Ferocitus
Deity
One of the problems rarely mentioned in the debate, is one of sourcing sufficient quantities of several rare elements that are required to prevent embrittlement of structural materials that are necessary for nuclear reactors. Those elements, e.g. niobium, hafnium, yttrium, beryllium, and zirconium (among others) are all used in other industries and processes. There's a limited supply now, and once transmuted, they're gone. (Transmuting them back is not economically feasible.) Therefore,
nuclear plant constructors will have to bid for those materials against many others. That's one economic factor that might sway potential investors to keep away due to the risk and uncertainty.
It is incumbent on the proponents of nuclear power plants to show that they can guarantee the required quantities of those exotic metals for the lifetime of the plant.
Even with sufficient quantities, neutron embrittlement of vessels containing the nuclear reactions means they have a lifetime of 40 to 60 years. Given that it takes about 6-12 years to construct a nuclear plant, and anywhere from 20-50 years to decommission them, the productive lifespan of nuclear plants is not that wonderful.
In a nuclear utopia, where all power was nuclear based (which nobody here is arguing!), that would require the USA expanding from its 60 or so reactors to about 4,000. Good luck finding sites with sufficient water to cool them, and not ruining the rivers/lakes by over-heating them. Air-cooling reduces the efficiency of the plants and means they have to store large quantities of water in case of emergencies.
I'm not arguing that research shouldn't continue, but leaping into construction of hundreds if not thousands of new reactors is just not going to happen in the near future, if ever.
nuclear plant constructors will have to bid for those materials against many others. That's one economic factor that might sway potential investors to keep away due to the risk and uncertainty.
It is incumbent on the proponents of nuclear power plants to show that they can guarantee the required quantities of those exotic metals for the lifetime of the plant.
Even with sufficient quantities, neutron embrittlement of vessels containing the nuclear reactions means they have a lifetime of 40 to 60 years. Given that it takes about 6-12 years to construct a nuclear plant, and anywhere from 20-50 years to decommission them, the productive lifespan of nuclear plants is not that wonderful.
In a nuclear utopia, where all power was nuclear based (which nobody here is arguing!), that would require the USA expanding from its 60 or so reactors to about 4,000. Good luck finding sites with sufficient water to cool them, and not ruining the rivers/lakes by over-heating them. Air-cooling reduces the efficiency of the plants and means they have to store large quantities of water in case of emergencies.
I'm not arguing that research shouldn't continue, but leaping into construction of hundreds if not thousands of new reactors is just not going to happen in the near future, if ever.