Nuclear energy is clean(collectifission.nl)
collectifission.nl
Nuclear energy is clean
https://www.collectifission.nl/nl/2022/07/nuclear-energy-is-clean/
696 comments
Renewables are not baseload.
If you add batteries to the mix, nuclear is better.
Not to mention the quantity of power produced. Nuclear is expensive because it's long term investment.
Renewables also cost more in resources (concrete, steel, copper), there are sourced charts about this.
Renewables are better than coal and gaz, but not better than nuclear.
There's nothing wrong with renewables, but it's not enough to offset co2 emissions.
If you add batteries to the mix, nuclear is better.
Not to mention the quantity of power produced. Nuclear is expensive because it's long term investment.
Renewables also cost more in resources (concrete, steel, copper), there are sourced charts about this.
Renewables are better than coal and gaz, but not better than nuclear.
There's nothing wrong with renewables, but it's not enough to offset co2 emissions.
It doesn't have to be batteries, it can be pump storage plant or similar installations. Problem that those don't work aren't technical. There are often legislative in nature or the infrastructure for energy transportation is inadequate.
We don't know how feasibly we can get Uranium. The market is unstable right now because of political problems.
The topic is very complex, there are disadvantages with every form of energy production and nuclear isn't an exception. It is only clean if you reduce the question to CO2.
We don't know how feasibly we can get Uranium. The market is unstable right now because of political problems.
The topic is very complex, there are disadvantages with every form of energy production and nuclear isn't an exception. It is only clean if you reduce the question to CO2.
> it can be pump storage plant or similar installations.
Not sure about the rest of the world, but in the EU we basically maxed out those years (decades?) ago. We won't be getting much more. (I mean, without actual mountains, your pump storage plant is going to be prohibitively expensive.)
> The topic is very complex, there are disadvantages with every form of energy production
True. In France, we had a very recent report[1] that outlines various scenarios towards 2050, and it appeared that the least risky ones involved a fairly diverse energetic mix.
[1]: https://assets.rte-france.com/prod/public/2022-01/Energy%20p...
Not sure about the rest of the world, but in the EU we basically maxed out those years (decades?) ago. We won't be getting much more. (I mean, without actual mountains, your pump storage plant is going to be prohibitively expensive.)
> The topic is very complex, there are disadvantages with every form of energy production
True. In France, we had a very recent report[1] that outlines various scenarios towards 2050, and it appeared that the least risky ones involved a fairly diverse energetic mix.
[1]: https://assets.rte-france.com/prod/public/2022-01/Energy%20p...
We have maxed out only hydro power dams.
Pumped storage is not limited to hydro power dams. All you really need is a hill and water, although it costs less with a depression near the hilltop. No watershed needed.
Actually you do not need the hill. An underground cavity suffices.
And, there are numerous other cheap alternatives.
Pumped storage is not limited to hydro power dams. All you really need is a hill and water, although it costs less with a depression near the hilltop. No watershed needed.
Actually you do not need the hill. An underground cavity suffices.
And, there are numerous other cheap alternatives.
How many joules would your hill/cavity-and-water (or any of your "numerous cheap alternatives" for that matter) would hold for each dollar spent? How would that compare to actual dams? I need sources & links.
Right now I would bet on a highly unfavourable comparison to be honest. Dams have the overwhelming advantage of letting you build a relatively small wall (compared to the lake you're holding), to hold a gigantic volume of water. The mountain an the river are already there, so you don't need to build them.
Right now I would bet on a highly unfavourable comparison to be honest. Dams have the overwhelming advantage of letting you build a relatively small wall (compared to the lake you're holding), to hold a gigantic volume of water. The mountain an the river are already there, so you don't need to build them.
Ask the people who build them.
Hydro power systems need to store a year or more. Utilities will need at most a few weeks. You don't need or want a river. Dams are f'ing expensive because they need geological support for extreme pressure. An earthen dike suffices if you don't already have a depression.
Only the penstock needs to hold back high pressure.
Hydro power systems need to store a year or more. Utilities will need at most a few weeks. You don't need or want a river. Dams are f'ing expensive because they need geological support for extreme pressure. An earthen dike suffices if you don't already have a depression.
Only the penstock needs to hold back high pressure.
Give me sources or it does not exist.
I'm aware of dams. I'm not aware of your fancy alternatives. It is therefore reasonable to assume that those fancy alternatives aren't widely deployed. And that the main reason for this is that they're more expensive (per energy unit).
Without sources, your (admittedly plausible) qualitative arguments are just a pretty story.
I'm aware of dams. I'm not aware of your fancy alternatives. It is therefore reasonable to assume that those fancy alternatives aren't widely deployed. And that the main reason for this is that they're more expensive (per energy unit).
Without sources, your (admittedly plausible) qualitative arguments are just a pretty story.
You are welcome to read up, yourself.
California has constructed dozens of high-altitude, low-head earthen dams on the same principle, over the past century, with penstocks down to lower-altitude turbines, and has lately converted many of them for pumped hydro.
California has constructed dozens of high-altitude, low-head earthen dams on the same principle, over the past century, with penstocks down to lower-altitude turbines, and has lately converted many of them for pumped hydro.
There isn't a single existing pump storage plant in the world that charge with renewables energy and resells it when demand is high. There exist a few proof of concepts, but the only commercial one that I know off do so by charging it from fossil fuel power plants. It act as a large subsidized grid stabilizer for when different fossil fuel power power down.
When there are articles about pumped storage plants the usual problems are not legislative or infrastructure. The biggest issue is that investors don't like to create overcapacity, which mean that there isn't a lot of available renewable energy to buy cheap in order to sell expensively later to recover the cost of storage. When overcapacity occur the enthusiasm for more capacity quickly drop. The secondary issues tend to be more physical in nature. Salt water is very problematic in any situation, so putting pumped storage plants near the ocean has many problems. If you use fresh water you compete with existing utilization, and most suitable locations for pumped storage already have existing hydroelectric power. Fresh water has often a very complex ecosystems and everything from nature to human depend on it.
When there are articles about pumped storage plants the usual problems are not legislative or infrastructure. The biggest issue is that investors don't like to create overcapacity, which mean that there isn't a lot of available renewable energy to buy cheap in order to sell expensively later to recover the cost of storage. When overcapacity occur the enthusiasm for more capacity quickly drop. The secondary issues tend to be more physical in nature. Salt water is very problematic in any situation, so putting pumped storage plants near the ocean has many problems. If you use fresh water you compete with existing utilization, and most suitable locations for pumped storage already have existing hydroelectric power. Fresh water has often a very complex ecosystems and everything from nature to human depend on it.
There are a lot of pump storage plants with various forms of storage mechanisms. Renewables are part of the general energy mix so of course these storage plants also store energy from renewables. In Switzerland and Austria it has become a business because of the overproduction of Germany. Given, they have the matching topography that make them easier to build, but you won't necessarily need that.
Hydroelectric power and pumped storage have synergies, they aren't competing.
Stored power isn't overcapacity. Investors care about expensive energy and renewables are the cheapest and cleanest option.
Hydroelectric power and pumped storage have synergies, they aren't competing.
Stored power isn't overcapacity. Investors care about expensive energy and renewables are the cheapest and cleanest option.
k, I will bite. Give me a source for a pumped storage facility that buy wind or solar when overproduction causes the prices to be low, and then sells it when the price is high. How much do they pay on average, how much at the point of sale, and how is the ROI per kw/h.
All the existing pumped storage facilities that I know of do not generate their profit from buying low and selling high. They generate profits by providing a service of balancing the grid for short duration so that when a power plant is ramping down, there is a equal force being provided as a service so that the grid doesn't break down. The period of ramping down/up need to be covered somehow, a cost that either the grid operator or the individual power plants need to pay for. The end customer who pays by the kw/h do not see this cost, and it is a very insignificant cost of the whole since it only occur at start and stop.
But I am happy to be proven wrong. Please give me that link of one that buy low and sell high. A commercial operated pumped storage that buy renewable energy when its low and sell when it is high can be scaled up to be used whenever the price difference between low and high is great enough. The cost of operation and investment just need to be low enough that the margin between low and high price points can support it.
All the existing pumped storage facilities that I know of do not generate their profit from buying low and selling high. They generate profits by providing a service of balancing the grid for short duration so that when a power plant is ramping down, there is a equal force being provided as a service so that the grid doesn't break down. The period of ramping down/up need to be covered somehow, a cost that either the grid operator or the individual power plants need to pay for. The end customer who pays by the kw/h do not see this cost, and it is a very insignificant cost of the whole since it only occur at start and stop.
But I am happy to be proven wrong. Please give me that link of one that buy low and sell high. A commercial operated pumped storage that buy renewable energy when its low and sell when it is high can be scaled up to be used whenever the price difference between low and high is great enough. The cost of operation and investment just need to be low enough that the margin between low and high price points can support it.
Obviously, until you have enough renewable generating capacity to charge your storage, you are not selling stored energy: you sold what you generated.
It is extremely disingenuous, not to say dishonest, to make up scenarios based on status quo when there is still very little renewable generation capacity.
It is extremely disingenuous, not to say dishonest, to make up scenarios based on status quo when there is still very little renewable generation capacity.
I find equally disingenuous and dishonest to talk about pumped storage for renewables when they do not exist as a viable economical model.
If you want to blame the lack of renewable generation capacity then feel free to do so. Pumped storage could in theory, in the future, when the time is right, be cost effective. We don't know. We are not there yet. Its a financial model to be to be tested when and if we get there.
For now the financial model for existing pumped storage do not care about the purchasing price or selling price, or what kind of power it is being charged with.
If you want to blame the lack of renewable generation capacity then feel free to do so. Pumped storage could in theory, in the future, when the time is right, be cost effective. We don't know. We are not there yet. Its a financial model to be to be tested when and if we get there.
For now the financial model for existing pumped storage do not care about the purchasing price or selling price, or what kind of power it is being charged with.
What is this "financial model" you imagine?
Utilities will need storage, and will build whatever is cheapest. In some places that will be pumped hydro. End of story.
Utilities will need storage, and will build whatever is cheapest. In some places that will be pumped hydro. End of story.
Would this satisfy your criteria? Or are you looking for someone explicitly pairing pumped hydro with other renewables?
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/may/18/portugal...
This was probably made possible by the half-dozen pumped storage hydro plants in Portugal. Now they’re putting floating solar on some as well.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/may/18/portugal...
This was probably made possible by the half-dozen pumped storage hydro plants in Portugal. Now they’re putting floating solar on some as well.
hydro-generated electricity is great, and if they are pumped using renewable energy when supply is high then in theory they could be used to supply that energy when supply is low.
But thanks for that link. Tâmega energy storage complex is actually looking like it will be a real renewable storage, using two attached wind farms. Just like with solar, when renewable is combined with storage it makes more sense when the renewable plants is located next to the storage and operated by the same company.
It would be really interesting to hear some numbers from that plant, like how much money they gain by storing the wind power and selling it at a later point in time. It would also be very interesting to see the cost per kw/h, even through at this point in time with energy prices being what they are, I will likely not matter too much.
But thanks for that link. Tâmega energy storage complex is actually looking like it will be a real renewable storage, using two attached wind farms. Just like with solar, when renewable is combined with storage it makes more sense when the renewable plants is located next to the storage and operated by the same company.
It would be really interesting to hear some numbers from that plant, like how much money they gain by storing the wind power and selling it at a later point in time. It would also be very interesting to see the cost per kw/h, even through at this point in time with energy prices being what they are, I will likely not matter too much.
Pumped storage has a carbon impact because of the massive amounts of concrete involved. The EU is looking at hydrogen storage instead, with the idea being that the natural gas distribution and storage network will gradually shift over to hydrogen which is produced from surplus solar and wind.
Ofcourse, you first need surplus solar and wind, and that's what the real problem is. There is still plenty of headroom to build more solar and wind for immediate use before we reach the point where some of the produced energy needs to be stored.
Ofcourse, you first need surplus solar and wind, and that's what the real problem is. There is still plenty of headroom to build more solar and wind for immediate use before we reach the point where some of the produced energy needs to be stored.
Pumped storage does not need concrete.
Ammonia will probably turn out more practical as a transportable storage medium. Hydrogen works stored underground.
Ammonia will probably turn out more practical as a transportable storage medium. Hydrogen works stored underground.
I’ve heard using offshore wind turbines to create hydrogen that can be burned is a good way forward
The more we obtain uranium (prospecting, mining, milling...), the more we add to the associated carbon footprint.
Therefore a sustained growth of installed nuclear capacity will lead us to exploit mines at always lowering ore grades => more emissions.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222817608_Life_cycl...
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2051332
Therefore a sustained growth of installed nuclear capacity will lead us to exploit mines at always lowering ore grades => more emissions.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222817608_Life_cycl...
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2051332
Uranium is easier to find than copper and other rare metals, because by weight, it can generate more power. There is uranium in sea water, and I bet it's efficient enough to filter that uranium.
https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/...
It's more expensive than mining but not by an order of magnitude
It's more expensive than mining but not by an order of magnitude
Uranium is cheap-ish. Extracting power from it is extremely expensive, and not getting cheaper.
Why aren’t they base load?
If every country over provisioned renewables, then you have a transmission problem not a storage problem.
The sun does always shine, the wind does always blow.
If every country over provisioned renewables, then you have a transmission problem not a storage problem.
The sun does always shine, the wind does always blow.
Cost and geopolitics.
A worldwide grid is absolutely possible from a technical perspective even with boring non-superconducting aluminium and/or copper, it's just that the combined cross section needs to be in the order of 3m^2, which is 17 years of current global output of both metals combined and has a current cost of a few trillion USD: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32198057
(That said, my old linked estimates are over-simplified, that's a single minimal ring, and only works if the 64% resistive losses for current existing HVDC cables over that distance match the possibly lower demand because people do less at night).
A worldwide grid is absolutely possible from a technical perspective even with boring non-superconducting aluminium and/or copper, it's just that the combined cross section needs to be in the order of 3m^2, which is 17 years of current global output of both metals combined and has a current cost of a few trillion USD: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32198057
(That said, my old linked estimates are over-simplified, that's a single minimal ring, and only works if the 64% resistive losses for current existing HVDC cables over that distance match the possibly lower demand because people do less at night).
Aluminum is abundant. If we need more, we refine more; it mainly takes electrical power, which is getting cheaper all the time.
Sure, I don't mean to imply it's not possible or anything even close to that, merely that it's something that will take a while rather than be ready this decade.
I'm kinda leaning towards expecting batteries (specifically batteries and not storage in general) to be the first way a continental power grid gets to 100% renewable, even though I prefer the aesthetic of a global grid. But I don't have any skin in the game, and wouldn't bet against e.g. a cheap high temperature superconductor grid or liquid hydrogen.
I'm kinda leaning towards expecting batteries (specifically batteries and not storage in general) to be the first way a continental power grid gets to 100% renewable, even though I prefer the aesthetic of a global grid. But I don't have any skin in the game, and wouldn't bet against e.g. a cheap high temperature superconductor grid or liquid hydrogen.
Batteries will always be the expensive choice of storage. There will be a certain amount of it anyway. But utilities, for bulk storage, will favor cheaper alternatives.
Perhaps it will be the expensive choice, but I expect batteries produced for cars to be moved to grid storage when any given vehicle's capacity drops below the level useful for transport, and the combined capacity of the reused batteries of a fully-electric-car-nation, even with those batteries in a worn state, will suffice for grid storage.
My guess is this transition will take 15-20 years to complete, but I have low certainty on that.
My guess is this transition will take 15-20 years to complete, but I have low certainty on that.
Not sure how much Europe would like to be dependent on Russia, Libya, Turkey ... for the energy requirements.
As I understand from reading Vaclav Smil's “How the World Really Works”. Replacing fossil fuels by renewables isn't simple:
"we are a fossil-fueled civilization whose technical and scientific advances, quality of life, and prosperity rest on the combustion of huge quantities of fossil carbon, and we cannot simply walk away from this critical determinant of our fortunes in a few decades, never mind years."
Of course we can. Just do the calculation into TW and then that’s how much renewables we need. We built a ridiculous world war machine in less than 10 years and then a crazy space machine in the 20 years after that. Making wind and solar is kind of easy and as you did it it would get cheaper to do (as you lowered the cost of energy to 0)
[deleted]
Europe has no need to depend on Russia, Libya, or Turkey for energy requirements, except in the immediate near term.
You can't transmit energy efficiently over very large distances, power lines will have too much loss power due to resistance.
That's a solved problem today. China has a 12 GW 3,300 km (2,100 mi) HVDC line in use for a couple of years now.
The loss is 2-3% per 1,000 km depending on the voltage of the system.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current
The loss is 2-3% per 1,000 km depending on the voltage of the system.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current
If you add in "rebuild all the transmission lines" to the cost then that would be good. Comparing some costs of renewables to total cost of nuclear is a fun pastime, but doesn't help the debate.
Nukes also involve big transmission line projects, so it is a wash,.
This seems to misunderstand the context. Previous poster was saying that with enough renewables hundreds or thousands of miles apart, there will always be enough power generation capacity.
The response was around how the newest transmission technology isn't so lossy. But that would mean we'd have to replace all transmission lines.
This doesn't apply to nuclear because it doesn't rely on generation potentially coming from 500 miles away to make it work.
The response was around how the newest transmission technology isn't so lossy. But that would mean we'd have to replace all transmission lines.
This doesn't apply to nuclear because it doesn't rely on generation potentially coming from 500 miles away to make it work.
Not nearly as much as requires to overcome the intermittency issue of renewable power sources.
To completely replace fossil fuel, you need a lot of nuclear plants and nuclear materials and transmission lines. For renewables you can handle a lot of the load near the consumption point and only need to transmit the “night load” which is usually much less.
I recommend you look at the estimates on how much storage and/or transmission lines are needed to go full renewable.
How many nuclear plants are required to go fully nuclear? I haven’t seen those estimates at all which is interesting
wind does not always blow nor can you always deploy a turbine and you clearly don't understand the ridiculous amount of space taken by the windmills to actually over provision.
Technically if you were to over provision, yes that would work, but the problem is more that you cant even do it because of multiple different reasons. It's easier to understand when you realize that we don't have more hydro because most of the good places already have a damn. The best place for mills is currently in Denmark where they are being deployed at sea, thats not most places.
Nuclear is the way to go for base power and the voltage adjustments can be done with windmills, solar and as a last resort with a coal/gas plant.
Technically if you were to over provision, yes that would work, but the problem is more that you cant even do it because of multiple different reasons. It's easier to understand when you realize that we don't have more hydro because most of the good places already have a damn. The best place for mills is currently in Denmark where they are being deployed at sea, thats not most places.
Nuclear is the way to go for base power and the voltage adjustments can be done with windmills, solar and as a last resort with a coal/gas plant.
Australia + Saudi Arabia + Utah each have enough empty land to easily provision the worlds energy requirements in solar alone. The sun is always shining on at least one of them (maybe the pacific is a bit too big, but we are talking only a couple of hours).
Denmark is not the only place the wind blows in the world. There are many windy places globally.
But I agree nuclear is another option, but it’s not the only way
Denmark is not the only place the wind blows in the world. There are many windy places globally.
But I agree nuclear is another option, but it’s not the only way
You can trot out these falsehoods as often as you like, but you will always be called on it.
If workable (obviously crucial point!), I like the idea of using renewables, e.g. offshore wind farms, to produce hydrogen.
This would solve storage issues, vehicles could be refilled pretty much the way they are now, gas boilers could be swapped for hydrogen, no need for polluting batteries, no major upgrades of electric grid, etc.
This would solve storage issues, vehicles could be refilled pretty much the way they are now, gas boilers could be swapped for hydrogen, no need for polluting batteries, no major upgrades of electric grid, etc.
Hydrogen, or ammonia. Ammonia is more practical for transport in tankage.
You need hydrogen to synthesize ammonia.
Strangely, not. Water + air + electric in, NH3 + O2 out.
Thanks, I didn't know that.
From "Electrochemical synthesis of ammonia as a potential alternative to the Haber–Bosch process" (2019) :
Water electrolysis, combined with an improved smallerscale Haber–Bosch process, seems to be a short-term solution for the generation of ammonia from renewables at a matching scale. There is a major research focus on reducing the NH3 synthesis reaction pressure and temperature, while keeping the catalyst cost and means to follow the intermittent electrical power input. These technologies are anticipated to be developed within next few years. Electrochemical ammonia production is much more distant from commercialization, however, potential benefits of electrochemical ammonia production, such as reduced energy consumption and associated footprint, scalability, lower process pressures and temperatures, the ability to follow the intermittent electrical power input and use nitrogen with reduced purity justify further research.
From "Electrochemical Synthesis of Ammonia: Progress and Challenges" (2021) :
On the whole, a lot of attempts and significant progress have been made, but the electrochemical synthesis of ammonia is still in the infancy stage with great challenges remained to be addressed.
From "Electrochemical synthesis of ammonia as a potential alternative to the Haber–Bosch process" (2019) :
Water electrolysis, combined with an improved smallerscale Haber–Bosch process, seems to be a short-term solution for the generation of ammonia from renewables at a matching scale. There is a major research focus on reducing the NH3 synthesis reaction pressure and temperature, while keeping the catalyst cost and means to follow the intermittent electrical power input. These technologies are anticipated to be developed within next few years. Electrochemical ammonia production is much more distant from commercialization, however, potential benefits of electrochemical ammonia production, such as reduced energy consumption and associated footprint, scalability, lower process pressures and temperatures, the ability to follow the intermittent electrical power input and use nitrogen with reduced purity justify further research.
From "Electrochemical Synthesis of Ammonia: Progress and Challenges" (2021) :
On the whole, a lot of attempts and significant progress have been made, but the electrochemical synthesis of ammonia is still in the infancy stage with great challenges remained to be addressed.
Toshiba is building them, megawatt-scale, thus far. There is still engineering to be done scaling it up to GW, and it will take a lot of money to get that into volume production for the hundreds of GW-scale plants we will need, but the profits are guaranteed.
Not workable.
Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe and is found in great abundance in all galaxies. It is particularly present in the Sun, which is problematic because it is not very accessible to us :) On Earth, there is also a lot of hydrogen in water and in hydrocarbons. However, it does not exist in free form, i.e. just hydrogen. It is always associated with something else, for example with oxygen in water, or with carbon in hydrocarbons.
There are, however, small sources of native hydrogen in the earth underground, but the quantities are nowhere near what we would need to use if we wanted to do anything significant with it. At least not beyond what we are already doing, because hydrogen is already used a lot these days. Nearly 100 million metric tonnes of this element are produced in the world every year.
To be transported, hydrogen must be kept under high pressure or extremely low temperature. This should already raises some question about the feasibility :)
Half of this production is used to de-sulphurize fuels and the other half to make fertilizers (Haber-Bosch process). Thus, hydrogen is already used extensively in the world, but there is a small problem: it is made from hydrocarbons, fossil natural gas, oil or coal, which represents 10 to 30 (metric) tonnes of CO2 per metric ton of hydrogen.
With the way it is made, should we go even further towards this fuel despite global warming? We could then imagine making hydrogen for other applications that do not exist today. For example, like you imagine, to power vehicles with hydrogen fuel cells or to make steel without emitting CO2.
There is a process for making iron with blast furnaces that do not emit CO2. There are also plans by steelmakers to make steel without emitting CO2 by converting iron ore into iron with hydrogen. The hydrogen then removes the oxygen from the iron ore, which is released into the atmosphere as water vapor. To do this, large quantities of hydrogen are needed and, for example, to replace a blast furnace, a nuclear plant is needed to generate the electricity that will enable the water to be electrolyzed, which is the only way to make "clean" hydrogen without emitting CO2. Something like a thousand wind turbines would be needed to replace a nuclear plant (and remember: wind turbines does not work all the time)
When you see the amount of electricity it would take to be able to produce carbon-free hydrogen in large quantities, you realize that there will never be much of it in transport. Not all the world's aircraft will be replaced by hydrogen-powered aircraft, for example. The applications that could then be made with carbon-free hydrogen would be to keep the production of fertilizers and carbon-free steel. Achieving this would already be a big step.
Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe and is found in great abundance in all galaxies. It is particularly present in the Sun, which is problematic because it is not very accessible to us :) On Earth, there is also a lot of hydrogen in water and in hydrocarbons. However, it does not exist in free form, i.e. just hydrogen. It is always associated with something else, for example with oxygen in water, or with carbon in hydrocarbons.
There are, however, small sources of native hydrogen in the earth underground, but the quantities are nowhere near what we would need to use if we wanted to do anything significant with it. At least not beyond what we are already doing, because hydrogen is already used a lot these days. Nearly 100 million metric tonnes of this element are produced in the world every year.
To be transported, hydrogen must be kept under high pressure or extremely low temperature. This should already raises some question about the feasibility :)
Half of this production is used to de-sulphurize fuels and the other half to make fertilizers (Haber-Bosch process). Thus, hydrogen is already used extensively in the world, but there is a small problem: it is made from hydrocarbons, fossil natural gas, oil or coal, which represents 10 to 30 (metric) tonnes of CO2 per metric ton of hydrogen.
With the way it is made, should we go even further towards this fuel despite global warming? We could then imagine making hydrogen for other applications that do not exist today. For example, like you imagine, to power vehicles with hydrogen fuel cells or to make steel without emitting CO2.
There is a process for making iron with blast furnaces that do not emit CO2. There are also plans by steelmakers to make steel without emitting CO2 by converting iron ore into iron with hydrogen. The hydrogen then removes the oxygen from the iron ore, which is released into the atmosphere as water vapor. To do this, large quantities of hydrogen are needed and, for example, to replace a blast furnace, a nuclear plant is needed to generate the electricity that will enable the water to be electrolyzed, which is the only way to make "clean" hydrogen without emitting CO2. Something like a thousand wind turbines would be needed to replace a nuclear plant (and remember: wind turbines does not work all the time)
When you see the amount of electricity it would take to be able to produce carbon-free hydrogen in large quantities, you realize that there will never be much of it in transport. Not all the world's aircraft will be replaced by hydrogen-powered aircraft, for example. The applications that could then be made with carbon-free hydrogen would be to keep the production of fertilizers and carbon-free steel. Achieving this would already be a big step.
> Something like a thousand wind turbines would be needed to replace a nuclear plant (and remember: wind turbines does not work all the time)
Your calibration is off by quite a few years. The current off-shore turbines being built are 15 MW with capacity factors of around 60%.[1] So lets do 50% for wind and 90% for nuclear.
Wind: 1,000 * 15 MW * 0.5 = 7.5 GW
Nuclear: 1 * 1650 MW (EPR) * 0.9 = 1.485 GW
The HYBRIT plant, a pilot project for fossil free steel is going to utilize an over sized green hydrogen production side to enable it to work as a smart consumer and therefore balance the grid. Thus it is completely dependent on cheap renewables to operate and enables deeper penetration of renewables.
> The HYBRIT initiative was launched in 2016 by the three owners; SSAB, LKAB and Vattenfall. The hydrogen storage facility will play a very important role in the overall value chain for fossil-free iron and steel production. Production can take place without a storage facility, but storage provides the opportunity to vary the demand for electricity and ensure stable production. By producing hydrogen gas when there is a lot of electricity, for example when there is a lot of wind, and using stored hydrogen gas when the electricity system is under strain, will ensure production.
> “The hydrogen storage facility has a stabilising effect on the electrical system. It reduces the risk of the system overloading. We want to develop HYBRIT technology so that it is in line with the future electricity system with more weather-dependent electricity generation,” says Mikael Nordlander, Development Manager for Vattenfall’s industrial partnerships.
https://www.hybritdevelopment.se/en/hybrit-a-unique-hydrogen...
[1]: https://www.vestas.com/en/products/offshore/V236-15MW/V236-1...
Your calibration is off by quite a few years. The current off-shore turbines being built are 15 MW with capacity factors of around 60%.[1] So lets do 50% for wind and 90% for nuclear.
Wind: 1,000 * 15 MW * 0.5 = 7.5 GW
Nuclear: 1 * 1650 MW (EPR) * 0.9 = 1.485 GW
The HYBRIT plant, a pilot project for fossil free steel is going to utilize an over sized green hydrogen production side to enable it to work as a smart consumer and therefore balance the grid. Thus it is completely dependent on cheap renewables to operate and enables deeper penetration of renewables.
> The HYBRIT initiative was launched in 2016 by the three owners; SSAB, LKAB and Vattenfall. The hydrogen storage facility will play a very important role in the overall value chain for fossil-free iron and steel production. Production can take place without a storage facility, but storage provides the opportunity to vary the demand for electricity and ensure stable production. By producing hydrogen gas when there is a lot of electricity, for example when there is a lot of wind, and using stored hydrogen gas when the electricity system is under strain, will ensure production.
> “The hydrogen storage facility has a stabilising effect on the electrical system. It reduces the risk of the system overloading. We want to develop HYBRIT technology so that it is in line with the future electricity system with more weather-dependent electricity generation,” says Mikael Nordlander, Development Manager for Vattenfall’s industrial partnerships.
https://www.hybritdevelopment.se/en/hybrit-a-unique-hydrogen...
[1]: https://www.vestas.com/en/products/offshore/V236-15MW/V236-1...
Obviously, "using renewables to produce hydrogen" means hydrolysis, i.e. use the electricity generated to split water and release hydrogen, which can then be indefinitely stored. Note also comment about using ammonia for storage and transport.
I'm thinking a key metric is the efficiency of it all.
I'm thinking a key metric is the efficiency of it all.
> there are sourced charts about this
If you wouldn't mind, could you please source the charts?
If you wouldn't mind, could you please source the charts?
Nuclear is expensive first and foremost because of the unreasonable yield demands of capital and the advent of neoliberalism causing states to cave to said demands (source: https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Hinkley-Po...)
Yes renewables are baseload. People look up what it actually means, before you repeat this stuff. Quoting directly from the Wikipedia article:
> The base load[1] (also baseload) is the minimum level of demand on an electrical grid over a span of time, for example, one week. This demand can be met by unvarying power plants,[2] dispatchable generation,[3] or by a collection of smaller intermittent energy sources,[4] depending on which approach has the best mix of cost, availability and reliability in any particular market.
Wind and solar are intermittent sources.
> The base load[1] (also baseload) is the minimum level of demand on an electrical grid over a span of time, for example, one week. This demand can be met by unvarying power plants,[2] dispatchable generation,[3] or by a collection of smaller intermittent energy sources,[4] depending on which approach has the best mix of cost, availability and reliability in any particular market.
Wind and solar are intermittent sources.
I agree with some of your criticism of the article, but I disagree that nuclear waste is a problem.
Yes, we have to store it somewhere. But all US plants combined make ~5k cubic meters of nuclear waste a year. To put that in perspective, the strategic oil reserve is 100 million cubic meters. A single aircraft carrier is 2 million cubic meters.
Political will aside, finding a place to store this stuff doesn’t seem like a massive problem.
Yes, we have to store it somewhere. But all US plants combined make ~5k cubic meters of nuclear waste a year. To put that in perspective, the strategic oil reserve is 100 million cubic meters. A single aircraft carrier is 2 million cubic meters.
Political will aside, finding a place to store this stuff doesn’t seem like a massive problem.
You just considered one axis of the waste properties. It must also be in the equation that the waste will remain radioactive and toxic for thousands of years, far beyond the time horizon of what a normal human brain is capable of processing. Also, the effects (spatial, biological) if the waste is released for whatever reason (which we may not even know now). So the debt we transfer to future generations goes far, too far, beyond just a question what space is required for the waste.
I really like the argument of just keeping the waste on site at the reactors. They're already heavily guarded and everybody is trained to deal with the waste + safety inspections happen regularly.
Just keep the waste on site and then, if a plant is decommissioned, add it to another reactor's pile.
It's not a permanent solution for millions of years, but it's also likely fine for the next 100 years and that's a reasonable tradeoff (imo).
Just keep the waste on site and then, if a plant is decommissioned, add it to another reactor's pile.
It's not a permanent solution for millions of years, but it's also likely fine for the next 100 years and that's a reasonable tradeoff (imo).
> far beyond the time horizon of what a normal human brain is capable of processing
This is just hyperbole though. All the other arguments aside, it's perfectly possible for humans to plan, and make risk estimates, beyond a human life span.
This is just hyperbole though. All the other arguments aside, it's perfectly possible for humans to plan, and make risk estimates, beyond a human life span.
Some humans can plan well over such horizons, but the reason we even need to have this discussion now is that the people in charge 70 years ago didn't care to plan to mitigate against the carbon dioxide from fossil fuel plants, even though Svante Arrhenius calculated in 1896(!) that doubling atmospheric CO2 concentrations would increase Earth's temperature 4-6 °C (depending in part on which Wikipedia reference I follow).
The Germans could not even properly manage one of their test locations (for weak and medium-level radioactive nuclear waste, not for waste from nuclear plants) longer than a few decades. One person who worked there said that after a few years they didn't know anymore what and how much exactly was stored there.
We're making the Earth unhinhabitable for millions of people already with climate change
I think a small pile of hot rubbish well hidden is the least of our problems
I think a small pile of hot rubbish well hidden is the least of our problems
Sure, easy to grant you that Nuclear is not perfect.
But I'm not comparing Nuclear to perfection; I'm comparing it to existing alternatives. Climate change is real, the stakes are high, and nuclear brings a lot to the table.
Nuclear can provide base load energy. To provide base load with renewables requires battery storage that doesn't exist. I'm sure the technology exists but whether because expense or other issues, energy grids around the world don't use grid level storage. And consumers are not interested in trading a little reliability for greener grids; they consistently insist that dirty alternatives close the gap.
And very rough estimate here (it is going to vary considerably based on the solar panels and plant in question, but the principle is unchanged): 1 nuclear plant is roughly 4,000 sq km of solar panels. So like 80 Manhattans ever inch of it a solar panel array. The environmental destruction caused by solar panel array and wind farms is real. The amount of mining required to create the materials needed for 4k solar panels also has a very high environmental cost. Nuclear is compact and requires less materials.
We deal with all kinds of waste that we know would be damaging if it was released in the environment. Radioactivity is dangerous, but I would argue far better understood than many other phenomenon (like micro plastics). It is a challenge, but there is no avoiding challenges. The tradeoffs feel well worth it to me.
But I'm not comparing Nuclear to perfection; I'm comparing it to existing alternatives. Climate change is real, the stakes are high, and nuclear brings a lot to the table.
Nuclear can provide base load energy. To provide base load with renewables requires battery storage that doesn't exist. I'm sure the technology exists but whether because expense or other issues, energy grids around the world don't use grid level storage. And consumers are not interested in trading a little reliability for greener grids; they consistently insist that dirty alternatives close the gap.
And very rough estimate here (it is going to vary considerably based on the solar panels and plant in question, but the principle is unchanged): 1 nuclear plant is roughly 4,000 sq km of solar panels. So like 80 Manhattans ever inch of it a solar panel array. The environmental destruction caused by solar panel array and wind farms is real. The amount of mining required to create the materials needed for 4k solar panels also has a very high environmental cost. Nuclear is compact and requires less materials.
We deal with all kinds of waste that we know would be damaging if it was released in the environment. Radioactivity is dangerous, but I would argue far better understood than many other phenomenon (like micro plastics). It is a challenge, but there is no avoiding challenges. The tradeoffs feel well worth it to me.
Spent fuel will remain toxic forever. Uranium and plutonium are heavy metals. They will have to be treated as dangerous substances from now until the end of time, much like lead or mercury.
Northern Sweden is known for its iron mines. What people might not know is that if you live anywhere near where such mining has occurred (many miles away from the actually mining site), it is strongly recommended that people have detectors for radium. Obviously, water that is close to mining sites is generally not advisable to drink. Mining just bring up a lot of toxic things that the human body react badly with.
What percentage of the earth’s crust is lead? How does that compare to spent fuel?
Approximately 0.0013% and 0%, respectively. I'm not sure what you're getting at.
My point is that we already deal with many substances that are toxic forever. Something about the danger reducing over the course of thousands of years seems to make people more concerned about the future than when the danger is permanent.
My point is that we already deal with many substances that are toxic forever. Something about the danger reducing over the course of thousands of years seems to make people more concerned about the future than when the danger is permanent.
> Yes, we have to store it somewhere. But all US plants combined make ~5k cubic meters of nuclear waste a year.
And all those extra 5k cubic meters per year of nuclear waste needs to be stored for around a million years until they are again safe.
And all those extra 5k cubic meters per year of nuclear waste needs to be stored for around a million years until they are again safe.
If you read the article you'd see it's not "million years" but ~300.
Yes it's 300 years, because of magic which somehow makes recycling feasible and let's us ignore all the parts which have lifetimes longer than 300 years. That's not a valid argument. So far nobody has managed to come up with a economically and ecologically feasible way to recycle nuclear waste. The French Le Havre site is primarily run for military reasons and multiples the amount of waste. Admittedly lower grade waste, but it still needs to be kept away from people for thousands of years.
Even if it was a million years it wouldn't matter. The US has the Nevada desert which is effectively a barren wasteland, just shove it in a bunch of containers and leave it there. They already do that for removed nuclear reactors from military vessels (which is actually so it can be seen in satellite imagery to fulfill international treaty requirements.
> Even if it was a million years it wouldn't matter.
This take is absurd. Humanity barely exists for a few thousand years and you somehow assume that it's feasible and economically justifiable to create a health and security hazard that will exist until the end of times.
And all for what? Because you want to shave off a few cents from an energy bill?
This take is absurd. Humanity barely exists for a few thousand years and you somehow assume that it's feasible and economically justifiable to create a health and security hazard that will exist until the end of times.
And all for what? Because you want to shave off a few cents from an energy bill?
> Political will aside, finding a place to store this stuff doesn’t seem like a massive problem.
How about your backyard?
How about your backyard?
In what sense?
In the literal backyard of my house? No. Of course, I also support windmills, water reservoirs, lithium mining, and electric car factories and don't want any of those in my literal backyard either. The idea that it is hypocritical to advocate anything you wouldn’t want on your own residential property seems like such an obviously ridiculous idea, I'm not sure it makes sense to rebut. There are countless things society wants (factories, mines, landfills, warehouses, etc…) that don’t make sense to do in residential areas.
In my figurative backyard, like the state I live in? Sure, I would definitely support California creating a nuclear waste storage facility.
This isn't really anything groundbreaking. We already have millions of acres of landfills in the US. Like radioactive waste, trash is basically permanent and will be decomposing for at least hundreds of years. And no one wants a landfill "in their backyard," but somehow we still managed to create the thousands of landfills we have today. We can spare a few dozen acres to build a nuclear waste facility.
In the literal backyard of my house? No. Of course, I also support windmills, water reservoirs, lithium mining, and electric car factories and don't want any of those in my literal backyard either. The idea that it is hypocritical to advocate anything you wouldn’t want on your own residential property seems like such an obviously ridiculous idea, I'm not sure it makes sense to rebut. There are countless things society wants (factories, mines, landfills, warehouses, etc…) that don’t make sense to do in residential areas.
In my figurative backyard, like the state I live in? Sure, I would definitely support California creating a nuclear waste storage facility.
This isn't really anything groundbreaking. We already have millions of acres of landfills in the US. Like radioactive waste, trash is basically permanent and will be decomposing for at least hundreds of years. And no one wants a landfill "in their backyard," but somehow we still managed to create the thousands of landfills we have today. We can spare a few dozen acres to build a nuclear waste facility.
> In the literal backyard of my house? No.
Ok, so storage is a problem.
Ok, so storage is a problem.
Do you not throw anything away? All the trash you've ever created is kept in a landfill on your own property? Impressive!
My trash and your trash isn’t toxic to millions of people for millennia
If I can access the fuel remaining in the rods, sure! I always wanted a 15kw thermal reactor in my back yard... just need a few cubic meters of Peltier pods...
I'd love to have a backyard big enough for that.
The only problems I would have with it being in my hypothetical back yard would be other people thinking it was dangerous, leading to an urban decay cycle (this also applies to property with unlucky numbers, like 13 in the anglosphere), and/or lots of protesters and/or would-be terrorists not realising how deep the stuff is buried nor now hard it is to shift a multi-ton concrete-filled steel barrel.
The only problems I would have with it being in my hypothetical back yard would be other people thinking it was dangerous, leading to an urban decay cycle (this also applies to property with unlucky numbers, like 13 in the anglosphere), and/or lots of protesters and/or would-be terrorists not realising how deep the stuff is buried nor now hard it is to shift a multi-ton concrete-filled steel barrel.
I don't have a backyard, but if it turned out to be the most effective and safe solution to, let's say, dig a deep borehole under my hypothetical lawn, drop the waste down there and seal it back up, why not?
From what I know of deep geological storage, I wouldn't mind living in a house on top of one of these sites. Since they're usually in the middle of nowhere, it would probably be even safer than living in a polluted city.
From what I know of deep geological storage, I wouldn't mind living in a house on top of one of these sites. Since they're usually in the middle of nowhere, it would probably be even safer than living in a polluted city.
> I don't have a backyard
How convenient
How convenient
wow, yes, so convenient that the prospect of having a house is nothing but an unrealistic dream for my generation...
What's your point??
What's your point??
If I had billions I’d give it all away. I promise.
The solar panel argument is very weak, at best. There are some minor challenges with solar. And they are really very minor. Quite different to "don't touch the nuclear waste for the next few million or so years".
Nuclear has several problems. The main one of which is simply its cost. It is complex technology that involves dangerous materials that need protective measures against both technical failures and security measures against people doing things like building dirty bombs with these materials. You don't need a lot of nuclear waste to make a really effective dirty bomb.
All solvable, but it adds to the cost. Security generally involves babysitting reactors for their operational life as well as securing any sites where the waste is stored.
Solar is about an order of magnitude cheaper and faster to deploy. That's conservative. It's hard to not emphasize just how simple solar panels are in comparison. Mass producing them seems to lead to all sorts improvements in production processes and cost reductions. So they are an order of magnitude cheaper now. It might be two or three in some decades.
A solar panel just works for a few decades. You put it wherever and at the end of it's life you either recycle it or not. That's mostly a cost driven decision. We're talking perfectly inert material that you can have on your roof for decades without being exposed to anything harmful. Really, landfills of the stuff would not pose that many challenges. Certainly not compared to the other stuff we dump there like household electronics, old phones, depleted non rechargeable batteries, etc.
However, landfills of this stuff seem wasteful and probably the trace elements of various minerals and precious metals will be too tempting for recycling companies for that not to not happen. It will be some decades before we know because most panels in use today just got installed fairly recently and will be operating for some decades to come. Same with lithium ion car batteries. We already recycle lead acid batteries for decades. The value of lead is comparatively low to nickel and lithium. This might be a multi billion dollar industry. Nuclear waste is not very profitable at all. Just cost. People might get smart about lowering that cost is the best you can say about it.
I doubt the math will ever add up for nuclear to matter much. When your competition is orders of magnitudes cheaper, it doesn't matter how rosy a picture you paint for dealing with terrorists, nuclear waste, and the potential for area depopulating disasters. It's still too expensive. Mitigating those things will never be free. That's the problem.
Nuclear has several problems. The main one of which is simply its cost. It is complex technology that involves dangerous materials that need protective measures against both technical failures and security measures against people doing things like building dirty bombs with these materials. You don't need a lot of nuclear waste to make a really effective dirty bomb.
All solvable, but it adds to the cost. Security generally involves babysitting reactors for their operational life as well as securing any sites where the waste is stored.
Solar is about an order of magnitude cheaper and faster to deploy. That's conservative. It's hard to not emphasize just how simple solar panels are in comparison. Mass producing them seems to lead to all sorts improvements in production processes and cost reductions. So they are an order of magnitude cheaper now. It might be two or three in some decades.
A solar panel just works for a few decades. You put it wherever and at the end of it's life you either recycle it or not. That's mostly a cost driven decision. We're talking perfectly inert material that you can have on your roof for decades without being exposed to anything harmful. Really, landfills of the stuff would not pose that many challenges. Certainly not compared to the other stuff we dump there like household electronics, old phones, depleted non rechargeable batteries, etc.
However, landfills of this stuff seem wasteful and probably the trace elements of various minerals and precious metals will be too tempting for recycling companies for that not to not happen. It will be some decades before we know because most panels in use today just got installed fairly recently and will be operating for some decades to come. Same with lithium ion car batteries. We already recycle lead acid batteries for decades. The value of lead is comparatively low to nickel and lithium. This might be a multi billion dollar industry. Nuclear waste is not very profitable at all. Just cost. People might get smart about lowering that cost is the best you can say about it.
I doubt the math will ever add up for nuclear to matter much. When your competition is orders of magnitudes cheaper, it doesn't matter how rosy a picture you paint for dealing with terrorists, nuclear waste, and the potential for area depopulating disasters. It's still too expensive. Mitigating those things will never be free. That's the problem.
Wait, there is more.
Nuclear needs water to cool, hot water then goes into rivers. This, until the river becomes too hot for the life in the water, then you cannot use your plant anymore (or you can, at the risk of killing all life in the area).
Also water evaporates when it's hot and vapor is a greenhouse gas even worse than carbon dioxyde. This might sound like a minor problem in the short term but it might be a huge issue in the future.
Also Uranium is sold at a negative ROI right now because of the decline of demand from Japan and Germany since Fukushima. But as those countries roadmap for nuclear changes, and as China is building more plants, the price for Uranium (which is quite inelastic) will increase significantly. Problem is, you don't build a plant for a year or two, you build it only if you intent to use it for decades. The commitment is huge.
I believe nuclear is useful as part of the mix but isn't a one-size-fits-all solution.
Nuclear needs water to cool, hot water then goes into rivers. This, until the river becomes too hot for the life in the water, then you cannot use your plant anymore (or you can, at the risk of killing all life in the area).
Also water evaporates when it's hot and vapor is a greenhouse gas even worse than carbon dioxyde. This might sound like a minor problem in the short term but it might be a huge issue in the future.
Also Uranium is sold at a negative ROI right now because of the decline of demand from Japan and Germany since Fukushima. But as those countries roadmap for nuclear changes, and as China is building more plants, the price for Uranium (which is quite inelastic) will increase significantly. Problem is, you don't build a plant for a year or two, you build it only if you intent to use it for decades. The commitment is huge.
I believe nuclear is useful as part of the mix but isn't a one-size-fits-all solution.
All thermal power plants need cooling.
Some plants were built without cooling towers. Those are now a problem.
Some plants were built without cooling towers. Those are now a problem.
> Nuclear needs water to cool, hot water then goes into rivers.
Can you back that up? From what I understand most of the cooling happens in the cooling towers by evaporation?
Can you back that up? From what I understand most of the cooling happens in the cooling towers by evaporation?
https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-fu...
It can't be that hard to google? That being said, only 14% of reactors use rivers to cool, so OP may be exaggerating a bit.
It can't be that hard to google? That being said, only 14% of reactors use rivers to cool, so OP may be exaggerating a bit.
That's a great comparison of producing, installing, maintaining and recycling, but what about the thing we're building this in the first place? Generating power?
Let's say we shut down a coal power plant, which was 30% of a region's energy mix, and want to replace its output. What's the total cost and environmental impact of doing that with solar vs nuclear? This is the only thing that matters. Even if solar panels are 100x better per-peak-watt, by the time you add all the overprovisioning and storage necessary to cover the baseline during nights and overcast days, the numbers look very very different.
The only question that matters is what solution can cover the need, currently met by fossil fuels. That solution isn't just the generation method, it's everything else we need in order to match not just the baseline and peak output, but the entire curve.
Let's say we shut down a coal power plant, which was 30% of a region's energy mix, and want to replace its output. What's the total cost and environmental impact of doing that with solar vs nuclear? This is the only thing that matters. Even if solar panels are 100x better per-peak-watt, by the time you add all the overprovisioning and storage necessary to cover the baseline during nights and overcast days, the numbers look very very different.
The only question that matters is what solution can cover the need, currently met by fossil fuels. That solution isn't just the generation method, it's everything else we need in order to match not just the baseline and peak output, but the entire curve.
Hinkley Point C will cost about 100pounds/MWh give or take 10%. Wind power in the UK has strike prices around forty pounds per MWh. That leaves a bit of room for storage before you're more expensive than Hinkley Point C.
https://www.catalyst-commercial.co.uk/wholesale-electricity-...
With prices climbing there is a lot of room for things to compete.
Similar inside europe (https://tradingeconomics.com/euro-area/energy-prices).
I think a lot of household would accept a contract for 40 pounds per MWh for the whole year regardless of weather with guarantied capacity, and under liability in the case the contract is not fulfilled.
With prices climbing there is a lot of room for things to compete.
Similar inside europe (https://tradingeconomics.com/euro-area/energy-prices).
I think a lot of household would accept a contract for 40 pounds per MWh for the whole year regardless of weather with guarantied capacity, and under liability in the case the contract is not fulfilled.
> because of some development in the future will make recycling of spend fuel rods feasible.
Context: They are responding to a complaint that isn't explicit here. That complaint usually comes in the form of: "we have nowhere to put the waste" or "Yucca Mountain was canceled and we'll never have such a facility because of NIMBY." So the response is more "We can store on site and don't need deep geological depositories, here's others who have done it. But if you really want a geological depository, here's Onkalo." We can already do on sight, and this is already being done, so it makes sense to argue about this. If we want to do some smaller scale DGDs then we can do things substantially smaller than Yucca Mountain and have decades to build it.
I think without this context, it comes off as extremely hand-wavy. I'll admit that there is some hand-wavyness, but without something in place all you can argue is "this problem isn't as hard as people think. We can do it, here's real world examples elsewhere." I'm not sure what other argument they are supposed to make.
Context: They are responding to a complaint that isn't explicit here. That complaint usually comes in the form of: "we have nowhere to put the waste" or "Yucca Mountain was canceled and we'll never have such a facility because of NIMBY." So the response is more "We can store on site and don't need deep geological depositories, here's others who have done it. But if you really want a geological depository, here's Onkalo." We can already do on sight, and this is already being done, so it makes sense to argue about this. If we want to do some smaller scale DGDs then we can do things substantially smaller than Yucca Mountain and have decades to build it.
I think without this context, it comes off as extremely hand-wavy. I'll admit that there is some hand-wavyness, but without something in place all you can argue is "this problem isn't as hard as people think. We can do it, here's real world examples elsewhere." I'm not sure what other argument they are supposed to make.
> > because of some development in the future will make recycling of spend fuel rods feasible.
> Context: They are responding to a complaint that isn't explicit here. That complaint usually comes in the form of: "we have nowhere to put the waste" or "Yucca Mountain was canceled and we'll never have such a facility because of NIMBY." So the response is more "We can store on site and don't need deep geological depositories, here's others who have done it. But if you really want a geological depository, here's Onkalo." We can already do on sight, and this is already being done, so it makes sense to argue about this. If we want to do some smaller scale DGDs then we can do things substantially smaller than Yucca Mountain and have decades to build it.
So the argument is: because we haven't managed to actually find a long term storage we can make up numbers about recycling and lifetime of the waste?
And just dismissing the reasons as NIMBY is grossly over simplifying things, there are massive uncertainties about not just the storage, but also the logistics of the transport, the maintance etc..
> I think without this context, it comes off as extremely hand-wavy. I'll admit that there is some hand-wavyness, but without something in place all you can argue is "this problem isn't as hard as people think. We can do it, here's real world examples elsewhere." I'm not sure what other argument they are supposed to make.
Where are the real world examples? The only place that has now opened a long term storage facility is Finland who just opened it (and that supposedly was largely due to political pressure because the project had run so much over time and budget), we actually don't know if they can run it let alone for 1000s of years. The low energy storage facility in Germany is a mess already after a few 10s of years (in Asse 2 they stored the low intensity waste in meta drums inside a former salt mine. Water got in, not really a good combination).
> Context: They are responding to a complaint that isn't explicit here. That complaint usually comes in the form of: "we have nowhere to put the waste" or "Yucca Mountain was canceled and we'll never have such a facility because of NIMBY." So the response is more "We can store on site and don't need deep geological depositories, here's others who have done it. But if you really want a geological depository, here's Onkalo." We can already do on sight, and this is already being done, so it makes sense to argue about this. If we want to do some smaller scale DGDs then we can do things substantially smaller than Yucca Mountain and have decades to build it.
So the argument is: because we haven't managed to actually find a long term storage we can make up numbers about recycling and lifetime of the waste?
And just dismissing the reasons as NIMBY is grossly over simplifying things, there are massive uncertainties about not just the storage, but also the logistics of the transport, the maintance etc..
> I think without this context, it comes off as extremely hand-wavy. I'll admit that there is some hand-wavyness, but without something in place all you can argue is "this problem isn't as hard as people think. We can do it, here's real world examples elsewhere." I'm not sure what other argument they are supposed to make.
Where are the real world examples? The only place that has now opened a long term storage facility is Finland who just opened it (and that supposedly was largely due to political pressure because the project had run so much over time and budget), we actually don't know if they can run it let alone for 1000s of years. The low energy storage facility in Germany is a mess already after a few 10s of years (in Asse 2 they stored the low intensity waste in meta drums inside a former salt mine. Water got in, not really a good combination).
I do not feel like you are giving me a good faith response, but I am responding in the hope that you are.
> So the argument is: because we haven't managed to actually find a long term storage we can make up numbers about recycling and lifetime of the waste?
No, that is not the argument.
1) Those lifetime numbers aren't made up. I'm not sure why you would claim so. You can easily check these numbers. (This is why I'm concerned about good faith. You are just saying that the article is flat out lying, not hand waving)
2) We don't need repositories. There are other sources, including our own acidburnNSA[0]. Storing things on sight is perfectly fine and we can do so for hundreds of years safely. I think many miss a lot of the purposes of deep geological repositories and the strange constraints they have on them. One such constraint (driven by cold war fear) is that these sites can't accidentally be dug up by future archeologists or aliens thousands of years after we are gone and who may not understand our language. It is a weird constraint because it's assuming we have a nuclear war, wipe everyone out, and forget everything about radiation. This is really unlikely.
> there are massive uncertainties about not just the storage, but also the logistics of the transport, the maintance etc..
Would you care to explain? We've advanced storage techniques in the last 70 years we've been using nuclear. What is the concern with transportation? We've had them fall out of planes (during a period where engines would also fall off planes, but this doesn't happen anymore) and hit by trains all without any problem. It sounds like we have room for mistakes/error. Those examples are success of real world testing.
> Where are the real world examples?
> now opened a long term storage facility is Finland
It feels like you answered your own question. But here's France's storage[1] and Russia's[2]. You should also read [0] because it discusses easier methods.
[0] https://whatisnuclear.com/waste.html
[1] https://twitter.com/Orano_usa/status/1182662569619795968
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5uN0bZBOic&t=105s
> So the argument is: because we haven't managed to actually find a long term storage we can make up numbers about recycling and lifetime of the waste?
No, that is not the argument.
1) Those lifetime numbers aren't made up. I'm not sure why you would claim so. You can easily check these numbers. (This is why I'm concerned about good faith. You are just saying that the article is flat out lying, not hand waving)
2) We don't need repositories. There are other sources, including our own acidburnNSA[0]. Storing things on sight is perfectly fine and we can do so for hundreds of years safely. I think many miss a lot of the purposes of deep geological repositories and the strange constraints they have on them. One such constraint (driven by cold war fear) is that these sites can't accidentally be dug up by future archeologists or aliens thousands of years after we are gone and who may not understand our language. It is a weird constraint because it's assuming we have a nuclear war, wipe everyone out, and forget everything about radiation. This is really unlikely.
> there are massive uncertainties about not just the storage, but also the logistics of the transport, the maintance etc..
Would you care to explain? We've advanced storage techniques in the last 70 years we've been using nuclear. What is the concern with transportation? We've had them fall out of planes (during a period where engines would also fall off planes, but this doesn't happen anymore) and hit by trains all without any problem. It sounds like we have room for mistakes/error. Those examples are success of real world testing.
> Where are the real world examples?
> now opened a long term storage facility is Finland
It feels like you answered your own question. But here's France's storage[1] and Russia's[2]. You should also read [0] because it discusses easier methods.
[0] https://whatisnuclear.com/waste.html
[1] https://twitter.com/Orano_usa/status/1182662569619795968
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5uN0bZBOic&t=105s
> I do not feel like you are giving me a good faith response, but I am responding in the hope that you are.
I am trying to give a good faith response, but I feel that the original article is not arguing in good faith and I don't understand your justification.
> > So the argument is: because we haven't managed to actually find a long term storage we can make up numbers about recycling and lifetime of the waste?
> No, that is not the argument.
> 1) Those lifetime numbers aren't made up. I'm not sure why you would claim so. You can easily check these numbers. (This is why I'm concerned about good faith. You are just saying that the article is flat out lying, not hand waving)
The lifetime numbers are not made up and I never said the original author was lying. However, saying that solar cells have an issue because they at this moment can not commercially recycled 100% (which is incorrect but besides the point), but at the same time arguing that nuclear waste is not a problem because we can ignore everything with a lifetime >300 years because it is potential fuel and could be somehow recycled in the future is dishonest. You can't in the same argument criticise one technology based on the current state of the art and at the same time use some hypothetical future development to say the other technology does not have an issue.
This is what I criticised, many discussions boil down to exactly this. Renewables are criticised based on some current state, while nuclear is good because all issues will somehow be solved through future developments.
You argued that it was OK to be handwavy because of NIMBY preventing a repository. I disagree that ignoring long lifetime components because they somehow could be recycled in the future is handwavy, that is wishing the issue away.
> 2) We don't need repositories. There are other sources, including our own acidburnNSA[0].
What do you mean acidburnNSA? I could not find anything on the link you provided.
> Storing things on sight is perfectly fine and we can do so for hundreds of years safely.
While I agree that storing things on site is currently the best solution. It is completely unproven that we can do this for 100s of years. Neither is it clear that the containers will last that long, nor the social/political structures.
>I think many miss a lot of the purposes of deep geological repositories and the strange constraints they have on them. One such constraint (driven by cold war fear) is that these sites can't accidentally be dug up by future archeologists or aliens thousands of years after we are gone and who may not understand our language. It is a weird constraint because it's assuming we have a nuclear war, wipe everyone out, and forget everything about radiation. This is really unlikely.
What do you mean? Understanding languages that are several hundreds to thousands of years old is not straight forward. We don't need to think of aliens either. We don't even have established information storage mechanisms that lasts that long.
> > there are massive uncertainties about not just the storage, but also the logistics of the transport, the maintance etc..
> Would you care to explain? We've advanced storage techniques in the last 70 years we've been using nuclear. What is the concern with transportation? We've had them fall out of planes (during a period where engines would also fall off planes, but this doesn't happen anymore) and hit by trains all without any problem. It sounds like we have room for mistakes/error. Those examples are success of real world testing.
I'm talking about that they are obvious targets for terrorist attacks, protests etc.. All of these increase the costs of transports. Also I recall some experiments or expert assessments for at least the french/German castor containers which showed possible (impropabale but not unrealistic) scenarios that they would not withstand.
> > Where are the real world examples?
> > now opened a long term storage facility is Finland
> It feels like you answered your own question. But here's France's storage[1] and Russia's[2]. You should also read [0] because it discusses easier methods.
You are moving the goalposts, first Onkalo is even by the nuclear industry acknowledged to be the first long term repository, and it can't have been proven to work having just opened. The French facility (and I assume Russian one, I don't speak Russian) is much more like a temporary storage, also not proven yet that it will work. I covered recycling already, it is highly uneconomical produces a lot of low rate waste and is only done for political/military reasons in France.
> [0] https://whatisnuclear.com/waste.html
> [1] https://twitter.com/Orano_usa/status/1182662569619795968
> [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5uN0bZBOic&t=105s
I am trying to give a good faith response, but I feel that the original article is not arguing in good faith and I don't understand your justification.
> > So the argument is: because we haven't managed to actually find a long term storage we can make up numbers about recycling and lifetime of the waste?
> No, that is not the argument.
> 1) Those lifetime numbers aren't made up. I'm not sure why you would claim so. You can easily check these numbers. (This is why I'm concerned about good faith. You are just saying that the article is flat out lying, not hand waving)
The lifetime numbers are not made up and I never said the original author was lying. However, saying that solar cells have an issue because they at this moment can not commercially recycled 100% (which is incorrect but besides the point), but at the same time arguing that nuclear waste is not a problem because we can ignore everything with a lifetime >300 years because it is potential fuel and could be somehow recycled in the future is dishonest. You can't in the same argument criticise one technology based on the current state of the art and at the same time use some hypothetical future development to say the other technology does not have an issue.
This is what I criticised, many discussions boil down to exactly this. Renewables are criticised based on some current state, while nuclear is good because all issues will somehow be solved through future developments.
You argued that it was OK to be handwavy because of NIMBY preventing a repository. I disagree that ignoring long lifetime components because they somehow could be recycled in the future is handwavy, that is wishing the issue away.
> 2) We don't need repositories. There are other sources, including our own acidburnNSA[0].
What do you mean acidburnNSA? I could not find anything on the link you provided.
> Storing things on sight is perfectly fine and we can do so for hundreds of years safely.
While I agree that storing things on site is currently the best solution. It is completely unproven that we can do this for 100s of years. Neither is it clear that the containers will last that long, nor the social/political structures.
>I think many miss a lot of the purposes of deep geological repositories and the strange constraints they have on them. One such constraint (driven by cold war fear) is that these sites can't accidentally be dug up by future archeologists or aliens thousands of years after we are gone and who may not understand our language. It is a weird constraint because it's assuming we have a nuclear war, wipe everyone out, and forget everything about radiation. This is really unlikely.
What do you mean? Understanding languages that are several hundreds to thousands of years old is not straight forward. We don't need to think of aliens either. We don't even have established information storage mechanisms that lasts that long.
> > there are massive uncertainties about not just the storage, but also the logistics of the transport, the maintance etc..
> Would you care to explain? We've advanced storage techniques in the last 70 years we've been using nuclear. What is the concern with transportation? We've had them fall out of planes (during a period where engines would also fall off planes, but this doesn't happen anymore) and hit by trains all without any problem. It sounds like we have room for mistakes/error. Those examples are success of real world testing.
I'm talking about that they are obvious targets for terrorist attacks, protests etc.. All of these increase the costs of transports. Also I recall some experiments or expert assessments for at least the french/German castor containers which showed possible (impropabale but not unrealistic) scenarios that they would not withstand.
> > Where are the real world examples?
> > now opened a long term storage facility is Finland
> It feels like you answered your own question. But here's France's storage[1] and Russia's[2]. You should also read [0] because it discusses easier methods.
You are moving the goalposts, first Onkalo is even by the nuclear industry acknowledged to be the first long term repository, and it can't have been proven to work having just opened. The French facility (and I assume Russian one, I don't speak Russian) is much more like a temporary storage, also not proven yet that it will work. I covered recycling already, it is highly uneconomical produces a lot of low rate waste and is only done for political/military reasons in France.
> [0] https://whatisnuclear.com/waste.html
> [1] https://twitter.com/Orano_usa/status/1182662569619795968
> [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5uN0bZBOic&t=105s
> I am trying to give a good faith response,
Okay, and in that spirit I'll not how I'm interpreting some of your responses. They may not be what you intended but I feel that if I note how I see what you are saying that this can prevent us from talking past one another, which is an easy thing to do accidentally. Let's try to work through this together.
> The lifetime numbers are not made up and I never said the original author was lying.
When you said:
>> we can make up numbers about recycling and lifetime of the waste?
I assumed that it was "make up numbers about lifetime of waste." I'm still having a hard time reading this another way tbh. Would you care to clarify?
> You argued that it was OK to be handwavy because of NIMBY preventing a repository.
No I argued
>>> I'm not sure what other argument they are supposed to make.
Under the condition
>>> without something in place all you can argue is "this problem isn't as hard as people think. We can do it, here's real world examples elsewhere."
I still stand by that. I'm not sure what else you can argue other than "We can do it, here's examples" when there isn't an exact thing in place. I should mention that there are plenty of simulations that show that this is the case. What are we supposed to argue? "Here's an example in the US and that's why we should do it in the US?" That doesn't make sense because we'd then be doing it and wouldn't need to argue in favor of doing said task. I'm still confused what your problem is. Which brings me to
> It is completely unproven that we can do this for 100s of years.
Which again, I'm not sure what you mean. We have simulations. We have small scale testing. We even have medium/long scale testing. The only thing we really don't have is a literal experiment where we've tested this containment for 100 years. But we have for almost 100 years. The likelihood that things become more dangerous after 80 years (from Manhattan project) seems unlikely given literally everything we know about radioactivity and it's nature to reduce in danger over time. So I'm not sure what you're asking for as "proof".
This also is, in my view, silly in the same way it is silly for a recruiter to ask for 10 years of Carbon experience. Carbon is less than a year old, so it is impossible to have 10 years of experience. Though, from personal experience, I've seen this literal argument made by the government to a DoE lab. DoE wanted to improve storage based on simulations and physical testing but the gov said "can't do it because it isn't proven" with "proven" being "full lifetime" physical testing. This is a rather silly, and understandably frustrating, argument. Clearly if you aren't allowed to test something because it isn't "proven" then you can't fulfill the conditions to prove it. The situation is set up to fail and, understandably, make people angry. It is circular logic. If you aren't intending it in this manner, please elaborate because that is how I'm interpreting and I apologize if it isn't the intent. If your intent is to say that we can't have the technology proven until we have a full lifetime example (and thus hundreds or hundreds of thousands of years), please let me know. I will have a followup.
> and at the same time use some hypothetical future development to say the other technology does not have an issue.
Actually, I don't think the author argued anything that wasn't already being done either in another country or through lab scale testing (as in physical testing. Well past simulations).
> What do you mean? Understanding languages that are several hundreds to thousands of years old is not straight forward.
Sorry, I am arguing a different point. Allow me to clarify. I think the premise that literally all human knowledge from now (and previously) will be lost, is a bit naive and an EXTREMELY high bar. While it is something we should be concerned with, it shouldn't be a deal breaker. After all, the bar is so high that it is essentially impossible to meet this bar. We've also got plenty of historical examples to prove that this is unlikely, given that no such event has ever happened and that we also know not to drink water from ancient Roman pipes which are lead lined and who believed that stagnant water was safe. Personally, I believe that if a future civilization is capable of digging miles into the ground and breaking open several feet of steel and concrete, then there's a high likelihood that they also know about radiation. True, it isn't guaranteed, but by the time we were able to achieve such a feat, we also knew about radiation. What I'm saying here is that "worst case scenario" shouldn't prevent us from making steps in the right direction. I'll also argue that this bar is only set for nuclear materials. We produce substantially more amounts of waste with lead and other heavy metals, which are both toxic and *are toxic forever*. At least radioactive materials becomes less dangerous over time (and with exponential decay!).
> I'm talking about that they are obvious targets for terrorist attacks, protests etc..
There's almost a hundred years worth of history on this and we haven't seen a single one. Actually, fun(?) story. A company I used to work for was looking at DoD proposals and we were going to submit one on dirty bombs (well we did). But in the research phase (I have a physics degree and specialized in nuclear) I couldn't find a single case of a dirty bomb actually being used in the wild. This is despite several nuclear weapons and a lot of weapons grade material being stolen/lost after the fall of the USSR. Why? Because it is fucking stupid. Dirty bombs don't increase your kill count. They drastically increase your risk of dying before you deploy your weapon. They also increase your chance of getting caught (there are examples) due to how good we are at sensing radiation. And it is just difficult to get your hand on (and quite expensive). It may increase the terror part of terrorism, but it really just isn't worth it. You could set off thousands of pipe bombs for the price of one dirty bomb.
> Also I recall some experiments or expert assessments for at least the french/German castor containers which showed possible (impropabale but not unrealistic) scenarios that they would not withstand.
Wait, I want to zoom in
> improbable but not unrealistic
What's the bar then? Does it have to be impossible? You have to know that isn't a realistic bar, right?
> The French facility (and I assume Russian one, I don't speak Russian) is much more like a temporary storage, also not proven yet that it will work.
What do you mean unproven? They have successfully stored THE ENTIRE COUNTRY'S RADIOACTIVE LIFETIME WASTE for decades. DECADES. What is unproven?
> I covered recycling already, it is highly uneconomical produces a lot of low rate waste and is only done for political/military reasons in France.
Actually, the reason we don't do it in the US is because it is just cheaper to buy new Uranium. This is not true for France, so they recycle. While it is economically advantageous for France, it isn't for the US. That's besides the point though as fuel is an extremely small part of the cost of the reactor (including waste). But a good reason to do it is to reduce the waste "problem." I REALLY encourage you to read [0] and I find it hard to have a conversation without this per-requisite.
I'm not sure how I moved the goal post tbh, but I will now. To something I feel is actually much more fair. Why does nuclear energy have to be so much safer than other sources of energy? Clearly no source of energy is perfectly safe nor is perfectly green. My question is why nuclear technology has to be leaps and bounds ahead of others. With generations old technology: fewer people die, there's far less environmental damage, it operates at zero carbon emissions, and we've safely stored the material for nearly a hundred years without killing a single person. Hell, we can't say the same about literally any other energy source. After decades of use, in dozens of countries, we've only killed a few hundred people and almost all of those are due to a singular event (Chernobyl) that was at the birth of the technology. Are we not allowed to improve? Are we to be but the sins of our fathers? (bad analogy since that was Russia) Rooftop solar, hydro, geothermal, and natural gas kills more people, so I'm a bit confused. Why does nuclear have so much higher of a bar than any other source of energy? Is it just you don't like nuclear or is there a legitimate reason to the higher bar? Why are we even having this fight? The position is renewables + nuclear not renewables _vs_ nuclear. The point is to get rid of coal, gas, and oil. The situation in Ukraine would definitely be different if Germany didn't kill off their nuclear plants. I honestly don't know what conditions (what level of proof) is needed to convince you. This is why I'm unsure if there is a good faith argument to come from here. If there's no argument that can be convincing then it really isn't good faith.
Okay, and in that spirit I'll not how I'm interpreting some of your responses. They may not be what you intended but I feel that if I note how I see what you are saying that this can prevent us from talking past one another, which is an easy thing to do accidentally. Let's try to work through this together.
> The lifetime numbers are not made up and I never said the original author was lying.
When you said:
>> we can make up numbers about recycling and lifetime of the waste?
I assumed that it was "make up numbers about lifetime of waste." I'm still having a hard time reading this another way tbh. Would you care to clarify?
> You argued that it was OK to be handwavy because of NIMBY preventing a repository.
No I argued
>>> I'm not sure what other argument they are supposed to make.
Under the condition
>>> without something in place all you can argue is "this problem isn't as hard as people think. We can do it, here's real world examples elsewhere."
I still stand by that. I'm not sure what else you can argue other than "We can do it, here's examples" when there isn't an exact thing in place. I should mention that there are plenty of simulations that show that this is the case. What are we supposed to argue? "Here's an example in the US and that's why we should do it in the US?" That doesn't make sense because we'd then be doing it and wouldn't need to argue in favor of doing said task. I'm still confused what your problem is. Which brings me to
> It is completely unproven that we can do this for 100s of years.
Which again, I'm not sure what you mean. We have simulations. We have small scale testing. We even have medium/long scale testing. The only thing we really don't have is a literal experiment where we've tested this containment for 100 years. But we have for almost 100 years. The likelihood that things become more dangerous after 80 years (from Manhattan project) seems unlikely given literally everything we know about radioactivity and it's nature to reduce in danger over time. So I'm not sure what you're asking for as "proof".
This also is, in my view, silly in the same way it is silly for a recruiter to ask for 10 years of Carbon experience. Carbon is less than a year old, so it is impossible to have 10 years of experience. Though, from personal experience, I've seen this literal argument made by the government to a DoE lab. DoE wanted to improve storage based on simulations and physical testing but the gov said "can't do it because it isn't proven" with "proven" being "full lifetime" physical testing. This is a rather silly, and understandably frustrating, argument. Clearly if you aren't allowed to test something because it isn't "proven" then you can't fulfill the conditions to prove it. The situation is set up to fail and, understandably, make people angry. It is circular logic. If you aren't intending it in this manner, please elaborate because that is how I'm interpreting and I apologize if it isn't the intent. If your intent is to say that we can't have the technology proven until we have a full lifetime example (and thus hundreds or hundreds of thousands of years), please let me know. I will have a followup.
> and at the same time use some hypothetical future development to say the other technology does not have an issue.
Actually, I don't think the author argued anything that wasn't already being done either in another country or through lab scale testing (as in physical testing. Well past simulations).
> What do you mean? Understanding languages that are several hundreds to thousands of years old is not straight forward.
Sorry, I am arguing a different point. Allow me to clarify. I think the premise that literally all human knowledge from now (and previously) will be lost, is a bit naive and an EXTREMELY high bar. While it is something we should be concerned with, it shouldn't be a deal breaker. After all, the bar is so high that it is essentially impossible to meet this bar. We've also got plenty of historical examples to prove that this is unlikely, given that no such event has ever happened and that we also know not to drink water from ancient Roman pipes which are lead lined and who believed that stagnant water was safe. Personally, I believe that if a future civilization is capable of digging miles into the ground and breaking open several feet of steel and concrete, then there's a high likelihood that they also know about radiation. True, it isn't guaranteed, but by the time we were able to achieve such a feat, we also knew about radiation. What I'm saying here is that "worst case scenario" shouldn't prevent us from making steps in the right direction. I'll also argue that this bar is only set for nuclear materials. We produce substantially more amounts of waste with lead and other heavy metals, which are both toxic and *are toxic forever*. At least radioactive materials becomes less dangerous over time (and with exponential decay!).
> I'm talking about that they are obvious targets for terrorist attacks, protests etc..
There's almost a hundred years worth of history on this and we haven't seen a single one. Actually, fun(?) story. A company I used to work for was looking at DoD proposals and we were going to submit one on dirty bombs (well we did). But in the research phase (I have a physics degree and specialized in nuclear) I couldn't find a single case of a dirty bomb actually being used in the wild. This is despite several nuclear weapons and a lot of weapons grade material being stolen/lost after the fall of the USSR. Why? Because it is fucking stupid. Dirty bombs don't increase your kill count. They drastically increase your risk of dying before you deploy your weapon. They also increase your chance of getting caught (there are examples) due to how good we are at sensing radiation. And it is just difficult to get your hand on (and quite expensive). It may increase the terror part of terrorism, but it really just isn't worth it. You could set off thousands of pipe bombs for the price of one dirty bomb.
> Also I recall some experiments or expert assessments for at least the french/German castor containers which showed possible (impropabale but not unrealistic) scenarios that they would not withstand.
Wait, I want to zoom in
> improbable but not unrealistic
What's the bar then? Does it have to be impossible? You have to know that isn't a realistic bar, right?
> The French facility (and I assume Russian one, I don't speak Russian) is much more like a temporary storage, also not proven yet that it will work.
What do you mean unproven? They have successfully stored THE ENTIRE COUNTRY'S RADIOACTIVE LIFETIME WASTE for decades. DECADES. What is unproven?
> I covered recycling already, it is highly uneconomical produces a lot of low rate waste and is only done for political/military reasons in France.
Actually, the reason we don't do it in the US is because it is just cheaper to buy new Uranium. This is not true for France, so they recycle. While it is economically advantageous for France, it isn't for the US. That's besides the point though as fuel is an extremely small part of the cost of the reactor (including waste). But a good reason to do it is to reduce the waste "problem." I REALLY encourage you to read [0] and I find it hard to have a conversation without this per-requisite.
I'm not sure how I moved the goal post tbh, but I will now. To something I feel is actually much more fair. Why does nuclear energy have to be so much safer than other sources of energy? Clearly no source of energy is perfectly safe nor is perfectly green. My question is why nuclear technology has to be leaps and bounds ahead of others. With generations old technology: fewer people die, there's far less environmental damage, it operates at zero carbon emissions, and we've safely stored the material for nearly a hundred years without killing a single person. Hell, we can't say the same about literally any other energy source. After decades of use, in dozens of countries, we've only killed a few hundred people and almost all of those are due to a singular event (Chernobyl) that was at the birth of the technology. Are we not allowed to improve? Are we to be but the sins of our fathers? (bad analogy since that was Russia) Rooftop solar, hydro, geothermal, and natural gas kills more people, so I'm a bit confused. Why does nuclear have so much higher of a bar than any other source of energy? Is it just you don't like nuclear or is there a legitimate reason to the higher bar? Why are we even having this fight? The position is renewables + nuclear not renewables _vs_ nuclear. The point is to get rid of coal, gas, and oil. The situation in Ukraine would definitely be different if Germany didn't kill off their nuclear plants. I honestly don't know what conditions (what level of proof) is needed to convince you. This is why I'm unsure if there is a good faith argument to come from here. If there's no argument that can be convincing then it really isn't good faith.
It's not a matter of "some development in the future". We know how to do it now--the obstacles are political. The problem is a reactor + fuel recycling plant look an awful lot like a weapons grade plutonium production plant. People see that word "plutonium" and get scared.
The reality is nobody uses power reactor for making bombs. The desired reaction is U-238 + n -> U-239, decay to Np-239, decay to Pu-239. However, if you leave the fuel in for too long you get an increasing amount of Pu-239 + n -> Pu-240. Pu-240 is a neutron emitter that gives bombmakers big headaches. If someone were to make off with a load of plutonium from a reprocessor they're going to have a hard time turning it into a working bomb.
However, there's another approach to avoiding theft: Most of these isotopes don't matter. The fuel is "spent" because of a few neutron absorbers. Remove those, don't clean up the rest of it. Leave stuff like that Ba-133. The resulting fuel works just as well but unlike fresh fuel it's very nasty to deal with. The industry will have no problem with it--it's no nastier than the rods were when they came out, they have the machinery to handle it safely. The thief doesn't. You're not walking out with a gamma emitter in your pocket without setting off a bunch of alarms and if you try to steal much it will kill you before you manage to make off with it.
There still is one political headache, though--a reprocessor plant + a reactor built for quick fuel changes is the heart of a plutonium bomb program. It's hard to say we can have such plants but places like Iran can't.
The reality is nobody uses power reactor for making bombs. The desired reaction is U-238 + n -> U-239, decay to Np-239, decay to Pu-239. However, if you leave the fuel in for too long you get an increasing amount of Pu-239 + n -> Pu-240. Pu-240 is a neutron emitter that gives bombmakers big headaches. If someone were to make off with a load of plutonium from a reprocessor they're going to have a hard time turning it into a working bomb.
However, there's another approach to avoiding theft: Most of these isotopes don't matter. The fuel is "spent" because of a few neutron absorbers. Remove those, don't clean up the rest of it. Leave stuff like that Ba-133. The resulting fuel works just as well but unlike fresh fuel it's very nasty to deal with. The industry will have no problem with it--it's no nastier than the rods were when they came out, they have the machinery to handle it safely. The thief doesn't. You're not walking out with a gamma emitter in your pocket without setting off a bunch of alarms and if you try to steal much it will kill you before you manage to make off with it.
There still is one political headache, though--a reprocessor plant + a reactor built for quick fuel changes is the heart of a plutonium bomb program. It's hard to say we can have such plants but places like Iran can't.
I also don't believe nuclear waste would pose a significant problem. There are many ways of containing waste as well as reducing.
Plasma disposal is also feasable for reducing the waste even further. RE : https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/...
Fossil fuels release about 33 billion tonnes annually in co2 release. And that's not even possible to contain. https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/energy-and...
So the `~5k cubic meters of nuclear waste a year` mentioned elsewhere really is a grain of sand in comparison.
Plasma disposal is also feasable for reducing the waste even further. RE : https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/...
Fossil fuels release about 33 billion tonnes annually in co2 release. And that's not even possible to contain. https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/energy-and...
So the `~5k cubic meters of nuclear waste a year` mentioned elsewhere really is a grain of sand in comparison.
> I also don't believe nuclear waste would pose a significant problem. There are many ways of containing waste as well as reducing.
And than all you bring up is some technology which is in testing proving OPs argument.
Sure there are ways of reducing highly radioactive waste...at the cost of creating more waste you still have to store...and yeah sure you can dispose some of it in the sea. Also it costs a hell lot of money.
> Fossil fuels release about 33 billion tonnes annually
Nobody questions the bad side of fossils.
The topic is renewables vs. nuclear though.
And than all you bring up is some technology which is in testing proving OPs argument.
Sure there are ways of reducing highly radioactive waste...at the cost of creating more waste you still have to store...and yeah sure you can dispose some of it in the sea. Also it costs a hell lot of money.
> Fossil fuels release about 33 billion tonnes annually
Nobody questions the bad side of fossils.
The topic is renewables vs. nuclear though.
The figures I have for France (from Jean-Marc Jancovici) are that for the entire history of French nuclear energy, the total volume of long term, high-intensity nuclear waste is that of a single gymnasium.
And we went pretty heavy on Nuclear. Overall, I wouldn't say the problem is insignificant. But it is certainly a small problem, compared to building, maintaining, and renewing all the nuke plants themselves.
And we went pretty heavy on Nuclear. Overall, I wouldn't say the problem is insignificant. But it is certainly a small problem, compared to building, maintaining, and renewing all the nuke plants themselves.
> The figures I have for France (from Jean-Marc Jancovici) are that for the entire history of French nuclear energy, the total volume of long term, high-intensity nuclear waste is that of a single gymnasium.
Which is surely just the fuel. Which itself is a tiny amount of the whole amount of waste a nuclear reactor is responsible for in his lifetime.
Which is surely just the fuel. Which itself is a tiny amount of the whole amount of waste a nuclear reactor is responsible for in his lifetime.
But most of that waste is very low level. It's called "nuclear" waste but it's mostly stuff that is at best mildly contaminated.
So now that we talked about the most radioactive and least radioactive waste, we might get to the stuff between. The amount is neither small enough to fit "into a single gymnasium" nor can it be ignored. It has to be stored for generations to come. It can not be reprocessed and the amounts are already so high that most nuclear countries on this planet store it in plain sight. Which isn't a solution for generations...it may not even be a solution for decades or years if the world situation escalates further.
Those things in the middle do sound risky. But what's the alternative really? What energy do we have that (i) scales, and (ii) comes at will? Right now that's mostly nuclear and fossil.
Now there's this thing called "global warming", caused by fossil fuels. That thing is poised to displace billions of people as parts of the planet becomes unfit for human life. That means wars, famine, and disease, whose scale will increase with the warming.
What's the greater risk? Those mid-level nuclear waste, or the continued use of fossil fuel? Sure we could have energy storage to make wind and solar work, but the costs to make that work at scale without a secondary source are enormous (I believe Jancovici once reported it would multiply the costs of renewable by 6 or so).
---
There's no such thing as "clean" energy. It's a tradeof all around. Our problem right now is to find the least bad source of energy. Which by the way depends on the geographical and geopolitical situation of each part of the world. Nuke plants make more sense in France than they do in other countries. Iceland for instance has more geothermal opportunities.
Now there's this thing called "global warming", caused by fossil fuels. That thing is poised to displace billions of people as parts of the planet becomes unfit for human life. That means wars, famine, and disease, whose scale will increase with the warming.
What's the greater risk? Those mid-level nuclear waste, or the continued use of fossil fuel? Sure we could have energy storage to make wind and solar work, but the costs to make that work at scale without a secondary source are enormous (I believe Jancovici once reported it would multiply the costs of renewable by 6 or so).
---
There's no such thing as "clean" energy. It's a tradeof all around. Our problem right now is to find the least bad source of energy. Which by the way depends on the geographical and geopolitical situation of each part of the world. Nuke plants make more sense in France than they do in other countries. Iceland for instance has more geothermal opportunities.
> Those things in the middle do sound risky. But what's the alternative really? What energy do we have that (i) scales, and (ii) comes at will? Right now that's mostly nuclear and fossil.
No. That's just a proper grid with renewables. It works already within the single market of the EU.
> Now there's this thing called "global warming", caused by fossil fuels.
Yeah we've heard of it. Actually the country which is most ridiculed for turning off their nuclear fleet is the only one with an LAW to phase out coal completely. The only reason it took so long is because of the jobs in the industry. Other countries have other reasons. Some are just ideologically retarded. See states in the USA.
Nothing of all that has anything to do with nuclear. Nuclear isn't part of the calculation anymore. If you start building a reactor now in a civilized country where safety rules are relevant, you won't be finished by the time it's too late to save us from the results of global warming.
The topic "nuclear and global warming" is a straw man. It makes no sense at all.
> Nuke plants make more sense in France than they do in other countries.
You did get the news that it's just another year where France needs to turn off their nuclear fleet because their rivers get too hot? How do you even get the idea? I mean France has a huge coast, hills, whatever. There is ample opportunity for renewables. They just messed up their jump on the train tot the future. This is why they need to buy dirty coal power from Germany and the UK these days...again...
---
I assume the fact that you didn't touch waste again is that you agree with me on that issue.
No. That's just a proper grid with renewables. It works already within the single market of the EU.
> Now there's this thing called "global warming", caused by fossil fuels.
Yeah we've heard of it. Actually the country which is most ridiculed for turning off their nuclear fleet is the only one with an LAW to phase out coal completely. The only reason it took so long is because of the jobs in the industry. Other countries have other reasons. Some are just ideologically retarded. See states in the USA.
Nothing of all that has anything to do with nuclear. Nuclear isn't part of the calculation anymore. If you start building a reactor now in a civilized country where safety rules are relevant, you won't be finished by the time it's too late to save us from the results of global warming.
The topic "nuclear and global warming" is a straw man. It makes no sense at all.
> Nuke plants make more sense in France than they do in other countries.
You did get the news that it's just another year where France needs to turn off their nuclear fleet because their rivers get too hot? How do you even get the idea? I mean France has a huge coast, hills, whatever. There is ample opportunity for renewables. They just messed up their jump on the train tot the future. This is why they need to buy dirty coal power from Germany and the UK these days...again...
---
I assume the fact that you didn't touch waste again is that you agree with me on that issue.
> You did get the news that it's just another year where France needs to turn off their nuclear fleet because their rivers get too hot?
Yeah, in retrospect we should have put more plants around our coastlines.
> The topic "nuclear and global warming" is a straw man. It makes no sense at all.
Okay let's start over. We need to somehow reduce our emissions down to near zero. No oil, no gas, no coal. That leaves renewables (wind, solar, geothermal, hydro, forest wood), and nuclear. And energy savings.
Among all those, what can scale, at what cost, and what can we do with those? Hydro is maxed out in many parts of the world, geothermal doesn't work everywhere, forest wood is probably maxed out already (we can burn more, but it would cease to be renewed). That leaves wind, solar, and nuclear. With current tech, nuclear is the thing that takes the least concrete, the least real estate… and with the exception of regular maintenance and hot rivers delivers its full power at will.
Wind and solar however not only cost way more (per energy unit), they only deliver when the sun shines or the wind blows. In practice this puts a significant strain of the network. There are 3 ways to compensate for that: nuke plants, energy storage, and cutting off non-essential power.
Thing about nuke plants is, they're not less expensive when they run at less than full power. Beyond a certain point, more renewables doesn't need less nuke plants. It means just as many nuke plants, running below capacity. Having any more than that would be pure waste. One huge disadvantage however is that they're very capitalistic: we need a huge investment to make a single plant, and that requires a very stable political environment (a similar argument works for nuclear waste).
Energy storage is currently very expensive. It's nice to have some (like hydro dams), and it does mean that we can reduce the nuke installed based accordingly. But building huge swaths of batteries or flywheels may be much more problematic.
Finally we could cut-off non-essential power. I'm not entirely against that, but we need to keep in mind that this is not exactly a painless change (I do like my comfort).
Of course, we could mix the 3.
Yeah, in retrospect we should have put more plants around our coastlines.
> The topic "nuclear and global warming" is a straw man. It makes no sense at all.
Okay let's start over. We need to somehow reduce our emissions down to near zero. No oil, no gas, no coal. That leaves renewables (wind, solar, geothermal, hydro, forest wood), and nuclear. And energy savings.
Among all those, what can scale, at what cost, and what can we do with those? Hydro is maxed out in many parts of the world, geothermal doesn't work everywhere, forest wood is probably maxed out already (we can burn more, but it would cease to be renewed). That leaves wind, solar, and nuclear. With current tech, nuclear is the thing that takes the least concrete, the least real estate… and with the exception of regular maintenance and hot rivers delivers its full power at will.
Wind and solar however not only cost way more (per energy unit), they only deliver when the sun shines or the wind blows. In practice this puts a significant strain of the network. There are 3 ways to compensate for that: nuke plants, energy storage, and cutting off non-essential power.
Thing about nuke plants is, they're not less expensive when they run at less than full power. Beyond a certain point, more renewables doesn't need less nuke plants. It means just as many nuke plants, running below capacity. Having any more than that would be pure waste. One huge disadvantage however is that they're very capitalistic: we need a huge investment to make a single plant, and that requires a very stable political environment (a similar argument works for nuclear waste).
Energy storage is currently very expensive. It's nice to have some (like hydro dams), and it does mean that we can reduce the nuke installed based accordingly. But building huge swaths of batteries or flywheels may be much more problematic.
Finally we could cut-off non-essential power. I'm not entirely against that, but we need to keep in mind that this is not exactly a painless change (I do like my comfort).
Of course, we could mix the 3.
> That leaves wind, solar, and nuclear. With current tech, nuclear is the thing that takes the least concrete, the least real estate… and with the exception of regular maintenance and hot rivers delivers its full power at will.
But takes the most time, cost hilarious amounts of money, creates waste for generations and is just another finite resource energy generation technology from the past.
This is not what we need to reduces our emissions down to near zero now. We need technology which is cheap, deployable before it is too late to reduce our emissions and accessible for every country on this planet. This technologies are renewables and only those.
So please...if you really care about the environment and are not merely one of those people who blindly recite Michael Shellenbergers Astro-Turf campaign, don't mention nuclear on this topic again. It doesn't make any sense.
> Thing about nuke plants is, they're not less expensive when they run at less than full power.
Think about nuke plants is, they're least expensive when they are turned off. Even the grid profits from that since you don't have that expensive nuclear crap clogging up the lines so cheap renewable energy generation has to be turned off.
Time to face it: nuclear is done....at least in the civil sector.
But takes the most time, cost hilarious amounts of money, creates waste for generations and is just another finite resource energy generation technology from the past.
This is not what we need to reduces our emissions down to near zero now. We need technology which is cheap, deployable before it is too late to reduce our emissions and accessible for every country on this planet. This technologies are renewables and only those.
So please...if you really care about the environment and are not merely one of those people who blindly recite Michael Shellenbergers Astro-Turf campaign, don't mention nuclear on this topic again. It doesn't make any sense.
> Thing about nuke plants is, they're not less expensive when they run at less than full power.
Think about nuke plants is, they're least expensive when they are turned off. Even the grid profits from that since you don't have that expensive nuclear crap clogging up the lines so cheap renewable energy generation has to be turned off.
Time to face it: nuclear is done....at least in the civil sector.
I believe you’re a little confused.
> But [nuclear] takes the most time, cost hilarious amounts of money
Depending exactly what you mean, this is either very true, or dead wrong. It is true that a single nuke plant costs gigantic amounts of time, money, and resources. But it also deliver significant power, typically 1GW (sometimes a bit less, generally more). Windmills are vastly cheaper, but typical ratings are around 1MW, and that’s a maximum, not an average, and if you need to control energy output you’ll need a buffer (batteries, flywheels, dams…).
To replace a single nuke plant, you’ll probably need something like 2000 windmills, and energy storage to match. Or less if you’re okay with temporary power shortages (a harsh but valid political choice).
Now which is cheaper? One nuke plant? Or 1-2K windmills? All those windmills will need a lot of concrete, for which we’re destroying quite a few beaches (desert sand does not work unfortunately). You’ll also need quite a bit more rare earth materials to get that thousand dynamos to work. And eventually you’ll need to transport all that in a world without oil (one reason renewable energy is cheap is because transport is still cheap, thanks to oil).
> We need technology which is cheap, deployable before it is too late to reduce our emissions and accessible for every country on this planet.
Agreed.
> if you really care about the environment and are not merely one of those people who blindly recite Michael Shellenbergers
Here’s my main source: https://jancovici.com/
One thing to note: the guy doesn’t even pretend nuclear power will replace what we have now. He’s just saying that no matter what we do, our energy consumption will inexorably go down, and that will start soon, if it hasn’t already. Since energy is a physical measure of how much we can transform our world, that means we’ll be able to transform it less and less, a.k.a. the economy will shrink, a.k.a. big ass long term recession. And that’s before we make it even worse in the name of staving off global warming.
His thesis is that nuclear power will not be enough to stop the fall. But it might significantly soften it, and we can only hope that it will be enough.
> But [nuclear] takes the most time, cost hilarious amounts of money
Depending exactly what you mean, this is either very true, or dead wrong. It is true that a single nuke plant costs gigantic amounts of time, money, and resources. But it also deliver significant power, typically 1GW (sometimes a bit less, generally more). Windmills are vastly cheaper, but typical ratings are around 1MW, and that’s a maximum, not an average, and if you need to control energy output you’ll need a buffer (batteries, flywheels, dams…).
To replace a single nuke plant, you’ll probably need something like 2000 windmills, and energy storage to match. Or less if you’re okay with temporary power shortages (a harsh but valid political choice).
Now which is cheaper? One nuke plant? Or 1-2K windmills? All those windmills will need a lot of concrete, for which we’re destroying quite a few beaches (desert sand does not work unfortunately). You’ll also need quite a bit more rare earth materials to get that thousand dynamos to work. And eventually you’ll need to transport all that in a world without oil (one reason renewable energy is cheap is because transport is still cheap, thanks to oil).
> We need technology which is cheap, deployable before it is too late to reduce our emissions and accessible for every country on this planet.
Agreed.
> if you really care about the environment and are not merely one of those people who blindly recite Michael Shellenbergers
Here’s my main source: https://jancovici.com/
One thing to note: the guy doesn’t even pretend nuclear power will replace what we have now. He’s just saying that no matter what we do, our energy consumption will inexorably go down, and that will start soon, if it hasn’t already. Since energy is a physical measure of how much we can transform our world, that means we’ll be able to transform it less and less, a.k.a. the economy will shrink, a.k.a. big ass long term recession. And that’s before we make it even worse in the name of staving off global warming.
His thesis is that nuclear power will not be enough to stop the fall. But it might significantly soften it, and we can only hope that it will be enough.
> The topic is renewables vs. nuclear though.
I'm only commenting on a portion of the argument against nuclear based on its waste.
The fact is the waste is negligible. Esspecially so when you consider the return of energy from a nuclear reactor Per square meter of real estate versus most viable renewables
I'm personally of the opinion why not both. So I'm biased of course, but nuclear isn't something to be afraid of. Purely BECAUSE of technology.
I'm only commenting on a portion of the argument against nuclear based on its waste.
The fact is the waste is negligible. Esspecially so when you consider the return of energy from a nuclear reactor Per square meter of real estate versus most viable renewables
I'm personally of the opinion why not both. So I'm biased of course, but nuclear isn't something to be afraid of. Purely BECAUSE of technology.
> The fact is the waste is negligible. Esspecially so when you consider the return of energy
It doesn't matter how much energy it "returns". It doesn't make the waste less worse for generations.
> Per square meter of real estate versus most viable renewables
You can literally put solar on roofs of private buildings...if your local fossil/nuclear lobby allows it. I don't even get how this is relevant. Especially because of the issue with constantly running nuclear reactors in an old grid clogging it up so cheap renewable energy needs to be turned off.
> but nuclear isn't something to be afraid of. Purely BECAUSE of technology.
Those jumps you make here from unfunded claims about waste disposal over derailing into fossil, whitewashing of that waste and old school baseload myths make me thing you're the one who's afraid of technology.
It doesn't matter how much energy it "returns". It doesn't make the waste less worse for generations.
> Per square meter of real estate versus most viable renewables
You can literally put solar on roofs of private buildings...if your local fossil/nuclear lobby allows it. I don't even get how this is relevant. Especially because of the issue with constantly running nuclear reactors in an old grid clogging it up so cheap renewable energy needs to be turned off.
> but nuclear isn't something to be afraid of. Purely BECAUSE of technology.
Those jumps you make here from unfunded claims about waste disposal over derailing into fossil, whitewashing of that waste and old school baseload myths make me thing you're the one who's afraid of technology.
> You can literally put solar on roofs of private buildings...if your local fossil/nuclear lobby allows it.
What about the 16% of americans living in apartments? that’s just apartments, not counting condos or other units where you don’t have permission to install things on the roof. what do these people do for power?
What about the 16% of americans living in apartments? that’s just apartments, not counting condos or other units where you don’t have permission to install things on the roof. what do these people do for power?
Are you trolling me?
I didn't say this is supposed to be the only way of getting power. You can put solar everywhere. Not just on roofs and you might have heard about wind. That's a thing too.
I didn't say this is supposed to be the only way of getting power. You can put solar everywhere. Not just on roofs and you might have heard about wind. That's a thing too.
Don't take it as a slight. - We're only discussing here
> I didn't say this is supposed to be the only way of getting power.
Your previous comments do sign you up very much in favour of anything other than nuclear.
> . Not just on roofs and you might have heard about wind. That's a thing too.
It certainly is, but to my previous point of 'per square meter return' .. Are you planning to organise a turbine with the local people of each apartment block ?
I sound facetious, but actually I'm not sure you know how energy is delivered.
Renewable's are amazing, the more the merrier. But discarding nuclear over it's waste isn't a genuine argument.
We've gotten better than the 60s/70/80 when old plants were built - granted through horrific experiences. That shouldn't stop us from pursuing cheap energy.
Thanks to technology we know how to even automate where humans fail. We know how to distribute more efficiently.
We also know how to use solar, wind and aqua. It will never be as efficient as splitting the atom though.
Again I reiterate - Why not both ?
> I didn't say this is supposed to be the only way of getting power.
Your previous comments do sign you up very much in favour of anything other than nuclear.
> . Not just on roofs and you might have heard about wind. That's a thing too.
It certainly is, but to my previous point of 'per square meter return' .. Are you planning to organise a turbine with the local people of each apartment block ?
I sound facetious, but actually I'm not sure you know how energy is delivered.
Renewable's are amazing, the more the merrier. But discarding nuclear over it's waste isn't a genuine argument.
We've gotten better than the 60s/70/80 when old plants were built - granted through horrific experiences. That shouldn't stop us from pursuing cheap energy.
Thanks to technology we know how to even automate where humans fail. We know how to distribute more efficiently.
We also know how to use solar, wind and aqua. It will never be as efficient as splitting the atom though.
Again I reiterate - Why not both ?
> Renewable's are amazing, the more the merrier. But discarding nuclear over it's waste isn't a genuine argument.
How isn't it when it actually is in Germany?
> We've gotten better than the 60s/70/80 when old plants were built
How so when the waste from those reactors is still stored next to those reactors?
> That shouldn't stop us from pursuing cheap energy.
Nuclear is not cheap.
> We also know how to use solar, wind and aqua. It will never be as efficient as splitting the atom though.
It doesn't have to be as "efficient" as your steam engine with generations-waste-extra. It's cheap as hell and it's getting cheaper and better fast. Something you can't say about nuclear. A technology from the past.
> Again I reiterate - Why not both ?
Because:
a) you didn't offer any solution for the waste
b) you can spend every dollar only once
c) we're right on the path to the new cold war....you should get rid of those rotting vulnerabilities and opt in for decentralised independence.
How isn't it when it actually is in Germany?
> We've gotten better than the 60s/70/80 when old plants were built
How so when the waste from those reactors is still stored next to those reactors?
> That shouldn't stop us from pursuing cheap energy.
Nuclear is not cheap.
> We also know how to use solar, wind and aqua. It will never be as efficient as splitting the atom though.
It doesn't have to be as "efficient" as your steam engine with generations-waste-extra. It's cheap as hell and it's getting cheaper and better fast. Something you can't say about nuclear. A technology from the past.
> Again I reiterate - Why not both ?
Because:
a) you didn't offer any solution for the waste
b) you can spend every dollar only once
c) we're right on the path to the new cold war....you should get rid of those rotting vulnerabilities and opt in for decentralised independence.
> Nuclear is not cheap.
It’s getting cheaper. The primary reason it’s not cheap currently is every reactor built is site specific. This will soon change with smaller reactors being built in factories then installed.
> Something you can't say about nuclear. A technology from the past.
This seems like an attack again on nuclear. Stars use nuclear reactions for energy, you’re alive because of a nuclear reaction. Why are you so quick to throw it out?
And you still haven’t answered my question. What do these people do for power? I can’t put a wind turbine on the roof of my apartment anymore than a solar panel. And as your parent stated, there’s transmission and physical surface area concerns.
Once we solve the energy problem, population growth is our next one. We can’t make anymore land, and people advocating for taking large swaths of land, or even ocean, are setting us up for future land use issues. Think beyond the immediate next step.
It’s getting cheaper. The primary reason it’s not cheap currently is every reactor built is site specific. This will soon change with smaller reactors being built in factories then installed.
> Something you can't say about nuclear. A technology from the past.
This seems like an attack again on nuclear. Stars use nuclear reactions for energy, you’re alive because of a nuclear reaction. Why are you so quick to throw it out?
And you still haven’t answered my question. What do these people do for power? I can’t put a wind turbine on the roof of my apartment anymore than a solar panel. And as your parent stated, there’s transmission and physical surface area concerns.
Once we solve the energy problem, population growth is our next one. We can’t make anymore land, and people advocating for taking large swaths of land, or even ocean, are setting us up for future land use issues. Think beyond the immediate next step.
> It’s getting cheaper.
I'm looking forward to those sources on that bold claim.
> This will soon change
...and I hope that claim was not based upon that wishful thinking but on actual facts which are valid today.
> Stars use nuclear reactions for energy, you’re alive because of a nuclear reaction. Why are you so quick to throw it out?
Nobody wants to turn off stars. This is a unnecessary derailment.
And we're quick to throw it out because the money needs to go into renewable technology which can be deployed fast and cheap to face the current global crisis.
> What do these people do for power? I can’t put a wind turbine on the roof of my apartment anymore than a solar panel
What do these people do if they want to eat a hamburger? Do they all have a cow in their basement? I mean seriously...what is this?
> Once we solve the energy problem, population growth is our next one....
I don't even...
I'm looking forward to those sources on that bold claim.
> This will soon change
...and I hope that claim was not based upon that wishful thinking but on actual facts which are valid today.
> Stars use nuclear reactions for energy, you’re alive because of a nuclear reaction. Why are you so quick to throw it out?
Nobody wants to turn off stars. This is a unnecessary derailment.
And we're quick to throw it out because the money needs to go into renewable technology which can be deployed fast and cheap to face the current global crisis.
> What do these people do for power? I can’t put a wind turbine on the roof of my apartment anymore than a solar panel
What do these people do if they want to eat a hamburger? Do they all have a cow in their basement? I mean seriously...what is this?
> Once we solve the energy problem, population growth is our next one....
I don't even...
> I'm looking forward to those sources on that bold claim.
https://www.ien.com/operations/news/21107432/nextgen-factory...
> Nobody wants to turn off stars. This is a unnecessary derailment.
I don’t see it that way, what I see is someone ignoring science because they’re scared.
> What do these people do if they want to eat a hamburger? Do they all have a cow in their basement? I mean seriously...what is this?
Actually if you go back in history, yes before food storage and transport was a thing people did have to have a cow in their basement, or close by. I can go lay eyes on the reactors close to me, and other coal fired plants. Where will we put the massive panels and wind turbines? You’re still avoiding the question.
> I don't even...
So ignore the housing crisis? Again only think one step ahead? Do you think our population numbers are decreasing? How much land are the land factories putting out these days? Think ahead, taking large swaths of land is going to come back to bite us.
https://www.ien.com/operations/news/21107432/nextgen-factory...
> Nobody wants to turn off stars. This is a unnecessary derailment.
I don’t see it that way, what I see is someone ignoring science because they’re scared.
> What do these people do if they want to eat a hamburger? Do they all have a cow in their basement? I mean seriously...what is this?
Actually if you go back in history, yes before food storage and transport was a thing people did have to have a cow in their basement, or close by. I can go lay eyes on the reactors close to me, and other coal fired plants. Where will we put the massive panels and wind turbines? You’re still avoiding the question.
> I don't even...
So ignore the housing crisis? Again only think one step ahead? Do you think our population numbers are decreasing? How much land are the land factories putting out these days? Think ahead, taking large swaths of land is going to come back to bite us.
[deleted]
It is not about "cleanness", it is not about "costs in future". There are two core points why nuclear plants matter and only they matter so far.
First they are practical - unlike all renewables nuclear energy plant provides stable influx of energy to the electric grid, regardless of the weather condition. As long as we don't have good and, again, practical energy storage, renewables usability will be always limited. And so far we don't see any true innovation in the long term, large scale batteries tech - ritual monthly "at last, new battery tech invented in X" article in popular magazines is not enough since those "new" batteries either has to work in 10 Kelvin temperature or would need to have size of the Moon. Pumped-storage hydroelectricity is, unfortunately, not practical as it requires very specific terrain and water sources. It is great we can build them here and there, but that's not the solution for the problem.
Secondly, nuclear energy plants does not produce CO2 and this is what we want to get rid off, as I understand.
Nuclear wastes are different story, unfortunately for the past 50 years there was almost no innovation in nuclear plants sector as well since everyone who would like to work on this was treated by the Academia like Holocaust deniers and anti-vaccination activists. Nuclear wastes are radiating, which means there is energy there, let's try to find the way how to use is, maybe it is easier than the search for the battery Holy Grail.
First they are practical - unlike all renewables nuclear energy plant provides stable influx of energy to the electric grid, regardless of the weather condition. As long as we don't have good and, again, practical energy storage, renewables usability will be always limited. And so far we don't see any true innovation in the long term, large scale batteries tech - ritual monthly "at last, new battery tech invented in X" article in popular magazines is not enough since those "new" batteries either has to work in 10 Kelvin temperature or would need to have size of the Moon. Pumped-storage hydroelectricity is, unfortunately, not practical as it requires very specific terrain and water sources. It is great we can build them here and there, but that's not the solution for the problem.
Secondly, nuclear energy plants does not produce CO2 and this is what we want to get rid off, as I understand.
Nuclear wastes are different story, unfortunately for the past 50 years there was almost no innovation in nuclear plants sector as well since everyone who would like to work on this was treated by the Academia like Holocaust deniers and anti-vaccination activists. Nuclear wastes are radiating, which means there is energy there, let's try to find the way how to use is, maybe it is easier than the search for the battery Holy Grail.
> First they are practical - unlike all renewables nuclear energy plant provides stable influx of energy to the electric grid, regardless of the weather condition.
That was "practical" in the 80s. Today it's a problem. You need to have a flexible grid to profit from the cheapest energy available. Having some expensive energy source clog up the grid so you have to turn off solar or wind is a bad thing.
> As long as we don't have good and, again, practical energy storage, renewables usability will be always limited
That baseload myth is dead these days. Batteries are merely one way to store energy but they’re not the only way. They’re not even the leading way.
A combination of efficiency, demand response, transmission, optimal mix of wind and solar, along with some storage will be more than enough to get us beyond 100% of current service demand.
And all of this is already working in parts of the world. For example in the EU where all that green and brown energy from Germany is saving Nuclear-Frances ass at the moment and has been every summer and winter for at least the last decade.
> nce everyone who would like to work on this was treated by the Academia like Holocaust deniers and anti-vaccination activists.
Billions disappear in nuclear research and has been since it's been invented. Billions which could have been invested into renewables which unlike nuclear produces real and fast progress so please...don't spread fake news.
That was "practical" in the 80s. Today it's a problem. You need to have a flexible grid to profit from the cheapest energy available. Having some expensive energy source clog up the grid so you have to turn off solar or wind is a bad thing.
> As long as we don't have good and, again, practical energy storage, renewables usability will be always limited
That baseload myth is dead these days. Batteries are merely one way to store energy but they’re not the only way. They’re not even the leading way.
A combination of efficiency, demand response, transmission, optimal mix of wind and solar, along with some storage will be more than enough to get us beyond 100% of current service demand.
And all of this is already working in parts of the world. For example in the EU where all that green and brown energy from Germany is saving Nuclear-Frances ass at the moment and has been every summer and winter for at least the last decade.
> nce everyone who would like to work on this was treated by the Academia like Holocaust deniers and anti-vaccination activists.
Billions disappear in nuclear research and has been since it's been invented. Billions which could have been invested into renewables which unlike nuclear produces real and fast progress so please...don't spread fake news.
> That baseload myth is dead these days. Batteries are merely one way to store energy but they’re not the only way.
How is it a myth? Weather systems are big. it is not unusual for eg. the entirety of North-western Europe to have a calm spell of little to no wind. You need something to keep the lights on when there's no wind, night time etc. That's your base load right there.
> And all of this is already working in parts of the world. For example in the EU where all that green and brown energy from Germany is saving Nuclear-Frances ass at the moment and has been every summer and winter for at least the last decade.
Pointing to a bunch of german coal plants keeping the lights on is not a great argument. Germany has a very polluting "base load" generation capability in comparison to other countries. imagine how much less carbon they would be emitting right now if they had just kept their nuclear plants going.
Renewables cannot get rid of a need for base load generation capability at 100% of demand. Batteries and storage just aren't going to scale up to do that (or even 1% of it) in this century. So the options are - handwave about batteries and pumped storage, ensuring that coal and gas is what actually used to meet base load, or invest in nuclear. If you actually want low carbon electricity generation, nuclear is the only option.
How is it a myth? Weather systems are big. it is not unusual for eg. the entirety of North-western Europe to have a calm spell of little to no wind. You need something to keep the lights on when there's no wind, night time etc. That's your base load right there.
> And all of this is already working in parts of the world. For example in the EU where all that green and brown energy from Germany is saving Nuclear-Frances ass at the moment and has been every summer and winter for at least the last decade.
Pointing to a bunch of german coal plants keeping the lights on is not a great argument. Germany has a very polluting "base load" generation capability in comparison to other countries. imagine how much less carbon they would be emitting right now if they had just kept their nuclear plants going.
Renewables cannot get rid of a need for base load generation capability at 100% of demand. Batteries and storage just aren't going to scale up to do that (or even 1% of it) in this century. So the options are - handwave about batteries and pumped storage, ensuring that coal and gas is what actually used to meet base load, or invest in nuclear. If you actually want low carbon electricity generation, nuclear is the only option.
> it is not unusual for eg. the entirety of North-western Europe to have a calm spell of little to no wind
OK, but the EU grid is bigger than that, so the question should be "how common are weather patterns that combine low wind with low sun over the entire continent rather than just a quarter of it?"
> Batteries and storage just aren't going to scale up to do that (or even 1% of it) in this century.
If cars are electrified, their batteries have enough for grid storage even after losing to much capacity to remain in the vehicles.
This isn't a guarantee they will be built, but I think it's likely as people are building battery factories (and mineral mines to supply them) as fast as they're allowed to.
OK, but the EU grid is bigger than that, so the question should be "how common are weather patterns that combine low wind with low sun over the entire continent rather than just a quarter of it?"
> Batteries and storage just aren't going to scale up to do that (or even 1% of it) in this century.
If cars are electrified, their batteries have enough for grid storage even after losing to much capacity to remain in the vehicles.
This isn't a guarantee they will be built, but I think it's likely as people are building battery factories (and mineral mines to supply them) as fast as they're allowed to.
Well, pretty common, as weather systems are typically continental in scale.
Even if you built enough wind turbines to satisfy 10000% of EU demand within the EU (which is what you would need to have a shot at this kind of redundancy) the amount of huge HVDC interconnects you would need criss-crossing the continent make it completely impractical.
Even if you built enough wind turbines to satisfy 10000% of EU demand within the EU (which is what you would need to have a shot at this kind of redundancy) the amount of huge HVDC interconnects you would need criss-crossing the continent make it completely impractical.
Are you just making up numbers? Have you ever done any sailing? I can tell you that weather patterns on with no wind for extended periods of time even over the size of a country are not really happening. People have done studies and the amount of overprovisioning is typically on the order of 5x IIRC without storage. Moreover you need at least 2x overcapacity for nuclear as well.
> I can tell you that weather patterns on with no wind for extended periods of time even over the size of a country are not really happening.
That just isn't true - there's been plenty of times where eg the UK is generating wind power at just a few percent of total capacity because of low wind. And it just is not unusual for periods of calm in the UK to also be calm in neighbouring countries.
Even at a continental level, and averaged out over months long periods, wind is pretty variable and unpredictable: https://theconversation.com/what-europes-exceptionally-low-w... - if you look there we can see that wind power generation at a European level was down 32% on long term average over summer and autumn 2021.
That just isn't true - there's been plenty of times where eg the UK is generating wind power at just a few percent of total capacity because of low wind. And it just is not unusual for periods of calm in the UK to also be calm in neighbouring countries.
Even at a continental level, and averaged out over months long periods, wind is pretty variable and unpredictable: https://theconversation.com/what-europes-exceptionally-low-w... - if you look there we can see that wind power generation at a European level was down 32% on long term average over summer and autumn 2021.
> https://theconversation.com/what-europes-exceptionally-low-w... - if you look there we can see that wind power generation at a European level was down 32% on long term average over summer and autumn 2021.
That's not what that article says, but even if it was it would imply a need of only x1.47 not x100:
"""For instance, UK-based power company SSE stated that its renewable assets produced 32% less power than expected."""
(SSE being initials for "Scottish and Southern Energy").
That's not what that article says, but even if it was it would imply a need of only x1.47 not x100:
"""For instance, UK-based power company SSE stated that its renewable assets produced 32% less power than expected."""
(SSE being initials for "Scottish and Southern Energy").
Thanks for the numbers! But do you have a source? x100 felt off, but I couldn't contradict it as I (still) don't know where to look for any references of any multiplier.
x100 over-capacity is at the level where an HVDC global power grid is easily cheaper.
Why do you regard HVDC within Europe as impractical? Sure it would take a while, but there's already a grid. This is certainly achievable in my lifetime even without any interesting new tech like better superconductors or automation.
Why do you regard HVDC within Europe as impractical? Sure it would take a while, but there's already a grid. This is certainly achievable in my lifetime even without any interesting new tech like better superconductors or automation.
Building an HVDC grid within Europe to allow local concentrations of renewable generation to be spread about more easily, and to further interlink the EU grid? That makes sense, sure.
However for the "renewables can be base load" requirement it is completely impractical because of simple back of the envelope calculations. Suddenly you need multiple TWs of wind generation capability in every spot where it might be windy when calm elsewhere, and you need enough transmission to get TWs of power out from any random location within the EU. This is pipe dream territory.
However for the "renewables can be base load" requirement it is completely impractical because of simple back of the envelope calculations. Suddenly you need multiple TWs of wind generation capability in every spot where it might be windy when calm elsewhere, and you need enough transmission to get TWs of power out from any random location within the EU. This is pipe dream territory.
The need is 3m^2 cross section of conductor for the entire planet's current electricity usage, which at antipodal scale is 17 years of current global production of copper and aluminium. Production of aluminium is limited by electrical supply, and PV electricity is cheap enough to expand that aluminium supply. A 25% increase in global aluminium supply is significant, but not pipe-dream, and that percentage is sufficient for completing the task before the end of the century.
What I don't know is how long such a cable would last, which matters for total lifetime cost. But construction cost at current prices is on the order of a few trillion, which sure, is loads, but that's for a genuinely global infrastructure project that essentially replaces the multi trillion dollar per year fossil electricity industry.
Biggest problem is probably the geopolitics.
What I don't know is how long such a cable would last, which matters for total lifetime cost. But construction cost at current prices is on the order of a few trillion, which sure, is loads, but that's for a genuinely global infrastructure project that essentially replaces the multi trillion dollar per year fossil electricity industry.
Biggest problem is probably the geopolitics.
Your skipping power to gas [0]. At least for the US, how are you going to use nuclear to heat every building in the entire continent 30-100 degrees fahrenheit when a polar vortex hits [1] with nuclear?
Nuclear has the opposite problem of wind/solar in that they need to be run at 100% capacity basically all the time because of their absurd building costs and low operating costs. Building enough nuclear to support that load that then sits idle 95% of the year would be absurdly expensive.
You could of course then use that idle capacity to make say methane [0] which is what we currently use to heat our homes but then why spend 3x [2] the money to make that storage when you can just use wind/solar to do it?
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power-to-gas
[1]: https://mashable.com/article/polar-vortex-2021-cold-temperat...
[2 in the US]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#...
Nuclear has the opposite problem of wind/solar in that they need to be run at 100% capacity basically all the time because of their absurd building costs and low operating costs. Building enough nuclear to support that load that then sits idle 95% of the year would be absurdly expensive.
You could of course then use that idle capacity to make say methane [0] which is what we currently use to heat our homes but then why spend 3x [2] the money to make that storage when you can just use wind/solar to do it?
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power-to-gas
[1]: https://mashable.com/article/polar-vortex-2021-cold-temperat...
[2 in the US]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#...
> Nuclear has the opposite problem of wind/solar in that they need to be run at 100% capacity basically all the time because of their absurd building costs and low operating costs. Building enough nuclear to support that load that then sits idle 95% of the year would be absurdly expensive.
https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-c...
under “Load following”
https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-c...
under “Load following”
But i never said nuclear would have to be used for 100% of power generation. I was taking issue with statements that nuclear should be avoided, and that wind can be used for 100% of power generation - it can't.
Nuclear is "base load" through and through. Yes it would be awkward to manage spinning nuclear plants up and down if you were targeting 100%, but France manages pretty well with 70% of energy coming from nuclear so it is an actually existing counterpoint.
Nuclear is "base load" through and through. Yes it would be awkward to manage spinning nuclear plants up and down if you were targeting 100%, but France manages pretty well with 70% of energy coming from nuclear so it is an actually existing counterpoint.
> but France manages pretty well with 70% of energy coming from nuclear so it is an actually existing counterpoint.
How is that embarrassing state "pretty well"? They use dirty power from their neighbours to manage their support holes created through that narrow minded energy infrastructure. Just like every summer, they've been struggling due to too hot rivers and now those "cracks" in those reactors...France has shown that focusing on nuclear is sheer stupidity. Stupidity funded by the French taxpayer btw and it goes only downwards from here since their old fleet is not getting younger and everything they build takes too long and costs too much.
https://www.euractiv.com/section/electricity/news/nuclear-po...
https://jeromeaparis.substack.com/p/edfs-woes-are-a-bigger-l...
How is that embarrassing state "pretty well"? They use dirty power from their neighbours to manage their support holes created through that narrow minded energy infrastructure. Just like every summer, they've been struggling due to too hot rivers and now those "cracks" in those reactors...France has shown that focusing on nuclear is sheer stupidity. Stupidity funded by the French taxpayer btw and it goes only downwards from here since their old fleet is not getting younger and everything they build takes too long and costs too much.
https://www.euractiv.com/section/electricity/news/nuclear-po...
https://jeromeaparis.substack.com/p/edfs-woes-are-a-bigger-l...
I just don't understand why otherwise intelligent people cannot grasp that long lived nuclear waste also means it isn't very radioactive at all.
> "While in reality renewables are on an exponential cost reduction trajectory "
And now we are looking of some development in the future. The usual argument I keep seeing is that with the exponential cost reduction in solar and green hydrogen we will have in the future a combination that will be cheaper than the nuclear costs of today. A comparison of the current state of nuclear to some future potential solar + storage solution. Maybe we should use the same description for this and call that dishonest comparison?
The current state in northern Europe are wind and some solar in combination with large capacity gas (and some coal/oil). This is why Russian gas, oil and coal has such a huge impact of the electricity price in Europe, and why countries are currently setting up plans to disconnect part of the grid if the threat of limited gas supply continues to next winter. The grid is built on renewables when they are available, running around 50% on average in some countries, and for the remaining we burn a lot of fossil fuels. All the waste of those burned fossil fuels are put into the environment for society to address at a later date.
Maybe it is time for honesty in energy discussions, and also make intention clears. We should ban fossil fuels from being used in the energy grid, and we should set an date for that ban which corresponds to the common scientific understanding of global warming. We should also take in the data from doctors and health scientists that have first hand experience with fossil fuel pollution. With that, we need to build an energy grid that operates without having fossil fuels to fall back on.
And now we are looking of some development in the future. The usual argument I keep seeing is that with the exponential cost reduction in solar and green hydrogen we will have in the future a combination that will be cheaper than the nuclear costs of today. A comparison of the current state of nuclear to some future potential solar + storage solution. Maybe we should use the same description for this and call that dishonest comparison?
The current state in northern Europe are wind and some solar in combination with large capacity gas (and some coal/oil). This is why Russian gas, oil and coal has such a huge impact of the electricity price in Europe, and why countries are currently setting up plans to disconnect part of the grid if the threat of limited gas supply continues to next winter. The grid is built on renewables when they are available, running around 50% on average in some countries, and for the remaining we burn a lot of fossil fuels. All the waste of those burned fossil fuels are put into the environment for society to address at a later date.
Maybe it is time for honesty in energy discussions, and also make intention clears. We should ban fossil fuels from being used in the energy grid, and we should set an date for that ban which corresponds to the common scientific understanding of global warming. We should also take in the data from doctors and health scientists that have first hand experience with fossil fuel pollution. With that, we need to build an energy grid that operates without having fossil fuels to fall back on.
>The usual argument I keep seeing is that with the exponential cost reduction in solar and green hydrogen we will have in the future a combination that will be cheaper than the nuclear costs of today.
Thats what its like today. That's probably why the nuclear PR articles almost never try to compare costs or speed of construction with demand shaping + solar + wind + storage. It does not stack up well.
Thats what its like today. That's probably why the nuclear PR articles almost never try to compare costs or speed of construction with demand shaping + solar + wind + storage. It does not stack up well.
The average cost of green hydrogen is 6 euro per kg, putting the price per kw/h around 18 cent. That is about 7 times more than the cost of nuclear per kw/h.
No one is burning green hydrogen commercially for grid power, through a lot of people would be happy to pay the average nuclear cost (~3 cent per kw/h) if you want to provide it. Selling green hydrogen for $1 per kg would be very welcome in Europe right now, with a basically bottomless demand if someone would be willing to provide it at current nuclear prices.
Demand shaping + solar + wind + storage is not economical viable in Northen Europe, but if you have any evidence to support the opposite then provide them. The fact is, if it was then the crisis that currently exist would not be a crisis, it would be an investment rush.
Of course, if you personally want to offer green hydrogen for $1 per kg this winter, and sign a liability contract for supplying the many tons needed, then sure. Lets do it!
No one is burning green hydrogen commercially for grid power, through a lot of people would be happy to pay the average nuclear cost (~3 cent per kw/h) if you want to provide it. Selling green hydrogen for $1 per kg would be very welcome in Europe right now, with a basically bottomless demand if someone would be willing to provide it at current nuclear prices.
Demand shaping + solar + wind + storage is not economical viable in Northen Europe, but if you have any evidence to support the opposite then provide them. The fact is, if it was then the crisis that currently exist would not be a crisis, it would be an investment rush.
Of course, if you personally want to offer green hydrogen for $1 per kg this winter, and sign a liability contract for supplying the many tons needed, then sure. Lets do it!
"Green hydrogen" is probably the least efficient form of energy storage talked about. The only reason it gets talked about at all is again, PR - because gas companies are keen on extending the life of their rather expensive capital investments. It's currently in the hypothetical stage and, being realistic, the gas companies promoting it probably just want to produce grey hydrogen for use with "green hydrogen" infrastructure and string us along with false hopes that theyll go 100% green soon. Not an unexpected development from the same people who covered up global warming for decades.
Pumped storage + (to a lesser extent) grid scale batteries (e.g. in hawaii) are actually real, being used and economic. The lobbying and PR muscle behind each is a bit less though - especially boring old pumped storage.
>Demand shaping + solar + wind + storage is not economical viable in Northen Europe
It very much is. It's already being done. In fact a lot of that storage in the alps has been used for excess nuclear power from France.
Pumped storage + (to a lesser extent) grid scale batteries (e.g. in hawaii) are actually real, being used and economic. The lobbying and PR muscle behind each is a bit less though - especially boring old pumped storage.
>Demand shaping + solar + wind + storage is not economical viable in Northen Europe
It very much is. It's already being done. In fact a lot of that storage in the alps has been used for excess nuclear power from France.
Please provide a link to a pumped storage that buy green wind power when the price is low and sell it when the price is high. I would be nice to have a working example of how much wind they buy and at what price point they sell, and how they managed to finance it (ie, how much subsidies was involved). The cost per kw/h is of particular interest.
Grid scale batteries work great when you got 365 charge cycles. Each day it charge, each night it sell and generate profits. Current economics makes it worth having a few hours of capacity, and after a few years of daily charge cycles you got profits. Wind doesn't have day and night cycles like that, but rather have periods lasting weeks or months of either good wind or poor wind. You need capacity to last the whole period, and you get maybe a 10 or so charge cycle each year.
> A lot of that storage in the alps has been used for excess nuclear power from France.
Since nuclear is presented as being the most expensive method to create energy, if you then store it in pumped hydro and add this additional storage cost, how in the world would that be economical viable?
Looking at the European report on energy storage, the answer is that it is not. Pumped storage is not used for that purpose in the alps. It is used to balance the grid when power plants ramp up or down, a role which gas and oil power plants usually do. For this, nuclear energy can be used since the profits are not from buying low and selling high, it is from the utilization of keeping the grid balanced when power plants are ramping up and down. They get paid for the service, which makes the economics of it very different from selling capacity to the market during periods of low wind.
Grid scale batteries work great when you got 365 charge cycles. Each day it charge, each night it sell and generate profits. Current economics makes it worth having a few hours of capacity, and after a few years of daily charge cycles you got profits. Wind doesn't have day and night cycles like that, but rather have periods lasting weeks or months of either good wind or poor wind. You need capacity to last the whole period, and you get maybe a 10 or so charge cycle each year.
> A lot of that storage in the alps has been used for excess nuclear power from France.
Since nuclear is presented as being the most expensive method to create energy, if you then store it in pumped hydro and add this additional storage cost, how in the world would that be economical viable?
Looking at the European report on energy storage, the answer is that it is not. Pumped storage is not used for that purpose in the alps. It is used to balance the grid when power plants ramp up or down, a role which gas and oil power plants usually do. For this, nuclear energy can be used since the profits are not from buying low and selling high, it is from the utilization of keeping the grid balanced when power plants are ramping up and down. They get paid for the service, which makes the economics of it very different from selling capacity to the market during periods of low wind.
>Please provide a link to a pumped storage that buy green wind power when the price is low and sell it when the price is high.
Not sure what you mean here. Like, a link to fengning? Kaprun? Snowy 2?
Also you dont buy "green power" on the grid. You just buy power.
We dont have much pumped storage right now coz (at least until feb) basically nothing could compete with gas as a peaker. Some is under construction though in anticipation of it being economic in a few years. With the subsidies nuclear eats for breakfast we could accelerate and bring online even more stable power than nuclear possibly could at lower cost.
>Wind doesn't have day and night cycles like that, but rather have periods lasting weeks or months of either good wind or poor wind.
It tends to anticorrelate with solar production which has a smoothing effect. Also the idea that whole months go by with little to no wind is a myth. Offshore in particular is a lot more stable than its reputation, topping out at 67% capacity factor, which is only slightly below France's 71% for its nuclear plants in 2020 (frances plants are getting decrepit).
Pro nuclear articles almost invariably avoid delving into this and comparing the economics and focus almost exclusively on safety because this isnt an argument it can really win.
>Since nuclear is presented as being the most expensive method to create energy, if you then store it in pumped hydro and add this additional storage cost, how in the world would that be economical viable?
Coz France subsidized the shit out of its nuclear industry in the 70s in reaction to the oil crisis. You can make anything economic if you throw subsidies at it. Whether those subsidies were well spent is another matter.
If you assume construction is a sunk cost, existing nuclear plants are economically competitive which is partly why new US nuclear legislation is focused on extending plant life. However, running decrepit old nuclear plants until the bitter end isnt particularly safe.
Hence why it's important to prime the public to think that it is with all those "nuclear power is the future!" articles. Consent must be manufactured.
Not sure what you mean here. Like, a link to fengning? Kaprun? Snowy 2?
Also you dont buy "green power" on the grid. You just buy power.
We dont have much pumped storage right now coz (at least until feb) basically nothing could compete with gas as a peaker. Some is under construction though in anticipation of it being economic in a few years. With the subsidies nuclear eats for breakfast we could accelerate and bring online even more stable power than nuclear possibly could at lower cost.
>Wind doesn't have day and night cycles like that, but rather have periods lasting weeks or months of either good wind or poor wind.
It tends to anticorrelate with solar production which has a smoothing effect. Also the idea that whole months go by with little to no wind is a myth. Offshore in particular is a lot more stable than its reputation, topping out at 67% capacity factor, which is only slightly below France's 71% for its nuclear plants in 2020 (frances plants are getting decrepit).
Pro nuclear articles almost invariably avoid delving into this and comparing the economics and focus almost exclusively on safety because this isnt an argument it can really win.
>Since nuclear is presented as being the most expensive method to create energy, if you then store it in pumped hydro and add this additional storage cost, how in the world would that be economical viable?
Coz France subsidized the shit out of its nuclear industry in the 70s in reaction to the oil crisis. You can make anything economic if you throw subsidies at it. Whether those subsidies were well spent is another matter.
If you assume construction is a sunk cost, existing nuclear plants are economically competitive which is partly why new US nuclear legislation is focused on extending plant life. However, running decrepit old nuclear plants until the bitter end isnt particularly safe.
Hence why it's important to prime the public to think that it is with all those "nuclear power is the future!" articles. Consent must be manufactured.
> Not sure what you mean here. Like, a link to fengning? Kaprun? Snowy 2?
Provide a source that shows a company which business model is to buy renewable energy when the price is low and then sells it when the price is high, recovering the cost of investment and operations by the margin between the low and high price point.
Shouldn't be hard. I can provide a link of a company which business model is to buy groceries at a cheap price and then sell them to customers at a higher price. Buy low sell high is one of the most simplistic business model that exist.
What does not count is a pumped storage that operate as a grid balancer, where the profits is not from the margins between price points but rather to provide a service of keeping the grid balanced when other power plants are ramping down or ramping up. They don't get paid per kw/h, and they don't sell just when the price is high.
> Also the idea that whole months go by with little to no wind is a myth
There is statistics about this if one do a few searches. The risk that you get a whole month with little to no wind is a statistical probability higher than 0. More commonly there are periods of low wind lasting weeks to months, with individual day that have slightly more or slightly less. Just as there can be unusual stormy weather a few months, there can be months with unusual calm weather.
Provide a source that shows a company which business model is to buy renewable energy when the price is low and then sells it when the price is high, recovering the cost of investment and operations by the margin between the low and high price point.
Shouldn't be hard. I can provide a link of a company which business model is to buy groceries at a cheap price and then sell them to customers at a higher price. Buy low sell high is one of the most simplistic business model that exist.
What does not count is a pumped storage that operate as a grid balancer, where the profits is not from the margins between price points but rather to provide a service of keeping the grid balanced when other power plants are ramping down or ramping up. They don't get paid per kw/h, and they don't sell just when the price is high.
> Also the idea that whole months go by with little to no wind is a myth
There is statistics about this if one do a few searches. The risk that you get a whole month with little to no wind is a statistical probability higher than 0. More commonly there are periods of low wind lasting weeks to months, with individual day that have slightly more or slightly less. Just as there can be unusual stormy weather a few months, there can be months with unusual calm weather.
>Provide a source that shows a company which business model is to buy renewable energy when the price is low and then sells it when the price is high, recovering the cost of investment and operations
If you read the literature of any of the three projects I just mentioned it will give the numbers.
>What does not count is a pumped storage that operate as a grid balancer, where the profits is not from the margins between price points but rather to provide a service of keeping the grid balanced when other power plants are ramping down or ramping up.
The 350GWh of storage provided by, for example, snowy 2 puts it just a little bit beyond what would be required for adjusting the frequency of the grid.
>There is statistics about this
Yeah, this is an interesting conversation that only ever seems to happen seven thread layers deep into the 1,543rd article about how nuclear is totally truly 100% the future and just like, so safe.
It definitely deserves its own thread.
>More commonly there are periods of low wind lasting weeks to months
More like days. We dont need months of storage. Anyway, whilst Id love to refute the same FUD i encountered two weeks ago on a complex topic six levels down in Yet Another Hacker News link started about how Nuclear Power is Just The Best Thing Ever im afraid I am rather busy today.
If you scroll through my history you should see that i have addressed this before though and posted research.
If you read the literature of any of the three projects I just mentioned it will give the numbers.
>What does not count is a pumped storage that operate as a grid balancer, where the profits is not from the margins between price points but rather to provide a service of keeping the grid balanced when other power plants are ramping down or ramping up.
The 350GWh of storage provided by, for example, snowy 2 puts it just a little bit beyond what would be required for adjusting the frequency of the grid.
>There is statistics about this
Yeah, this is an interesting conversation that only ever seems to happen seven thread layers deep into the 1,543rd article about how nuclear is totally truly 100% the future and just like, so safe.
It definitely deserves its own thread.
>More commonly there are periods of low wind lasting weeks to months
More like days. We dont need months of storage. Anyway, whilst Id love to refute the same FUD i encountered two weeks ago on a complex topic six levels down in Yet Another Hacker News link started about how Nuclear Power is Just The Best Thing Ever im afraid I am rather busy today.
If you scroll through my history you should see that i have addressed this before though and posted research.
I have read multiple literature from projects like those and they are all very similar. In the future, when there is overcapacity of renewables energy and the price is right, then it may become financial viable to operate the storage for renewable energy and sell the energy when demand is high. Until then however, for financial and practical reasons, they don't.
Snowy 2 is expected to come into operation in 2024. The key role, published on their website: System security and reliability – Snowy 2.0’s on-demand energy generation can respond within minutes to changing market needs.
They also have feasibility studies:
3. Commercial (omitted) 4. Business Analysis and Modelling (omitted)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1A5ol58HEbqSaKG9D21CVGt-ntWx...
It will still be an interesting project to keep an eye on once it get online. If they can operate beyond doing grid system security and reliability, then it might become a proof of concept for renewable storage solution.
So do you got any source for a current operated pumped storage that buy renewables when supply is high, store the renewable energy, and then sell the supply when supply is low? If pumped storage for renewable is a solve and currently economical viable solution then surely a single example should exist? Rather than talking about FUD or "thread layers deep into the 1,543rd article", just link to an existing company doing pumped storage for renewable and be done with it. Do they exist or do they not?
If the answer is no, they don't exist but they may in the future then that is that. It is good that they try. It is good that they built infrastructure that may be used in the future for this purpose. Continue with the experiment and proof of concepts. With energy prices going up in many places they might very fast be working for this purpose, or at the very least replacing gas based generators that exist to create system security and reliability.
Snowy 2 is expected to come into operation in 2024. The key role, published on their website: System security and reliability – Snowy 2.0’s on-demand energy generation can respond within minutes to changing market needs.
They also have feasibility studies:
3. Commercial (omitted) 4. Business Analysis and Modelling (omitted)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1A5ol58HEbqSaKG9D21CVGt-ntWx...
It will still be an interesting project to keep an eye on once it get online. If they can operate beyond doing grid system security and reliability, then it might become a proof of concept for renewable storage solution.
So do you got any source for a current operated pumped storage that buy renewables when supply is high, store the renewable energy, and then sell the supply when supply is low? If pumped storage for renewable is a solve and currently economical viable solution then surely a single example should exist? Rather than talking about FUD or "thread layers deep into the 1,543rd article", just link to an existing company doing pumped storage for renewable and be done with it. Do they exist or do they not?
If the answer is no, they don't exist but they may in the future then that is that. It is good that they try. It is good that they built infrastructure that may be used in the future for this purpose. Continue with the experiment and proof of concepts. With energy prices going up in many places they might very fast be working for this purpose, or at the very least replacing gas based generators that exist to create system security and reliability.
This is the problem with nuclear. It was the answer in the 1990s, but renewables have proven themselves.
Now sure, if you could snap your fingers and build a new nuclear plant tomorrow, that would be great. But you can't. By the time a plant breaking ground today starts generating power, it will be too late to make sense.
Now sure, if you could snap your fingers and build a new nuclear plant tomorrow, that would be great. But you can't. By the time a plant breaking ground today starts generating power, it will be too late to make sense.
And, if you could, it would still be massively more expensive. For the price you get many times as much renewable generation.
We've kicked the can so far down the road that the cost isn't really a factor any more -- both Nuclear and Renewable are less than the cost of doing nothing. The question is what
Sadly nobody in charge seems to be bothered. Europe should have been plating the Iberian peninsular in solar for the last 10 years, especially after Crimea. Germany was doing great with solar until about 2015, when it pretty much stopped. From 2009-2014 solar went from 1% of electric consumption to 6%. From 2014-2019 it went from 6% to 8%, not even the same increase let alone continuing on the exponential line.
But while the best time to be building out like your civilisation depended on it was 10 years ago, the second best time is now. Especially with Europe's reliance on Gas from Russia, it should be building everything it can, no moaning about planning permission or people complaining about the scenery etc. Every kWh of solar, or wind, generated is 1kWh of gas not used. More high voltage interconnections should be built to shift power everywhere, especially from Southern Spain, Siciliy and the Penlopenese (where solar should be going), and from Denmark/Netherlands for offshore wind, funded from ECB loans.
Overproduction is not a problem, it can be dumped into green hydrogen generation if nothing else (although again places like Finland are making strides with hot sand storage).
Sadly nobody in charge seems to be bothered. Europe should have been plating the Iberian peninsular in solar for the last 10 years, especially after Crimea. Germany was doing great with solar until about 2015, when it pretty much stopped. From 2009-2014 solar went from 1% of electric consumption to 6%. From 2014-2019 it went from 6% to 8%, not even the same increase let alone continuing on the exponential line.
But while the best time to be building out like your civilisation depended on it was 10 years ago, the second best time is now. Especially with Europe's reliance on Gas from Russia, it should be building everything it can, no moaning about planning permission or people complaining about the scenery etc. Every kWh of solar, or wind, generated is 1kWh of gas not used. More high voltage interconnections should be built to shift power everywhere, especially from Southern Spain, Siciliy and the Penlopenese (where solar should be going), and from Denmark/Netherlands for offshore wind, funded from ECB loans.
Overproduction is not a problem, it can be dumped into green hydrogen generation if nothing else (although again places like Finland are making strides with hot sand storage).
Germany seems to have been building out a fair bit of wind.
Enough? No, but more than others.
Enough? No, but more than others.
Germany is big in Solar, but it should have been increasing not decreasing.
Denmark is good with wind, but should be generating 150% of its usage from wind over the course of the year by now
The biggest thing pro-carbon afficiandos complain about is that renewables require storage. No they don't. If you need to use gas or oil for 30 days a year due to cloudy windless winter days, that's 90% of your energy use with renewable, that's a massive benefit.
Until there's a significant problem for a month or two with excess renewable energy in the EU, and the vast majority of home heating system has been converted from gas to electric, and the same with transport (both cars and trains) then there is a demand for increased renewable production even without storage.
If renewables in the EU had continued the 2005-2010 growth it would be generating 36% of Europe's electricity by now instead of 22%. That rate should have increased from 2010, not decreased. It should be aiming for well over 100%, with excess dumped into electric cars, green hydrogen generation, hot sand, etc.
Renewables need to increase 10-fold across the EU to offset energy imports.
But instead short term thinking won out, as it always does in democratic countries.
Denmark is good with wind, but should be generating 150% of its usage from wind over the course of the year by now
The biggest thing pro-carbon afficiandos complain about is that renewables require storage. No they don't. If you need to use gas or oil for 30 days a year due to cloudy windless winter days, that's 90% of your energy use with renewable, that's a massive benefit.
Until there's a significant problem for a month or two with excess renewable energy in the EU, and the vast majority of home heating system has been converted from gas to electric, and the same with transport (both cars and trains) then there is a demand for increased renewable production even without storage.
If renewables in the EU had continued the 2005-2010 growth it would be generating 36% of Europe's electricity by now instead of 22%. That rate should have increased from 2010, not decreased. It should be aiming for well over 100%, with excess dumped into electric cars, green hydrogen generation, hot sand, etc.
Renewables need to increase 10-fold across the EU to offset energy imports.
But instead short term thinking won out, as it always does in democratic countries.
The market is free to make their decisions. With a global ban on fossil fuels in the European grid countries should choose for themselves if they want to build multiple cheaper renewables or build more expensive nuclear. Voters will then say theirs. Countries can always trade with each other so that which ever strategy end up as a winner will spread to the others.
Everything is a win-win scenario as long fossil fuels stays in the ground.
Everything is a win-win scenario as long fossil fuels stays in the ground.
I think a lot of governments are keen for this not to happen.
For nuclear powers, a civilian nuclear industry is a strategic asset that sharply brings down the cost of maintaining nuclear weapons/subs/carriers. This is partly through skills exchange and partly due to the presence of a shared industrial ecosystem.
For certain non nuclear powers (sweden, iran, south korea) an overpriced civvie nuclear industry is kind of like buying an option on quickly becoming a nuclear power which theyd like to keep in case of geopolitical emergency.
Countries that dont see a necessity for MAD and arent nuclear powers almost universally cant be bothered with the expense and will just build something else.
This is why the nuclear industry/the US government are so keen to coopt the green movement to support throwing more subsidies after nuclear plants in the name of solving global warming. Also why theyre so keen to foment a split between the traditionally united antinuclear and green groups.
For nuclear powers, a civilian nuclear industry is a strategic asset that sharply brings down the cost of maintaining nuclear weapons/subs/carriers. This is partly through skills exchange and partly due to the presence of a shared industrial ecosystem.
For certain non nuclear powers (sweden, iran, south korea) an overpriced civvie nuclear industry is kind of like buying an option on quickly becoming a nuclear power which theyd like to keep in case of geopolitical emergency.
Countries that dont see a necessity for MAD and arent nuclear powers almost universally cant be bothered with the expense and will just build something else.
This is why the nuclear industry/the US government are so keen to coopt the green movement to support throwing more subsidies after nuclear plants in the name of solving global warming. Also why theyre so keen to foment a split between the traditionally united antinuclear and green groups.
Well again, countries can choose between the non-fossil fuel options. I strongly doubt that nuclear powers will effect the choice in any major way. The biggest factor will be price.
Either renewable + storage will be cheaper, renewables + nuclear power, or renewables and dependency on trade, or renewable + nuclear + storage + trade.
Yes, governments are keen for this not to happen. Gas, oil and coal is still much cheaper than any of the alternatives listed above. Energy prices in Europe as can be seen here (https://tradingeconomics.com/euro-area/energy-prices), are crazy high. It is expected to climb further as gas and oil prices continue to rise. Governments will step in and subsidize whatever they can to prevent a catastrophic collapse of the grid.
Gas, oil and coal still need to stay in the ground. The green movement could easily stop being fragmented by joining behind that statement, but for some it is more important to be anti-nuclear than keeping gas, oil and coal from being burned. They can continue to be anti-nuclear for as much I care as long they don't advocate to keep gas, oil and coal power plants operational. Thus we need a law that sets a specific date when gas, oil and coal is no longer allowed in the grid.
Either renewable + storage will be cheaper, renewables + nuclear power, or renewables and dependency on trade, or renewable + nuclear + storage + trade.
Yes, governments are keen for this not to happen. Gas, oil and coal is still much cheaper than any of the alternatives listed above. Energy prices in Europe as can be seen here (https://tradingeconomics.com/euro-area/energy-prices), are crazy high. It is expected to climb further as gas and oil prices continue to rise. Governments will step in and subsidize whatever they can to prevent a catastrophic collapse of the grid.
Gas, oil and coal still need to stay in the ground. The green movement could easily stop being fragmented by joining behind that statement, but for some it is more important to be anti-nuclear than keeping gas, oil and coal from being burned. They can continue to be anti-nuclear for as much I care as long they don't advocate to keep gas, oil and coal power plants operational. Thus we need a law that sets a specific date when gas, oil and coal is no longer allowed in the grid.
>Well again, countries can choose between the non-fossil fuel options. I strongly doubt that nuclear powers will effect the choice in any major way.
The media is, in general, oblivious about the connection between civilian nuclear power and military nuclear requirements in the west. They dont explicitly deny it but it would tend to be mentioned in passing in, like, congressional hearings not propaganda targeted at the general public (like the OP's link).
However, you might have noticed that when Iran tries to build a nuclear industry for peaceful purposes the propaganda outfits argue vociferously that We Definitely Do Not Believe Them.
And of course, they were entirely right. Iran did want a civilian nuclear industry for not entirely peaceful purposes - their economics didnt stack up either.
And that is why the cynical attempt to foment a split between anti nuclear campaigners and the green movement goes on. They want greens to be, well, pro nuclear-weapons as a condition of them being seen to be "green".
This propaganda attempt has been quite successful. Not a day goes by on hacker news when somebody doesnt take a dump on anti nuclear campaigners/the german green party while Poland's enormous coal industry that isnt going anywhere is ignored by the very same propaganda/people who listen to it.
The media is, in general, oblivious about the connection between civilian nuclear power and military nuclear requirements in the west. They dont explicitly deny it but it would tend to be mentioned in passing in, like, congressional hearings not propaganda targeted at the general public (like the OP's link).
However, you might have noticed that when Iran tries to build a nuclear industry for peaceful purposes the propaganda outfits argue vociferously that We Definitely Do Not Believe Them.
And of course, they were entirely right. Iran did want a civilian nuclear industry for not entirely peaceful purposes - their economics didnt stack up either.
And that is why the cynical attempt to foment a split between anti nuclear campaigners and the green movement goes on. They want greens to be, well, pro nuclear-weapons as a condition of them being seen to be "green".
This propaganda attempt has been quite successful. Not a day goes by on hacker news when somebody doesnt take a dump on anti nuclear campaigners/the german green party while Poland's enormous coal industry that isnt going anywhere is ignored by the very same propaganda/people who listen to it.
They don't need to be pro-nuclear in order to be green. They just can't be sitting in political debates being on the side of the table that is arguing to keeping gas, oil and coal power plants.
They just need to say: "Lets close this fossil fuel power plant".
If people then ask them about nuclear they can be just as anti-nuclear they want. They will get follow up question about what to do when energy demand exceed that of supply, but that is a separate debate between them and those arguing in favor of nuclear.
To take a example out of Swedish politics this last winter. The right movement wanted to replace an oil power plant by reopening a closed nuclear generator. The oil power plant is operating in the south of Sweden, and the plant is also the single largest contributor of green house gases in that area. To quote from memory, the green representative said "Oil power plants is a natural part of the reserve energy plan in Sweden, and there is nothing strange that it need to burn oil when demand exceed supply".
There is something broken when the highest representatives of the green movement is standing in public debates saying that oil power plants are a natural part of the grid. If that is caused by propaganda then the people who is listening need to stop doing it.
They could have said "No, lets replace that oil power plant with a green hydrogen plant". Or they could have said "No, lets replace that oil power plant with a pumped hydro storage". It would make following discussion about costs a bit more difficult, but they would still be the green movement arguing in favor of the environment. Instead they argued in favor of keeping the oil power plant running.
It really is as simple as that. No propaganda, no plot by a pro nuclear-weapons organization trying to turn the world MAD. Just politics where everything the other side say must be countered. If pro-nuclear want to close fossil fuel plants and replace them with nuclear then the anti-nuclear people want to keep the fossil fuel plants.
Keep the gas, oil and coal in the ground. It used to be slogan of the green movement. It should be again. It is a statement that both pro and anti-nuclear people could agree on if they wanted to.
They just need to say: "Lets close this fossil fuel power plant".
If people then ask them about nuclear they can be just as anti-nuclear they want. They will get follow up question about what to do when energy demand exceed that of supply, but that is a separate debate between them and those arguing in favor of nuclear.
To take a example out of Swedish politics this last winter. The right movement wanted to replace an oil power plant by reopening a closed nuclear generator. The oil power plant is operating in the south of Sweden, and the plant is also the single largest contributor of green house gases in that area. To quote from memory, the green representative said "Oil power plants is a natural part of the reserve energy plan in Sweden, and there is nothing strange that it need to burn oil when demand exceed supply".
There is something broken when the highest representatives of the green movement is standing in public debates saying that oil power plants are a natural part of the grid. If that is caused by propaganda then the people who is listening need to stop doing it.
They could have said "No, lets replace that oil power plant with a green hydrogen plant". Or they could have said "No, lets replace that oil power plant with a pumped hydro storage". It would make following discussion about costs a bit more difficult, but they would still be the green movement arguing in favor of the environment. Instead they argued in favor of keeping the oil power plant running.
It really is as simple as that. No propaganda, no plot by a pro nuclear-weapons organization trying to turn the world MAD. Just politics where everything the other side say must be countered. If pro-nuclear want to close fossil fuel plants and replace them with nuclear then the anti-nuclear people want to keep the fossil fuel plants.
Keep the gas, oil and coal in the ground. It used to be slogan of the green movement. It should be again. It is a statement that both pro and anti-nuclear people could agree on if they wanted to.
There is this idea that nuclear is not being deployed because people have a wrong perception of risks.
However, the main reason is the economy. The costs of solar, wind and batteries are dropping exponentially but the costs of nuclear are not improving. We can blame regulation and the hypothetically wrong public perception about safety, but the reality is that costs cannot go down easily because of the innovation dynamics:
1. It takes several years to build a nuclear reactor. Hence, innovations take a decade to reach the market. Learning curve has to be slow.
2. A nuclear reactor cannot be shipped, it has to be build on site. This makes manufacturing automation, economies of scale and competition hard. In other words: you cannot have factories in China, or elsewhere, shipping cheap nuclear reactors all over the planet.
A change in regulation might lower the costs, but it's not going to improve much the innovation dynamics.
In conclusion, all this talking is mostly irrelevant: nuclear reactors are simply not going to be built because they are not competitive. And things are getting worse by the day because the alternatives have a better innovation cycle.
However, the main reason is the economy. The costs of solar, wind and batteries are dropping exponentially but the costs of nuclear are not improving. We can blame regulation and the hypothetically wrong public perception about safety, but the reality is that costs cannot go down easily because of the innovation dynamics:
1. It takes several years to build a nuclear reactor. Hence, innovations take a decade to reach the market. Learning curve has to be slow.
2. A nuclear reactor cannot be shipped, it has to be build on site. This makes manufacturing automation, economies of scale and competition hard. In other words: you cannot have factories in China, or elsewhere, shipping cheap nuclear reactors all over the planet.
A change in regulation might lower the costs, but it's not going to improve much the innovation dynamics.
In conclusion, all this talking is mostly irrelevant: nuclear reactors are simply not going to be built because they are not competitive. And things are getting worse by the day because the alternatives have a better innovation cycle.
> In conclusion, (...) nuclear reactors are simply not going to be built because they are not competitive
What do you mean? 50+ reactors are under construction as we write [1], and almost twice as much are planned [2] (with even more proposed).
Furthermore:
> A nuclear reactor cannot be shipped
Marine nuclear reactors (of which 200-ish are in active service) and Chukotka's floating nuclear power plants are notable counter-examples. Especially with marine reactors being the baseline for the philosophy behind SMRs.
[1] https://pris.iaea.org/pris/worldstatistics/underconstruction...
[2] https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-fu...
What do you mean? 50+ reactors are under construction as we write [1], and almost twice as much are planned [2] (with even more proposed).
Furthermore:
> A nuclear reactor cannot be shipped
Marine nuclear reactors (of which 200-ish are in active service) and Chukotka's floating nuclear power plants are notable counter-examples. Especially with marine reactors being the baseline for the philosophy behind SMRs.
[1] https://pris.iaea.org/pris/worldstatistics/underconstruction...
[2] https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-fu...
That table doesn't support your thesis, specially when you think of the one reactor being built in France.
Something being built means little when the time from "start" and "end" is meassured in decades. A better table would be "increase in nuclear output". E.g. fully self driving vehicles are being built, but little or none see the street, much less have a positive ROI.
Planned and proposed is even worse. A lot of them would never leave that status. Only energy super eager countries like China or India are effectively increasing nuclear capacity, and in a way that nobody knows if they are financially sound investments.
Something being built means little when the time from "start" and "end" is meassured in decades. A better table would be "increase in nuclear output". E.g. fully self driving vehicles are being built, but little or none see the street, much less have a positive ROI.
Planned and proposed is even worse. A lot of them would never leave that status. Only energy super eager countries like China or India are effectively increasing nuclear capacity, and in a way that nobody knows if they are financially sound investments.
>Something being built means little when the time from "start" and "end" is meassured in decades.
If you'd go to check for the average build time of a nuclear reactor or the new reactors that come into service you'd notice they're often/typically connected and running 5-6 years after they start building. A lot of that is helped by china and the likes not having horror stories like Finland.
If you'd go to check for the average build time of a nuclear reactor or the new reactors that come into service you'd notice they're often/typically connected and running 5-6 years after they start building. A lot of that is helped by china and the likes not having horror stories like Finland.
It's also helped by China starting the construction clock after concrete and steel are already in the ground. You can get good numbers by cheating.
The capacity of plants built now is about the same as it's being retired. This will only accelerate in the future as old plants get more and more decommissioned. I'm comparison there is almost 300GW of capacity in renewables added every year. All nuclear capacity being built now for the next decades is less than what's added in renewables every year, and that's even considering the capacity factor.
So they are not being built in any significant way. Percentage of nuclear went down from 20 to 10 percent and it will continue to go down, until it becomes economical or we figure out we can't get renewables to work. I personally wouldn't bet on either of those, but that's just my opinion. There is a third option of course that is very realistic, and that is that the nuclear lobby buys itself a business model through FUD and other means. Currently they realistically don't have one.
So they are not being built in any significant way. Percentage of nuclear went down from 20 to 10 percent and it will continue to go down, until it becomes economical or we figure out we can't get renewables to work. I personally wouldn't bet on either of those, but that's just my opinion. There is a third option of course that is very realistic, and that is that the nuclear lobby buys itself a business model through FUD and other means. Currently they realistically don't have one.
If renewables can't do it, they can at least reach a state where the residual demand is utterly unsuitable to nuclear. If renewables are maxed out there will be long periods where they are supplying all demand; the residue has zero base load.
Plants planned or under construction will be cancelled anywhere they are not massively subsidized by government coercion of tax- or ratepayers, as energy prices continue downward. They will be recognized as unable to compete.
Existing plants will be mothballed as energy prices drop below the level needed to continue operating, again except where coerced.
Existing plants will be mothballed as energy prices drop below the level needed to continue operating, again except where coerced.
Nuclear power is the cheapest option:
https://www.oecd-nea.org/lcoe/
And it is far more reliable than renewables.
https://www.oecd-nea.org/lcoe/
And it is far more reliable than renewables.
With enough thumbs on the scale, you can support any conclusion. In this case, neglecting all public subsidies and neglecting CAPEX.
It is furthermore a snapshot. Policy for construction needs to consider the future, and renewables cost is still falling fast.
It is furthermore a snapshot. Policy for construction needs to consider the future, and renewables cost is still falling fast.
That's for "LTO": extending the lifespan of existing nuclear plants. The cost of power from new construction nuclear would be much higher.
The LTO is the estimated lifespan of the plant. The LTOs provided in that chart are well below the real lifespan of these plants.
The capital cost of building the plants is also provided in the chart. That means this accounts for "the cost of power from new construction nuclear" you refer to.
The capital cost of building the plants is also provided in the chart. That means this accounts for "the cost of power from new construction nuclear" you refer to.
LTO is referring to refurbishment efforts to extend the lifespan of an existing plant.
Look at the first line in that chart. It's for 20 years of operation of a 1000 MW reactor. The capital cost is listed as $5.93/MWh. If that reactor is operating at 90% capacity factor for 20 years, the total capital cost comes in at less than $1B. That cannot possibly be the cost of building a new nuclear plant. Instead, it's the capital cost of the refurbishment needed to allow an existing reactor to operate for another 20 years. This can surely be a nice way to get more from many existing NPPs (although some of these refurbishment efforts have gone disastrously wrong; see Crystal River 3 in Florida for example), but it has little relevance to the cost of building a new NPP.
Look at the first line in that chart. It's for 20 years of operation of a 1000 MW reactor. The capital cost is listed as $5.93/MWh. If that reactor is operating at 90% capacity factor for 20 years, the total capital cost comes in at less than $1B. That cannot possibly be the cost of building a new nuclear plant. Instead, it's the capital cost of the refurbishment needed to allow an existing reactor to operate for another 20 years. This can surely be a nice way to get more from many existing NPPs (although some of these refurbishment efforts have gone disastrously wrong; see Crystal River 3 in Florida for example), but it has little relevance to the cost of building a new NPP.
Yes, you're correct. Your interpretation is the only one where the numbers make sense.
Can you share sources? I'm surprised that so many reactors are being built.
Yes, sorry for not having done so. Edited my comment.
On reactors under construction, IAEA's PRIS database. https://pris.iaea.org/pris/worldstatistics/underconstruction...
On planned reactors, World Nuclear Association. https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-fu...
EDIT: wrong link for IAEA's db.
On reactors under construction, IAEA's PRIS database. https://pris.iaea.org/pris/worldstatistics/underconstruction...
On planned reactors, World Nuclear Association. https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-fu...
EDIT: wrong link for IAEA's db.
What matters is how many will be completed, not cancelled. That number is rather smaller.
And again, the article does the same mistake they always do: attack wind and solar more than fossil or hydro. Instead of selling nuclear as the ideal companion to solar, it's always a sad try to convince us that we are wrong investing in solar and eolic, and the money should be going to more nuclear.
My guess is that utilities are not happy with the decentralization of PV. They like fossils, hydro and nuclear because you can't run them in you backyard at competitive prices. But you can buy PV and thermosolar on friday at Home Depot, slap it to the roof, and have a better ROI than any utility starting sunday. Get a Powerball or something similar, and they would never see another dollar from your pocket.
They, nuclear lobby, are known to be maneuvering to get more nuclear reactors installed quickly before is too late, but on conditions like: 1) government subsidizes the costs, 2) they assume possible overbudgets, 3) insures the plants for 100 years or so, and 4) guarantee an income for 50 years, in concept of "backup". For that they need a favorable public opinion, begging for more nuclear plants, and the politics would abide.
My guess is that utilities are not happy with the decentralization of PV. They like fossils, hydro and nuclear because you can't run them in you backyard at competitive prices. But you can buy PV and thermosolar on friday at Home Depot, slap it to the roof, and have a better ROI than any utility starting sunday. Get a Powerball or something similar, and they would never see another dollar from your pocket.
They, nuclear lobby, are known to be maneuvering to get more nuclear reactors installed quickly before is too late, but on conditions like: 1) government subsidizes the costs, 2) they assume possible overbudgets, 3) insures the plants for 100 years or so, and 4) guarantee an income for 50 years, in concept of "backup". For that they need a favorable public opinion, begging for more nuclear plants, and the politics would abide.
The economics of nuclear power don't make it an ideal companion to wind and solar. You want to have backup power for days where it's neither windy nor sunny. So you need a lot of nuclear. But then you want to use renewables when they're available, so most of the time you run your reactors way below capacity. Unfortunately most of the cost of nuclear is capex, so every minute you don't run at 100% makes nuclear power much more expensive.
That is why companies like Moltex Energy are building a nuclear reactor with a combination of a heat battery. So that they can do 100% utilization and then make massive profit when solar is not there.
However that means you are innovating in nuclear and in heat batteries.
However that means you are innovating in nuclear and in heat batteries.
If you have good storage tech you can just store surplus renewable energy and don't really need the expensive reactor part though.
I am skeptical of Moltex's cost models.
> My guess is that utilities are not happy with the decentralization of PV
This is exactly the problem.
There are plenty of artificial obstacles put to solar in the last years just to deter people to adopt it (the infamous sun tax for example, or the hard bureaucracy). Lately they tried to hire the roofs to put their own solar panels and keep the control over it.
The solution is clear and has been always there for decades, is just that is not the solution that they want
Solar panel prices are subject to regulation capture. They could sink overnight and became much more affordable if politicians have a will.
This is exactly the problem.
There are plenty of artificial obstacles put to solar in the last years just to deter people to adopt it (the infamous sun tax for example, or the hard bureaucracy). Lately they tried to hire the roofs to put their own solar panels and keep the control over it.
The solution is clear and has been always there for decades, is just that is not the solution that they want
Solar panel prices are subject to regulation capture. They could sink overnight and became much more affordable if politicians have a will.
I really can't understand how so many smart people fall for wind/solar promises. If you just think about it you have to realize it is not reliable solution for 21 century, it is not scalable for ever increasing (exponential) energy demand, population growth, land needed for expansion. It is simply stupid to rely on energy produced from sources that are by nature unpredictable (like wind, or sun).
Solar/Wind can and should be present as energy sources, but only as supportive sources, with no more than 5-10% of total production. Everything more than that is risky and countries will have hard wake up call one day.
Solar/Wind can and should be present as energy sources, but only as supportive sources, with no more than 5-10% of total production. Everything more than that is risky and countries will have hard wake up call one day.
I don't know why statistics scares you? The interesting thing is the correlation factors and then choose an uptime requirement.
> South Australia is at the vanguard of the global energy transition, having transformed its energy system from 1% to over 60% renewable energy in just over 15 years.
> By 2025/2026, the Australian Energy Market Operator forecasts this could rise to approximately 85%.
> South Australia’s aspiration is to achieve 100% net renewables by 2030. In 2021, South Australia met 100% of its operational demand from renewable resources on 180 days (49%).
https://www.energymining.sa.gov.au/industry/modern-energy/le...
> South Australia is at the vanguard of the global energy transition, having transformed its energy system from 1% to over 60% renewable energy in just over 15 years.
> By 2025/2026, the Australian Energy Market Operator forecasts this could rise to approximately 85%.
> South Australia’s aspiration is to achieve 100% net renewables by 2030. In 2021, South Australia met 100% of its operational demand from renewable resources on 180 days (49%).
https://www.energymining.sa.gov.au/industry/modern-energy/le...
Wow you literally picked the sunniest driest place on Earth.
Now do NYC or Germany. Long winters, rainy summers, lot’s of fun with solar!
Now do NYC or Germany. Long winters, rainy summers, lot’s of fun with solar!
China has a 12 GW 3,300 km (2,100 mi) HVDC transmission line in use for a couple of years now already. That covers South Australian climate to the polar circles.
That is of course on the extreme end, but as renewables and storage continue to drop in price the latitude of where it's easily possible will keep climbing towards the poles.
This is also why regions closer to the poles focuses on off-shore wind. It is the windiest regions and the windiest months are the winter months. Capacity factors of 60-64% are achieved with the latest 15 MW turbines.
Or maybe UK was completely incompetent in allocating 7 GW off-shore wind for £37.5/MWh in the latest CFD round finalized a couple of weeks ago?
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/contracts-for-dif...
That is of course on the extreme end, but as renewables and storage continue to drop in price the latitude of where it's easily possible will keep climbing towards the poles.
This is also why regions closer to the poles focuses on off-shore wind. It is the windiest regions and the windiest months are the winter months. Capacity factors of 60-64% are achieved with the latest 15 MW turbines.
Or maybe UK was completely incompetent in allocating 7 GW off-shore wind for £37.5/MWh in the latest CFD round finalized a couple of weeks ago?
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/contracts-for-dif...
Germany is building more wind turbines than PV panels.
We have a long way to grow before solar energy is not enough for our energy needs.
It is not enough already. Its output is not reliable already. It takes huge space, land that could be used differently (like say expansion, so housing becomes cheaper, or farming, etc.), it has huge environmental impact (nothing lives anymore where solar farms are built). No thanks. I'll take nuclear any day.
We don't have enough solar power because we didn't build enough yet. It's not reliable because we haven't build enough yet. It doesn't use a lot of land (try doing the math), and a lot of the land it uses can be parking lots or roofs. It can also be used in the form of Agrophotovoltaics, so the assertion that nothing lives where solar farms are built is wrong too.
If land use is the hill to die on a much better target is the beef industry.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/land-use-per-kg-poore
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/land-use-per-kg-poore
Ironically, to me their best play is to board the renewable train as a base load alternative to storage, which is not yet mature.
Currently nuclear reactors take well over a decade from construction to start of operation. I think few are willing to bet that storage will still be a problem 10 years from now.
Carbon capture from gas natural gas (also an alternative that exists today) is another technology you’d have to bet won’t become economically feasible by the time your nuclear power plant finally becomes operational.
Honestly a base-load alternative is not such a strong argument in favor.
Carbon capture from gas natural gas (also an alternative that exists today) is another technology you’d have to bet won’t become economically feasible by the time your nuclear power plant finally becomes operational.
Honestly a base-load alternative is not such a strong argument in favor.
>Currently nuclear reactors take well over a decade from construction to start of operation.
If I look at recent ones that went online over the past years most took 5 years.
If I look at recent ones that went online over the past years most took 5 years.
I’m looking at the list of reactors on Wikipedia and what I’m seeing is pretty much a 8-10 year minimum from construction start to operation start. China is a big exception to this patterns (taking 7-9 years), but China is in a league of its own when it comes to mega-projects. The of the few reactors that did start operation outside of China in the past 20 years there is often some involvement of Chinese construction. (e.g. reactors 2 and 3 in the Karichi nuclear plant). In Europe, Rostov is one of few that seems to have broken the 10 year minimum with their 3rd and 4th reactors (7 and 8 years respectively). But reactors 1 and 2 in the same facility started construction in 1983 but didn’t start operation until 2001 and 2010 respectively.
Scanning the list of new reactors it seems that 8-10 years is a reasonable estimate for reactors in an existing plants, and close to 20 years is a reasonable estimate for reactors in new facilities. This gives 2030 as the earliest reasonable time for a new reactor in an existing plant outside of China that you already have the design for, and 2040 for new facilities if you are starting your planning phase now.
Are you willing to risk that energy storage is still gonna be lacking in 2030-2040? Are you sure carbon capturing of natural gas plants will still be economically unfeasible then?
Honestly though, if we still haven’t sorted out our carbon emission before 2040 I think we have bigger things to worry about then 24 hour access to energy at a low price.
Scanning the list of new reactors it seems that 8-10 years is a reasonable estimate for reactors in an existing plants, and close to 20 years is a reasonable estimate for reactors in new facilities. This gives 2030 as the earliest reasonable time for a new reactor in an existing plant outside of China that you already have the design for, and 2040 for new facilities if you are starting your planning phase now.
Are you willing to risk that energy storage is still gonna be lacking in 2030-2040? Are you sure carbon capturing of natural gas plants will still be economically unfeasible then?
Honestly though, if we still haven’t sorted out our carbon emission before 2040 I think we have bigger things to worry about then 24 hour access to energy at a low price.
>and close to 20 years is a reasonable estimate for reactors in new facilities.
Our existing facilities were completely new and took about 5 years.
Time has gone up but still.: Page 11 https://world-nuclear.org/getmedia/264c91d4-d443-4edb-bc08-f...
>Are you willing to risk that energy storage is still gonna be lacking in 2030-2040?
Big fat yes. Absolutely.
>Are you sure carbon capturing of natural gas plants will still be economically unfeasible then?
Yep and if it's closer to economically feasible i'm afraid it'll be due to the CO2 being sold for enhanced oil recovery as we pass peak oil.
Our existing facilities were completely new and took about 5 years.
Time has gone up but still.: Page 11 https://world-nuclear.org/getmedia/264c91d4-d443-4edb-bc08-f...
>Are you willing to risk that energy storage is still gonna be lacking in 2030-2040?
Big fat yes. Absolutely.
>Are you sure carbon capturing of natural gas plants will still be economically unfeasible then?
Yep and if it's closer to economically feasible i'm afraid it'll be due to the CO2 being sold for enhanced oil recovery as we pass peak oil.
Oil refineries also take years to build and are built on site.
The difference is that oil goes onto open markets and it is thus possible for oil refiners to get a return on their investment.
We don’t need innovation in nuclear. The nuclear technology we have today is already a miracle technology.
Can’t speak to Europe but in the US the issue absolutely is regulation. The exact regulations vary by state, but energy grids are not open markets and the regulations universally disadvantage nuclear and benefit other sources. Safety focused regulations do impose a cost, but the primary issue is that we don’t let nuclear power operators turn a profit.
The difference is that oil goes onto open markets and it is thus possible for oil refiners to get a return on their investment.
We don’t need innovation in nuclear. The nuclear technology we have today is already a miracle technology.
Can’t speak to Europe but in the US the issue absolutely is regulation. The exact regulations vary by state, but energy grids are not open markets and the regulations universally disadvantage nuclear and benefit other sources. Safety focused regulations do impose a cost, but the primary issue is that we don’t let nuclear power operators turn a profit.
Oil is the incumbent with vast majorities of the costs already sunk. As a result it’s cheaper (there’s also massive geo political aspects where certain countries entirely depend on selling it so will try to make it work no matter what).
That’s why the best thing that can happen for nuclear is a carbon tax/alternative carbon pricing system, that has sources like oil paying all their costs, including externalities they offload to everyone else.
That’s why the best thing that can happen for nuclear is a carbon tax/alternative carbon pricing system, that has sources like oil paying all their costs, including externalities they offload to everyone else.
> We don’t need innovation in nuclear
The Nuclear industry will need that innovation, in order to remain even remotely competitive with the alternatives. It's not improving faster than those alternatives though.
The Nuclear industry will need that innovation, in order to remain even remotely competitive with the alternatives. It's not improving faster than those alternatives though.
The nuclear industry has had three quarters of a century to be innovative, with enormous public funds pumped into it only because of its defense applications - nuclear weaponry and naval powerplants.
At a certain point you have to say "sorry guys, you had your try" and let the existing plants wind down. That's what's happening. Nuclear is being replaced by green generation at 6x the rate it's being lost.
At a certain point you have to say "sorry guys, you had your try" and let the existing plants wind down. That's what's happening. Nuclear is being replaced by green generation at 6x the rate it's being lost.
Renewable energy is great, but sun and wind are intermittent. Grids cannot base themselves on renewable energy without some sort of impractical battery storage scheme or major advancements in creating renewable Green Hydrogen for fuel cells.
This argument has been debunked many times. A large enough grid can be based on wind and solar alone, this has been shown for the US in several studies. Storage however is advantageous because it enables to reduce the amount of overcapacity. The good thing is that the way the electricity market works, is that it provides direct economic incentives to develop storage or basing high electricity demand production industry on currently available electricity.
I'm always amazed that many free market proponents who strongly support market solutions, are so in favour of pushing nuclear which by its nature is very monopolised reliant on subsidies, while good market solutions exist. And I say that as someone who is often sceptical of market solutions.
I'm always amazed that many free market proponents who strongly support market solutions, are so in favour of pushing nuclear which by its nature is very monopolised reliant on subsidies, while good market solutions exist. And I say that as someone who is often sceptical of market solutions.
Can you share some of these studies? I just don’t understand how you can power a grid at night with just wind and solar (no batteries). Even the US isn’t large enough that sun would always be shining somewhere.
Here is one from 2015 [1] (I recall some older and more recent ones, but can't find them right now). IIRC they rely on a number of strategies (not necessarily all in the same story) :
1. A much better interconnected frid
2. Overcapacity in both wind and solar, but particularly wind.
3. Operate e.g. heatpumps during times with lots of energy available to heat or cool coolant.
4. Adjust energy intensive industries to primarily work during times of oversupply.
[1] https://pubs.rsc.org/en/Content/ArticleLanding/2015/EE/C5EE0...
[1] https://pubs.rsc.org/en/Content/ArticleLanding/2015/EE/C5EE0...
Thanks!
I’ve still to read the article (hopefully I can find the full text somewhere) but looks like instead of batteries they’re proposing heat-based energy storage (and radical energy use reduction).
Edit:
The study you linked to actually just summarises another study (in about as many words as I did above):
Jacobson, M.Z., M.A. Delucchi, M.A. Cameron, and B.A. Frew, 2015. A low-cost solution to the grid reliability problem with 100% penetration of intermittent wind, water, and solar for all purposes, Science, in review.
I’ve still to read the article (hopefully I can find the full text somewhere) but looks like instead of batteries they’re proposing heat-based energy storage (and radical energy use reduction).
Edit:
The study you linked to actually just summarises another study (in about as many words as I did above):
Jacobson, M.Z., M.A. Delucchi, M.A. Cameron, and B.A. Frew, 2015. A low-cost solution to the grid reliability problem with 100% penetration of intermittent wind, water, and solar for all purposes, Science, in review.
Also look at this web site, which I often reference, that enables you to construct cost-minimized 100% renewable systems to supply baseload power. Some places it's cheaper than in others. Sorry, Eastern Europe and the Baltic.
https://model.energy/
https://model.energy/
Think for a moment.
Solar and wind have these economic properties:
- the marginal cost of energy is zero (once the investment made producing a kWh is free)
- fix costs are almost zero
For the nuclear energy we have the following:
- the marginal cost of energy is low (the cost of the uranium mostly)
- the fix costs are incredibly high (wether the reactor produce or not, the payroll is the same, the maintenance cost are the same, etc...)
So what happens: on sunny or windy days the regulation imposes solar and wind producers to curtail their production. They are forbade to distribute their free kWh, because otherwise the "baseline" producers (nuclear and coal mostly) will have to stop their facilities or sell their kWh at market price. In both cases they would lose money.
Solar and wind intermittency means the following: you cannot switch them on at will. Nuclear plants have the opposite problem: you cannot switch them off without bleeding money.
The solution for solar and wind is: install enough capacity so the worst day of the year (in winter with little wind) you produce enough to cover the needs. If you add storage and/or long distance distribution you can lower the requirement for total installed capacity.
In this context the only solution for nuclear is the following: you lobby the government to make regulations in your favor and cover your losses. Otherwise you bankrupt. On the long run I bet on bankruptcy.
- the marginal cost of energy is zero (once the investment made producing a kWh is free)
- fix costs are almost zero
For the nuclear energy we have the following:
- the marginal cost of energy is low (the cost of the uranium mostly)
- the fix costs are incredibly high (wether the reactor produce or not, the payroll is the same, the maintenance cost are the same, etc...)
So what happens: on sunny or windy days the regulation imposes solar and wind producers to curtail their production. They are forbade to distribute their free kWh, because otherwise the "baseline" producers (nuclear and coal mostly) will have to stop their facilities or sell their kWh at market price. In both cases they would lose money.
Solar and wind intermittency means the following: you cannot switch them on at will. Nuclear plants have the opposite problem: you cannot switch them off without bleeding money.
The solution for solar and wind is: install enough capacity so the worst day of the year (in winter with little wind) you produce enough to cover the needs. If you add storage and/or long distance distribution you can lower the requirement for total installed capacity.
In this context the only solution for nuclear is the following: you lobby the government to make regulations in your favor and cover your losses. Otherwise you bankrupt. On the long run I bet on bankruptcy.
No one is going to build 10x as many wind turbines as they need to make sure the grid is still up. It's not going to happen unless someone comes up with grid scale storage that can power the entire electric grid for at least 12 hours and in a lot of places 16 hours when the sun/wind isn't available. Nuclear is the only reasonable option we have.
On a continent-wide grid, there will likely be some wind somewhere, and some pumped hydro ready to take advantage of the low prices.
We'll also see micro-storage developing to take advantage of electricity price variability. EVs will charge when electricity is cheapest, household water might be warmed during the day when solar energy is available, etc.
Unfortunately losing nuclear means that we lose the potential for a self-sufficient regional grid. But since the costs of losing base load power are largely offloaded from national budgets, instead showing up as new costs for consumers and companies, it's a lot easier for a politician to advocate for renewables. No need to spend taxpayer money on a project that won't be finished in the 4 years that matter to your government.
We'll also see micro-storage developing to take advantage of electricity price variability. EVs will charge when electricity is cheapest, household water might be warmed during the day when solar energy is available, etc.
Unfortunately losing nuclear means that we lose the potential for a self-sufficient regional grid. But since the costs of losing base load power are largely offloaded from national budgets, instead showing up as new costs for consumers and companies, it's a lot easier for a politician to advocate for renewables. No need to spend taxpayer money on a project that won't be finished in the 4 years that matter to your government.
So, we will build grid-scale storage. It will be massively cheaper than nukes would have been. Masively cheaper even than keeping them operating, too. So they will be mothballed.
But we don't need 10x overbuild: the wind is always blowing somewhere. If not here, there. If not there, here or somewhere else.
But we don't need 10x overbuild: the wind is always blowing somewhere. If not here, there. If not there, here or somewhere else.
We don't have anything that can handle more than an hour or two at the big Gigawatt solar/wind generators and you know it, none of them can economically provide even power at night let alone during peak demand periods. All they can do is help smooth out fluctuations for temporary cloud cover/no wind conditions and such. Technology will have to have a 10x leap or we'll have to wait 30 years for incremental improvements in battery tech to get there. Nuclear is available now. With a "to the moon or bust" attitude that we had in the 60s we could be there in less than 10 years.
Before you build a thing, it has not been built yet. To have that thing, you have to build it first. Having built it, you then have it.
No breakthroughs of any kind are needed for grid-scale storage. It is just civil engineering. It won't be batteries.
Nukes have never, at any time or place, anywhere in the world, operated without massive public subsidy. There is no reason to expect that ever to change.
No breakthroughs of any kind are needed for grid-scale storage. It is just civil engineering. It won't be batteries.
Nukes have never, at any time or place, anywhere in the world, operated without massive public subsidy. There is no reason to expect that ever to change.
[deleted]
Nuclear is already more than competitive. The appearance otherwise is overwhelmingly artificial.
When your argument depends on promoting falsehoods, one wonders why you bother.
I, too, wonder why people uncritically parrot the fossil fuel industry's anti-nuclear talking points without even having the decency to be paid for it.
Yet, you make shit up on behalf of nukes, under exactly thet arrangement.
Fossil fuels also cost too much.
Fossil fuels also cost too much.
Not sure what do you mean? In many countries nuclear is government subsidised and is the cheapest & cleanest source of energy available compared to say renewables. In fact countries build these because of the price of other alternatives: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-03-17/czechs-st...
The caveat is indeed incredibly large CAPEX and very long time, but what is the alternative? At least then you are secured partially for 20-40 years depending on needed capacity.
EDIT: typos
The caveat is indeed incredibly large CAPEX and very long time, but what is the alternative? At least then you are secured partially for 20-40 years depending on needed capacity.
EDIT: typos
You contradict yourself. If it were cheap, it would not need to be subsidized.
Existing nukes will be mothballed as even their opex is uncompetitive. Governments will, in the end, choose to spend their money more wisely than propping up extremely expensive nukes. Buying their neighbors' renewable overproduction will be cheaper. Building out their own, cheaper yet.
Existing nukes will be mothballed as even their opex is uncompetitive. Governments will, in the end, choose to spend their money more wisely than propping up extremely expensive nukes. Buying their neighbors' renewable overproduction will be cheaper. Building out their own, cheaper yet.
I'm glad this kind of comment is floating to the top of these threads now, instead of the straw man arguments more commonly propagated in the past which consisted of blaming "fear". It's always been $money$.
Let's spend the money on the better alternative sources wherever we can. If nothing else, we will see the benefits faster, which is now an even more critical factor than ever as feet have been dragged for decades.
Let's spend the money on the better alternative sources wherever we can. If nothing else, we will see the benefits faster, which is now an even more critical factor than ever as feet have been dragged for decades.
What are better solutions for low-carbon, dispatchable, high power electrical energy generation?
Wind and solar coupled with energy storage systems, all of which have been plunging in price like a rock over the last twenty years.
What large scale energy storage systems are in operation today, or even ready to be rolled out? I quote myself under another of your comment:
> Why does Germany performs abysmally wrt. electrical production carbon intensity despite having enough wind/solar installed capacity to cover their consumption?
> Why does Germany performs abysmally wrt. electrical production carbon intensity despite having enough wind/solar installed capacity to cover their consumption?
Germany does not do absymmally. It could actually do much better if not for the coal and nuclear lobby trying to slow down the move towards renewables over the last 20 years. Talking about the regulation argument which people bring up for nuclear. The amount of regulations needed to follow for wind are insane in Germany. Essentially even if you want to put a small (5-10kW) turbine in rural yard you have to become a mini electricity company. Let's not even talk about the Bavaria which have essentially killed off a wind due to regulations that requires huge distances to any dwelling.
And that does not even cover the sabotage to storage installation. My brother got solar on the roof of his farm, but is not allowed to use it in the living building, because its a "seperate" household (50 m) away. This years winter, with not enough gas, these companies will cease to be and the state can put an end to those "cornered" market shenanigans.
Germany definitely does do abysmally w.r.t. the money they invested: https://app.electricitymaps.com/map
After billions over billions poured in wind & solar, they have roughly the same carbon-load on their electricity than US, Russia, or the Balkans.
After billions over billions poured in wind & solar, they have roughly the same carbon-load on their electricity than US, Russia, or the Balkans.
Are you color blind? Germany is definitely a lighter shade of brown than the US on average (you should really also use a 5 year not 30 day average), also the amount of "billions" that Germany poured into solar and wind is still significantly below the subsidies that coal received (for largely political reasons), likely as many or more subsidies were also poured into US fossils.
It's amazing how all the nuclear proponents spend most of their time arguing against renewables, why is that? Maybe because it is to largely protect the large investments of electricity providers into large fossil and nuclear plants, while solar and wind disrupt these?
It's amazing how all the nuclear proponents spend most of their time arguing against renewables, why is that? Maybe because it is to largely protect the large investments of electricity providers into large fossil and nuclear plants, while solar and wind disrupt these?
> Germany is definitely a lighter shade of brown than the US on average
It is now that we are in the middle of the day and that solar starts to take over; it was not when I posted the chart this morning.
> why is that?
I don't argue against renewables, I argue against wrong arguments.
Here is Germany average CO2/kWh, bottom 10 in Europe between Romania and Bulgaria, with an average of ~320gCO2/kWh: https://www.eea.europa.eu/ims/greenhouse-gas-emission-intens...
It is now that we are in the middle of the day and that solar starts to take over; it was not when I posted the chart this morning.
> why is that?
I don't argue against renewables, I argue against wrong arguments.
Here is Germany average CO2/kWh, bottom 10 in Europe between Romania and Bulgaria, with an average of ~320gCO2/kWh: https://www.eea.europa.eu/ims/greenhouse-gas-emission-intens...
Grid connected batteries are being installed all over the place.
And now hydrogen storage is being rolled out too. The hydrogen storage project in Delta, Utah could ultimately (when the salt formation there is fully utilized) store enough hydrogen to supply the entire US average grid power demand for 30 hours.
BTW, electrolyzers from China are now being sold to the international market for $0.30/W. Their prices are crashing just like PV did.
> Germany
Some combination of difficulty of dislodging incumbents whose capital cost is sunk, and political implications from parts of society depending on coal mining. They should have been building more renewables, I agree, and it's too bad for them now that they didn't.
And now hydrogen storage is being rolled out too. The hydrogen storage project in Delta, Utah could ultimately (when the salt formation there is fully utilized) store enough hydrogen to supply the entire US average grid power demand for 30 hours.
BTW, electrolyzers from China are now being sold to the international market for $0.30/W. Their prices are crashing just like PV did.
> Germany
Some combination of difficulty of dislodging incumbents whose capital cost is sunk, and political implications from parts of society depending on coal mining. They should have been building more renewables, I agree, and it's too bad for them now that they didn't.
the delta project is primarily a natural gas plant for the next 25 years, btw
They might be using SMR hydrogen to start with, for demonstration purposes, but doing it with SMR at scale would make absolutely no sense; it would be cheaper and more efficient to store and use the natural gas directly.
Ah, I see. You are referring to the turbines burning a 30% H2/70% NG initially. They are still using electrolyzers to make the hydrogen. Going to turbines that burn 100% H2 is not a huge technical obstacle. There are already turbines burning hydrogen, so hydrogen combustors are feasible.
Because dozens of france's nuclear plants are shutdown for an unexpected maintenance and Germany now has to burn more coal and gas again so france can keep their lights on.
Right now, France is importing ~4% of its electricity from Germany: https://app.electricitymaps.com/zone/FR
Energy storage systems that do not currently exist? Or that would cost more than nuclear does currently?
> 2. A nuclear reactor cannot be shipped, it has to be build on site.
Does it? This is the premise behind NuScale's modular SMRs. https://www.nuscalepower.com/technology/fabrication-and-asse...
Does it? This is the premise behind NuScale's modular SMRs. https://www.nuscalepower.com/technology/fabrication-and-asse...
They also just got the OK from the NRC: https://www.protocol.com/bulletins/nuscale-smr-approval-nucl...
Do you have any sources for utility scale batteries with reasonable cost? The biggest I know of are in Australia and are extremely expensive, and provide such little reserve they are basically a rounding error.
Are you talking about lithium batteries?
Why on earth?
Why on earth?
Not specifically.
Energy storage?
The cheapest storage of energy is gas cavernes underground
Again, any sources? I know of some gas storage caverns but they didn't come cheap.
Not to mention they employ batteries fabricated with toxic chemicals. It’s going to be tragic watching folks try to figure out how to safely dispose of these batteries 20 years from now. Not to mention the carbon that will be emitted to make them in the first place.
Lithium Ion batteries are recyclable and the fact that not many are yet is mostly because of infrastructure rather than any technical issue: https://cen.acs.org/materials/energy-storage/time-serious-re...
This has improved since 2019 (when that article was written) and now all Tesla batteries are recycled[1][2].
[1] https://www.tesla.com/en_AU/support/sustainability-recycling
[2] https://electrek.co/2022/05/09/tesla-increase-battery-recycl...
This has improved since 2019 (when that article was written) and now all Tesla batteries are recycled[1][2].
[1] https://www.tesla.com/en_AU/support/sustainability-recycling
[2] https://electrek.co/2022/05/09/tesla-increase-battery-recycl...
Neometals im Australia also have leading edge recyling tech, at least leading Western companies.
Concern trolling not welcome here.
> The costs of solar, wind and batteries are dropping exponentially but the costs of nuclear are not improving.
So where can I see a cost comparison that factors in the cost of storage? I've probably seen 20 people say this exact same thing and have never been able to find an actual cost breakdown that supports it.
So where can I see a cost comparison that factors in the cost of storage? I've probably seen 20 people say this exact same thing and have never been able to find an actual cost breakdown that supports it.
The cost comparisons also don't include the cost of waste storage for nuclear. But it is also irrelevant, nuclear also needs storage or overcapacity. France is currently only operating to 60% capacity due to heat and maintance (although I saw some other news that they took all their plants offline for maintanance which I found hard to believe) so you need to overbuild of get storage for nuclear as well.
On top of that nuclear cost estimates are based on running the reactors 100% 24/7 with minimal downtime. If you actually want to make them load following to eliminate gas peakers or storage, the cost for nuclear would go up significantly, because they are so strongly CAPEX determined.
On top of that nuclear cost estimates are based on running the reactors 100% 24/7 with minimal downtime. If you actually want to make them load following to eliminate gas peakers or storage, the cost for nuclear would go up significantly, because they are so strongly CAPEX determined.
And, when they are mothballed early, unable to compete even on OPEx alone, even neglecting CAPEX, the cost of every kWh ever delivered will skyrocket as the CAPEX then has to be amortized over the total finally produced.
Nobody knows what storage would cost because there is no technology that currently exists to make storage possible. Battery technology helps a lot to stabilize the grid over seconds to minutes or even hours, but the kind of storage that would be needed to be 100% solar and wind just doesn't exist. Pumped hydro is great but there are not many places where it is feasible.
So the reality of the current situation is that solar and wind are cheap now since when they are a relatively small percentage of the power and you can fall back on gas and coal storage isn't really needed. But in the future the costs of solar and wind will skyrocket since you'll need to overbuild the capacity by a huge amount, plus build lots of expensive transmission infrastructure, to work around the fact that storage technology at the appropriate scale doesn't exist yet.
So the reality of the current situation is that solar and wind are cheap now since when they are a relatively small percentage of the power and you can fall back on gas and coal storage isn't really needed. But in the future the costs of solar and wind will skyrocket since you'll need to overbuild the capacity by a huge amount, plus build lots of expensive transmission infrastructure, to work around the fact that storage technology at the appropriate scale doesn't exist yet.
Storage is trivial.
It will be built after there is enough renewable generating capacity to charge it from.
It will be built after there is enough renewable generating capacity to charge it from.
Ask anyone with an off-grid solar installation how trivial it is.
Hint: The storage costs more than the power. Considerably more last time I looked at the numbers.
Hint: The storage costs more than the power. Considerably more last time I looked at the numbers.
Off-grid power has no choice but batteries. Utilities have others.
> So where can I see a cost comparison that factors in the cost of storage?
There are plenty around. This is probably the best: https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-... (make sure you scroll down to "Levelized Cost of Storage")
There are plenty around. This is probably the best: https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-... (make sure you scroll down to "Levelized Cost of Storage")
I have also not been able to find relyable datapoints on the total insurance cost of a nuclear fascility. I'd love to talk to someone in the insurance industry how they calculate this because that'll probably be a decent indicator of the risk involved.
It is not possible to insure a nuclear power plant. The Fukushima cleanup is currently estimated to be somewhere in the range of $200B - $1T. [1]
For US the insurance is capped at $450M per site and $131M per reactor because that's what been decided that the market can bear.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_disaster_cleanup
[2]: https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/n...
For US the insurance is capped at $450M per site and $131M per reactor because that's what been decided that the market can bear.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_disaster_cleanup
[2]: https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/n...
Fukushima is an exercise in politics. They've already killed several hundred people in the name of politics, I haven't seen data on what the cleanup entails but I suspect it's as stupid as the evacuation. (Hint: The expected death toll from staying put was zero.)
The problem is nuke plants generally produce no hazard and rarely make a mess--and we go insane about said mess. We don't do much of anything about the much greater deaths from the other sources because they're more distributed and thus not noticed.
Instead of obsessing about maximum safety and cleanup etc, what we should be doing is saying nuke plants must have a better safety profile than their closest competitor--note that that is natural gas which currently has 100x the death rate. (Wind and solar are intermittent, until you count the storage systems you don't have a number at all. Hydro is capacity-limited. Biomass is limited.) And I think the chart in the article is allocating the Fukushima evacuation deaths to nuclear rather than to the politicians.
The problem is nuke plants generally produce no hazard and rarely make a mess--and we go insane about said mess. We don't do much of anything about the much greater deaths from the other sources because they're more distributed and thus not noticed.
Instead of obsessing about maximum safety and cleanup etc, what we should be doing is saying nuke plants must have a better safety profile than their closest competitor--note that that is natural gas which currently has 100x the death rate. (Wind and solar are intermittent, until you count the storage systems you don't have a number at all. Hydro is capacity-limited. Biomass is limited.) And I think the chart in the article is allocating the Fukushima evacuation deaths to nuclear rather than to the politicians.
You obviously need to factor in the cost of storage if you want to abruptly replace all electricity generation with solar and wind, but I’m also interested in the question “how much non-renewable power generation can we replace with solar and wind before we even have to start worrying about storage?”
This paper does much of the modelling for that: https://www.cell.com/joule/fulltext/S2542-4351(19)30300-9 (although it's from 2019 so renewnables costs have dropped significantly).
Basically if you have 5% of electricity generation from non-renewable sources (eg gas fired peaker plants) then electricity costs fall and you only need storage at $150/kWh (which is available now).
Basically if you have 5% of electricity generation from non-renewable sources (eg gas fired peaker plants) then electricity costs fall and you only need storage at $150/kWh (which is available now).
You only build storage after you have renewable generating capacity to charge it from. By the time it is needed, its cost will have fallen to a trivial amount.
Nuclear projects globally aren’t collapsing because they aren’t “green”. They’ve been collapsing because of the economics despite green subsidies. And where they have succeeded they’re charging customers a lot more money than equivalent solar and wind alternatives have.
This is the problem that needs to be solved. And it’s not clear to me how it gets resolved in a much higher cost of borrowing environment than what we’ve had for a decade.
This is the problem that needs to be solved. And it’s not clear to me how it gets resolved in a much higher cost of borrowing environment than what we’ve had for a decade.
Is there really a place where there is equivalent power from solar and/or wind alone?
Very many places.
Germany: 41% of all power was from renewables in 2021 https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/en/topics/climate-energy/rene...
UK: 43.1% of all power was from renewables in 2020 https://www.nationalgrid.com/stories/energy-explained/how-mu...
Australia: 32.5% (2021): https://apo.org.au/node/317318
US: 22% expected in 2022: https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/report/electricity.php
Germany: 41% of all power was from renewables in 2021 https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/en/topics/climate-energy/rene...
UK: 43.1% of all power was from renewables in 2020 https://www.nationalgrid.com/stories/energy-explained/how-mu...
Australia: 32.5% (2021): https://apo.org.au/node/317318
US: 22% expected in 2022: https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/report/electricity.php
You're arguing for him.
Those places do not go anywhere close to full renewable.
Germany being one of your best examples has put out vaaastly more CO2 than let's say France. This because it needs variable output to cover the variable output of it's renewables and as their share of the pie grows so do the costs of providing either storage or variable output.
The strategy of our Greens in Belgium too was to build gas plants to cover for when the nuclear reactors were shut down like they always wanted. You may have noticed tho that gas has seen some changes in price and circumstances and a lot of people have started wondering why Greens are so eager to increase CO2 output.
The strategy of our Greens in Belgium too was to build gas plants to cover for when the nuclear reactors were shut down like they always wanted. You may have noticed tho that gas has seen some changes in price and circumstances and a lot of people have started wondering why Greens are so eager to increase CO2 output.
> Germany being one of your best examples has put out vaaastly more CO2 than let's say France.
Or look at Spain. 43% renewable power, less CO2 than France, and shutting down 4 out of 7 nuclear power stations by 2030.
The solution to intermittent power is transmission lines, not nuclear.
https://www.statkraft.com/newsroom/news-and-stories/archive/...
Or look at Spain. 43% renewable power, less CO2 than France, and shutting down 4 out of 7 nuclear power stations by 2030.
The solution to intermittent power is transmission lines, not nuclear.
https://www.statkraft.com/newsroom/news-and-stories/archive/...
Spain puts out more CO2 per capita than France and I don't expect it to improve as they reduce their nuclear capacity.
Just like our plan to deal with that and boost renewables is big gas plants with long contracts and insane subsidies.
> Spain puts out more CO2 per capita than France
I mean yes, but only just[1]:
Spain: 4.47
France: 4.27
Portugal by comparison is 3.96 with zero nuclear.
> I don't expect it to improve as they reduce their nuclear capacity
Well they do - see the projections in the plan I linked above. They are building a lot more capacity and transmission.
[1] https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions
I mean yes, but only just[1]:
Spain: 4.47
France: 4.27
Portugal by comparison is 3.96 with zero nuclear.
> I don't expect it to improve as they reduce their nuclear capacity
Well they do - see the projections in the plan I linked above. They are building a lot more capacity and transmission.
[1] https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions
And then even after building the plant your community may turn around and decide they don’t want the plant anymore. Then you’re out €1.4bn e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zwentendorf_Nuclear_Power_Plan...
It could have provided for 10% of the demand, cost billions of $ and years to build. Unfortunately the campaign against it and referendum were led by a publication which had conflict of interest in hydropower and used the `scare` tactics for people to perceive the risk in a very extreme way...
Morgan Housel talks about this case in his talk here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9pk3ecuucs
Risk perception ties to the country that you live in, generation you are born and values that are instilled in you based on your surroundings.
All this features are outside of your control pretty much but they dictate a lot even in cases like this...
Morgan Housel talks about this case in his talk here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9pk3ecuucs
Risk perception ties to the country that you live in, generation you are born and values that are instilled in you based on your surroundings.
All this features are outside of your control pretty much but they dictate a lot even in cases like this...
> A nuclear reactor cannot be shipped.
There does exist an exception to this. Russia built a floating nuclear power plant. There is a lot of controversy around it.
However the main claim that economy is the center of the argument is true. Fossil fuels are exceptional cheap as a battery solution to be combined with solar and wind, especially wind which don't have 365 days of charge cycles. Natural gas in Europe play the central role of filling in when wind/solar production goes down, with oil and coal coming in next. Since fossil fuels aren't burned all the time, a much higher cost per kw/h is tolerated, even when the spot price reaches upwards to 10x higher than the average cost. This winter they are expecting prices to exceed that by twice or more, and the average this year is already looking to be twice of last year.
The economics right now is a bit funky. Nuclear has most of their cost attached to the constructions, so with energy prices being almost doubled compared to last year, nuclear is looking quite economical. If inflation continues as it has been then a nuclear plant built 30 years will start to look really cheap compared to a wind + gas turbine. The biggest winners in term of profit however are the gas power plant owners, seeing record profits as a result of being able to charge record prices.
There does exist an exception to this. Russia built a floating nuclear power plant. There is a lot of controversy around it.
However the main claim that economy is the center of the argument is true. Fossil fuels are exceptional cheap as a battery solution to be combined with solar and wind, especially wind which don't have 365 days of charge cycles. Natural gas in Europe play the central role of filling in when wind/solar production goes down, with oil and coal coming in next. Since fossil fuels aren't burned all the time, a much higher cost per kw/h is tolerated, even when the spot price reaches upwards to 10x higher than the average cost. This winter they are expecting prices to exceed that by twice or more, and the average this year is already looking to be twice of last year.
The economics right now is a bit funky. Nuclear has most of their cost attached to the constructions, so with energy prices being almost doubled compared to last year, nuclear is looking quite economical. If inflation continues as it has been then a nuclear plant built 30 years will start to look really cheap compared to a wind + gas turbine. The biggest winners in term of profit however are the gas power plant owners, seeing record profits as a result of being able to charge record prices.
> Russia built a floating nuclear power plant. There is a lot of controversy around it.
There are many floating reactors, they’re called aircraft carriers and warships.
At any rate, an actual shippable reactor is available and the first will be built in 2029: https://www.protocol.com/bulletins/nuscale-smr-approval-nucl...
There are many floating reactors, they’re called aircraft carriers and warships.
At any rate, an actual shippable reactor is available and the first will be built in 2029: https://www.protocol.com/bulletins/nuscale-smr-approval-nucl...
I agree with you completely. However, I do think it’s important to point out that the people complaining about risk perceptions are also right but the effort of correcting those perceptions faces the huge headwind of human psychology.
Of course people are going to overweight the outcome and underweight the probability when estimating the EV of something - that’s how we work! That’s why Powerball exists!
Of course people are going to overweight the outcome and underweight the probability when estimating the EV of something - that’s how we work! That’s why Powerball exists!
100% correct. Not only have nuclear costs not improved in the three quarters of a century it has existed, it's only gotten more expensive while wind and solar have plunged, dramatically, in costs.
In the US, nuclear capacity is being replaced by wind and solar at six times the rate it's being "lost"; the hysterics you read here on HN and reddit are just that. And the rate of solar and wind deployment is skyrocketing. The people building grids and investing in generation are putting their money into wind and solar, because it's the cheapest and easiest.
"Several years" is an understatement; it takes years just to go from "everything is completely constructed and wired and plumbed" to "we are connected to the grid." This happened in Canada, where a reactor at an existing plant was brought back into use. The process took years.
You can't just drop a nuke anywhere. In order to be cost-effective, they have to be enormous and run at full capacity as continuously as possible. You can't just drop gigawatts of power generation anywhere you want in the grid,so the grid might have to get reworked or a plant might only be feasible in a handful of geographic locations. The plant needs access to massive quantities of cooling water, and a geologically stable area. They also need to be able to suck down enormous amounts of power, because even when a reactor is shut down and not "generating power", it requires many megawatts of electricity to run all the cooling systems; a reactor takes weeks to stop generating significant amounts of heat. Ditto for startup (this is true of many plants, but especially nuclear.)
They take many hours to adjust power levels. That's not what the grid needs; the grid needs highly reactive power, on the scale of seconds to minutes. Pumped hydro has been doing that in the UK for decades, helping the national grid meet the famous grid surge where everyone flips on their electric kettles when the BBC goes to break during a programming. The pumped hydro facilities in the UK and EU can react within seconds to changing grid demand. The US has pumped hydro as well, but battery systems are getting so cheap, they're competitive and don't have the risks hydro dams do.
Reactor vessels aren't built on-site. The majority are built by Japan Steel Works, one of the few companies in the world that makes reactor vessels. They have fixed capacity, require very high grade metal, and so on. One cannot just snap fingers, throw money at the problem under a "green" funding bill, and get more reactors.
There's also the massive carbon footprint of construction and commissioning, which takes another decade of operation to break even on, if nuclear reactors ever break even. The industry almost completely ignores the carbon impact of mining and refining uranium as well as the carbon footprint of the massive supply chain and workforce it takes to keep a plant running. Meanwhile, solar and wind pay back their carbon footprint in a matter of months to a year or two at most.
We need the very fastest ways to reduce carbon generation, and that will only come from conservation, a radical shift in transportation policy (namely discontinuing subsidizing low occupancy vehicle use), and large-scale conversion to electricity as an energy source.
In the US, nuclear capacity is being replaced by wind and solar at six times the rate it's being "lost"; the hysterics you read here on HN and reddit are just that. And the rate of solar and wind deployment is skyrocketing. The people building grids and investing in generation are putting their money into wind and solar, because it's the cheapest and easiest.
"Several years" is an understatement; it takes years just to go from "everything is completely constructed and wired and plumbed" to "we are connected to the grid." This happened in Canada, where a reactor at an existing plant was brought back into use. The process took years.
You can't just drop a nuke anywhere. In order to be cost-effective, they have to be enormous and run at full capacity as continuously as possible. You can't just drop gigawatts of power generation anywhere you want in the grid,so the grid might have to get reworked or a plant might only be feasible in a handful of geographic locations. The plant needs access to massive quantities of cooling water, and a geologically stable area. They also need to be able to suck down enormous amounts of power, because even when a reactor is shut down and not "generating power", it requires many megawatts of electricity to run all the cooling systems; a reactor takes weeks to stop generating significant amounts of heat. Ditto for startup (this is true of many plants, but especially nuclear.)
They take many hours to adjust power levels. That's not what the grid needs; the grid needs highly reactive power, on the scale of seconds to minutes. Pumped hydro has been doing that in the UK for decades, helping the national grid meet the famous grid surge where everyone flips on their electric kettles when the BBC goes to break during a programming. The pumped hydro facilities in the UK and EU can react within seconds to changing grid demand. The US has pumped hydro as well, but battery systems are getting so cheap, they're competitive and don't have the risks hydro dams do.
Reactor vessels aren't built on-site. The majority are built by Japan Steel Works, one of the few companies in the world that makes reactor vessels. They have fixed capacity, require very high grade metal, and so on. One cannot just snap fingers, throw money at the problem under a "green" funding bill, and get more reactors.
There's also the massive carbon footprint of construction and commissioning, which takes another decade of operation to break even on, if nuclear reactors ever break even. The industry almost completely ignores the carbon impact of mining and refining uranium as well as the carbon footprint of the massive supply chain and workforce it takes to keep a plant running. Meanwhile, solar and wind pay back their carbon footprint in a matter of months to a year or two at most.
We need the very fastest ways to reduce carbon generation, and that will only come from conservation, a radical shift in transportation policy (namely discontinuing subsidizing low occupancy vehicle use), and large-scale conversion to electricity as an energy source.
> They take many hours to adjust power levels.
FYI, France nuclear reactor can vary power level 80% in 30min
https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suivi_de_charge ('Les réacteurs sont déjà capables de faire varier leur puissance de 80 % à la hausse ou à la baisse en l’espace de trente minutes')
FYI, France nuclear reactor can vary power level 80% in 30min
https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suivi_de_charge ('Les réacteurs sont déjà capables de faire varier leur puissance de 80 % à la hausse ou à la baisse en l’espace de trente minutes')
When operated at 20%, cost per kWh is 5x.
[deleted]
> We need the very fastest ways to reduce carbon generation
Why does Germany performs abysmally wrt. electrical production carbon intensity despite having enough wind/solar installed capacity to cover their consumption?
Why does Germany performs abysmally wrt. electrical production carbon intensity despite having enough wind/solar installed capacity to cover their consumption?
I am not sure why I am being downvoted, when a quick look at figures [1] show Germany indeed performs abysmally considering the amount of installed wind/solar capacity.
As I speak, only 10% of combined wind and solar power are generating electricity in Germany, with coal having to back up, running at half its capacity. Germany electricity production carbon intensity is approx. 400 g of CO2 eq. per kWh. Nuke-heavy France is at 100 g.
Nuke and/or hydro-heavy countries are generally under 80; Germany is consistently above 200 g at all time in the year.
[1] https://app.electricitymaps.com/map [2] https://twitter.com/BotElectricity/status/147848264776883404...
As I speak, only 10% of combined wind and solar power are generating electricity in Germany, with coal having to back up, running at half its capacity. Germany electricity production carbon intensity is approx. 400 g of CO2 eq. per kWh. Nuke-heavy France is at 100 g.
Nuke and/or hydro-heavy countries are generally under 80; Germany is consistently above 200 g at all time in the year.
[1] https://app.electricitymaps.com/map [2] https://twitter.com/BotElectricity/status/147848264776883404...
Yeah, it’s nice how he just glosses over the impact of subsidies for wind and solar.
We could power the whole grid with wood stoves and steam turbines with big enough subsidies. The fact that a heavily subsidized energy production method outperforms a heavily regulated and unsubsidized one shouldn’t be surprising to anyone.
We could power the whole grid with wood stoves and steam turbines with big enough subsidies. The fact that a heavily subsidized energy production method outperforms a heavily regulated and unsubsidized one shouldn’t be surprising to anyone.
It glosses over that because nuclear has received much more subsidies than wind and solar combined. This is only direct subsidies, so ignoring the cost for the covering the risk of an accident (no insurance is willing to cover that risk) for Fukushima the government covered the cleanup and evacuation bill.
The unsubsidized cost of renewables is (way) below the cost of any other source other than gas fired plants (which they are now competitive with)[1].
Subsidies are now mostly about solar vs wind. See for example the discussion in [2] about the tax credits and their effects on solar vs wind builds in the US (note that tariffs on solar panels from China offset some of these subsidies). Also note that they are tax credits, so somewhat different to a direct subsidy payment.
Most (non-coal) power generation has tax credits as a subsidy. [3] outlines the tax credit subsidies for the new nuclear plants in Georgia, as well as other subsidies including loan guarantees.
[1] https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-...
[2] https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/report/electricity.php
[3] https://www.georgiapower.com/company/plant-vogtle/vogtle-new...
Subsidies are now mostly about solar vs wind. See for example the discussion in [2] about the tax credits and their effects on solar vs wind builds in the US (note that tariffs on solar panels from China offset some of these subsidies). Also note that they are tax credits, so somewhat different to a direct subsidy payment.
Most (non-coal) power generation has tax credits as a subsidy. [3] outlines the tax credit subsidies for the new nuclear plants in Georgia, as well as other subsidies including loan guarantees.
[1] https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-...
[2] https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/report/electricity.php
[3] https://www.georgiapower.com/company/plant-vogtle/vogtle-new...
Globally solar and wind are blowing away the competition. Is that ALL subsidized? Of course not. They have really gotten cheaper.
If you ignore the fact that wind and solar work when they want to, you're absolutely right.
That problem inflates the cost of solar and wind a bit, but it's not enough to save nuclear.
But... it's not about cost.
It's about having energy available.
If weather reports show overcast and low winds, and your grid runs on wind/solar power only, who cares about their electricity bill? There won't be any kWh available to consume.
It's about having energy available.
If weather reports show overcast and low winds, and your grid runs on wind/solar power only, who cares about their electricity bill? There won't be any kWh available to consume.
The cost goes up a bit when you augment solar/wind with enough storage to make it always available. But it's not enough to save nuclear.
Of course it's about cost, the cost of achieving that availability.
Oh, I see. You are somehow imagining that storage cannot exist. Please stop.
Of course it's about cost, the cost of achieving that availability.
Oh, I see. You are somehow imagining that storage cannot exist. Please stop.
Oh, I see. You are handwaving away the nonexistent storage tech required to stand up a power grid. Please stop.
The fact is that without inventing new storage tech, which might or might not be possible, the only options for powering the world are nuclear or burning more carbon.
Personally, I'd rather humans still have a viable habitat in a century.
The fact is that without inventing new storage tech, which might or might not be possible, the only options for powering the world are nuclear or burning more carbon.
Personally, I'd rather humans still have a viable habitat in a century.
> You are handwaving away the nonexistent storage tech required to stand up a power grid. Please stop.
This isn't true.
If you accept 5% non-renewable power generation (which - lets face it - will be with us for a while!) you need storage at $150/kWh to use renewables for everything else[1].
This price is available now (and forecast to drop below $100/kWh next year)[2].
[1] https://www.cell.com/joule/fulltext/S2542-4351(19)30300-9
[2] https://about.bnef.com/blog/battery-pack-prices-cited-below-...
This isn't true.
If you accept 5% non-renewable power generation (which - lets face it - will be with us for a while!) you need storage at $150/kWh to use renewables for everything else[1].
This price is available now (and forecast to drop below $100/kWh next year)[2].
[1] https://www.cell.com/joule/fulltext/S2542-4351(19)30300-9
[2] https://about.bnef.com/blog/battery-pack-prices-cited-below-...
Your first article is all hypothetical about the costs of storage tech rather than reality based.
Batteries don't exist? Pumped hydro doesn't exist? Hydrogen doesn't exist?
All these storage technologies exist. The churn right now is to figure out what flavor of storage is going to win, and how much they will end up costing after they go down their experience curves. But if some aliens held a gun to our heads and insisted we build storage now, it could be done.
The weirdness from you guys, thinking that obviously existent things don't exist.
All these storage technologies exist. The churn right now is to figure out what flavor of storage is going to win, and how much they will end up costing after they go down their experience curves. But if some aliens held a gun to our heads and insisted we build storage now, it could be done.
The weirdness from you guys, thinking that obviously existent things don't exist.
Hydrogen storage exists on PowerPoint slides that usually slightly understate the overhead required to build new, or adapt current gas infrastructure. Spoiler: those problems are not trivial to overcome. That's why they're mostly PowerPoint projects.
Hydro storage works, and along with hydro power, it is usually well exploited in countries that can benefit from it (e.g. alpine). Problem is you tend to run out of valleys and villages to flood after a certain point.
Why chase paper or limited impact solutions when massively available and clean ones already exist?
Hydro storage works, and along with hydro power, it is usually well exploited in countries that can benefit from it (e.g. alpine). Problem is you tend to run out of valleys and villages to flood after a certain point.
Why chase paper or limited impact solutions when massively available and clean ones already exist?
Batteries are more expensive than the power itself.
Pumped hydro is severely capacity limited and is likewise limited by available water--even if you have a place to pump it you have to have spare water to pump there. Realistically, pumped hydro exists to allow powering up slower generators, not as a meaningful energy storage.
Pumped hydro is severely capacity limited and is likewise limited by available water--even if you have a place to pump it you have to have spare water to pump there. Realistically, pumped hydro exists to allow powering up slower generators, not as a meaningful energy storage.
> However, the main reason is the economy.
Yes but the economy is not free of consideration of these other factors.
> The costs of solar, wind and batteries are dropping exponentially
They are no longer dropping exponentially and insofar they do its because of mass production. Something not unique to renewable. If all world governments had invested the same in nuclear we could see the same kind of price reductions.
> 2. A nuclear reactor cannot be shipped, it has to be build on site.
This is not universally true. Some reactors can be ships and others can be shipped in a small number of parts.
> A change in regulation might lower the costs, but it's not going to improve much the innovation dynamics.
You are missing how good current regulation are at destroying innovation. Its literally impossible to build an small example reactor to do research. Its basically either is a very tiny university research reactor, or alternatively you need a full operational license but guess what, currently in the US its not even remotely possible to get an operational license for a non-PWR. So why would anybody even do research?
This is beyond a whole bunch of other issues with nuclear regulation.
> In conclusion, all this talking is mostly irrelevant: nuclear reactors are simply not going to be built because they are not competitive.
So in conclusion, we destroyed the nuclear industry and nuclear research for the most part and they are not competitive, therefore lets never do anything to fix that.
Yes, nuclear innovation cycle will always be slower, but the same can be said for trains, or many other things that are very useful.
Yes but the economy is not free of consideration of these other factors.
> The costs of solar, wind and batteries are dropping exponentially
They are no longer dropping exponentially and insofar they do its because of mass production. Something not unique to renewable. If all world governments had invested the same in nuclear we could see the same kind of price reductions.
> 2. A nuclear reactor cannot be shipped, it has to be build on site.
This is not universally true. Some reactors can be ships and others can be shipped in a small number of parts.
> A change in regulation might lower the costs, but it's not going to improve much the innovation dynamics.
You are missing how good current regulation are at destroying innovation. Its literally impossible to build an small example reactor to do research. Its basically either is a very tiny university research reactor, or alternatively you need a full operational license but guess what, currently in the US its not even remotely possible to get an operational license for a non-PWR. So why would anybody even do research?
This is beyond a whole bunch of other issues with nuclear regulation.
> In conclusion, all this talking is mostly irrelevant: nuclear reactors are simply not going to be built because they are not competitive.
So in conclusion, we destroyed the nuclear industry and nuclear research for the most part and they are not competitive, therefore lets never do anything to fix that.
Yes, nuclear innovation cycle will always be slower, but the same can be said for trains, or many other things that are very useful.
[deleted]
This presupposes that economics are the most important thing.
That isn't really the case.
It doesn't matter how much money you have when the climate burns to the ground around you, while energy sources that work when they want to fail to provide for your needs.
That isn't really the case.
It doesn't matter how much money you have when the climate burns to the ground around you, while energy sources that work when they want to fail to provide for your needs.
It is funny how the same people (the nuclear lobby) who used to argue against solar due to economics (too expensive) are now arguing we should not consider economics anymore. The thing is though, at the moment most countries still produce significant portions of their elecricity from fossils. So if we want to remove them as quickly as possible, we should use the solution that gives us the highest capacity for a fixed amount of money (assuming we have only fixed funds).
Moreover because nuclear is so CAPEX driven both in cost and CO2 budget, it takes a long time to become carbon positive. So we would actually increase CO2 in the short term by building nuclear power plants.
So the best current strategy is to build up renewables to replace fossil as quick as possible, keep existing nuclear running, and develop storage. If the current trends of the cost for solar and wind continue, we might not even need much storage because building overcapacity is so cheap.
Moreover because nuclear is so CAPEX driven both in cost and CO2 budget, it takes a long time to become carbon positive. So we would actually increase CO2 in the short term by building nuclear power plants.
So the best current strategy is to build up renewables to replace fossil as quick as possible, keep existing nuclear running, and develop storage. If the current trends of the cost for solar and wind continue, we might not even need much storage because building overcapacity is so cheap.
Coal producers love every nuke project: that represents a solid decade more sales, vs. wind or solar that would start displacing coal immediately, several times as much in the end for the same investment, and then radically less opex.
How does building overcapacity help when those sources aren't producing at all?
Building overcapacity is required with storage. It doesn't help without storage.
Building overcapacity is required with storage. It doesn't help without storage.
This is often the unspoken part but I agree that it's one of, if not the most important aspect for our energy needs. I understand economics can't just be thrown out of the window but I feel like a lot of governments don't see the big picture and invest in these solutions "at a loss" now so we can not have climate catastrophes that make our planet uninhabitable, at least to large chunks of the population.
While I agree with the issue of costs, nuclear reactors being slow to build and having to be built on site is a technological problem, not a fundamental limitation
Why can't we have nuclear sub technology for civilian use?
Why can't we have nuclear sub technology for civilian use?
If it would have been competitive, it would be there already. It ain't, never was.
Let the market decide. You may be right and I wish you well if you're basing investment decisions on your projections. It does not seem plausible to me that nuclear would be uncompetitive on a free market. There are cost curves and economies of scale that may not be visible due to the regulatory burden and regulatory uncertainty.
> A nuclear reactor cannot be shipped
Have you ever heard of nuclear aircraft carriers and submarines?
Have you ever heard of nuclear aircraft carriers and submarines?
Desperate, much?
Am I living in an alternate universe? US, UK, Russia, France have been putting nuke plants in submarines for half a century, most of these countries have done the same with surface ships, be it carriers or ice-breakers, Russia has built nuke plants on barges to provide power for remote areas; heck, the US even ran a nuke plant on a plane, and I am the one being desperate?
Yes. Yes, you are.
In none of those cases have economic considerations been dispositive, or even of much interest.
In none of those cases have economic considerations been dispositive, or even of much interest.
That's moving goalposts; of course small-scale production is going to cost an arm and a leg. The original post said it was impossible, not expensive.
In an open, uncoerced market, anything too expensive does not happen. People opt for cheaper alternatives, or for more value for the same money. Or, somewhere in between.
Of course, and naturally, first-of-a-kind are bloody expensive. Maybe there's a way to make small nuke plants economical, maybe there's not, I dont' know. But it's definitely not ‶impossible″ to humankind.
They are all extra-super-expensive. Experience is that second and third of a design cost even more than the first one.
Indeed, we should rather put all our hopes in generating energy from a resource that can/will be disrupted by a small volcanic eruption.
This is wrong. Nuclear energy is very cheap, green, and reliable.
The problem with nuclear is the very large initial investment required, which delays the time to profit.
In other words, there is no problem with nuclear energy. The problem is with our economic system that demands short-term profits.
The problem with nuclear is the very large initial investment required, which delays the time to profit.
In other words, there is no problem with nuclear energy. The problem is with our economic system that demands short-term profits.
No nuke started today, or even recently, will ever pay back its CAPEX.
We saw another downside of nuclear power in Ukraine: When Russian troops attacked towards Enerhodar and there was shelling in the area the safety of the reactor could not be guaranteed. In the end, containment can be guaranteed w.r.t to internal accidents but no facility can ever be safe from outside issues like war, natural disaster or politics.
Solar has less single points of failure and if it fails not much happens, like in the case of the stolen solar power plant (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokmak_Solar_Energy).
Solar has less single points of failure and if it fails not much happens, like in the case of the stolen solar power plant (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokmak_Solar_Energy).
Hydroelectric dams typically cause even more damage when they fail, but I rarely see people worrying about whether using them for power will lead to war-time issues. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dam_failure
Of course, the Geneva Convention bans attacking dams, just like it bans attacking nuclear power plants.
The pollution from burning coal has already killed more people than nuclear disasters conceivably could.
If we could use only wind and solar power to fully replace fossil fuels and hydro, that could be a reasonable argument...
But it seems unrealistic to get enough energy without using some higher-density sources of energy, whether that's hydro or nuclear or oil, and if we're picking based on which one causes the least death, even accounting for wars and failures, nuclear seems to be a head and shoulder above the rest.
The primary thing that seems to be driving using coal plants and not using nuclear is purely monetary cost: nuclear plants take a huge up-front investment, coal plants already exist, and wind/solar can be transitioned to gradually with less up-front cost. The talk about nuclear's "danger" to me seems, quite plausibly, to be a post-facto justification based on not wanting to put up the money.
Of course, the Geneva Convention bans attacking dams, just like it bans attacking nuclear power plants.
The pollution from burning coal has already killed more people than nuclear disasters conceivably could.
If we could use only wind and solar power to fully replace fossil fuels and hydro, that could be a reasonable argument...
But it seems unrealistic to get enough energy without using some higher-density sources of energy, whether that's hydro or nuclear or oil, and if we're picking based on which one causes the least death, even accounting for wars and failures, nuclear seems to be a head and shoulder above the rest.
The primary thing that seems to be driving using coal plants and not using nuclear is purely monetary cost: nuclear plants take a huge up-front investment, coal plants already exist, and wind/solar can be transitioned to gradually with less up-front cost. The talk about nuclear's "danger" to me seems, quite plausibly, to be a post-facto justification based on not wanting to put up the money.
You should note that this is more than a theoretical concern. The world spent months fretting about Mosul dam in Iraq, not that many years ago:
https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2016/12/11/mosul-dam-coll...
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/01/02/a-bigger-probl...
Until we live in a world where we can micro-generate terawatts of power on a fully distributed, dynamic electrical grid -- if that's even possible -- the only practical technologies we have for satisfying our hunger for energy involve concentrated areas of high potential energy. Big energy, big target.
https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2016/12/11/mosul-dam-coll...
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/01/02/a-bigger-probl...
Until we live in a world where we can micro-generate terawatts of power on a fully distributed, dynamic electrical grid -- if that's even possible -- the only practical technologies we have for satisfying our hunger for energy involve concentrated areas of high potential energy. Big energy, big target.
> Hydroelectric dams typically cause even more damage when they fail, but I rarely see people worrying about whether using them for power will lead to war-time issues. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dam_failure
I believe the reason people worry less about hydroelectric dam failures is because, if they fail, they do not leave behind a contaminated area. Besides, it's just water; many people are used to floods caused by heavy rain, and the danger feels similar. In fact, hydroelectric dams can even help prevent (or contain) flooding, so it's the opposite of causing damage in that case. Of course, we're not talking about tailings dams, which do leave behind a trail of contamination when they fail.
(An interesting case is the failure of a tailings dam many years ago which flooded the Rio Doce with pollution, with that flood being mostly stopped by a hydroelectric dam downriver. The hydroelectric dam contained the damage instead of causing it.)
I believe the reason people worry less about hydroelectric dam failures is because, if they fail, they do not leave behind a contaminated area. Besides, it's just water; many people are used to floods caused by heavy rain, and the danger feels similar. In fact, hydroelectric dams can even help prevent (or contain) flooding, so it's the opposite of causing damage in that case. Of course, we're not talking about tailings dams, which do leave behind a trail of contamination when they fail.
(An interesting case is the failure of a tailings dam many years ago which flooded the Rio Doce with pollution, with that flood being mostly stopped by a hydroelectric dam downriver. The hydroelectric dam contained the damage instead of causing it.)
> many people are used to floods caused by heavy rain, and the danger feels similar.
I don't know what "people feel", but the reality of a large dam that is blown up is more like a tsunami than a normal flood. If it hits a city, casualties can easily reach the 10s or 100s of thousands, instantly.
In a way, an upstream dam is a health hazard for anyone in the area that might be flooded that should be concerning at the same level as living in an area that has had some nuclear contamination.
I don't know what "people feel", but the reality of a large dam that is blown up is more like a tsunami than a normal flood. If it hits a city, casualties can easily reach the 10s or 100s of thousands, instantly.
In a way, an upstream dam is a health hazard for anyone in the area that might be flooded that should be concerning at the same level as living in an area that has had some nuclear contamination.
For a busted dam to destroy a city, the city necessarily would have been built on land that was literally underwater until before the dam.
This isn’t common, to say the least.
This isn’t common, to say the least.
This presumes the gigantic water mass in the dam would stay within the downstream river banks when released.
Water is not that polite...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_natural_disasters_by_d...
Water is not that polite...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_natural_disasters_by_d...
This is not true.
Rivers are often dammed to create an artificial body of water that can be used for power generation. You are storing water from the river when it has a high flow rate, in order to be able to generate power when needed.
There is nothing that requires the area downstream from the dam to have been previously underwater.
Rivers are often dammed to create an artificial body of water that can be used for power generation. You are storing water from the river when it has a high flow rate, in order to be able to generate power when needed.
There is nothing that requires the area downstream from the dam to have been previously underwater.
> I believe the reason people worry less about hydroelectric dam failures is because, if they fail, they do not leave behind a contaminated area
They very easily could, especially if they wipe out a chemical plant, a dump site, or a number of other things.
They very easily could, especially if they wipe out a chemical plant, a dump site, or a number of other things.
Rio Doce was 43.7 million cubic metres and 18 deaths.
If someone blows up Kakhovka dam in Ukraine, it'll be about 18e9 m3, hundreds of thousands dead, wholesale destruction of everything downstream, shutdown of every energy plant that uses the resevoir for cooling, not to mention the hydroelectic station, and untold damage when winds blow the exposed sediment all over the steppe. Which is one of the most productive agricultural areas in the world.
So? This Kakhovka dam is a legitimate military target as the last remaining supply route for russian troops in/around Kherson.
If someone blows up Kakhovka dam in Ukraine, it'll be about 18e9 m3, hundreds of thousands dead, wholesale destruction of everything downstream, shutdown of every energy plant that uses the resevoir for cooling, not to mention the hydroelectic station, and untold damage when winds blow the exposed sediment all over the steppe. Which is one of the most productive agricultural areas in the world.
So? This Kakhovka dam is a legitimate military target as the last remaining supply route for russian troops in/around Kherson.
> This Kakhovka dam is a legitimate military target
Not under the Geneva Convention "Works and installations containing dangerous forces, namely dams, dykes and nuclear electrical generating stations, shall not be made the object of attack, even where these objects are military objectives, if such attack may cause the release of dangerous forces and consequent severe losses among the civilian population." https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_rul...
Not under the Geneva Convention "Works and installations containing dangerous forces, namely dams, dykes and nuclear electrical generating stations, shall not be made the object of attack, even where these objects are military objectives, if such attack may cause the release of dangerous forces and consequent severe losses among the civilian population." https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_rul...
And what would be the consequences should, say, Russia attack, say, the Kakhovka dam? Consequences, that is, for the attacker?
More sanctions? Direct military action against a major (or any) nuclear power? Condemnation and isolation for decades or longer?
More sanctions? Direct military action against a major (or any) nuclear power? Condemnation and isolation for decades or longer?
My parent was saying that it was a legitimate target. I agree that if Russia decides to give up on the Geneva convention our options aren't great.
After thousands of war crimes identified, Russians have let crystal clear that they piss on the Geneva Convention.
They have violated yet the Geneva convention (and its laws that oblige to hummanitary treatment of civils in a war) countless times in a few months, and at a level rarely seen before.
They have violated yet the Geneva convention (and its laws that oblige to hummanitary treatment of civils in a war) countless times in a few months, and at a level rarely seen before.
You know, Geneva Convention can't divert a bomb.
Couple of 1000lb bombs misplaced, some confusion and you can't stop it, only watch. Has to be a very unfortunate hit, but shit happens.
Compared to that, the Zaporoshya nuclear plant will just shut down as designed even if hit in all its reactors; release maybe a week's worth radiation, completely harmless, and then sit still. And it's just upstream.
Think about it.
So-called 'green energy' bears so much more hazards.
Couple of 1000lb bombs misplaced, some confusion and you can't stop it, only watch. Has to be a very unfortunate hit, but shit happens.
Compared to that, the Zaporoshya nuclear plant will just shut down as designed even if hit in all its reactors; release maybe a week's worth radiation, completely harmless, and then sit still. And it's just upstream.
Think about it.
So-called 'green energy' bears so much more hazards.
Not a dam, but such a military strategy has already happened and was extremely foolish.
Intentionally breaching the dikes of the Yellow River killed nearly a million people, displaced several million more, and was a contributing factor to people turning towards the Chinese Communists and away from the KMT.
Intentionally breaching the dikes of the Yellow River killed nearly a million people, displaced several million more, and was a contributing factor to people turning towards the Chinese Communists and away from the KMT.
There's a dam in the US that's an even bigger issue if it were to go.
I guess there's also the argument that in case of dam failure, most people don't live to tell the tale, so it does not stay in the news for a long time.
In case of nuclear incident, actual death may be lower but the affected people will keep being concerned about health issues and complain (rightfuly so) about the necessary relocation, which makes for stronger staying power in the news.
In case of nuclear incident, actual death may be lower but the affected people will keep being concerned about health issues and complain (rightfuly so) about the necessary relocation, which makes for stronger staying power in the news.
Maybe look for the Vajont dam disaster, to see what could be
Hydroelectric dams actively save lives by reducing flooding. It’s the only power source with net negative death rates and as such doesn’t see the same kind of pushback from disasters.
Okay, but wouldn't a hydroelectric dam encourage people to build in areas that would be otherwise unsafe, thus putting them at risk of a terrorist attack on the dam?
That’s tricky as people have a shocking propensity to build in flood plains either way and dams only mitigate flooding rather than prevent it. I personally doubt that many people are going to change their mind because the location they want to build their home likely floods every 90 years vs every 30.
Bill a friend of mine built a large addition on a house which had flooded twice while he had been living there, once actually reaching the second story. In his mind it’s picture perfect 99.9% of the time so what’s an inconvenience every few decades. In the end he died before the next flood, but now there is a nice house in a flood plain.
This isn’t reserved to individuals, companies didn’t abandon large areas of NYC after the last flood. https://www1.nyc.gov/site/planning/data-maps/flood-hazard-ma...
Bill a friend of mine built a large addition on a house which had flooded twice while he had been living there, once actually reaching the second story. In his mind it’s picture perfect 99.9% of the time so what’s an inconvenience every few decades. In the end he died before the next flood, but now there is a nice house in a flood plain.
This isn’t reserved to individuals, companies didn’t abandon large areas of NYC after the last flood. https://www1.nyc.gov/site/planning/data-maps/flood-hazard-ma...
I think the economic decision making eventually trickles down from banks and insurance companies who actually do the math themselves and charge building-owners/mortgage-owners competitively. It's sort of an continuous invisible hand.
At least for Bill he didn’t get a loan to build the addition or any insurance to cover flood damage.
So such trickle down just shifts who builds in such areas but it doesn’t prevent people from living or building in them.
So such trickle down just shifts who builds in such areas but it doesn’t prevent people from living or building in them.
The other issue with solar/wind of course being that it’s not a suitable electricity source for base load on a grid :-/
Of course it is, with suitable storage. And probably cheaper than nuclear for that.
https://model.energy/
https://model.energy/
I don't really want wind turbines and solar panels to cover the whole planet. I used that to calculate some numbers for canada, and we'd need about 64k average offshore wind turbines, and 3200 square kilometers of solar farms.
Canada is comprised of 9,984,670 km^2. I don't think that your 3200 km^2 is going to make that much of an impact.
It's a whole 0.5% of the area of farmland in Canada. Think of the children!
If one more reactor goes down nuclear isn’t either in your country. Germany has to run their load balancing gas plants right now to fix your nuclear fever dreams.
And what is the probability of a reactor going down unexpectedly versus a weather event that causes renewable sources to stop producing?
I think we learned the answer to that question last winter down in Texas.
I think we learned the answer to that question last winter down in Texas.
Texan politicians didn't miss a chance to blame wind power for the outages. Unfortunately, those initial lies are still circulating. The primary cause was that the pipes supplying natural gas froze. https://www.texastribune.org/2021/02/16/texas-wind-turbines-...
The frozen pipes were a problem specifically because the wind farms weren’t producing.
Replace the wind farms with nuclear power and the problem goes away.
Replace the wind farms with nuclear power and the problem goes away.
You back up the renewables with hydrogen-burning combined cycle plants.
A combined cycle plant costs around $1/W. A nuclear power plant costs around $10/W.
Why do you want to spend so much more money than you have to, just so you can split atoms?
A combined cycle plant costs around $1/W. A nuclear power plant costs around $10/W.
Why do you want to spend so much more money than you have to, just so you can split atoms?
France currently runs its nuclear plants at 60% due to maintanance and heat. In the last years the amount of times they had to shut down a nuclear power plant due to to warm cooling water has increased. Given where global warming is going that will happen more and more.
This is one of the few good arguments against nuclear, especially large installations that produce a huge percentage of a region's power.
Even if you can design it in such a way that an external attack is very unlikely to cause a meltdown, it's a juicy and easy target for an adversary to cripple your electricity production. A few dozen well placed missiles might be all you need to take an entire nation that's heavily nuclear dependent to its knees.
On the other hand, solar and wind are hugely decentralized and distributed, making an attack that destroys these generators drastically more expensive. An adversary might still be able to take out the grid by targeting transmission infrastructure, but recovering from it should be relatively quick because the actual generators are all still intact.
But perhaps this flaw is alleviated by smaller scale reactors that produce a much smaller percentage of a region's electricity.
Even if you can design it in such a way that an external attack is very unlikely to cause a meltdown, it's a juicy and easy target for an adversary to cripple your electricity production. A few dozen well placed missiles might be all you need to take an entire nation that's heavily nuclear dependent to its knees.
On the other hand, solar and wind are hugely decentralized and distributed, making an attack that destroys these generators drastically more expensive. An adversary might still be able to take out the grid by targeting transmission infrastructure, but recovering from it should be relatively quick because the actual generators are all still intact.
But perhaps this flaw is alleviated by smaller scale reactors that produce a much smaller percentage of a region's electricity.
> it's a juicy and easy target for an adversary to cripple your electricity production. A few dozen well placed missiles might be all you need to take an entire nation that's heavily nuclear dependent to its knees.
This is true for any other system of centralized energy production, including, notably, the one we have right now.
This is true for any other system of centralized energy production, including, notably, the one we have right now.
Note that we actually have wind and solar right now.
> An adversary might still be able to take out the grid by targeting transmission infrastructure, but recovering from it should be relatively quick because the actual generators are all still intact.
You underestimate the cost and lead times of the big distribution transformers found in grid substations. As an example, a fire two years ago on a substation transformer in the state of Amapá (while another transformer was broken and awaiting maintenance, and IIRC the third transformer of the set was also damaged by the fire) led to most of that state being without power for AFAIK nearly three weeks, until a replacement sent from another substation could be installed (and as a consequence, that other substation ended up without a spare until it could receive weeks later a replacement transformer from yet another substation). Note that building a new transformer instead of shuffling them between the substations wasn't an option, because it would take too long.
You underestimate the cost and lead times of the big distribution transformers found in grid substations. As an example, a fire two years ago on a substation transformer in the state of Amapá (while another transformer was broken and awaiting maintenance, and IIRC the third transformer of the set was also damaged by the fire) led to most of that state being without power for AFAIK nearly three weeks, until a replacement sent from another substation could be installed (and as a consequence, that other substation ended up without a spare until it could receive weeks later a replacement transformer from yet another substation). Note that building a new transformer instead of shuffling them between the substations wasn't an option, because it would take too long.
Estimates are that when the (technically already overdue) Pacific Northwest earthquake and tsunami rolls in, it will take two years to restore power to most of the coastal and downriver areas.
> An adversary might still be able to take out the grid by targeting transmission infrastructure, but recovering from it should be relatively quick because the actual generators are all still intact.
The most difficult part of the grid is the transmission infrastructure. The most valuable, high-lead-time part probably being the HV transformers that live near power plants.
The most difficult part of the grid is the transmission infrastructure. The most valuable, high-lead-time part probably being the HV transformers that live near power plants.
Good planning would include keeping spares out of harm's way.
One wonders whether famously-protected Finland keeps spares.
One wonders whether famously-protected Finland keeps spares.
Eh, we live in an age when a few dozen well placed missiles can kill millions and destroy entire countries, not just their electrical grid. A few retaliatory strikes later and an entire region is gone, if not the world as a whole.
That doesn't sound like a very useful way to make decisions about anything except maybe missile defense and second strike capabilities. Anything can be destroyed with sufficient violence.
That doesn't sound like a very useful way to make decisions about anything except maybe missile defense and second strike capabilities. Anything can be destroyed with sufficient violence.
While this is technically true, I think a developed-ish nation might blow up your electric facilities before it would destroy a city.
There are many juicy targets like that, whether it's power plants or airports or dams or bridges or whatever. We don't typically worry about hardening them against smart munitions. If you're in a hot war with an adversary like that you're pretty screwed regardless.
There's just no practical way to harden all of it against attack. And a tiny chance of some hypothetical future war isn't a good reason to choose a technology (combusting fossil fuels) that's gonna kill your own citizens every year, guaranteed. Why do your hypothetical future enemy's job for them?
There's just no practical way to harden all of it against attack. And a tiny chance of some hypothetical future war isn't a good reason to choose a technology (combusting fossil fuels) that's gonna kill your own citizens every year, guaranteed. Why do your hypothetical future enemy's job for them?
Attacking a nuclear plant on purpose will be seen as similar to attacking with a nuclear bomb in the eyes of the world.
If all you want to do is to knock out the electrical system of a country, you can use an EMP burst bomb over that country, and the grid will be down for months.
If all you want to do is to knock out the electrical system of a country, you can use an EMP burst bomb over that country, and the grid will be down for months.
Few? Here is another: mining
“Many Navajo people have died of kidney failure and cancer, conditions linked to uranium contamination. And new research from the CDC shows uranium in babies born now.”
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/04/10/4735472...
“Many Navajo people have died of kidney failure and cancer, conditions linked to uranium contamination. And new research from the CDC shows uranium in babies born now.”
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/04/10/4735472...
Good thing renewables don't depend on dangerous mining...
...oh wait, https://hir.harvard.edu/not-so-green-technology-the-complica...
...oh wait, https://hir.harvard.edu/not-so-green-technology-the-complica...
Solar does not depend on rare-earths. Most wind, likewise.
[deleted]
Solar panels and batteries require the damaging mining of all sorts of rare and/or nasty materials. This kills a lot of people, although predominantly in other countries nowadays. It's an argument that could be applied to nearly any mineral resource, and is more of an indictment of unsafe mining practices and capitalist exploitation. If we allowed practical research on breeder reactors, the need for uranium mining would nearly vanish.
Which rare/nasty mined material is required for solar panels? Be specific, and be sure you're talking about silicon, which is 95% of the PV market.
(Spoiler: there is no such material.)
(Spoiler: there is no such material.)
Nuclear power plants create large amounts of waste that remain radioactive for thousands of years. In the United States, most nuclear waste is stored on site at the plant. This is because there is simply nowhere else to put it. Uranium is a natural material and will eventually run out, much like fossil fuels. In other words, cross nuclear off the list of sustainable energy. Solar energy would be the most obvious sustainable source, we just need better ways of converting the energy.
Large amounts of low radioactive waste that is safe to discard in 1 year.
The highly radioactive waste that lasts thousands of years is actually quite small.
The highly radioactive waste that lasts thousands of years is actually quite small.
> The U.S. produces as much as 160,000 cubic feet (4,530 cubic meters) of radioactive material from its nuclear power plants annually. [1]
> The Energy Department has a backlog of nuclear waste clean up responsibilities, with material dating back to World War II. [2]
[1] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nuclear-waste-let... [2] https://federalnewsnetwork.com/agency-oversight/2022/05/ener...
> The Energy Department has a backlog of nuclear waste clean up responsibilities, with material dating back to World War II. [2]
[1] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nuclear-waste-let... [2] https://federalnewsnetwork.com/agency-oversight/2022/05/ener...
> 160,000 cubic feet (4,530 cubic meters)
Much of which stops being radioactive in the first year,
> The Energy Department has a backlog of nuclear waste clean up responsibilities, with material dating back to World War II.
Which is to be expected given that a (tiny) part of the waste is long term.
Much of which stops being radioactive in the first year,
> The Energy Department has a backlog of nuclear waste clean up responsibilities, with material dating back to World War II.
Which is to be expected given that a (tiny) part of the waste is long term.
> Nuclear power plants create large amounts of waste that remain radioactive for thousands of years.
The article says otherwise. You can remove "large" from your sentence.
The article says otherwise. You can remove "large" from your sentence.
Pretty much each statement in your post is incorrect. Nuclear plants produce tiny amount of waste, which we know what to deal with. Amount of fuel if you count thorium is enough for many millennia. And solar can not possibly replace other forms of energy production, not in a state it's in. I don't know why you are spewing misinformation, but you are clearly not going to solve climate crisis with that attitude
Please don't cross into personal attack and name-calling. It's against the site guidelines. It also discredits what you're arguing for, and is therefore not in your interest.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
[deleted]
Flankk(1)
In peace time CO2 emissions from nuclear are at the same order of magnitude as hydro. Similarly, the number of deaths per twh produced is also similar to hydro. Both are at least an order of magnitude lower than coal.
A hydro plant can be attacked in a war situation just as much as a nuclear plant, so I don't see how that should be weighted as highly as you seem to imply. In fact, I'd argue that energy dependence on nations such as Russia are a much higher risk to geopolitical stability than nuclear power.
A hydro plant can be attacked in a war situation just as much as a nuclear plant, so I don't see how that should be weighted as highly as you seem to imply. In fact, I'd argue that energy dependence on nations such as Russia are a much higher risk to geopolitical stability than nuclear power.
Also, we can build a nuclear plant in a desert country (where I live), but not much hydro. In fact, our hydro plants are generating less and less energy every year as our rivers are drying up.
Sadly nuclear plants cannot run without cooling water from rivers or sea.
True, but again there is Palo Verde nuclear plant that is located in the middle of the desert in Arizona and is cooled by sewage water from nearby cities.
Some new fast reactor designs don't even need water for cooling. Also, China has built an experimental thorium reactor in Gobi desert which also doesn't need water for cooling.
I believe a lot if interesting stuff is coming in a few years.
Some new fast reactor designs don't even need water for cooling. Also, China has built an experimental thorium reactor in Gobi desert which also doesn't need water for cooling.
I believe a lot if interesting stuff is coming in a few years.
Look at the numbers though. Fossil fuels kill many people every year, while nuclear accidents are almost entirely hypothetical. The point of the article is to show that fears like the ones expressed above just aren’t supported by the data.
After Chernobyl you still today cannot eat fish from the lakes and rivers in 1000+ km radius from the site by Finnish recommendations. Because they are top predators and have enriched the gamma dose in themselves. How often could you eat human meat?
> After Chernobyl you still today cannot eat fish from the lakes and rivers in 1000+ km radius from the site by Finnish recommendations.
Limit your eating of pike, but otherwise no major objections:
> Children, young people and persons of fertile age may not eat pike caught in a lake or in the sea more often than once or twice a month.
> Dioxin and PCB levels in fish from inland waters are normally low, and mercury levels are lower in other lake fish than in pike. The mercury and cesium-137 levels of fish vary from one lake to the other.
* https://www.ruokavirasto.fi/en/private-persons/information-o...
Limit your eating of pike, but otherwise no major objections:
> Children, young people and persons of fertile age may not eat pike caught in a lake or in the sea more often than once or twice a month.
> Dioxin and PCB levels in fish from inland waters are normally low, and mercury levels are lower in other lake fish than in pike. The mercury and cesium-137 levels of fish vary from one lake to the other.
* https://www.ruokavirasto.fi/en/private-persons/information-o...
Ok yes my bad forgot to post the limits. At least used to be lake fish two times in week tops.
It is not recommended to eat the fish from the river where I live more than twice a month. That's just standard historic mining pollution.
Coal poisons the water far worse, both from mining, air pollution, and coal ash. It even emits far more radiation than nuclear power.
Coal poisons the water far worse, both from mining, air pollution, and coal ash. It even emits far more radiation than nuclear power.
Not to mention mercury, which is forever.
Fish are not safe to eat in the entirety of Poland? Haha this is news to me.
Finland. In Finland. According to Finnish authorities. Countries with East Block histories like Poland tend to not care as much what the actual science of the stuff is. Nor does the Nuclear Is Clean - crowd is seems. "Everything radiates; just look at the bonfire, it's radiation". Yeah, right.
That's a ridiculous generalization about E. block countries.
> "Everything radiates; just look at the bonfire, it's radiation".
Perhaps you should become a bit more informed before spouting nonsense like this.
> "Everything radiates; just look at the bonfire, it's radiation".
Perhaps you should become a bit more informed before spouting nonsense like this.
Hypothetical, but the occurrence of future large scale conflict is overwhelmingly likely. This will remain a valid concern - not just accidents, but intentional attacks - until design of plants advances to be robust against strikes to failsafe without active management
> Hypothetical, but the occurrence of future large scale conflict is overwhelmingly likely.
If you are worrying about future large scale conflict then nuclear plants will be the least of your problems causing death and other things.
If you are worrying about future large scale conflict then nuclear plants will be the least of your problems causing death and other things.
State level conflict has been the norm since the rise of agriculture. Not worrying about it would be gross incompetence.
I'd be willing to bet you don't actually believe a post-war Ukraine with several metropolitan areas flattened is no worse off if widespread radioactive contamination is added.
Ukraine does not quality as "a large scale conflict" in any measure. If we had ww3, you'd be much more likely to die by actual nukes falling from the skies than residual radiation form destroyed nuclear plants.
> Ukraine does not quality as "a large scale conflict" in any measure.
That is incorrect. Large scale != global or world war. It's a moot point though.
That is incorrect. Large scale != global or world war. It's a moot point though.
Large scale involves more than two countries focusing on a single region, typically. Otherwise words have absolutely no meaning anymore.
No, that isn't correct. Still it's a moot point. Feel free to either change my example from Ukraine to a hypothetical larger area if you care, or change large to regional scale — regardless 'if there is military action that could affect nuclear plants it will involve nuclear weapons and kill us anyway' is a poor argument.
> No, that isn't correct.
What isn't correct? What's the definition of a large scale conflict then? Anything above 2 neighbors fighting over their fence?
> egardless 'if there is military action that could affect nuclear plants it will involve nuclear weapons and kill us anyway' is a poor argument.
How is that a poor argument. In war you care about what is the most likely to kill you. Nukes are a very real risk when there's 50 000 out there ready to be launched at one moment's notice. Radiations that would kill you in 30 years is the least of anyone's worry. Just like you don't care about a cancer that could kill you 10 years from now if you are run over by a car.
What isn't correct? What's the definition of a large scale conflict then? Anything above 2 neighbors fighting over their fence?
> egardless 'if there is military action that could affect nuclear plants it will involve nuclear weapons and kill us anyway' is a poor argument.
How is that a poor argument. In war you care about what is the most likely to kill you. Nukes are a very real risk when there's 50 000 out there ready to be launched at one moment's notice. Radiations that would kill you in 30 years is the least of anyone's worry. Just like you don't care about a cancer that could kill you 10 years from now if you are run over by a car.
If countries are more self sufficient with their energy security needs, it removes one of the major causes of conflict.
Energy, water, food, resource security. Back to basics.
Energy, water, food, resource security. Back to basics.
I doubt the self sufficiency yielded by global nuclear proliferation would offset how target-rich the world would become, come inevitable war.
I'd rather the answer be a push for more advances in passive safety and planning that treats military attack as an eventuality.
I'd rather the answer be a push for more advances in passive safety and planning that treats military attack as an eventuality.
> nuclear accidents are almost entirely hypothetical
Nothing to see here.
> Serious nuclear power plant accidents include the Fukushima nuclear disaster (2011), the Chernobyl disaster (1986), the Three Mile Island accident (1979), and the SL-1 accident (1961).
Nothing to see here.
> Serious nuclear power plant accidents include the Fukushima nuclear disaster (2011), the Chernobyl disaster (1986), the Three Mile Island accident (1979), and the SL-1 accident (1961).
This is the same tiring argument - using plane crashes to say that flying is unsafe, because it makes headlines once a crash happens, while tens of thousands of people die every year on the roads. But hey, diffuse deaths, nobody cares about it.
So the anti-nuclear guys keeping point at the same list of 3-4 incidents time and time again, unable to recognize the ridiculousness and weakness of their argument - and the fact that their opposition to nuclear actively kills people year after year.
So the anti-nuclear guys keeping point at the same list of 3-4 incidents time and time again, unable to recognize the ridiculousness and weakness of their argument - and the fact that their opposition to nuclear actively kills people year after year.
Actually, your comparison between planes and cars is quite adapt. The airline industry likes to use death per km as a measure and you are correct they come out very safe with that measure. However, experts have argued that it is a very flawed metric because of the vary different distances covered by both means and the way risk is distributed (i.e. for flying the risk is almost entirely in the starti g and landing phase, while for a drive it is evenly distributed over the trip). If you use a metric like deaths per hour flying does not look so much more safe that driving actually (essentially the same as driving) [1]
[1] https://observer.com/1998/03/driving-versus-flying-the-debat... couldn't find a more up to date source
[1] https://observer.com/1998/03/driving-versus-flying-the-debat... couldn't find a more up to date source
But people generally aren't choosing between driving somewhere 120 miles away or flying somewhere 1150 miles away. Generally, someone already has a destination in mind, and then chooses whether to drive or fly to get there. That makes deaths by time an extremely flawed metric, and deaths by distance the correct one to use.
Maybe yours is a US perspective, but I never decided between flying and driving. I fly when driving or the train typically does not make sense, i.e. flights over 800km. I'm not sure even in the US is such a decision, most people will not drive from the east to the west coast, while only a small percentage of people would take flying from e.g. LA to San Diego over driving
stupid comparisons, ironic... how many planes are there? How many of them crashed? And now ask yourself the same thing for nuclear plants
All of those accidents combined killed less than 10% of the people that are killed by fossil fuel pollution every single year. Most nuclear accidents are entirely hypothetical.
If we remove Chernobyl from this list, we'll find that probably just 1 person died from radiation after power plant accidents.
Fossil plants are killing millions of people every year.
During heatwave this year, when we had temperatures around 43C for almost 2 weeks, hundreds of people died in my country because our energy grids were overloaded and ACs turned off. And many people can't even afford to pay for AC energy bills anyway so they don't use it. Our energy needs are growing every year and energy production can't keep up.
We NEED cheap energy that nuclear can give. This is the matter of survival at this point.
Fossil plants are killing millions of people every year.
During heatwave this year, when we had temperatures around 43C for almost 2 weeks, hundreds of people died in my country because our energy grids were overloaded and ACs turned off. And many people can't even afford to pay for AC energy bills anyway so they don't use it. Our energy needs are growing every year and energy production can't keep up.
We NEED cheap energy that nuclear can give. This is the matter of survival at this point.
SL-1 killed three people. However, it was a military reactor, not civilian.
i’m not at all anti-nuclear but i’m not sure what you mean by
> most nuclear accidents are entirely hypothetical.
i also agree that fossil fuels kill a lot of people as well, only in slow-motion and we have some form of weird disconnect when something happens in slow-motion vs quick.
but again, nuclear accidents are not hyperbole nor are they hypothetical. again, i’m not anti-nuclear, i suspect we need a mix of strong decentralized renewables such as solar/wind and a filler of nuclear.
i’m no expert on nuclear accidents but my cynical take is that the building companies/orgs probably cut corners on safety in order to save money. and maybe that could be a area to improve safety—significantly overbuild on safety features. like i said tho, absolutely not an expert.
> most nuclear accidents are entirely hypothetical.
i also agree that fossil fuels kill a lot of people as well, only in slow-motion and we have some form of weird disconnect when something happens in slow-motion vs quick.
but again, nuclear accidents are not hyperbole nor are they hypothetical. again, i’m not anti-nuclear, i suspect we need a mix of strong decentralized renewables such as solar/wind and a filler of nuclear.
i’m no expert on nuclear accidents but my cynical take is that the building companies/orgs probably cut corners on safety in order to save money. and maybe that could be a area to improve safety—significantly overbuild on safety features. like i said tho, absolutely not an expert.
Just the nature of a plant requiring active management (and power) to prevent meltdown is a weak point. The reasonable answer to this concern imo is explaining how passive safety systems have advanced and are implemented in new reactor designs, and how plants are built so when intentionally attacked or incidentally damaged a meltdown or release of highly radioactive material does not ensue, especially for folks advocating for the widespread adoption of nuclear energy worldwide. Strikes me as odd that the typical response is instead 'but this old energy generation tech which we all agree needs to go has downsides'.
If you have to resort to "it's better than fossil fuels" you have damned nuclear with faint praise. And you have also wasted our time, because nuclear is competing with renewables now, not with fossil fuels.
Okay, how about; it's safer than literally every other method of energy production? Less deaths per thousand terawatt-hours produced (90) than wind (150), solar (440), or hydroelectric (1400).
https://www.statista.com/statistics/494425/death-rate-worldw...
https://www.statista.com/statistics/494425/death-rate-worldw...
I already addressed that argument.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32295591
If a statistical human life is worth $9 M, then 440 deaths per thousand TWh adds $0.004/kWh to the cost of solar. This cannot overcome the large cost advantage solar and wind have over nuclear in most places (even with storage costs included). Also, the 440 figure is, I believe, assuming rooftop solar. At scale to power the world solar will be mostly ground mounted.
If you don't agree with that statistical value, and think it should be higher, why you've just argued we're not imposing enough safety systems on nuclear plants -- because $9 M is the value the NRC uses when determining if additional safety systems are warranted.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32295591
If a statistical human life is worth $9 M, then 440 deaths per thousand TWh adds $0.004/kWh to the cost of solar. This cannot overcome the large cost advantage solar and wind have over nuclear in most places (even with storage costs included). Also, the 440 figure is, I believe, assuming rooftop solar. At scale to power the world solar will be mostly ground mounted.
If you don't agree with that statistical value, and think it should be higher, why you've just argued we're not imposing enough safety systems on nuclear plants -- because $9 M is the value the NRC uses when determining if additional safety systems are warranted.
And I happen to think the NRC is wrong and the vast number of safety regulations imposed on nuclear power is harmful to the ultimate goal of getting off coal as quickly as possible. We should be building more nuclear reactors, even if we lower safety standards to do so, to reduce dependency on fossil fuels and the ongoing ecological disaster they entail. But that won't happen because both fossil fuel lobbyists and environmentalists loathe nuclear power.
Decades of accumulated safety regulations have added massively to the capital costs to nuclear reactors and offer covering fire for fossil fuel lobbies to continue to distract people with renewables, which are always just around the corner and about to overtake everything (between 2009 and 2019, the global share of energy produced by renewable sources has risen from 7% to 10% - a real green revolution!).
But here's the real kicker - when nuclear reactors get taken offline, as happened in California and Germany recently, they are replaced by fossil fuels. Not solar. Not wind.
Decades of accumulated safety regulations have added massively to the capital costs to nuclear reactors and offer covering fire for fossil fuel lobbies to continue to distract people with renewables, which are always just around the corner and about to overtake everything (between 2009 and 2019, the global share of energy produced by renewable sources has risen from 7% to 10% - a real green revolution!).
But here's the real kicker - when nuclear reactors get taken offline, as happened in California and Germany recently, they are replaced by fossil fuels. Not solar. Not wind.
You can't count solar or wind deaths at present because neither is a viable power system.
To count deaths you need to look at a whole system--solar, wind + the gas plants that cover the gaps, or the hypothetical storage system that covers the gaps. Since we can't count deaths from a tech that doesn't even exist it's solar + wind + gas -- and most of those deaths will be from the gas.
To count deaths you need to look at a whole system--solar, wind + the gas plants that cover the gaps, or the hypothetical storage system that covers the gaps. Since we can't count deaths from a tech that doesn't even exist it's solar + wind + gas -- and most of those deaths will be from the gas.
Has affected millions of peoples health already and whole ecosystems. And the consequences will cumulate from this thousands of years. Count that in your equation and get more informative numbers.
Whose health? Any actual data?
This is in dollars, but 10% of healthcare spending in the US equates to a good amount of health I reckon https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016041201...
I was asking about the GP's assertion about health impact of nuclear.
The dispersed fallout? Hard to quantify because of it's dispersedness and long term slowness. But it is for example plutonium and we know it's effects on life on Earth, so one could proceed from there with some math and futurological trend extrapolation. And simply by using the knowledge we have about plutonium mixed with common sense.
I think GP was talking about CO2 (affect millions already, will still be present in a thousand years)
That’s an interesting, theoretical point. The containment structures around a nuclear plants are designed to withstand forces more powerful than even advanced artillery, so there’s really no chance a stray rocket breaks the structure. A concerted effort is a possibility, but it’s not a tactic we’ve ever see used so far and I think the strategic value of doing so is limited. If an adversary had a fully subterranean power grid, maybe an attack on a nuclear plant could make sense, but that’s hypothetical because most energy infrastructure around the world is not protected in anyway.
But another takeaway from the current conflict is how incredible nuclear is at shoring up energy security. A nuclear plant can easily keep 18 months of fuel onsite as required storage space is trivial. A 2 or 3 year strategic reserve of uranium would likewise be a trivial project.
Meanwhile other base load sources like coal need dozens of rail cars worth of coal every single day. Gas needs a pipeline or again daily shipments of LNG.
So now Russia has cut off the gas and energy costs in Europe are exploding and they are having to build out tons of new LNG infrastructure.
Russia can basically turn the heat off in Europe because they under invested in nuclear power.
But another takeaway from the current conflict is how incredible nuclear is at shoring up energy security. A nuclear plant can easily keep 18 months of fuel onsite as required storage space is trivial. A 2 or 3 year strategic reserve of uranium would likewise be a trivial project.
Meanwhile other base load sources like coal need dozens of rail cars worth of coal every single day. Gas needs a pipeline or again daily shipments of LNG.
So now Russia has cut off the gas and energy costs in Europe are exploding and they are having to build out tons of new LNG infrastructure.
Russia can basically turn the heat off in Europe because they under invested in nuclear power.
Russians never wanted to truly damage any reactor, including the one at Zaporizhzhia; they made some noise to spread fear and remind the world about the dangers of nuclear war and what could happen should anyone think of attacking them over there. Then they seized the reactors to take control of powerful sources of energy so they could cut them at will, then amassed weapons there for being the safest places around. Their strategy there was 50% PsyOps, that is, propaganda, and 50% military tactics. I find it extremely unlikely, but should something nasty happens to any of the Ukrainian nuclear reactors, it will be 99.9% by mistake.
Could one aim be to increase anti-nuclear sentiment in Europe to further delay/prevent nuclear power development which would reduce dependency on Russian fossil fuels?
Although this would have no effect short-term since plants take a long time to build.
Although this would have no effect short-term since plants take a long time to build.
You do have a relevant point. In time of war safety of many things cannot be guaranteed. However, I promise you, for the Ukrainians the bigger issue is not the reactor. It is a concern, but it is not the major concern.
While Russia has been irresponsible with how they dealt with Ukrainian nuclear reactors, I don't think they're that much of a problem in case of invasion as you suggest: if an attacker really wants your land, they'd prefer if it is not covered by nuclear fallout.
A counterpoint is that wind and solar are impossible to defend in a conflict (especially off-shore wind), and can be irretrievably wrecked with minimal risk to the attacking force. I don't think this should be any sort of impediment to putting renewables everywhere we can though. If there is a war big enough that countries are destroying each other's energy infrastructure we'll almost all be dead anyway. Nuclear winters will kill solar production (and also most of the demand, I guess).
Nuclear energy is safe but humans are not.
We have people dying of breathing complications right now and we have so much CO2 in our atmosphere that we're changing the weather.
We need nuclear energy precisely because humans are not safe.
We need nuclear energy precisely because humans are not safe.
Yes.
So we have to make decisions with those two factors in mind
So we have to make decisions with those two factors in mind
Yep. It's amazing the effort we have to spent to avoid disasters provoked by our own specie.
When you say "nuclear", do you mean all forms of fission reactors? Or do you mean today's inferior designs? Your comment makes sense in the context of conventional light-water reactors. However, there exist more advanced reactor designs that are essentially meltdown-proof.
How close are they to commercial implementation
The small nuclear reactor designs by NuScale are commercially viable and are going to be approved by the nuclear regulatory commission rather soon. Thorium isn’t as important as the small and modular aspects. Also Gen IV and breeder reactors are basically perfectly viable commercially if it was held to the same kind of scrutiny as most other power sources whether it’s coal or solar. But politically it’s not viable which is expressed by being so hard to finance with long time scales that investors simply don’t have the patience and nobody can raise the capital worthwhile to bother trying. It’s very much a chicken-egg dynamic impeding its viability similar to what popular renewables faced for different reasons for several decades.
Note that South Korea and France both have large operational nuclear power that is rather cheap to deploy because they basically copy-paste the same proven design and processes again and again. South Korea in particular has been under constant threat of attack by its neighbors for basically over a thousand years now yet went with nuclear decades ago. Comparatively, Switzerland didn’t choose nuclear for reasons I can’t quite remember even though they are fully capable technologically and in terms of process / bureaucracy able to manage the systems perfectly safely. Unsure about France’s reasoning but it’s difficult to compare power costs between France and neighboring Germany in good faith comparisons of energy policy either due to how different their electrical grid needs are.
Note that South Korea and France both have large operational nuclear power that is rather cheap to deploy because they basically copy-paste the same proven design and processes again and again. South Korea in particular has been under constant threat of attack by its neighbors for basically over a thousand years now yet went with nuclear decades ago. Comparatively, Switzerland didn’t choose nuclear for reasons I can’t quite remember even though they are fully capable technologically and in terms of process / bureaucracy able to manage the systems perfectly safely. Unsure about France’s reasoning but it’s difficult to compare power costs between France and neighboring Germany in good faith comparisons of energy policy either due to how different their electrical grid needs are.
NuScale is extremely heavily subsidized, both in development (50%) and initial deployments (100%), by US taxpayers.
It is absolutely uncompetitive, without.
It is absolutely uncompetitive, without.
There are several that will be deployed in Canada over the next few years [0] and the government seems committed to investing in SMR technology [1]
[0] https://x-energy.com/media/news-releases/x-energy-canada-and...
[1] https://smrroadmap.ca/
[0] https://x-energy.com/media/news-releases/x-energy-canada-and...
[1] https://smrroadmap.ca/
> Solar has less single points of failure and if it fails not much happens
On the surface this is very true. However, types of solar have caveats that do not manifest until you have a certain amount of utilization in the grid. Photovoltaics do not contribute to inertia. This is the Newtonian concept that ensures instantaneous voltage stability separate from any active demand/generation management functions. The more inertia you have, the more work it takes to speed up or slow down the grid.
Hypothetically, a grid that is 50% PV solar and 50% others would experience severe stability issues if the other class of generation were to be substantially impacted (i.e. your big-bang-for-buck military targets).
You cannot run a power grid on PV solar alone. It just won't work at scale.
On the surface this is very true. However, types of solar have caveats that do not manifest until you have a certain amount of utilization in the grid. Photovoltaics do not contribute to inertia. This is the Newtonian concept that ensures instantaneous voltage stability separate from any active demand/generation management functions. The more inertia you have, the more work it takes to speed up or slow down the grid.
Hypothetically, a grid that is 50% PV solar and 50% others would experience severe stability issues if the other class of generation were to be substantially impacted (i.e. your big-bang-for-buck military targets).
You cannot run a power grid on PV solar alone. It just won't work at scale.
Batteries are more "inertia" than any rotational generator could ever hope to be. Inertia is only a concept because the grid has traditionally relied on rotational generators (which do have inertia). It's by no means necessary for the functioning of a power grid - isolated inverters don't need it, nor do portable rotational generators.
It's useful in traditional grids because we didn't have electronics that could more or less instantaneously respond to load changes - they had to rely on spinning generators instead.
It's useful in traditional grids because we didn't have electronics that could more or less instantaneously respond to load changes - they had to rely on spinning generators instead.
Even with synthetic inertia supplied by every inverter, you will still eventually run into a situation where the system begins to oscillate wildly if you do not have enough spinning mass.
What does a large spinning mass do that a computer-controlled inverter with batteries cannot?
I will grant you a hypothetical wherein the inverters are all perfectly synchronized by some central system and have no reliance on grid voltage as the primary signaling mechanism.
But, this is a precipitous arrangement. If there is any drift in the clocks or some fault in the sync protocol, you can quickly wind up with a completely dead grid (because all your inverters will have killed each other).
Spinning metal is very simple and robust. The failure modes are all much more gradual in nature. Today, one or 2 bad inverters would not start a chain of horrible events because hundreds of tons of metal are not easily perturbed. Without inertia, a bad element in the grid can have substantially more impact.
But, this is a precipitous arrangement. If there is any drift in the clocks or some fault in the sync protocol, you can quickly wind up with a completely dead grid (because all your inverters will have killed each other).
Spinning metal is very simple and robust. The failure modes are all much more gradual in nature. Today, one or 2 bad inverters would not start a chain of horrible events because hundreds of tons of metal are not easily perturbed. Without inertia, a bad element in the grid can have substantially more impact.
I must admit to not being an expert in the matter - but it seems odd to expect inverters to spontaneously desync. Grid-tie inverters take their cue from the existing grid presence, so it's not like we'll have a grid full of inverters attempting to drive their own frequency slowly getting out of sync. I don't actually know how they work, but presumably they will attempt to match the available frequency at their outputs within some tolerance of their own notion of 50/60Hz (eg. they want 50Hz, if grid is 50.5 they will match that, if grid is 51 problems might start - but that's a bit contrived)
A grid without rotating generators would act differently, for sure, as you won't have varying frequency to indicate if the grid is overloaded - you'd have to rely on different measures to understand how close parts of it might be to failure.
"Bad actors" in the grid can already cause severe problems regardless of spinning generators; if a power station goes offline the unexpected load spike can easily trip off most of the grid anyway. Smaller, distributed generators/inverters if anything are more reliable, as a fault in one is less likely to constitute an outsize portion of power generation. "Grid inertia" today is largely a result of the total machinery attached to the grid just massively outweighing any individual actor.
A grid without rotating generators would act differently, for sure, as you won't have varying frequency to indicate if the grid is overloaded - you'd have to rely on different measures to understand how close parts of it might be to failure.
"Bad actors" in the grid can already cause severe problems regardless of spinning generators; if a power station goes offline the unexpected load spike can easily trip off most of the grid anyway. Smaller, distributed generators/inverters if anything are more reliable, as a fault in one is less likely to constitute an outsize portion of power generation. "Grid inertia" today is largely a result of the total machinery attached to the grid just massively outweighing any individual actor.
Inverters that see excess frequency make a point of lagging. Collectively, they can bring the frequency back in line, just as control systems in rotating machinery do.
The rotating machines are wholly as dependent on controls as the inverters.
The rotating machines are wholly as dependent on controls as the inverters.
> Photovoltaics do not contribute to inertia.
Besides "synthetic inertia" on the PV inverters, there exist also synchronous condensers (basically a motor/generator spinning a heavy mass) which can already be found in many substations.
Besides "synthetic inertia" on the PV inverters, there exist also synchronous condensers (basically a motor/generator spinning a heavy mass) which can already be found in many substations.
> Photovoltaics do not contribute to inertia. This is the Newtonian concept that ensures instantaneous voltage stability separate from any active demand/generation management functions.
Wait what, Newton's inertia was about physical objects, not voltage stability? You talking base vs peak demand or what?
Wait what, Newton's inertia was about physical objects, not voltage stability? You talking base vs peak demand or what?
That voltage stability is electromagnetically coupled to huge chunks of spinning iron. That's your inertia. It buffers voltage spikes. Solar, and surprisingly enough wind as well, do not contribute to this stability. It's one of the big challenges we need to figure out.
Actually, this is something I'm not clear on: Why can't we just add free-spinning "generators" to the grid to contribute inertia?
The rotors of electrical generators are physical objects, with inertia.
It's a weird argument to say "Nuclear does this, solar does not" as if the two are against one another and you are comparing them.
Here, I'll do the same thing: "Nuclear produces power 24/7, while solar can only usefully produce power for ~8 hours a day, or 1/3 of the day".
Sure, for that 1/3 of the day, solar does not have political problems like being shut down for danger. However, for 2/3 of the day, nuclear does not have the physics problem of being useless.
Each solution has pros and cons and I want my power to come from both.
Here, I'll do the same thing: "Nuclear produces power 24/7, while solar can only usefully produce power for ~8 hours a day, or 1/3 of the day".
Sure, for that 1/3 of the day, solar does not have political problems like being shut down for danger. However, for 2/3 of the day, nuclear does not have the physics problem of being useless.
Each solution has pros and cons and I want my power to come from both.
Solar + storage produces 24/7, overwhelmingly cheaper and without risk of regional poisoning.
Real world grid scale solar + storage is not cheaper, and humanity doesn't even have the battery capacity and won't for some time longer.
And speaking of regional poisoning, I guess all of those heavy metal mines in poorer countries creating some quite dystopian scenes of large scale ecological destruction leading to total ecosystem collapse are OK because "NIMBY"! Can't wait to 10X that, especially when I remember that the energy density of nuclear fuels is so insanely high that the mining impact for powering all of humanity on it is something like 50X less than powering all of humanity on lithium batteries!
And speaking of regional poisoning, I guess all of those heavy metal mines in poorer countries creating some quite dystopian scenes of large scale ecological destruction leading to total ecosystem collapse are OK because "NIMBY"! Can't wait to 10X that, especially when I remember that the energy density of nuclear fuels is so insanely high that the mining impact for powering all of humanity on it is something like 50X less than powering all of humanity on lithium batteries!
Dedicated batteries are not cheaper yet, but (a) price is still on a rapid downward trend, (b) repurposing old batteries from electric cars once the batteries are no longer good enough for transport is cheaper, and (c) it isn't the only storage mechanism, for example pumped hydroelectric and hydrogen are both really cheap.
The battery production capacity is currently in a rapid growth phase. I'm not sure what timescales you think are "for some time longer", but I think 10 (optimistic) to 20 years (pessimistic) would be enough to see the global electricity market almost totally (95% or more) transformed to renewables.
While I personally am relaxed about nuclear power if it's done right, the political realities are that it terrifies people and that corners get cut just often enough to make the terror not entirely unjustified, so it's not going to happen on a significant scale unless there's a reason for the government to ignore the will of the people.
The battery production capacity is currently in a rapid growth phase. I'm not sure what timescales you think are "for some time longer", but I think 10 (optimistic) to 20 years (pessimistic) would be enough to see the global electricity market almost totally (95% or more) transformed to renewables.
While I personally am relaxed about nuclear power if it's done right, the political realities are that it terrifies people and that corners get cut just often enough to make the terror not entirely unjustified, so it's not going to happen on a significant scale unless there's a reason for the government to ignore the will of the people.
Heavy metal mines, like uranium? Because what other heavy metals are you imagining?
You missed the part (well, you IGNORED the part...) where I talk about energy density.
That's obvious because you don't want to compare the amount of lithium required for billions of cars and grid scale solar to cover 16 hours of energy per day.
You ignored it because 8 kWh of heat can be generated from 1 kg of coal, approx. 12 kWh from 1 kg of mineral oil and around 24,000,000 kWh from 1 kg of uranium-235.
Not only is uranium extremely energy dense, but power facilities are extremely small. Nuclear facilities are by far the smallest energy producing facilities, and solar fields are among the largest (both in terms of space and raw materials). This produces mining and material savings at every single step.
A world powered by Uranium only would require probably somewhere between 10,000X to 100,000 less mining than a world powered by solar batteries.
The energy density of uranium is truly amazing.
That's obvious because you don't want to compare the amount of lithium required for billions of cars and grid scale solar to cover 16 hours of energy per day.
You ignored it because 8 kWh of heat can be generated from 1 kg of coal, approx. 12 kWh from 1 kg of mineral oil and around 24,000,000 kWh from 1 kg of uranium-235.
Not only is uranium extremely energy dense, but power facilities are extremely small. Nuclear facilities are by far the smallest energy producing facilities, and solar fields are among the largest (both in terms of space and raw materials). This produces mining and material savings at every single step.
A world powered by Uranium only would require probably somewhere between 10,000X to 100,000 less mining than a world powered by solar batteries.
The energy density of uranium is truly amazing.
Energy density is absolutely irrelevant except in a vehicle. Which utility power manifestly ain't.
And the energy density of uranium is irrelevant even sessile, because it takes hundreds to thousands of times more mass around it to get useful energy out.
I had ignored it so as not to embarrass you further.
And the energy density of uranium is irrelevant even sessile, because it takes hundreds to thousands of times more mass around it to get useful energy out.
I had ignored it so as not to embarrass you further.
Lol wow! This feels like one of those situations that Germans have a very long and special word for: When someone tries to spare you a minor embarrassment but in doing so creates a major one for themselves.
While you might not think several orders of magnitude have meaning, fortunately here in reality the fact that it requires far less overall mining to create and supply a uranium power station that it does to create and supply an equivalent (in power output) solar field with batteries has huge meaning.
While I do thank you for looking out for me, I urge you to in the future take time to introspect on yourself and views, so as to save yourself these issues. I know no one tries to be a hypocrite intentionally, so I know these are resolvable problems for the average HN'er. Good luck!
While you might not think several orders of magnitude have meaning, fortunately here in reality the fact that it requires far less overall mining to create and supply a uranium power station that it does to create and supply an equivalent (in power output) solar field with batteries has huge meaning.
While I do thank you for looking out for me, I urge you to in the future take time to introspect on yourself and views, so as to save yourself these issues. I know no one tries to be a hypocrite intentionally, so I know these are resolvable problems for the average HN'er. Good luck!
What matters in (clean) utility power generation is cost. Period.
Unless this magickal energy density results in lower-cost electrical output, in quantity, it is just a load of guff.
What we know is that every use of uranium for civil power generation, ever, delivered only extremely expensive power. There has never been a single reactor, worldwide, that was not heavily subsidized by taxpayers, coerced above-market rates, or both. Nukes get even less competitive with each passing year, as the cost for renewables continues plummeting with no bottom in sight.
So, the compelling evidence is that energy density is of extremely limited value for civil power generation. If it has any practical value at all, its copious orders of magnitude are yet insufficient to overcome its extremely poor cost effectiveness.
And, places in the US where uranium was mined are marked by poisoned groundwater and early death. Those poisoned are not impressed with its magick. Nor am I.
Unless this magickal energy density results in lower-cost electrical output, in quantity, it is just a load of guff.
What we know is that every use of uranium for civil power generation, ever, delivered only extremely expensive power. There has never been a single reactor, worldwide, that was not heavily subsidized by taxpayers, coerced above-market rates, or both. Nukes get even less competitive with each passing year, as the cost for renewables continues plummeting with no bottom in sight.
So, the compelling evidence is that energy density is of extremely limited value for civil power generation. If it has any practical value at all, its copious orders of magnitude are yet insufficient to overcome its extremely poor cost effectiveness.
And, places in the US where uranium was mined are marked by poisoned groundwater and early death. Those poisoned are not impressed with its magick. Nor am I.
particularly relevant because the need for more energy is by far strongest in regions that are geopolitical hotbeds with often unstable governments and threats of terrorism. With nuclear infrastructure both as a target and source for material.
[deleted]
Solar leaks heavy metals into top soil. Most of solar is not recycled properly. Nobody seems to worry about that at all.
If a solar facility gets carpet bombed during a war, you think it's more likely it will all just get somewhat cleaned up, and lots of it will be left in-situ and plowed over, or someone will actually remove every little dust particle? I think the lazy way out is what is most likely.
If a solar facility gets carpet bombed during a war, you think it's more likely it will all just get somewhat cleaned up, and lots of it will be left in-situ and plowed over, or someone will actually remove every little dust particle? I think the lazy way out is what is most likely.
There is no heavy metal in solar to leak.
If you have to make shit up to support your argument, why even bother?
If you have to make shit up to support your argument, why even bother?
what? Lead and cadmium ARE heavy metals. You didn't know?
https://scdhec.gov/sites/default/files/Library/OR-1695.pdf
"Solar panel waste can include heavy metals such as silver, lead, arsenic and cadmium that – at certain levels – may be classified as hazardous waste"
https://scdhec.gov/sites/default/files/Library/OR-1695.pdf
"Solar panel waste can include heavy metals such as silver, lead, arsenic and cadmium that – at certain levels – may be classified as hazardous waste"
Balancing that against the future of the planet, I know which one I'll choose; nuclear all day long.
In some respects, vulnerability to attack is a feature, not a flaw for promoting peace and collaboration instead of violence. A country with nuclear reactors is less likely to piss neighbors off enough to lead to an invasion. If invasion occurs, everyone will be extra careful. A country with nuclear reactors is less likely to be bombed to shit by other countries due to the reactor's radioactivity inventory potentially containing other countries as well as the country in question - ie. don't spoil the prize.
> In some respects, vulnerability to attack is a feature, not a flaw for promoting peace and collaboration instead of violence. A country with nuclear reactors is less likely to piss neighbors off enough to lead to an invasion.
That feels like saying "a woman who's not allowed to carry pepper spray is less likely to dress provocatively enough to lead to getting raped".
That feels like saying "a woman who's not allowed to carry pepper spray is less likely to dress provocatively enough to lead to getting raped".
> But the amount of concrete and steel for sun and wind is striking. This has to do with the low energy density of these two.
No, it's not striking at all, and this is just as BS argument as the people arguing that nuclear isn't clean. As far as the energy density, include all the steel and concrete used outside of the reaction chamber, and you will find that nuclear and solar are pretty much on the same order of magnitude, and that's using the numbers from newer reactor designs that have consciously tried to reduce the amount of concrete by a factor of two.
But of course, all this is misdirection from the real challenges of nuclear, which is finding somebody who can build it and somebody who is willing to take the financial risk of nuclear, when it looks like a terribles mis allocation of capital, if one's goal is to decarbonize energy.
No, it's not striking at all, and this is just as BS argument as the people arguing that nuclear isn't clean. As far as the energy density, include all the steel and concrete used outside of the reaction chamber, and you will find that nuclear and solar are pretty much on the same order of magnitude, and that's using the numbers from newer reactor designs that have consciously tried to reduce the amount of concrete by a factor of two.
But of course, all this is misdirection from the real challenges of nuclear, which is finding somebody who can build it and somebody who is willing to take the financial risk of nuclear, when it looks like a terribles mis allocation of capital, if one's goal is to decarbonize energy.
To me, it's about the shape of the logistic curve from planning, through construction to supply, and it's lifetime.
We should start nuclear construction now, but for supply in 8+ years time. And therefore we should start increasing construction of wind, solar, pumped hydro and battery now, to supply lower watts, but useful watts inside the 8 year window. As supply matches demand we can remove coal and gas, and when the nuclear comes on line, increase the pace of their removal and repurpose surplus wind and solar to hydrogen production for ammonia, and hydrogen fuel cells, and domestic gas replacement.
We should start nuclear construction now, but for supply in 8+ years time. And therefore we should start increasing construction of wind, solar, pumped hydro and battery now, to supply lower watts, but useful watts inside the 8 year window. As supply matches demand we can remove coal and gas, and when the nuclear comes on line, increase the pace of their removal and repurpose surplus wind and solar to hydrogen production for ammonia, and hydrogen fuel cells, and domestic gas replacement.
We should do some of all of that, I agree in large part (along with some diversified storage), the issue as the parent comment pointed out is who is going to stake billions on what looks like it will be a risky and poor ROI with significant construction delays and cost overruns. Would be easier for China
> all this is misdirection from the real challenges of nuclear, which is finding somebody who can build it and somebody who is willing to take the financial risk of nuclear, when it looks like a terribles mis allocation of capital, if one's goal is to decarbonize energy.
I have read that there is much more nuance in nuclear pricing. Past projects were bespoke and subject to changing bureaucratic requirements. There are numerous startups working to bring down cost.
https://news.mit.edu/2020/reasons-nuclear-overruns-1118
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_nuclear_power_pla...
I have read that there is much more nuance in nuclear pricing. Past projects were bespoke and subject to changing bureaucratic requirements. There are numerous startups working to bring down cost.
https://news.mit.edu/2020/reasons-nuclear-overruns-1118
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_nuclear_power_pla...
Yes, SMRs are the hope, but it's just a hope.
It's the right idea to switch away from construction to manufacturing, but it's unclear how quickly the manufacturing process could scale.
It's the right idea to switch away from construction to manufacturing, but it's unclear how quickly the manufacturing process could scale.
Man if only we invested some real money into that or at least not have regulation that make it almost absurdly hard to work on the technology.
And we could have done that 40 years ago.
And we could have done that 40 years ago.
With the approval of a SMR design, isn’t this no longer just hope?
For someone like me, who believes the problem is not regulatory approval but the difficulty and cost of the build, I'm no more hopeful than pre-approval. But I have never questioned whether a good design could be conceived and approved.
But if someone thinks that construction/manufacturing is easy and the difficult part is regulatory approval, then perhaps this is cause for hope!
The renewable industry has been scaling at levels that are fairly hard to imagine, and yet people continually doubt its ability to scale fast enough to meet the challenge of the energy transition. SMRs are unfortunately decades behind and haven't even gotten a single device manufactured. So I think there are serious questions about how quickly SMRs could scale up to a GW/year, or 10GW/year, or the TW/year that we really need.
But if someone thinks that construction/manufacturing is easy and the difficult part is regulatory approval, then perhaps this is cause for hope!
The renewable industry has been scaling at levels that are fairly hard to imagine, and yet people continually doubt its ability to scale fast enough to meet the challenge of the energy transition. SMRs are unfortunately decades behind and haven't even gotten a single device manufactured. So I think there are serious questions about how quickly SMRs could scale up to a GW/year, or 10GW/year, or the TW/year that we really need.
This is a design that is meant to be mass produced in an assembly line factory, then shipped to its destination and plugged into the grid. It definitely had the potential for economies of scale in manufacturing.
Maybe? It all depends on execution and costs. And that's where most nuclear firms and proponents have been wearing rose-colored glasses for decades.
The preliminary estimates of numbers for cost were not terribly impressive, so I hope that they became wise and are under-promising. But only time will tell.
The preliminary estimates of numbers for cost were not terribly impressive, so I hope that they became wise and are under-promising. But only time will tell.
Here's the real reason nuclear power did not succeed in the US (I can't speak of other countries). It was opposed by the Democrats, and the Republicans, although some in favor of it, decided they don't want to spend whatever political capital they had on this. Now both Democrats and Republicans are pro nuclear power.
You may not like it, but nuclear power is having a comeback.
You may not like it, but nuclear power is having a comeback.
The last time to start nuclear to address climate change was the mid-2000s.
And we did start four reactors, with many more planned! However they are all construction failures, and the two at Summer were actually even abandoned half completed, it was so bad. And executives our going to jail for their lies during the construction process.
That's what I mean when I say nobody knows how to build it. We will likely never attempt another new 1GW reactor in our lifetimes, because even is some brave EPC firm thinks they could tackle the challenges, getting the money for that is nearly impossible.
Oh, did I mention that the only reason the four reactors were attempted at all in the mid-2000s is that the two utilities captured state legislatures and changed the law so that they could charge rate payers whether or not construction completed? Utilities memory of stopping nuclear in the 80s isn't because of protestors, it because of bankruptcy.
In any case, the only hope for nuclear is SMRs from new startups. But we can't depend on them because we don't know the costs. Fortunately nuclear is no longer our only hope, and we have other options that we didn't have 20 years ago.
Politics has nearly nothing to do with stopping nuclear. It all came down to construction mucking it up.
And we did start four reactors, with many more planned! However they are all construction failures, and the two at Summer were actually even abandoned half completed, it was so bad. And executives our going to jail for their lies during the construction process.
That's what I mean when I say nobody knows how to build it. We will likely never attempt another new 1GW reactor in our lifetimes, because even is some brave EPC firm thinks they could tackle the challenges, getting the money for that is nearly impossible.
Oh, did I mention that the only reason the four reactors were attempted at all in the mid-2000s is that the two utilities captured state legislatures and changed the law so that they could charge rate payers whether or not construction completed? Utilities memory of stopping nuclear in the 80s isn't because of protestors, it because of bankruptcy.
In any case, the only hope for nuclear is SMRs from new startups. But we can't depend on them because we don't know the costs. Fortunately nuclear is no longer our only hope, and we have other options that we didn't have 20 years ago.
Politics has nearly nothing to do with stopping nuclear. It all came down to construction mucking it up.
> and we have other options that we didn't have 20 years ago.
We do, but those options are not enough. If they were, the Democrats in Washington would not have turned pro-nuclear.
They saw the numbers. You can store electricity from day to night, but not from Summer to Winter. Months-long electricity storage will never make economic sense (or at least not in the next 30 years).
Nuclear reactor construction is currently a decades-long affair. Can we make it shorter?
Here's a little historical tidbit: in WW2, when the Liberty ships started being built, it took the first such ships about 250 days to be built. They took down that number to 150, then to 105, then to 71, then to 30 and then to 10. They even built one in less than 5 days, and that one did survive the war, and kept working until 1963.
The secret was to build large components separately, each on its own assembly line, and then to just snap them together as a giant Lego toy.
The fact that current nuclear reactors take 20 years to build is not a mathematical proof that any design will take as long. It is entirely possible for SMRs to be build in a matter of months, maybe, just like the Liberty ships, in a matter of days. If the politicians in Washington want to make that happen, then the engineers can make it happen.
We do, but those options are not enough. If they were, the Democrats in Washington would not have turned pro-nuclear.
They saw the numbers. You can store electricity from day to night, but not from Summer to Winter. Months-long electricity storage will never make economic sense (or at least not in the next 30 years).
Nuclear reactor construction is currently a decades-long affair. Can we make it shorter?
Here's a little historical tidbit: in WW2, when the Liberty ships started being built, it took the first such ships about 250 days to be built. They took down that number to 150, then to 105, then to 71, then to 30 and then to 10. They even built one in less than 5 days, and that one did survive the war, and kept working until 1963.
The secret was to build large components separately, each on its own assembly line, and then to just snap them together as a giant Lego toy.
The fact that current nuclear reactors take 20 years to build is not a mathematical proof that any design will take as long. It is entirely possible for SMRs to be build in a matter of months, maybe, just like the Liberty ships, in a matter of days. If the politicians in Washington want to make that happen, then the engineers can make it happen.
> You can store electricity from day to night, but not from Summer to Winter.
Hydrogen can do that.
Hydrogen can do that.
Synthetic hydrocarbons can do that much better than hydrogen.
Also ammonia can do that much better than hydrogen.
There are also several types of flow batteries which can store energy for any time desired, without losses. Compared to hydrocarbons or ammonia they have a low energy density (which is not prohibitive for stationary applications), but they have a higher energy efficiency for a charge and discharge cycle, similar to the other kinds of batteries.
Hydrogen is the worst solution for long-term energy storage, compared to the many other alternatives, which are also already proven in practice, unlike hydrogen. Hydrogen is good only for rockets, when its low mass is more important than its high volume and all its other disadvantages.
Also ammonia can do that much better than hydrogen.
There are also several types of flow batteries which can store energy for any time desired, without losses. Compared to hydrocarbons or ammonia they have a low energy density (which is not prohibitive for stationary applications), but they have a higher energy efficiency for a charge and discharge cycle, similar to the other kinds of batteries.
Hydrogen is the worst solution for long-term energy storage, compared to the many other alternatives, which are also already proven in practice, unlike hydrogen. Hydrogen is good only for rockets, when its low mass is more important than its high volume and all its other disadvantages.
Synthetic hydrocarbons requires you either capture CO2 from the atmosphere, or capture, store, and reuse the CO2 of combustion from your turbines (so you're still storing compressed gases underground; you've also made the per-output-power part of your system more costly, which is very undesirable for rarely used backup storage). The round trip efficiency with hydrogen will also be higher, since you don't have to do either of those and the process that makes hydrocarbons starts with H2 and CO2 and is significantly below 100% efficient.
Flow batteries would be better than ordinary batteries, but would still be costly for seasonal storage or rare event backup compared to hydrogen (especially flow batteries using vanadium).
Flow batteries would be better than ordinary batteries, but would still be costly for seasonal storage or rare event backup compared to hydrogen (especially flow batteries using vanadium).
I agree with you that Hydrogen can do that. Or that at least it stands a chance.
Both nuclear and Hydrogen are unproven at this point, for the scale we need. Europe has chosen to bet it all on Hydrogen. Although, in the last one year France decided to get back in the game of building nuclear. I see no talk of Hydrogen in the US.
Both nuclear and Hydrogen are unproven at this point, for the scale we need. Europe has chosen to bet it all on Hydrogen. Although, in the last one year France decided to get back in the game of building nuclear. I see no talk of Hydrogen in the US.
Space X are building the worlds largest Green Hydrogen project in Texas (intended for turning into methane for rockets amongst other things).
Will probably be one of those things where there will be a new worlds largest record every month for years and it'll get into arguments about who has actually started production and so on, but it's definately a global thing.
Current headlines suggest US Green Hydrogen could be the cheapest in the world due to some mooted subsidies:
https://www.rechargenews.com/energy-transition/world-s-large...
Will probably be one of those things where there will be a new worlds largest record every month for years and it'll get into arguments about who has actually started production and so on, but it's definately a global thing.
Current headlines suggest US Green Hydrogen could be the cheapest in the world due to some mooted subsidies:
https://www.rechargenews.com/energy-transition/world-s-large...
> They saw the numbers. You can store electricity from day to night, but not from Summer to Winter. Months-long electricity storage will never make economic sense (or at least not in the next 30 years).
where's your crystal ball?
where's your crystal ball?
They are correct about this bit, but not the wider conclusion.
Months long storage of electricity is uneconomic compared with alternatives.
Which is a shame for nuclear, as it would really benefit from it if you could just build enough for the average demand and run then 100% of the time.
Instead, flexible demand is much cheaper. So you overbuild the nuclear and modulate the demand for making green hydrogen and ammonia and store that. Much cheaper than long term storage. Note we don't use that to generate electricity, but for chemical feedstocks. Again, cheaper to overgenerate with nuclear.
However, now that you have overbuild and responsive demand in the equation there is no advantage of nuclear over renewables, which are much cheaper to build for the same capacity.
Months long storage of electricity is uneconomic compared with alternatives.
Which is a shame for nuclear, as it would really benefit from it if you could just build enough for the average demand and run then 100% of the time.
Instead, flexible demand is much cheaper. So you overbuild the nuclear and modulate the demand for making green hydrogen and ammonia and store that. Much cheaper than long term storage. Note we don't use that to generate electricity, but for chemical feedstocks. Again, cheaper to overgenerate with nuclear.
However, now that you have overbuild and responsive demand in the equation there is no advantage of nuclear over renewables, which are much cheaper to build for the same capacity.
Not all overbuilding is the same.
This link [1] shows that solar energy generation is 6 times higher in the summer than in the winter in Germany.
The total electricity consumption varies is about 1.5 times higher in the winter than in the summer [2].
In other words, you need to overbuild nuclear by a factor of 1.5, and solar by a factor of 9.
[1] https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/monthly-gener...
[2] https://app.electricitymaps.com/zone/DE
This link [1] shows that solar energy generation is 6 times higher in the summer than in the winter in Germany.
The total electricity consumption varies is about 1.5 times higher in the winter than in the summer [2].
In other words, you need to overbuild nuclear by a factor of 1.5, and solar by a factor of 9.
[1] https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/monthly-gener...
[2] https://app.electricitymaps.com/zone/DE
You're so confident about nuclear that you feel you need to compare it to purely solar in Germany to make a good case for it?
Doesn't this just show that you know it can't compete with solar in equatorial regions or wind in the UK, never mind appropriate combinations of the two across Europe and the rest of the world?
And you didn't even compare price. Solar would only need to be 6x cheaper to still win that rigged comparison and provide masses of cheap energy in the summer.
It's about 4 or 5x cheaper at the moment and predicted to fall further as it gets rolled out globally at massive scale.
And every watt rolled out at the moment can displace coal.
Doesn't this just show that you know it can't compete with solar in equatorial regions or wind in the UK, never mind appropriate combinations of the two across Europe and the rest of the world?
And you didn't even compare price. Solar would only need to be 6x cheaper to still win that rigged comparison and provide masses of cheap energy in the summer.
It's about 4 or 5x cheaper at the moment and predicted to fall further as it gets rolled out globally at massive scale.
And every watt rolled out at the moment can displace coal.
I'm not so confident about nuclear. Nuclear power generation is a very high end technology, where humankind instead of climbing the learning curve, somehow managed to go in the opposite direction. However, Elon Musk has demonstrated that you can take a technology where costs are going up, and make it do a 180, and take down costs by a factor of 10 and then 100. Can nuclear power generation get to be 100 times cheaper? I think so.
Do we absolutely need nuclear energy to combat climate change? I don't think so.
I do think a solution could be based on huge arrays of solar panels in countries like Australia, Mexico, Morroco or South Africa, and shipments of liquefied hydrogen to countries like Germany, China, Japan or Canada. The US can be quite self-sufficient, with solar panels in California, Nevada, Arizona, and wind turbines in Texas, Oklahoma and the rest of the wind corridor, and pipes of hydrogen from one state to another. I can even see the US exporting liquefied hydrogen as a natural succession from exporting LNG now.
Do we absolutely need nuclear energy to combat climate change? I don't think so.
I do think a solution could be based on huge arrays of solar panels in countries like Australia, Mexico, Morroco or South Africa, and shipments of liquefied hydrogen to countries like Germany, China, Japan or Canada. The US can be quite self-sufficient, with solar panels in California, Nevada, Arizona, and wind turbines in Texas, Oklahoma and the rest of the wind corridor, and pipes of hydrogen from one state to another. I can even see the US exporting liquefied hydrogen as a natural succession from exporting LNG now.
It's essentially impossible for anything that drives a steam turbine to generate electricity to get that cheap. Just the cost of the steam parts, if everything else was free struggles to compete with solar today.
Distributed solar also avoid transmission costs, at a certain point a point source of free energy gets outcompeted by distributed solar.
So nuclear might have niches, or exciting new applications but is mostly a dead-end.
Shipping hydrogen about seems likely to be a big thing though, easy transition for existing infrastructure.
Distributed solar also avoid transmission costs, at a certain point a point source of free energy gets outcompeted by distributed solar.
So nuclear might have niches, or exciting new applications but is mostly a dead-end.
Shipping hydrogen about seems likely to be a big thing though, easy transition for existing infrastructure.
I read this opinion in that blog of Austin Vernon that made the HN rounds about a year ago [1]. In the end his argument is basically "if some energy generation method has moving parts, it has to be more expensive that one that doesn't".
But let's look at the numbers.
Here's a study by the EIA that looks at the capital costs and also at the Operating and Maintenance costs of various types of power plants [2].
The costs that are interesting for us are (all costs per GW alternative current of capacity):
You can counter that the estimates are from 2019, and by now solar is probably already cheaper and it will continue to get so, and I suppose you are right. But the panels constitute only 18% of the cost of the solar panel plant, the rest being inverters, transformers, something called BOP (balance of plant), etc. So, if the panels go to zero, the cost of the solar power plant gets reduced by 20% only.
On the other hand, the same is true for nuclear: only about 20% of the cost of a nuclear power plant is attributed to the nuclear part, the rest to the turbines, BOP, etc. So, even if by a miracle the nuclear part were to cost zero, the cost per GW would still be about $5 BN. This is higher than the coal power plant, because the steam generated by coal is much hotter than the one generated by the current generation of nuclear reactors.
Does this prove Austin Vernon's point?
Not necessarily.
First, the fact that gas power plants are very cheap is reason to hope. If we make nuclear reactors that don't use steam (which is corrosive) but some other gas, then it's possible the cost could go down significantly.
Well, less than one year ago China hooked to the grid exactly such a plant [3]. It uses Helium as a coolant, which means that the turbines can be cheaper (they should be similar to the ones used in a gas-firing plant). It also runs much hotter than a regular pressurized water reactor (about 700 Celsius vs 300 Celsius), which means the efficiency is higher.
Can the US build such reactors? I don't see why not, see for example Xe-100 [4]. But the first step is to get back to the nuclear technology learning curve.
[1] https://austinvernon.site/blog/nuclear.html
[2] https://www.eia.gov/analysis/studies/powerplants/capitalcost...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTR-PM
[4] https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/x-energy-developing-pebbl...
But let's look at the numbers.
Here's a study by the EIA that looks at the capital costs and also at the Operating and Maintenance costs of various types of power plants [2].
The costs that are interesting for us are (all costs per GW alternative current of capacity):
- solar without storage: $1.3 BN (page 175)
- solar with 4 hours of storage: $1.8 BN (p. 180)
- coal without CO2 sequestration: $3.7 BN (p. 46)
- nuclear AP1000 (similar to Vogtle): $6.0 BN (p. 107)
- natural gas power plant: $1.0 BN (p. 83)
You can counter that the estimates are from 2019, and by now solar is probably already cheaper and it will continue to get so, and I suppose you are right. But the panels constitute only 18% of the cost of the solar panel plant, the rest being inverters, transformers, something called BOP (balance of plant), etc. So, if the panels go to zero, the cost of the solar power plant gets reduced by 20% only.
On the other hand, the same is true for nuclear: only about 20% of the cost of a nuclear power plant is attributed to the nuclear part, the rest to the turbines, BOP, etc. So, even if by a miracle the nuclear part were to cost zero, the cost per GW would still be about $5 BN. This is higher than the coal power plant, because the steam generated by coal is much hotter than the one generated by the current generation of nuclear reactors.
Does this prove Austin Vernon's point?
Not necessarily.
First, the fact that gas power plants are very cheap is reason to hope. If we make nuclear reactors that don't use steam (which is corrosive) but some other gas, then it's possible the cost could go down significantly.
Well, less than one year ago China hooked to the grid exactly such a plant [3]. It uses Helium as a coolant, which means that the turbines can be cheaper (they should be similar to the ones used in a gas-firing plant). It also runs much hotter than a regular pressurized water reactor (about 700 Celsius vs 300 Celsius), which means the efficiency is higher.
Can the US build such reactors? I don't see why not, see for example Xe-100 [4]. But the first step is to get back to the nuclear technology learning curve.
[1] https://austinvernon.site/blog/nuclear.html
[2] https://www.eia.gov/analysis/studies/powerplants/capitalcost...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTR-PM
[4] https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/x-energy-developing-pebbl...
Gas is cheap because it substantially reduces the number of heat exchangers.
Transferring heat across a solid/fluid interface is kind of expensive. The more of that you have to do, the more expensive your power plant will be.
A simple cycle combustion turbine involves no heat exchangers at all. Heat is generated in the compressed air by combustion; the waste heat is carried away in the air + combustion products exiting the turbine. A combined cycle plant does have a boiler and a condenser for the steam section, but that part is only producing 1/3rd the power.
For nuclear to get cheap we'd need something like an open air Brayton cycle, but that would involve running air either through the reactor or through a high temperature heat exchanger made of silicon carbide.
It's interesting (well, to me) to consider how much easier that sort of open cycle system would be on Titan, where one could use 90K N2 rather than 300K air as the input fluid. Titan may be the best place in the solar system for nuclear power.
Transferring heat across a solid/fluid interface is kind of expensive. The more of that you have to do, the more expensive your power plant will be.
A simple cycle combustion turbine involves no heat exchangers at all. Heat is generated in the compressed air by combustion; the waste heat is carried away in the air + combustion products exiting the turbine. A combined cycle plant does have a boiler and a condenser for the steam section, but that part is only producing 1/3rd the power.
For nuclear to get cheap we'd need something like an open air Brayton cycle, but that would involve running air either through the reactor or through a high temperature heat exchanger made of silicon carbide.
It's interesting (well, to me) to consider how much easier that sort of open cycle system would be on Titan, where one could use 90K N2 rather than 300K air as the input fluid. Titan may be the best place in the solar system for nuclear power.
It's just math. If you have a storage solution where you can recoup you capital costs by charging every day and selling electricity every night, you will recoup only one hundredth of that if you charge one day and sell 100 days later. Currently the capital costs of batteries add a few cents to the kWh (the average price of 1 kWh in the US in 2021 was 14 cents). If you multiply that number by one hundred, you end up with dollars for kWh, and you can sell that kWh, because nobody will buy it.
If you find a storage solution that adds only hundredths of cents to a kWh if sold daily, that would be absolutely fantastic. But no such solution is in sight.
The only long term storage solution that has a shadow of a chance to make it is hydrogen. But we are so, so much behind the plan in building green hydrogen production facilities. As for hydrogen liquefaction and shipping, that's just a distant plan.
If you find a storage solution that adds only hundredths of cents to a kWh if sold daily, that would be absolutely fantastic. But no such solution is in sight.
The only long term storage solution that has a shadow of a chance to make it is hydrogen. But we are so, so much behind the plan in building green hydrogen production facilities. As for hydrogen liquefaction and shipping, that's just a distant plan.
> That's what I mean when I say nobody knows how to build it.
During China's 13th Five-Year Plan period from 2016 to 2020, the country built 20 new nuclear power generators with a total capacity of 23.44 million kilowatts - https://news.cgtn.com/news/2021-04-14/China-has-most-nuclear...
So clearly it's possible. With the right policy incentives, there's no reason to believe the US can't replicate China's success in this area.
During China's 13th Five-Year Plan period from 2016 to 2020, the country built 20 new nuclear power generators with a total capacity of 23.44 million kilowatts - https://news.cgtn.com/news/2021-04-14/China-has-most-nuclear...
So clearly it's possible. With the right policy incentives, there's no reason to believe the US can't replicate China's success in this area.
There's plenty of reason to believe that we can't replicate those numbers, because we have vastly different labor costs, vastly different technological skill sets. Plus, costs in China are always a bit of a mystery. Russia or South Korea may also provide potential routes towards cheaper construction, but South Korea's success was based on at least a bit of corruption. And who knows what's actually going on at Rosatom.
I would also point out that China's only planning something like 50GW of new reactors from here on out, but nearly TW of renewables, so new nuclear there is mostly coming from hedging their primary bets, not as a primary source of future electricity.
The US definitely does need to relearn how to do big construction projects. But I think that the limited construction capacity we have would be best spent on projects that have no replacement, like mass transit. Or on building factories to produce energy generating widgets, which has an exponential return on construction effort when compared to constructing energy generating widgets directly.
I would also point out that China's only planning something like 50GW of new reactors from here on out, but nearly TW of renewables, so new nuclear there is mostly coming from hedging their primary bets, not as a primary source of future electricity.
The US definitely does need to relearn how to do big construction projects. But I think that the limited construction capacity we have would be best spent on projects that have no replacement, like mass transit. Or on building factories to produce energy generating widgets, which has an exponential return on construction effort when compared to constructing energy generating widgets directly.
> willing to take the financial risk of nuclear
There are multiple nuclear (fission) startups in the last decade or so. My understanding is that financial backing is not their problem; outdated regulations are. And fear stokes outdated regulations.
There are multiple nuclear (fission) startups in the last decade or so. My understanding is that financial backing is not their problem; outdated regulations are. And fear stokes outdated regulations.
It's one thing to spend a fraction of $1B backing a startup that says it has a new small modular design that will finally turn around the economics, and have a big upside.
It's a far far more difficult thing to risk $10B on a reactor that may or may not actually ever complete construction, and has no potential for growth in value.
People never seem to cite which regulations they want to change. The NRC allowed the AP1000 at Vogtle and Summer to be constructed under a new regulatory regime at the request of industry, but the industry still seemed to mess up their construction process. And France at Flamanville has also had terrible construction problems despite having different and friendly regulatory processes.
My main problem with the nuclear industry is that it continually fails to focus on what would actually deliver nuclear, and just complains about everybody else instead of improving process or becoming accountable for results.
It's a far far more difficult thing to risk $10B on a reactor that may or may not actually ever complete construction, and has no potential for growth in value.
People never seem to cite which regulations they want to change. The NRC allowed the AP1000 at Vogtle and Summer to be constructed under a new regulatory regime at the request of industry, but the industry still seemed to mess up their construction process. And France at Flamanville has also had terrible construction problems despite having different and friendly regulatory processes.
My main problem with the nuclear industry is that it continually fails to focus on what would actually deliver nuclear, and just complains about everybody else instead of improving process or becoming accountable for results.
To be fair, they have a lot to complain about.
You know how they discovered radon gas was a problem in basements? A guy working at a nuclear power plant showed up at work one day and tripped their radiation detectors.
There was more radiation in a random guy’s basement than at the entire nuclear plant.
Meanwhile, the Chinese are soaking up US subsidy money for producing solar panels using slave labor. They strip mine for toxic rare earth metals to do it, destroying the environment and using coal power to boot.
I think their complaints are justified.
You know how they discovered radon gas was a problem in basements? A guy working at a nuclear power plant showed up at work one day and tripped their radiation detectors.
There was more radiation in a random guy’s basement than at the entire nuclear plant.
Meanwhile, the Chinese are soaking up US subsidy money for producing solar panels using slave labor. They strip mine for toxic rare earth metals to do it, destroying the environment and using coal power to boot.
I think their complaints are justified.
[deleted]
Waste disposal isn't that hard. The Onkalo nuclear waste repository in Finland pretty much has it covered.
First, you find a hard-rock mountain where geology shows nothing much happening in the last few million years, and there's nothing worth mining. Worldwide, there are many mountain ranges like that. Then tunnel way down, but preferably above the water table. Drill holes in the tunnel floor. Put waste in suitable containers. There are a few approaches. Mixing the waste with molten glass and pouring it into big stainless steel thimbles is one approach. Put containers in holes. Fill with bentonite. Seal off with concrete. Eventually, seal off the whole installation and forget about it.
First, you find a hard-rock mountain where geology shows nothing much happening in the last few million years, and there's nothing worth mining. Worldwide, there are many mountain ranges like that. Then tunnel way down, but preferably above the water table. Drill holes in the tunnel floor. Put waste in suitable containers. There are a few approaches. Mixing the waste with molten glass and pouring it into big stainless steel thimbles is one approach. Put containers in holes. Fill with bentonite. Seal off with concrete. Eventually, seal off the whole installation and forget about it.
How do we communicate to civilisations in the future what we did in that mountain?
How do we communicate to civilisations in the present how bad the emissions from goal and gas plants are? https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2021/12/wh...
Because we appear to have no sense of proportion, or trade-offs.
Because we appear to have no sense of proportion, or trade-offs.
Is this a serious concern? That there will be some kind of civilization in 10000 years that:
1) has lost all records of current generations
2) doesn't know about nuclear waste disposal sites and radioactivity
3) is still advanced enough to dig several hundred meters into hard rock
4) for no discernible reason digs up the entire waste disposal site and then what? contaminates their excavation crew?
1) has lost all records of current generations
2) doesn't know about nuclear waste disposal sites and radioactivity
3) is still advanced enough to dig several hundred meters into hard rock
4) for no discernible reason digs up the entire waste disposal site and then what? contaminates their excavation crew?
> Is this a serious concern?
Yes.
See The art of the 10,000-year warning[1] and the full Preservation of Records, Knowledge and Memory Across Generations report[2].
Other proposed solutions include: the breeding of so-called "radiation cats" or "ray cats". Cats have a long history of cohabitation with humans, and this approach assumes that their domestication will continue indefinitely. These radiation cats would change significantly in color when they came near radioactive emissions and serve as living indicators of danger.[3]
[1] https://www.ans.org/news/article-416/the-art-of-the-10000yea...
[2] https://www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_15088
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-term_nuclear_waste_warnin...
Yes.
See The art of the 10,000-year warning[1] and the full Preservation of Records, Knowledge and Memory Across Generations report[2].
Other proposed solutions include: the breeding of so-called "radiation cats" or "ray cats". Cats have a long history of cohabitation with humans, and this approach assumes that their domestication will continue indefinitely. These radiation cats would change significantly in color when they came near radioactive emissions and serve as living indicators of danger.[3]
[1] https://www.ans.org/news/article-416/the-art-of-the-10000yea...
[2] https://www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_15088
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-term_nuclear_waste_warnin...
>has lost all records of current generations
Doesn't seem impossible. Just see how much trouble we have understanding writing systems from 8000 BCE.
You only need a few generation of lost ability to read/write for solid documentation of nuclear waste and radioactivity to turn into myth at best. This does not seem unlikely over a duration of 10000y. Such a myth may be just enough for people to seek out a dangerous place without understanding the danger.
Doesn't seem impossible. Just see how much trouble we have understanding writing systems from 8000 BCE.
You only need a few generation of lost ability to read/write for solid documentation of nuclear waste and radioactivity to turn into myth at best. This does not seem unlikely over a duration of 10000y. Such a myth may be just enough for people to seek out a dangerous place without understanding the danger.
> How do we communicate to civilisations in the future what we did in that mountain?
The more dangerous stuff burns itself out quickly (short half-life), and the longer-lasting stuff is not very dangerous given the type of radiation it is and can be blocked quite easily
So, probably bury it deep enough with little external sign that it's actually there, and if it is actually discovered it won't be that big of a deal:
> The main concern associated with spent nuclear fuel – radioactivity – diminishes with time.
> About 40 years after it's done making power, the heat and radioactivity of the fuel bundle will have fallen by over 99%.
* https://twitter.com/MadiHilly/status/1550148416881180674
> About three containers are needed to store the quantity of fuel that is removed each 12-24 months; the space taken up by even a 60 year plant life is less than is needed for a Wal-Mart even without any efforts to efficiently stack the containers.
* https://atomicinsights.com/time-for-plan-b-yucca-mountain-pr...
The more dangerous stuff burns itself out quickly (short half-life), and the longer-lasting stuff is not very dangerous given the type of radiation it is and can be blocked quite easily
So, probably bury it deep enough with little external sign that it's actually there, and if it is actually discovered it won't be that big of a deal:
> The main concern associated with spent nuclear fuel – radioactivity – diminishes with time.
> About 40 years after it's done making power, the heat and radioactivity of the fuel bundle will have fallen by over 99%.
* https://twitter.com/MadiHilly/status/1550148416881180674
> About three containers are needed to store the quantity of fuel that is removed each 12-24 months; the space taken up by even a 60 year plant life is less than is needed for a Wal-Mart even without any efforts to efficiently stack the containers.
* https://atomicinsights.com/time-for-plan-b-yucca-mountain-pr...
10,000 years from now, I hope the civilization has got to a point where robots or whatever sentient thing is around can sniff out radioactivity.
Long term thinking > Short term thinking > Extreme long term thinking.
Long term thinking > Short term thinking > Extreme long term thinking.
How do we communicate with civilizations in the future to not eat the fish and mollusks out of the rivers. You know, the ones that are currently being contaminated with mercury and other forever chemicals from both coal ash and rare earth tailing?
Please, let us know your plan.
P.S. This is not a hypothetical problem, like the demands you are making of nuclear. This is a current and ongoing one. Your green energy isn't as green as you claim it is, please tell us your solution.
Please, let us know your plan.
P.S. This is not a hypothetical problem, like the demands you are making of nuclear. This is a current and ongoing one. Your green energy isn't as green as you claim it is, please tell us your solution.
This will not be a problem at all, there will not be a lot of edible freshwater molluscs around. They are going extinct really fast.
Maybe we should be more concerned about ensuring that there is an advanced civilization to worry about in 10,000 years. We can start by making sure humanity is well situated with energy supplies for the next few centuries, and nuclear is part of the answer to that step.
Besides, nuclear fuel dumps are few and far between, and easily avoided once identified. I'm touched that you care so much about a few individual lives 10,000 years from now, but we've got millions if not billions of lives to worry about in this century.
Besides, nuclear fuel dumps are few and far between, and easily avoided once identified. I'm touched that you care so much about a few individual lives 10,000 years from now, but we've got millions if not billions of lives to worry about in this century.
This is for the most part not a realistic practical issue. Either the civilizations in the future are continuations of our current civilization and have records or they're advanced enough to have the ability to detect radiation thus making the issue moot or they've regressed enough to lose that knowledge and people stumbling into a radioactive waste storage facility is the least of our concerns.
Current thinking is not to mark the place. Why attract attention to it?
Any future civilization capable of finding that it's interesting and digging down through a mile or more of hard rock and concrete probably knows about radioactivity.
We talk about humans, is guaranteed that they will lick the warm shiny stones behind a huge "don't lick this" banner.
But they will learn eventually after a couple of deaths, as we did every single time. We are trying to solve the wrong problem here; Is the population what counts.
But they will learn eventually after a couple of deaths, as we did every single time. We are trying to solve the wrong problem here; Is the population what counts.
> Alpha radiation is completely harmless and doesn’t even get through a sheet of paper.
It is indeed harmless outside of your body, but it is devastating inside of your body.
The reason is that outside of your body, it is blocked by your layer of dead skin, if it gets to it, your dead skin ends up pretty messed up as it absorbs all the energy of the alpha particle. But no big deal, it is dead, doesn't take part of your biology, can't turn cancerous. But now, if that alpha emitter ends up inside of your body, maybe in your lungs as you breathe in radioactive dust, it will end up dumping all of its energy inside of your live cells, damaging DNA and doing everything bad ionizing radiation can do.
Gamma radiation, the unstoppable one is actually less dangerous if it finds its way inside your body, that's because it will go right through it, it will mess up a few cells on its way out, but most of its energy will be dumped outside of you.
It is indeed harmless outside of your body, but it is devastating inside of your body.
The reason is that outside of your body, it is blocked by your layer of dead skin, if it gets to it, your dead skin ends up pretty messed up as it absorbs all the energy of the alpha particle. But no big deal, it is dead, doesn't take part of your biology, can't turn cancerous. But now, if that alpha emitter ends up inside of your body, maybe in your lungs as you breathe in radioactive dust, it will end up dumping all of its energy inside of your live cells, damaging DNA and doing everything bad ionizing radiation can do.
Gamma radiation, the unstoppable one is actually less dangerous if it finds its way inside your body, that's because it will go right through it, it will mess up a few cells on its way out, but most of its energy will be dumped outside of you.
Apparently the author has never heard of Polonium-210, arguably the deadliest substance on Earth. what makes it so deadly is it has an extremely short half life (~138 days) and releases almost all of that energy as alpha particles.
How leathal? Roughly 6.8 trillionths of a gram [1].
Luckily Po-210 isn't a huge danger because of the short half life and it's really only produced by governments in very small quantities. But the point is that any alpha particle emitter ingested is potentially a massive health risk.
And what happens at an accident like Chernobyl? It scatters a ton of dust over a huge area that consists of many radioactive isotopes, some of which are just toxic by themselves (eg Caesium) but also some of them are alpha particle emitters. That dust gets into the food chain.
[1]: https://www.reuters.com/article/palestinians-arafat-swiss-po...
How leathal? Roughly 6.8 trillionths of a gram [1].
Luckily Po-210 isn't a huge danger because of the short half life and it's really only produced by governments in very small quantities. But the point is that any alpha particle emitter ingested is potentially a massive health risk.
And what happens at an accident like Chernobyl? It scatters a ton of dust over a huge area that consists of many radioactive isotopes, some of which are just toxic by themselves (eg Caesium) but also some of them are alpha particle emitters. That dust gets into the food chain.
[1]: https://www.reuters.com/article/palestinians-arafat-swiss-po...
So it's analogous to rifle bullet and hollow point pistol bullet comparison.
How is it going to get inside your body?
Mostly from dust you breathe in, or contaminated water or food. And in one famous case, injected by a secret agent using an umbrella.
> And in one famous case, injected by a secret agent using an umbrella
I think you're mixing up the Litvinenko murder, which used polonium in a beverage, and Makenko, who got injected with poision with the tip of an umbrella.
I think you're mixing up the Litvinenko murder, which used polonium in a beverage, and Makenko, who got injected with poision with the tip of an umbrella.
The article is a bit fast and loose with its data. Borssele indeed has limited high-energy radioactive waste; the article omits that there is also low-energy radioactive waste - a lot more, in fact.
Similarly, recycling may be a problem for solar panels, but is that better for nuclear? I have never heard / read about how to recycle the (radioactive) non-fuel parts of a nuclear reactor.
I'm not against nuclear per se, but articles such as this one don't help. I think there's a genuine case for nuclear to be made; this isn't it.
Similarly, recycling may be a problem for solar panels, but is that better for nuclear? I have never heard / read about how to recycle the (radioactive) non-fuel parts of a nuclear reactor.
I'm not against nuclear per se, but articles such as this one don't help. I think there's a genuine case for nuclear to be made; this isn't it.
Recycling is not in fact any kind of problem for solar. There is a large, organized campaign by the derelict energy industry to plant the meme of solar as some kind of toxic menace but it just isn't one.
There is no cadmium in solar panels. There was a small amount in thin film panels briefly favored by utility-scale solar plants but thin film is economically dead and nobody is buying those.
Antimony is used in the glass, not the panel. The glass contains ~1g/kg of antimony, and PV panels contain about 50 tonnes of glass per MW (most of the panel mass is the glass). That works out to 50kg of antimony per MW, i.e. basically none. If you took all the antimony out of a 1GW solar plant and somehow dissolved it in water - which can't happen because antimony trioxide isn't even soluble in water, and dissolving metals out of glass with water is practically impossible - and if you dumped all that into Lake Shasta, it would still be within drinking water standards. And again, nobody will dump this into the environment because fifty million kilos of high-grade glass is going to get recycled, not dumped.
I think it's sad that the nuclear boosters are being duped into spreading these lies about solar panels.
There is no cadmium in solar panels. There was a small amount in thin film panels briefly favored by utility-scale solar plants but thin film is economically dead and nobody is buying those.
Antimony is used in the glass, not the panel. The glass contains ~1g/kg of antimony, and PV panels contain about 50 tonnes of glass per MW (most of the panel mass is the glass). That works out to 50kg of antimony per MW, i.e. basically none. If you took all the antimony out of a 1GW solar plant and somehow dissolved it in water - which can't happen because antimony trioxide isn't even soluble in water, and dissolving metals out of glass with water is practically impossible - and if you dumped all that into Lake Shasta, it would still be within drinking water standards. And again, nobody will dump this into the environment because fifty million kilos of high-grade glass is going to get recycled, not dumped.
I think it's sad that the nuclear boosters are being duped into spreading these lies about solar panels.
> Alpha radiation is completely harmless and doesn’t even get through a sheet of paper.
That is not correct. Yes, alpha radiation doesn’t penetrate skin, but is dangerous if you ingest it. That’s one of the reasons people have abandoned underground long-term storage sites: they all eventually have water break ins and the worry is that the waste will contaminate fresh water supplies.
That is not correct. Yes, alpha radiation doesn’t penetrate skin, but is dangerous if you ingest it. That’s one of the reasons people have abandoned underground long-term storage sites: they all eventually have water break ins and the worry is that the waste will contaminate fresh water supplies.
Ok, so another pro-nuclear puff piece. Why do I say that? Because it talks about nuclear waste without ever mentioning the other kind: fuel processing waste.
Nuclear fuel needs to be enriched. Enriching is simply upping the percentage of U-235 (the rest is mostly U-238). Civilian reactors tend to have relatively low enrichment rates. So-called weapons grade is enriched to a very high percentage and requires different processes.
So U-235 and U-238 are chemically identical. So how do you enrich a sample? Centrifuges. You make a Uranium gas. The U-238 molecules will be heavier. Spin them in a centrifuge and you can extract them at a greater percentage and then pass on the gas to the next centrifuge. You do this repeatedly until you get the enrichment level you want and then extract the metal from the gas.
The gas of choice is UF6 (Uranium Hexaflouride). That itself is a toxic byproduct that needs to be stored or otherwise dealt with. We don't really have a good solution for this either. There is some reprocessing that basically turns UF6 into less toxic UF4 but it's not really economic.
As always, pro-nuclear propaganda focuses on deaths because deaths doesn't capture the negative impact of nuclear. Why? Because the Chernobyl disaster directly killed less than 100 (it also probably killed tens of thousands through cancers in the following years but that's harder to attribute and easier for people to collectively ignore).
But still the Chernobyl absolute exclusion zone, from one incident, is quite literally 1,000 square miles even now, almost 40 years later.
Deaths or deaths per TWh just doesn't capture that impact and those failure modes, which is precisely why such propaganda focuses on deaths.
But none of that is the big problem with commercial nuclear power. It's the fallibility of humans to manage, maintain, build and transport and store (fuel and waste) to a sufficient level to avoid disasters. The profit motive provides an incentive to skimp on some or all of these. Corruption is an issue with both corporations and governments.
Humans are just incredibly bad at managing long-term consequences, which is why we have the climate crisis to begin with.
Nuclear fuel needs to be enriched. Enriching is simply upping the percentage of U-235 (the rest is mostly U-238). Civilian reactors tend to have relatively low enrichment rates. So-called weapons grade is enriched to a very high percentage and requires different processes.
So U-235 and U-238 are chemically identical. So how do you enrich a sample? Centrifuges. You make a Uranium gas. The U-238 molecules will be heavier. Spin them in a centrifuge and you can extract them at a greater percentage and then pass on the gas to the next centrifuge. You do this repeatedly until you get the enrichment level you want and then extract the metal from the gas.
The gas of choice is UF6 (Uranium Hexaflouride). That itself is a toxic byproduct that needs to be stored or otherwise dealt with. We don't really have a good solution for this either. There is some reprocessing that basically turns UF6 into less toxic UF4 but it's not really economic.
As always, pro-nuclear propaganda focuses on deaths because deaths doesn't capture the negative impact of nuclear. Why? Because the Chernobyl disaster directly killed less than 100 (it also probably killed tens of thousands through cancers in the following years but that's harder to attribute and easier for people to collectively ignore).
But still the Chernobyl absolute exclusion zone, from one incident, is quite literally 1,000 square miles even now, almost 40 years later.
Deaths or deaths per TWh just doesn't capture that impact and those failure modes, which is precisely why such propaganda focuses on deaths.
But none of that is the big problem with commercial nuclear power. It's the fallibility of humans to manage, maintain, build and transport and store (fuel and waste) to a sufficient level to avoid disasters. The profit motive provides an incentive to skimp on some or all of these. Corruption is an issue with both corporations and governments.
Humans are just incredibly bad at managing long-term consequences, which is why we have the climate crisis to begin with.
FWIW, South Korea is quite corrupt as a system (all its presidents have gone to jail following their term minus one who was jailed already by a previous administration) yet is able to operate its nuclear reactors fine at high safety levels. It doesn’t have the kind of earthquake risks that Japan does but it does have plenty of typhoons / hurricanes hit that could impact structural integrity of its infrastructure quite regularly. This is a country where one of its largest malls collapsed killing many people while its executives hid the problems and tried to flee the country.
There are not many data points in terms of number of countries using nuclear nor do I think it’s a panacea or anything for our problems, but from a realistic standpoint we need as many solutions other than fossil fuels on the table right now as a species if we’re to tackle the climate crisis with the gravity it deserves, and nuclear can buy some more options especially if we start deploying small modular reactors that can quickly shutdown fossil fuel power plants. As it stands, aging nuclear power plants tend to be replaced not with another, modern plant but with fossil fuel based plants to meet similar performance and logistical characteristics.
There are not many data points in terms of number of countries using nuclear nor do I think it’s a panacea or anything for our problems, but from a realistic standpoint we need as many solutions other than fossil fuels on the table right now as a species if we’re to tackle the climate crisis with the gravity it deserves, and nuclear can buy some more options especially if we start deploying small modular reactors that can quickly shutdown fossil fuel power plants. As it stands, aging nuclear power plants tend to be replaced not with another, modern plant but with fossil fuel based plants to meet similar performance and logistical characteristics.
How many years have France been safely operating their Nuclear plants? Germany too?
You speak of a Chernobyl exclusion zone, but I don't see anyone living where they've put up large scale solar farms or next to wind turbines.
You're right about humans not managing long term consequences well. From lead poisoning 40 years ago to 20 years from now when we have to deal with the waste of solar left behind (perhaps toxic waste if not dealt with right now).
We need nuclear now. No nonsense blockers. Build more plants and replace the coal, oil and gas base load stations we're running now to try slow the rate of carbon we're throwing into the sky.
And yes, we need more investment into solar and wind. It's a solution that is solved by multiple alternatives, not dummies getting behind one alternative and saying no to the rest.
You speak of a Chernobyl exclusion zone, but I don't see anyone living where they've put up large scale solar farms or next to wind turbines.
You're right about humans not managing long term consequences well. From lead poisoning 40 years ago to 20 years from now when we have to deal with the waste of solar left behind (perhaps toxic waste if not dealt with right now).
We need nuclear now. No nonsense blockers. Build more plants and replace the coal, oil and gas base load stations we're running now to try slow the rate of carbon we're throwing into the sky.
And yes, we need more investment into solar and wind. It's a solution that is solved by multiple alternatives, not dummies getting behind one alternative and saying no to the rest.
> You speak of a Chernobyl exclusion zone, but I don't see anyone living where they've put up large scale solar farms or next to wind turbines.
then you need to look more carefully:
https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/krughutt... https://cached.imagescaler.hbpl.co.uk/resize/scaleWidth/882/...
then you need to look more carefully:
https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/krughutt... https://cached.imagescaler.hbpl.co.uk/resize/scaleWidth/882/...
> We need nuclear now. No nonsense blockers. Build more plants and replace the coal, oil and gas base load stations we're running now to try slow the rate of carbon we're throwing into the sky.
you can't get it now. You have to wait at least 10 years to get a plant up & running.
solar and wind - doesnt take even a year
you can't get it now. You have to wait at least 10 years to get a plant up & running.
solar and wind - doesnt take even a year
Do i really need to correct myself to say we need to start building now for you not to defeat my argument?
Thus the best time for nuclear to be built was 10 years ago!
If we as a people actually invested in technology all those issues could easily be save.
If we had invested in actual advanced breeder reactors this is a non issue.
As an example, a modern molten salt thorium breeder only requires dissolved thorium.
But of course if we stop innovation at the first generation and then do nothing for 50 years we are not gone have optimal technology.
If we had invested in actual advanced breeder reactors this is a non issue.
As an example, a modern molten salt thorium breeder only requires dissolved thorium.
But of course if we stop innovation at the first generation and then do nothing for 50 years we are not gone have optimal technology.
Use HF6 as fuel for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_lightbulb
> Alpha radiation is completely harmless and doesn’t even get through a sheet of paper
.. unless it gets inside you, in which case it can be extremely damaging.
.. unless it gets inside you, in which case it can be extremely damaging.
I find it asonishing that only now I learn that radioactive waste stays much longer radioactive than being dangerous. Also other good arguments are put forward by normalizing material costs VS expected energy production capacity.
radioactive waste stays much longer radioactive than being dangerous
If it’s radioactive it’s dangerous. The article points out that radioactive waste doesn’t stay radioactive for very long, contrary to what is commonly believed.
If it’s radioactive it’s dangerous. The article points out that radioactive waste doesn’t stay radioactive for very long, contrary to what is commonly believed.
Bananas are radioactive and not dangerous.
In the context of a discussion about nuclear reactors bananas are not radioactive.
Radioactive sources have all kinds of applications in industry and medicine. If you have been to the dentist, you have probably been near one. They are dangerous in the same sense that a falling brick is dangerous.
Come to New York to see the extent to which a fearful people will go to prevent the danger from falling bricks. [1] /s
I'm joking here, but the joke underscores a painful truth: an irrationally fearful, small group of people seem to be able to utterly paralyze democratic society, and this pathology seems to be worse in societies that self-identify as focused on collective good. People who define themselves by their own idealism are easily sidetracked by hypothetical risks.
As for New York, it isn't entirely unrelated that they're shutting down their one remaining nuclear plant (and as a result, dramatically increasing NYCs dependency on fossil fuels) [2].
[1] https://www.6sqft.com/the-number-of-sidewalk-sheds-in-nyc-ha...
[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/12/nyregion/indian-point-pow...
I'm joking here, but the joke underscores a painful truth: an irrationally fearful, small group of people seem to be able to utterly paralyze democratic society, and this pathology seems to be worse in societies that self-identify as focused on collective good. People who define themselves by their own idealism are easily sidetracked by hypothetical risks.
As for New York, it isn't entirely unrelated that they're shutting down their one remaining nuclear plant (and as a result, dramatically increasing NYCs dependency on fossil fuels) [2].
[1] https://www.6sqft.com/the-number-of-sidewalk-sheds-in-nyc-ha...
[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/12/nyregion/indian-point-pow...
I’m sorry, are you questioning the fact that exposure to strong gamma radiation would kill you? What are you talking about?
The article makes its point well, but its title is unnecessarily polarizing.
However little, fission does produce dangerous materials that need to be handled very carefully and stored in places where nobody cares that they are actually radioactive. What if fission was to replace 90% of other energy sources. Would you trust everyone in the world to dispose of their waste responsibly?
And while Chernobyl is far in the rear-view mirror, Fukushima is not. So while improbable, it is hard to argue that catastrophic nuclear events won't happen again.
Why not acknowledge the tradeoff in the title and say it's one of the cleanest and safest. People get the point about air travel: "it seems riskier because catastrophic failures are much more spectacular, but overall air travel is a lot safer than car travel". No one is saying "planes don't crash"
However little, fission does produce dangerous materials that need to be handled very carefully and stored in places where nobody cares that they are actually radioactive. What if fission was to replace 90% of other energy sources. Would you trust everyone in the world to dispose of their waste responsibly?
And while Chernobyl is far in the rear-view mirror, Fukushima is not. So while improbable, it is hard to argue that catastrophic nuclear events won't happen again.
Why not acknowledge the tradeoff in the title and say it's one of the cleanest and safest. People get the point about air travel: "it seems riskier because catastrophic failures are much more spectacular, but overall air travel is a lot safer than car travel". No one is saying "planes don't crash"
Really interesting to see how much people fight nuclear power. We’ve been complaining about fossil fuels for decades, and now that the US seems to be seriously exploring a viable alternative you’re going to complain about it?
I get that there are issues and unknowns, but it’s better than the current death march, isn’t it?
I get that there are issues and unknowns, but it’s better than the current death march, isn’t it?
> and now that the US seems to be seriously exploring a viable alternative
This phrase sounds weird to me, given that US explored nuclear power more than 50 years ago, and is also exploring other viable alternatives now (wind and solar).
This phrase sounds weird to me, given that US explored nuclear power more than 50 years ago, and is also exploring other viable alternatives now (wind and solar).
> I get that there are issues and unknowns, but it’s better than the current death march, isn’t it?
This is really what the whole argument boils down to: nuclear, or global warming. There's really not real, feasible renewable answer. It takes over 1300 wind turbines to match the power output of a single reactor. Solar? 1-3 Million panels. Most civilian facilities operate 3-6 reactors. Fission is the only technology that can make a dent in co2 emissions quickly. The only viable argument against nuclear is "cost" and that is only because of the ridiculous level of regulation and litigation surrounding nuclear power.
This is really what the whole argument boils down to: nuclear, or global warming. There's really not real, feasible renewable answer. It takes over 1300 wind turbines to match the power output of a single reactor. Solar? 1-3 Million panels. Most civilian facilities operate 3-6 reactors. Fission is the only technology that can make a dent in co2 emissions quickly. The only viable argument against nuclear is "cost" and that is only because of the ridiculous level of regulation and litigation surrounding nuclear power.
> It takes over 1300 wind turbines to match the power output of a single reactor. Solar? 1-3 Million panels. Most civilian facilities operate 3-6 reactors.
At least for solar, that comparison is specious. It would be like separately counting each rod or even each pellet of nuclear fuel in a reactor's core, and using that as an argument against nuclear power. It makes more sense to compare whole solar power plants, not individual panels. From a quick look at the data for my country, most solar power plants have over 20 MW output each, and they are in facilities with 3-10 solar power plants. Looking at the same data source, wind also seems to use a similar grouping here (power plants containing several turbines with a total output over 20MW, then grouped into facilities with 3-10 power plants).
> Fission is the only technology that can make a dent in co2 emissions quickly. The only viable argument against nuclear is "cost" and that is only because of the ridiculous level of regulation and litigation surrounding nuclear power.
Cost is not the only argument. If you want to make it quickly, construction time is just as important, and nuclear loses badly here (though I might be a bit biased on that, since the latest reactor being built near where I live has been under construction for decades, with no end in sight). Solar and to a lesser extent wind have the advantage of simplicity and modularity, which tend to not only reduce the cost, but also enable them to be built quicker and in parallel, and make them much less risky to build; if one out of ten 20 MW solar power plants being built hits a problem, you still have the other nine, but if your single 1350 MW reactor being built since the 1980s hits some unexpected problem, you have nothing.
As for the level of regulation, it's an unavoidable consequence of how dangerous nuclear fuel (and the materials and fluids irradiated by it in the reactor core) is; you have to make sure it stays contained, so that a nuclear power plant is as safe as (or even safer than) other kinds of power plant. But that's not the whole reason for the high cost; there's the complexity of the reactor itself (including materials which can resist the radiation), and nuclear power plants tend to use things like a single hydrogen-cooled gigawatt-power turbine for each reactor core. Just the electrical infrastructure (transformers, circuit breakers, etc) which can deal with gigawatt levels of power at once is already costly.
At least for solar, that comparison is specious. It would be like separately counting each rod or even each pellet of nuclear fuel in a reactor's core, and using that as an argument against nuclear power. It makes more sense to compare whole solar power plants, not individual panels. From a quick look at the data for my country, most solar power plants have over 20 MW output each, and they are in facilities with 3-10 solar power plants. Looking at the same data source, wind also seems to use a similar grouping here (power plants containing several turbines with a total output over 20MW, then grouped into facilities with 3-10 power plants).
> Fission is the only technology that can make a dent in co2 emissions quickly. The only viable argument against nuclear is "cost" and that is only because of the ridiculous level of regulation and litigation surrounding nuclear power.
Cost is not the only argument. If you want to make it quickly, construction time is just as important, and nuclear loses badly here (though I might be a bit biased on that, since the latest reactor being built near where I live has been under construction for decades, with no end in sight). Solar and to a lesser extent wind have the advantage of simplicity and modularity, which tend to not only reduce the cost, but also enable them to be built quicker and in parallel, and make them much less risky to build; if one out of ten 20 MW solar power plants being built hits a problem, you still have the other nine, but if your single 1350 MW reactor being built since the 1980s hits some unexpected problem, you have nothing.
As for the level of regulation, it's an unavoidable consequence of how dangerous nuclear fuel (and the materials and fluids irradiated by it in the reactor core) is; you have to make sure it stays contained, so that a nuclear power plant is as safe as (or even safer than) other kinds of power plant. But that's not the whole reason for the high cost; there's the complexity of the reactor itself (including materials which can resist the radiation), and nuclear power plants tend to use things like a single hydrogen-cooled gigawatt-power turbine for each reactor core. Just the electrical infrastructure (transformers, circuit breakers, etc) which can deal with gigawatt levels of power at once is already costly.
> There's really not real, feasible renewable answer.
But there is, and it's likely cheaper than the nuclear answer.
But there is, and it's likely cheaper than the nuclear answer.
The killer for nuclear is the expense and the non-zero risk of catastrophe.
No one has a real plan to deal with the costs (it's a very large problem with political issues around waste costs). Modular reactors might help with this (small or not) but who wants to spend a trillion £/$/Euros to find out they don't? Most people insist on pretending the costs aren't prohibitive and that's not really a viable solution.
No one has a real plan to deal with risks:
* like it or not you cannot compare all risks on a simple probabilitycost basis. People treat a 1/1mil chance they will lose their homes more seriously than a 1/10 chance they will get lung cancer in 40 years.
the underlying issues are not technological, they're organisational and political (We've had safe reactor designs for decades, then someone comes along and disables all the safety features to get 5% more power to secure their quarterly bonus). So you cannot solve them with a redesign at a tech level.
No one has a real plan to deal with the costs (it's a very large problem with political issues around waste costs). Modular reactors might help with this (small or not) but who wants to spend a trillion £/$/Euros to find out they don't? Most people insist on pretending the costs aren't prohibitive and that's not really a viable solution.
No one has a real plan to deal with risks:
* like it or not you cannot compare all risks on a simple probabilitycost basis. People treat a 1/1mil chance they will lose their homes more seriously than a 1/10 chance they will get lung cancer in 40 years.
the underlying issues are not technological, they're organisational and political (We've had safe reactor designs for decades, then someone comes along and disables all the safety features to get 5% more power to secure their quarterly bonus). So you cannot solve them with a redesign at a tech level.
> The argument is well known: nuclear power causes pollution
It does? News to me.
It does? News to me.
Nuclear power has a paradox with respect to pollution: it's a highly dangerous form of pollution (heavy metals which are also radioactive), but in normal operation, it's completely contained (and nuclear power operators tend to be very paranoid about it; minor amounts of radiation which would be considered harmless everywhere else are treated as unacceptable outside the designated radioactive areas). So depending on how you look of it, it can either have a high amount of dangerous pollution, or none at all.
(There's another form of pollution from nuclear power plants, which is heat pollution from discharged cooling water, but most people aren't talking about that.)
(There's another form of pollution from nuclear power plants, which is heat pollution from discharged cooling water, but most people aren't talking about that.)
The energy it takes to refine the uranium is also not zero.
And uranium mining operations are also known for leaving a bit of a mess around them, polluting nearby rivers, etc. Suspiciously often close to indigenous lands as well.
[A sidenote about investing in nuclear plants, with the example of the UK]
The United Kingdom is an interesting example of a country which is very interested in having nuclear power and which has less and less of it at the moment because of a lack of investment.
As you probably know, the UK is fairly liberal country, which means that it relies heavily on private companies to get things achieved. Nuclear power, as opposed to coal and gas, has the particularity of having an economic structure in which you have to pay for almost everything before starting up the plant.
You have a huge share of initial investment, and then the relative share of operating costs is very small. And when you are in a context where you have to pay for just about everything before you start the plant, it's a context in which, in the world of private capital, it's hard to to do. In other words, private companies like not to wait too long to see the ROI.
So when you have to put in a lot of money, build for 8 years, possibly 10, possibly even 12 years, before you start to have a €1 turnover, this is stuff that the private sector doesn't like at all. So in the UK, the fact that the electricity production system was placed in the private domain (as in many other places in Europe, but it has been done even earlier in the UK than in the other places) led to a lack of investment in nuclear plants.
(Exactly the same process happened with the railways in the UK)
The United Kingdom is an interesting example of a country which is very interested in having nuclear power and which has less and less of it at the moment because of a lack of investment.
As you probably know, the UK is fairly liberal country, which means that it relies heavily on private companies to get things achieved. Nuclear power, as opposed to coal and gas, has the particularity of having an economic structure in which you have to pay for almost everything before starting up the plant.
You have a huge share of initial investment, and then the relative share of operating costs is very small. And when you are in a context where you have to pay for just about everything before you start the plant, it's a context in which, in the world of private capital, it's hard to to do. In other words, private companies like not to wait too long to see the ROI.
So when you have to put in a lot of money, build for 8 years, possibly 10, possibly even 12 years, before you start to have a €1 turnover, this is stuff that the private sector doesn't like at all. So in the UK, the fact that the electricity production system was placed in the private domain (as in many other places in Europe, but it has been done even earlier in the UK than in the other places) led to a lack of investment in nuclear plants.
(Exactly the same process happened with the railways in the UK)
A good estimate to gauge the societal investment needed to generate electricity in a certain way, is to look at its total cost in dollar/MWh. Wikipedia has a nice graphic prepared for just that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#... (which ignores externalized costs like CO2 or nuclear waste)
You can see in there that nuclear has triple the cost compared to solar.
As we need to replace as much fossil-fueled power plants as possible and as quickly as possible, wasting ressources into building nuclear power plants sounds stupid. Other interesting factors:
* Heating climate is a risk for nuclear https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/07/climate-events-are-t...
* Maintenance cost is hard to predict https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/EDF-revises-up-c...
* 30 planned + 60 unplanned days shutdown on average https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=37252
As we need to replace as much fossil-fueled power plants as possible and as quickly as possible, wasting ressources into building nuclear power plants sounds stupid. Other interesting factors:
* Heating climate is a risk for nuclear https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/07/climate-events-are-t...
* Maintenance cost is hard to predict https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/EDF-revises-up-c...
* 30 planned + 60 unplanned days shutdown on average https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=37252
And how does that compare to the business-as-usual shutdowns of solar (every night, cloudy days, winter as a whole) which unlike nuclear are highly correlated between separate plants?
If storage is cheap enough then solar will be an important part of the mix. But unless you have the right geography for geothermal or hydro (which probably means flooding a bigger area than the chernobyl exclusion zone before you've even started, but leaving that aside), nuclear is still the only viable option for clean, reliable baseline power. It's not an either/or, we should be building both.
If storage is cheap enough then solar will be an important part of the mix. But unless you have the right geography for geothermal or hydro (which probably means flooding a bigger area than the chernobyl exclusion zone before you've even started, but leaving that aside), nuclear is still the only viable option for clean, reliable baseline power. It's not an either/or, we should be building both.
I heard somewhere that the base load of power is an mostly an outdated concern at this point. As more homes get solar and offload their excess power back into the grid during the the daytime. Reducing the baseload to negative.
https://www.nrdc.org/experts/kevin-steinberger/debunking-thr...
https://www.nrdc.org/experts/kevin-steinberger/debunking-thr...
You have to read these partisan pieces carefully. When they say "a mix of renewables and natural gas can x", they actually mean "natural gas can x" - but burning natural gas emits CO2. And a 30% wind grid in Texas worked out right until it didn't (the media blamed it all on lack of "winterization" which may be the immediate cause, but the fact is that the high wind mix meant the grid was having to work a lot harder and is one of the biggest underlying causes).
For all that article's efforts to quibble with definitions, the fact is that a grid that is all or mostly renewables (except for hydro and geothermal, which are great for the places that are suitable for them, but not available everywhere) will have blackouts. Lots of things can be demand-managed but lots of things can't. If you want electricity to be available 24/7 then the grid absolutely does need to "overpay" for generators that are available 24/7 (and sure, nuclear plants have unexpected shutdowns like anything else, but those outages are going to be uncorrelated with each other), and whether you call that "baseload" or some other term is neither here nor there.
For all that article's efforts to quibble with definitions, the fact is that a grid that is all or mostly renewables (except for hydro and geothermal, which are great for the places that are suitable for them, but not available everywhere) will have blackouts. Lots of things can be demand-managed but lots of things can't. If you want electricity to be available 24/7 then the grid absolutely does need to "overpay" for generators that are available 24/7 (and sure, nuclear plants have unexpected shutdowns like anything else, but those outages are going to be uncorrelated with each other), and whether you call that "baseload" or some other term is neither here nor there.
Agreed. Natural gas is not a feasible alternative to coal and oil on its own as the greenhouse emissions are simply to high. However, a natural gas power plant that runs only when demand calls for it and renewables (+ stored renewables) are unable to supply is not an end of the world scenario (which our current climate trajectory certainly is).
I’m even hopeful of a future where these natural gas plants will have carbon capture employed. But you are right, as it stands natural gas power plant is not a solution to the climate crisis.
I’m even hopeful of a future where these natural gas plants will have carbon capture employed. But you are right, as it stands natural gas power plant is not a solution to the climate crisis.
That is just to show that nuclear isn't a magical always-on power source that some of the pro-nuclear folks make it out to be. Also: we can install twice the capacity in MW for solar and still have money left over to put into a smarter grid or storage compared to nuclear.
No.
Firstly, you talk about $ per capacity in MW, however solar capacity factor is 20%. Only use a levelized cost per MWh.
Secondly, solar needs storage which you think is trivial, but which turns out to be wayyyy more expensive than the solar panels. Some reports[1] only compare short-term (peaker generation) for storage. Nuclear is expensive, but battery storage is far more expensive to cover daily or longer load variation (non-peaker). That report mentions in a footnote a levelized cost of storage of crazy high $1613/MWh to $3034/MWh.
[1] https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-...
Firstly, you talk about $ per capacity in MW, however solar capacity factor is 20%. Only use a levelized cost per MWh.
Secondly, solar needs storage which you think is trivial, but which turns out to be wayyyy more expensive than the solar panels. Some reports[1] only compare short-term (peaker generation) for storage. Nuclear is expensive, but battery storage is far more expensive to cover daily or longer load variation (non-peaker). That report mentions in a footnote a levelized cost of storage of crazy high $1613/MWh to $3034/MWh.
[1] https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-...
No, the original plot was in MWh. But even for LCOE wikipedia (citing lazard) shows the same 3xfactor between solar/wind and nuclear: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levelized_cost_of_electricity
I strongly disagree with your point “we can install twice the capacity in MW for solar and still have money left over to put into a smarter grid or storage” because you appear to be making up numbers - what is your reference to sources?
You used MW in that comment - your new comment is not clarifying whether you made a mistake or what your actual point is.
LCOE is an averaged cost/MWh, which is absolutely inappropriate to use when discussing whether nuclear is expensive or not, because LCOE ignores usage patterns (which you obviously know, but are hand-waving away as “money left over”). From your Wikipedia link: “One of the most important potential limitations of LCOE is that it may not control for time effects associated with matching electricity production to demand” and “To ensure enough electricity is always available to meet demand, storage or backup generation may be required, which adds costs that are not included in the LCOE”.
Finally, almost any plot that uses “installed capacity” is deceptive by design: because capacity factors make solar/wind appear 5x better, which is not a trivial difference on a graph. Instantaneous capacity is usually not relevant (except during “peaker” loads).
You used MW in that comment - your new comment is not clarifying whether you made a mistake or what your actual point is.
LCOE is an averaged cost/MWh, which is absolutely inappropriate to use when discussing whether nuclear is expensive or not, because LCOE ignores usage patterns (which you obviously know, but are hand-waving away as “money left over”). From your Wikipedia link: “One of the most important potential limitations of LCOE is that it may not control for time effects associated with matching electricity production to demand” and “To ensure enough electricity is always available to meet demand, storage or backup generation may be required, which adds costs that are not included in the LCOE”.
Finally, almost any plot that uses “installed capacity” is deceptive by design: because capacity factors make solar/wind appear 5x better, which is not a trivial difference on a graph. Instantaneous capacity is usually not relevant (except during “peaker” loads).
The big con for a solar/battery grid isn't the cost, it's the raw materials. We need an absurd amount of copper/lithium/cobalt etc.. and we need to be mining orders of magnitudes more than we do now.
That is not a proven fact. We probably need more silicon for the solar cells. But there is nothing about lithium ion batteries which makes them our only good choice for storing energy from renewables. Gravity is probably our best energy storage at present, there is also nickle metal hydrade for home storage, and in the near future we are probably gonna be looking at molten salt batteries (e.g. calcium-antimony liquid-metal batteries) for large scale storage. We are probably only gonna need to mine the lithium and cobalt for our consumer electronics (including electric cars). For public transit systems that can’t connect to the power grid for some reason, there is always hydrogen fuel-cells.
So no, we are not going to be needing an absurd amount of any one mineral (except maybe silicon) as they all have alternatives which quite often are even better then lithium and cobalt.
So no, we are not going to be needing an absurd amount of any one mineral (except maybe silicon) as they all have alternatives which quite often are even better then lithium and cobalt.
Silicon is the second most abundant element in the Earth's crust. Pick up a random rock and it will average 26% silicon. There is absolutely not ever going to be a shortage of the element silicon.
But the storage costs for winter are on the order of 100x the power generation. Solar does not contribute to baseload, so it's just a waste of effort, talent, and resources.
Except for quite a lot of places, we need to put 10-20x times the capacity plus storage system.
No one is saying that they don't have problems. What they are saying is that they have less problems than the alternatives.
In your example: when there's clouds and the wind doesn't blow, what happens? Currently we burn coal, gas and petrol. This means that in order to accept hydro and solar as the main source of energy, we have to take fossil fuels along, as a backup. Unless we find a different backup.
And nuclear is right there.
In your example: when there's clouds and the wind doesn't blow, what happens? Currently we burn coal, gas and petrol. This means that in order to accept hydro and solar as the main source of energy, we have to take fossil fuels along, as a backup. Unless we find a different backup.
And nuclear is right there.
You back up the entire grid with combined cycle plants burning hydrogen. Even if you hardly ever use them, that's affordable compared to running nuclear power plants.
Or you use some even cheaper (but more complex) combination of various storage solutions, transmission, and demand dispatch.
Or you use some even cheaper (but more complex) combination of various storage solutions, transmission, and demand dispatch.
"when there's clouds and the wind doesn't blow, what happens?" Meteorologically speaking that won't happen over a large enough area like Europe or USA. When there's clouds there's always wind close by. It's also never cloudy over a whole continent (air has to come back down somewhere)
What is more interesting to me is asking the question based on first principles.
If you consider the global electricity and energy demand and wanted to meet it, what you produce the least amount of green house gases, use the least amount of land, require the least amount of mining.
If you actually do that nuclear wins easily witch suggest there is some other process at work that makes sure this is not translated into reality.
If you consider the global electricity and energy demand and wanted to meet it, what you produce the least amount of green house gases, use the least amount of land, require the least amount of mining.
If you actually do that nuclear wins easily witch suggest there is some other process at work that makes sure this is not translated into reality.
Why would you want to use the least amount of land, or do the least amount of mining?
Are you serious?
There is this thing called nature, and not building building on it or in a very dirty way dig gigantic holes into it is preferable.
There is this thing called nature, and not building building on it or in a very dirty way dig gigantic holes into it is preferable.
I was asking why land and mining are so all-important that minimizing either (or both, is that even possible simultaneously) is the relevant objective function here.
Land use is a cost. Mining is a cost. We minimize overall cost, not one specific thing that has a cost.
I will add that society is clearly happy with using land for that very low payoff activity we call "farming". The $/acre from PV is much higher than that from farming, you know.
I don't get the impression you've thought very clearly about all this.
Land use is a cost. Mining is a cost. We minimize overall cost, not one specific thing that has a cost.
I will add that society is clearly happy with using land for that very low payoff activity we call "farming". The $/acre from PV is much higher than that from farming, you know.
I don't get the impression you've thought very clearly about all this.
As an comment on the article "nuclear-energy-is-clean". The rationale is that there is no problem, at least not a large one.
Dilemma is the protection of future generations of mankind against possible hazards posed by stored nuclear waste products. Are we, humans capable of wielding this king of technology responsibly? Think about terrorism and dirty bombs. Or even more benign reactor disruption due to human error? After al, al humans are fallible.
This remains a hot topic in any political arena's al over de globe. As for unforeseen consequences due to natural disaster, one might consider exposure to nuclear gamma radiation and poisoning. Can mankind handle this responsibility? I think not, see case Chernobyl. A perfect demonstration of human short comings and inability to cope with the aftermath.
Keep in mind that MYRRHA is stil research. It remains to be seen of/when it is commercially viable.
Also keep in mind the alternatives. E.g. a Molten Salt Reactor or MSR, people may hear the term Thorium reactor. Also research.
Side note: As for the nuclear waste from Borssele which is in cased in glass to ensure stable storage and prevent leakage, it cannot be repurposed for reuse.
Just my thoughts.
Dilemma is the protection of future generations of mankind against possible hazards posed by stored nuclear waste products. Are we, humans capable of wielding this king of technology responsibly? Think about terrorism and dirty bombs. Or even more benign reactor disruption due to human error? After al, al humans are fallible.
This remains a hot topic in any political arena's al over de globe. As for unforeseen consequences due to natural disaster, one might consider exposure to nuclear gamma radiation and poisoning. Can mankind handle this responsibility? I think not, see case Chernobyl. A perfect demonstration of human short comings and inability to cope with the aftermath.
Keep in mind that MYRRHA is stil research. It remains to be seen of/when it is commercially viable.
Also keep in mind the alternatives. E.g. a Molten Salt Reactor or MSR, people may hear the term Thorium reactor. Also research.
Side note: As for the nuclear waste from Borssele which is in cased in glass to ensure stable storage and prevent leakage, it cannot be repurposed for reuse.
Just my thoughts.
The most interesting thing in the article for me was that the 250 reactors needed to power Europe would produce 1.3 cubic kilometers of nuclear waste per year. That’s actually way more waste volume than I assumed. I wonder what the figure is for the United States.
I couldn't find that number. Is it hidden in the figures or did you calculate it off something?
Those exact numbers are cited in the last paragraph of the article.
My bad, I skimmed it looking for km2 or 1.3.
Your numbers are wrong. It is a known fact that France produces less than ~ 1 m^3 radioactive waste annually.
It is not not a known fact, it is in fact not true. France has over 1 million m3 of waste, and I assure you they have not been operating nuclear plants for over a million years. :)
Sources:
https://www.ompe.org/en/france-doesnt-know-what-to-do-with-i...
The La Manche facility had 527 000m3 of waste in 1994:
https://www.neimagazine.com/features/featuredisposal-of-shor...
Sources:
https://www.ompe.org/en/france-doesnt-know-what-to-do-with-i...
The La Manche facility had 527 000m3 of waste in 1994:
https://www.neimagazine.com/features/featuredisposal-of-shor...
there isn't enough uranium for that
Potentially we can't build nuclear fast enough to replace fossil fuels https://youtu.be/O0pt3ioQuNc 22:19
[deleted]
Super interesting how there is a big push for nuclear in the tech world right now.
To play the devils advocate, there are some pretty solid reasons why Nuclear is not ideal.The biggest one to me is the risk or nuclear material proliferation: Iran for instance is hiding their military nuclear program behind a civilian nuclear goal.
Nuclear is probably net better than coal but it's not the (only) solution to climate change.
Nuclear is probably net better than coal but it's not the (only) solution to climate change.
If the US built more clean nuclear plants that would somehow help Iran develop nuclear weapons faster? Surely the slope cannot be that slippery.
Clearly that was used as a historical example of a bad actor. The nuclear debate is not a US only discusion
> Iran for instance is hiding their military nuclear program behind a civilian nuclear goal.
This is so much nonsense. Even the CIA has long said that Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapons program. This is just a myth propagated by people who hate Iran. According to Isreali politicans, Iran is '1 year a away from the bomb' since literally 1998. There has never been real evidence presented and many intelligence services have said so.
What Iran in fact needs, is civilian nuclear power. Their power generation was mostly gas/oil and they realized in the 1990s that this was a huge issue. And in fact, Iran asked France to provide that for them. They made a deal with France and France would provide all that is needed and take back all the nuclear waste to France. All of this would be totally monitored by the IAEA.
Now of course the US used their power to prevent this. Then Iran said, well I guess we have to make our own civilian nuclear program. Once they started that the US and Isreal started to publish huge amounts of PR about how Iran was building the bombs and used that as an excuse to make the whole nation suffer.
If you want to build nuclear weapons, civilian nuclear power are not really very useful, there are far better proven methods to do this.
This is so much nonsense. Even the CIA has long said that Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapons program. This is just a myth propagated by people who hate Iran. According to Isreali politicans, Iran is '1 year a away from the bomb' since literally 1998. There has never been real evidence presented and many intelligence services have said so.
What Iran in fact needs, is civilian nuclear power. Their power generation was mostly gas/oil and they realized in the 1990s that this was a huge issue. And in fact, Iran asked France to provide that for them. They made a deal with France and France would provide all that is needed and take back all the nuclear waste to France. All of this would be totally monitored by the IAEA.
Now of course the US used their power to prevent this. Then Iran said, well I guess we have to make our own civilian nuclear program. Once they started that the US and Isreal started to publish huge amounts of PR about how Iran was building the bombs and used that as an excuse to make the whole nation suffer.
If you want to build nuclear weapons, civilian nuclear power are not really very useful, there are far better proven methods to do this.
It's only "super interesting" to those who study astroturfing and other forms of manipulative public relations.
> Super interesting how there is a big push for nuclear in the tech world right now.
And about the why, here's the reason.
https://fortune.com/2021/10/26/bitcoin-electricity-consumpti...
And about the why, here's the reason.
https://fortune.com/2021/10/26/bitcoin-electricity-consumpti...
I think nuclear power plants aren't worth the risk. I often hear arguments such as that modern reactors don't have the issues old ones had etc.. As long as it can't be guaranteed to me that e.g. a terror attack doesn't cause a 1000 km2 area around the plant to be unlivable for 100 years, I most likely won't change my opinion.
I think living in the stone age is better than taking the risk.
I think living in the stone age is better than taking the risk.
I think this line of thinking has defaulted us onto a path of drastically increased carbon in the atmosphere, with no signs of stopping, which is at best going to drastically change the world and take centuries to remove, and at worst could trigger a massive biosphere collapse that drives our species to extinction.
The Earth has 150 MILLION km2 of land. We could literally have hundreds of reactors blow causing 1000 km2 unlivable patches of ground and still be perfectly fine.
Prioritize your fear.
The Earth has 150 MILLION km2 of land. We could literally have hundreds of reactors blow causing 1000 km2 unlivable patches of ground and still be perfectly fine.
Prioritize your fear.
>We could literally have hundreds of reactors blow causing 1000 km2 unlivable patches of ground and still be perfectly fine.
Your numbers are off by orders of magnitude. The exclusion zone for Chernobyl alone is 2600 km2, the areas immediately affected in the 3 neighboring countries is 130 000 km2, food and livestock in areas over 3000 km from the site have to be fed special food supplements in order to pass regulation for human consumption to this day.
And this was despite the fire in Chernobyl being handled, limiting the actual amount of fallout released into the atmosphere.
IMO, correctly prioritizing our fears means we should put all efforts towards solar and energy storage solutions. That's the optimal solution after all, aiming for anything else is like playing not to win.
Your numbers are off by orders of magnitude. The exclusion zone for Chernobyl alone is 2600 km2, the areas immediately affected in the 3 neighboring countries is 130 000 km2, food and livestock in areas over 3000 km from the site have to be fed special food supplements in order to pass regulation for human consumption to this day.
And this was despite the fire in Chernobyl being handled, limiting the actual amount of fallout released into the atmosphere.
IMO, correctly prioritizing our fears means we should put all efforts towards solar and energy storage solutions. That's the optimal solution after all, aiming for anything else is like playing not to win.
Why do you think you have to decide between bad and worse? I think we should prioritize our planet over economy and lifestyle.
I don't. I think the generation before me misprioritized their fear and decided to block progress on nuclear fission, which implicitly supported the continued expansion of carbon fuel burning, to the detriment of future generations. It's an observation of historical fact, not a future decision.
> I think we should prioritize our planet over economy and lifestyle.
I think we should prioritize the continuance of civilization over the planet.
The planet and life on it will be perfectly fine after we're gone. It's been through drastically worse.
> I think we should prioritize our planet over economy and lifestyle.
I think we should prioritize the continuance of civilization over the planet.
The planet and life on it will be perfectly fine after we're gone. It's been through drastically worse.
Because you have to look at reality. You may be willing to do that (though I doubt it), but people at large do not.
It's very clear to me that what I write is not realistic. But I think it's objectively the best way.
> terror attack doesn't cause a 1000 km2 area around the plant to be unlivable for 100 years
That can't actually happen. And if you believe it can, you are wrong.
Please explain the mechanics of how that would happen to me! Ill wait.
That can't actually happen. And if you believe it can, you are wrong.
Please explain the mechanics of how that would happen to me! Ill wait.
I can't actually find what mock terrorist attack these were and what effects there were.
Sure in theory enough radio active materials exists that if you somehow blew it up and vaporized the whole spend fuel pool it would require a significant exclusion zone. To put such amount of explosives into that pool to vaporize the spent fuel roads would require an absurd amount of explosives.
And the exclusion zone for these things is way to big anyway, many people live in the Chernobyl exclusion zone and they are not actually negatively impacted.
But of course if you assume terrorist of unlimited capabilities there lots of technologies that are not viable and we use them anyway.
Sure in theory enough radio active materials exists that if you somehow blew it up and vaporized the whole spend fuel pool it would require a significant exclusion zone. To put such amount of explosives into that pool to vaporize the spent fuel roads would require an absurd amount of explosives.
And the exclusion zone for these things is way to big anyway, many people live in the Chernobyl exclusion zone and they are not actually negatively impacted.
But of course if you assume terrorist of unlimited capabilities there lots of technologies that are not viable and we use them anyway.
Given the intense energy needed to produce steel towers, the mass amounts of concrete needed (which emits a lot if co2 as curses), fire roads created, carbon fiber blades created, shipped, et all what’s the payoff for a single wind tower all in?
There doesn’t seem to be a lot of rational discussion.
There doesn’t seem to be a lot of rational discussion.
Not only is the waste a problem, we haven't found an adequate solution for in almost 70 years, but, again, the issue with nuclear is the amount of resources available. There simply isn't enough fissile material out there to make an impact on climate change.
The problem with nuclear energy is that lekker don’t understand how it works.
It’s some magic invisible thing, radiation will kill everyone, and an accident will wipe away half the planet.
The public should be educated how reactors work, and what the risks are, and what the limits of those risks are.
It’s some magic invisible thing, radiation will kill everyone, and an accident will wipe away half the planet.
The public should be educated how reactors work, and what the risks are, and what the limits of those risks are.
The article seems to support its headline by claiming that most of the millions of m3 of waste currently being stored by nuclear operating nations doesn't exist and that the remaining part is harmless because it's only plutonium.
[deleted]
Plutonium problem multiplies in top predators. Here already for thousands of years now thanks to nuclear plant disasters. Which are avoided by causing a slow power plant disaster by releasing radioactive pressure to the environment. Guy Debord's comment on this from Comments on the Society of the Spectacle: "much more civilized to sip a littl wine all of the time than to drink the whole bottle all at once like a Pole" :-)
Nuclear energy is a subsidised energy source, lobbied by powers that be on the corridors of power in the EU and everywhere else. Solar is cheaper.
Humanity is out of it's depth with this stuff. Could cause massive extinction event eventually even if we stopped now by killing and mutating sperm cells and all that. Go have a holiday in Fukushima. Go visit the deformed children still born in Uzbekistan near these places.
Nuclear energy is a subsidised energy source, lobbied by powers that be on the corridors of power in the EU and everywhere else. Solar is cheaper.
Humanity is out of it's depth with this stuff. Could cause massive extinction event eventually even if we stopped now by killing and mutating sperm cells and all that. Go have a holiday in Fukushima. Go visit the deformed children still born in Uzbekistan near these places.
Fukushima.
Chernobyl.
What happens during a war when someone bombs a nuclear reactor?
Clean doesn't mean safe.
What happens during a war when someone bombs a nuclear reactor?
Clean doesn't mean safe.
I really want to believe nuclear is as clean as the author says, but the biggest challenge is storing the waste for three hundred years.
were talking small amounts, sure, but contamination of groundwater and surrounding soil isn't something we in the US have a stellar track record with. camp lejunes benzene contaminated drinking water happened in only a 29 year span, and the only real remedy is a class action lawsuit. no one admitted fault.
most of our reactors are elderly, and most of the regulatory capture means they leak like a sieve and rarely face any consequences or shutdowns. until we reform the edifice that controls this waste I fear nuclear will just be another headline crisis event.
were talking small amounts, sure, but contamination of groundwater and surrounding soil isn't something we in the US have a stellar track record with. camp lejunes benzene contaminated drinking water happened in only a 29 year span, and the only real remedy is a class action lawsuit. no one admitted fault.
most of our reactors are elderly, and most of the regulatory capture means they leak like a sieve and rarely face any consequences or shutdowns. until we reform the edifice that controls this waste I fear nuclear will just be another headline crisis event.
[deleted]
Storing waste for 300 years isn't a huge problem. Dry casks shouldn't go anywhere.
The problem is dealing with the waste at that point, because it's so radiologically cold an amateur terrorist group could extract the plutonium, which is almost entirely still there.
The problem is dealing with the waste at that point, because it's so radiologically cold an amateur terrorist group could extract the plutonium, which is almost entirely still there.
Nuclear power if necessary but not necessarily nuclear power. Over the past decade the economic environment of nuclear power has entirely shifted due the huge drop in the cost of solar and wind. Not only is solar/wind cheap but because these can be built in a year or two, as opposed to decades for nuclear, governments accountants will much prefer them over nuclear. Nuclear will have some niche segments and I see a small nuclear design is about to be approved in the US that would be useful. But in the big picture of over all power generation nuclear will continue to fade away.
A big problem with solar and wind is that they aren't dispatchable. A 100 MWe nuclear power plant fitting in the space of small local power plant isn't equivalent of a 100MW solar or wind plant - for my local area, the equivalent solar/wind plant is about a combination of few Gigawatts of nameplate capacity of solar and wind plants (allowing for very optimistic storage tech, it gets "down" to 1180 MW solar + 410 MW wind + 840 MWh battery at 170MW output + 50MW hydrogen turbine backed by 10186 MWh stored hydrogen. It's also 1.5x the cost of plonking EPR-based NPP.)
Depending on smoothing from elsewhere is going to be also tricky - already considerable amounts of money are being paid out for curtailment because the grid can't take it.
Depending on smoothing from elsewhere is going to be also tricky - already considerable amounts of money are being paid out for curtailment because the grid can't take it.
The larger the geography of the grid (tied with HVDC) the more supply and demand average out. This minimizes the need for pumped storage (and its variations). To give just one example the UK is building an underwater HVDC directly between Morocco (solar) and the UK. So the known solutions are already available they just have to be implemented.
Except those solutions tend to ignore the cost of failures and that even with interconnects balancing the grid is not trivial - just inside european grid the problems are considerable, and there's still the issue of interconnects failing.
And even then, you now need to overbuild not just for replacement of local plants, but also for replacement of plants on the other end of the continent.
Great if you're selling gas or gas power plants, I guess, not so great if you want zero CO2 emissions especially with how powerhungry the replacement techs can be.
And even then, you now need to overbuild not just for replacement of local plants, but also for replacement of plants on the other end of the continent.
Great if you're selling gas or gas power plants, I guess, not so great if you want zero CO2 emissions especially with how powerhungry the replacement techs can be.
Nuclear isn't dispatchable. If it's not always running the cost/kWh escalates dramatically. Solar and wind with storage are somewhat dispatchable, because you can decide when to discharge the storage systems.
It's much more dispatchable than renewables, it's just cheaper to run it always at full capacity. Solar/wind/storage combination requires overbuilding in range of 15-25 times the nameplate capacity.
Personally I'm of the opinion that we should have nuclear+renewables with less focus on storage and more on opportunistic production of, for example, green hydrogen - not for grid storage but for all other uses like steel production, off-grid power systems (including cars/trains that have needs beyond battery capability) etc.
Current approach with renewables always being graded on their lowest possible price point and silently ignoring the growing gas generation required to smooth them and larger and larger grid instability is not great.
Personally I'm of the opinion that we should have nuclear+renewables with less focus on storage and more on opportunistic production of, for example, green hydrogen - not for grid storage but for all other uses like steel production, off-grid power systems (including cars/trains that have needs beyond battery capability) etc.
Current approach with renewables always being graded on their lowest possible price point and silently ignoring the growing gas generation required to smooth them and larger and larger grid instability is not great.
Ah, so solar/wind is not dispatchable because it's more costly you claim, not because one can't actually do it?
You don't need 15-25x overbuilding. That is nonsense. Perhaps you're assuming no storage whatsoever, and are oversizing the renewables to deliver sufficient power instantaneously? What terrible and foolish engineering.
The round trip efficiency of power -> hydrogen -> power is maybe 40%, so if you sent the entire renewable output through hydrogen the overbuilding (in the sense of how much energy you'd have to produce / how much energy was delivered to the grid) would be 2.5. And of course you'd send only a bit of energy through hydrogen; most would be delivered either directly to the grid or through diurnal storage at higher round trip efficiency.
If I go to https://model.energy/, click on the US, and solve for 2030 cost assumptions and 2011 historical weather data, I find the renewable + storage system to provide a synthetic baseload output to the US involves 0.1% solar curtailment, 23.8% wind curtailment, and delivers nearly 3/4 of the renewable power directly to the grid. If I narrow it down to just, let's say, Texas, the wind curtailment goes up to 32.1%. All this is a far, far cry from 15-25x overbuilding.
You don't need 15-25x overbuilding. That is nonsense. Perhaps you're assuming no storage whatsoever, and are oversizing the renewables to deliver sufficient power instantaneously? What terrible and foolish engineering.
The round trip efficiency of power -> hydrogen -> power is maybe 40%, so if you sent the entire renewable output through hydrogen the overbuilding (in the sense of how much energy you'd have to produce / how much energy was delivered to the grid) would be 2.5. And of course you'd send only a bit of energy through hydrogen; most would be delivered either directly to the grid or through diurnal storage at higher round trip efficiency.
If I go to https://model.energy/, click on the US, and solve for 2030 cost assumptions and 2011 historical weather data, I find the renewable + storage system to provide a synthetic baseload output to the US involves 0.1% solar curtailment, 23.8% wind curtailment, and delivers nearly 3/4 of the renewable power directly to the grid. If I narrow it down to just, let's say, Texas, the wind curtailment goes up to 32.1%. All this is a far, far cry from 15-25x overbuilding.
You use Texas (or whole of USA). Which is considerably more southern than most of Europe, and definitely more southern than Poland. IIRC Texas is also much more flat, which benefits availability of wind power.
The 15-25x numbers I get from model.energy, in fact - lowest I get is 15x assuming way too optimistic ideas about availability of salt caverns in Poland, 25x is with mainly battery power, the numbers for no storage are too hilarious too discuss.
Are there luckier locations that can get better numbers? Sure. I'm not against building renewables and storage, far from it. I am, however, against building new fossil fuel plants, including gas backup for renewables, and would rather we take the minimum average power use, fill it with nuclear, then get renewable/storage Virtual Power Plants to fill in the peaks (with some load following from reactors if necessary). If necessary, we can find new power sinks to make it more economical, in fact I'd love if we had large scale green hydrogen and synthetic fuel production backed by hydrogen electrolysers taking in overproduction.
The real problem isn't cost of nuclear, it's that we still leave profit as the main guiding principle (to the point that building new solar might crash in some states) and not optimizing for 0 emissions.
The 15-25x numbers I get from model.energy, in fact - lowest I get is 15x assuming way too optimistic ideas about availability of salt caverns in Poland, 25x is with mainly battery power, the numbers for no storage are too hilarious too discuss.
Are there luckier locations that can get better numbers? Sure. I'm not against building renewables and storage, far from it. I am, however, against building new fossil fuel plants, including gas backup for renewables, and would rather we take the minimum average power use, fill it with nuclear, then get renewable/storage Virtual Power Plants to fill in the peaks (with some load following from reactors if necessary). If necessary, we can find new power sinks to make it more economical, in fact I'd love if we had large scale green hydrogen and synthetic fuel production backed by hydrogen electrolysers taking in overproduction.
The real problem isn't cost of nuclear, it's that we still leave profit as the main guiding principle (to the point that building new solar might crash in some states) and not optimizing for 0 emissions.
Poland has huge salt formations, so I spit on your "optimism" slur.
OF COURSE it's much higher if you turn off hydrogen and try to use batteries and curtailment to deal with high seasonality environments. This is Dumb Engineering. Don't do that. You multiply the cost in Poland by more than a factor of 2 when you turn off hydrogen.
Poland, as I've said elsewhere in these comments, is also close to the worst place in the world for renewables. That's hardly a condemnation of renewables in the entire world. Maybe industry will just leave Poland to somewhere it makes more sense to operate.
I bet your 15-25x also is looking at the nameplate capacity on the renewables, before adjusting for the expected capacity factor. But LCOE already takes that into account. Just looking at raw peak output, wind and solar are massively cheaper than nuclear.
OF COURSE it's much higher if you turn off hydrogen and try to use batteries and curtailment to deal with high seasonality environments. This is Dumb Engineering. Don't do that. You multiply the cost in Poland by more than a factor of 2 when you turn off hydrogen.
Poland, as I've said elsewhere in these comments, is also close to the worst place in the world for renewables. That's hardly a condemnation of renewables in the entire world. Maybe industry will just leave Poland to somewhere it makes more sense to operate.
I bet your 15-25x also is looking at the nameplate capacity on the renewables, before adjusting for the expected capacity factor. But LCOE already takes that into account. Just looking at raw peak output, wind and solar are massively cheaper than nuclear.
The salt formations we have aren't necessarily accessible for those purposes. I would not mind being wrong though.
As for overbuilding including capacity factor - the size of renewable powerplant tends to be reported in nameplate capacity, not the adjusted for capacity factor, so I'm just trying to keep within common units. And I'm all for building more renewables anyway, I'm just against building fossil backup for them. Which means also not greenwashing things by "we will add storage in the future". We need it now, not in some murky future.
There are many places that are "bad for renewables" - that doesn't mean people who live there have to be forcefully resettled or removed to support religious combination of laissez-faire with german green philosophy.
As for overbuilding including capacity factor - the size of renewable powerplant tends to be reported in nameplate capacity, not the adjusted for capacity factor, so I'm just trying to keep within common units. And I'm all for building more renewables anyway, I'm just against building fossil backup for them. Which means also not greenwashing things by "we will add storage in the future". We need it now, not in some murky future.
There are many places that are "bad for renewables" - that doesn't mean people who live there have to be forcefully resettled or removed to support religious combination of laissez-faire with german green philosophy.
People aren't forcefully resettled. Their livelihoods just evaporate if they try to compete with places with natural advantages. I mean, we don't say agriculture is impossible because we can't feasibly grow bananas in Alaska.
If a place that's a renewable energy ghetto tries to compete with sun-soaked places by using nuclear, it won't go well. When solar is being pumped out at $0.013/kWh in UAE, trying to drive internationally competitive heavy industry with nuclear that's an order of magnitude more expensive just won't work. This is a disconcerting new reality for places that have been competitive in a fossil fuel era. They are competing with the best case renewables in a global market.
If a place that's a renewable energy ghetto tries to compete with sun-soaked places by using nuclear, it won't go well. When solar is being pumped out at $0.013/kWh in UAE, trying to drive internationally competitive heavy industry with nuclear that's an order of magnitude more expensive just won't work. This is a disconcerting new reality for places that have been competitive in a fossil fuel era. They are competing with the best case renewables in a global market.
Solar and Wind need a backup. Solar only works for 1/3 of the day, at most. It needs a backup. At the moment our backup is burning fossil fuels. Solar and Wind are only clean if their backup is clean, too. Otherwise they are an incomplete solution. Nuclear a better, greener backup.
> Solar and Wind need a backup. Solar only works for 1/3 of the day, at most. It needs a backup. At the moment our backup is burning fossil fuels.
It depends on where you live. In my country (which is a huge country), the backup is hydroelectric dams. Burning fossil fuels (and nuclear) is mostly kept constant during the day, it's the hydroelectric dams which follow both the load and the changes in solar and wind.
It depends on where you live. In my country (which is a huge country), the backup is hydroelectric dams. Burning fossil fuels (and nuclear) is mostly kept constant during the day, it's the hydroelectric dams which follow both the load and the changes in solar and wind.
The amount of bad comparisons and statistical sleight-of-hand in this piece is pretty astonishing.
Clean because no one has yet measured the ten thousand year containment costs and unintentional releases.
Clean because we have somehow written off the devastation of Chernobyl and Fukushima as trivial.
I don’t want a nuclear plant within 100 miles of my home because I have lived through three meltdowns and do not want to be displaced by a fourth.
But sure, in the moment nuclear emissions are super green.
Clean because we have somehow written off the devastation of Chernobyl and Fukushima as trivial.
I don’t want a nuclear plant within 100 miles of my home because I have lived through three meltdowns and do not want to be displaced by a fourth.
But sure, in the moment nuclear emissions are super green.
We gotta fill the gaps between intermittent output from renewables somehow. Would you rather fill those gaps with fossil fuels? Because that's the choice.
Only clean if you don't count the 24,000 years half life of the waste. Funny how 'waste'does not sound like a very clean word.
What is clean is living in a way that doesn't consume so much energy. Can implement right now with no longterm repercussion, just a bit of short term pain of self control. Kind of like taking care of our own bodies.
What is clean is living in a way that doesn't consume so much energy. Can implement right now with no longterm repercussion, just a bit of short term pain of self control. Kind of like taking care of our own bodies.
HN is the boostiest of the boosters with nuclear. It's just a bunch of cheerleaders.
Just pass on all mentions of it. They've got absolutely zero interest in material reality here. It's completely fantasy driven. It's not worth it. They're way too ideologically committed
Just pass on all mentions of it. They've got absolutely zero interest in material reality here. It's completely fantasy driven. It's not worth it. They're way too ideologically committed
Same vibe:
"Fuel scarcity is not a problem. Russia is now a reliable and stable power supplier."
"Fuel scarcity is not a problem. Russia is now a reliable and stable power supplier."
Except when it isn’t. Granted it’s cleaner than coal and gas. But there’s the pesky problem of waste, plants that cost billions, decom is not cheap, easy or clean.
Oh and the financial incentives to operate longer and cheaper than is safe.
Solar power basiclly is nuclear energy
Tell that to anyone trying to decommission a reactor. France is having a great time.
Aren't we going to deplete our uranium+thorium resources by the year 2100?
No one ever head of the Integral Fast Reactor which uses the "nuclear waste" as fuel?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sp1Xja6HlIU
Somehow it never comes up in nuclear power discussions.
The only problem with nuclear is there are no future sales from it. Capitalism works on having something to sell in the future.
Once nuclear is reliable and safe there is no more money to be made from it and this is why all the Greens are no more than fronts for the fossil fuel industry.
They are hellbent on pushing inadequate alternatives which make carbon based fuels the only reliable ones.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sp1Xja6HlIU
Somehow it never comes up in nuclear power discussions.
The only problem with nuclear is there are no future sales from it. Capitalism works on having something to sell in the future.
Once nuclear is reliable and safe there is no more money to be made from it and this is why all the Greens are no more than fronts for the fossil fuel industry.
They are hellbent on pushing inadequate alternatives which make carbon based fuels the only reliable ones.
Has this guy been to Fukushima?
lol
Before we get all gung-ho on nuclear power, perhaps we could try solving the existential nuclear problems we already have.
FACTS [0]:
1. The nuclear industry still has no solution to the 'waste problem'.
2. The transport of this waste poses an unacceptable risk to people and the environment.
3. Plutonium is the most dangerous material in the world.
4. Nuclear waste is hazardous for tens of thousands of years. This clearly is unprecedented and poses a huge threat to our future generations.
5. Even if put into a geological repository, the waste might emerge and threaten future generations.
6. Nobody knows the true costs of waste management. The costs are so high that nuclear power can never be economic.
IMO, nuclear power does not represent what's best about the US but highlights its weaknesses. Americans love their quarterly reports, but are not good so good at 100 year plans, let alone 100,000 year plans.
Nuclear waste lasts for a very long time. The amount of spent nuclear fuel stored at US nuclear power plants continues to grow by about 2,000 metric tons a year [1].
The Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository, as designated by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act amendments of 1987, is a proposed deep geological repository storage facility within Yucca Mountain for spent nuclear fuel and other high-level radioactive waste in the United States. Federal funding for the Repository ened amidst widespread national, state, regional and tribal opposition. [2]. Meanwhile the federal government has paid billions of dollars in damages to utilities for failing to dispose of this waste and may potentially have to pay tens of billions of dollars more in coming decades. So yeah you the US taxpayer are paying for it, whether your utility use nuclear generated electricity or not. => The nuclear industry still has no solution to the 'waste problem'.
Without a permanent national storage solution, the government pays the utilities to store the waste on site. Over time utilities move some of the older spent fuel into "dry cask" storage. These casks are stainless steel canisters surrounded by concrete. Fuel is typically cooled at least five years in the pool before transfer to cask. NRC has authorized transfer as early as three years; the industry norm is about 10 years. The NRC certifies cask designs and licenses dry cask storage facilities for up to 40 years. [3] Not thousands of years!
Assuming idealistically that generation of nuclear power stops today, then the EXISTING nuclear waste will have to be stored not for hundreds of years, not for thousands of years, not for tens of thousands of years, but for hundreds of thousands of years. That is the existing waste, which will continue to cost "tens of billions of dollars per decades", with a lifetime storage cost that makes the cost of the original nuclear power plant (typically with only a 30-year life anyway) negligible by comparison. Again that is the exsiting waste. So assuming we continue to generate nuclear power, the nuclear waste continues to grow by about 2,000 metric tons a year, each ton with its own lifetime storage cost. And we're talking about GROWING that nuclear capacity. Let's grow the already exponential lifetime storage cost. Not even the Federal Reserve of the United States of America will be able to create enough money to pay for the total cost of ownership of nuclear power.
There are different types of nuclear waste - high-level waste, transuranic waste, Uranium or thorium mill tailings, Low-level waste, Technologically enhanced naturally-occurring radioactive material (TENORM) [4]. Like most things, these too follow the 80/20 rule - 80% of the waste is lower level waste and 20% is higher level waste. Make sure you know which waste is being discussed. Each type must be disposed of according to its risk to human health and the environment. Plutonium Pu-239 has a half-life of 24,100 years! That is the time it takes for the radioactive level to become half of what it is now.
The nation has over 85,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel from commercial nuclear power plants. DOE is responsible for disposing of this high-level waste in a permanent geologic repository, but has yet to build such a facility because policymakers have been at an impasse over what to do with this spent fuel since 2010. As a result, the amount of spent nuclear fuel stored at nuclear power plants across the country continues to grow by about 2,000 metric tons a year. Meanwhile, the federal government has paid billions of dollars in damages to utilities for failing to dispose of this waste and may potentially have to pay tens of billions of dollars more in coming decades.
DOE also oversees the treatment and disposal of about 90 million gallons of radioactive waste from the nation's nuclear weapons program. Most of this waste is stored in tanks at 3 DOE sites. According to federal law, certain high-level mixed waste must be vitrified—a process in which the waste is immobilized in glass—and disposed of in a deep geologic repository. However, DOE estimates that about 90% of the volume of this waste contains about 10% of the radioactivity and is therefore considered to be low-activity waste. [1]
[0] https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-c...
[1] https://www.gao.gov/nuclear-waste-disposal
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_r...
[3] https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/r...
[4] https://www.epa.gov/radtown/radioactive-waste
FACTS [0]:
1. The nuclear industry still has no solution to the 'waste problem'.
2. The transport of this waste poses an unacceptable risk to people and the environment.
3. Plutonium is the most dangerous material in the world.
4. Nuclear waste is hazardous for tens of thousands of years. This clearly is unprecedented and poses a huge threat to our future generations.
5. Even if put into a geological repository, the waste might emerge and threaten future generations.
6. Nobody knows the true costs of waste management. The costs are so high that nuclear power can never be economic.
IMO, nuclear power does not represent what's best about the US but highlights its weaknesses. Americans love their quarterly reports, but are not good so good at 100 year plans, let alone 100,000 year plans.
Nuclear waste lasts for a very long time. The amount of spent nuclear fuel stored at US nuclear power plants continues to grow by about 2,000 metric tons a year [1].
The Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository, as designated by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act amendments of 1987, is a proposed deep geological repository storage facility within Yucca Mountain for spent nuclear fuel and other high-level radioactive waste in the United States. Federal funding for the Repository ened amidst widespread national, state, regional and tribal opposition. [2]. Meanwhile the federal government has paid billions of dollars in damages to utilities for failing to dispose of this waste and may potentially have to pay tens of billions of dollars more in coming decades. So yeah you the US taxpayer are paying for it, whether your utility use nuclear generated electricity or not. => The nuclear industry still has no solution to the 'waste problem'.
Without a permanent national storage solution, the government pays the utilities to store the waste on site. Over time utilities move some of the older spent fuel into "dry cask" storage. These casks are stainless steel canisters surrounded by concrete. Fuel is typically cooled at least five years in the pool before transfer to cask. NRC has authorized transfer as early as three years; the industry norm is about 10 years. The NRC certifies cask designs and licenses dry cask storage facilities for up to 40 years. [3] Not thousands of years!
Assuming idealistically that generation of nuclear power stops today, then the EXISTING nuclear waste will have to be stored not for hundreds of years, not for thousands of years, not for tens of thousands of years, but for hundreds of thousands of years. That is the existing waste, which will continue to cost "tens of billions of dollars per decades", with a lifetime storage cost that makes the cost of the original nuclear power plant (typically with only a 30-year life anyway) negligible by comparison. Again that is the exsiting waste. So assuming we continue to generate nuclear power, the nuclear waste continues to grow by about 2,000 metric tons a year, each ton with its own lifetime storage cost. And we're talking about GROWING that nuclear capacity. Let's grow the already exponential lifetime storage cost. Not even the Federal Reserve of the United States of America will be able to create enough money to pay for the total cost of ownership of nuclear power.
There are different types of nuclear waste - high-level waste, transuranic waste, Uranium or thorium mill tailings, Low-level waste, Technologically enhanced naturally-occurring radioactive material (TENORM) [4]. Like most things, these too follow the 80/20 rule - 80% of the waste is lower level waste and 20% is higher level waste. Make sure you know which waste is being discussed. Each type must be disposed of according to its risk to human health and the environment. Plutonium Pu-239 has a half-life of 24,100 years! That is the time it takes for the radioactive level to become half of what it is now.
The nation has over 85,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel from commercial nuclear power plants. DOE is responsible for disposing of this high-level waste in a permanent geologic repository, but has yet to build such a facility because policymakers have been at an impasse over what to do with this spent fuel since 2010. As a result, the amount of spent nuclear fuel stored at nuclear power plants across the country continues to grow by about 2,000 metric tons a year. Meanwhile, the federal government has paid billions of dollars in damages to utilities for failing to dispose of this waste and may potentially have to pay tens of billions of dollars more in coming decades.
DOE also oversees the treatment and disposal of about 90 million gallons of radioactive waste from the nation's nuclear weapons program. Most of this waste is stored in tanks at 3 DOE sites. According to federal law, certain high-level mixed waste must be vitrified—a process in which the waste is immobilized in glass—and disposed of in a deep geologic repository. However, DOE estimates that about 90% of the volume of this waste contains about 10% of the radioactivity and is therefore considered to be low-activity waste. [1]
[0] https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-c...
[1] https://www.gao.gov/nuclear-waste-disposal
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_r...
[3] https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/r...
[4] https://www.epa.gov/radtown/radioactive-waste
1. The fossil fuel industry still has no solution to the 'CO2 problem'
2. The continuous emission of this gas poses an unacceptable risk to people and the environment.
3. There are many compounds more dangerous than plutonium, which we happily use in day-to-day life: botulinum, ricin, hydrazine.
4. A runaway greenhouse effect is hazardous for tens of thousands of years, if not permanent. This clearly is unprecedented and poses a huge threat to our future generations.
5. Many known geological repositories of carbon-based compounds (permafrost, bogs) are unstable; given the right triggers, the captured methane might emerge and threaten future generations.
6. Nobody knows the true cost of climate change. The costs are so high that fossil fuel use can never be economic.
Yet we make fossil fuel use economic to the tune of 6 trillion dollar in subsidies per year. So please, stop using your "facts" to delay action against fossil fuel use.
2. The continuous emission of this gas poses an unacceptable risk to people and the environment.
3. There are many compounds more dangerous than plutonium, which we happily use in day-to-day life: botulinum, ricin, hydrazine.
4. A runaway greenhouse effect is hazardous for tens of thousands of years, if not permanent. This clearly is unprecedented and poses a huge threat to our future generations.
5. Many known geological repositories of carbon-based compounds (permafrost, bogs) are unstable; given the right triggers, the captured methane might emerge and threaten future generations.
6. Nobody knows the true cost of climate change. The costs are so high that fossil fuel use can never be economic.
Yet we make fossil fuel use economic to the tune of 6 trillion dollar in subsidies per year. So please, stop using your "facts" to delay action against fossil fuel use.
1. so what? society has renewables which don't care about what the fossil industry has
Arguing against nuclear power is not the same as arguing for fossil fuel. Many of us see them both being problematic.
EDITED: for clarity
EDITED: for clarity
[deleted](1)
toxic sludge is good for you
Then when it comes to nuclear waste however, the argument is we can ignore pretty much all long lasting waste, because of some development in the future will make recycling of spend fuel rods feasible. So essentially he is comparing the current state of solar panel recycling to some future potential nuclear waste recycling. That's a dishonest comparison. Moreover ignoring the amount of waste from dismantling the nuclear power plant (which needs to go into nuclear storage because it is radioactive due to irradiation), while talking about the carbon fibre from wind turbines is also disingenuous.
We see the same argumentive structure when talking about the economics; the current state of renewables is compared to some potential future state of nuclear. While in reality renewables are on an exponential cost reduction trajectory and all the nuclear potential is completely unproven.