” (Questionable, but not demonstrably false.) This carefully-worded statement describes a correlation, but implies a cause-and-effect relationship. This is clear if you substitute "public education" for "nuclear energy". The rest of Section 3.3.2.1 does not support cause-and-effect.

On the pro-nuclear side, we have a more definitive statement:

https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/non-proliferation/safeguards-to-prevent-nuclear-proliferation.aspx - good discussion of NPT, lack of linkage between power generation and weapons. From the Conclusion: “Civil nuclear power has not been the cause of or route to nuclear weapons in any country that has nuclear weapons, and no uranium traded for electricity production has ever been diverted for military use.”

We know how to build reactors that are safe, clean and cheap. The remaining question in my mind is - Will widespread deployment of these new reactors increase or decrease the risk of proliferation?

Getting back to Pat's suggestion of including some "credible, technical-minded advocates" I propose we move this question of proliferation to an open forum like Quora.com, which includes such experts, and not try to resolve it on this talk page. Maybe we can summarize the arguments for and against on a separate page specifically on this subtopic. David MacQuigg (talk) 11:00, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

I posted the question on Quora. https://www.quora.com/How-will-thousands-of-new-nuclear-reactors-increase-or-decrease-the-risk-from-nuclear-weapons-and-how-do-these-risks-compare-to-our-already-existing-risks-from-uranium-enrichment-using-centrifuges. David MacQuigg (talk) 19:00, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Section on Cost

This also could turn into a whole separate subpage, because there is debate about the future supply of fuel. However, we are talking centuries, not decades. I would like to add the following to the last paragraph, but I will hold off until we see some resolution of the question I posed on Quora: https://www.quora.com/How-long-will-our-supply-of-uranium-and-thorium-last-World-Nuclear-Association-says-it-is-essentially-unlimited-Anti-nukers-say-4-years
Current version:
As for the cost of fuel, molten salt reactors don't require expensive fuel rods. They can burn thorium, which is three times more abundant than uranium, and some of them can even burn spent fuel from PWR's.
Proposed:
As for the cost of fuel, the World Nuclear Associations says it is essentially unlimited. Some of the new reactors can burn all the uranium, not just the 0.7% now burned by PWRs, and they can even burn thorium, which is three times more abundant than uranium.

We might also want some discussion of EROI (Energy Return on Investment). The new FNR's (Fast Neutron Reactors) have orders of magnitude improvement on the current generation. WNA has a good analysis. https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/energy-and-the-environment/energy-return-on-investment.aspx David MacQuigg (talk) 19:49, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Inclusion of propaganda in the bibliography

Much of the information on nuclear power goes against what scientists believe is the truth. We will include these items in our bibliography, if they are important in understanding history and public opinion, but we will make it clear with labels and comments that we consider them to be propaganda. These decisions are open to discussion and possible reversal. David MacQuigg (talk) 17:13, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I suggest revising the first sentence NOT to include "climate change"? =

Why start the article with the hot button phrase "climate change"? Instead of "The threat of climate change from fossil fuels has led to a reconsideration of", we could say instead, "Life-threatening pollution from fossil fuels, as well as the fact that their supply is finite and may not last much longer, has led to a reconsideration of". Or something. Those statements are not being so hotly contested. If you lead with "climate change" (and no, I'm not a doubter), it's just asking for THAT debate to start up, and it will turn off people who have formed a rigid opinion about that. I say this because I worked for many years with scientists working on climate change studies, and that science is very complicated and ill understood and is, I believe, even more difficult to defend than the real target of this article. IMHO. Pat Palmer (talk) 11:51, 30 March 2022 (CDT)

Good suggestion. I've changed the lead to: Decades of failure to cut fossil fuels[1] has led to a reconsideration of nuclear power David MacQuigg (talk) 05:47, 6 April 2022 (CDT)

Are the 5 new designs, or 6?

The /Related_Articles tab lists six new designs (including Molten chloride fast reactor which is not listed in the main article), but the main article only lists five. Which is it? Pat Palmer (talk) 07:34, 9 April 2022 (CDT)