Anti-nuclear is like anti-GMO and anti-vax: pure ignorance, and fear of that which they don't understand.
Nuclear power is the ONLY form of clean energy that can be scaled up in time to save us from the worst of climate change.
We've had the cure for climate change all along, but fear that we'd do another Chernobyl has scared us away from it.
imagine how much farther ahead we would be in safety and efficiency if it was made priority 50 years ago.
we still have whole swathes of people who think that because its not perfect now, it cant be perfected ever.
So uh, turns out the energy companies are not exactly the most moral and rule abiding entities, and they love to pay off politicians and cut corners. How does one prevent that, as in the case of fission it has rather dire consequences?
Since you can apply that logic to everything, how can you ever build anything? Because all consequences are dire on a myopic scale, that is, if your partner dies because a single electrician cheaped out with the wiring in your building and got someone to sign off, "It's not as bad as a nuclear disaster" isn't exactly going to console them much.
At some point, you need to accept that making something illegal and trying to prosecute people has to be enough. For most situations. It's not perfect. Sure. But nothing ever is. And no solution to energy is ever going to be perfect, either.
An electrician installing faulty wiring doesn't render your home uninhabitable for a few thousand years.
So there's one difference.
That’s why there are lots of regulations for things impacting life safety. With a nuclear power plant, you mitigate the disaster potential by having so many more people involved in the design and inspection processes.
The risk of an electrician installing faulty wiring in your home could be mitigated by having a third party inspector review the work. Now do that 1000x over and your risk of “politicians are paid off” is negligible.
That’s why there are lots of regulations for things impacting life safety
Regulations that a lot of pro-nuclear people try to get relaxed because they "artificially inflate the price to more than solar so that we'll use solar". I'm not saying all pro-nuclear folks are tin-foilers, but the only argument that puts nuclear cheaper than solar+battery anymore is an argument that uses deregulated facilities.
If solar+wind+battery is cheaper per MWH, faster to build, with less front-loaded costs, then it's a no-brainer. It only stops being a no-brainer when you stop regulating the nuclear plant. Therein lies the paradox of the argument.
You are saying, regulations will fix this? Politicians create the regulations, the fines, and enforcement.
Political parties are running on platforms of deregulation right now.
Regulations are actually generally created by regulatory bodies, which are usually non-political. For instance, the underwriter laboratory is the major appliance, building and electrical approval body in the United States.
In most countries, building codes and safety codes are created by industry specialists, people who have been in the industry as professionals for many decades and have practiced and been licensed in the field that they are riding the regulations for.
There's a big difference between politicians who are passing these laws, and those writing them who are the regulatory bodies. Generally, as a politicians will simply adopt the codes as recommended by the professional licensing and certification bodies.
I suppose it will be the end of modern civilization if politicians decide to politicize electrical or building codes. Then we'll be fucked for sure. We've seen that happen before with the Indiana pi bill.
"The Indiana Pi Bill is the popular name for bill #246 of the 1897 sitting of the Indiana General Assembly, one of the most notorious attempts to establish mathematical truth by legislative fiat."
Okay, so we've got a safe nuclear power plant that's a decade behind schedule and 100% over budget.
By your logic I suggest you avoid any building constructed in the US as nothing would ever be safe enough.
It's plenty safe now, but my electricity rates have doubled because the plant was so over budget and they need to make their money back.
a wind mill going down and a nuclear plant blowing up have very different ramifications
Exactly, just like a windmill running and a nuclear power plant running have very different effects on the power grid. Hence why comparing them directly is often such a nonsense act.
The risks are lower in literally everything else...?
I mean it's not the companies operating the facilities we put our trust in, but the outside regulators whose job it is to ensure these facilities are safe and meet a certain standard. As well as the engineers and scientists that design these systems.
Nuclear power isn't 100% safe or risk-free, but it's hella effective and leaps and bounds better than fossil fuels. We can embrace nuclearm renewables and fossil free methods, or just continue burning the world.
The worst nuclear disaster has led to 1,000sq miles of land being unsafe for human inhabitants.
Using fossil fuels for power is destroying of the entire planet.
It's really not that complicated.
Except that nuclear isn't the only, or even the cheapest, alternative to fossil fuels.
Don’t push nuclear power like it’s the only option though.
Where I live we entirely provide energy from hydro power plants and nuclear energy is banned. We use no fossil fuels. We have a 35 year plan for future growth and it doesn’t include any fossil fuels. Nuclear power is just one of the options and it has many hurdles to implement, maintain and decommission.
Honestly, if you can, hydro is brilliant. Not many places can though — both because of geography and politics. Nuclear is better than a lot of the alternatives and shouldn't be discounted.
It would be cool to see huge investments into battery storage. If we could create a battery that doesn't just leak energy from storing, we could generate power in one location and ship it out where it's needed. There could be remote energy production plants using geothermal or hydroelectric power that ship out these charged batteries to locations all over. It would let us better utilize resources instead of having to have cities anchored around these sources.
Or we could generate a ton of power all at once, store it and use it as needed rather having to have on demand energy production
Hell with better batteries even fossil fuels begin to be climate friendly since you could store the massive energy created and know you're using close to 100% of it.
It would be cool to see huge investments into battery storage.
Globally humanity already invests over 10 Billion dollars per year in advancing battery technology.
If we could create a battery that doesn’t just leak energy from storing...
In order to build what you are talking about will almost certainly require real room temperature super conductors. We can get close, maybe, with the next generation of Aluminum-Air or Iron-Air batteries but this is big pimping. It's incredibly complicated and difficult.
It's like Fusion Power. We can see a future where we have it figured out and working but it's still some years, if not decades, away.
It’s like Fusion Power. We can see a future where we have it figured out and working but it’s still some years, if not decades, away.
We could just use energy to fill a big hole with water and put plastic wrap over top until we need to get the energy back then we pump it through a dam.
Then profit.
Problem solved
Moving batteries seems like a terribly inefficient way of replacing power lines.
Power lines would still mean we need energy on demand though wouldn't it. And if we can transport energy from an area like a huge solar array in the Sahara to Kazakhstan or China it would be better. I was just raising it as an off thought like maybe theres more ways to think about solving this problem than just building plants. What level of storage ability could we have that would let us build a large solar array in the Sahara to power Africa and Europe vs just building more plants. I think our end goal will be energy storage and like you brought up transport/transmission. I think that because I think we have energy production pretty well solved
Kind of an unconventional battery, but I've heard of solar and wind being used to pump water uphill into reservoirs and then released through a hydro plant when the sun/wind aren't shining/blowing. I'd be curious to know the amount of production lost from storing it this way.
I heard the loss comes from evaporation. Another cool idea I heard was using a mining cart. So its not practical but I think the idea is cook because I'm pretty science illiterate but it got me thinking about what a battery actually is. So you drag a mine cart up a hill with energy produced using renewable energy and then let it go down the hill and collect the stored energy with its motion. Technically there isn't anything like evaporation so you could store the mine cart up the hill with no energy loss.
Interesting. Didn't consider the evaporation. I imagine friction could effect the minecarts, but no idea to what degree. Some loss is gonna happen so matter what. If I'm understanding correctly, even nuclear, built away from population centers, will lose some power due to transmission distances.
The problem is its potential for harm. And I don't mean meltdown. Storage is the problem that doesn't seem to have strong solutions right now. And the potential for them to make a mistake and store the waste improperly is pretty catastrophic.
"Nuclear waste" sounds super scary, but most of it are things like tools and clothing, that have comparatively tiny amount of radioactivity. Sure it still needs to be stored properly, very little high level waste is actually generated.
You know what else is catastrophic? Fossil fuels and the impact they have on the climate. I'm not arguing that we should put all our eggs in one basket, but getting started and doing something to move away from the BS that is coal, gas, and oil is really something we should've prioritised fifty years ago. Instead they have us arguing whether we should go with hydroelectric, or put up with "ugly windmills" or "solar farms" or "dangerous nuclear plants."
It's all bullshit. Our world is literally on fire and no one seems to actually give a fuck. We have fantastic tools that could've halted the progress had we used them in time, but fifty years later we're still arguing about this.
At this point I honestly hope we do burn. This is a filter mankind does not deserve to pass. We're too evil to survive.
While that's true, we still have for example safe air travel, although I'm pretty sure companies would be happy to ship their passengers minced to maximize their profit.
Also, thorium reactors would be a great step forward, unfortunately its byproducts can't be used for nuclear weapons, so their development was pretty slowed down.
I’m pretty sure companies would be happy to ship their passengers minced to maximize their profit.
That actually sounds more comfortable than normal airline travel
Also there was that german experimental Thorium reactor that was so mismanaged, it made Burns' Springfield power plant look well handled. I think that scared a lot of people off of Thorium for a long time.
Source: Lived right next to that reactor during my childhood.
If only we had a non fossil energy source we could safely export to developing nations instead of ICE technology.
(Intenal Combustion Engine)
Big news worthy accidents are a really good way to ensure strong regulation and oversight. And nuclear is very regulated now so that it has lower death rate than wind power.
Much much tighter regulations. Our cars aren't aluminum cans waiting to crush everybody inside them because of strict safety regulations.
Make them live on site?
And we would be expecting these corrupt Cost cutting types to warehouse nuclear waste for hundreds if not thousands of years while requiring regular inspections and rotation of caskets periodically while also maintaining the facilities. All of that for a product that doesn't produce any value, it just sits there and accumulates.
And where does it get stored? Right now almost 100% of waste is stored on site above ground because they really have no good solution. People will say things like "its just a little bit of toxic waste" or "its cool because we could use it in process we don't have yet but might in the future" and all I can think of is how this was the same thinking that got us into our dependence on our first environmental catastrophic energy source. I'm not confident we that scaling up to another one will end well.
"its cool because we could use it in process we don't have yet but might in the future"
Is it quote from 60-ies? We have. At least Russia has. US had too.
Right now almost 100% of waste is stored on site above ground because they really have no good solution.
You mean there's so little they don't even need a dedicated facility for it, and it's safe enough that people are willing to work where it's stored? Sounds great!
Combustion engine sounded great too before the entire world started using them everywhere. You trust corporate interest to store this material for hundreds if not potentially thousands of years.
I trust the material to just sit there like big slabs of concrete usually do.
But it isn't concrete. It needs constant maintenance and inspection. The casks need to be monitored and rotated out when they begin to erode and break down. Whose doing that for 1009 years?
Easy. Have nuclear power plants operate as government run and backed corporations (what we’d call a “Crown Corporation” here in Canada).
That way you can mandate safety and uptime as metrics over profit. It may be less efficient from an economic standpoint (overall cost might be higher), but you also don’t wind up with the nuclear version of Love Canal.
Try to arrange the incentives in such a way that if the plant melts down, the company that owns it loses money.
I think it's fine to think of it as imperfect, even if those imperfections can never be truly solved.
We only need nuclear to bridge the gap between now and a time when renewable CO2 neutral power sources or the holy grail of fusion are able to take the place the base load power that we currently use fossil fuels for, and with hope, that may only be a few decades away.
Even if you discard everything else, this section seems particularly relevant:
The long lead times for construction that invalidate nuclear power as a way of mitigating climate change was a point recognized in 2009 by the body whose mission is to promote the use of nuclear power, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). “Nuclear power is not a near-term solution to the challenge of climate change,” writes Sharon Squassoni in the IAEA bulletin. “The need to immediately and dramatically reduce carbon emissions calls for approaches that can be implemented more quickly than building nuclear reactors.”
Wealer from Berlin's Technical University, along with numerous other energy experts, sees takes a different view.
"The contribution of nuclear energy is viewed too optimistically," he said. "In reality, [power plant] construction times are too long and the costs too high to have a noticeable effect on climate change. It takes too long for nuclear energy to become available."
Mycle Schneider, author of the World Nuclear Industry Status Report, agrees.
"Nuclear power plants are about four times as expensive as wind or solar, and take five times as long to build," he said. "When you factor it all in, you're looking at 15-to-20 years of lead time for a new nuclear plant."
He pointed out that the world needed to get greenhouse gases under control within a decade. "And in the next 10 years, nuclear power won't be able to make a significant contribution," added Schneider.
Long lead times against nuclear have bee raised for the last 25 years, if we had just got on with it we would have the capacity by now. Just cause the lead time is in years doesn't mean it isn't worth doing.
when is the best time to plant a tree? 30 years ago. When is the second best time? now.
Surely the second best time would have been 29 years ago
Don't fuck this up for me bro
As others pointed out, to build that many nuclear power plants that quickly would require 10x-ing the world's construction capacity.
My counterpoint is that if we had "just got on with it" for solar, wind, and battery, we would have the capacity by now and the cost per kwh of that capacity would be approximately half as much as the same in nuclear. And we would have amortized the costs.
No it wouldn't. China laid more concrete in 5 years than the entire world did in 100 years. I highly doubt that converting the entire world to nuclear is going to use that much more concrete. I mean hell, they laid like 15 or 20,000 miles of high speed rail in just a few years. They built like 300 million apartment units.
Just did a bunch of my own math before realizing those numbers were already out there. We would need to add 3960 nuclear plants to match current energy demand for the world (440 power 10% of the world).
That would require at least 5 years of construction per plant. It takes about 7000 workers to produce a nuclear plant. To produce them concurrently would require about 27.7 million construction workers dedicated to this project for at least 5 years. So on one hand, perhaps you're right, since there are 100M construction workers in the world. I can't, however, find numbers about how much heavy equipment exists to facilitate a product requiring 1/4 the world's construction workers concurrently. You might be right that if all other construction were ground to a halt, we might be able to manage a 5-year plan of nuclear at the cost of about $20T (I had done the math before realizing this reply were about workers, not cost stupidity). I concede it seems "10x increase world construction capacity" was wrong, and the real number is somewhere around 1.5-2x, so long as we stay conservative with nuclear figures and ignore extra costs of building or transporting nuclear energy to countries incapable of building their own plants.
Interestingly, at those construction numbers, you could provide small-project rooftop solar to the world. I can't find construction numbers for power farm solar, except that it's dramatically more efficient than rooftop solar. Unlike nuclear, it appears we could easily squeeze full-world solar with our current world construction capacity.
I won't bore you with the cost math, but since I calculated them I'm still going to summarize them. Going full nuclear would cost us about a $20T down payment. Going full solar (with storage) down payment is about $4T (only about $1T without storage costs factored). And while nuclear would be cheaper than solar per year after that $20T down, solar power and storage would STILL be cheaper in a 100 year outlook, but would also benefit from rolling efficiency increases as we add new solar plants/capacitors and tear down older ones..
Not all 7,000 construction workers would be working on the site concurrently. Different trades come and go depending on the phase of the project. So at first you'll have the civil engineering earth movers come in, who clears the site and excavates the foundations. Then you'll have the concrete crews come in who pour the foundations and do all of the concrete work. Obviously on a nuclear power plant there is a lot of foundation work, as well as a lot of above ground concrete so probably a good chunk of the construction workers will fall into this category.
Power plants also have a lot of structural steel work, electrical and special equipment that would likey fall under the piping category but each of these uses a separate set of skilled labor that does not overlap.
If you were going to actually try to build 3,300 nuclear power plants, you would rotate crews from project to project which would increase efficiency rather than hiring 27 million separate workers.
In any case, I don't think converting the world's total electrical power generation to 100% nuclear is by any stretch of the imagination a good idea. Personally I think maybe 15 to 25% nuclear power generation would be a more realistic mix, similar to the US electrical power generation. The rest of the power should be solar, wind, hydro, wave and geothermal as they are absolutely cheaper to build.
I'm not sure I agree with how you'd be able to execute on that level or organized construction safely, but I think we're also reaching the "impossible-to-be-sure hypothetical" territory, so I'll concede the point for now.
I think my problems of cost and time still stand. It looks like adding rooftop solar with batteries to every building is still cheaper (on startup, and likely per MW) than nuclear plants. Regions that cannot support solar, onland wind, geo, or hydro can justify nuclear (at least unless shipping batteries or hydrogen conversion becomes cheap enough to compete), but I don't think they amount to nearly 15% of the power needs in the world since they represent fairly distinctive regions with low energy demand.
We do it all the time in the construction industry.
For instance, Bechtel has 55,000 people in the US.
"Since the 1950s, Bechtel has designed, serviced, or delivered 80% of all nuclear plants in the U.S.. Bechtel has provided engineering and construction services for 88 of the 104 operating nuclear plants in the United States."
So just hire them. Too bad they lost almost all of their institutional knowledge about nuclear construction compared to what they used to have.
Long lead times, cost overruns, producing power at a higher price point than renewables, long run time needed to break even, even longer dismantling times and a still unsolved waste problem. Compared to renewables that we can build right now.
Did you read the quote? 15-20 years, as in decades before 1 nuke plant is built. I agree in that politicians of the past should have led us to a more sustainable and resilient energy future, but we're here now.
Advanced nuclear should still be 100% pursued to try to get those lead times down and to incorporate things like waste recycling, modularity, etc., but the lead time in decades absolutely means nuclear power might not be something worth doing.
The IPCC puts the next 10-20 years as the most important and perilous for getting a hold on climate change. If we wait for that long by not rolling out emission-free power sources, transit modes, or even carbon-free concrete, etc., then we might cross planetary boundaries that we can't come back from.
Nuclear is a safe bet and bet worth pursuing. I would argue that, along with that source from the IAEA, old nuclear is note worth it.
How much concrete does it take to build a nuclear plant? Concrete production is currently 8% of global emissions, so if you have to scale up construction capacity 10x for the next decade, don't you end up destroying the environment with concrete before they are even operational?
Great point. You need concrete for wind, solar, and li-ion battery storage too (including pumped hydro), but out of those I'd say pumped hydro is the only one that remotely compares in the amount of concrete needed for construction.
So purely looking at the emissions from materials needed to build these power sources, renewables have the edge due to less concrete. These emissions might show up elsewhere in raw material extraction like with silicon for solar, and then the rare earth metals needed for generators in wind, all the lithium/nickel/cobalt needed for batteries, etc., but I want to say that the Life Cycle Assessments (LCAs) from places like the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) in the US or the International Energy Agency (IEA) worldwide have taken that into account and still show that renewables + storage are cheaper on a carbon basis compared to fossil fuels and nuclear.
The cool thing about concrete for renewables (excluding hydro dam) is only the very base pad needs to be virgin. You can make a lot of the rest of the base and fill material with down cycled concrete. So tearing down part of an old factory on land near the solar panels are? Crush it up and only move it a few miles over to where you need it. Rather than hauling that to a landfill where it sits forever, costing energy use to haul, and more energy use to bring the fill and other bade materials from a further destination.
There are solid arguments to be made against both nuclear and renewables (intermittence, impact of electricity storage, amount of raw material, surface area). We can't wait for perfect solutions, we have to work out compromises right now, and it seems nuclear + renewable is the most solid compromise we have for the 2050 target. See this high quality report by the public French electricity transportation company (independent of the energy producers) that studies various scenarios including 100% renewable and mixes of nuclear, renewables, hydrogen and biogas. https://assets.rte-france.com/prod/public/2022-01/Energy%20pathways%202050_Key%20results.pdf
Those aren't arguments against nuclear power; those are arguments against the incompetence of entities like Southern Company and Westinghouse, as well as the Public Service Commission that fails to impose the burden of cost overruns on the shareholders where they belong.
I should know; I'm a Georgia Power ratepayer who's on the hook paying for the fuck-ups and cost overruns of Plant Vogtle 3 and 4.
It would've been way better if they'd been built back in the '70s, since all indications are that the folks who built units 1 and 2 actually had a fucking clue what they were doing!
Your arguments didn't actually invalidate the comment you replied to. They are just arguments against nuclear being a short-term solution.
We need both, short and long term ones. Wind and water cannot be solely relies upon. Build both types.
That is true, building a nuclear power plant doesn't help. The problem is how many we closed down in a panic, in particular after Fukushima. We could make great strides towards cleaner energy and cutting the actually problematic power plants (coal, gas) out of the picture as we slowly transition to renewables-only if we had more nuclear power available.
Of course, in hindsight it's difficult to say how one could have predicted this. There's good reasons against nuclear energy, it just so happens that in the big picture it's just about the second-best options. And we cut that out first, instead of the worse ones.
“2009” hahahaha and here we are. More coal more gas plants than ever.
The daft thing is that even if another Chernobyl happened (unlikely given superior technology and safety standards) it wouldn't be anywhere near as damaging as climate change.
The radiation would only affect a small area of the planet not the whole world, and technically radiation doesn't even cause climate damage. Chernobyl has plenty of trees and plenty of wildlife, it's just unsuitable for human habitation.
The daft thing is that even if another Chernobyl happened (unlikely given superior technology and safety standards) it wouldn’t be anywhere near as damaging as climate change.
Here's my favorite way to put it: because of trace radioactive elements found in coal ore, coal-fired power plants produce more radioactivity in normal operation than nuclear power plants have in their entire history, including meltdowns. And with coal, it just gets released straight into the environment without any attempt to contain it!
And that's just radioactivity, not all the other emissions of coal plants.
This is a fun fact but I don't think it matters, no one is getting radiation sickness from coal smoke. Don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying coal smoke is healthy, it's fucking awful and causes way more deaths than nuclear power plants.
I think you just contradicted yourself in that same sentence
No, I'm saying that saying the radiation concerns specifically of coal output isn't a concern with regards to health.
You're right coal deaths are just confined to mines, respiratory illnesses and excess cancers from chronic low dose exposure.
it's fucking awful and causes way more deaths than nuclear power plants.
No, I'm saying that saying the radiation concerns specifically of coal output isn't a concern with regards to health.
So chronic low level exposure to radiation is fine?
I'm not saying it's fine, I'm saying it feels like an order of magnitude less of a concern compared to all of the other bad things that can happen from coal smoke.
Federation of American scientists (FAS) believe that the number is actually calculable:
"The quantity of radioactive material liberated by the burn-
ing of coal is considerable, since on average it contains a few parts per million
of uranium and thorium"
"Per gigawatt-
year (GWe-yr) of electrical energy produced by coal, using the current mix of
technology throughout the world, the population exposure is estimated to be
about 0.8 lethal cancers per plant-year distributed over the affected population."
"Table 7.2 summarizes these data. With 400 GWe of coal-fired power plants in the world, this amounts to some 320 deaths per year; in the world at large, some plants have better filters and cause less harm, while others have little stack-gas cleanup and cause far more."
320 deaths globally is a drop in the in the coal bucket of death. It's not worth specifically worrying about. Coal as a whole is the problem. Not the nuclear byproduct of coal.
Sure sure, but we are still pumping out isotopes of uranium and plutonium into the atmosphere. We are lucky the effects of radioactive isotopes are generally overblown then, huh?
🙏 I need you to listen to me extremely closely. I am not saying nuclear shit in the atmosphere is good. I never said this. I never implied this. All I'm saying is that the nuclear aspects of coal usage are a drop in the bucket in the massive pile of problems it has. I'm not saying coal is good either.
I totally agree that current nuclear power generation should be left running until we have enough green energy to pick up the slack, because it does provide clean and safe energy. However, I totally disagree on the scalability, for two main reasons:
Current nuclear power generation is non-renewable. It is somewhat unclear how much Uranium is available worldwide (for strategic reasons), but even at current production, supply issues have been known to happen. And it goes without saying that waiting to scale up some novel unproven or inexistent sustainable way of nuclear power production is out of the question, for time and safety reasons. Which brings me to point 2.
We need clean, sustainable energy right now if we want to have any chance of fighting climate change. From start of planning of a new nuclear power plant to first power generation can take 15 or 20 years easily. Currently, about 10% of all electricity worldwide is produced by about 400 nuclear reactors, while around 15 new ones are under construction. So, to make any sort of reasonable impact, we would have to build to the tune of 2000 new reactors, pronto. To do that within 30 years, we'd have to increase our construction capacity 5 to 10 fold. Even if that were possible, which I strongly doubt, I would wager the safety and cost impacts would be totally unjustifiable. And we don't even have 30 years anymore. That is to say nothing of regulatory checks and maintenance that would also have to be increased 5 fold.
So imho nuclear power as a solution to climate change is a non-starter, simply due to logistical and scaling reasons. And that is before we even talk about the very real dangers of nuclear power generation, which are of course not operational, but due to things like proliferation, terrorist attacks, war, and other unforseen disruptions through e.g. climate change, societal or governmental shifts, etc.
It is somewhat unclear how much Uranium is available worldwide (for strategic reasons), but even at current production, supply issues have been known to happen.
Nuclear fission using Uranium is not sustainable. If we expand current nuclear technologies to tackle climate change then we'd likely run out of Uranium by 2100. Nuclear fusion using Thorium might be sustainable, but it's not yet a proven, scalable technology. And all of this is ignoring the long lead times, high costs, regulatory hurdles and nuclear weapon proliferation concerns that nuclear typically presents. It'd be great if nuclear was the magic bullet for climate change, but it just ain't.
I thought thorium was way less problematic from a nuclear proliferation perspective, that the risk was largely constrained to dirty bombs?
Everything can be turned to dirty bomb
Well, there is Plutonium option, but superpowers want to be superpowers. Probably only USA, Russia, France and Britan can do it.
We'd run of our uranium that's economical to extract using current technology and at current prices. All known mineral reserves could power the world on exclusively nuclear energy for several thousand years at least.
All known mineral reserves could power the world on exclusively nuclear energy for several thousand years at least.
You got a source for that? Because the one I linked says that we run out of known Uranium deposits by 2100 at current usage rates. Our known Uranium deposits run out mid-century if we use nuclear to follow the IEA Blue Map plan to reduce carbon emissions by 50%, and we run out of even speculated deposits by 2100 under that scenario. Where are you getting "several thousand years" from? Is Thorium part of the mineral reserves to which you're referring?
The source you linked talks about uranium reserves. Mineral reserves, known and unknown deposits, refer explicitly to the known amount of economically minable supplies of that mineral.
Discussion around them can be misleading, especially for a growing industry, because as a resource becomes more scarce, it becomes more economically viable to mine difficult deposits, this growing the reserve. On top of that, the effort and technology tend to yield new methods of both mining and refining that increase yields.
I think you have a point. Look at how the Oil & Gas industry pivoted to fracking and tar sands after conventional oil started drying up around 2005.
There are deposits out there, probably, and the only time mining companies will consider changing ehat and how they currently mine is if they have a reason to do so,: aka an economic (or governmental) reason.
Still, discovery, technology r&d, and supply chain establishment might take more time than what we have. It's good that we should keep nuclear and all of this on the table, but it shouldn't be a priority.
Nothing is truly renewable, we still don't know how to cheat thermodynamics. Sun itself is not renewable.
Though sun will be problem million years later.
Small nitpick, but Google says that there are 57 nuclear reactors currently under construction worldwide in 2023. 22 of them are in China alone.
That's an oversimplification to the point that it is wrong.
Nuclear power is not the only form of clean energy like that at all. It can not be scaled in this situation to save us, because it takes too long to build them.
It takes 6 years on a fast paced build. If we had started when we knew of the problem, we could have avoided some of the problem. It is the only energy source we can scale up in that way, however. Every other energy source takes longer for less yield with current technology.
If we stared when we knew of the problem
Sadly, humanity had other things to do :(
Ain't that the truth. We could've just been naked eating fruit and making art all day, but instead we have anxiety and loans.
Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but this simply isn't true with established nuclear technologies. Expanding our currently nuclear energy production requires us to fully tap all known and speculated Uranium sources, nets us only a 6% CO^2^ reduction, and we run out of Uranium by 2100. We might be able to use Thorium in fuel cycles to expand our net nuclear capacity, but that technology has to yet to be proven at scale. And all of this ignores the high startup cost, regulatory difficulties, disposal challenges and weapons proliferation risks that nuclear typically presents.
Just like assuming a perfectly spherical cow, or a frictionless surface, you can completely ignore the economics, the massive cost and schedule overages to make nuclear work.
Flamanville-3 in France started construction in 2007, was supposed to be operational in 2012 with a project budget of €3.3B. Construction is still ongoing, the in-service date is now sometime in 2024, and the budget has ballooned to €20B.
Olkiluoto-3 is a similar EPR. Construction started in 2005, was supposed to be in-service in 2010, but finally came online late last year. Costs bloated from €3 to €11B.
Hinkley Point C project is two EPRs. Construction started in 2017, it's already running behind schedule, and the project costs have increased from £16B to somewhere approaching £30B. Start up has been pushed back to 2028 the last I've heard.
It's no different in the US, where the V.C. Summer (2 x AP1000) reactor project was cancelled while under construction after projections put the completed project at somewhere around $23B, up from an estimate of $9B.
A similar set of AP1000s was built at Vogtle in Georgia. Unit 3 only recently came online, with unit 4 expected at the end of the year. Costs went from an initial estimate of $12B to somewhere over $30B.
Note that design, site selection, regulatory approvals, and tendering aren't included in the above. Those add between 5-10 years to the above schedules.
Gee, I wonder if the cost might go down if we built more of them, as is the case with, y'know, basically every other complicated thing that humans build.
So even if I follow your logic, that nuclear plants will get cheaper and faster to build, wich I'm not, you still have to build the first generation of plants slow and expensive. So we either wait 15 years to get better at building those plants, or we just build renewables right now.
So we either wait 15 years to get better at building those plants, or we just build renewables right now.
We do both. This isn't a binary choice.
So what happens when you finish pouring the concrete in 15 years and the demand has already been satisfied by renewables? Concrete production alone accounts for ~8% of global emissions.
I am not anti-nucleur, I wish we invested more decades ago.
We could build them in a lot less time than 15 years, we'd just need to summon up the political will for it. I'm not saying we should stop building Wind or Solar either.
Well demand isn't going to go down, and we're going to have to replace all of the old power plants anyways, even if they are solar or wind. Everything that we build has a lifespan, and the United States has a heck of a lot of legacy power plants that are going to be decommissioned over the next 100 years regardless of what type of plants these are. Solar, wind, hydro, coal, gas, nuclear... Nothing lasts forever.
Except throughout the history of nuclear power it has always gotten more expensive, regardless of time period, learning curve, adoption curve, or any other variable you care to consider. Solar, wind, and batteries have always gotten cheaper and continue to do so.
Is there some reason for that? What makes nuclear power fundamentally different from all other human undertakings?
Yes that is exactly what would happen. To do that though, you really need state funding, state approval, and a secure supply chain as well as experienced engineers, management and construction and supply chains.
I think this is the most overlooked aspect, besides it never being in time to do any good for the crisis we are in now.
I believe, the increasing cost and loss in efficiency compared to alternatives will always be an issue for NE to be out-priced by solar and wind (Dunai, 2019; WNSIR, 2022). These cost will eventually come back to the end user.
Most definitely the reason why nuclear advocates want the government to give securities and don't dear to be the entrepreneurs they claim to be (NOS Nieuws, 2018). Please give me some welfare state, but I'd rather have some more solid solutions.
Costs. Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE) analysis by U.S. bank Lazard shows that between
2009 and 2021, utility-scale solar costs came down 90 percent and wind 72 percent, while
new nuclear costs increased by 36 percent. The gap continues to widen. Estimates by the
International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) has seen the LCOE for wind drop by
15 percent and solar by 13 percent between 2020 and 2021 alone. IRENA also calculated that
800 GW of existing coal-fired capacity in the world have higher operating costs than new
utility-scale solar photovoltaics (PV) and new onshore wind (WNSIR, 2022).
Nuclear power is the ONLY form of clean energy that can be scaled up in time to save us from the worst of climate change.
Long term nuclear is great...
But building new plants uses a shit ton of concrete. So we're paying the carbon cost up front, and it can take years or even decades to break even.
So we can't just spam build nuke plants right now to fix everything.
30 years ago that would have worked.
But building new plants uses a shit ton of concrete. So we’re paying the carbon cost up front, and it can take years or even decades to break even.
That's not remotely on the same scale, carbon-wise. Global output is like 4 billion tons of concrete per year, a nuclear plant uses like 12 tons per megawatt; an all-in nuclear buildout would use a tiny, tiny fraction of global concrete production and the carbon costs aren't even remotely equivalent.
(also, wind power uses way, way more concrete)
Building any sort of new power plant uses a shitload of concrete, so that cost isn't as dramatic as this would seem.
I think nuclear is dramatically overstated in terms of short term feasibility, but concrete use is not the reason why.
So would it be fair to say you have no concrete objections to the nuclear plan?
do you have a source for this carbon cost? i can't find any figures about even the amount of concrete in a nuclear plant nevermind the co2 cost of that.
I do find a lot of literature that states that the lifecycle co2 cost of nuclear is on part with solar and wind per kwh so i find your assertment about the payback time being decades a little unlikely to say the least.
Small scale reactors that require almost no maintenance and produce enough power for a single city are the hot topic right now due to what you just mentioned. As a side product, they provide hot water for the city.
(What’s with the downvotes?)
Lots of people know virtually nothing about nuclear even tho they're avid supporters of it. So when you point out a downside, they get mad.
As a side product, they provide hot water for the city.
Hot water (technically superheated steam) is the main (and only immediate) product of a nuclear reactor...
Trying to directly use secondary coolant as hot potable water just makes zero sense though. It's waaaaay more efficient to move the electricity and then heat different water.
I mean, you're talking about an open loop nuclear system...
No sane engineer would ever do that. A small primary loop leak and your dosing everyone, all to just essentially lose efficiency.
Where did you even see that suggested?
Imagine living in a snowy city where hot water is pumped through the sidewalks to people's homes. No frozen pipes, no shoveling snow. No people freezing to death...
You still need to clear snow and ice. The hot water pipes are insulated to ensure that the hot water remains hot until it goes into radiators and faucets. You'd lose all that heat if you use it to heat sidewalks.
My city does this. Hot water is pretty cheap here if you're hooked up to the municipal network. If you have an electric water heater you'll go bankrupt in the winter.
Small scale reactors are actually more expensive than larger reactors. Even compared to Vogtle 3 and 4...
8 years to build, not 30. Instead we are building many many more coal and gas plants. What a terrific alternative. Fallacy of renewables without storage is done. It’s never going to happen.
I don't know natural disasters and war causing it to screw up also tends to worry people. Last time I checked wind and solar don't create massive damage to the environment when destroyed.
Except wind and solar don't have anywhere near the density we need. Nuclear plants are about 1kW/m^2. Wind is 2-3W/m^2, solar is 100W/m^2. Siting wind and solar projects can be just as damaging.
I didn't even mention tidal or geothermal. But how are any of those just as damaging? Nuclear waste is still a issue and again if it were attacked or destroyed would cause a massive ecological issue. Again last I checked destroying a wind, solar, tidal, or geothermal generator would not release radiation. Also the time to build one of those compared to a nuclear plant is a lot less last I checked.
Tidal is not a proven technology. The ocean environment is incredibly harsh on equipment. High-temp geothermal power generation is extremely site-specific, though ground-loop technology for heating and cooling is a proven technology that is woefully underutilized (though there are big challenges there as well, since ground loops take up space and done incorrectly overheat the ground temp/water table, etc.).
How would you define tidal as proven? Also correct there is no one solution for all areas. Unless you built a massive solar panel array around the planet I guess.
It's a lot easier and cheaper to build a solar plant of ten times the seize compared to one nuclear plant though.
How did you get those numbers though? A standard on-shore wind turbine has a maximum power output of 2MW. Let's say on average, it's half, so 1 million Watt. You're counting 500k m² per turbine?
What kind of area did you use for the nuclear plant?
Also, solar has the added benefit that it can be installed on basically wasted space (e.g., people's roof) unlike the others.
Nuclear power is the ONLY form of clean energy that can be scaled up in time to save us from the worst of climate change
Except the plants take so long to build they won't be ready until we're at 2°C
It has been fifty years that "oh no they take so long to build, better never start" that by today we would have completely decarbonized energy generation if we started actually building them.
We could have also built solar collectors in orbit and beamed carbon-free electricity to Earth if we started 50 years ago.
Knowing nothing about the process, can i ask, is the time it takes to build one based on current standards? Like if we were to focus more resources into the construction of new plants wouldnt they be built faster?
The latest nuclear power plant built in the US is seven years behind schedule and almost $20 billion over budget. It bankrupted Westinghouse Energy, and is slated to cost consumers more than double what comparable electricity costs because of these overruns.
And this was a plant that was using newer construction techniques like offsite assembly to reduce costs.
Were there mistakes during the build process like lowballing spending figures or building time so they are permitted to build or did they just royally fuck up some other way?
It just seems to be a general issue in the industry and not specific to this plant or the US.
Flamanville-3 in France is 5 years overrun already and is projected to be operational 12 years from now. It's budget ballooned from 3.3B to 20B euros.
Olkiluoto-3 was only delayed a year, but the budget went from 3 to 11B Euro.
Hinkley Point C project is behind and esyimates have gone from £16B to almost £30B.
Looks like one holdup nowadays is the ability to source HALEU (Uranium that is 4x as enriched as the typical fuel used in current reactors).
Since I don't see it mentioned anywhere: Ignoring the economical and environmental issues that nuclear power still has compared to actual renewables, it has a geostrategic problem: Uranium is a geologically limited resources, which just creates political and economical dependencies. And since Russia has a lot of it, keeping working sanctions against them alive is pretty problematic, if you need to buy your energy resources from them. See gas supply.
It's not like Russia has all of it, there are more uranium in the rest of the world, but it has full supply chain.
New archetypes of NP can run on depleted fuel. There's enough of that around for more than 50yrs of power.
Ahh... no. New solar and wind generation can be spun up much faster than nuclear.
What provides me trepidation is the economic system means slack jawed corpos with MBAs will be working tirelessly to skirt safety.
Now if the government was to run ... Wait, that is communism and is therefore the bad thing to do /s
emphasis mine:
Anti-nuclear is like anti-GMO and anti-vax: pure ignorance, and fear of that which they don’t understand.
First of all anti- #GMO stances are often derived from anti-Bayer-Monsanto stances. There is no transparency about whether Monsanto is in the supply chain of any given thing you buy, so boycotting GMO is as accurate as ethical consumers can get to boycotting Monsanto. It would either require pure ignorance or distaste for humanity to support that company with its pernicious history and intent to eventually take control over the world’s food supply.
Then there’s the anti-GMO-tech camp (which is what you had in mind). You have people who are anti-all-GMO and those who are anti-risky-GMO. It’s pure technological ignorance to regard all GMO equally safe or equally unsafe. GMO is an umbrella of many techniques. Some of those techniques are as low risk as cross-breeding in ways that can happens in nature. Other invasive techniques are extremely risky & experimental. You’re wiser if you separate the different GMO techniques and accept the low risk ones while condemning the foolishly risky approaches at the hands of a profit-driven corporation taking every shortcut they can get away with.
So in short:
Boycott all U.S.-sourced GMO if you’re an ethical consumer. (note the EU produces GMO without Monsanto)
Boycott just high-risk GMO techniques if you’re unethical but at least wise about the risks. (note this is somewhat impractical because you don’t have the transparency of knowing what technique was used)
Boycott no GMO at all if you’re ignorant about risks & simultaneously unethical.
Nuclear power is the ONLY form of clean energy that can be scaled up in time to save us from the worst of climate change.
Mmmm I agreed with you until reading this. The 6th IPCC Assessment Report showed us that Wind + Solar + Battery Storage are still a safer bet for rolling out non-fossil fuel energy sources at the fastest rate we can launch them. Nuclear sadly still takes too long to build.
I think there is a space for advanced nuclear, though. Small Modular Reactors, Fast Breeders, and such should be encouraged going forward. The US (and I think UK) each have funds specifically designated to the development of advanced nuclear too.
But old nuclear will take too long to get a hold on emissions. I still think nuclear fits in a well-balanced energy portfolio, but not of the specific technology of the 1950s-1990s.
We've had the cure for climate change all along, but fear that we'd do another Chernobyl has scared us away from it.
I mean, Chernobyl is kind of an outdated example. Fukushima would be the more recent one to point at, or even Three Mile Island. Not particularly useful for your argument. Still, I think if people got educated about all 3 of those examples from history, they'll come out convinced that nuclear is still a safe bet.
Problem is, like I said above, that conventional nuclear takes too damn long to build.
Not to mention the conventional plants don't seem to be faring all that well...
The study also questions the reliability of the nuclear fleet, particularly given the dramatically low availability of French power plants this year – nearly half of the 56 nuclear reactors were closed even though the EU was in a complicated period of electricity supply with frequent peaks in the price of electricity above €3/kWh.
That sounds pretty awful when everyone expects nucleur to handle baseload.
Yeah, the argument of nuclear crumbles when you start to peak behind the curtain of operation. Still, renewables have the same problem.
Wind turbines break shafts, studs, bolts, lifts, generator step-up (GSU) units, etc. Then you still need oil for all the mechanical systems in a turbine too, which can degrade. Operations can keep up with this though, and in my experience wind can be up and running a lot more frequently with reference to failures that cause downtime compared with maintenance of nuclear with reference to downtime for it.
Same with solar, or even better with solar because the only moving parts with solar are the axis trackers that move panels such that they always point at the sun. Lots more uptime that doesn't involve radiation exposure, although that concern for operations has probably been designed out as reactor technology has grown up.
Or at least I'd hope...
Canada is also investing in modular reactors, so there are already several large players in the field.
Even if you could magically increase the number of nuclear reactors started before 2012 tenfold to keep up with wind and solar, you'd have to triple uranium mining overnight to fuel them for the first time.
I am a huge fan of nuclear power, but I wouldn't say fearing it is ignorance.
You need to make sure it is regulated, secure, well-engineered, and above all, we need a place to store the waste.
Yet, congress and others, at least in America, have done nothing. We should mainly be powered by nuclear and it is rare for a plant to be built. If done correctly you get safe, clean, power.
But why not skip the expense and nuclear waste and just build up mixed renewable energy instead? It's cheaper and plenty of places have already done it with great success.
Are you talking about wind mills and solar? They won't supply enough power and have other draw backs. Everything has pros and cons.
Nuclear is consistent, safe and affordable. We have been using nuclear power for 50 years with few issues.
Not that nuclear energy is the ONLY solution, just that it should be used alongside other methods of clean energy, as well as better energy efficiency on the consumer side.
And people’s age and background has so weirdly much to do with how they internalize nuclear safety risk. My best german friend is very opposed to fossil fuels and believes in much stronger renewable focus, but is absolutely opposed to nuclear and basically laughs about how stupid he thinks that risk is. It’s wild.
Especially when you realize how little impact Chernobyl and Fukushima really had. Even including those two accidents, coal plants have emitted vastly more radioisotopes (which occur naturally at low levels in coal, but since we burn such vast quantities of coal…) and vastly more carcinogens.
It doesn't really matter whether you think nuclear energy is risky or not - it's economically the worst option. It's the most expensive of all the main sources of power. It's much cheaper to just transition to a mix of mostly renewable power and plenty of places have already done it with success. So why do something unnecessary like nuclear when it's more expensive than the alternatives?
Funfact: РБМК-1000(same model as in Chernobyl) was used on all four blocks in St. Petersburg(Leningrad). Currently 2 out of 4 are still in use, another two were replaced with ВВЭР-1200.
It's crazy you got over a hundred down votes, most which are just anti nuclear reactions brainwashed into them by corporations who knew they could make more money off coal, and made nuclear out to be the enemy.
Honest question: why shouldn't we be afraid?
but fear that we'd do another Chernobyl has scared us away from it.
Chernobyl turned an entire city into a radioactive wasteland for the next 10k years. Same goes for 3-mile island and Fukushima. The last of which was just over 10 years ago.
Are we so arrogant to think that that could never happen again? What's changed?
Chernobyl is a city inhabited today. In fact, the reactors right next to the ones that burnt were still producing energy a few years ago.
Hopefully your ignorance won't last 10k years and you'll learn that nuclear is far less dangerous than your car for example.
Thank you for the intelligent reply. I just can't imagine why people are afraid anymore 🖕
Pripyat is not inhabited in a normal way. There are no children or families and there won't be. Simply because children eat dirt and dirt is radioactive. Saying it is inhabited like you did implies there is normal life happening. It never will be again.
Good!
Anti-nuclear is like anti-GMO and anti-vax: pure ignorance, and fear of that which they don't understand.
Nuclear power is the ONLY form of clean energy that can be scaled up in time to save us from the worst of climate change.
We've had the cure for climate change all along, but fear that we'd do another Chernobyl has scared us away from it.
imagine how much farther ahead we would be in safety and efficiency if it was made priority 50 years ago.
we still have whole swathes of people who think that because its not perfect now, it cant be perfected ever.
So uh, turns out the energy companies are not exactly the most moral and rule abiding entities, and they love to pay off politicians and cut corners. How does one prevent that, as in the case of fission it has rather dire consequences?
Since you can apply that logic to everything, how can you ever build anything? Because all consequences are dire on a myopic scale, that is, if your partner dies because a single electrician cheaped out with the wiring in your building and got someone to sign off, "It's not as bad as a nuclear disaster" isn't exactly going to console them much.
At some point, you need to accept that making something illegal and trying to prosecute people has to be enough. For most situations. It's not perfect. Sure. But nothing ever is. And no solution to energy is ever going to be perfect, either.
An electrician installing faulty wiring doesn't render your home uninhabitable for a few thousand years.
So there's one difference.
That’s why there are lots of regulations for things impacting life safety. With a nuclear power plant, you mitigate the disaster potential by having so many more people involved in the design and inspection processes.
The risk of an electrician installing faulty wiring in your home could be mitigated by having a third party inspector review the work. Now do that 1000x over and your risk of “politicians are paid off” is negligible.
Regulations that a lot of pro-nuclear people try to get relaxed because they "artificially inflate the price to more than solar so that we'll use solar". I'm not saying all pro-nuclear folks are tin-foilers, but the only argument that puts nuclear cheaper than solar+battery anymore is an argument that uses deregulated facilities.
If solar+wind+battery is cheaper per MWH, faster to build, with less front-loaded costs, then it's a no-brainer. It only stops being a no-brainer when you stop regulating the nuclear plant. Therein lies the paradox of the argument.
You are saying, regulations will fix this? Politicians create the regulations, the fines, and enforcement.
Political parties are running on platforms of deregulation right now.
Regulations are actually generally created by regulatory bodies, which are usually non-political. For instance, the underwriter laboratory is the major appliance, building and electrical approval body in the United States.
In most countries, building codes and safety codes are created by industry specialists, people who have been in the industry as professionals for many decades and have practiced and been licensed in the field that they are riding the regulations for.
There's a big difference between politicians who are passing these laws, and those writing them who are the regulatory bodies. Generally, as a politicians will simply adopt the codes as recommended by the professional licensing and certification bodies.
I suppose it will be the end of modern civilization if politicians decide to politicize electrical or building codes. Then we'll be fucked for sure. We've seen that happen before with the Indiana pi bill.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Pi_Bill
"The Indiana Pi Bill is the popular name for bill #246 of the 1897 sitting of the Indiana General Assembly, one of the most notorious attempts to establish mathematical truth by legislative fiat."
Okay, so we've got a safe nuclear power plant that's a decade behind schedule and 100% over budget.
By your logic I suggest you avoid any building constructed in the US as nothing would ever be safe enough.
It's plenty safe now, but my electricity rates have doubled because the plant was so over budget and they need to make their money back.
a wind mill going down and a nuclear plant blowing up have very different ramifications
Exactly, just like a windmill running and a nuclear power plant running have very different effects on the power grid. Hence why comparing them directly is often such a nonsense act.
The risks are lower in literally everything else...?
I mean it's not the companies operating the facilities we put our trust in, but the outside regulators whose job it is to ensure these facilities are safe and meet a certain standard. As well as the engineers and scientists that design these systems.
Nuclear power isn't 100% safe or risk-free, but it's hella effective and leaps and bounds better than fossil fuels. We can embrace nuclearm renewables and fossil free methods, or just continue burning the world.
The worst nuclear disaster has led to 1,000sq miles of land being unsafe for human inhabitants.
Using fossil fuels for power is destroying of the entire planet.
It's really not that complicated.
Except that nuclear isn't the only, or even the cheapest, alternative to fossil fuels.
Don’t push nuclear power like it’s the only option though.
Where I live we entirely provide energy from hydro power plants and nuclear energy is banned. We use no fossil fuels. We have a 35 year plan for future growth and it doesn’t include any fossil fuels. Nuclear power is just one of the options and it has many hurdles to implement, maintain and decommission.
Honestly, if you can, hydro is brilliant. Not many places can though — both because of geography and politics. Nuclear is better than a lot of the alternatives and shouldn't be discounted.
My country, Sweden, also gets a decent chunk of power from hydro. Back in 2021, about 43% was hydroelectric, and 31% was nuclear.
It would be cool to see huge investments into battery storage. If we could create a battery that doesn't just leak energy from storing, we could generate power in one location and ship it out where it's needed. There could be remote energy production plants using geothermal or hydroelectric power that ship out these charged batteries to locations all over. It would let us better utilize resources instead of having to have cities anchored around these sources.
Or we could generate a ton of power all at once, store it and use it as needed rather having to have on demand energy production
Hell with better batteries even fossil fuels begin to be climate friendly since you could store the massive energy created and know you're using close to 100% of it.
Globally humanity already invests over 10 Billion dollars per year in advancing battery technology.
In order to build what you are talking about will almost certainly require real room temperature super conductors. We can get close, maybe, with the next generation of Aluminum-Air or Iron-Air batteries but this is big pimping. It's incredibly complicated and difficult.
It's like Fusion Power. We can see a future where we have it figured out and working but it's still some years, if not decades, away.
Allow me to share the most frustrating graph I have ever seen
We could just use energy to fill a big hole with water and put plastic wrap over top until we need to get the energy back then we pump it through a dam.
Then profit.
Problem solved
Moving batteries seems like a terribly inefficient way of replacing power lines.
Power lines would still mean we need energy on demand though wouldn't it. And if we can transport energy from an area like a huge solar array in the Sahara to Kazakhstan or China it would be better. I was just raising it as an off thought like maybe theres more ways to think about solving this problem than just building plants. What level of storage ability could we have that would let us build a large solar array in the Sahara to power Africa and Europe vs just building more plants. I think our end goal will be energy storage and like you brought up transport/transmission. I think that because I think we have energy production pretty well solved
Kind of an unconventional battery, but I've heard of solar and wind being used to pump water uphill into reservoirs and then released through a hydro plant when the sun/wind aren't shining/blowing. I'd be curious to know the amount of production lost from storing it this way.
I heard the loss comes from evaporation. Another cool idea I heard was using a mining cart. So its not practical but I think the idea is cook because I'm pretty science illiterate but it got me thinking about what a battery actually is. So you drag a mine cart up a hill with energy produced using renewable energy and then let it go down the hill and collect the stored energy with its motion. Technically there isn't anything like evaporation so you could store the mine cart up the hill with no energy loss.
Interesting. Didn't consider the evaporation. I imagine friction could effect the minecarts, but no idea to what degree. Some loss is gonna happen so matter what. If I'm understanding correctly, even nuclear, built away from population centers, will lose some power due to transmission distances.
The problem is its potential for harm. And I don't mean meltdown. Storage is the problem that doesn't seem to have strong solutions right now. And the potential for them to make a mistake and store the waste improperly is pretty catastrophic.
"Nuclear waste" sounds super scary, but most of it are things like tools and clothing, that have comparatively tiny amount of radioactivity. Sure it still needs to be stored properly, very little high level waste is actually generated.
You know what else is catastrophic? Fossil fuels and the impact they have on the climate. I'm not arguing that we should put all our eggs in one basket, but getting started and doing something to move away from the BS that is coal, gas, and oil is really something we should've prioritised fifty years ago. Instead they have us arguing whether we should go with hydroelectric, or put up with "ugly windmills" or "solar farms" or "dangerous nuclear plants."
It's all bullshit. Our world is literally on fire and no one seems to actually give a fuck. We have fantastic tools that could've halted the progress had we used them in time, but fifty years later we're still arguing about this.
At this point I honestly hope we do burn. This is a filter mankind does not deserve to pass. We're too evil to survive.
While that's true, we still have for example safe air travel, although I'm pretty sure companies would be happy to ship their passengers minced to maximize their profit.
Also, thorium reactors would be a great step forward, unfortunately its byproducts can't be used for nuclear weapons, so their development was pretty slowed down.
That actually sounds more comfortable than normal airline travel
Also there was that german experimental Thorium reactor that was so mismanaged, it made Burns' Springfield power plant look well handled. I think that scared a lot of people off of Thorium for a long time.
Source: Lived right next to that reactor during my childhood.
If only we had a non fossil energy source we could safely export to developing nations instead of ICE technology.
(Intenal Combustion Engine)
Big news worthy accidents are a really good way to ensure strong regulation and oversight. And nuclear is very regulated now so that it has lower death rate than wind power.
Nationalise energy production.
Much much tighter regulations. Our cars aren't aluminum cans waiting to crush everybody inside them because of strict safety regulations.
Make them live on site?
And we would be expecting these corrupt Cost cutting types to warehouse nuclear waste for hundreds if not thousands of years while requiring regular inspections and rotation of caskets periodically while also maintaining the facilities. All of that for a product that doesn't produce any value, it just sits there and accumulates.
And where does it get stored? Right now almost 100% of waste is stored on site above ground because they really have no good solution. People will say things like "its just a little bit of toxic waste" or "its cool because we could use it in process we don't have yet but might in the future" and all I can think of is how this was the same thinking that got us into our dependence on our first environmental catastrophic energy source. I'm not confident we that scaling up to another one will end well.
Is it quote from 60-ies? We have. At least Russia has. US had too.
You mean there's so little they don't even need a dedicated facility for it, and it's safe enough that people are willing to work where it's stored? Sounds great!
Combustion engine sounded great too before the entire world started using them everywhere. You trust corporate interest to store this material for hundreds if not potentially thousands of years.
I trust the material to just sit there like big slabs of concrete usually do.
But it isn't concrete. It needs constant maintenance and inspection. The casks need to be monitored and rotated out when they begin to erode and break down. Whose doing that for 1009 years?
Easy. Have nuclear power plants operate as government run and backed corporations (what we’d call a “Crown Corporation” here in Canada).
That way you can mandate safety and uptime as metrics over profit. It may be less efficient from an economic standpoint (overall cost might be higher), but you also don’t wind up with the nuclear version of Love Canal.
Try to arrange the incentives in such a way that if the plant melts down, the company that owns it loses money.
I think it's fine to think of it as imperfect, even if those imperfections can never be truly solved.
We only need nuclear to bridge the gap between now and a time when renewable CO2 neutral power sources or the holy grail of fusion are able to take the place the base load power that we currently use fossil fuels for, and with hope, that may only be a few decades away.
Perfect or just secure is even more expensive, that is the problem.
Or that our other imperfect solutions like the fossil fuels we continue to use now aren't worse.
If the Soviets hadn’t cut corners and Chernobyl hadn’t happened in this first place, this is likely where we would already be.
That is factually false information. There are solid arguments to be made against nuclear energy.
https://isreview.org/issue/77/case-against-nuclear-power/index.html
Even if you discard everything else, this section seems particularly relevant:
https://www.dw.com/en/fact-check-is-nuclear-energy-good-for-the-climate/a-59853315
Long lead times against nuclear have bee raised for the last 25 years, if we had just got on with it we would have the capacity by now. Just cause the lead time is in years doesn't mean it isn't worth doing.
when is the best time to plant a tree? 30 years ago. When is the second best time? now.
Surely the second best time would have been 29 years ago
Don't fuck this up for me bro
As others pointed out, to build that many nuclear power plants that quickly would require 10x-ing the world's construction capacity.
My counterpoint is that if we had "just got on with it" for solar, wind, and battery, we would have the capacity by now and the cost per kwh of that capacity would be approximately half as much as the same in nuclear. And we would have amortized the costs.
No it wouldn't. China laid more concrete in 5 years than the entire world did in 100 years. I highly doubt that converting the entire world to nuclear is going to use that much more concrete. I mean hell, they laid like 15 or 20,000 miles of high speed rail in just a few years. They built like 300 million apartment units.
Just did a bunch of my own math before realizing those numbers were already out there. We would need to add 3960 nuclear plants to match current energy demand for the world (440 power 10% of the world).
That would require at least 5 years of construction per plant. It takes about 7000 workers to produce a nuclear plant. To produce them concurrently would require about 27.7 million construction workers dedicated to this project for at least 5 years. So on one hand, perhaps you're right, since there are 100M construction workers in the world. I can't, however, find numbers about how much heavy equipment exists to facilitate a product requiring 1/4 the world's construction workers concurrently. You might be right that if all other construction were ground to a halt, we might be able to manage a 5-year plan of nuclear at the cost of about $20T (I had done the math before realizing this reply were about workers, not cost stupidity). I concede it seems "10x increase world construction capacity" was wrong, and the real number is somewhere around 1.5-2x, so long as we stay conservative with nuclear figures and ignore extra costs of building or transporting nuclear energy to countries incapable of building their own plants.
Interestingly, at those construction numbers, you could provide small-project rooftop solar to the world. I can't find construction numbers for power farm solar, except that it's dramatically more efficient than rooftop solar. Unlike nuclear, it appears we could easily squeeze full-world solar with our current world construction capacity.
I won't bore you with the cost math, but since I calculated them I'm still going to summarize them. Going full nuclear would cost us about a $20T down payment. Going full solar (with storage) down payment is about $4T (only about $1T without storage costs factored). And while nuclear would be cheaper than solar per year after that $20T down, solar power and storage would STILL be cheaper in a 100 year outlook, but would also benefit from rolling efficiency increases as we add new solar plants/capacitors and tear down older ones..
Not all 7,000 construction workers would be working on the site concurrently. Different trades come and go depending on the phase of the project. So at first you'll have the civil engineering earth movers come in, who clears the site and excavates the foundations. Then you'll have the concrete crews come in who pour the foundations and do all of the concrete work. Obviously on a nuclear power plant there is a lot of foundation work, as well as a lot of above ground concrete so probably a good chunk of the construction workers will fall into this category.
Power plants also have a lot of structural steel work, electrical and special equipment that would likey fall under the piping category but each of these uses a separate set of skilled labor that does not overlap.
If you were going to actually try to build 3,300 nuclear power plants, you would rotate crews from project to project which would increase efficiency rather than hiring 27 million separate workers.
In any case, I don't think converting the world's total electrical power generation to 100% nuclear is by any stretch of the imagination a good idea. Personally I think maybe 15 to 25% nuclear power generation would be a more realistic mix, similar to the US electrical power generation. The rest of the power should be solar, wind, hydro, wave and geothermal as they are absolutely cheaper to build.
I'm not sure I agree with how you'd be able to execute on that level or organized construction safely, but I think we're also reaching the "impossible-to-be-sure hypothetical" territory, so I'll concede the point for now.
I think my problems of cost and time still stand. It looks like adding rooftop solar with batteries to every building is still cheaper (on startup, and likely per MW) than nuclear plants. Regions that cannot support solar, onland wind, geo, or hydro can justify nuclear (at least unless shipping batteries or hydrogen conversion becomes cheap enough to compete), but I don't think they amount to nearly 15% of the power needs in the world since they represent fairly distinctive regions with low energy demand.
We do it all the time in the construction industry.
For instance, Bechtel has 55,000 people in the US.
So just hire them. Too bad they lost almost all of their institutional knowledge about nuclear construction compared to what they used to have.
Long lead times, cost overruns, producing power at a higher price point than renewables, long run time needed to break even, even longer dismantling times and a still unsolved waste problem. Compared to renewables that we can build right now.
Did you read the quote? 15-20 years, as in decades before 1 nuke plant is built. I agree in that politicians of the past should have led us to a more sustainable and resilient energy future, but we're here now.
Advanced nuclear should still be 100% pursued to try to get those lead times down and to incorporate things like waste recycling, modularity, etc., but the lead time in decades absolutely means nuclear power might not be something worth doing.
The IPCC puts the next 10-20 years as the most important and perilous for getting a hold on climate change. If we wait for that long by not rolling out emission-free power sources, transit modes, or even carbon-free concrete, etc., then we might cross planetary boundaries that we can't come back from.
Nuclear is a safe bet and bet worth pursuing. I would argue that, along with that source from the IAEA, old nuclear is note worth it.
How much concrete does it take to build a nuclear plant? Concrete production is currently 8% of global emissions, so if you have to scale up construction capacity 10x for the next decade, don't you end up destroying the environment with concrete before they are even operational?
Great point. You need concrete for wind, solar, and li-ion battery storage too (including pumped hydro), but out of those I'd say pumped hydro is the only one that remotely compares in the amount of concrete needed for construction.
So purely looking at the emissions from materials needed to build these power sources, renewables have the edge due to less concrete. These emissions might show up elsewhere in raw material extraction like with silicon for solar, and then the rare earth metals needed for generators in wind, all the lithium/nickel/cobalt needed for batteries, etc., but I want to say that the Life Cycle Assessments (LCAs) from places like the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) in the US or the International Energy Agency (IEA) worldwide have taken that into account and still show that renewables + storage are cheaper on a carbon basis compared to fossil fuels and nuclear.
The cool thing about concrete for renewables (excluding hydro dam) is only the very base pad needs to be virgin. You can make a lot of the rest of the base and fill material with down cycled concrete. So tearing down part of an old factory on land near the solar panels are? Crush it up and only move it a few miles over to where you need it. Rather than hauling that to a landfill where it sits forever, costing energy use to haul, and more energy use to bring the fill and other bade materials from a further destination.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashiwazaki-Kariwa_Nuclear_Power_Plant
the largest fission plant was literally working 5 years after construction started
fission plants are just more expensive now because we don't make enough of them.
I guess safety standards changed but even wind power kills more people per watt than fission so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Nuclear could've easily worked if people didn't go full nimby in the past few decades
There are solid arguments to be made against both nuclear and renewables (intermittence, impact of electricity storage, amount of raw material, surface area). We can't wait for perfect solutions, we have to work out compromises right now, and it seems nuclear + renewable is the most solid compromise we have for the 2050 target. See this high quality report by the public French electricity transportation company (independent of the energy producers) that studies various scenarios including 100% renewable and mixes of nuclear, renewables, hydrogen and biogas. https://assets.rte-france.com/prod/public/2022-01/Energy%20pathways%202050_Key%20results.pdf
Those aren't arguments against nuclear power; those are arguments against the incompetence of entities like Southern Company and Westinghouse, as well as the Public Service Commission that fails to impose the burden of cost overruns on the shareholders where they belong.
I should know; I'm a Georgia Power ratepayer who's on the hook paying for the fuck-ups and cost overruns of Plant Vogtle 3 and 4.
It would've been way better if they'd been built back in the '70s, since all indications are that the folks who built units 1 and 2 actually had a fucking clue what they were doing!
Your arguments didn't actually invalidate the comment you replied to. They are just arguments against nuclear being a short-term solution.
We need both, short and long term ones. Wind and water cannot be solely relies upon. Build both types.
That is true, building a nuclear power plant doesn't help. The problem is how many we closed down in a panic, in particular after Fukushima. We could make great strides towards cleaner energy and cutting the actually problematic power plants (coal, gas) out of the picture as we slowly transition to renewables-only if we had more nuclear power available.
Of course, in hindsight it's difficult to say how one could have predicted this. There's good reasons against nuclear energy, it just so happens that in the big picture it's just about the second-best options. And we cut that out first, instead of the worse ones.
“2009” hahahaha and here we are. More coal more gas plants than ever.
The daft thing is that even if another Chernobyl happened (unlikely given superior technology and safety standards) it wouldn't be anywhere near as damaging as climate change.
The radiation would only affect a small area of the planet not the whole world, and technically radiation doesn't even cause climate damage. Chernobyl has plenty of trees and plenty of wildlife, it's just unsuitable for human habitation.
Here's my favorite way to put it: because of trace radioactive elements found in coal ore, coal-fired power plants produce more radioactivity in normal operation than nuclear power plants have in their entire history, including meltdowns. And with coal, it just gets released straight into the environment without any attempt to contain it!
And that's just radioactivity, not all the other emissions of coal plants.
This is a fun fact but I don't think it matters, no one is getting radiation sickness from coal smoke. Don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying coal smoke is healthy, it's fucking awful and causes way more deaths than nuclear power plants.
I think you just contradicted yourself in that same sentence
No, I'm saying that saying the radiation concerns specifically of coal output isn't a concern with regards to health.
You're right coal deaths are just confined to mines, respiratory illnesses and excess cancers from chronic low dose exposure.
So chronic low level exposure to radiation is fine?
I'm not saying it's fine, I'm saying it feels like an order of magnitude less of a concern compared to all of the other bad things that can happen from coal smoke.
Federation of American scientists (FAS) believe that the number is actually calculable:
https://rlg.fas.org/mwmt-p233.pdf
That's about the number of people who died from Chernobyl, every year. From the radiation from coal power plants.
In India alone it is estimated that 112,000 deaths per year are attributed to coal power plants. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2017936118
320 deaths globally is a drop in the in the coal bucket of death. It's not worth specifically worrying about. Coal as a whole is the problem. Not the nuclear byproduct of coal.
Sure sure, but we are still pumping out isotopes of uranium and plutonium into the atmosphere. We are lucky the effects of radioactive isotopes are generally overblown then, huh?
🙏 I need you to listen to me extremely closely. I am not saying nuclear shit in the atmosphere is good. I never said this. I never implied this. All I'm saying is that the nuclear aspects of coal usage are a drop in the bucket in the massive pile of problems it has. I'm not saying coal is good either.
I totally agree that current nuclear power generation should be left running until we have enough green energy to pick up the slack, because it does provide clean and safe energy. However, I totally disagree on the scalability, for two main reasons:
Current nuclear power generation is non-renewable. It is somewhat unclear how much Uranium is available worldwide (for strategic reasons), but even at current production, supply issues have been known to happen. And it goes without saying that waiting to scale up some novel unproven or inexistent sustainable way of nuclear power production is out of the question, for time and safety reasons. Which brings me to point 2.
We need clean, sustainable energy right now if we want to have any chance of fighting climate change. From start of planning of a new nuclear power plant to first power generation can take 15 or 20 years easily. Currently, about 10% of all electricity worldwide is produced by about 400 nuclear reactors, while around 15 new ones are under construction. So, to make any sort of reasonable impact, we would have to build to the tune of 2000 new reactors, pronto. To do that within 30 years, we'd have to increase our construction capacity 5 to 10 fold. Even if that were possible, which I strongly doubt, I would wager the safety and cost impacts would be totally unjustifiable. And we don't even have 30 years anymore. That is to say nothing of regulatory checks and maintenance that would also have to be increased 5 fold.
So imho nuclear power as a solution to climate change is a non-starter, simply due to logistical and scaling reasons. And that is before we even talk about the very real dangers of nuclear power generation, which are of course not operational, but due to things like proliferation, terrorist attacks, war, and other unforseen disruptions through e.g. climate change, societal or governmental shifts, etc.
Nuclear fission using Uranium is not sustainable. If we expand current nuclear technologies to tackle climate change then we'd likely run out of Uranium by 2100. Nuclear fusion using Thorium might be sustainable, but it's not yet a proven, scalable technology. And all of this is ignoring the long lead times, high costs, regulatory hurdles and nuclear weapon proliferation concerns that nuclear typically presents. It'd be great if nuclear was the magic bullet for climate change, but it just ain't.
I thought thorium was way less problematic from a nuclear proliferation perspective, that the risk was largely constrained to dirty bombs?
Everything can be turned to dirty bomb
Well, there is Plutonium option, but superpowers want to be superpowers. Probably only USA, Russia, France and Britan can do it.
We'd run of our uranium that's economical to extract using current technology and at current prices. All known mineral reserves could power the world on exclusively nuclear energy for several thousand years at least.
You got a source for that? Because the one I linked says that we run out of known Uranium deposits by 2100 at current usage rates. Our known Uranium deposits run out mid-century if we use nuclear to follow the IEA Blue Map plan to reduce carbon emissions by 50%, and we run out of even speculated deposits by 2100 under that scenario. Where are you getting "several thousand years" from? Is Thorium part of the mineral reserves to which you're referring?
The source you linked talks about uranium reserves. Mineral reserves, known and unknown deposits, refer explicitly to the known amount of economically minable supplies of that mineral.
Discussion around them can be misleading, especially for a growing industry, because as a resource becomes more scarce, it becomes more economically viable to mine difficult deposits, this growing the reserve. On top of that, the effort and technology tend to yield new methods of both mining and refining that increase yields.
I think you have a point. Look at how the Oil & Gas industry pivoted to fracking and tar sands after conventional oil started drying up around 2005.
There are deposits out there, probably, and the only time mining companies will consider changing ehat and how they currently mine is if they have a reason to do so,: aka an economic (or governmental) reason.
Still, discovery, technology r&d, and supply chain establishment might take more time than what we have. It's good that we should keep nuclear and all of this on the table, but it shouldn't be a priority.
Nothing is truly renewable, we still don't know how to cheat thermodynamics. Sun itself is not renewable.
Though sun will be problem million years later.
Small nitpick, but Google says that there are 57 nuclear reactors currently under construction worldwide in 2023. 22 of them are in China alone.
That's an oversimplification to the point that it is wrong. Nuclear power is not the only form of clean energy like that at all. It can not be scaled in this situation to save us, because it takes too long to build them.
It takes 6 years on a fast paced build. If we had started when we knew of the problem, we could have avoided some of the problem. It is the only energy source we can scale up in that way, however. Every other energy source takes longer for less yield with current technology.
Sadly, humanity had other things to do :(
Ain't that the truth. We could've just been naked eating fruit and making art all day, but instead we have anxiety and loans.
Yep. Fuck Putin.
Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but this simply isn't true with established nuclear technologies. Expanding our currently nuclear energy production requires us to fully tap all known and speculated Uranium sources, nets us only a 6% CO^2^ reduction, and we run out of Uranium by 2100. We might be able to use Thorium in fuel cycles to expand our net nuclear capacity, but that technology has to yet to be proven at scale. And all of this ignores the high startup cost, regulatory difficulties, disposal challenges and weapons proliferation risks that nuclear typically presents.
Just like assuming a perfectly spherical cow, or a frictionless surface, you can completely ignore the economics, the massive cost and schedule overages to make nuclear work.
Flamanville-3 in France started construction in 2007, was supposed to be operational in 2012 with a project budget of €3.3B. Construction is still ongoing, the in-service date is now sometime in 2024, and the budget has ballooned to €20B.
Olkiluoto-3 is a similar EPR. Construction started in 2005, was supposed to be in-service in 2010, but finally came online late last year. Costs bloated from €3 to €11B.
Hinkley Point C project is two EPRs. Construction started in 2017, it's already running behind schedule, and the project costs have increased from £16B to somewhere approaching £30B. Start up has been pushed back to 2028 the last I've heard.
It's no different in the US, where the V.C. Summer (2 x AP1000) reactor project was cancelled while under construction after projections put the completed project at somewhere around $23B, up from an estimate of $9B.
A similar set of AP1000s was built at Vogtle in Georgia. Unit 3 only recently came online, with unit 4 expected at the end of the year. Costs went from an initial estimate of $12B to somewhere over $30B.
Note that design, site selection, regulatory approvals, and tendering aren't included in the above. Those add between 5-10 years to the above schedules.
Gee, I wonder if the cost might go down if we built more of them, as is the case with, y'know, basically every other complicated thing that humans build.
So even if I follow your logic, that nuclear plants will get cheaper and faster to build, wich I'm not, you still have to build the first generation of plants slow and expensive. So we either wait 15 years to get better at building those plants, or we just build renewables right now.
We do both. This isn't a binary choice.
So what happens when you finish pouring the concrete in 15 years and the demand has already been satisfied by renewables? Concrete production alone accounts for ~8% of global emissions.
I am not anti-nucleur, I wish we invested more decades ago.
We could build them in a lot less time than 15 years, we'd just need to summon up the political will for it. I'm not saying we should stop building Wind or Solar either.
Well demand isn't going to go down, and we're going to have to replace all of the old power plants anyways, even if they are solar or wind. Everything that we build has a lifespan, and the United States has a heck of a lot of legacy power plants that are going to be decommissioned over the next 100 years regardless of what type of plants these are. Solar, wind, hydro, coal, gas, nuclear... Nothing lasts forever.
Except throughout the history of nuclear power it has always gotten more expensive, regardless of time period, learning curve, adoption curve, or any other variable you care to consider. Solar, wind, and batteries have always gotten cheaper and continue to do so.
Is there some reason for that? What makes nuclear power fundamentally different from all other human undertakings?
Yes that is exactly what would happen. To do that though, you really need state funding, state approval, and a secure supply chain as well as experienced engineers, management and construction and supply chains.
I think this is the most overlooked aspect, besides it never being in time to do any good for the crisis we are in now.
I believe, the increasing cost and loss in efficiency compared to alternatives will always be an issue for NE to be out-priced by solar and wind (Dunai, 2019; WNSIR, 2022). These cost will eventually come back to the end user.
Most definitely the reason why nuclear advocates want the government to give securities and don't dear to be the entrepreneurs they claim to be (NOS Nieuws, 2018). Please give me some welfare state, but I'd rather have some more solid solutions.
Long term nuclear is great...
But building new plants uses a shit ton of concrete. So we're paying the carbon cost up front, and it can take years or even decades to break even.
So we can't just spam build nuke plants right now to fix everything.
30 years ago that would have worked.
That's not remotely on the same scale, carbon-wise. Global output is like 4 billion tons of concrete per year, a nuclear plant uses like 12 tons per megawatt; an all-in nuclear buildout would use a tiny, tiny fraction of global concrete production and the carbon costs aren't even remotely equivalent.
(also, wind power uses way, way more concrete)
Building any sort of new power plant uses a shitload of concrete, so that cost isn't as dramatic as this would seem.
I think nuclear is dramatically overstated in terms of short term feasibility, but concrete use is not the reason why.
So would it be fair to say you have no concrete objections to the nuclear plan?
do you have a source for this carbon cost? i can't find any figures about even the amount of concrete in a nuclear plant nevermind the co2 cost of that.
I do find a lot of literature that states that the lifecycle co2 cost of nuclear is on part with solar and wind per kwh so i find your assertment about the payback time being decades a little unlikely to say the least.
(What’s with the downvotes?)
Small scale reactors that require almost no maintenance and produce enough power for a single city are the hot topic right now due to what you just mentioned. As a side product, they provide hot water for the city.
Lots of people know virtually nothing about nuclear even tho they're avid supporters of it. So when you point out a downside, they get mad.
Hot water (technically superheated steam) is the main (and only immediate) product of a nuclear reactor...
Trying to directly use secondary coolant as hot potable water just makes zero sense though. It's waaaaay more efficient to move the electricity and then heat different water.
I mean, you're talking about an open loop nuclear system...
No sane engineer would ever do that. A small primary loop leak and your dosing everyone, all to just essentially lose efficiency.
Where did you even see that suggested?
Imagine living in a snowy city where hot water is pumped through the sidewalks to people's homes. No frozen pipes, no shoveling snow. No people freezing to death...
You still need to clear snow and ice. The hot water pipes are insulated to ensure that the hot water remains hot until it goes into radiators and faucets. You'd lose all that heat if you use it to heat sidewalks.
My city does this. Hot water is pretty cheap here if you're hooked up to the municipal network. If you have an electric water heater you'll go bankrupt in the winter.
Small scale reactors are actually more expensive than larger reactors. Even compared to Vogtle 3 and 4...
8 years to build, not 30. Instead we are building many many more coal and gas plants. What a terrific alternative. Fallacy of renewables without storage is done. It’s never going to happen.
I don't know natural disasters and war causing it to screw up also tends to worry people. Last time I checked wind and solar don't create massive damage to the environment when destroyed.
Except wind and solar don't have anywhere near the density we need. Nuclear plants are about 1kW/m^2. Wind is 2-3W/m^2, solar is 100W/m^2. Siting wind and solar projects can be just as damaging.
I didn't even mention tidal or geothermal. But how are any of those just as damaging? Nuclear waste is still a issue and again if it were attacked or destroyed would cause a massive ecological issue. Again last I checked destroying a wind, solar, tidal, or geothermal generator would not release radiation. Also the time to build one of those compared to a nuclear plant is a lot less last I checked.
Tidal is not a proven technology. The ocean environment is incredibly harsh on equipment. High-temp geothermal power generation is extremely site-specific, though ground-loop technology for heating and cooling is a proven technology that is woefully underutilized (though there are big challenges there as well, since ground loops take up space and done incorrectly overheat the ground temp/water table, etc.).
How would you define tidal as proven? Also correct there is no one solution for all areas. Unless you built a massive solar panel array around the planet I guess.
Which would solve global warming on its own
It's a lot easier and cheaper to build a solar plant of ten times the seize compared to one nuclear plant though.
How did you get those numbers though? A standard on-shore wind turbine has a maximum power output of 2MW. Let's say on average, it's half, so 1 million Watt. You're counting 500k m² per turbine?
What kind of area did you use for the nuclear plant?
Also, solar has the added benefit that it can be installed on basically wasted space (e.g., people's roof) unlike the others.
Except the plants take so long to build they won't be ready until we're at 2°C
It has been fifty years that "oh no they take so long to build, better never start" that by today we would have completely decarbonized energy generation if we started actually building them.
We could have also built solar collectors in orbit and beamed carbon-free electricity to Earth if we started 50 years ago.
Heck, if we funded fusion research properly there's a good chance we'd have had that by the mid 90s
Doesn't matter, not it's to late so think about something else
Knowing nothing about the process, can i ask, is the time it takes to build one based on current standards? Like if we were to focus more resources into the construction of new plants wouldnt they be built faster?
The latest nuclear power plant built in the US is seven years behind schedule and almost $20 billion over budget. It bankrupted Westinghouse Energy, and is slated to cost consumers more than double what comparable electricity costs because of these overruns.
And this was a plant that was using newer construction techniques like offsite assembly to reduce costs.
Were there mistakes during the build process like lowballing spending figures or building time so they are permitted to build or did they just royally fuck up some other way?
It just seems to be a general issue in the industry and not specific to this plant or the US.
Flamanville-3 in France is 5 years overrun already and is projected to be operational 12 years from now. It's budget ballooned from 3.3B to 20B euros.
Olkiluoto-3 was only delayed a year, but the budget went from 3 to 11B Euro.
Hinkley Point C project is behind and esyimates have gone from £16B to almost £30B.
Looks like one holdup nowadays is the ability to source HALEU (Uranium that is 4x as enriched as the typical fuel used in current reactors).
https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/what-high-assay-low-enriched-uranium-haleu
https://www.wyomingpublicmedia.org/natural-resources-energy/2022-12-14/the-opening-of-terrapowers-nuclear-plant-in-kemmerer-will-be-delayed-by-two-years
It was sourceable from Russia before they invaded Ukraine.
Since I don't see it mentioned anywhere: Ignoring the economical and environmental issues that nuclear power still has compared to actual renewables, it has a geostrategic problem: Uranium is a geologically limited resources, which just creates political and economical dependencies. And since Russia has a lot of it, keeping working sanctions against them alive is pretty problematic, if you need to buy your energy resources from them. See gas supply.
It's not like Russia has all of it, there are more uranium in the rest of the world, but it has full supply chain.
New archetypes of NP can run on depleted fuel. There's enough of that around for more than 50yrs of power.
Ahh... no. New solar and wind generation can be spun up much faster than nuclear.
What provides me trepidation is the economic system means slack jawed corpos with MBAs will be working tirelessly to skirt safety.
Now if the government was to run ... Wait, that is communism and is therefore the bad thing to do /s
emphasis mine:
First of all anti- #GMO stances are often derived from anti-Bayer-Monsanto stances. There is no transparency about whether Monsanto is in the supply chain of any given thing you buy, so boycotting GMO is as accurate as ethical consumers can get to boycotting Monsanto. It would either require pure ignorance or distaste for humanity to support that company with its pernicious history and intent to eventually take control over the world’s food supply.
Then there’s the anti-GMO-tech camp (which is what you had in mind). You have people who are anti-all-GMO and those who are anti-risky-GMO. It’s pure technological ignorance to regard all GMO equally safe or equally unsafe. GMO is an umbrella of many techniques. Some of those techniques are as low risk as cross-breeding in ways that can happens in nature. Other invasive techniques are extremely risky & experimental. You’re wiser if you separate the different GMO techniques and accept the low risk ones while condemning the foolishly risky approaches at the hands of a profit-driven corporation taking every shortcut they can get away with.
So in short:
Mmmm I agreed with you until reading this. The 6th IPCC Assessment Report showed us that Wind + Solar + Battery Storage are still a safer bet for rolling out non-fossil fuel energy sources at the fastest rate we can launch them. Nuclear sadly still takes too long to build.
I think there is a space for advanced nuclear, though. Small Modular Reactors, Fast Breeders, and such should be encouraged going forward. The US (and I think UK) each have funds specifically designated to the development of advanced nuclear too.
But old nuclear will take too long to get a hold on emissions. I still think nuclear fits in a well-balanced energy portfolio, but not of the specific technology of the 1950s-1990s.
I mean, Chernobyl is kind of an outdated example. Fukushima would be the more recent one to point at, or even Three Mile Island. Not particularly useful for your argument. Still, I think if people got educated about all 3 of those examples from history, they'll come out convinced that nuclear is still a safe bet.
Problem is, like I said above, that conventional nuclear takes too damn long to build.
Not to mention the conventional plants don't seem to be faring all that well...
That sounds pretty awful when everyone expects nucleur to handle baseload.
Yeah, the argument of nuclear crumbles when you start to peak behind the curtain of operation. Still, renewables have the same problem.
Wind turbines break shafts, studs, bolts, lifts, generator step-up (GSU) units, etc. Then you still need oil for all the mechanical systems in a turbine too, which can degrade. Operations can keep up with this though, and in my experience wind can be up and running a lot more frequently with reference to failures that cause downtime compared with maintenance of nuclear with reference to downtime for it.
Same with solar, or even better with solar because the only moving parts with solar are the axis trackers that move panels such that they always point at the sun. Lots more uptime that doesn't involve radiation exposure, although that concern for operations has probably been designed out as reactor technology has grown up.
Or at least I'd hope...
Canada is also investing in modular reactors, so there are already several large players in the field.
Even if you could magically increase the number of nuclear reactors started before 2012 tenfold to keep up with wind and solar, you'd have to triple uranium mining overnight to fuel them for the first time.
I am a huge fan of nuclear power, but I wouldn't say fearing it is ignorance.
You need to make sure it is regulated, secure, well-engineered, and above all, we need a place to store the waste.
Yet, congress and others, at least in America, have done nothing. We should mainly be powered by nuclear and it is rare for a plant to be built. If done correctly you get safe, clean, power.
But why not skip the expense and nuclear waste and just build up mixed renewable energy instead? It's cheaper and plenty of places have already done it with great success.
Are you talking about wind mills and solar? They won't supply enough power and have other draw backs. Everything has pros and cons.
Nuclear is consistent, safe and affordable. We have been using nuclear power for 50 years with few issues.
Not that nuclear energy is the ONLY solution, just that it should be used alongside other methods of clean energy, as well as better energy efficiency on the consumer side.
And people’s age and background has so weirdly much to do with how they internalize nuclear safety risk. My best german friend is very opposed to fossil fuels and believes in much stronger renewable focus, but is absolutely opposed to nuclear and basically laughs about how stupid he thinks that risk is. It’s wild.
Especially when you realize how little impact Chernobyl and Fukushima really had. Even including those two accidents, coal plants have emitted vastly more radioisotopes (which occur naturally at low levels in coal, but since we burn such vast quantities of coal…) and vastly more carcinogens.
It doesn't really matter whether you think nuclear energy is risky or not - it's economically the worst option. It's the most expensive of all the main sources of power. It's much cheaper to just transition to a mix of mostly renewable power and plenty of places have already done it with success. So why do something unnecessary like nuclear when it's more expensive than the alternatives?
Funfact: РБМК-1000(same model as in Chernobyl) was used on all four blocks in St. Petersburg(Leningrad). Currently 2 out of 4 are still in use, another two were replaced with ВВЭР-1200.
It's crazy you got over a hundred down votes, most which are just anti nuclear reactions brainwashed into them by corporations who knew they could make more money off coal, and made nuclear out to be the enemy.
Honest question: why shouldn't we be afraid?
Chernobyl turned an entire city into a radioactive wasteland for the next 10k years. Same goes for 3-mile island and Fukushima. The last of which was just over 10 years ago.
Are we so arrogant to think that that could never happen again? What's changed?
Chernobyl is a city inhabited today. In fact, the reactors right next to the ones that burnt were still producing energy a few years ago.
Hopefully your ignorance won't last 10k years and you'll learn that nuclear is far less dangerous than your car for example.
Thank you for the intelligent reply. I just can't imagine why people are afraid anymore 🖕
Pripyat is not inhabited in a normal way. There are no children or families and there won't be. Simply because children eat dirt and dirt is radioactive. Saying it is inhabited like you did implies there is normal life happening. It never will be again.