- #1
Kidphysics
- 164
- 0
Self explanatory title
Hologram0110 said:There are a number of reasons I can think off off the top of my head:
1) Lack of money for research and lack of a serious commitment to build novel designs. A good deal of the research for power reactors of today was funded by military money for naval and weapons purposes. This doesn't really exist anymore.
2) Depending on the design they use completely different materials and geometry than current reactors. This means that the tools to design them need to be made. This means they need to be validated - which requires expensive experiments using experimental reactors and prototypes. Existing research reactors are also mostly old and no longer allowed to perform some of their old functions.
3) Strict and uncertain regulatory framework. Previous reactors could go from concept to built in a few years. Now approval can take decades of legal battles. Since these are currently being designed governments don't have the expertise and personnel required to determine if they are safe
4) Lack of social and political will because of fear of radiation. Plus there is still a highly active anti-nuclear group while most other people are less vocal or neutron on the issue. Look at the number of lawsuits that results every time someone tries to build a reactor or even ship radioactive material. Virtually all reactors were built with government help but now political climate demands private development (which is risk adverse).
5) Lack of support from environmentalist because many believe that wind/solar/conservation/biofuels/Santa/'rewriting laws of physics' will save the day instead.
6) Lack of support from the right wing since nuclear is not cheaper than coal or natural gas right now. In addition, uncertain future electricity demand due to economic uncertainty. Plus lack of acceptance of anthropogenic global warming and the need to reduce global emissions of green house gases.
I'm sure other can come up with many other reasons too.
gmax137 said:Innumeracy.
Dundeephysics said:Governments do not want to make a new step in nuclear power technology. It's mainly due to the fact that the older ones have been running for a good period now allowing great understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of these reactors and operators know a lot now about how to deal with them. Making a new step toward a new generation of reactors could lead to increase of probabilities of weaknesses appearing. Governments now want to calm the public down to change their thoughts and opinions about nuclear power, this might not be a good time to start a new technology which could make another disaster like Chernobyl or Fukushima. If that happen, the government's position in front of the public would be the worst.
That's a technical point of view, there are definitely other strong points too such as the ones mentioned earlier by Hologram0110
If that were the case then how come we're still throwing tax money at renewables, even though they are substantially less economical than nuclear? Practically every "cleantech" device is directly subsidized anywhere from 20-60% with tax money to offset purcahase costs. I can't think of anything outside of weapons development that is this dependent on government life support. So will the "N" word ever see this kind of support?QuantumPion said:As long as we have more natural gas than we know what to do with, a stagnate economy, and minimal growth in electric demand, nuclear is a somewhat uneconomical alternative for the time being. Unless we start mass exporting our natural gas, the price may remain too low for new nuclear to compete with. Even coal power plants are shutting down left and right due to economic and regulatory factors.
aquitaine said:If that were the case then how come we're still throwing tax money at renewables, even though they are substantially less economical than nuclear? Practically every "cleantech" device is directly subsidized anywhere from 20-60% with tax money to offset purcahase costs. I can't think of anything outside of weapons development that is this dependent on government life support. So will the "N" word ever see this kind of support?
aquitaine said:If that were the case then how come we're still throwing tax money at renewables, even though they are substantially less economical than nuclear? Practically every "cleantech" device is directly subsidized anywhere from 20-60% with tax money to offset purcahase costs. I can't think of anything outside of weapons development that is this dependent on government life support. So will the "N" word ever see this kind of support?
Rational Ignorance
While people might be motivated by non-economic factors, from a strictly economic point of view it simply doesn't pay individual voters to learn about and take action against the myriad assaults emanating from the political area. That's what my colleagues at George Mason University's Economics Department predict - rational ignorance pays. Politicians know this and exploit it to the hilt.
To gain a fuller understanding, we must disabuse ourselves of our high school civics lessons where we're led to believe that when people assume political office, or receive bureaucratic appointments, they're somehow a changed person and motivated by the public interest. No such thing happens. When a person becomes a politician or bureaucrat, he's still motivated by self-interest, he's simply in a different market with different restraints. Buyers in that market seek favors and privileges from government. Politicians are suppliers of those favors and privileges - and the prices are campaign contributions and votes.
Public choice theory, developed by George Mason University Professors Gordon Tullock and James Buchanan, recognizes that the probability of any voter's ballot making any difference in the outcome of any election, including last year's Florida election, is essentially nil. In other words, the only way my vote changes the outcome of an election is if my vote breaks a tie and the probability of a tie is close to zero.
Politicians exploit rational ignorance by conferring large benefits on certain constituents whose costs are widely dispersed and borne by the general population. Take the sugar industry. It pays the owners and workers to organize and tax themselves to raise money to lobby Congress for tariffs on foreign sugar. If they're successful, it means millions of dollars in higher profits and wages. Since they are relatively small in number the organization costs are small and the benefits are narrowly distributed. The Fanjul family, who owns large sugar farms in the Florida Everglades, capture an estimated $60 million annually in artificial profits.
What about the costs? As a result of price supports and import restrictions, millions of American sugar consumers pay a few dollars more per year for the sugar we use. The U.S. General Accounting Office estimates that Americans pay between $1 and $2 billion a year in higher sugar prices. Forget about finding out and doing something about these costs. After all how many of us are willing to board a plane or train to Washington to try to unseat congressmen who made us pay $5 more for the sugar we bought last year? It's not worth it; it's cheaper just to pay the $5 and forget it. For workers and owners in the sugar industry it is worth it to descend on Washington to try to unseat congressmen who refuse to support restrictions on foreign sugar. It's worth $1 or $2 billion to them, and who do you think congressmen will listen to: your complaining about higher sugar prices or the sugar industry complaining about foreign imports keeping their prices, profit and wages down?
You say, "What's the grief, Williams? Five dollars won't kill you." Washington is home to thousands of business and labor union lobbyists looking for a leg up here and a handout there. After a while $5 here and $4 there adds up to real money. According to some estimates, restrictions of one kind or another cost the average American family $5,000 to $6,000 a year in higher prices.
What to do? I'm stuck for an answer other than to naively suggest that we should force congressmen to live up to their oath of office; doing so would stop them from doing most of what they do today.
Walter E. Williams
July 16, 2001
Kidphysics said:Speaking of renewables, does anyone else feel like more R&D should be put into solar instead of trying to mass produce these relatively weak cells? I think efficiencies are like what ~25% these days and only things like quantum dots are improving this? Not well versed in solar tbh but it seems pre mature to me
QuantumPion said:I'm not against funding research. What I am against is government interference in the energy market, giving direct subsidies to renewable production and even going as far as to enact laws requiring power companies to give priority to renewable, leading to in some cases negative electricity prices.
Innumeracy
Kidphysics said:from whom? general public?
Kidphysics said:I see. Does someone know what the atmosphere around developing solar technology is? I.e. the efficiency increasing towards some limit is quantum efficiency really doing anything, where is it in development/maturity etc?
QuantumPion said:I'm not against funding research. What I am against is government interference in the energy market, giving direct subsidies to renewable production and even going as far as to enact laws requiring power companies to give priority to renewable, leading to in some cases negative electricity prices.
kidphysics said:I see. Does someone know what the atmosphere around developing solar technology is? I.e. the efficiency increasing towards some limit is quantum efficiency really doing anything, where is it in development/maturity etc?
The slow pace of development is a mix of politics (primarily through government funding) and technical challenges. The NRC has little to do with the matter at this stage of development, except to provide the regulatory requirements for safety.Kidphysics said:Self explanatory title
aquitaine said:Personally I think the hype will die down eventually, as most radical reactionary movements often do. When that does we'll see a golden age of abundant energy, probably in large part powered by generation 3 and 4 reactors.
Kidphysics said:Speaking of renewables, does anyone else feel like more R&D should be put into solar instead of trying to mass produce these relatively weak cells? I think efficiencies are like what ~25% these days and only things like quantum dots are improving this? Not well versed in solar tbh but it seems pre mature to me
The development of generation 4 reactors is a complex and lengthy process that involves extensive research and testing. These reactors require new and advanced technologies, materials, and designs, which take time to develop and perfect. Additionally, there are strict safety regulations and protocols that must be followed, which can also contribute to the length of time it takes for these reactors to come to fruition.
Generation 4 reactors are designed to be safer, more efficient, and more sustainable than previous generations. They use advanced materials, such as liquid metal or molten salt, as coolants instead of water, which reduces the risk of a nuclear meltdown. They also have the potential to generate more energy and produce less nuclear waste.
Yes, there are several challenges and obstacles to developing generation 4 reactors. One of the main challenges is the high cost of research and development. These reactors require significant investments in technology and testing, which can be a barrier for many countries and companies. Additionally, there are technical challenges in designing and building these reactors, and there may be public concerns about the safety and environmental impact of nuclear energy.
It is difficult to predict an exact timeline for the deployment of generation 4 reactors. The development and licensing process for these reactors can take several years, and it may depend on funding, regulatory approvals, and public acceptance. Some countries, such as China and Russia, have already started building generation 4 reactors, while others, like the US, are still in the research and development phase.
Generation 4 reactors have the potential to provide clean and sustainable energy for a growing global population. They produce significantly less greenhouse gas emissions compared to traditional fossil fuels and can help mitigate the effects of climate change. These reactors can also help reduce our dependence on non-renewable energy sources and provide a stable and reliable source of electricity.