4th generation nuclear power

[ygolo]

Generation four nuclear power is supposed to have less (virtually no) waste, and consume mach larger percentages of the nuclear load, and could possibly even run on nuclear waste form the older generation reactors.

The Clinton administration was supposedly approached to fund this program heavily but yeilded to heavy pressure from lobbyists afraid of the word "nuclear." But this is based on Hansen's interview on Charlie Rose.

Why did the Bush administration then, not pursue this agressively?

Anyone have details? How is that it is so much more effiecient?

The articles I found were too superficial to yeild understanding.

Inside the Fourth-Generation Reactors (http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/spring01/reactors.html)
Generation IV reactor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor)

Although, I would prefer to keep to the science, the policy implications are clear. I believe McCain is a bigger supporter than Obama, but neither have made their positions very public.

So, thoughts?

[Jack Flak]

I vote for nuclear power. I don't even care if it's dangerous. I know better than to live inside the meltdown disaster distance no matter how "safe" it is.

[mazel-hecht]

To understand what stopped fourth-generation nuclear reactors requires looking at the history of what has stopped nuclear power from being developed as it was envisioned under the Atoms for Peace program of the 1950s and 1960s.

21st Century Science & Technology has written a lot about this basic shift from a pro-progress optimistic science outlook to the present one of pessimism and anti-humanism. The key here is that the oligarchic faction--like Zeus, who punished Prometheus for bringing man fire--wants to prevent humankind from having nuclear power, or any other advanced capability for progress.

As for the increased efficiency (50 percent more efficient than conventional reactors) of the gas-cooled high-temperature reactors: They have direct conversion gas turbines, which eliminate the steam cycle, and also some other advances in equipment.

Here are links to some articles:

Who Killed U.S. Nuclear Power?
by Marsha Freeman
Who Killed U.S. Nuclear Power? (http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/spring01/nuclear_power.html)

It's time for Next Generation Nuclear Plants
by Marsha Freeman
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Subscriptions/Fall%202007%20Online/NextGen.pdf

Fourth-Generation Reactors Are
Key to World’s Nuclear Future

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Subscriptions/Fall%202007%20Online/4thGenNuclear.pdf

Albert Wohlstetter's Legacy: The Neo-Cons, Not Carter,
Killed Nuclear Energy

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Subscriptions/spring%202006%20ONLINE/Special_Report.pdf

If you can't access all the files, let me know and I'll send a pdf, which I can't do in a comment.

Sincerely,

Marje Hecht

Marjorie Mazel Hecht
Managing Editor
21st Century Science & Technology
P.O. Box 16285
Washington, D.C. 20041

Tel. 703-777-6943
Fax 703-771-9214
21st Century Science and Technology Home Page (http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com)
editorial@21stcenturysciencetech.com

[runvardh]

I get the strange feeling this person is a real advocate for nuclear power, nice ^_^

[Little Linguist]

Granted, we would never be able to have the standard of living or economic power we have without nuclear energy. SO making it more efficient should be a big priority.

But has it ever occurred to you that all one needed to do was plough a plane into a nuclear power plant and then you could wave tens, maybe even hundreds, of thousands of people good bye.

Hmm...That should be the priority.

[runvardh]

But has it ever occurred to you that all one needed to do was plough a plane into a nuclear power plant and then you could wave tens, maybe even hundreds, of thousands of people good bye.

Hmm...That should be the priority.

That's if the 'tardos keep it above ground... :rolli:

[AllAboutSoul]

I've never heard of one being below ground. That makes some kind of sense, doesn't it, though I'm sure that would have its own set of problems. I don't know enough about it though, gotta go google.

[runvardh]

I've never heard of one being below ground. That makes some kind of sense, doesn't it, though I'm sure that would have its own set of problems. I don't know enough about it though, gotta go google.

You can crash a plane into one now and it shouldn't be that much of an issue; put it in the ground and the plane won't get at it to begin with. Also, when underground you don't get all the fall out, mind you it does have to be a decent amount of distance under.

[ygolo]

I suggest you contact Marje Hecht, since it is rather hard to find anything substantive on the freely available net.

I have yet to read through the pdfs, since I have been on the plane for the last day.