Nuclear energy is long-term sustainable(whatisnuclear.com)
whatisnuclear.com
Nuclear energy is long-term sustainable
https://whatisnuclear.com/blog/2020-10-28-nuclear-energy-is-longterm-sustainable.html
181 comments
Anyway, mankind doesn't have 5Gy. In a mere 500My the sun`s output should make the planet uninhabitable. Even so, it's enough time for us to have two more pangeas.
Surprisingly, we can move the plant.
At least we could if we last that long and didn’t mess up the process, neither of which I would count on.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2001/jun/10/globalwa...
At least we could if we last that long and didn’t mess up the process, neither of which I would count on.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2001/jun/10/globalwa...
Though in a century we should have people living on Mars, so a while before the 500My is up. Or a sunshade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_sunshade. Or just raise Earth's orbit a bit by slingshotting an asteroid between Earth and Jupiter.
>'All you have to do is strap a chemical rocket to an asteroid or comet and fire it at just the right time,' added Laughlin. 'It is basic rocket science.' https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2001/jun/10/globalwa...
>'All you have to do is strap a chemical rocket to an asteroid or comet and fire it at just the right time,' added Laughlin. 'It is basic rocket science.' https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2001/jun/10/globalwa...
> But this would basically require pumping all of the worlds oceans through these fibers and continually extracting.
Yes, and? What’s the problem here? Billion years is a plenty of time to pump all ocean water through filters. The crucial fact here is that you only need to pump through and filter as much as you need, which is much less than millions of tons of total uranium in seawater.
Yes, and? What’s the problem here? Billion years is a plenty of time to pump all ocean water through filters. The crucial fact here is that you only need to pump through and filter as much as you need, which is much less than millions of tons of total uranium in seawater.
With the proposed scale of kilotons of Uranium per year, this comes still to hundreds of billions of tons of seawater every year.
Now consider that only a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of seawater is easily accessible.
There's a reason why we don't do this for gold. There is about 1/50th the amount of gold in the ocean, but it's also more than a thousand times more valuable, but it's nowhere near econimcal.
The scope of this product also dwarfs all proposed solutions for climate change.
Now consider that only a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of seawater is easily accessible.
There's a reason why we don't do this for gold. There is about 1/50th the amount of gold in the ocean, but it's also more than a thousand times more valuable, but it's nowhere near econimcal.
The scope of this product also dwarfs all proposed solutions for climate change.
> Now consider that only a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of seawater is easily accessible.
Not saying it’s an economically realistic idea, but on the topic of availability of seawater it seems like you’d just need to set up your pumping station in a location with a persistent oceanic current, filter upstream and discharge downstream, and you’d be set for thousands of years. The Straight of Gibraltar seems like a good candidate, since the large surface evaporation of the Mediterranean Sea and the comparatively small amount of water it receives from rivers means that there is a permanent current through the straight. (The Mediterranean Sea would evaporate away in about a thousand years without the Straight.)
This also makes me wonder if seawater uranium concentration in the Mediterranean Sea is much higher than elsewhere. The current has been in place bringing in seawater and evaporating off the water, leaving behind all non-evaporable minerals, for over 5 million years, and the Mediterranean Sea is much saltier than the ocean in general, suggesting that uranium concentration would also be substantially elevated.
Not saying it’s an economically realistic idea, but on the topic of availability of seawater it seems like you’d just need to set up your pumping station in a location with a persistent oceanic current, filter upstream and discharge downstream, and you’d be set for thousands of years. The Straight of Gibraltar seems like a good candidate, since the large surface evaporation of the Mediterranean Sea and the comparatively small amount of water it receives from rivers means that there is a permanent current through the straight. (The Mediterranean Sea would evaporate away in about a thousand years without the Straight.)
This also makes me wonder if seawater uranium concentration in the Mediterranean Sea is much higher than elsewhere. The current has been in place bringing in seawater and evaporating off the water, leaving behind all non-evaporable minerals, for over 5 million years, and the Mediterranean Sea is much saltier than the ocean in general, suggesting that uranium concentration would also be substantially elevated.
That's a very good idea, but I'm not sure if the increased difficulty in building the filters underwater in an oceanic current would really make things much easier.
Pumping the water uses energy, which changes the whole equation.
To be sustainable, nuclear also needs to be sustainable economically. There's a cost problem with nuclear that often gets swept under the carpet by its proponents. But it's actually a big reason for its current lack of popularity.
Nuclear proponents instead love to emphasize how safe nuclear can be and how great of a safety track record it has. And with some caveats (e.g. the Fukushima mess was pretty bad) they are not wrong for modern nuclear reactor designs. However, nuclear is expensive and that combined with safety (which costs money to mitigate) is the real reason for the impopularity.
It always was expensive but historically, a lot of that was paid for out of tax payer money. Most new plants are still very expensive compared to almost everything else in the market. And they still involve a lot of taxpayer money.
Nuclear is not economically sustainable currently and those cost are either not payed (many countries don't have permanent waste storage solutions) or basically payed for out of tax money instead of revenue. If you add it all up it makes an already bad cost picture worse. Even without that accounted for it is easily the most expensive form of power. With all that accounted for, it only gets worse.
To be economically sustainable, it needs to become vastly cheaper and account for the full cost.
Will it always be that expensive? There are definitely ways to lower cost and there is of course a learning effect. But it seems we have a lot to learn. About an order of magnitude's worth of cost. And that would just be catching up to the status quo.
Nuclear proponents instead love to emphasize how safe nuclear can be and how great of a safety track record it has. And with some caveats (e.g. the Fukushima mess was pretty bad) they are not wrong for modern nuclear reactor designs. However, nuclear is expensive and that combined with safety (which costs money to mitigate) is the real reason for the impopularity.
It always was expensive but historically, a lot of that was paid for out of tax payer money. Most new plants are still very expensive compared to almost everything else in the market. And they still involve a lot of taxpayer money.
Nuclear is not economically sustainable currently and those cost are either not payed (many countries don't have permanent waste storage solutions) or basically payed for out of tax money instead of revenue. If you add it all up it makes an already bad cost picture worse. Even without that accounted for it is easily the most expensive form of power. With all that accounted for, it only gets worse.
To be economically sustainable, it needs to become vastly cheaper and account for the full cost.
Will it always be that expensive? There are definitely ways to lower cost and there is of course a learning effect. But it seems we have a lot to learn. About an order of magnitude's worth of cost. And that would just be catching up to the status quo.
Nuclear is cost competitive with fossil fuels, if you include carbon externalities.
Still more expensive than renewables though, so only the best option if they didn't exist.
Still more expensive than renewables though, so only the best option if they didn't exist.
Yeah, fossil fuel is also economically sustainable at this point. Even without carbon capture it is generally too expensive.
However. but the best power is the power you have. While renewables are cheaper, we don't yet have enough renewable capacity. And while fixing that is happening at an enormous pace, it's going to take a bit of time. A few decades should help.
E.g. China has more than a TW of coal plants and more under construction. The global rollout of renewables is in the order of a bit over 100 GW. At that pace, it would take a decade to roll out enough (globally) just to get rid of China's coal plants.
That's why they are investing in expensive Nuclear plants. 150 plants adds up to about a TW pretty much. Assuming these are pretty big ones doing 6GW each. That's not because they are so cheap but because it is the only way to get China on a path where they can shut down most of their coal this half of the century. Doing that is becoming more urgent.
Long term, they might shut down those nuclear plants as soon as they can get away with it to save money. That will require a massive increase in production for renewable generation and storage. These plants have a lifetime of around 60 years. They might not actually be online that long.
However. but the best power is the power you have. While renewables are cheaper, we don't yet have enough renewable capacity. And while fixing that is happening at an enormous pace, it's going to take a bit of time. A few decades should help.
E.g. China has more than a TW of coal plants and more under construction. The global rollout of renewables is in the order of a bit over 100 GW. At that pace, it would take a decade to roll out enough (globally) just to get rid of China's coal plants.
That's why they are investing in expensive Nuclear plants. 150 plants adds up to about a TW pretty much. Assuming these are pretty big ones doing 6GW each. That's not because they are so cheap but because it is the only way to get China on a path where they can shut down most of their coal this half of the century. Doing that is becoming more urgent.
Long term, they might shut down those nuclear plants as soon as they can get away with it to save money. That will require a massive increase in production for renewable generation and storage. These plants have a lifetime of around 60 years. They might not actually be online that long.
> That will require a massive increase in production for renewable generation and storage.
I have good news:
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.ELC.RNWX.KH
I have good news:
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.ELC.RNWX.KH
French nuclear had a negative learning effect.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/223761273_The_costs...
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/223761273_The_costs...
Trying to make everything economic, us going to ruin our planet.
Why not have it as a government service?
Why not have it as a government service?
In Europe everyone knows that. Even the craziest of our "greens" who insist on complete domestic decommissioning know it. The reason a few European countries are shutting their nuclear power plants down isn't because they think they are unsustainable, but because they fear they may be targeted and attacked. They currently view them as the combination of a sitting duck and a powder keg.
Plus, you know, storing the waste for thousands of years without a good place to do so. Payed for by the public.
A lot of the fuel can be recycled and doesn't need to be stored for thousands of years. Storing the remainder underground is mostly a one-off cost except for some monitoring. It's a solved problem and only public misconceptions about tectonics and radioactivity are holding it back.
> A lot of the fuel can be recycled and doesn't need to be stored for thousands of years.
But is it, actually? The amount of nuclear waste in interim storage speaks against it.
> It's a solved problem
It is certainly not. For example in Germany there's only one terminal storage facility, and it's already showing problems, less than half a century in. And we thought/hoped it could last for tens of thousands of years.
Maybe a case could be made that in ideal conditions, technical solutions exist, but I'm not aware of any actually viable solutions. (Note that a solution isn't viable from a public relations POV, it's NOT an actually viable solution).
But is it, actually? The amount of nuclear waste in interim storage speaks against it.
> It's a solved problem
It is certainly not. For example in Germany there's only one terminal storage facility, and it's already showing problems, less than half a century in. And we thought/hoped it could last for tens of thousands of years.
Maybe a case could be made that in ideal conditions, technical solutions exist, but I'm not aware of any actually viable solutions. (Note that a solution isn't viable from a public relations POV, it's NOT an actually viable solution).
> But is it, actually? The amount of nuclear waste in interim storage speaks against it.
No, there aren't a lot of breeder reactors running. But that's just because there hasn't been any pressure to develop them commercially.
> but I'm not aware of any actually viable solutions.
Check out the Onkalo fuel repository: https://www.posiva.fi/en/index.html
No, there aren't a lot of breeder reactors running. But that's just because there hasn't been any pressure to develop them commercially.
> but I'm not aware of any actually viable solutions.
Check out the Onkalo fuel repository: https://www.posiva.fi/en/index.html
Why do the same debunked arguments against nuclear come up? Even if we didn't reprocess the waste (Making the issue completely irrelevant) and had to store it, this is a solved problem. Primitive ancient civilizations were able to build structures that lasted thousands of years, I think we can handle burying some rocks in the desert in 2021.
So you care about a thousand-year problem but forget about the 50-year problem (climate change).
50 year problem? Climate change is an 8 year problem. That's the main reason that nuclear is infeasible, we can't do it in 8 years. We should have started building 100s of nuclear reactors 20 years ago. Doing it now is too late. Wind & solar + batteries can be built much quicker.
Our very first production civilian reactors went from no design and bare land to production in about 4.5 years.
Modern engineering, siting, and construction is tied up with regulatory approval processes, safety protocols, diversity and inclusion quotas, and NIMBYism that occupy the vast majority of timelines.
A prior civilization would have looked at a literal existential threat and been willing to risk a few desert turtles, a few extra construction workers' lives, and ignored some Karens to get the job done.
But we don't have that kind of civilization anymore. Regulation and safety protocols are great for societies not sitting at the edge of the Seneca Cliff, but they're pretty terrible when the ELE meteorite is en route.
Modern engineering, siting, and construction is tied up with regulatory approval processes, safety protocols, diversity and inclusion quotas, and NIMBYism that occupy the vast majority of timelines.
A prior civilization would have looked at a literal existential threat and been willing to risk a few desert turtles, a few extra construction workers' lives, and ignored some Karens to get the job done.
But we don't have that kind of civilization anymore. Regulation and safety protocols are great for societies not sitting at the edge of the Seneca Cliff, but they're pretty terrible when the ELE meteorite is en route.
So you suggest to do nothing? Don't start with renewables, they aren't providing enough power and stability in the next 8 years.
If the literally exponential growth in PV from 1992-today lasts another 8 years, it will have a nameplate capacity of 12 TW.
Growth of storage is more of an open question, but not inconceivable, and even a partial improvement gives more time to do the rest.
(And the timescale sounds more like the timescale for actually taking this seriously than the timescale for fully solving it, though I definitely hope that isn’t just me listening to what I want to be true).
Growth of storage is more of an open question, but not inconceivable, and even a partial improvement gives more time to do the rest.
(And the timescale sounds more like the timescale for actually taking this seriously than the timescale for fully solving it, though I definitely hope that isn’t just me listening to what I want to be true).
What are you going to make the batteries from - lithium? That comes with its own host of terrible impacts that people seem to be keen to brush under the carpet.
Lithium, yes. I am very comfortable trading the existential threat of climate change, the local environmental damage caused by fossil fuel particulates, and the massive damage done by fossil fuel extraction for the damage caused by lithium extraction. The quantities of lithium required are a couple of orders of magnitude less than the quantities of oil we extract annually.
There are a good half dozen viable methods of extracting lithium. Some are substantially cleaner than others, which are the ones we should use.
There are a good half dozen viable methods of extracting lithium. Some are substantially cleaner than others, which are the ones we should use.
The majority of lithium is extracted through passive evaporation of brine, not from ore mining. The impact is far less horrible than mining copper, gold, silver, platinum and so on. I'd wager that you have conveniently forgotten about these metals in your environmental argument.
And still won't work in 8 year timescale because of their intermittence and that batteries are a bit like fusion.
Waste is not a problem, you bury it in a deep hole and don't mark it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repo...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repo...
They could have looked at the fossil fuel industry and released the waste into the air. Spread it out over a large enough area and people don't seem to mind as much, and living near such plant would possible be safer than living near a coal plant. The problem is that they stockpiled it, having the public pay the storage cost with taxes rather than with their health.
WTF
No, this is how you kill a huge population with cancer at best and radiation sickness is still far more likely.
What is wrong with you?
We should tell this to coal plants as that what they are doing right now. Coal waste product called coal ash release more radiation per energy produced than the waste product from nuclear reactors. People who live around coal plants have a higher risk of cancer. People die because of it.
Some coal power plants filter and collect their waste product. They then have to manage the waste. It either end up in landfills for toxic waste, bury it in the ground, or they dump it in the ocean. Hundred of tons of coal ash is created every year in the US alone.
Nuclear plants don't have the luxury to just dump it in the air, ocean, or bury it in the ground. The law require them to collect and store it, and so in contrast to fossil fuels it builds up and is visible. Nuclear plants create less total waste, and they don't contribute to climate change, and yet people are worried about nuclear waste while consuming enormous amount of fossil fuel energy.
The nuclear industry need better PR, while governments need to stop playing favorites. Force fossil fueled power plants to have the same requirements that we put on nuclear plants, and make both pay for waste management.
Some coal power plants filter and collect their waste product. They then have to manage the waste. It either end up in landfills for toxic waste, bury it in the ground, or they dump it in the ocean. Hundred of tons of coal ash is created every year in the US alone.
Nuclear plants don't have the luxury to just dump it in the air, ocean, or bury it in the ground. The law require them to collect and store it, and so in contrast to fossil fuels it builds up and is visible. Nuclear plants create less total waste, and they don't contribute to climate change, and yet people are worried about nuclear waste while consuming enormous amount of fossil fuel energy.
The nuclear industry need better PR, while governments need to stop playing favorites. Force fossil fueled power plants to have the same requirements that we put on nuclear plants, and make both pay for waste management.
What do you mean "without a good place to do so"? Many European countries have had dedicated facilities for this for decades, some of which even manage hosting agreements for storing other European countries' spent fuel. You say this as if you think spent fuel rods are just being tossed with other metal scrap.
We have good places to do so, it’s just they never are good enough to antinuclear activists.
When antinuclear activists constitute 90% of the population, the other people start to be called differently :( .
Despite attempts on HN to help me, I still don't see a good way to deal with nuclear waste, which would be well explained.
Despite attempts on HN to help me, I still don't see a good way to deal with nuclear waste, which would be well explained.
It's all well explained - at this point you don't want to understand the solution: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_geological_repository
I've cited this quote before: "Despite a long-standing agreement among many experts that geological disposal can be safe, technologically feasible and environmentally sound, a large part of the general public in many countries remains skeptical as result of anti-nuclear campaigns and lack of knowledge."
It's unfortunately the case that large parts of the public (in some countries at least) prefer banning a reliable and sustainable energy source rather than risking that some guy in 10'000 years gets cancer because he recklessly trespassed into an old fuel depot.
I've cited this quote before: "Despite a long-standing agreement among many experts that geological disposal can be safe, technologically feasible and environmentally sound, a large part of the general public in many countries remains skeptical as result of anti-nuclear campaigns and lack of knowledge."
It's unfortunately the case that large parts of the public (in some countries at least) prefer banning a reliable and sustainable energy source rather than risking that some guy in 10'000 years gets cancer because he recklessly trespassed into an old fuel depot.
A good explanation is something different than repeating that experts agree on a particular page on the Internet. For question this controversial, I'd prefer to see a list of arguments for and contra, with best points from either side, which would cover all reasonable arguments and some unreasonable ones, with the decision left to the reader - otherwise expert opinion may seem not enough grounded. For me, I believe I have enough basic knowledge to decide, I just don't see a good analysis anywhere. I've talked with an expert too, a friend - and while he's for nuclear power, some questions he couldn't answer well. So, Wikipedia page doesn't seem enough - and I don't think I don't want to understand the solution.
> rather than risking that some guy in 10'000 years gets cancer because he recklessly trespassed into an old fuel depot.
The way I see it is that if human civilization degenerates so much that it loses track of where and what are nuclear waste deposits, there will be much bigger sources of death and misery than occasional radiation induced cancer.
The way I see it is that if human civilization degenerates so much that it loses track of where and what are nuclear waste deposits, there will be much bigger sources of death and misery than occasional radiation induced cancer.
Why not store the waste in Pripyat? Chernobyl already has dedicated personnel and monitoring equipment for radiation control. The area is off limits to settlement and it's not like there are NIMBY concerns. Nuclear plants already store their waste on-site, which means the footprint of the waste is small. The exclusion zone is large.
There is a lot of political diversity on the planet. But even the economically ambitious authoritarian places are not storing or reprocessing fuel as a service for the supposedly timid places.
Germany, Luxembourg, Portugal, Denmark and Austria recently issued a statement objecting to nuclear being classified as an environmentally sustainable source of power. But, that statement was being issued by an EU commision. So, it sounds to me like Europe is not a bloc on this issue.
Source: https://www.dw.com/en/eu-states-split-on-classifying-nuclear...
Source: https://www.dw.com/en/eu-states-split-on-classifying-nuclear...
And not as cost efficient as renewables, which they all plan to continue expanding rapidly.
Cost efficiency of renewables is a problematic topic, because it tends to avoid discussing their intermittency, only how much power costs when they happen to work (which isn't under control).
So you have other side of the coin where renewable buildup ends up with fossil fuel burning to cover the inevitable shortages, while peak renewable low costs are used to badger dispatchable tech into non-existence
So you have other side of the coin where renewable buildup ends up with fossil fuel burning to cover the inevitable shortages, while peak renewable low costs are used to badger dispatchable tech into non-existence
Also the plants are getting old and refurbishing them is extremely expensive.
If only the world would have followed Sweden and France [1] and largely de-carbonized their electrical grid by the 90s using primarily nuclear, we would be in a much better situation when it comes to global warming.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_France#/...
It's 30 years later and countries which push renewables heavily like Germany still have over 40% of their electricity produced from carbon producing sources. [2]
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Germany#/media/File:...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_France#/...
It's 30 years later and countries which push renewables heavily like Germany still have over 40% of their electricity produced from carbon producing sources. [2]
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Germany#/media/File:...
.png){kind=link}
According to TFA, conventional nuclear power plants would exhaust the available uranium resources in 5.7 years if used to provide 100% of the world primary energy. The world could not possibly have followed Sweden and France even if it wanted to.
Breeder reactors are a thing. I think the reason we lost interest was down to not needing them rather than anything else, but am prepared to be wrong if that turns out to be an urban legend.
[deleted]
Citation?
France has an ugly war in Mali because of their dependance on yellowcake AFAIK.
Found some articles claiming this but also others disputing it. France does not appear to get much Uranium from Mali.[1] Although I would not put it past them having an interest in future Uranium prospects.
[1] "France uses some 12,400 tonnes of uranium oxide concentrate (10,500 tonnes of U) per year for its electricity generation. Much of this comes from Areva in Canada (4500 tU/yr) and Niger (3200 tU/yr) together with other imports, principally from Australia, Kazakhstan and Russia, mostly under long-term contracts. Areva perceives the front end of the French fuel cycle as strategic, and invests accordingly." https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-pr...
[1] "France uses some 12,400 tonnes of uranium oxide concentrate (10,500 tonnes of U) per year for its electricity generation. Much of this comes from Areva in Canada (4500 tU/yr) and Niger (3200 tU/yr) together with other imports, principally from Australia, Kazakhstan and Russia, mostly under long-term contracts. Areva perceives the front end of the French fuel cycle as strategic, and invests accordingly." https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-pr...
Nuclear energy is sustainable only with technology we don't have yet. All the affordable reactor designs with no risk of accidents or proliferation are just 10 years away like they have been for four decades.
And the sea water plan relies on technology that has been shown to be theoretically possible but not yet shown to be remotely feasible. At the proposed scale of kilotons per year, this would require filtering hundreds of billions of tons of sea water every year, even if we disregard the fact that most seawater isn't easily accesible.
But the problem nuclear is that either way, it's far too late. Even if we managed to build nuclear reactors faster than at any other time in history, we would be far too late to stop climate change.
And the sea water plan relies on technology that has been shown to be theoretically possible but not yet shown to be remotely feasible. At the proposed scale of kilotons per year, this would require filtering hundreds of billions of tons of sea water every year, even if we disregard the fact that most seawater isn't easily accesible.
But the problem nuclear is that either way, it's far too late. Even if we managed to build nuclear reactors faster than at any other time in history, we would be far too late to stop climate change.
>"But the problem nuclear is that either way, it's far too late."
Sadly I see no other viable alternative. Wind and Solar are seemingly clean but require a ton of resources, have a massive footprint, and just don't scale with on-demand needs during bad weather.
>"All the affordable reactor designs with no risk of accidents or proliferation are just 10 years away like they have been for four decades."
No risk of accidents is an impossible standard. I know this will sound snarky, but, if you agree with the idea that the danger of climate change is existential, affordability is a relatively minor concern in comparison. Especially when you consider that a big factor as to why Nuclear is so expensive today is because we don't build them anymore, outside of places like China and India, which already have nuclear weapons.
Sadly I see no other viable alternative. Wind and Solar are seemingly clean but require a ton of resources, have a massive footprint, and just don't scale with on-demand needs during bad weather.
>"All the affordable reactor designs with no risk of accidents or proliferation are just 10 years away like they have been for four decades."
No risk of accidents is an impossible standard. I know this will sound snarky, but, if you agree with the idea that the danger of climate change is existential, affordability is a relatively minor concern in comparison. Especially when you consider that a big factor as to why Nuclear is so expensive today is because we don't build them anymore, outside of places like China and India, which already have nuclear weapons.
> Wind and Solar are seemingly clean but require a ton of resources,
We pull 700 million tonnes of oil out of the ground every year. The resources required to build a clean energy infrastructure is significantly less than that.
> have a massive footprint,
Powering the US with solar requires a smaller footprint than footprint of parking lots in the US. Wind is even less because while a wind farm is massive, it doesn't prevent the land from being used for other things.
> and just don't scale with on-demand needs during bad weather.
Hitting 99% renewables is straight forward. You get above 90% if each solar plant is overbuilt enough to handle a cloudy day and has enough batteries to handle a single day/night cycle. This isn't expensive, it only roughly doubles the cost of your plant.[1] Interconnect a bunch of those plants along with some wind will get you the next 9%. Then use a gas peaker for the last 1%.
1: https://www.energy-storage.news/developer-8minute-says-more-...
We pull 700 million tonnes of oil out of the ground every year. The resources required to build a clean energy infrastructure is significantly less than that.
> have a massive footprint,
Powering the US with solar requires a smaller footprint than footprint of parking lots in the US. Wind is even less because while a wind farm is massive, it doesn't prevent the land from being used for other things.
> and just don't scale with on-demand needs during bad weather.
Hitting 99% renewables is straight forward. You get above 90% if each solar plant is overbuilt enough to handle a cloudy day and has enough batteries to handle a single day/night cycle. This isn't expensive, it only roughly doubles the cost of your plant.[1] Interconnect a bunch of those plants along with some wind will get you the next 9%. Then use a gas peaker for the last 1%.
1: https://www.energy-storage.news/developer-8minute-says-more-...
Except we need to ban also the gas peaker, and suddenly calculations might show that a) storage isn't as easy b) a lot of locations might need overbuilding on ratio of 10x IF there was good storage c) that gas peaker is going to run quite a lot otherwise
Or you build a bit more capacity and use excess production on good days to produce co2 neutral gas (power to hydrogen to methan) that can also be stored in existing infrastructure.
if by bit more you mean 10x, sure, and that's only cheaper than nuclear if you have convenient geological storage.
Overground storage quickly goes more expensive than nuclear.
Overground storage quickly goes more expensive than nuclear.
What's the massive footprint you talk about? If we put enough solar panels to provide electricity for all humans into the Sahara desert, it only covers a small area.
When I say footprint, I'm alluding to installations like the Taihang Solar Farm in China: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n731JjYSySY And, by footprint I mean the amount of space these panels occupy on the landscape.
Putting solar farms in a desert is an attractive idea and way less impactful than covering hillsides in green and temperate areas. My understanding, though, is that the transmission of all that energy is the real issue. You can build a giant solar farm in the Mojave desert but distributing it to farther parts of the U.S. is a problem.
Putting solar farms in a desert is an attractive idea and way less impactful than covering hillsides in green and temperate areas. My understanding, though, is that the transmission of all that energy is the real issue. You can build a giant solar farm in the Mojave desert but distributing it to farther parts of the U.S. is a problem.
Even if we created all our power from solar, it's negligible in land use compared to things like roads or agricultural land.
I don't think this is a meaningful comparison because they are not interchangeable and they exist independently of each other. The large footprint of farmland and roads doesn't make solar appealing in comparison, it just means that other facets of civilization are worse in terms of land use. To me, at least, just because something is way worse does not mean the other thing is acceptable because of it.
I also believe the amount of land we would need to convert to solar would be mostly be newly developed land. We probably wouldn't be converting already productive and utilized land.
I also believe the amount of land we would need to convert to solar would be mostly be newly developed land. We probably wouldn't be converting already productive and utilized land.
It is a meaningful comparison. Agricultural and road use is huge. The solar installation you linked looks huge, but really, I could just as easily link an image of a uranium mine. Some of them are positively enormous - but that doesn't mean that land use for nuclear is.
A pessimistic scenario for Germany requires about 2.5% of the area for 100% renewable energy with today's technology. In a very densely populated country not exactly blessed with loads of sunshine hours. Taking into account the possibility of dual use (PV on buildings, wind turbines on farmland etc) we'll probably use about two times as much land for renewables than we use for cemeteries. It's very manageable.
A pessimistic scenario for Germany requires about 2.5% of the area for 100% renewable energy with today's technology. In a very densely populated country not exactly blessed with loads of sunshine hours. Taking into account the possibility of dual use (PV on buildings, wind turbines on farmland etc) we'll probably use about two times as much land for renewables than we use for cemeteries. It's very manageable.
And you would cause untold destruction to amazon rainforests, among other things.
No, you can't just pave desert with panels and magically solve power generation without ugly environmental consequences, that doesn't work even in computer games.
No, you can't just pave desert with panels and magically solve power generation without ugly environmental consequences, that doesn't work even in computer games.
> And you would cause untold destruction to amazon rainforests, among other things.
Why would putting all the panels in a desert do that to a rainforest on a different continent?
And how much of the Sahara do you think we’d need to cover in PV if for some strange reason we didn’t put any on rooftops, brownfield land, parking lots, car bodies, and (for most of the world) closer deserts?
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=area%20sahara%20%2F%20%...
Why would putting all the panels in a desert do that to a rainforest on a different continent?
And how much of the Sahara do you think we’d need to cover in PV if for some strange reason we didn’t put any on rooftops, brownfield land, parking lots, car bodies, and (for most of the world) closer deserts?
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=area%20sahara%20%2F%20%...
Because, surprisingly, various ecosystems including Amazon rainforests are dependant on sand picked by wind from Sahara. Ecology can be weirder than you think, and having intercontinental dependencies is surprisingly common.
Sensitive enough that 0.5% land use change would do that?
I don't remember the exact numbers from studies, but EU-funded research in that area suggested vastly higher numbers as part of removing fossil fuel dependency
I suggest following the Wolfram Alpha link I gave above. My assumptions, to explain the magic numbers visible in that formula, are 20% efficient and 25% capacity factor.
(And the other person was actually saying electricity, which is what WA is inferring in that calculation)
(And the other person was actually saying electricity, which is what WA is inferring in that calculation)
Except it is not practical to colocate all of the worlds solar power in a single location, and wind farms are even less space efficient by orders of magnitude when compared to energy density of nuclear per area.
> All the affordable reactor designs with no risk of accidents or proliferation are just 10 years away like they have been for four decades.
So, like storage for renewables?
Seems to me, we're not concerned on R&D budgets, so we should pursue all relevant methods of decarbonisation, of which nuclear is a very promising one.
So, like storage for renewables?
Seems to me, we're not concerned on R&D budgets, so we should pursue all relevant methods of decarbonisation, of which nuclear is a very promising one.
While I’m fine with making as much nuclear as is economical because it’s cheaper than batteries right now, we have had storage for renewables since at least the Hoover Dam (if not before), and electrification of cars alone (which we have to do anyway) is a larger scale of battery use than we need for meeting the needs of the electricity grid.
> we're not concerned on R&D budgets
Just curious, why do you think so? I do think this should be the case, but I just don't see it happening.
Just curious, why do you think so? I do think this should be the case, but I just don't see it happening.
Mistyped, should have said "constrained".
In the planetary scale, paying a few $10bns or $100bns is nothing, especially against the backdrop of global warming damage. I don't think we should skimp on researching nuclear in this context, "because renewables are cooler".
I think we need a new "nuclear Trinity project" (only this time for energy generation!) or a SpaceX-type enterprise. Iterate, build a simple, single, safe design, and deploy it widely. Or fail, but not without trying.
In the planetary scale, paying a few $10bns or $100bns is nothing, especially against the backdrop of global warming damage. I don't think we should skimp on researching nuclear in this context, "because renewables are cooler".
I think we need a new "nuclear Trinity project" (only this time for energy generation!) or a SpaceX-type enterprise. Iterate, build a simple, single, safe design, and deploy it widely. Or fail, but not without trying.
We are concerned on R&D budgets. Costs matter because costs represents material and personnel that needs to be devoted. We are also tight on time. Nuclear reactors take at least a decade to build.
Oh, and while we have lots and lots of people and know-how in renewables, battery tech and transmission technology. We don't have that many people who can build reactors, due to the anti-nuclear trend of the last three decades. You can bemoan that, and maybe building up nuclear during that time would have been a solution to climate change, but that doesn't change the fact that even if we wanted to build hundreds of nukes today, we would lack the specialists.
Oh, and while we have lots and lots of people and know-how in renewables, battery tech and transmission technology. We don't have that many people who can build reactors, due to the anti-nuclear trend of the last three decades. You can bemoan that, and maybe building up nuclear during that time would have been a solution to climate change, but that doesn't change the fact that even if we wanted to build hundreds of nukes today, we would lack the specialists.
We also have a) existing working designs for nuclear power b) existing paper designs for improved nuclear power.
Meanwhile c) we are working on getting paper designs for storage that might or might not work to get renewables good enough.
The starting point is vastly different.
Meanwhile c) we are working on getting paper designs for storage that might or might not work to get renewables good enough.
The starting point is vastly different.
Nuclear energy is already sustainable with technology we have, breeder reactors and fuel reprocessing. They have been built since the 60s, some are still in operation, and more are under construction in India and China, where there is still an appetite for nuclear power.
We have this stuff on paper.
Stuff tends not to work out in practise. It costs more, it's unreliable etc.
If this were a solved problem why is there so much nuclear waste that has not been bred and reprocessed?
Stuff tends not to work out in practise. It costs more, it's unreliable etc.
If this were a solved problem why is there so much nuclear waste that has not been bred and reprocessed?
Reprocessing works fine in practice, as others have mentioned, it’s uncommon because it’s politically unpopular. Partially because everything related to nuclear anything is politically unpopular, partially because having high-purity plutonium lying around poses nuclear weapon proliferation risks. Though this can be avoided by breeding and reacting in situ.
> why is there so much nuclear waste that has not been bred and reprocessed?
You may be inclined to wonder why there is so much nuclear waste at all. After all, we could just melt it, dilute it into a slag with a bunch of silicon, cart it off to a boat and dump it into a deep ocean trench if we wanted to be safely rid of it. But we don’t want to be rid of it. It’s extremely expensive to produce and extremely valuable, and any permanent solution for storing nuclear waste needs to be reversible in case we ever want it back for reprocessing.
> why is there so much nuclear waste that has not been bred and reprocessed?
You may be inclined to wonder why there is so much nuclear waste at all. After all, we could just melt it, dilute it into a slag with a bunch of silicon, cart it off to a boat and dump it into a deep ocean trench if we wanted to be safely rid of it. But we don’t want to be rid of it. It’s extremely expensive to produce and extremely valuable, and any permanent solution for storing nuclear waste needs to be reversible in case we ever want it back for reprocessing.
>If this were a solved problem why is there so much nuclear waste that has not been bred and reprocessed?
Because naysayers have had a dominant influence over nuclear policy since Chernobyl.
Because naysayers have had a dominant influence over nuclear policy since Chernobyl.
Because reprocessing is problematic politically, not technically. Yes, reprocessing involves some ridiculous chemistry, but we know how to deal with it. What we don't have is political will, especially when anti-nuclear activists are joined hand-in-hand with war mongers crying about nuclear weapons if anyone tries to go for plutonium economy (France and Japan are considerable way there).
[deleted]
I do not understand why this comment is getting votes. The doomer perspective alone should be disqualifying... While we can't completely prevent any climate change, we have already significantly bent the curve and our efforts now are important - 2 degrees warming vs. 4 degrees is incredibly material.
More on this: https://nyti.ms/3Egq7tV
More on this: https://nyti.ms/3Egq7tV
I think climate change is solvable, but we need solutions we can implement now. Proven solutions exist. Scaling up nuclear is not a solution. It is too slow and requires too much manpower.
Nuclear had its chance, and it failed to deliver. It's a failed technology. It didn't work out, and it was never as cheap or as reliable as people wish it was.
Nuclear had its chance, and it failed to deliver. It's a failed technology. It didn't work out, and it was never as cheap or as reliable as people wish it was.
The big economical killer for nuclear isn't renewables, but fossil fuels (specifically, gas turbines).
Take away gas turbines and other fossil sources, and without magic pie-in-the-sky, renewables leave you with rolling blackouts and broken grid.
Take away gas turbines and other fossil sources, and without magic pie-in-the-sky, renewables leave you with rolling blackouts and broken grid.
If its too late to build nuclear, it is far too late to continue burn fossil fuel. They need to shutdown now with the coal, oil and gas staying in the ground and the one that we have already gathered need to be put back into the earth where it shall remain.
Until we first agree to shut fossil fuels down, talk about fossil fuels alternatives being "too late" is advocacy to continue burning fossil fuel.
Until we first agree to shut fossil fuels down, talk about fossil fuels alternatives being "too late" is advocacy to continue burning fossil fuel.
That’s overly pessimistic, I think.
While we would indeed need to process seawater at an enormous scale, that becomes necessary after roughly 24 times longer into the future than the first nuclear power plant is into the past, which is when the non-seawater fuel runs out. This is too far into the future to make realistic predictions about technology or industry.
As for it being too late to stop global warming: well yes, but because that ship sailed some time ago. As is said of various things and time periods, the best time to do it was a few decades ago, the second best time is today.
The bigger problem is the political viability, both internally and internationally. How does Iran ever use nuclear power when every reactor is destroyed by an Israel afraid that Iran wants the atom bomb?
But, instead of thinking of it as all or nothing, think of the reactors than can be built as storage or intercontinental power grid capacity that doesn’t need to be built, or at least that we don’t need on the same time frame.
Right now, solar is doing what nuclear promised and failed to deliver for costs; batteries, while cheap enough to make electric cars interesting, are still more expensive for shifting day production to night load than just using nuclear to start with, and my preference of a global power grid needs a few decades to build even with (unrealistic) zero political concerns. All of this can probably be helped with nuclear.
While we would indeed need to process seawater at an enormous scale, that becomes necessary after roughly 24 times longer into the future than the first nuclear power plant is into the past, which is when the non-seawater fuel runs out. This is too far into the future to make realistic predictions about technology or industry.
As for it being too late to stop global warming: well yes, but because that ship sailed some time ago. As is said of various things and time periods, the best time to do it was a few decades ago, the second best time is today.
The bigger problem is the political viability, both internally and internationally. How does Iran ever use nuclear power when every reactor is destroyed by an Israel afraid that Iran wants the atom bomb?
But, instead of thinking of it as all or nothing, think of the reactors than can be built as storage or intercontinental power grid capacity that doesn’t need to be built, or at least that we don’t need on the same time frame.
Right now, solar is doing what nuclear promised and failed to deliver for costs; batteries, while cheap enough to make electric cars interesting, are still more expensive for shifting day production to night load than just using nuclear to start with, and my preference of a global power grid needs a few decades to build even with (unrealistic) zero political concerns. All of this can probably be helped with nuclear.
Is there another form of energy generations with "no risk of accidents"? I've read some statistics that say nuclear energy is already safer than all other forms of energy generation per kWh. As for proliferation risk I think it's becoming a moot point as countries like Iran, North Korea, etc., are already making their own highly enriched nuclear materials and can give it to whoever they want.
Indeed, and to your last point I propose a challenge: over the next 30 years, we build as much nuclear and solar+wind as we can and see which generates more kWh at the end. My money is on the latter, but either way we all win.
A lot of the time it's because they are stuck in the same point for the last 10 years - "no funding for finishing 95% done tech because non-existant future storage tech will make renewables reliable"
Reliable solar power for $40/MWh:
https://www.energy-storage.news/developer-8minute-says-more-...
https://www.energy-storage.news/developer-8minute-says-more-...
And it requires the exclusive use of very favourable terrain (for solar, which isn't available in many places) to provide what, 1/5th of what same sized nuclear facility could do (and that's me underplaying the capacity of the nuclear facility, it's even worse if you go for what's possible)
Location doesn't make as much difference as you would think. Arizona gets about 3 times as much sun as Boston does, but a cloudy day in Arizona isn't significantly different than a cloudy day in Boston. And if you size your solar to support cloudy days...
And yes, solar farms are bigger than nuclear plants. That might be a problem in Singapore, but a few hundred square miles of solar farms is not a big deal in a country with 3.5 million square miles.
And yes, solar farms are bigger than nuclear plants. That might be a problem in Singapore, but a few hundred square miles of solar farms is not a big deal in a country with 3.5 million square miles.
So it can provide piddling amounts of power given very favourable conditions.
Now consider that Boston is on similar distance from North pole as Spain, and not everywhere has huge swaths of unused land conveniently stripped of natives.
Now consider that Boston is on similar distance from North pole as Spain, and not everywhere has huge swaths of unused land conveniently stripped of natives.
The calculations don't take into account growing energy usage. But anyone who understands exponential growth already knew that from looking at the title.
EDIT: Title on the article is currently 'Nuclear fuel will last us for 4 billion years'. I recall that that was also the HN title when I wrote this comment, but I could have got mixed up.
EDIT: Title on the article is currently 'Nuclear fuel will last us for 4 billion years'. I recall that that was also the HN title when I wrote this comment, but I could have got mixed up.
No form of exponential growth is sustainable; another name for it is "explosion".
In practice, most things that look exponential end up as S-shaped / sigmoid curves
In practice, most things that look exponential end up as S-shaped / sigmoid curves
Well, maybe not exponentially. But at least theoretically things could keep expanding quadratically for a very long time, if we figure out a way to get to other star systems.
And much of the sun's output is yet untapped.
And much of the sun's output is yet untapped.
Energy consumption seems to be increasing linearly since the 40s not exponentially and the increase has been slowing down - to 1-2% increase per year.
https://ourworldindata.org/energy-production-consumption
https://ourworldindata.org/energy-production-consumption
We'll probably see that trend tick up again soon. Maybe you haven't been paying attention to the political climate, but there is a huge push to increase the living standards of 6 billion people up to the level of the 1 billion currently living in developed countries, whether through immigration or aid.
The relationship between living standards and energy use/carbon emissions is not exactly 1:1, but it's pretty close (net of offshoring one's personal emissions to China, India, etc). Get ready for about a 4x increase in carbon emissions if our suicidal empathy trend continues.
What to do, when a ship carrying a hundred passengers suddenly capsizes and there is only one lifeboat? When the lifeboat is full, those who hate life will try to load it with more people and sink the lot. Those who love and respect life will take the ship's axe and sever the extra hands that cling to the sides.
― Pentti Linkola
The relationship between living standards and energy use/carbon emissions is not exactly 1:1, but it's pretty close (net of offshoring one's personal emissions to China, India, etc). Get ready for about a 4x increase in carbon emissions if our suicidal empathy trend continues.
What to do, when a ship carrying a hundred passengers suddenly capsizes and there is only one lifeboat? When the lifeboat is full, those who hate life will try to load it with more people and sink the lot. Those who love and respect life will take the ship's axe and sever the extra hands that cling to the sides.
― Pentti Linkola
Yes, but prices have also been rising over that time. I expect that if prices had remained constant our usages would have gone up exponentially (equivalently, supply would have had to increase exponentially to keep prices constant). If we have low energy usage over the next 4 billion years, but only because the price keeps going up, then it has not 'last us 4 billion years'. The price going up is precisely what 'not lasting us' looks like!
The problem with nuclear energy is not, and never was, availability of fuel. The fueling costs are by and large negligible in the balance sheet of a nuclear plant.
Nuclear has a massive capital cost issue, you need to invest a very large sum of money up-front and recoup it over decades; and you can start to recoup it only after at least 5 years of construction that can be bogged in regulatory and construction delays, political and civil opposition can stretch construction to more than a decade, all the while the investor is billions in the red.
This makes nuclear very very risky from a financial perspective, slow to adopt innovation, hard to attract private investors that can't accommodate projects that take such a long time to become profitable. Basically, they are too expensive and slow compared to the business risk they entail, especially compared to renewables, which are quick to market and have very clear risk profiles.
If and when this changes, for example by SMRs or advanced, low cost designs, then nuclear will have a place in the clean energy market. Up to now, attempts to bring the cost down have failed, for example NuScale's battery of small reactors is estimated to cost the same as a clasic reactor.
Nuclear has a massive capital cost issue, you need to invest a very large sum of money up-front and recoup it over decades; and you can start to recoup it only after at least 5 years of construction that can be bogged in regulatory and construction delays, political and civil opposition can stretch construction to more than a decade, all the while the investor is billions in the red.
This makes nuclear very very risky from a financial perspective, slow to adopt innovation, hard to attract private investors that can't accommodate projects that take such a long time to become profitable. Basically, they are too expensive and slow compared to the business risk they entail, especially compared to renewables, which are quick to market and have very clear risk profiles.
If and when this changes, for example by SMRs or advanced, low cost designs, then nuclear will have a place in the clean energy market. Up to now, attempts to bring the cost down have failed, for example NuScale's battery of small reactors is estimated to cost the same as a clasic reactor.
Alternative solution:
Lean into private/public ventures to change the economics. We just make the private risk profile look reasonable. via direct investment.
Lean into private/public ventures to change the economics. We just make the private risk profile look reasonable. via direct investment.
I find it amusing how easy we leave waste and decide for generations to come to deal with.
Plutonium has a half-life of 24110 years – it will take about ten of them until it's gone.
Just imagine the provision for 1 security guard's toilet paper for a quarter of a million of years.
It's always pipe-dreams like 'somebody will eventually have a genius idea about it'.
Plutonium has a half-life of 24110 years – it will take about ten of them until it's gone.
Just imagine the provision for 1 security guard's toilet paper for a quarter of a million of years.
It's always pipe-dreams like 'somebody will eventually have a genius idea about it'.
Nuclear waste has appropriate and functional solutions on those time scales in deep geologic repositories. Finland is the leader here [1].
Compared with combustion waste from fossil and biofuel which kills ~8 million people every year and causes climate change, I have to say that the nuclear waste is dramatically better for the present and for the future.
[1] https://posiva.fi/
Compared with combustion waste from fossil and biofuel which kills ~8 million people every year and causes climate change, I have to say that the nuclear waste is dramatically better for the present and for the future.
[1] https://posiva.fi/
the claim was 'long term sustainable' – burning fossils isn't a contender here.
Longer half-life = less radioactive.
By definition.
By definition.
radioactivity isn't the only problematic property of plutonium.
But it's the one you mentioned.
You're just trying to move the goal posts now.
You're just trying to move the goal posts now.
strictly spoken: no. I mentioned the time it is around and not decayed yet. I didn't stress radiation, did I? Plutonium is very toxic. No more after decay, I guess. But that takes time as mentioned.
So is lead, and it has a half-life of infinity.
You were clearly using "long half-life" to imply "super bad!" when in actuality "long half-life" means "not very radioactive at all".
You were clearly using "long half-life" to imply "super bad!" when in actuality "long half-life" means "not very radioactive at all".
I talked about long existence of nuclear waste.
And yes, I consider plutonium super bad. And I consider keeping that safe longer than our species exists to date as ambitious.
I may err and plutonium may be a kinda decaying lead as you imply.
And yes, I consider plutonium super bad. And I consider keeping that safe longer than our species exists to date as ambitious.
I may err and plutonium may be a kinda decaying lead as you imply.
People try to debate nuclear rationally, but I think there is a sharp divide in temperament in our culture. Some people want the solution to our energy woes to be perpetual austerity, lowering consumption and being eternally vigilant against anything that might produce more energy. The other temperament sees creating more energy as a good thing. It doesn't have the "closed world" assumption.
It's remarkable that the former temperament is very conservation oriented, and therefore conservative, but more a feature of the Left than the Right.
It's remarkable that the former temperament is very conservation oriented, and therefore conservative, but more a feature of the Left than the Right.
To caricature, the left wants to apply the precautionary principle to the environment but has no qualms about the destruction of national history, culture, etc. whereas the right is supposedly the opposite. Personally I'm a small c conservative, in that I oppose the destruction of the environment just as much as I oppose the ongoing push to erase individual nations.
1) there are no working thorium reactors 2) breeder reactors are hazardous 3) uranium seawater extraction doesn't exist 4) if uranium seawater extraction were made to work it would use enormous amounts of energy not reflected in this.
The depressing truth is this shows that current uranium oxide reserves and nuclear tech could supply global energy needs for only 6 years.
The depressing truth is this shows that current uranium oxide reserves and nuclear tech could supply global energy needs for only 6 years.
1) Untrue https://sg.news.yahoo.com/china-hopes-play-leading-role-2203...
2) Not in any way that is irreducible.
3) wrong. https://www.machinedesign.com/materials/article/21836993/ura...
“Oh, that’s just proof of concept.” Yes, and even 5 grams is enough to disprove your claim it doesn’t exist. Reality is we won’t need it for an extremely long time, so why would anyone do more than proof of concept?
4) still on-net easily pays for itself energy-wise. Thinking otherwise usually shows you do not appreciate just how energy dense uranium is.
Belly aching that existing reserves are small, well duh. Demand is small. No one pays massive amounts of money to “prove” reserves when demand is small just to win an Internet argument. But uranium and thorium themselves are super common and in fact there’s more energy in fissionables in a random chunk of the Earth’s crust than there is thermal energy in a chunk of coal. The only thing depressing about what you said is that so many people buy into such poor logic.
Look, I’m not a nuclear bro. We will primarily decarbonize with renewables. But so many of these anti-nuclear arguments are terrible.
2) Not in any way that is irreducible.
3) wrong. https://www.machinedesign.com/materials/article/21836993/ura...
“Oh, that’s just proof of concept.” Yes, and even 5 grams is enough to disprove your claim it doesn’t exist. Reality is we won’t need it for an extremely long time, so why would anyone do more than proof of concept?
4) still on-net easily pays for itself energy-wise. Thinking otherwise usually shows you do not appreciate just how energy dense uranium is.
Belly aching that existing reserves are small, well duh. Demand is small. No one pays massive amounts of money to “prove” reserves when demand is small just to win an Internet argument. But uranium and thorium themselves are super common and in fact there’s more energy in fissionables in a random chunk of the Earth’s crust than there is thermal energy in a chunk of coal. The only thing depressing about what you said is that so many people buy into such poor logic.
Look, I’m not a nuclear bro. We will primarily decarbonize with renewables. But so many of these anti-nuclear arguments are terrible.
Re: #3 & 4, I've toured that lab and seen that experiment in person, and it is extremely promising. Their original tests we able to produce yellowcake uranium at roughly 2x market rate, which is amazing for a domestic source. They are now working on scaling and unique applications to bring the price even lower. I believe that they are looking at post filtering desalination brine. The process extracts many heavy metals, which can make make for good alternate revenue streams, further decreasing the price.
The Stanford group? That's great news on the production prices. I still doubt the extraction rate assumptions in the articles, but I think renewables plus scaled down nuclear will be the path forward.
Your news article link appears to state that China hopes to build a thorium reactor. It doesn’t seem say one is up and running, does it, or did I miss something?
They’ve built one and plan to switch it on now, this month, and may have done so already. But the list of nuclear reactors that have used thorium as at least part of their fuel is surprisingly long. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium_fuel_cycle#List_of_tho...
I generally discount arguments that are in the form of: “we cannot commercialize this because it has not yet been commercialized.” But do thorium fueled reactors exist? Absolutely.
I generally discount arguments that are in the form of: “we cannot commercialize this because it has not yet been commercialized.” But do thorium fueled reactors exist? Absolutely.
[deleted]
Wikipedia indicates that some test reactors are currently operational, and there are construction projects underway for commercial reactors. The article notes that in 1999 there were 0 operating thorium reactors anywhere on earth, but that no longer seems to be true.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power
Be as it may, a thorium reactor is in no way particularly special compared to a uranium reactor [1]. As humankind is able to make uranium reactors work, we can make thorium reactors work. Just like with seawater extraction of uranium, there's no particular hurry to commercialize the technology since uranium so far is plentiful and cheap.
[1] There is the issue that thorium by itself is not fissile, so it's a breeding fuel cycle similar to the U-Pu breeding cycle with reprocessing etc. Which, again, hasn't been developed as quickly as hoped many decades ago, as the simple once-through uranium cycle has been cheaper and good enough.
[1] There is the issue that thorium by itself is not fissile, so it's a breeding fuel cycle similar to the U-Pu breeding cycle with reprocessing etc. Which, again, hasn't been developed as quickly as hoped many decades ago, as the simple once-through uranium cycle has been cheaper and good enough.
I have followed the nuclear for more than 3 decades and invested in junior E&P for more than a decade. Everyone, understandably, hopes for something to drop in and save us from the situation we're in with the climate and energy intensity. Nuclear will be a part of it, but everything I said in my post was true like it or not. Plans for a thorium reactor do not amount to a commercial thorium reactor. Also, 5 grams is useless and I do discount it - the seawater extraction tech is trivial, but doing it at scale and positive net energy is not.
Everything I said can change. But let's not fool ourselves about the current state of tech. Part of the frustration is the "fake it til you make it" culture in tech being a terrible fit for nuclear, which requires thinking in centuries for site placement, staffing, and waste management.
Everything I said can change. But let's not fool ourselves about the current state of tech. Part of the frustration is the "fake it til you make it" culture in tech being a terrible fit for nuclear, which requires thinking in centuries for site placement, staffing, and waste management.
Yeah but reserves != resources so your problem isn't a real one.
1P, 2P, and 3P reserve categories are something I'm quite familiar with and I have broadly invested in a long term increase in UO2 prices. Uranium is a fascinating basic material, and there are several ways to extract it. You have higher grade ore deposits that are directly mined. There are in situ leaching techniques, also. Increases in prices will make new techniques economically viable and 2P+ reserves will be reclassified to 1P.
"My problem" is that there is a physical cap on this with fuel extraction: EROI. A trillion dollars a pound for ore will not matter if it takes more energy to recovery a resource than it takes to produce it. The seawater recovery part of this story is dubious at best at the recovery factors used in their calculations.
"My problem" is that there is a physical cap on this with fuel extraction: EROI. A trillion dollars a pound for ore will not matter if it takes more energy to recovery a resource than it takes to produce it. The seawater recovery part of this story is dubious at best at the recovery factors used in their calculations.
1) Because we got rid of them for being annoying
2) Untrue. There are even breeder reactors with passive safety and very nice safety records, waylaid only by funding and partially by geopolitics (ok, coolant is expensive as hell, but that's because we don't mine enough bismuth)
3 & 4) Won't cover, not my area
The thing is, where are you picking up ridiculous 6 years amount? Because it sounds like very, very cherry-picked value.
2) Untrue. There are even breeder reactors with passive safety and very nice safety records, waylaid only by funding and partially by geopolitics (ok, coolant is expensive as hell, but that's because we don't mine enough bismuth)
3 & 4) Won't cover, not my area
The thing is, where are you picking up ridiculous 6 years amount? Because it sounds like very, very cherry-picked value.
> There are even breeder reactors with passive safety and very nice safety records, waylaid only by funding and partially by geopolitics (ok, coolant is expensive as hell, but that's because we don't mine enough bismuth)
Reactors cooled with lead-bismuth eutectic have a somewhat nasty problem of polonium production. To the extent we'll see lead-cooled reactors I'm more hopeful about plain lead. It has a higher melting temperature yes, but it seems workable. There are a couple of promising efforts in this direction.
Reactors cooled with lead-bismuth eutectic have a somewhat nasty problem of polonium production. To the extent we'll see lead-cooled reactors I'm more hopeful about plain lead. It has a higher melting temperature yes, but it seems workable. There are a couple of promising efforts in this direction.
The polonium production due to short half-life of the specific isotope was found to actually increase safety, as it made detection of leaks easier (root cause was fixed and isn't present in later models) and cleanup easier as well (minute amounts of polonium that were easy to spot and cleanup). Most importantly, it undergoes alpha decay, which makes shielding easy.
"The thing is, where are you picking up ridiculous 6 years amount? Because it sounds like very, very cherry-picked value."
That's directly from the linked article, except I rounded 5.7 years up to 6.
That's directly from the linked article, except I rounded 5.7 years up to 6.
If efficient, safe and low cost fast breeders become available, you don't need thorium or sea extraction. Just transmute the vast quantities of U238 that have been stockpiled as depleted uranium into fissionable Plutonium 239 and run reactors on that for decades.
Large nations have about one milion tons of depleted Uranium, in oxide or hexaflouride form, that's about 1 trillion megawatt-days, enough for 150 years of current energy consumption, or decades of geometric increases of energy use. Only then we need to go after existing proven mineral reserves, and only after that, maybe at the turn of the 22nd century, we would need to ponder sea water extraction.
Large nations have about one milion tons of depleted Uranium, in oxide or hexaflouride form, that's about 1 trillion megawatt-days, enough for 150 years of current energy consumption, or decades of geometric increases of energy use. Only then we need to go after existing proven mineral reserves, and only after that, maybe at the turn of the 22nd century, we would need to ponder sea water extraction.
> 1) there are no working thorium reactors
This will likely soon change.
> 2) breeder reactors are hazardous
France seems to use them safely.
> 3) uranium seawater extraction doesn't exist
It will once we use breeder reactors. The reason seawater extraction doesn't exist is that it isn't economical. With breeder reactors, the calculus would change.
> 4) if uranium seawater extraction were made to work it would use enormous amounts of energy not reflected in this.
It would produce significantly more than it consumes.
This will likely soon change.
> 2) breeder reactors are hazardous
France seems to use them safely.
> 3) uranium seawater extraction doesn't exist
It will once we use breeder reactors. The reason seawater extraction doesn't exist is that it isn't economical. With breeder reactors, the calculus would change.
> 4) if uranium seawater extraction were made to work it would use enormous amounts of energy not reflected in this.
It would produce significantly more than it consumes.
> This will likely soon change.
It's almost like nuclear fusion, just with much smaller numbers. Thorium reactors are always just a few years away - since the late 1980s.
It's almost like nuclear fusion, just with much smaller numbers. Thorium reactors are always just a few years away - since the late 1980s.
> It's almost like nuclear fusion, just with much smaller numbers.
It is kind of the same.
Scientists say that we can make fusion work in ten years given X amount of money. Government says, here's 5% of that amount, how long will it take then? Well, maybe two hundred years. Fifty years later people say, why no fusion?
It is kind of the same.
Scientists say that we can make fusion work in ten years given X amount of money. Government says, here's 5% of that amount, how long will it take then? Well, maybe two hundred years. Fifty years later people say, why no fusion?
No, they were a thing in 1950s-1960s. Things moved in other directions, especially with how USA pretty much stopped approving any design other than LWR and PWR variants where Thorium fuel cycle didn't offer much (there were non-molten salt thorium reactors)
Re: 3) & 4), Uranium seawater extraction does exist, and it is cheap, easy, and requires very little energy. I toured PNNL and viewed their uranium extraction project in person. It utilizes thin, high surface area fibers of plastic impregnated with a molecule that binds uranium and other heavy metals. A rinse with a dilute acid (acetic, citric, etc) releases the metals. The substrate can then be reused indefinitely.
The deployed system is fully passive - basically fake floating kelp beds, anchored to the sea floor, deployed in high current areas. They would be hauled in every 3 months or so, rinsed off on the boat, and then redeployed. Everything could be done using standard bivalve farming methods, but with lower impact on the environment.
They are now looking at a way to use the same material to post-filter desalination brine.
https://www.pnnl.gov/news/release.aspx?id=4514
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCF3k_EbGiU
The deployed system is fully passive - basically fake floating kelp beds, anchored to the sea floor, deployed in high current areas. They would be hauled in every 3 months or so, rinsed off on the boat, and then redeployed. Everything could be done using standard bivalve farming methods, but with lower impact on the environment.
They are now looking at a way to use the same material to post-filter desalination brine.
https://www.pnnl.gov/news/release.aspx?id=4514
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCF3k_EbGiU
Yes, those assumptions are very optimistic. If at all it would take to long to develop all this technology before it is too late.
(1) is like the old argument against reusable rocket boosters: there are none, so it's not possible. The US ran a thorium reactor decades ago experimentally. The "if it hasn't flown it can't fly" mentality that Elon cited in aerospace is actually pervasive across Western thought in regard to larger scale or more challenging capital intensive physical (as opposed to information) technologies. (Elon is not superhuman. He is only a "good" engineer and probably not a great manager. His superpower is rejecting conservatism and actually doing things.)
(2) is true for current generation uranium breeders that use ill-tempered working reagents like liquid sodium. The phrase "liquid sodium" combined with "power reactor" makes me want to buy a good pair of running shoes, as Derek Lowe of "Things I Won't Work With" fame might say. Thorium is a better idea. Those molten salts are nasty but they tend to stay in one place and do not spontaneously ignite when exposed to oxygen or water.
(3) true, but rendered less important due to (1). Thorium is much more abundant than uranium.
(4) also true, but probably not relevant. I think the seawater thing is a canard. Lithium for batteries from brine on the other hand is feasible, though maybe not economical given that there are vast easier to get reserves of lithium.
That being said, I think the renewables + batteries path looks much easier to deploy given other issues such as politics, up front capital requirements, and gradual scalability.
Also AFAIK a fully nuclear grid (with no fossil peakers) would require grid scale power storage to load level since nuclear is slow at load following, but not as much storage capacity as a fully renewable grid since you don't have to bridge long periods with no sun or wind.
(2) is true for current generation uranium breeders that use ill-tempered working reagents like liquid sodium. The phrase "liquid sodium" combined with "power reactor" makes me want to buy a good pair of running shoes, as Derek Lowe of "Things I Won't Work With" fame might say. Thorium is a better idea. Those molten salts are nasty but they tend to stay in one place and do not spontaneously ignite when exposed to oxygen or water.
(3) true, but rendered less important due to (1). Thorium is much more abundant than uranium.
(4) also true, but probably not relevant. I think the seawater thing is a canard. Lithium for batteries from brine on the other hand is feasible, though maybe not economical given that there are vast easier to get reserves of lithium.
That being said, I think the renewables + batteries path looks much easier to deploy given other issues such as politics, up front capital requirements, and gradual scalability.
Also AFAIK a fully nuclear grid (with no fossil peakers) would require grid scale power storage to load level since nuclear is slow at load following, but not as much storage capacity as a fully renewable grid since you don't have to bridge long periods with no sun or wind.
2) Thorium molten salts are heavy on fluoride, so... ;)
Thing is, we don't need to use either in breeder reactors - SVBR is a proof, although Bismuth production is a problem - but that's what pure lead version is for.
Thing is, we don't need to use either in breeder reactors - SVBR is a proof, although Bismuth production is a problem - but that's what pure lead version is for.
Fluoride is better behaved when it's paired with a good BFF as it is in a salt. Free fluoride should invoke the "run away!" clip from Monty Python and the Holy Grail.
It's incredibly frusturating that this isn't part of the public discourse, where are the pro-nuclear candidates? Which parties are pro-nuclear?
It was for decades, there simply isn't anything new to discuss.
We still have no solution a) where to put nuclear waste, and b) how to communicate to civilizations for the next 25000-50000 years what kind of waste that is.
In Germany, the ongoing search for a permanent waste repository is going on for decades now. Funnily enough, this taxpayer's money is never calculated into the total cost of operating nuclear plants. It only makes sense if you subsidize cost by taxes of current and future generations.
We still have no solution a) where to put nuclear waste, and b) how to communicate to civilizations for the next 25000-50000 years what kind of waste that is.
In Germany, the ongoing search for a permanent waste repository is going on for decades now. Funnily enough, this taxpayer's money is never calculated into the total cost of operating nuclear plants. It only makes sense if you subsidize cost by taxes of current and future generations.
> a) where to put nuclear waste
https://whatisnuclear.com/waste.html
> b) how to communicate to civilizations for the next 25000-50000 years what kind of waste that is.
I would solve the climate change problem first, otherwise all problems appearing in 25000 years are moot.
https://whatisnuclear.com/waste.html
> b) how to communicate to civilizations for the next 25000-50000 years what kind of waste that is.
I would solve the climate change problem first, otherwise all problems appearing in 25000 years are moot.
> b) how to communicate to civilizations for the next 25000-50000 years what kind of waste that is.
People care about this way more than it actually matters. If going near a certain area kills you, people are going to learn that after the first few deaths. The casualties are never going to anywhere near the stakes of global warming.
And besides that, the whole worry only applies in the narrow range of futures where humanity neither drives itself extinct nor retains advanced technology. It occurs to me that in that kind of future, society might actually be helped overall by the scientific advancement driven by having access to radioactive sources.
People care about this way more than it actually matters. If going near a certain area kills you, people are going to learn that after the first few deaths. The casualties are never going to anywhere near the stakes of global warming.
And besides that, the whole worry only applies in the narrow range of futures where humanity neither drives itself extinct nor retains advanced technology. It occurs to me that in that kind of future, society might actually be helped overall by the scientific advancement driven by having access to radioactive sources.
You'd put your waste in a breeder reactor until it has turned into short-lived isotopes that you only have to worry about for a few hundred years. Without breeder reactors we probably wouldn't have enough fuel anyway.
1. there are no working production-grade breeder reactors
2. you can't convert ALL of the waste into short-lived isotopes, just a fraction of it.
Sure, we can invest time and money into researching these topics, why not. But why not put the same energy into researching renewables?
2. you can't convert ALL of the waste into short-lived isotopes, just a fraction of it.
Sure, we can invest time and money into researching these topics, why not. But why not put the same energy into researching renewables?
Actually the goal is to have no medium lived isotopes. Long lived isotopes are simply not a problem, as their level of radioactivity can easily be low enough to be safer than the original uranium ore. Short lived half lives, will decay down to nothing in more manageable time frames.
Like if we had no medium half life isotopes, we may only need to keep waste safe for a few hundred years, perhaps 1000 at most, before remaining short lived isotopes contribute negligible radiation, leaving just the long half life isotopes. If those are long enough we have waste not meaningfully more dangerous than the original uranium ore, and can simply bury it.
A lot of this does depend on the specifics of input fuel and breeding cycles used, but there have been designs that would be able to reprocess any medium lived half-life outputs, leaving only reasonably short lived, and very long lived outputs.
The real question is what is the overall effect of such reprocessing on the cost efficiency. Presumably, breeder reprocessing entails some level of cost (additional equipment, additional monitoring, etc), and we may end up with some not completely optimal components in the fuel after reprocessing, which would mean lower operating efficiency. But by how much? How much less cost efficient doing the right thing here makes the plants is a critically important concern.
Like if we had no medium half life isotopes, we may only need to keep waste safe for a few hundred years, perhaps 1000 at most, before remaining short lived isotopes contribute negligible radiation, leaving just the long half life isotopes. If those are long enough we have waste not meaningfully more dangerous than the original uranium ore, and can simply bury it.
A lot of this does depend on the specifics of input fuel and breeding cycles used, but there have been designs that would be able to reprocess any medium lived half-life outputs, leaving only reasonably short lived, and very long lived outputs.
The real question is what is the overall effect of such reprocessing on the cost efficiency. Presumably, breeder reprocessing entails some level of cost (additional equipment, additional monitoring, etc), and we may end up with some not completely optimal components in the fuel after reprocessing, which would mean lower operating efficiency. But by how much? How much less cost efficient doing the right thing here makes the plants is a critically important concern.
that was never really a problem worth worrying about on the timescale of our lifetime and has now been definitively solved anyway
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repo...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repo...
Al Gore (as the representative for Oak Ridge) was pro-nuclear in 2000. If it wouldn't have been for hanging chads he probably would have started building some reactors because climate change was a big deal to him.
He's since changed his tune for the same reason I have -- nuclear is too expensive and too slow.
He's since changed his tune for the same reason I have -- nuclear is too expensive and too slow.
Ever since Chernobyl nuclear power has been voter kryptonite. Trying to explain how all these fancy terms changes the equations won't do anything for those who recoil just by mentioning the term.
Nuclear had its run and we blew it. Literally.
Nuclear had its run and we blew it. Literally.
There have been plenty of environmental disasters caused by oil production and that's still going strong. Ongoing use of coal for power production emits radiation far exceeding that of Chernobyl and that's still going strong.
Is it really political kryptonite or is that the oil lobby owns all of the politicians
Is it really political kryptonite or is that the oil lobby owns all of the politicians
I'd argue that it's both. Not that the lobbyists need to do much more than slight nudging with a sprinkle of fear mongering.
Regarding the comparison with other power production methods, you are most certainly right about fossil fuels causes more harm than nuclear. Facing climate disaster it's hard to argue otherwise.
Unfortunately nuclear hazards in the form of accidents are much more ominous. Invisible, immediate and easily measured. It's just a scary technology.
Regarding the comparison with other power production methods, you are most certainly right about fossil fuels causes more harm than nuclear. Facing climate disaster it's hard to argue otherwise.
Unfortunately nuclear hazards in the form of accidents are much more ominous. Invisible, immediate and easily measured. It's just a scary technology.
Oil extraction is impressive as hell in terms of the capital that goes into it. It entails some of the most amazing engineering ever done. But the fact is that renewables capex is now almost as big and growing about as fast, at 15%, as oil capex is declining.
Aren't breeder reactors mostly still on the drawing board? I get that they're very promising, but my understanding is that there remain some non-trivial issues to work out around corrosion and so on.
Anyway, I'm totally a believer in nuclear power for a greener future (yay Michael Schellenberger), but we need to keep these discussions honest: the path forward is to right now be building hundreds of copy-paste instances of existing, proven designs, not making the discussion about what might be possible with technology that's in development or not really in use at scale.
Anyway, I'm totally a believer in nuclear power for a greener future (yay Michael Schellenberger), but we need to keep these discussions honest: the path forward is to right now be building hundreds of copy-paste instances of existing, proven designs, not making the discussion about what might be possible with technology that's in development or not really in use at scale.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BN-800_reactor
Japan and India also have them.
The problem seems to be that at least the Sodium type are more expensive to operate than traditional nuclear plants, so even though the technology has been around for a while, no countries are building very many of them.
Japan and India also have them.
The problem seems to be that at least the Sodium type are more expensive to operate than traditional nuclear plants, so even though the technology has been around for a while, no countries are building very many of them.
Another is the small modular SVBR-100, which is essentially civilian version of submarine reactor that could be packed onto single rail car, and has no sodium nor fluoride involved.
The problem is that since 1995 or so there was never enough funding to go to production.
The problem is that since 1995 or so there was never enough funding to go to production.
It's amazing how gasoline itself was only used from 1892 to current time. https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/gasoline/history-of-gaso...
So imagine 150 years of gasoline usage help lead the world to be green and change to an energy source for "4 billion years."
That's so cool, and puts alot of conversation about environmentalism into prospective.
So imagine 150 years of gasoline usage help lead the world to be green and change to an energy source for "4 billion years."
That's so cool, and puts alot of conversation about environmentalism into prospective.
Going more granular, it's easy to see other steps on this pathway— coal, then oil/gasoline/fuel, and now many uses like power generation and some fleet vehicles (taxis, buses) are shifted to NG.
In any case, I agree! None of these fuel systems were going to be long term sustainable, thought the economics involved have created an enormous incentive for certain firms and individuals to pretend so for as long as absolutely possible. Anyway, hopefully they have been enough of a technology bootstrap to enable the jump to ones that would be. Certainly no one in 1892 was going to be inventing a commercially viable nuclear reactor or solar panel with what was available at the time.
In any case, I agree! None of these fuel systems were going to be long term sustainable, thought the economics involved have created an enormous incentive for certain firms and individuals to pretend so for as long as absolutely possible. Anyway, hopefully they have been enough of a technology bootstrap to enable the jump to ones that would be. Certainly no one in 1892 was going to be inventing a commercially viable nuclear reactor or solar panel with what was available at the time.
> So imagine 150 years of gasoline usage help lead the world to be green and change to an energy source for "4 billion years."
I'm interpreting this sentence as meaning "think about how we've far we've come in 150 years: from inventing gasoline, to being in a position to consider an environmentally sustainable energy source on the time scale of 4 billion years".
I'm interpreting this sentence as meaning "think about how we've far we've come in 150 years: from inventing gasoline, to being in a position to consider an environmentally sustainable energy source on the time scale of 4 billion years".
> So imagine 150 years of gasoline usage help lead the world to be green and change to an energy source for "4 billion years."
Oil washing, interesting.
It's not like we decided 150 year ago for a clear path from coal to oil to nuclear, thinking "let us bootstrap nuclear with oil until we either run out of oil or alter the planet too much".
Oil washing, interesting.
It's not like we decided 150 year ago for a clear path from coal to oil to nuclear, thinking "let us bootstrap nuclear with oil until we either run out of oil or alter the planet too much".
I'm not sure I totally understand your point here. How did 150 years of gasoline usage help lead the world to be green?
And we as of yet have not changed to 100% nuclear and/or recyclable and don't have the technology yet to achieve that goal of nuclear energy for "4 billion years"
And we as of yet have not changed to 100% nuclear and/or recyclable and don't have the technology yet to achieve that goal of nuclear energy for "4 billion years"
It'd be pretty hard to advance the civilization from coal-based energy straight into nuclear / solar, without all the carbohydrates-powered cars, trucks, and airplanes in the meantime.
Has anyone actually looked into this in depth? It feels like a cheap throwaway line that you can use against new tech that's not really caught on yet, but as we're here in 2021 with EVs and nuclear power and wind turbines etc., what was actually stopping us getting there faster if we weren't distracted by oil? (either it magically didn't exist or somehow even more magically people succesfully priced in the carbon from the start).
As crazy as it sounds, I think without oil civilization would have been set back 1000 years or more. We went from horse and buggy to space travel in a few decades, due in no small part to having a cheap, storable, high-density energy source that literally comes out of the ground.
What concerns me is just how few people know this and how many have completely wrong ideas about what nuclear is and the threats it poses.
Right now, today, small village can take $30k from their budget and build small solar plant in their backyard in month or two, and then scale it up next year, and the next year. No multi-decade committees and multinational efforts needed. Nuclear will never be cheaper, solar is practically infinitely scalable. Time for nuclear was in the 80s, now that we have better options, we should pool all our resources into solar. We no longer have the time! We already have the silver bullet and it's solar.
Anything nuclear-related is ridiculously expensive, if all those wasted resources went to solar we would be carbon neutral by now.
Anything nuclear-related is ridiculously expensive, if all those wasted resources went to solar we would be carbon neutral by now.
And that power will be uncontrollable, annoying on the grid (demand and supply must be in sync otherwise !FUN! happens), and costs of storage that make for fully renewable grid quickly eclipse costs of the more expensive nuclear options.
How would you build a fully nuclear grid without storage?
Seems a really weird thing for nuclear enthusiasts to mention.
It's like you're just passing on fossil fuel talking points without even reflecting on whether they make sense for nuclear.
Seems a really weird thing for nuclear enthusiasts to mention.
It's like you're just passing on fossil fuel talking points without even reflecting on whether they make sense for nuclear.
You don't need large amounts of storage for nuclear-based power grid, only enough to provide frequency maintenance buffer while you change power output on the plant.
You need huge storage amounts for renewables just to make sure you don't have rolling blackouts (undersupply vs. nuclear's oversupply) or, what happens in reality, fossil fuel backup.
There is an equivalent of small village with fully renewable power grid (ok, maybe 99%, I think they had an oil generator or two). You have to deal with low limits of power you can draw, react in time to alerts to curtail your usage (or face disconnection), etc. etc. Forget about things like electric heating or charging BEVs, you have to worry if you can run the washing machine.
The typical "village invests $30k in renewables" hides a ton of externalities taken up elsewhere due to how random the introduced supply power is.
You need huge storage amounts for renewables just to make sure you don't have rolling blackouts (undersupply vs. nuclear's oversupply) or, what happens in reality, fossil fuel backup.
There is an equivalent of small village with fully renewable power grid (ok, maybe 99%, I think they had an oil generator or two). You have to deal with low limits of power you can draw, react in time to alerts to curtail your usage (or face disconnection), etc. etc. Forget about things like electric heating or charging BEVs, you have to worry if you can run the washing machine.
The typical "village invests $30k in renewables" hides a ton of externalities taken up elsewhere due to how random the introduced supply power is.
Even coal or nuclear heavy grids have traditionally needed gas or pumped hydro to meet peaky demand. France got to like 75% of their electricity nuclear, with 10% hydro, but only 20% of heating electrified, giving about 2/5ths of total energy (though that's misleading as about half of fossil fuels is wasted as heat, so lets say they got over 50%), I don't think we can just handwave the other half away.
So, clearly you're not going to use gas, because you don't sound at all pleased by renewebles relying on "fossil fuel backup" to fill in the gaps, so what's left?
Are you thinking about Pink Hydrogen? i mean that's a good plan but it's also basically storage, the same as green Hydrogen would be, no?
So, clearly you're not going to use gas, because you don't sound at all pleased by renewebles relying on "fossil fuel backup" to fill in the gaps, so what's left?
Are you thinking about Pink Hydrogen? i mean that's a good plan but it's also basically storage, the same as green Hydrogen would be, no?
Nuclear is easier to dispatch than building enough storage. Fossil peakers are just cheaper and we are still operating on what brings most profit, not what's best for us long term.
Thing is, if you do have option for new pumped hydro, go for it. It's usually less problematic than normal hydrogeneration, and it's great storage system. I'm all for it where possible. For smoothing lead-following reactors, the storage tech we have is pretty good. More can be gained by moving inelastic but high inertia sinks to nuclear power - various material processing (steel, aluminum, etc.) as well as making green hydrogen (necessary not just for storage, but also for smelting - renewables really don't look good on green hydrogen without nuclear) and so on.
My imaginary best option is switching the financials of power generation to benefit any fully dispatchable sources - This is easier to do with nuclear or classic hydropower, but such categorisation would also allow for renewable Virtual Power Plants (i.e. mixed renewables and storage, possibly with some demand control). At the same time this would cut down on instability caused by peak renewable production cratering prices for everyone else.
At the same time, let's target for grid that has oversupply and switchable sinks like green hydrogen, climate-neutral fuels for things that can't be easily powered by grid, etc.
Thing is, if you do have option for new pumped hydro, go for it. It's usually less problematic than normal hydrogeneration, and it's great storage system. I'm all for it where possible. For smoothing lead-following reactors, the storage tech we have is pretty good. More can be gained by moving inelastic but high inertia sinks to nuclear power - various material processing (steel, aluminum, etc.) as well as making green hydrogen (necessary not just for storage, but also for smelting - renewables really don't look good on green hydrogen without nuclear) and so on.
My imaginary best option is switching the financials of power generation to benefit any fully dispatchable sources - This is easier to do with nuclear or classic hydropower, but such categorisation would also allow for renewable Virtual Power Plants (i.e. mixed renewables and storage, possibly with some demand control). At the same time this would cut down on instability caused by peak renewable production cratering prices for everyone else.
At the same time, let's target for grid that has oversupply and switchable sinks like green hydrogen, climate-neutral fuels for things that can't be easily powered by grid, etc.
I'm not sure I want every country in the world to have the potential to build nuclear bombs...
"More than 20 countries have developed nuclear power industries without building nuclear weapons. On the other hand, countries that have built and tested nuclear weapons have followed other paths than purchasing commercial nuclear reactors, reprocessing the spent fuel, and obtaining plutonium. Some have built facilities for the express purpose of enriching uranium; some have built plutonium production reactors; and some have surreptitiously diverted research reactors to the production of plutonium. All these pathways to nuclear proliferation have been more effective, less expensive, and easier to hide from prying eyes than the commercial nuclear power route."
https://www.britannica.com/technology/nuclear-power/Prolifer...
https://www.britannica.com/technology/nuclear-power/Prolifer...
Two different disciplines. The amount of refinement of the material needed for weapons is much much higher than for energy.
Every country already does, they mostly just don't want to.
This is a rehash of breeder reactor talking points that are decades old. Some, like seawater extraction have always been pie in the sky. Breeder technologies have a track record. That track record is why new breeder reactors are not being built under any political or regulatory system.
It is no coincidence that nuclear reactor PR has ramped up during the COP conference. It's last call.
It is no coincidence that nuclear reactor PR has ramped up during the COP conference. It's last call.
This seems like a HUGE understatement. The calculations for the billion-year sustainability basically assume we have extracted every single bit of uranium from seawater. We have demonstrated extracting uranium from seawater [0] using plastic fibers with a compound that attracts the uranium+oxygen ions. But this would basically require pumping all of the worlds oceans through these fibers and continually extracting.
[0] https://engineering.stanford.edu/magazine/article/how-extrac....