Electricity Even the Poorest Can Afford
An Ideal Nuclear Reactor (INR) could produce the power of over 1000 of the largest wind turbines for at least 10 times lower costs without any environmental risk, like a silent spring. Admittedly, Conventional Nuclear Reactors (CNRs) do pose an existential threat to humanity, are prohibitively expensive, and are only 1% fuel efficient. But past performance is not an indicator of future performance. Rather, it is just prima facie, irrefutable evidence that nuclear energy was intentionally derailed, and not just that it was derailed, but that it was derailed in such a negligent fashion, that billions of people are at grave risk were a large scale war to break out.
An INR is nothing more than a tank of Lead salted with Uranium and Thorium powder. This design has no natural failure modes and cannot be used as a weapon against the population. If this design were to be bombed, the hazardous material would simply be encapsulated within the congealing Lead. In contrast, all CNRs are one bomb away from being Fukishima scale environmental catastrophies.
Aside from being inherently safe and 100 times cheaper to build, an INR can produce phenomenal amounts of power. An INR the size of a CNR could conceivable produce up to 50 times more energy except that we do not currently have the capability to harness that much energy at a single location. However, this capability corroborates the claim of 10 times cheaper energy. If a single core is little more than a big tank of lead with a filtration system, that requires no safety related costs, it can conceivably be built for $100 million. If it provides the power of 10 CNRs that cost $60 billion to build and $50 billion to fuel, that is about $100 billion in savings. If this is compared to the 100 current U.S. reactors, that comes to $1 trillion in savings. If that is compared to nuclear's 20% share of the electricity market, the potential savings are closer to $5 trillion. The only real costs are the cost of converting heat to electricity, which is about 10% of a nuclear plant cost.
It is one thing to say "Hey, let's knock out $5 trillion in future electricity costs". It is another thing to say "Let's not kill every last bird raptor on the planet in the process of generating electricity" or "How about eliminating the existential threat to the planet that is posed by 500 CNRs worldwide that are one war or one bomb away from being Fukishima scale environmental disasters". And even that doesn't compare with saying "Hey, let's make electricity so cheap that all our brothers and sisters in the poorest quarter of the world can enjoy the benefits of electricity".
Wind and solar may be 'green', but they are not panaceas. Wind will decimate birds, solar will despoil huge expanses of land, and both will deny the poorest of even the opportunity for electricity. Only an INR can produce power at rock bottom costs with the very least environmental impact. The only thing standing in its way is the silence of the population.
An INR is nothing more than a tank of Lead salted with Uranium and Thorium powder. This design has no natural failure modes and cannot be used as a weapon against the population. If this design were to be bombed, the hazardous material would simply be encapsulated within the congealing Lead. In contrast, all CNRs are one bomb away from being Fukishima scale environmental catastrophies.
Aside from being inherently safe and 100 times cheaper to build, an INR can produce phenomenal amounts of power. An INR the size of a CNR could conceivable produce up to 50 times more energy except that we do not currently have the capability to harness that much energy at a single location. However, this capability corroborates the claim of 10 times cheaper energy. If a single core is little more than a big tank of lead with a filtration system, that requires no safety related costs, it can conceivably be built for $100 million. If it provides the power of 10 CNRs that cost $60 billion to build and $50 billion to fuel, that is about $100 billion in savings. If this is compared to the 100 current U.S. reactors, that comes to $1 trillion in savings. If that is compared to nuclear's 20% share of the electricity market, the potential savings are closer to $5 trillion. The only real costs are the cost of converting heat to electricity, which is about 10% of a nuclear plant cost.
It is one thing to say "Hey, let's knock out $5 trillion in future electricity costs". It is another thing to say "Let's not kill every last bird raptor on the planet in the process of generating electricity" or "How about eliminating the existential threat to the planet that is posed by 500 CNRs worldwide that are one war or one bomb away from being Fukishima scale environmental disasters". And even that doesn't compare with saying "Hey, let's make electricity so cheap that all our brothers and sisters in the poorest quarter of the world can enjoy the benefits of electricity".
Wind and solar may be 'green', but they are not panaceas. Wind will decimate birds, solar will despoil huge expanses of land, and both will deny the poorest of even the opportunity for electricity. Only an INR can produce power at rock bottom costs with the very least environmental impact. The only thing standing in its way is the silence of the population.
Comments
Post a Comment