The debate about nuclear power and climate change(bostonreview.net)
bostonreview.net
The debate about nuclear power and climate change
https://bostonreview.net/articles/is-nuclear-power-our-best-bet-against-climate-change/
159 comments
And not just less waste than fossil fuels, it's less waste than what solar panels, batteries and wind turbines produce. A lot of which can't be recycled and ends up in landfill.
For perspective, one person's lifetime nuclear waste would fit in a Coke can.
https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125740...
For perspective, one person's lifetime nuclear waste would fit in a Coke can.
https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125740...
Equating (per unit weight) fission reactor waste and waste from PV or wind is a bold position.
> Equating (per unit weight)
You don't need to equate it per unit weight for GP's point to be relevant: there are several orders of magnitude less fission waste than waste from PV or Wind. The entire volume of the dangerous wastes produced by the French nuclear park during its whole life (40 years) can fit in an Olympic swimming pool! (3 200m³).
Of course there are other wastes (up to 4 million cubic meters by the French definition of a nuclear waste, which includes every piece of gravel from a nuclear plant: the walls of my wife's office will one day be considered as “Nuclear waste” by the French authority), but the most dangerous of those isn't specific to nuclear: it's asbestos!
You don't need to equate it per unit weight for GP's point to be relevant: there are several orders of magnitude less fission waste than waste from PV or Wind. The entire volume of the dangerous wastes produced by the French nuclear park during its whole life (40 years) can fit in an Olympic swimming pool! (3 200m³).
Of course there are other wastes (up to 4 million cubic meters by the French definition of a nuclear waste, which includes every piece of gravel from a nuclear plant: the walls of my wife's office will one day be considered as “Nuclear waste” by the French authority), but the most dangerous of those isn't specific to nuclear: it's asbestos!
The point was that while nuclear waste is physically small, it is many orders of magnitude more dangerous per unit mass.
The number to look at is "water dilution volume" -- how much water would some waste need to be diluted in to bring it down to regulatory limits. For spent fuel 1 year out of a reactor, the waste from 1 GW(e)-year would need to be diluted in something like 3 trillion tonnes of water to reach regulatory limits. This is dominated by soluble species like Cs and Sr.
The number to look at is "water dilution volume" -- how much water would some waste need to be diluted in to bring it down to regulatory limits. For spent fuel 1 year out of a reactor, the waste from 1 GW(e)-year would need to be diluted in something like 3 trillion tonnes of water to reach regulatory limits. This is dominated by soluble species like Cs and Sr.
Here's a picture:
* https://twitter.com/Orano_usa/status/1182662569619795968
* https://twitter.com/Orano_usa/status/1182662569619795968
Thanks! I've seen it before and I wanted it to illustrate my point but was unable to google it effectively!
And equating fossil fuel waste with fission reactor waste is not?
If the only alternative to fission was fossil fuels, you'd be making a point. Also, the person I was responding to was comparing nuclear waste to waste from renewables and batteries.
That waste is pretty bad too. Maybe not on par with fission reactor waste, but definitely up there with fossil fuel waste.
Not at all. Renewable waste is vastly better than fossil fuel waste. Remember, the latter includes CO2, the most intractable waste problem we have.
Most physical waste from renewables is simple stuff like steel, aluminum, and glass. These are all recyclable, and (more to the point) they will be a small fraction of the same materials produced in the rest of industrial society. If we can deal with the non-energy-related waste from industrial society (and we must, if we are to have an industrial society at all, even a nuclear-powered one), we can deal with the waste from a renewable system to power that society.
Most physical waste from renewables is simple stuff like steel, aluminum, and glass. These are all recyclable, and (more to the point) they will be a small fraction of the same materials produced in the rest of industrial society. If we can deal with the non-energy-related waste from industrial society (and we must, if we are to have an industrial society at all, even a nuclear-powered one), we can deal with the waste from a renewable system to power that society.
>What really frustrates me in this whole debate is the question asked so to dismiss nuclear by asking about what to do with nuclear waste. As if it’s insurmountable or somehow worse than fossil fuel pollution.
In a US context it is even more silly considering built a place to store it costing billions of dollars and then decided not to use it. If the US doesn't want to commit to long term storage then they at least need to start reprocessing it to reduce the amount of waste.
In a US context it is even more silly considering built a place to store it costing billions of dollars and then decided not to use it. If the US doesn't want to commit to long term storage then they at least need to start reprocessing it to reduce the amount of waste.
They didn’t use it because it was faulty.
Also, the entire debate about waste is completely hypocritical. The “nuclear waste problem” is only special compared to other waste because there's a fraction of the wastes[1] (the only thing people think about when they talk about nuclear wastes) which are highly radioactive and will remain so for hundreds of thousand of years. they are legitimately scary. BUT we've known for decades how to get rid of them! It's called a breeding reactor, it's more sophisticated than a regular reactor but the technology isn't alien at all: France have built two of such reactors as an experiment. Too bad they where shut down under pressure from environmentalists, because you know they don't want new reactors to be built! And those same guys are now arguing about how wastes make nuclear irresponsible…
[1] As a reminder there are 4 “kinds” of nuclear wastes:
- Minor actinides: the scary ones. Their volume is ultra small, but they live practically forever if you leave them that way and are harmful even at low concentration because they are alpha emitters. They are mostly produced when neutrons are captured by U238 (the non-fissile part of the fuel). Plutonium makes the majority of it, and it's not by accident: the nuclear process was designed this way in order to get plutonium to build atomic bombs.
- Fission products: they are produced when a U235 nucleus is split. They are really radioactive (well it depends, but some are) but they don't live that long. They are the dangerous thing when a nuclear incident happens.
- Activation products: they are produced when neutrons hit something in the reactor (the structure, the water or water additives). They are radioactive but don't live that long, and they are often pretty diluted in the structure. It's dangerous for people working on the decommissioning though, because they can accumulate in specific places.
- Legal products: in some jurisdiction (for instance France), everything in a nuclear plant is a nuclear waste, including the walls of the offices, the pavement, the turbine, etc.
[1] As a reminder there are 4 “kinds” of nuclear wastes:
- Minor actinides: the scary ones. Their volume is ultra small, but they live practically forever if you leave them that way and are harmful even at low concentration because they are alpha emitters. They are mostly produced when neutrons are captured by U238 (the non-fissile part of the fuel). Plutonium makes the majority of it, and it's not by accident: the nuclear process was designed this way in order to get plutonium to build atomic bombs.
- Fission products: they are produced when a U235 nucleus is split. They are really radioactive (well it depends, but some are) but they don't live that long. They are the dangerous thing when a nuclear incident happens.
- Activation products: they are produced when neutrons hit something in the reactor (the structure, the water or water additives). They are radioactive but don't live that long, and they are often pretty diluted in the structure. It's dangerous for people working on the decommissioning though, because they can accumulate in specific places.
- Legal products: in some jurisdiction (for instance France), everything in a nuclear plant is a nuclear waste, including the walls of the offices, the pavement, the turbine, etc.
It is a good thing that France is building more reactors. I for one am glad that Macron has reversed his position on this. It is good for the country’s climate goals as well as energy independence.
We're a few month before a presidential election, don't take these words for granted… I may have become a bit cynical, bit I actually expect some sort of a “Je ne dirais pas que c'est un échec, je dirais juste que ça n'a pas marché” when these (non-existing so far) projects eventually get cancelled.
Plutonium can be fortunately further burned down in reactors that accept MOX fuels
Plutonium can only be sent through burner reactors as MOX fuel once. After that, the isotopes left are no longer suitable and have to be buried (or saved for fast reactors.)
MOX isn't without issues though. Plutonium is kept until we can use it to start breeding reactors IMHO!
better kept*
It has proved (politically) insurmountable here in the UK. We have drums and drums of it that rust and leak and no one can find the money or political will to actually solve it. The fact a solution is possible or easy in a technical sense doesn't mean it will ever be implemented.
This is a lot of the issue with nuclear that I don't think ycombinator or technical people get: you're not bring offered the ideal, well managed, properly funded nuclear you think. You're getting short sighted, lowest bidder, incompetent management nuclear. Because that's how we do everything around here...
This is a lot of the issue with nuclear that I don't think ycombinator or technical people get: you're not bring offered the ideal, well managed, properly funded nuclear you think. You're getting short sighted, lowest bidder, incompetent management nuclear. Because that's how we do everything around here...
It's not necessary to point to nuclear waste (or safety) to dismiss nuclear. Cost is sufficient. Construction of new nuclear power plants is simply far too expensive to be a good way to contribute to CO2 emission reduction.
Whether or not you make this argument, or whether you feel it is unnecessary, is beside the point. People often ask "What about the waste?" as a sort of final argument. I have encountered this multiple times. It can be time consuming and frustrating to explain why it is not a serious issue, and hurts one's credibility to dismiss the issue too quickly.
Waste is a side issue. It just doesn't matter, so there is no point in even talking about it, never mind minimizing it.
The real issue is that, at least in the US, nukes cost overwhelmingly more than any other energy source, take 10+ years to build with no power output in the meantime, frequently consume billions of dollars without ever being completed, and (if ever put into production) develop leaks. They just don't make sense when considering the current alternatives.
Solar and wind installations start producing power almost immediately, and can be continuously added onto while operating, with only the most minimal of site preparation.
The real issue is that, at least in the US, nukes cost overwhelmingly more than any other energy source, take 10+ years to build with no power output in the meantime, frequently consume billions of dollars without ever being completed, and (if ever put into production) develop leaks. They just don't make sense when considering the current alternatives.
Solar and wind installations start producing power almost immediately, and can be continuously added onto while operating, with only the most minimal of site preparation.
""" Excessive concern about low levels of radiation led to a regulatory standard known as ALARA: As Low As Reasonably Achievable. What defines “reasonable”? It is an ever-tightening standard. As long as the costs of nuclear plant construction and operation are in the ballpark of other modes of power, then they are reasonable.
This might seem like a sensible approach, until you realize that it eliminates, by definition, any chance for nuclear power to be cheaper than its competition. """ from: https://rootsofprogress.org/devanney-on-the-nuclear-flop
This might seem like a sensible approach, until you realize that it eliminates, by definition, any chance for nuclear power to be cheaper than its competition. """ from: https://rootsofprogress.org/devanney-on-the-nuclear-flop
The problem isn't that nuclear is regulated, the problem is that nuclear power plants are big, tightly coupled things where iterating the design takes decades. No technology with that long a feedback loop can survive if it has any competition improving at a modern technology pace. If nuclear plants were as nimble as PV or wind turbines they'd be able to easily work through regulatory requirements. As it stands, the technology is paralyzed, or even regressing.
I think you'll find the cost of not doing that turns out to be higher. Like a lot of shitty behavior, global CO2 emissions are not currently economically accounted for.
False dichotomy. It's not nuclear or nothing; it's nuclear, renewables, or nothing. Nuclear is more expensive than going the renewable path. Start taxing CO2 enough and the world will switch to renewables, not to nuclear.
The national deficit over the last 10 years has increased by 18 trillion. How much of that would have been required to go completely nuclear. Maybe not even a trillion?
US primary energy consumption is about 3 TW. If a 1 GW(e) reactor has 33% thermal efficiency, that's 3 GW of primary energy production. So, ballpark, about 1000 reactors, or about $10 T.
"Far too expensive" in what context? For whom? Short-sighted profit-seeking, growth-oriented capitalism got us into this mess and it certainly won't get us out.
Far too expensive compared to other non-fossil alternatives.
For a long time, nuclear supporters just ignored the cost issue, since they felt they were the only real non-fossil alternative. Yes, they'd be expensive, but society had no choice. In the last decade this changed. Renewables are now far cheaper on a levelized basis, cheap enough that even with the cost of dealing with intermittency they are likely to come out cheaper than nuclear.
This is why so much new capacity in the world (and in the US) is renewables. It's not because of green mind control, it's because of brute economics. Nuclear is in dire shape competitively, in comparison.
For a long time, nuclear supporters just ignored the cost issue, since they felt they were the only real non-fossil alternative. Yes, they'd be expensive, but society had no choice. In the last decade this changed. Renewables are now far cheaper on a levelized basis, cheap enough that even with the cost of dealing with intermittency they are likely to come out cheaper than nuclear.
This is why so much new capacity in the world (and in the US) is renewables. It's not because of green mind control, it's because of brute economics. Nuclear is in dire shape competitively, in comparison.
> Far too expensive compared to other non-fossil alternatives.
But what are the costs of unstable supply and behavior of whole grid?
But what are the costs of unstable supply and behavior of whole grid?
Until we get to extremely high renewable penetration, that doesn't much matter. And at that point, the cost is still going to be cheaper than nuclear, most likely. You optimize with short and long term storage, demand dispatch, and transmission.
What are the costs of monolithic production where taking one generator offline blacks out an entire state?
Talking about capitalism is fun, but people still have to pay to keep their homes warm in the winter, and be paid to build and maintain these things.
Well, talking about people wanting their home warm in winter, in a discussion about non-fossil power source is pretty ironic.
What does that have to do with my point?
When I last checked with a nuclear professional, he said that nuclear waste is not really a problem. We can easily store million times more of it, it doesn't really cost that much in the grand scheme of things.
Best vs Worst? That doesn't feel like the right way to look at things. Nuclear is probably an appropriate medium term solution for some locations until battery storage is better and more affordable at mass scale. Being a pragmatic minimalist I believe all options should be on the table and grab what option suits your geographic location and load requirements best, factoring in initial costs, time to deploy, cost to support, cost to tear down, environmental impact, local politics, operational longevity... all of these things being complicated topics on their own that vary wildly by location.
A lot of those costs come from over cautiousness on the part of regulators. Requiring that radiation exposure on site all the way to the fence line must be not more than 15mrem per year is just silly. You get more than that walking into a granite building or taking the subway. Remediation requirements also bizarrely require remediation to far below background levels. Former uranium mines in NV have the lowest measurable radiation levels in the whole state.
Funny how that can work. We can’t use natural fruit puree for cannabis edibles because they won’t pass pesticide testing.
Yeah, it’s really wild. You get more mrems per year living down wind of a coal plant than you would living in a nuclear plant’s control room. You get more from eating bananas.
Battery storage is already sufficient and inexpensive enough for deployment today at costs less than nuclear.
A 3x overbuild of solar+wind in an optimal mix, along with a continental grid and 3 hours worth of batteries is all you need for 99.99% reliability: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-26355-z
https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/electrify
A 3x overbuild of solar+wind in an optimal mix, along with a continental grid and 3 hours worth of batteries is all you need for 99.99% reliability: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-26355-z
https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/electrify
You need lots of transmission lines for that to work, and high voltage transmission is expensive to build, eats up land, and is opposed by every community it passes through.
I’m 100% in favor of lots of renewable use, but it’s not always a great use of land, prevents rewilding (with solar), and in the case of solar uses a ton of water. The latter being a major concern in arid regions.
A lot of nuclear’s cost comes from shifting/overly tight regulation, legal prohibition of reprocessing, legal prohibition for long term storage, and graft. The latter will be a problem with large scale renewables once they’re large enough.
I’m 100% in favor of lots of renewable use, but it’s not always a great use of land, prevents rewilding (with solar), and in the case of solar uses a ton of water. The latter being a major concern in arid regions.
A lot of nuclear’s cost comes from shifting/overly tight regulation, legal prohibition of reprocessing, legal prohibition for long term storage, and graft. The latter will be a problem with large scale renewables once they’re large enough.
You're right about the transmission lines.
Land use of required solar is only a few hundred square miles in the US. Not a big deal.
Nuclear's biggest cost is just that the US is very bad at doing big projects. Just the steam turbine in a nuclear plant is enough to make nuclear uneconomical, that's why coal plants are so much more expensive than natural gas.
Land use of required solar is only a few hundred square miles in the US. Not a big deal.
Nuclear's biggest cost is just that the US is very bad at doing big projects. Just the steam turbine in a nuclear plant is enough to make nuclear uneconomical, that's why coal plants are so much more expensive than natural gas.
That’s because solar produces a tiny fraction of our energy mix. Replacing a single average US reactor with solar would require something like 200 square miles.
Nuclear’s problem is badly written regulation and insane environmental review policies. That and the one off nature of their construction. We need to standardize and rewrite regulation based on probabilistic risk rather than worst case scenario planning and the linear non-threshold model.
Nuclear’s problem is badly written regulation and insane environmental review policies. That and the one off nature of their construction. We need to standardize and rewrite regulation based on probabilistic risk rather than worst case scenario planning and the linear non-threshold model.
I mistook. Enough solar for the US is a 200x200 mile square. Still fairly insignificant, much less than the amount of land dedicated to parking lots.
NREL estimates 14,000,000 acres or 22,000 square miles to go 100% solar, or the entire Mojave desert.
So, about 1.4% of the total area of agricultural land in the US.
Yeah, which is a ton. You necessarily need to put it somewhere sunny, connectable to transmission, serviceable by roads, you need water, and it can't be too cold or hot for reasons of efficiency. The space and logistics aren't trivial.
It's not an unreasonable amount of land to power an entire country. I mean, does anyone complain that agriculture is impossible because it uses 72 times that much land?
We have a lot of the transmission lines already although of course we need more. The major missing part is interconnects between countries, or regions of large countries like the US. Germany has an over supply of renewable energy on occasion but is unable to export the energy so it simply drives the price negative in Germany while prices are high elsewhere.
This is both a political problem and an energy sovereignty issue. You could turn Libya into solar Russia, but would you want to do that?
My other concern is that such a complex and interconnected system is likely to be fragile in unexpected ways.
And none of this addresses the land area required for base load solar.
My other concern is that such a complex and interconnected system is likely to be fragile in unexpected ways.
And none of this addresses the land area required for base load solar.
> ... concern is that such a complex and interconnected system is likely to be fragile in unexpected ways.
I second that.
The robustness of the current global energy supply system based largely upon solid, liquid and gaseous fuels stems from its flexibility and inherent buffering capability and the fact that lots of the connections/links are loose/weak/interchangeable. (Supplier of fuel xy can be chosen relatively spontaneously, completely unlike some cable which invariably connects two fixed geographic locations.)
An intercontinental electrical grid is in comparison dramatically less flexible. I'd call it grossly negligent to even attempt to implement a world spanning grid exceeding lets say 15 % of total power transmission.
I second that.
The robustness of the current global energy supply system based largely upon solid, liquid and gaseous fuels stems from its flexibility and inherent buffering capability and the fact that lots of the connections/links are loose/weak/interchangeable. (Supplier of fuel xy can be chosen relatively spontaneously, completely unlike some cable which invariably connects two fixed geographic locations.)
An intercontinental electrical grid is in comparison dramatically less flexible. I'd call it grossly negligent to even attempt to implement a world spanning grid exceeding lets say 15 % of total power transmission.
Germany pays neighbours to stop their own wind farms to sell power from their own, because they can't ship the energy from wind-rich north southwards due to lack of necessary interconnects. It's not that simple.
And the overbuilding necessary is usually more in range of 10x assuming favourable storage conditions (which aren't necessarily available).
And the overbuilding necessary is usually more in range of 10x assuming favourable storage conditions (which aren't necessarily available).
When I look at "Germany, 2011 weather data, 2030 cost assumptions" in https://model.energy/ I get an optimized solution (for synthetic baseload production) that has PV and wind curtailment at 4.6% and 12.3%, respectively. This solution includes batteries and hydrogen; generally when hydrogen is included curtailment is limited (because you can make hydrogen when the sources would have been curtailed, up to some point of sufficiently rare curtailment that the extra electrolysers don't make sense.)
This holds as long as hydrogen storage can be kept quite low (assuming no improvements in nuclear) i.e. you have plentiful underground caverns. Helps that the data they have on caverns is actually for germany.
Mind you, the model misses things like "Bavaria is NIMBYing all necessary transit work" etc. which is why you have weird situation of Germany paying Netherlands to curtail wind farms while buying nuclear from France, because they have to route around NIMBYs.
Only slightly related - I'd love if the cost comparisons in general discourse stopped avoiding the issue of intermittency (that's how you always get such low prices on wind and solar) and used costs that include capacity factor and dispatchability (which https://model.energy/ does). Having funding (and purchasing priority) decided on dispatchable green sources (whether hydro, wind/solar/battery/hydrogen mixes, or nuclear) would probably help a lot in stabilisation of grid and long term decarbonisation, even if it would reduce some frankly pathological incentives for renewable build out (pathological because of linked carbon-producing plant build out to stabilise the setup, while simultaneously using cheap peak production prices to push out stable setups)
Mind you, the model misses things like "Bavaria is NIMBYing all necessary transit work" etc. which is why you have weird situation of Germany paying Netherlands to curtail wind farms while buying nuclear from France, because they have to route around NIMBYs.
Only slightly related - I'd love if the cost comparisons in general discourse stopped avoiding the issue of intermittency (that's how you always get such low prices on wind and solar) and used costs that include capacity factor and dispatchability (which https://model.energy/ does). Having funding (and purchasing priority) decided on dispatchable green sources (whether hydro, wind/solar/battery/hydrogen mixes, or nuclear) would probably help a lot in stabilisation of grid and long term decarbonisation, even if it would reduce some frankly pathological incentives for renewable build out (pathological because of linked carbon-producing plant build out to stabilise the setup, while simultaneously using cheap peak production prices to push out stable setups)
That site may overestimate the cost of dealing with intermittency, since it doesn't include dispatchable demand. For example, if hydrogen is to be used in steelmaking or ammonia synthesis, that demand can also be added when renewables would otherwise be curtailed, and the hydrogen stored for later use.
The site's model also does not include pumped hydro, or intermediate term thermal storage.
All these extra options can only help reduce the cost of integrating renewables, and make renewables more competitive vs. nuclear.
The site's model also does not include pumped hydro, or intermediate term thermal storage.
All these extra options can only help reduce the cost of integrating renewables, and make renewables more competitive vs. nuclear.
> ... dispatchable demand. For example, if hydrogen is to be used in steelmaking or ammonia synthesis, that demand can also be added when renewables would otherwise be curtailed, and the hydrogen stored for later use.
Isn't the problem that electrolyzers mostly have to run 24/7 because they would otherwise not be profitable? Then all these processes that rely on hydrogen wouldn't actually belong to the dispatchable demand category.
Dispatchable demand could be found in heat pumps (in combination with buffer tanks) for heating homes. (As long as there's sufficient grid capacity)
Isn't the problem that electrolyzers mostly have to run 24/7 because they would otherwise not be profitable? Then all these processes that rely on hydrogen wouldn't actually belong to the dispatchable demand category.
Dispatchable demand could be found in heat pumps (in combination with buffer tanks) for heating homes. (As long as there's sufficient grid capacity)
When the idea was to turn relatively expensive electricity into hydrogen to replace gasoline, then it made sense to make the electrolyzers as efficient as practical, even if that made them more expensive.
But using curtailed intermittent power is different: here, the electricity is cheap, and capital cost of the electrolyzer becomes more important than efficiency. Under these different design tradeoffs, one might use a different technology (alkaline electrolyzers without platinium group catalysts, say, rather than PEM cells with expensive Nafion membranes and platinum.)
I have seen claims that alkaline electrolyzers are available for < $200/kW in China.
But using curtailed intermittent power is different: here, the electricity is cheap, and capital cost of the electrolyzer becomes more important than efficiency. Under these different design tradeoffs, one might use a different technology (alkaline electrolyzers without platinium group catalysts, say, rather than PEM cells with expensive Nafion membranes and platinum.)
I have seen claims that alkaline electrolyzers are available for < $200/kW in China.
Pumped hydro has the problem of "we pretty much can't build more".
As for curtailment-reducing tricks, that's a good argument but IMO not changing the base calculus much - the model is about replacing the base demand power sources, so that we can push the extra into peak. Bigger problem is that scaling down demand is problematic for dealing with underproduction, and also simply missing on power (Thus my preference for billing for dispatchable power generation, then extra peak could be funneled easier into bonus things like green hydrogen for non-storage etc.)
As for curtailment-reducing tricks, that's a good argument but IMO not changing the base calculus much - the model is about replacing the base demand power sources, so that we can push the extra into peak. Bigger problem is that scaling down demand is problematic for dealing with underproduction, and also simply missing on power (Thus my preference for billing for dispatchable power generation, then extra peak could be funneled easier into bonus things like green hydrogen for non-storage etc.)
> Pumped hydro has the problem of "we pretty much can't build more".
On-river pumped hydro is not easily expanded. But there is enormous potential for off-river pumped hydro.
http://re100.eng.anu.edu.au/global/
On-river pumped hydro is not easily expanded. But there is enormous potential for off-river pumped hydro.
http://re100.eng.anu.edu.au/global/
Consider the large missing areas on the map. For example, Poland and Germany has 0 sites (Poland pretty much built all hydro it could without causing more environment damage)
That's certainly true, but it's also certainly true that "we can't build anymore" is by no means universally true. Great swathes of the world have far more PHES potential than they need.
1 MWh roughly costs 150$ for nuclear, about 50$ for wind/solar.
You're telling me that the magical solution to all our energy problem using solar and wind energy only would be to overbuild THREE times solar and wind infrastructures, for a cost of 3*50=150$/MWh, which is essentially the same as if we were to use nuclear instead.
PLUS 3 hours battery scattered everywhere in the country (to be renewed every few years).
PLUS a full continental electricity grid (basically admitting that not every country can be sovereign of their own energy).
Was this post supposed to make solar and wind look good?
PLUS 3 hours battery scattered everywhere in the country (to be renewed every few years).
PLUS a full continental electricity grid (basically admitting that not every country can be sovereign of their own energy).
Was this post supposed to make solar and wind look good?
Where are you getting those numbers? This project is $40/MWh, and includes 4 hours of batteries! https://www.energy-storage.news/developer-8minute-says-more-...
Solar power is now less than $10/MWh in Spain and Arizona: https://qz.com/1995355/the-era-of-subsidies-for-wind-and-sol...
Solar power is now less than $10/MWh in Spain and Arizona: https://qz.com/1995355/the-era-of-subsidies-for-wind-and-sol...
$50 is a very high number and location specific. You get off-shore wind power in the UK for that, with off-shore being more expensive than on-shore.
$13.5 for solar in Abu Dhabi could be set as the current lower limit in optimal conditions.
https://rethinkresearch.biz/articles/uae-solar-deal-brings-l...
$13.5 for solar in Abu Dhabi could be set as the current lower limit in optimal conditions.
https://rethinkresearch.biz/articles/uae-solar-deal-brings-l...
Medium term the best solution is massive rollout of renewables, with some storage, and gas to fill in the gaps. This will more rapidly reduce grid CO2 emissions, and for much lower cost, than a nuclear rollout.
Sure, in the medium term, nuclear probably is the best solution. But, nuclear is not going to save us from 1.5°C (nothing can, in fact)[0], and it isn't going to do anything for us for 20-30 years. That's how long it takes to build a nuclear plant in the US.
We can't let nuclear distract us from the goal, which is preventing more serious warming.
---
[0]: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/aug/09/humans-have-...
We can't let nuclear distract us from the goal, which is preventing more serious warming.
---
[0]: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/aug/09/humans-have-...
it isn't going to do anything for us for 20-30 years. That's how long it takes to build a nuclear plant in the US.
First, the time it takes to build a nuclear plant is not an unalterable law of nature. Second, when people were saying that we should build more plants 20 years ago, a common objection was that it would be useless because it would take 20 years and by then everything would be powered by clean renewables. I'm similarly unconvinced that wind and solar will provide everything we need by 2040.
First, the time it takes to build a nuclear plant is not an unalterable law of nature. Second, when people were saying that we should build more plants 20 years ago, a common objection was that it would be useless because it would take 20 years and by then everything would be powered by clean renewables. I'm similarly unconvinced that wind and solar will provide everything we need by 2040.
> I'm similarly unconvinced that wind and solar will provide everything we need by 2040.
Have you actually looked at the numbers for renewable energy installations, or is this just based on personal incredulity?
While the nuclear industry has been shouting about how we need nuclear, the US has installed about 20GW worth of renewable generation in one year. That is equivalent to about ten nuclear power plants (in the US, most plants are 1-2GW; a few are 3-3.5.)
40% of our installed capacity over the last 2 years has been renewable energy sources, and both wind and solar installed capacity is growing at a nearly logarithmic scale. The only thing cheaper than wind is solar, and both are continuing to get cheaper.
Those figures, by the way, are for utility/grid scale projects and do not include residential systems.
Utilities already consider this a solved problem and have now shifted focus to storage technology.
There is a strong online PR effort by the nuclear industry because they are desperate to stay in business I'm not exaggerating when I say that the blog of a guy who runs such a PR consulting firm has been featured more than once here on HN.
The nuclear waste problem is solvable but has not yet been solved in the US. Nuclear power plants are decade-scale projects and even once they sync up to the grid, it takes them another decade just to offset the carbon impact of their construction.
Nuclear power plants have very high OPEX and very deep/complex/exacting supply chains when we're seeing lots of supply chain issues due to climate change.
Reactor vessels require very high grade metal and specialized firms, and those firms have years if not decades long waiting lists. We can't just snap our fingers and create more reactor vessel manufacturers.
No wind farm or solar farm has caused a catastrophe of any sort, much less one that renders thousands of square miles of land uninhabitable for a century.
Wind and solar do not generate material that is extremely lethal and weaponizable.
The list goes on and on.
Have you actually looked at the numbers for renewable energy installations, or is this just based on personal incredulity?
While the nuclear industry has been shouting about how we need nuclear, the US has installed about 20GW worth of renewable generation in one year. That is equivalent to about ten nuclear power plants (in the US, most plants are 1-2GW; a few are 3-3.5.)
40% of our installed capacity over the last 2 years has been renewable energy sources, and both wind and solar installed capacity is growing at a nearly logarithmic scale. The only thing cheaper than wind is solar, and both are continuing to get cheaper.
Those figures, by the way, are for utility/grid scale projects and do not include residential systems.
Utilities already consider this a solved problem and have now shifted focus to storage technology.
There is a strong online PR effort by the nuclear industry because they are desperate to stay in business I'm not exaggerating when I say that the blog of a guy who runs such a PR consulting firm has been featured more than once here on HN.
The nuclear waste problem is solvable but has not yet been solved in the US. Nuclear power plants are decade-scale projects and even once they sync up to the grid, it takes them another decade just to offset the carbon impact of their construction.
Nuclear power plants have very high OPEX and very deep/complex/exacting supply chains when we're seeing lots of supply chain issues due to climate change.
Reactor vessels require very high grade metal and specialized firms, and those firms have years if not decades long waiting lists. We can't just snap our fingers and create more reactor vessel manufacturers.
No wind farm or solar farm has caused a catastrophe of any sort, much less one that renders thousands of square miles of land uninhabitable for a century.
Wind and solar do not generate material that is extremely lethal and weaponizable.
The list goes on and on.
>and both wind and solar installed capacity is growing at a nearly logarithmic scale.
Boy, that sure sounds promising
Boy, that sure sounds promising
I'm ok with 1.5C. I'm ok with significant climate change long term. I haven't read anything yet that caused me to think it's a particularly large problem. Like anything else there will be winners and losers - some places will be better, some worse. More people will die of heatstroke, a lot less of cold. It may well end up being a net benefit.
Should we avoid particularly large climate changes? Well, yes, mostly for Chesterton's Fence reasons. But I'm far from panic.
Should we avoid particularly large climate changes? Well, yes, mostly for Chesterton's Fence reasons. But I'm far from panic.
> I haven't read anything yet that caused me to think it's a particularly large problem.
Then you haven't read much.
I suggest looking into the North Atlantic current, ENSO, ocean acidification, and long term forecasts of glacier formation, drought, fire, flooding, tropical storms, heat waves, and other extreme weather phenomena. Just skimming through the first few pages of the -- extremely conservative -- IPCC report should upend your current notion that global warming "may well end up being a net benefit".
Global warming does not simply mean the world uniformly heats up a degree. It means more energy is injected into the atmosphere, adding additional chaos and instability to an already chaotic and unpredictable system. This will mean more extreme weather, steep reduction in fish stocks and agricultural productivity that will shock the food system, and mass migrations of people unlucky enough to be born in those regions most badly affected.
To believe that global warming -- literally a global problem -- isn't "a particularly large problem" is akin to saying covid is "a bit of a cold". That statement spectacularly underestimates the scope and scale of the threat, and ignores the chorus of experts who have spent the last half-century being depressingly accurate (or even conservative) in all their forecasts.
You are "ok with 1.5C" because you don't understand what it means.
Then you haven't read much.
I suggest looking into the North Atlantic current, ENSO, ocean acidification, and long term forecasts of glacier formation, drought, fire, flooding, tropical storms, heat waves, and other extreme weather phenomena. Just skimming through the first few pages of the -- extremely conservative -- IPCC report should upend your current notion that global warming "may well end up being a net benefit".
Global warming does not simply mean the world uniformly heats up a degree. It means more energy is injected into the atmosphere, adding additional chaos and instability to an already chaotic and unpredictable system. This will mean more extreme weather, steep reduction in fish stocks and agricultural productivity that will shock the food system, and mass migrations of people unlucky enough to be born in those regions most badly affected.
To believe that global warming -- literally a global problem -- isn't "a particularly large problem" is akin to saying covid is "a bit of a cold". That statement spectacularly underestimates the scope and scale of the threat, and ignores the chorus of experts who have spent the last half-century being depressingly accurate (or even conservative) in all their forecasts.
You are "ok with 1.5C" because you don't understand what it means.
> This will mean more ...
One thing particularly strange about climate change alarmists is that they are just so damn sure of all these horrible outcomes that are absolutely sure to happen.
You're forecasting, dude. You don't have a crystal ball. Yet your statements, and those of all the alarmists, are those of the totally cocksure.
I live near Glacier National Park. In the early 2000s, some climate change model predicted the glaciers would be gone by 2020. All the entrance signs were modified to state this to every single visitor: Enjoy 'em while they last, friends, but climate change will render these glaciers puddles by just 2020!
Well, come 2020, the glaciers are still right there. A bit smaller. But also nowhere near gone.
Failed predictions and shrill screeching forecasting failures stack up over and over from all the alarmists and yet still they, as you do here, fail to have any humility, any sense that, hey, maybe you don't know it's the end of the world for sure.
One thing particularly strange about climate change alarmists is that they are just so damn sure of all these horrible outcomes that are absolutely sure to happen.
You're forecasting, dude. You don't have a crystal ball. Yet your statements, and those of all the alarmists, are those of the totally cocksure.
I live near Glacier National Park. In the early 2000s, some climate change model predicted the glaciers would be gone by 2020. All the entrance signs were modified to state this to every single visitor: Enjoy 'em while they last, friends, but climate change will render these glaciers puddles by just 2020!
Well, come 2020, the glaciers are still right there. A bit smaller. But also nowhere near gone.
Failed predictions and shrill screeching forecasting failures stack up over and over from all the alarmists and yet still they, as you do here, fail to have any humility, any sense that, hey, maybe you don't know it's the end of the world for sure.
> One thing particularly strange about climate change alarmists is that they are just so damn sure of all these horrible outcomes that are absolutely sure to happen.
It's a shame you didn't quote more of my first sentence there. Let me help: "This will mean more extreme weather..."
Guess what 2021 featured? A 1000 year heat wave in the oh-so-temperate Pacific Northwest, at temperatures previously considered physically impossible in that region. And a few months prior? Record-setting cold wiped out the grid in Houston and plunged a big chunk of Texas into survival mode.
If you're looking for an all-at-once calamity to herald the coming of Climate Doom, you're gonna have to watch the movies. Because what all the science clearly indicates is a gradual, inexorable increase in extreme phenomena.
> You're forecasting, dude. You don't have a crystal ball. Yet your statements, and those of all the alarmists, are those of the totally cocksure.
I mean, we're having an informal discussion on the internet, where scientific jargon and careful discussion of error bars gets in the way of clear communication. But I can still be pretty damn confident of those predictions because climate change isn't some far-off future possibility. It's unfolding all around us, as we speak. The increase in extreme weather? It's been going on for 50 years.
Rising temperatures? Droughts? Floods? Fires? They're all on the upswing and have been for long enough that it's impossible at this point to attribute them all to some statistical anomaly.
Let's put it another way. If you catch me playing with matches on the couch and exclaim, "You'll burn the house down!", I probably have some cause to accuse you of being overly dramatic. If, on the other hand, the house is already on fire, my protestations that "You can't be so cocksure it'll be uncomfortable to live in the house" sound pretty ridiculous.
> I live near Glacier National Park.
Cool. That's an anecdote. Not data. Do you have any actual data to support your stance that climate scientists -- climatologists, meteorologists, geologists, etc -- the world over are "alarmists"?
> Failed predictions and shrill screeching forecasting failures stack up over and over from all the alarmists and yet still they, as you do here, fail to have any humility, any sense that, hey, maybe you don't know it's the end of the world for sure.
Straw man. Nobody's claiming it'll be the end of the world. The planet will be just fine. Humans will simply find it a more inhospitable place in which to live. Which is what I said. And all those "shrill screeching forecasting failures" from the last 30 years have, on average, been too conservative, forecasting slower warming.
You just haven't noticed because you don't want to believe it might be true. I understand the emotional reaction. It's the same thing that compels people to refuse to believe that covid exists or vaccines work. Doesn't mean it's a logical or accurate stance, though.
It's a shame you didn't quote more of my first sentence there. Let me help: "This will mean more extreme weather..."
Guess what 2021 featured? A 1000 year heat wave in the oh-so-temperate Pacific Northwest, at temperatures previously considered physically impossible in that region. And a few months prior? Record-setting cold wiped out the grid in Houston and plunged a big chunk of Texas into survival mode.
If you're looking for an all-at-once calamity to herald the coming of Climate Doom, you're gonna have to watch the movies. Because what all the science clearly indicates is a gradual, inexorable increase in extreme phenomena.
> You're forecasting, dude. You don't have a crystal ball. Yet your statements, and those of all the alarmists, are those of the totally cocksure.
I mean, we're having an informal discussion on the internet, where scientific jargon and careful discussion of error bars gets in the way of clear communication. But I can still be pretty damn confident of those predictions because climate change isn't some far-off future possibility. It's unfolding all around us, as we speak. The increase in extreme weather? It's been going on for 50 years.
Rising temperatures? Droughts? Floods? Fires? They're all on the upswing and have been for long enough that it's impossible at this point to attribute them all to some statistical anomaly.
Let's put it another way. If you catch me playing with matches on the couch and exclaim, "You'll burn the house down!", I probably have some cause to accuse you of being overly dramatic. If, on the other hand, the house is already on fire, my protestations that "You can't be so cocksure it'll be uncomfortable to live in the house" sound pretty ridiculous.
> I live near Glacier National Park.
Cool. That's an anecdote. Not data. Do you have any actual data to support your stance that climate scientists -- climatologists, meteorologists, geologists, etc -- the world over are "alarmists"?
> Failed predictions and shrill screeching forecasting failures stack up over and over from all the alarmists and yet still they, as you do here, fail to have any humility, any sense that, hey, maybe you don't know it's the end of the world for sure.
Straw man. Nobody's claiming it'll be the end of the world. The planet will be just fine. Humans will simply find it a more inhospitable place in which to live. Which is what I said. And all those "shrill screeching forecasting failures" from the last 30 years have, on average, been too conservative, forecasting slower warming.
You just haven't noticed because you don't want to believe it might be true. I understand the emotional reaction. It's the same thing that compels people to refuse to believe that covid exists or vaccines work. Doesn't mean it's a logical or accurate stance, though.
I did read the IPCC report a while back, or at least the summary. It's surprisingly common sense, given how it's described. Change is coming, some of it bad, a minority pretty bad.
There are quite a lot "pretty bad" things out there.
There are quite a lot "pretty bad" things out there.
Cool!
Now consider that almost every previous cycle of the IPCC report has missed its forecasted marks because it was too conservative.
The IPCC report is the toned down, let's-not-rock-the-boat version of the scientific community's view regarding the unfolding climate disaster. It is an optimistic set of forecasts, with loads of hedging.
Now consider that almost every previous cycle of the IPCC report has missed its forecasted marks because it was too conservative.
The IPCC report is the toned down, let's-not-rock-the-boat version of the scientific community's view regarding the unfolding climate disaster. It is an optimistic set of forecasts, with loads of hedging.
Luckily there are democracies who are fianlly not ok with 1.5c and significant climate change long term.
Time will tell who wins out.
Time will tell who wins out.
The guardian isn’t a reputable source on this. We could adjust regulation in the US, pre-approve a handful of small to medium reactor designs and probably have a lot of them built in under 10 years.
The historical lag time comes from the period of rapid technological improvement and regulatory change where projects had to be redesigned multiple times mid project.
If you think grid scale solar and wind are just as susceptible to bad regulation, NIMBYs, graft, and bureaucratic nonsense then you may not be paying attention. Note the lack of offshore wind in the US.
Existing nuclear power tech could displace natural gas and coal without the need for storage or much land. We also wouldn’t need to overhaul the grid.
The historical lag time comes from the period of rapid technological improvement and regulatory change where projects had to be redesigned multiple times mid project.
If you think grid scale solar and wind are just as susceptible to bad regulation, NIMBYs, graft, and bureaucratic nonsense then you may not be paying attention. Note the lack of offshore wind in the US.
Existing nuclear power tech could displace natural gas and coal without the need for storage or much land. We also wouldn’t need to overhaul the grid.
Not a reputable source on what? Your comment has nothing to do with what the Guardian article I linked says.
Building extra LNG plants is going to help us even less, and that's what it currently takes to keep grid operational with renewables, so...
Who said anything about LNG? Why the straw man? I said nuclear won't save us, full stop. Please do not put words in my mouth.
Well, the "it's not going to do anything right now so let's forget about it, maybe there will be magic battery tech in that time" is also a straw man. Meanwhile the best we have from renewable grids, even in huge interconnected systems that ostensibly should be able to shift renewable power around is... LNG build up to cover for instability of renewables, and reduced pressure on shutdown (or even extensions) to coal power plants.
Also, USA might take 30 years, but then USA is infamous for having trouble building any infrastructure these days. Global warming and energy scarcity is a global problem.
Also, USA might take 30 years, but then USA is infamous for having trouble building any infrastructure these days. Global warming and energy scarcity is a global problem.
> Well, the "it's not going to do anything right now so let's forget about it, maybe there will be magic battery tech in that time" is also a straw man.
Yes, and I also didn't say that. Again, do not put words in my mouth. I'm getting really tired of your disingenuous, bad faith non-arguments.
Yes, and I also didn't say that. Again, do not put words in my mouth. I'm getting really tired of your disingenuous, bad faith non-arguments.
Natural gas isn't stored as LNG in the US; it's stored as compressed gas in underground caverns. Many millions of tonnes of natural gas are stored in these caverns; they buffer the transmission system against seasonal changes in gas demand.
We could store hydrogen in those caverns instead.
We could store hydrogen in those caverns instead.
I know nuclear power comes up on HN quite often and is viewed quite positively. On the other side I've read the following articles[1][2], from people who know the industry inside out, which are less enthusiastic mainly because building new reactors takes too much time for our climate crisis and is too expensive compared to solar/wind + batteries, especially taking into account how prices will probably develop in the next years (solar and batteries get cheaper and cheaper, whereas nuclear will not).
My personal opinion is that we should look much more into reducing our energy needs and also into load management (e.g. using energy when the sun shines etc.) than into new nuclear plants. [1]https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2021-07-08/nuclear-e... [2]https://www.dw.com/en/nuclear-climate-mycle-schneider-renewa...
My personal opinion is that we should look much more into reducing our energy needs and also into load management (e.g. using energy when the sun shines etc.) than into new nuclear plants. [1]https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2021-07-08/nuclear-e... [2]https://www.dw.com/en/nuclear-climate-mycle-schneider-renewa...
whereas nuclear will not
Why not? Why wasn't there a nuclear module (SMR) 20 years ago that can be installed in banks of multiple modules, just like a solar array made of multiple solar cells? Why should every single nuclear plant be semi-bespoke for that particular area?
reducing our energy needs
In some sense, human development can be measured in energy available per capita. We definitely want to make each activity we do as efficient as is reasonable (e.g. a washing machine that uses 0.5gal less water per cycle, but costs $3000 more is unreasonable), but the goal really ought to be to maximize energy used per capita, while minimizing energy used per activity.
Why not? Why wasn't there a nuclear module (SMR) 20 years ago that can be installed in banks of multiple modules, just like a solar array made of multiple solar cells? Why should every single nuclear plant be semi-bespoke for that particular area?
reducing our energy needs
In some sense, human development can be measured in energy available per capita. We definitely want to make each activity we do as efficient as is reasonable (e.g. a washing machine that uses 0.5gal less water per cycle, but costs $3000 more is unreasonable), but the goal really ought to be to maximize energy used per capita, while minimizing energy used per activity.
Because for last ~25 years there was no funding to finish the SMRs that we did have good base design for, nor to expand necessary metal production for their coolant loops (or finalize the variants that didn't need those).
It all boils down to will.
It all boils down to will.
Why not? Why wasn't there a nuclear module (SMR) 20 years ago that can be installed in banks of multiple modules, just like a solar array made of multiple solar cells? Why should every single nuclear plant be semi-bespoke for that particular area?
Because the idea was instead a larger standardized reactor to rule them all. Spread the fixed costs per reactor core as thin as possible. This has evidently failed and thus the nuclear industries new thing is "SMR" because lets do opposite and hope we get another 20 years of funding.
Because the idea was instead a larger standardized reactor to rule them all. Spread the fixed costs per reactor core as thin as possible. This has evidently failed and thus the nuclear industries new thing is "SMR" because lets do opposite and hope we get another 20 years of funding.
We don't have modular nuke because it offers too little scope for official, wholly-legal corruption.
Thus far photovoltaic solar and wind turbines have been proof against official corruption. It is just too quick and easy to field a competing system not subject to corruption tax.
Thus far photovoltaic solar and wind turbines have been proof against official corruption. It is just too quick and easy to field a competing system not subject to corruption tax.
Just a random paragraph that caught my eye.
> And if we're talking about the construction of new power plants, then nuclear power is simply excluded. Not just because it is the most expensive form of electricity generation today, but, above all, because it takes a long time to build reactors. In other words, every euro invested in new nuclear power plants makes the climate crisis worse because now this money cannot be used to invest in efficient climate protection options.
You're literally investing that euro into climate protection... but it's not climate protection because you can't invest it in something else? If you start with this mindset of course you'll end up with nuclear energy being bad. You either postulated it's bad, or you wrote the specifications to make sure it ends up bad.
> And if we're talking about the construction of new power plants, then nuclear power is simply excluded. Not just because it is the most expensive form of electricity generation today, but, above all, because it takes a long time to build reactors. In other words, every euro invested in new nuclear power plants makes the climate crisis worse because now this money cannot be used to invest in efficient climate protection options.
You're literally investing that euro into climate protection... but it's not climate protection because you can't invest it in something else? If you start with this mindset of course you'll end up with nuclear energy being bad. You either postulated it's bad, or you wrote the specifications to make sure it ends up bad.
It's an euro invested today in climate protection that supplies zero energy for the next 10 years, while the same euro invested in solar/wind + batteries will also generate energy in the short run, helping retire carbon emitters now.
It makes sense if present value of reduced carbon is high, the value of your future nuclear plant gets discounted by a large "carbon interest".
It makes sense if present value of reduced carbon is high, the value of your future nuclear plant gets discounted by a large "carbon interest".
It is the comparison of investing euro into nuclear projects which won’t yield one gram of carbon reduction until ten to twenty years down the road vs a solar wind or storage project would could have a two to three year timeline from plan to operation. And not only that, but euro for euro will generate more energy then the equivalent nuclear plant.
That's a ROI issue, not a climate issue. If a dollar is better invested in something else, it will be.
If the R is expressed in tons of carbon per dollar over 10-30 year spans it is a climate issue - especially because governments and businesses are already loathe to spend on climate action.
> On the other side I've read the following articles[1][2], from people who know the industry inside out, which are less enthusiastic mainly because building new reactors takes too much time for our climate crisis and is too expensive compared to solar/wind + batteries
I ran across the statement that the entire output of the world's battery factories wouldn't hold an hour's worth of electrical usage in the US. I have no idea if this is true.
But I'd rather side on the side of caution and start building more reactors now just in case the Totally Renewable Plus Storage future does not scale.
If the billions spent on nuclear turns out being a sunk cost because renewables+storage does work out I would not consider it "wasted". It's simply the cost of a backup plan to help ensure we humans don't cook ourselves to death.
At the very least we should stop retiring current nuclear plants. Any added renewable capacity should be used to offset shutting down fossil fuel generator plants. Once those are taken care of we can then perhaps talk about nuclear.
And talking about the problems of storing nuclear waste for 10,000 years is a moot point if civilization doesn't survive the next 100.
I ran across the statement that the entire output of the world's battery factories wouldn't hold an hour's worth of electrical usage in the US. I have no idea if this is true.
But I'd rather side on the side of caution and start building more reactors now just in case the Totally Renewable Plus Storage future does not scale.
If the billions spent on nuclear turns out being a sunk cost because renewables+storage does work out I would not consider it "wasted". It's simply the cost of a backup plan to help ensure we humans don't cook ourselves to death.
At the very least we should stop retiring current nuclear plants. Any added renewable capacity should be used to offset shutting down fossil fuel generator plants. Once those are taken care of we can then perhaps talk about nuclear.
And talking about the problems of storing nuclear waste for 10,000 years is a moot point if civilization doesn't survive the next 100.
As a former US Submarine nuclear reactor tech, I used to think when we pulled into port that our submarine could power the entire city while we sat there.
I don't know why we don't put reactors on large barges that sat offshore where there is plenty of cooling water and transmissions line wouldn't be too much of a problem. Navy ships don't worry about dumping slightly radioactive water overboard, but fortunately there isn't much of it from the closed circulation systems. Of course the spent fuel is disposed of properly once every 15 years or so.
I don't know why we don't put reactors on large barges that sat offshore where there is plenty of cooling water and transmissions line wouldn't be too much of a problem. Navy ships don't worry about dumping slightly radioactive water overboard, but fortunately there isn't much of it from the closed circulation systems. Of course the spent fuel is disposed of properly once every 15 years or so.
> I don't know why we don't put reactors on large barges
it is a thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_floating_nuclear_power...
it is a thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_floating_nuclear_power...
Exactly. Thanks! There other advantage is that if there's an accident that can't be fixed the solution of towing it out to sea and sinking it into a deep trench is far more preferable than having it contaminate the surrounding land area like Chernobyl.
Even Chernobyl isn’t that dangerous. The background radiation in the exclusion zone is lower than in Finland. No additional cancer has been found among nearby villages, the number of cigarettes consumed there is a far greater danger.
Moreover a Chernobyl like accident couldn’t happen again. Outside of the USSR no one was building graphite pile reactors after maybe 1955, and no reactors without containment buildings.
Moreover a Chernobyl like accident couldn’t happen again. Outside of the USSR no one was building graphite pile reactors after maybe 1955, and no reactors without containment buildings.
I just got recommended this French comic on the topic: https://www.amazon.com/miracle-%C3%A9nerg%C3%A9tique-d%C3%A9...
from a nuclear engineer who's also an ecologist.
from a nuclear engineer who's also an ecologist.
I've just finished it, it's excellent. It's about more than just our energy sources, and it's drawn by the author of Quai d'Orsay, another excellent graphic novel about "a" foreign affairs minister in 2003.
The church of Janco :).
I recently grabbed it and was surprised to read he was the one who coined the concept of “bilan carbone”. When that guy says nuclear is an option, green parties should really listen.
I recently grabbed it and was surprised to read he was the one who coined the concept of “bilan carbone”. When that guy says nuclear is an option, green parties should really listen.
Unfortunately, the print version is apparently sold out all over France. Interesting that they're trying to sell a kindle version of a comic.
There is a lot of "over regulation is causing the sky high price of nuclear" here in the comments.
Consider the counterfactual: Would you like to have a lightly regulated nuclear power plant near you and your family?
Nimbyism? Or caring for your family. It all depends on your POV.
Consider the counterfactual: Would you like to have a lightly regulated nuclear power plant near you and your family?
Nimbyism? Or caring for your family. It all depends on your POV.
Yes I would like less regulation of nuclear. The NRCs 15mrem per year requirement is nonsense. It means that a person living on site year round, growing all food on site, and drinking the groundwater must receive less radiation than eating 3 bananas per year. It’s an unscientific requirement.
The ban on reprocessing is stupid, and results in more waste. The ban on long term storage outside of Yucca Mountain is dumb. Prehistoric salt deposits are far better and cheaper to maintain. Requiring waste storage that won’t expose a hypothetical persons 10k years in the future to more than 15mrem per year is also stupid.
It’s all based on the linear no-threshold model which isn’t supported by evidence. We know from experience that 35 mrem dental x-rays and 70mrem chest x-rays don’t pose any risk to the average person over their lifetimes, for example.
Adhering to the 15mrem standard is insanely costly. Especially since it can be super difficult to separate from background radiation that’s at times 2 orders of magnitude higher. You’d get 600mrem standing in Grand Central In NYC all year, and more on a flight to Europe.
The ban on reprocessing is stupid, and results in more waste. The ban on long term storage outside of Yucca Mountain is dumb. Prehistoric salt deposits are far better and cheaper to maintain. Requiring waste storage that won’t expose a hypothetical persons 10k years in the future to more than 15mrem per year is also stupid.
It’s all based on the linear no-threshold model which isn’t supported by evidence. We know from experience that 35 mrem dental x-rays and 70mrem chest x-rays don’t pose any risk to the average person over their lifetimes, for example.
Adhering to the 15mrem standard is insanely costly. Especially since it can be super difficult to separate from background radiation that’s at times 2 orders of magnitude higher. You’d get 600mrem standing in Grand Central In NYC all year, and more on a flight to Europe.
What ban on reprocessing? The one Carter created that was removed by Reagan?
We aren't reprocessing in the US not because of some "ban", but because reprocessing is economically senseless. It literally costs more than it saves. The separated plutonium has negative value -- it costs more to convince someone to put it into MOX fuel than it saves in enriched uranium.
We aren't reprocessing in the US not because of some "ban", but because reprocessing is economically senseless. It literally costs more than it saves. The separated plutonium has negative value -- it costs more to convince someone to put it into MOX fuel than it saves in enriched uranium.
The ban was lifted in 81 but the closure of the facilities required investment in order for them to restart. So the ban continued in a de facto sense.
I’m willing to concede that this isn’t my strongest point. What I’m aiming at though, is that it strongly mitigates the waste issue.
I’m willing to concede that this isn’t my strongest point. What I’m aiming at though, is that it strongly mitigates the waste issue.
Reprocessing makes the waste issue worse. Instead of all the stuff nicely sealed up in fuel rods, it's now spread all through the reprocessing plant. The volume of contaminated material will increase greatly. And it doesn't really reduce the volume of underground storage needed (from heating due to alpha decay of higher actinides.)
BTW, your comment about LNT is also misguided. There is no good evidence that LNT is wrong, and without LNT you might instead get a "precautionary" approach: assume radiation has the worst damage not ruled out by evidence. This would be much WORSE for nuclear than LNT, as it would increase the presumed damage from low doses. LNT is nuclear's friend; it is looked askance at by some of the anti-nuclear people for that reason.
BTW, your comment about LNT is also misguided. There is no good evidence that LNT is wrong, and without LNT you might instead get a "precautionary" approach: assume radiation has the worst damage not ruled out by evidence. This would be much WORSE for nuclear than LNT, as it would increase the presumed damage from low doses. LNT is nuclear's friend; it is looked askance at by some of the anti-nuclear people for that reason.
I was referring primarily to reprocessing through IFR, but I can see you point that the proceeding steps carry risk.
I think the issue with LNT is that is ISN'T supported by evidence and observationally in real life it seems to be wrong. I would prefer a PRA based approach that is focused on minimizing probable real world risks.
I think the issue with LNT is that is ISN'T supported by evidence and observationally in real life it seems to be wrong. I would prefer a PRA based approach that is focused on minimizing probable real world risks.
LNT is consistent with the evidence. And it's a simple theory, and it makes sense mechanistically. What more do you want? You could concoct a more complicated theory, but Ockham's Razor says no.
I also wonder why you think this approach would be a good thing for nuclear. There's an assumption in these pro-nuclear LNT arguments that LNT would be replaced by something (hormesis or whatever) that would make radiation less dangerous. But there's no reason to think that would happen. Radiation is not a criminal defendant that will be presumed innocent until proven guilty.
BTW, the NRC recently denied petitions to reconsider LNT. Their responses to the arguments are worth reading.
https://www.regulations.gov/document/NRC-2015-0057-0671
I also wonder why you think this approach would be a good thing for nuclear. There's an assumption in these pro-nuclear LNT arguments that LNT would be replaced by something (hormesis or whatever) that would make radiation less dangerous. But there's no reason to think that would happen. Radiation is not a criminal defendant that will be presumed innocent until proven guilty.
BTW, the NRC recently denied petitions to reconsider LNT. Their responses to the arguments are worth reading.
https://www.regulations.gov/document/NRC-2015-0057-0671
I've read most of that report, and I think you could summarize it as saying that LNT critics haven't established scientifically a threshold at which there is 0 tumor risk, and that the state of current research is mixed.
I don't buy into hormesis, as the evidence isn't well established. The main issue to me is that ALARA seems overly strict compared to the way small radation exposure is treated across other industries and aspects of daily life.
I need to read more about the recent Hiroshima study they mentioned.
I don't buy into hormesis, as the evidence isn't well established. The main issue to me is that ALARA seems overly strict compared to the way small radation exposure is treated across other industries and aspects of daily life.
I need to read more about the recent Hiroshima study they mentioned.
What was particularly damning was where they pointed out how petitioners were cherrypicking evidence that supported their position, even if later more complete data on the same subjects didn't.
I need to dig in more and reevaluate my position. I’m largely informed on this by Rip Anderson and to some extent James Mahaffey. I need to go a bit broader and deeper.
One of my offices in grad school had an experimental nuclear reactor (run by students!) in the next building, maybe 25 or 30 feet away.
Didn't bother me a bit.
And I still even have the regulation number of heads and other appendages.
Didn't bother me a bit.
And I still even have the regulation number of heads and other appendages.
Probably a TRIGA reactor, which wasn't experimental. These have U-Zr hydride fuel with such a strong instantaneous negative temperature feedback that one could instantly remove all the control rods from the reactor and it would still settle down to steady power output without catastrophe. I don't think they're suitable for power production though (I think the burnup the fuel can support is too low?)
The article touches the point that nuclear energy requires water, and a lot of it, for cooling (which is often omitted in such discussions). This is important as the water cycle will drastically change in the next decades, to an extent that is very hard to predict with the present resolution and accuracy of climate models. Nuclear reactors need cooling even after being stopped, there are 4 plants (14 reactors) along the Rhone downstream Geneva and French authorities don't like too much when we reduce the Rhone's flow to keep the lake at sane level.
From what i have read these last years, experts usually advocate rather for an energy mix (some regions might be more adapted to others for some modality) rather than a single solution.
I used to be rather against nuclear energy, for one main reason: this sector is always managed in full secrecy, mostly by military or ppl close to those circles. It is also a sector with heavy subcontracting, i have seen a documentary where ppl in France were entering into a reactor while fearing for their lives (the dose they said) and being paid minimal wages.
From what i have read these last years, experts usually advocate rather for an energy mix (some regions might be more adapted to others for some modality) rather than a single solution.
I used to be rather against nuclear energy, for one main reason: this sector is always managed in full secrecy, mostly by military or ppl close to those circles. It is also a sector with heavy subcontracting, i have seen a documentary where ppl in France were entering into a reactor while fearing for their lives (the dose they said) and being paid minimal wages.
There is nothing intrinsic about the nuclear cycle that demands large quantities of water. Nuclear plants, like all thermal generators, require a cool sink where the turbines can dump the waste heat.
This is usually and most economically a large body of water, which is sucked in, heated by a few degrees and dumped back out, left to cool of back into the environment. Water is not "consumed" and remains available for any other use.
Powerplants that don't have access to significant water reservoirs can use cooling towers where a much smaller quantity of water is forced to evaporate, providing the same cooling but with a somewhat lower efficiency. Using this principle, nuclear plants have been constructed in the desert, see Palo Verde nuclear generating station.
This is usually and most economically a large body of water, which is sucked in, heated by a few degrees and dumped back out, left to cool of back into the environment. Water is not "consumed" and remains available for any other use.
Powerplants that don't have access to significant water reservoirs can use cooling towers where a much smaller quantity of water is forced to evaporate, providing the same cooling but with a somewhat lower efficiency. Using this principle, nuclear plants have been constructed in the desert, see Palo Verde nuclear generating station.
it's true that evaporating water is pretty efficient at cooling stuff. still according to [0] it's 3m^3/s water consumption on average for this station, doable in many place indeed, until there is a mega drought where basically you'll need 10 trucks per minutes to keep things in control.
[0] https://cronkitenews.azpbs.org/2020/02/25/palo-verde-nuclear...
[0] https://cronkitenews.azpbs.org/2020/02/25/palo-verde-nuclear...
3 cubic meters per second is really nothing when operating at full 4GWh power. A single percent of the discharge of the Mississippi could supply 50 such plants, a third of all power consumption of the USA.
When the reactor is SCRAM-ed in an emergency, the power output drops instantly to 6% of the operating value, 0.5% in 24h, and 0.1% in 10 days.
Assuming worse come to worst, you need to SCRAM all 3 reactors simultaneously, and the pond is completely dry after the first week or so, you can still cool the cores using trucks, it's just 3l per second boil-off, about 10 semi tankers per day.
There are many problems with nuclear power, but this issue of water is completely blown out of proportion.
When the reactor is SCRAM-ed in an emergency, the power output drops instantly to 6% of the operating value, 0.5% in 24h, and 0.1% in 10 days.
Assuming worse come to worst, you need to SCRAM all 3 reactors simultaneously, and the pond is completely dry after the first week or so, you can still cool the cores using trucks, it's just 3l per second boil-off, about 10 semi tankers per day.
There are many problems with nuclear power, but this issue of water is completely blown out of proportion.
I believe one of the key features of the new power plant being built in Wyoming and sponsored by Bill Gates/Dept. Of Energy doesn't use water as a coolant.
Great article. Nuclear power should be back in the debate but we must accept that current reactor designs are not cutting it. They are way too slow to build.
Instead regulations should be revamped to allow speedier development of small modular reactors based on molten salt or gas cooling.
Molten Salt Reactors in particular can burn current nuclear waste which make them an attractive solution to many of our waste problems. They are also inherently safer.
Our insistence to keep building large nuclear reactors is akin to NASA building an enormously expensive SLS rocket which cannot even be reused while SpaceX has demonstrated years ago that reusable rockets is the way to go.
Ariane kept developing single use rockets while it was clear , reusable rockets was the future. In few years it will look really foolish that we continue to push old over-engineered monster reactors.
The problem with the Nuclear industry is the same as the rocket industry. It is dominated by companies stuck in the past while those with new fresh visions are lacking resources and political support.
Instead regulations should be revamped to allow speedier development of small modular reactors based on molten salt or gas cooling.
Molten Salt Reactors in particular can burn current nuclear waste which make them an attractive solution to many of our waste problems. They are also inherently safer.
Our insistence to keep building large nuclear reactors is akin to NASA building an enormously expensive SLS rocket which cannot even be reused while SpaceX has demonstrated years ago that reusable rockets is the way to go.
Ariane kept developing single use rockets while it was clear , reusable rockets was the future. In few years it will look really foolish that we continue to push old over-engineered monster reactors.
The problem with the Nuclear industry is the same as the rocket industry. It is dominated by companies stuck in the past while those with new fresh visions are lacking resources and political support.
> Another limitation of nuclear power is that it is not a long-term solution, in one crucial respect: it depends on fissile materials that are nonrenewable, namely uranium-233, uranium-235, and plutonium.
This does not make sense. Uranium-233 and Plutonium do not exist in nature. They are created anew each time we use them, the first from Thorium, the second from Uranium.
Separately, it is incorrect that nuclear power depends on fissile materials. It can be (and is) done with fertile materials, like U-238. It can also be done with Thorium (another fertile material), and China just started such a Thorium plant [1]. The total reserves of Uranium and Thorium together could be enough for thousands of years.
[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02459-w
This does not make sense. Uranium-233 and Plutonium do not exist in nature. They are created anew each time we use them, the first from Thorium, the second from Uranium.
Separately, it is incorrect that nuclear power depends on fissile materials. It can be (and is) done with fertile materials, like U-238. It can also be done with Thorium (another fertile material), and China just started such a Thorium plant [1]. The total reserves of Uranium and Thorium together could be enough for thousands of years.
[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02459-w
Yes it is.
When properly managed, it can be a powerful tool while other safer alternatives become less reliant on precious minerals and improve their recycling story.
The US Navy has never had a major nuclear accident for a reason.
The US Navy has never had a major nuclear accident for a reason.
> The US Navy has never had a major nuclear accident for a reason.
The Air Force, on the other hand: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1966_Palomares_B-52_crash
The Air Force, on the other hand: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1966_Palomares_B-52_crash
This is discussion about nuclear power generation, not of nuclear weapons, though. Quite different things. Nuclear, esp. thermonuclear weapons are indeed designed to inflict untold damage.
Sure, but since someone brought the military as an argument for an example of safe nuclear power generation and since AFAIK military forces never did civil nuclear power generation then I believe it's fair game to bring a counter-example to that ^^.
I was very specific for a reason.
Army had a nuclear accident once where rods blew through a man. Fascinating reading.
http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2017/ph241/berrios1/
Thanks for the link.
Jokes and gentle jabs apart I am all for exploring the option of SMR and set things up with the Navy's assistance or the government's military forces (also through knowledge transfer if needed and/or career paths, etc.). À la Star Trek.
Jokes and gentle jabs apart I am all for exploring the option of SMR and set things up with the Navy's assistance or the government's military forces (also through knowledge transfer if needed and/or career paths, etc.). À la Star Trek.
The US Navy has lost/dropped some nuclear bombs too. But what he means is they've never had a serious reactor accident. They've lost two nuclear submarines, but neither was due to a problem with the reactor. Fumbling a nuclear bomb is obviously very concerning, but I don't think it reflects poorly on their ability to run reactors safely. They have several thousand reactor-years of safe operating experience, that doesn't happen by accident.
Exactly, Navy Nuclear training and management is exceedingly stringent. This shows in the track record.
And also the US Army.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SL-1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SL-1
I said US Navy as they are one of the largest nuclear power operations in the world.
Bring back the Eisenhower era Atoms for Peace program !
Bring back massive government propaganda programs?
Surprise, they never went away! They just hype other things now.
Surprise, they never went away! They just hype other things now.
Of course it is. For some reason it gets a huge share of fearmongering by the so-called 'greens' who want to shut down nuclear plants and replace them with coal ones. I wonder who funds those greens...
Please do not take HN threads into flamewar. That's just what we don't want here.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
[deleted]
No, it isn't.
Please don't post unsubstantive comments here, even if a headline is provocative or whatever.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
What makes you say that? If we reprocess uranium fuel, a person’s lifetime energy waste would be barely larger than a soda can and mostly only emitting alpha radiation. You lifetime energy waste from renewables and batteries would be much more voluminous and far more dangerous, being full of lithium.
The problem isn't waste or safety, it's cost. Nuclear isn't necessary to reduce CO2 emissions, and because of its cost it isn't even particularly useful to reduce CO2 emissions -- one gets more bang for the buck elsewhere, up to 100% elimination of emissions.
Nuclear is more expensive than renewable alternatives, even with the cost of necessary storage taken into account. Moreover, renewables and storage have strong experience effects, while nuclear has shown negative experience effects, so this cost gap should only widen.
The fact that no merchant nuclear plant (privately financed, selling into a competitive market) has ever been built anywhere in the world should be a clue.
Nuclear is more expensive than renewable alternatives, even with the cost of necessary storage taken into account. Moreover, renewables and storage have strong experience effects, while nuclear has shown negative experience effects, so this cost gap should only widen.
The fact that no merchant nuclear plant (privately financed, selling into a competitive market) has ever been built anywhere in the world should be a clue.
Lithium and other metals will be recycled and it is trivial to do so. Currently the volume is too low: except for manufacturing/design defects, no automotive lithium battery has reached EOL yet.
Lithium is very poisonous and dangerous to recycle. It’s also poorly regulated. Solar panels have life spans of ~30 years and presently they mostly go into landfills without anyone recovering the materials that may be dangerous in the environment.
That doesn’t really matter much though. Uranium isn’t dangerous by itself, and has the highest energy density of any existing source.
That doesn’t really matter much though. Uranium isn’t dangerous by itself, and has the highest energy density of any existing source.
> Uranium isn’t dangerous by itself
Well.. it's not a huge deal but don't eat it. I have a bit of uranium ore on my bookshelf, but I avoid handling it and wash my hands after I do. Besides the alpha radiation, which isn't good for your insides, it's also toxic.
Well.. it's not a huge deal but don't eat it. I have a bit of uranium ore on my bookshelf, but I avoid handling it and wash my hands after I do. Besides the alpha radiation, which isn't good for your insides, it's also toxic.
The LD50 of lithium carbonate in mice is 500 mg/kg. That's not very poisonous. In comparison, the LD50 of arsenic oxide is 8 mg/kg.
For decades we’ve been kicking the can down the road by ignoring the toll of fossil fuel waste. That bill is coming due both for our climate and our bodies.
Enough is enough. We will leave nuclear waste for another day as we try to pull ourselves out from underneath a century of fossil fuel addiction.