Japan restarts nuclear reactor at Sendai.

[Workingman]

Good for them. Nuclear power has to be part of the energy mix, as their figures show. To cover the shortfall after Fukushima and the closure of all its plants Japan used up a lot more oil, coal and gas. Hydro and renewables made little overall difference, though windmill supporters can rightly claim that wind power doubled.

It did, from 1% to 2%.

[TheOstrich]

Yes, emotive topic for the Japanese I'm sure, but I think nuclear power does make sense.

In the meantime, we still await definite confirmation we're going ahead with the new Hinckley Point, are we not? The last I heard, Austria was mounting an objection with the EU that we had received illegal grants for it or something .....

[Suff]

Well then we should do what the French do.

Build it anyway then, afterwards, say, So sue me.

Immediately followed by. Oh you need our money? Tough. Do without until you remove the fines!

It is, absolutely, the only way to deal with the EU.

[pederito1]

Still convinced that it is the only sensible way to produce electricity and research should go into minimising waste until fusion can take over if ever that can be done to to show a positive balance. Doubtful that high temperature can replace the massive force needed which we cannot generate here.

[Suff]

My take is this. Nuclear fuel is an incredibly scarce resource. Way, Way less available than virtually any other fuel. Nuclear is perfect for portable power where the cost of carrying fuel is prohibitive. Such as space exploration or submarines or aircraft carriers.

We should use as many renewable resources as possible and only use Nuclear for when it is critically needed. In that way we won't squander another scarce resource just because it was "easier". I see Nuclear as making the same mistake over and over again.

Fusion, on the other hand, is critical to our long term energy, both portable and fixed. Although I'll never live to see it if current advancements continue at the pace they are.

Before WM slaps me silly I know about Thorium which is not that scarce, but it comes with huge problems in terms of highly radioactive waste...

Until we develop Class IV reactors with virtually total closed loop recycling of fuel, Nuclear is simply burning something which is literally too scarce to waste. Pretty much like Oil actually as we will find out when we have to start manufacturing it for... Plastics, material, lubricants, pharmaceuticals, fertilisers, dee dah dee dah dee dah.....

Class 4 reactors are scheduled to come on line around..... 2050.... We haven't even reached Class III yet, the reactors scheduled for the new UK build are 2.5....

[Workingman]

Before WM slaps me silly...

Oh, come on, a few hard pats on the back of your head would do.

I am not a big fan of Thorium. There is a lot of hype about it, but it is a long way off as a working medium; and although Oak Ridge did produce electricity it is not, now, commercially viable. It could take decades, and there are problems with its nuclear by-products.

I would rather that the research monies be spent on fission. Yes, I know, it is always 30 years away, but even with p1ss poor R&D budgets, in comparison to other 'solutions', progress has been made. With enough endeavour we will get there.

However, the tales of scaresness of nuclear fuels, as with Thorium hype, is also a Red Herring. We have many years of it left. A lot will depend on how we develop and use it. I am confident we will get there.

When it comes to fossil 'fuels' I am hopeful that we will use them, not for energy, but to make our lives liveable via plastics, material, lubricants, pharmaceuticals, fertilisers and so on. That would be a more beneficial use of them than driving to Asda or Tesco.

[Suff]

Ah the tales of nuclear reserves.... Note the very conditional part of the article.

at current rates of consumption.

Now what is more important is the current level of Nuclear energy as a % of world generation. Which happens to be 11%.

So if we moved to totally Nuclear, that 200 years would turn into 22. Well, actually, it wouldn't because we couldn't get that fuel out of the ground in 22 years. If we tripled power generation as we would need to in order to replace just Oil for cars with EV, that would be 7.3 years. If we tried to replace natural gas and Oil with it, we'd run out in 2 years.

That is the actual reality of Nuclear power and what our options are. Until it's a closed system with full recycling and re-use, it is simply not viable as a power source.

So back to reality. Fusion is going to be the real winner for land based power first and then for portable, although fusion will actually consume fuel, just less than any other we've ever used. It is, after all, the fuel that drives the sun.

What gets me about our capabilities is typified by Ebola. For 40 years there has been research into Ebola and a vaccine for Ebola. For 40 years there has been little progress. Yet after One and only One large outbreak of the disease, a viable and tested vaccine makes an appearance.

It makes you wonder just how attainable Fusion power could be if the survival of the species depended on it.

Well, in fact, it does. Most of us just don't realise it yet.

[Workingman]

Ah, but SFA says that NEA also identifies 'undiscovered' supplies of 230 years, and that new discoveries could double that - plenty of time to sort static and even some mobile supplies.

We cannot write off nuclear, nor can we write off renewables. What we cannot do is promote one to the exclusion of the other. They, to my mind, are all part of the mix.

[Suff]

Ah, but SFA says that NEA also identifies 'undiscovered' supplies of 230 years, and that new discoveries could double that - plenty of time to sort static and even some mobile supplies.

We cannot write off nuclear, nor can we write off renewables. What we cannot do is promote one to the exclusion of the other. They, to my mind, are all part of the mix.

It's all more of the same to my mind. Those 230 years become another 2 years and the doubling become another 2 years in full world wide usage with current technology.

Then we have burned our most technologically advanced fuel source for mobility.

Yes it needs to be in the mix, but we can't focus too closely on it. It will make a viable transition technology but that fuel is even more vital than our coal and oil. We can make hydrocarbons if we absolutely need to, even if we have floating mats of solar cells over half the oceans. We can't make nuclear fuel, well not without nuclear fuel to make it with...

We are doing the same thing, over and over again. Looking for the cheapest quick fix instead of looking at the longer term future of our planet and our progeny....

[Workingman]

Ah but, we can also manufacture fissile materials from fissionable materials such as Radon and Thorium, so the chain reaction (pun) can continue.If we spend money, and have time, nuclear fusion will win out.

If we rely on current renewable technologies we are doomed. There is not a renewable out there that can deliver baseload 24/7 for static needs never mind portable. Workable storage systems for renewable energy are not even on the horizon. It has to be used as produced..... and that needs other baseload systems to be able to be shut down and fired up at will.