nuclearactive.com

Please take a look at the recent article from Wired.com, on thorium reactors!

[ Link ]

Babcock & Wilcox announced its intention to put smaller, rail-delivered 125 MW reactor modules, into production by 2018. These units are one-tenth the size of a typical nuclear plant, and this makes them suitable for rural and third-world applications. These reactors are rated for 60 years, with refueling every 5 years.

[Read the IEEE Spectrum article, here.]

There is a lot of talk about the hypothetical “worst case” dangers of nuclear reactors, yet in reality, the proven record of nuclear power shows a much more environment-friendly footprint than burning coal or using fossil fuels. Aaron H., on the Skeptically Speaking website forum, points out a comparison of wind and solar capabilities to that of nuclear power:

Maple Ridge in New York is one of Americas largest windfarms. It has 195 wind turbines, covers an area of more than 12,000 acres while generating a mere 300 megawatts at peak efficiency and on a calm day, it generates nothing.

For one of the “sunbelt” (e.g. Nevada and Arizona) states in the US, a 1000 megawatt solar facility will cover more than 14 square miles. For an “average” US state, this figure jumps to over 18 square miles.

By comparison, the Bruce Nuclear Generating Station on the shores of Lake Huron, which is the largest operating nuclear facility in the world, occupies roughly 2 or 3 square miles (rough estimate) and has a maximum capacity of more than 6,200 megawatts. To match the capacity of the Bruce Station with solar power, you would need to clear 108 square miles of land and devote it all to solar panels. And this doesn’t even include space for batteries or capacitors you’d need for nighttime or cloudy day use. To replace all of Canada’s nuclear reactors with solar you would need almost 300 square miles of solar panels.

[From IEEE Spectrum, Energy Wise.]

Two of the largest Japanese utilities, Kyushu Electric Power and Shikoku Electric Power, are preparing to fuel nuclear reactors with rods containing recycled plutonium starting this fall, John Boyd reports from Tokyo. In the middle of last month, two ships arrived from France with loads of mixed-oxide fuel (MOX) containing plutonium that originated in Japanese spent fuels, which Japan is contractually obligated to take back. The MOX consignment from France’s La Hague reprocessing complex weighed an estimated 1700 kilograms.

The recycling of nuclear fuels has been intensely controversial for decades, mainly because of concerns that fuel containing plutonium could fall into the hands of terrorists. Well before Al Qaeda appeared on the scene and fanatics were killing themselves in bomb attacks, experts worried about the ease with which the plutonium in MOX could be separated from uranium, to provide the explosive material for an atomic bomb. [Would you like to know more?]