Sweden and France show that China, India and the World could go 100% nuclear within 25-34 years

  • Next Big Future publish an article about a study showing that China and India could go full nuclear in less than 35 years, and as fast as 10 years

    https://www.nextbigfuture.com/…how-that-china-india.html


    Quote


    nuclearexpansion.PNG
    There is an ongoing debate about the deployment rates and composition of alternative energy plans that could feasibly displace fossil fuels globally by mid-century, as required to avoid the more extreme impacts of climate change. Here we demonstrate the potential for a large-scale expansion of global nuclear power to replace fossil-fuel electricity production, based on empirical data from the Swedish and French light water reactor programs of the 1960s to 1990s. Analysis of these historical deployments show that if the world built nuclear power at no more than the per capita rate of these exemplar nations during their national expansion, then coal- and gas-fired electricity could be replaced worldwide in less than a decade. Under more conservative projections that take into account probable constraints and uncertainties such as differing relative economic output across regions, current and past unit construction time and costs, future electricity demand growth forecasts and the retiring of existing aging nuclear plants, our modelling estimates that the global share of fossil-fuel-derived electricity could be replaced within 25–34 years. This would allow the world to meet the most stringent greenhouse-gas mitigation targets.


    Of course with LENR coming soon fission will never came back this way, but this is a model of what could happen with LENR.


    The way France moved to nuclear energy was by big powerplants of few GW. Current problems with EPR are due to the fact that france did not build any powerplant for few decades, and that competence are to be rebuild. Moreover there was huge political governance trouble since a decade.


    With LENR the model of developement will be very different. It will not be big powerplants, even if it could without any problem. This mean that LENR will be no slower than fission to replace 80% of electricity production, and probably even faster for heat production (unlike fission, LENR can be deployed immediately to replace gas, coal, and oil boilers and oven).


    Note also that there will be no need of a political will, nor any opposition acceptable from environmentalists, to spread LENR. Capitalism will follow the line of the cheapest solution, of cleanest solution, and will push LENR everywhere, in parallel. No need to borrow money as savings will fund investments, and investors will battle to invest in LENR.


    The hypothesis of 10 years transition, once the engineering is stable, seems credible for me.


    The only risk factor is desperate opposition by scaremongers. To be controlled.


    what is your opinion ? :cookie:

  • The nuclear powers will not permit the current non nuclear powers from moving to nuclear power. Knowledge of nuclear power technology will permit many unstable nations to produce U235, U233, and Pu239. This material can be used for both power plants and nuclear bombs. This is called proliferation. The spread of nuclear power know-how will not be permitted to nations that are not now a member of the nuclear club. This is unfair for the nuclear club to keep most nations of the world without the ability to use carbon free energy. LENR must be the answer to this political question.

  • Alain, LENR has taken on a number meanings, do you use it as related to the basic proton to helium reaction? The acronym then signifies nanoscale fusion.


    The higher amu transmutation gammas are not simpler and safer and approach fission hazards.

  • For me the LENR mean the nuclear reaction involving metallic lattice, hydrogen isotopes, and producing negligible radiation and radioactive ashes compared to fission and thermonuclear fusion.
    Anyway since we have no theory, it is hard to say who is who.
    Sure it is neither heavy element fission, nor thermonuclear fusion, nor radioactive decay.

  • Because of the reactor experiment in my laboratory that initiated hydrogen fusion I do have a theory. The reaction started at the dissociation temperature of hydrogen on a metal oxide lattice reactor and produced helium. I measured no radioactivity with a GMC and the metal oxide showed no change in oxidation state. This was not the classical fission or fusion reaction. I like to refer to it as a nanoscale reaction. This indicates a lattice spacing at the ~0.1 nanometer or atomic dimension. It's as if the proton interaction on the oxide lattice nulls out the Coulomb repulsive force.

  • LENR expansion will probably start in march 2016, then in 20 to 30 years will cover whole the world with energy sources, from Rossi/[lexicon]IH[/lexicon] or others.
    Unfortunately another "expansion" will happen soon or late, bombs based on LENR, which unintentionally happended in some labs. Like always, some humans will have more "power" but not more wisdom. Remember depleted uranium bombs.

  • It's questionable if LENR is not inherently unable to be used in/as bombs, because the conditions to release excess heat are very very special and the reaction itself is very slow compared to a chain reaction in fission bombs.
    So it could be, that through the "slow" increase of temperature the reaction material destroys itself before the reaction is gathering enough speed to release so much enery to harm people in a circuit greater than 10m due to splinters flying around when the reactor cracks or the Li/H mixture chemically reacts.


    But I guess this question can be answered only when a valid theory about the process is available.

  • Yes i don't think LENR bob, as we know for fission bombs, will exist.
    but there will be weapon, and counter-weapon.


    my best fear and hope is huge autonomy drones : terrestrial, marine, submarine, aerial, and spatial
    they could be send as killer, terrorists, guardians, scoot, border or mainland guards, deterrence...


    for me it could trigger another stage of balance of terror, with organizations (no more only states), negotiating agreements not to attack each others even if they really disagree.


    the capacity to track and kill, Osama Bin Laden or Barack Obama, would have forced both to agree on controlled aggression.
    the age of US droning targets in foreign territory like Bulgarian spies were killing dissidents in the West, or Iran bombing old-politicians, will soon be finished.


    People will have to agree where is their territory, what is their "Casus Beli", and what is not, like with strategic nuclear weapon today.

  • &"Yes i don't think LENR bomb, as we know for fission bombs, will exist."


    Didn't we test hydrogen bombs and also stockpile hydrogen bombs? These are hydrogen fusion triggered by U235/239 fission reactions. It seems that the definition of LENR now extends out to this region of transmutation.


    Maybe you believe that we've evolved in these few years to where use of super bombs is unimaginable? No, there's a power mentality in control that bombs would be the first priority. The belief that LENR cannot be adapted for massive explosions is childish. We'll find a way. I've had a minor explosion in a fusion reactor and there have been reports of laboratory destruction from hydrogen fusion experiments.

  • H bomb is not LENR but hot fusion, triggered by an ultrafast detonator, a fission bomb.


    The LENR explosions observed does not look like the extreme chain reaction of fission bomb, even if there is huge energy produced. the rate seems like intense chemical reaction, and only the quantity of energy compared to the fuel seems abnormal.


    Anyway, we don't have a theory and maybe someone can trigger the reaction perfectly synchronous on a huge mass of reactant and catalyst (NiH or other).
    It will be huge bomb, in small volume, but not a radioactive one.
    The size may be a blackswan (very small), but the need of synchronous control will normally ask for very high technology, thus states.


    Maybe I'm too optimistic, but it should not be worse than a super TNT... anyway if a super TNT can erase a city that is a problem.
    Noàte that an army of drone can dump 10tons bombs the same way USA B52 did on Le Havre or Dresden, or put it on fire like Kobe.


    from a strategic point of view, the ability to kill the president, the HQ, the spiritual leader, of the opponents is more important than erasing a city. Drone can change the face of the warfare.


    imagine Terminator-like drones, not humanoid but as stubborn and patients as Terminator...
    There will be good reason for leaders to be "polite" with their enemies.
    This was done by nuclear bomb, but drone can be more chirurgical in their deterrence.

  • &"Maybe I'm too optimistic"


    Bright optimism or dreary optimism?
    I have the bright view. We either get smart or destroy ourselves. Seems like we're being forced to get smart or else. Bombs aren't going to work anymore.


    &"H bomb is not LENR but hot fusion"


    The present definition of LENR (original acronym limited to low amu nanoscale fusion) seems to extend temperature into the hot fusion region. "hydrogen bomb definition. A nuclear weapon with enormous explosive power, fueled by nuclear fusion, in which atoms of hydrogen combine to form atoms of helium. "Hydrogen combine to form atoms of helium", this was my definition for LENR. Thus the H bomb is a LENR device.


    At the risk of being redundant, my NiO reactor will initiate hydrogen fusion to produce helium and gammas (mainly gammas at IR wavelength).
    This concept is too economically dangerous at this time so let's forget it.

  • https://www.wsj.com/articles/t…clear-venture-11546360589


    Trump’s Tech Battle With China Roils Bill Gates Nuclear Venture

    Recent policy change at Energy Department sidelines TerraPower’s effort to make reactors smaller, cheaper and safer


    Add Bill Gates to the list of executives whose businesses have been ensnared by the Trump administration’s battle with China over technology and trade.


    The tech tycoon and philanthropist said in an essay posted late last week that a nuclear-energy project in China by a company he co-founded called TerraPower LLC is now unlikely to proceed because of recent changes in U.S. policy toward China. That leaves TerraPower, which had been working on the China project for more than three years, scrambling for a new partner and uncertain...

  • Well, I believe the biggest problem with present Nuclear Power Industry projects is cost and schedule.


    Construction time of Nuclear has proven to be 10-15 years in Europe and US. Like the Finnish Olkiluoto (1600 MWe) EPR project, where construction started in 2006 and still not completed.


    Wind and Solar can be constructed much-much faster than this and is therefore a better solution if fast increase of global electricity generation are needed.


    Cost – The world has limited resources – what is most cost effective?


    The above-mentioned project has a CAPEX level of 6,2 USD/watt installed capacity (from numbers released in 2012 – probably increased since). The French Flamanville (1600 MWe) EPR project that was recently completed ended at 7,9 USD/watt installed capacity.


    If we compare with Solar, We have seen projects below 1 USD/watt installed capacity. Even if we adjust for capacity level like 30% in sunny areas we get CAPEX of 2,7 USD/watt of actual average power delivery, far below Nuclear.


    Even the recent started Hinkley Point Nuclear project in the UK can be mentioned: They will receive a guaranteed price of 92,5 UK £/MWhr for the electricity, which will be adjusted for inflation rate for the next 35 years. An insane price, twice the market market price and higher than offshore bottom fixed wind power.


    The solution to get rid of Coal is not Nuclear. And it's not the lack of alternatives that holds back the shut down of coal.


    Both Australia and India has a large coal industry. Solar is cheaper than coal both places, but coal politics holds back the transition to clean electrical energy.


    And I have not even mentioned the extreme society costs of Nuclear Accidents....



    Anyhow: I say forget about Nuclear, it’s a dying dinosaur, that is…if not cold fusion arrives then 😉

  • Problem with intermittent, as seen in Germany, is that is 2/3-4/5 of fast start fossil fuel, while you have to retrain the nuke base power. French nuke are quite exceptionally managed as they are "load following", but this has limits especially in speed and predictability, and it wears the installations.


    Few days ago Germany wind farms passed from 1-2% to 20% of the mix in few hours. last night I've read they sold their uncontrolled power at minus EDIT 49euro/MHW (about the price of french nuke, but in negative).


    This subject is crazy emotional and politic, if not religious. You know how population is manipulated about LENR... Not only there.


    My naive hope WAS that LENR WOULD solve the ambiguity, but what I see is that beside some sincere polarbear-lovers like we have here, most activists in that domain just hate solutions that are not theirs, and basically that don't induce green business, pain and restrictions.


    My prediction is that if someone makes LENR really practical, he will be but out of business by campaign of fear, hate, and finally forbidden in EU. this is a recurrent scheme. I've even seems weak signal of such fearmongering, finally limited by general denial of LENR evidences.


    Good struggles to experimenters...


    One team working on LENR, put some researchers on sociology of science... problem is psychiatric.

  • Even the recent started Hinkley Point Nuclear project in the UK can be mentioned: They will receive a guaranteed price of 92,5 UK £/MWhr for the electricity, which will be adjusted for inflation rate for the next 35 years. An insane price, twice the market market price and higher than offshore bottom fixed wind power.


    I' wait for the criminal investigations - which Chinese Clan payed who - , that certainly will start when the government changes to be independent ... Throwing 40'000'000'000 £ (live time subvention) into a gully is only topped by Brexit...