The Future of Nuclear Power Runs on the Waste of Our Nuclear Past

[Marlin]

   This video was imbedded in an article from the Nukeworker news feed. I brought it down for comment and a higher visibility. This video was made a year ago, I wonder why there has not been more talk about it. It seems to make a lot of sense, probably more so than a traveling wave reactor which has got some attention, perhaps because Bill Gates has championed it.

http://gizmodo.com/5990383/the-future-of-nuclear-power-runs-on-the-waste-of-our-nuclear-past

The video is another one of the TED talks videos that are a Techno-Geeks treasure trove.

[HalfHazzard]

Great video.  I'm skeptical of the claim that their reactor is "Walk-away safe".  I wish they had more concrete schematics and analysis but that wasn't their audience.

[Higgs]

People often ask "why isn't so and so type of reactor where we are going..."

The answer is simple..., who is going to pay for it?

As soon as that person is asked if they would support paying higher rates to invest in new technology, their tune quickly changes.

They seem to think that magical new technologies just pop out of thin air, or that utilities bring them to market out of the goodness of their hearts.


Justin

[Smilin' Joe Fission]

The regulatory climate in the US is just not conducive to nuclear innovation. The regulatory cost and delays would be a nightmare for a completely new type of nuclear reactor to be taken any further than conceptual modelling. Like Justin said, who is going to pay for it? What company wants to risk that high a capitol in a market that is so risky?

The molten salt reactor will be built, but it will be built in China. China will take the technology Oak Ridge developed in the 50's/60's, finish it, and then sell it back to us (if the NRC is even able to license something so outside of their comfort zone).