I don't understand, clean nuclear power has never been easier. Why not just build some current gen nuke plants?
As I understand it, planning new, grid-scale nuclear power plants takes 10-20 years. While this isn't a reason not to start that process now, it does mean something needs to fill the demand gap until the nuke plants (and other clean sources) come online to displace the dirty generation, or demand has to be artificially held down, through usage regulation or techniques like rolling blackouts, all of which I would imagine is pretty unpalatable.
I think it’s fair to predict energy consumption will continue to rise. With that timescale, it’s basically “the best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago, the second best time is today”. Doesn’t solve the immediate issue, but if we keep not starting new nuclear projects, it’s going to remain an issue forever.
Oh, I totally agree -- didn't mean to give any impression otherwise. Filling the energy demand gap as quickly as possible with the least impactful generation source should be very high on societal goals, IMO. And it seems like that is what's happening, mostly. Solar, wind, and storage are the largest share of what's being brought up this year:
It takes a long time to get a nuclear plant up and running. While it would be great to replace coal plants with nuclear, it wouldn't help with all of the power being wasted on AI right now.
Time...
And a lot of concrete.
It takes a long time to see the climate gains from a nuclear reactor.
Hell, depending on size it can take a decade or longer to finish curing, and part of curing is releasing CO2 into the atmosphere.
I always bring up waste disposal, and always get waved away.
Nuclear waste isnt that big of an issue.
That part is kind of overblown.
Hell, for nuclear waste from naval nuclear reactors, I'm pretty sure we still sell it to France. I know we did up to at least a decade ago. They just refine it again and keep using it.
If it's radioactive nuclear waste, that means it's still radioactive.
All you gotta do is get rid of the non radioactive bits and it's fuel again. By the time you can't do it anymore due to prohibitive cost to gain ratio, it's not a big problem to get rid of it, because it's not that radioactive
The above comment is an example of this getting waved away.
I mean yeah...
Because that part should be...
I mean, statistically speaking I'm probably the only person that will see this thread that had the US government drop over six figures on teaching nuclear engineering...
But feel to do some googling about reusing spent fuel to verify for yourself.
This is the part that has always confused me. Radioactive “waste” should either be radioactive enough that it can continue to be used in some capacity, or it’s inert enough that it’s not too complicated to just bury it, given the relatively small scale. I guess I assumed that there must have been a large gap between being useful and being inert and that must have been the problem with managing waste, but if spent fuel can be refined back into new fuel and inert waste, then I don’t see the issue.
I guess I assumed that there must have been a large gap between being useful and being inert
It's a matter of money and access.
If you can get nuclear fuel, it's cheaper/easier to buy new.
But it's not like we can't just not use money as the sole deciding factor on whether we recycle or bury in a mountain.
But like, say you have 100% pure fuel and use it till it's 50%, it's not like you use it from the top down, it's on an atom by atom basis throughout the fuel. So the more you use it before you refine again, the harder it is for it to be cost effective.
That's why while we sell the "used" fuel from military ships, the stuff in an civilian reactor gets thrown under a mountain. The military want to keep theirs "topped off" in case new fuel becomes inaccessible.
We could easily change the pipeline to:
Military use > civilian use > refinement > military use
And just keep adding more fissible material as needed.
It might not be "cost effective" but it completely elimates the nuclear waste issue. It just all comes down to the price our leaders put on the environment.
Quick edit:
Obviously refinement isn't as easy as popping it into a microwave for five minutes, and comes with it's own energy needs and other things that would effect if we should do this, nothing is a perfect solution.
But if we're just talking about eliminating nuclear waste, this is a valid path.
Yeah that makes a lot of sense. Thank you for the explanation! I really believe we need to invest in refinement tech to get more use out of fuel instead of worrying about how to infinitely store (and therefore waste) still-useful fuel.
No worries.
And we already have the tech to do it. Thats how we get the fuel in the first place.
Because it decays naturally, you'll never have "pure" nuclear material out in the wild. A certain amount is going to naturally decay. And the more pure it is, the faster it decays naturally.
It's just when fuel is used to the point it's less pure than available ore for cheaper than it costs to refine the used fuel...
We chuck it under a mountain.
To get real specific, the remaining issue would be the stuff around the reactor (primarily the primary coolant loop) building up stuff like cobalt 60.
We can keep refining the fuel forever, but it's going to make non-fuel stuff also radioactive, and we can't refine that stuff into fuel. That stuff tho, yeah, throwing it under a mountain, burying it in the desert, it's not going to cause an issue any bigger than burying non radioactive steel in the same place.
Yes, because if you read their previous comment you'll see their primary concern is the CO2 released by curing concrete that is the equivalent of running a coal plant for DOZENS of seconds.
I don't understand, clean nuclear power has never been easier. Why not just build some current gen nuke plants?
As I understand it, planning new, grid-scale nuclear power plants takes 10-20 years. While this isn't a reason not to start that process now, it does mean something needs to fill the demand gap until the nuke plants (and other clean sources) come online to displace the dirty generation, or demand has to be artificially held down, through usage regulation or techniques like rolling blackouts, all of which I would imagine is pretty unpalatable.
I think it’s fair to predict energy consumption will continue to rise. With that timescale, it’s basically “the best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago, the second best time is today”. Doesn’t solve the immediate issue, but if we keep not starting new nuclear projects, it’s going to remain an issue forever.
Oh, I totally agree -- didn't mean to give any impression otherwise. Filling the energy demand gap as quickly as possible with the least impactful generation source should be very high on societal goals, IMO. And it seems like that is what's happening, mostly. Solar, wind, and storage are the largest share of what's being brought up this year:
https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/clean-energy/chart-nearly-all-new-us-power-plants-built-in-2024-will-be-clean-energy
That’s an amazing chart!
It takes a long time to get a nuclear plant up and running. While it would be great to replace coal plants with nuclear, it wouldn't help with all of the power being wasted on AI right now.
Time...
And a lot of concrete.
It takes a long time to see the climate gains from a nuclear reactor.
Hell, depending on size it can take a decade or longer to finish curing, and part of curing is releasing CO2 into the atmosphere.
I always bring up waste disposal, and always get waved away.
Nuclear waste isnt that big of an issue.
That part is kind of overblown.
Hell, for nuclear waste from naval nuclear reactors, I'm pretty sure we still sell it to France. I know we did up to at least a decade ago. They just refine it again and keep using it.
If it's radioactive nuclear waste, that means it's still radioactive.
All you gotta do is get rid of the non radioactive bits and it's fuel again. By the time you can't do it anymore due to prohibitive cost to gain ratio, it's not a big problem to get rid of it, because it's not that radioactive
The above comment is an example of this getting waved away.
I mean yeah...
Because that part should be...
I mean, statistically speaking I'm probably the only person that will see this thread that had the US government drop over six figures on teaching nuclear engineering...
But feel to do some googling about reusing spent fuel to verify for yourself.
This is the part that has always confused me. Radioactive “waste” should either be radioactive enough that it can continue to be used in some capacity, or it’s inert enough that it’s not too complicated to just bury it, given the relatively small scale. I guess I assumed that there must have been a large gap between being useful and being inert and that must have been the problem with managing waste, but if spent fuel can be refined back into new fuel and inert waste, then I don’t see the issue.
It's a matter of money and access.
If you can get nuclear fuel, it's cheaper/easier to buy new.
But it's not like we can't just not use money as the sole deciding factor on whether we recycle or bury in a mountain.
But like, say you have 100% pure fuel and use it till it's 50%, it's not like you use it from the top down, it's on an atom by atom basis throughout the fuel. So the more you use it before you refine again, the harder it is for it to be cost effective.
That's why while we sell the "used" fuel from military ships, the stuff in an civilian reactor gets thrown under a mountain. The military want to keep theirs "topped off" in case new fuel becomes inaccessible.
We could easily change the pipeline to:
Military use > civilian use > refinement > military use
And just keep adding more fissible material as needed.
It might not be "cost effective" but it completely elimates the nuclear waste issue. It just all comes down to the price our leaders put on the environment.
Quick edit:
Obviously refinement isn't as easy as popping it into a microwave for five minutes, and comes with it's own energy needs and other things that would effect if we should do this, nothing is a perfect solution.
But if we're just talking about eliminating nuclear waste, this is a valid path.
Yeah that makes a lot of sense. Thank you for the explanation! I really believe we need to invest in refinement tech to get more use out of fuel instead of worrying about how to infinitely store (and therefore waste) still-useful fuel.
No worries.
And we already have the tech to do it. Thats how we get the fuel in the first place.
Because it decays naturally, you'll never have "pure" nuclear material out in the wild. A certain amount is going to naturally decay. And the more pure it is, the faster it decays naturally.
It's just when fuel is used to the point it's less pure than available ore for cheaper than it costs to refine the used fuel...
We chuck it under a mountain.
To get real specific, the remaining issue would be the stuff around the reactor (primarily the primary coolant loop) building up stuff like cobalt 60.
We can keep refining the fuel forever, but it's going to make non-fuel stuff also radioactive, and we can't refine that stuff into fuel. That stuff tho, yeah, throwing it under a mountain, burying it in the desert, it's not going to cause an issue any bigger than burying non radioactive steel in the same place.
Yes, because if you read their previous comment you'll see their primary concern is the CO2 released by curing concrete that is the equivalent of running a coal plant for DOZENS of seconds.