The opening sentence is rather inaccurate: "The 93 currently active nuclear-power reactors in the United States burn about 2,000 tonnes of uranium fuel each year."
Isn't not 'burnt' by any reasonable interpretation of the word, what happens is that the fuel becomes too hot to handle in any of today's working reactors because of the buildup of radioactive fission products as well as transuranic species. If the fuel rods were left in the reactor, they'd probably swell and eventually block circulation of the primary coolant, and the high radioactive flux would have other negative effects on the reactor core material itself (as well as on any workers that had to fix the mess).
This is well known and many proposals have been made to recover this energy from the 'spent' 'burnt' fuel rods, but it's mostly been an expensive mess. Reprocessing to recover the transuranics for use in MOX (plutonium-based fuel, basically) is really expensive as well as generating large amounts of highly toxic waste as well as raising the plutonium-nuclear-weapon proliferation issue.
Instead, this 2000 tons per year represents an ever-increasing long-term headache that generally has to be stored onsight for about a decade at the nuclear power plant before it can be transferred to long-term dry cask storage, all at considerable expense and with high security costs.
With costs for solar/wind/storage dropping every year, isn't it time to give up on this pipe dream?
IAEA even used the word burn to denote a nuclear process. Just because it doesn’t meet your definition doesn’t mean it’s not colloquially used within the field
2000 tons per year for the whole country though. 20 tons per reactor per year doesn't sound too bad.
Compare to the approx 1 billion tons of oil consumption per year, or 4 billion tons of CO2 emissions per year that the rest of the economy burns through, to get a sense of relative scale.
Exactly. We have the money and technology to build and operate repositories that responsibly handle all our nuclear waste. We just need the willpower to go out and do it.
Or just give some other country money to do it for you?
Finland might do it? (They are also sophisticated and stable enough, that you don't need to worry about the fuel being mishandled. At least not any more than for the US.)
That is an oversimplification, it disregards a few things: the concentration of radioisotopes (which is extremely high in spent fuel) and type of decay products (which each have their own half lives, in many cases the radioactivity goes up for some time after the initial decay while decay products break down and eventually reach a stable isotope) and the type of emissions.
Also containers that don't break down under centuries of ionising radiation bombardment haven't been invented yet.
Taking all those into account, after a few hundred years the waste is no more radioactive than the ore from which it came. Note that natural uranium ore has a similar mix of decay products, and isn't in any kind of "container".
The notion of it being INSTANT!!! DEATH!!!! FOR MILLIONS OF YEARS!!!! is just plain wrong.
> Note that natural uranium ore has a similar mix of decay products, and isn't in any kind of "container".
A similar mix, yes.
A similar concentration, absolutely not. The concentration in ore is extremely low. The Soviets ruined the landscape of half the Czech Republic for a few warheads.
Well, you're not throwing away any actual uranium in any realistic uranium cycle.
You're separating out the "depleted" uranium and using it to breed more fuel (potentially orders of magnitude cheaper than extracting fresh uranium from ore and enriching it).
> If the fuel rods were left in the reactor, they'd probably swell
Fun fact: nuclear waste becomes less radioactive than the original uranium in about 300-500 years. The problem with the waste is that it's concentrated in a tiny amount of space that will stay dangerous for geological periods.
It might be using different measures of radioactivity (e.g. Curies instead of Watts). I did calculations myself long ago, while studying nuclear power in a university, and it indeed was 300-500 years depending on fuel type.
I'll try to re-do calculations and see what I get.
I'm a professional nuclear engineer (Ph.D. & PE) with 20 years of experience in advanced reactors and fuel cycle. I promise you it's not 300-500 yrs unless you do full recycle with minor actinide partitioning and transmutation.
The publication above shows the graph vs. time in terms of radiotoxicity, which is widely considered to be the key metric.
What'd you use for the calculations? Generally you need to use something like ORIGEN to get it right.
Perhaps I was a bit unclear. The waste will _definitely_ be dangerously radioactive for tens of thousands of years. No questions here.
But in aggregate, it will be less radioactive than the uranium (and its natural daughter products in secular equilibrium) that was expended to produce the waste.
We're aligned on that metric. I'm using the 'less radioactive than the ore from which it was mined' as the metric here as well. It's between 10,000 and 100,000 years.
Though couldn't you get under 'less radioactive than the ore from which it was mined' by just mixing your waste with a big enough quantity of eg ocean water?
No, because this metric is normalized as radiotoxicity per tonne of heavy metal. You could dilute it with lots of tonnes of natural or depleted uranium, I suppose, to game it.
Don't most of these techniques wind up producing a fair amount of highly enriched products which could easily be used for nuclear weapons? Seems like a big downside at the scales we're talking about.
That's certainly what Jimmy Carter was worried about when he cancelled the USA's national breeder reactor project, the Clinch River Breeder. He then banned reprocessing entirely, but Reagan unbanned it in 1981, so it is at least legal now.
This has been an ongoing debate though. Scientists have developed more sophisticated reprocessing processes that keep all the actinides together rather than pulling out Plutonium on its own. And in any case, the plutonium is reactor-grade rather than weapons grade, (but super-sophisticated weapons designers can make bombs out of any-grade plutonium).
George Bush Jr. tried something called the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, where existing weapons states would run a bunch of reprocessing plants and contribute fuel to an international fuel bank. Non-weapons countries could reliably get fuel from it and give the spent fuel (aka nuclear waste) back for further recycling/reprocessing/treatment. It wasn't super popular among the 'have not' countries, who didn't want to be beholden to some random fuel bank.
It's a very long stretch to say he was a nuclear expert. Actual nuclear experts do not consider him one of us. His policies were pretty damaging to the industry. His hope was that of the US didn't recycle nuclear fuel, then maybe other countries wouldn't. But that was not the case. The UK, France, Japan, Russia went ahead with nuclear fuel recycling anyway.
It doesn't have to be that way. With nuclear fuel reprocessing you can burn all the highly radioactive stuff completely, and what's left either decays quickly or isn't very radioactive.
Yet we don't actually have an industry that is capable of doing this at the scale that's needed. I am not deeply knowledgeable of this industry enough to understand why but it looks like it's not as easy a solution as presented otherwise we would actually do it.
Or just build reprocessing plants like france, where abt 90% is sent back to the reactors. The remaining real waste is solidified to be stored more easily. Or just build breeding reactors that perform this by default (except solidification, for that we still need vitrification). Solidified waste is dangerous for abt 300 yrs
> With costs for solar/wind/storage dropping every year, isn't it time to give up on this pipe dream?
When will we give up the pipedream that it's always going to be sunny and windy, especially as climate change continues to exacerbate destructive weather patterns.
And when will we give up the pipedream that everywhere in the world is sunny and windy all the time to.
The question is whether one or more of the seasonal storage technologies on the horizon, when combined with the seasonal storage we already have (conventional hydropower with big honking dams) turns out to give a cheaper electricity system cost than nuclear in a given location.
Also worth pointing out that a large fraction of the world’s population lives in places where seasonal storage is not nearly as much of a problem. Seasonal storage is much more of an issue for cool temperate and subarctic zones in the northern hemisphere, where maximum energy demand and minimum solar energy supply occur at the same time. Several billion people across South Asia, south-east Asia, most of South America, Oceania, and most of Africa don’t have this unfortunate misalignment.
People dont deem to realize that dams are super expensive, dont last forever and can cause cataclismic failures when they break. Stuff that is much worse that nuclear failures. And lets not talk about the destruction of human and animal habitat to make dams in the first place...
> When will we give up the pipedream that it's always going to be sunny and windy
Nuclear proponents really need to give up these tired arguments. Wake up to reality. Your favored technology lost. It has zero economic benefits and you have to face reality. We live in a profit driven world, and no sane profit driven enterprise would bet on nuclear power because it's been proven to be such a loser decade after decade. The evidence is plain to see for anyone willing to take a look.
Is China a profit driven society or do they have a command economy? Do you even understand the basics of politics and what it takes to enact certain things in different countries with different political systems and motivations? China also added more solar capacity last year than the entire US solar capacity. Why is it your support for China policies only extends to your fondness for 1950's science fiction? China's Covid crackdowns were effective in slowing the spread of the disease through their populations and saves potentially millions of lives because of it. Should we be welding people into their apartment buildings or are you willing to admit that different governments tackle problems differently and one solution can't be applied universally?
By the way, even accounting for China's recent investment in nuclear they are only projecting to have 10% of their power generated by nuclear by 2050. The US is already close to 20%, or twice as much as China as a percentage of power generated. But sure, let's just keep pretending these situations are the same.
The true believers don't want to hear it. You can show example after example of projects gone comically over budget and over schedule and none of it will really register.
"burnt" is a pretty intuitive way of saying the usable energy in the fuel is released. It's a nuclear reaction, not a chemical reaction like combustion, but it's a pretty descriptive term that's also used inside of the nuclear industry itself (I heard a talk from a nuclear engineer about rotating fuel rods to achieve an "even burn", in his own words).
Storage remains a big barrier to wide-scale deployment of intermittent power sources in a manner truly independent of a fossil fuel grid. While costs may be dropping, scale and competition with electric vehicles means grid storage isn't growing all that quickly. Many solar plants that are employing storage are only installing 2-4 hours worth of storage, which isn't sufficient to even out the duck curve let alone seasonal variations. Wind also has big swings in seasonal production. Even with significant overproduction, most grids are still looking at several days worth of storage to account for a string a cloudy or less-windy days.
Another factor is that wind and solar have significantly different output depending on geography and weather. Nuclear's only geographic requirement is a source of water for cooling - and that doesn't have to be potable water, it can be salt water or wastewater. And since human beings need water, too, this is rarely an impediment to deploying nuclear power plants near the population centers that use the most power. By contrast, wind and solar often need to be produced hundreds of miles away from population centers. This tends to overload the transmission capacity of rural power infrastructure [1], sometimes halting wind and solar projects.
I'd go with 'transmutation' - 'burn' is simply used to imply that using uranium is no different than using wood/oil/coal/gas as a fuel, but that's completely unscientific. Burning implies an redox process at the very least, involving an electron acceptor like oxygen mixed with an electron donor like a hydrocarbon and resulting in the destruction of some molecules and the creation of other molecules (e.g. CH4 + 2O2 -> CO2 + 2H2O).
It's just yet another example of how the nuclear industry tries to spin its activies as safe and harmless. They probably spend as much money on PR these days as they do on R & D.
Power production via uranium (or other related heavy element) fission is simply unlike any other process. It's basically a proximity effect, as if you place the fuel rods close enough to one another with water in between them, you initiate the process. The U-235 fuel is continually decaying, releasing neutrons. In the context of enriched fuel rods in the proper orientation in a watery environment, this means other U-235 nuclei will absorb such neutrons, becoming unstable and splitting into two smaller nuclei, known as fission fragments - of a remarkably wide variety, many of them unstable and generating further nuclear reactions. Along with the fragments, several fast neutrons and a significant amount of energy are released. The water in the reactor acts as a moderator, slowing down the fast neutrons released in the fission process. Slower neutrons are more likely to cause subsequent fissions in other uranium-235 nuclei, sustaining the chain reaction.
Now, the fission fragments are highly radioactive and unstable isotopes of lighter elements. These fragments undergo beta and gamma decay, emitting high-energy particles and photons, transforming into stable isotopes over time. Furthermore, some neutrons, instead of inducing fission in uranium-235, are absorbed by uranium-238 nuclei, typically actinides, like plutonium and neptunium.
So this ridiculously toxic brew of rather random radioactive heavy elements is what we call a 'spent fuel rod'. If you were to pack a few kilos of high explosive around one of these 'spent' fuel rods and detonate it in a city center, it would probably cost at least a billion dollars to clean up, if that.
It sounds kind of ridiculous when you can build 1 GW of reliable 24/7 wind/solar/storage power generation for the same cost as a 1 GW nuclear power plant, and then you never have to buy fuel or deal with the waste stream ever, doesn't it?
The amount of spent fuel produced by US nuclear electric grid generation fits in a volume the footprint of a football field and less than 10 yards high: https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-... We could easily do what Finland and other countries are already doing: bury nuclear waste in bedrock.
Using spent nuclear fuel as a terror weapon would be vastly less deadly than more conventional means. Think about the immense effort of planning and manpower to steal nuclear waste, weaponize it, and then deliver that weapon to a population center. Now think about all that planning and manpower going towards a more conventional attack, like flying a plane into a building or detonating a normal explosive bomb.
Nuclear waste can be deadly, but it's a slow killer. We regularly test our water supply for uranium not out of any fear of a dirty bomb, but because naturally occurring uranium is common enough that it's a problem: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC359425/
In short, fears over nuclear waste are incredibly contrived.
"The amount of spent fuel produced by US nuclear electric grid generation fits in a volume the footprint of a football field and less than 10 yards high"
... and if properly distributed, is enough to kill every human being on the planet.
Which proves the ridiculousness of such comparisons, i.e. enough bullets were produced in World War Two to wipe out the global human population too.
I highly recommend Doomberg's substack for energy related analysis. His article "Angels on a Pin" explains how storing nuclear waste is not as scary as people make it out to be.
Congress (verbally) fried GM because stories like that hurt the car industry unless people believe they are being dealt with, not because 100 deaths is a large number.
> Isn't not 'burnt' by any reasonable interpretation of the word
It actually is. Spent nuclear fuel goes from 3-5% of U-235 at the start to 0.3% at the end of the fuel campaign. There will also be some fissile plutonium, but not much.
Having just 1/10-th of initial fuel left definitely qualifies as "burnt".
That's also why reprocessing isn't economical right now. You just won't get that much new fuel.
> If the fuel rods were left in the reactor, they'd probably swell
That can't physically happen. Nuclear fuel is made of tablets of sintered oxide powders, and they are permeable to gases (helium is the main one produced as a result of fission).
It seems so clear that nuclear is our ultimate energy source. We're wasting so much time on toy windmills and solar panels, and all the batteries required to compensate. There's so many complaints about cost overruns, etc. OK... let's figure it out! Let's put more focus into this and make safe, efficient and clean nuclear happen! This article indicates we're moving closer to that.
I foresee fusion though, ultimately. I think it mostly solves the nuclear waste "problem" and should promise huge cheap energy, I'm excited by some outlandish things which could become feasible if electricity is truly cheap.
Personally, I think Yucca mountain is a great place to store it in the USA but that will likely never be politically viable. And I'm not sure what solutions exist for nations outside of North America.
I'm also personally still concerned about transportation accidents resulting in permanently contaminated areas.
Outside the US, Finland's Onkalo repository is on track to be the first operational commercial repository [1]. We have some operating military ones, like WIPP already.
As for transportation, this has been a big concern for some time but has pretty rock-solid technical solutions [2]. We regularly ship high-level nuclear waste around (e.g. from nuclear submarines to Hanford) and haven't really had any incidents. I'd claim that the issue is basically solved with these robust containers.
There aren't technical problems, only political ones.
Yucca mountain has been designated as the long term storage site since 1987 by Congress. Every change of party majority since then has either stopped or restarted work on it.
Hanford has been consuming roughly 10% of the deparment of energy's annual budget for many years and is projected to continue to do so for decades. and the cleanup effort has been fraught with scary mishaps.
Actinide burning reactors are IMHO a better path forward. There are various proposals and research reactors, some using alternate fuel cycles.
The bottom line is the nastiest stuff in spent nuclear fuel are the actinides. They're all naturally radioactive and most of the stuff with long (10,000+ year) half lives that requires long-term storage. You need Yucca Mountain mostly for the actinides. If instead you smash them with fast neutrons you can get them to fission, releasing some energy (though sub-critical) and transmuting them into either much more stable isotopes (little radioactive decay) or really unstable ones (nasty but they decay so fast you only need to hold onto them for a few days/months/years).
The short version is besides reprocessing spent fuel we should be putting the nasty stuff through the sausage grinder again to turn it into much less nasty stuff instead of fighting over where to keep the nasty stuff safe for 100,000 years.
I have good news: we have a working nuclear fusion reactor that produces power on the order of 300 septillion watts per second. In their wisdom, its engineers conveniently placed it about 1 AU from the Earth, meaning that all we need to do is catch the energy it's currently transmitting to us.
Sure, it doesn't create long-lived waste, but it's a big stretch to assume that fusion reactors will be cheap.
Even if you assume that the fusion part is cheap, you still have to convert the energy to electricity or at a minimum mechanical work (unless you're using the process heat, which is admittedly a possibility for a fair bit of current demand).
Steam turbines aren't exactly cheap to build.
Yes, there are alternative energy conversion possibilities for some possible fusion fuel cycles, but as I understand it those fuel cycles are much more difficult than D-T fusion and therefore are even further away from being a practical power source.
Until next-gen nuclear is developed, it's over. They're welcome to keep researching it though. Meanwhile, renewables are also getting better, and much faster. And they're already better than nuclear.
China produces more power from renewables than the entire generation capacity of the UK. You can build more firm generation capacity with solar and batteries than a typical nuclear generator, in a year, at a cheaper price. Hell of a bike.
Nuclear has a niche, but it got steamrolled by the S curve of solar, wind, and batteries.
Slight amendment: China is installing more wind and solar PV generation capacity this year than the entire generation capacity of the UK. The increment, not the total.
Edit: Nuclear power generation in China has, IIRC, tripled in the 21st century.
But demand has gone up much more than twentyfold though, and this year we are the crossover point where wind an PV manufacturing and install rates, and transmission line build rates, exceed the growth of demand, so fossil plants can start to be retired there.
If nuclear can't be built fast in China, where can it?
> The most striking growth has been in solar power, according to Myllyvirta. Solar installations increased by 210 gigawatts (GW) this year alone, which is twice the total solar capacity of the US and four times what China added in 2020.
> The analysis, which is based on official figures and commercial data, found that China installed 70GW of wind power this year – more than the entire power generation capacity of the UK. It is also expected to add 7GW of hydro power and 3GW of nuclear power capacity this year, said the report.
You won’t get an answer to this. The energy world has changed very quickly in the past few years, and many can’t adjust their opinions to take new data and trends into account.
It would be interesting to see what the consequences of that would be. China solar addition scale is from another fourth dimension. Not only it is massive but it seems to be accelerating too. They added more in PV Solar in 2022 than the whole PV installations of Germany. It seems that the politicians there realize that being dependent on unstable regions (ie: Middle-East) for fuel is not wise. They are not B.S.ing their population with green propaganda and instead going full speed for PV solar and electric vehicles.
Not entirely true. There's all sorts of mechanical storage systems, the most common being artificial hydroelectric and flywheels - spin something really fast and than extract energy from its rotational velocity later.
But a practical issue here is that there hasn't really been much motivation to develop this industry, because there's been relatively little critical necessity for high capacity at-scale energy storage.
It is very easily storable, and in energy markets that are driven by free markets (rather than utility biases or legislative mandates), storage is one of the biggest investments on the grid:
> Installed battery capacity increased from 153 MW in 2019 to 3,518 MW in 2023. Interconnection agreements have been signed for an additional 7,945 MW of battery storage through 2024, allowing batteries to play a growing role in daily power needs in the near future.
You conveniently remember that nuclear power was unfairly sidelined for decades, and then conveniently forget that solar power was also unfairly sidelined for decades.
"By 1986, the Reagan administration had gutted the research and development budgets for renewable energy at the then-fledgling U.S. Department of Energy (DoE) and eliminated tax breaks for the deployment of wind turbines and solar technologies—recommitting the nation to reliance on cheap but polluting fossil fuels, often from foreign suppliers."
Also, "marginally cheaper" can't help but sound like sour grapes; the cost-per-watt of solar has fallen by 500x in the past 50 years (https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/evolution-of-...). How many hundreds of times cheaper per-watt is nuclear since then?
Why is solar 3x more expensive in the US then, say, Australia? Because it is indeed regulated out of and into existence. Will the utility let you even connect solar to power your house, will the utility charge excessive fixed per-month fees for the privilege, how many hoops will your local municipality make you jump through for permitting, how many weeks or months of delay will there be, how many pointless and useless diagrams will they make you submit, how will a large installer every gain efficiency while dealing with every single city's pointless differences in . Or even, will you silly HOA allow panels, and if so, where and at what visibility?
They are not cheaper. They appeared cheaper for a while when there was a bubble and interest rates are zero. Now wind and solar farm projects are failing.
I’ve now posted this three times, but I don’t think people on this site are aware of it, since we’re still seeing the same obsolete debate. China built 415 TWh of wind and solar in the first 9 months of 2023 (adjusted for capacity factor), more than the combined total of all 26 nuclear plants under construction. Based on this surge of construction, Chinese emissions are expected to begin a structural decline next year.
The debate at this point isn’t about whether renewables will scale: China has already answered that question. There is a very real question about whether the West will be able to keep up. There seem to be a lot of people who want to sit around and fantasize about 1970s-era nuclear tech while our neighbors undergo what is effectively a second Industrial Revolution.
China is a special case because it has to import all its oil which makes it a huge strategic weakness. Wind and Solar is still a tiny part of its electricity production. You can't rely on either for cold dark winters. Its emissions are already higher than Europeans per capita and still growing.
The thing about exponential deployment curves is that, at a certain point, posting charts that end 1 to 2 years in the past is like posting charts that end in 2000. Things are moving extremely rapidly now. https://amp.theguardian.com/business/2023/nov/13/chinas-carb...
You can post it three more times and it won’t make it any less true that renewables are plagued with shortcomings regarding 24/7 uptime and massive safety issues with installation and eventual end-of-life environmental costs.
Have you read what you linked to, while trying to have a skeptical eye? That article, especially when you're claiming others are fanatics, is not something you probably want to link to.
"The number of deaths for every 1000TWh of energy generated by rooftop solar panels is 440. Put simply, this means that for every 1000TWh of energy produced via rooftop solar power, 440 people lose their lives. Other estimates [obfuscated hyperlink to a Forbes page] place this number to be around 150. These deaths are mostly the result of electrocution and other hazards that occur during rooftop solar panel installation (such as falling)."
So they're not happy with the official statistics bureau that is Forbes and chose to stick with their uncited 440. It sounds made up to me. Searching for that exact datum actually yielded the original source [1], and yeah - it's made up. It's from a 2008 article where some guy just started hand-waving hard in a not entirely coherent fashion.
A quick search for something more reasonable turns up this. [2] The data comes from multiple studies and the UN Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. Wind/Nuclear/Solar all have pretty much the same mortality rate: 0.04/0.03/0.02 per unit of electricity, respectively. If I want to be disingenuous I can claim [accurately] that nuclear is 50% deadlier than solar (and obviously many many magnitudes deadlier per installation), but the numbers in terms of energy/watt are low enough to be irrelevant.
Also, even if that 440 number was accurate, comparing fatalities occurring when random people install solar panels on their rooftops to the decade long massive construction projects that are nuclear power plants is just meaningless.
If solar profitability is affected by higher interest rates (I'm not arguing this point) nuclear would be much more effected. Nuclear power is the most capital intensive form of power, they are a huge up front investment with very long ROI (incidentally they almost always require significant price guarantees over for decades and backed by the government to derisk the investment).
I agree with you about windmills, they just waste way too much useful space. I don't think solar panels are a problem though. Massive solar plants make no sense but they're great roof replacements for homes and provide distributed energy generation.
Windmills use tiny amounts of land. Drive through Indiana and they’ll be scattered about within cornfields; drive through Pennsylvania and they’ll be on otherwise unproductive hillsides. In both cases using like 20x20 foot pedestals.
Wind turbines require a lot of space between each other. Any dedicated wind farm is going to have a ton of empty space.
If you just plant a single wind turbine in some unused space of an otherwise productive piece of land you can obviously derive value from it. That's not what I was talking about though. I was talking about massive wind farm power generation operations. There's better uses for that area. Same logic applies to just laying massive amounts of solar panels over a wide area. Better to put them on everyone's roofs.
> Any dedicated wind farm is going to have a ton of empty space.
You seem to have a funny definition of "empty space" when the post you're replying to explicitly called out the uses for land in between wind turbines or leveraging wind turbines in areas where much of the land isn't usable for much else. If your argument requires completely ignoring points made by someone else, you probably don't have very strong of an argument.
> I was talking about massive wind farm power generation operations.
Which are almost universally placed in said farm fields, unproductive hillsides, and open ocean. No one's clearing city blocks to place a wind turbine. These "massive wind farm power generation operations" already exist in the middle of Indiana's cornfields. Drive from Chicago to Cincinnati and you'll quickly see how little land they can eat up.
> Same logic applies to just laying massive amounts of solar panels over a wide area.
Same response; they only make financial sense to place on low-value land. A solar farm will be very happy on shitty land that's not particularly suitable for farming, grazing, or habitation. They can even benefit farmland in some climates; https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2023/03/made-shade-growing-....
AFAIK they have quite a few MOUs with other utilities, may not be down for the count yet. Seems like the US government is all in on SMRs, so they could end up subsidizing...
I doubt we will see federal subsidization for nuclear in the near term with the GOP poised to take over the Senate and House still up for grabs. It’ll be “drill-baby-drill.”
The strongest argument in favor of nuclear seems to be that it sounds futuristic and it's what we grew up believing would be the future of energy.
However in practice it has never turned out to be that great. There's little to recommend it: it requires massive amounts of labor, double checking high skill welds, documentation, and nobody in the industry seems the least bit interested in making this an efficiency process.
Nuclear rockets sound cool. Nuclear electricity plants are pretty awful in practice.
Batteries are about 1000x more useful on the grid than nuclear, it will greatly enhance reliability as they are super scalable and have the potential to massively increase the efficiency of grid transmission and distribution, the most expensive part of electricity for most. Nuclear has none of those benefits.
> Batteries are about 1000x more useful on the grid than nuclear,
Citation needed! Also: did you know that all existing commercial nuclear plants can ramp up and down in power at about 2-3% (~25 MWe) per minute? They often simply choose not to because the current market structure doesn't incentivize them to. Add a price to low-carbon load following and all the plants in the US will start doing it.
Batteries have a big disadvantage in that they do not generate any electricity. They also have pretty miserable energy density, which correlates eventually to chemical waste. To store power in batteries for a night in the US, you'd need many thousands of skyscrapers full of batteries.
> > Batteries are about 1000x more useful on the grid than nuclear,
> Citation needed! Also: did you know that all existing commercial nuclear plants can ramp up and down in power at about 2-3% (~25 MWe) per minute? They often simply choose not to because the current market structure doesn't incentivize them to.
That's a nice way of saying that nuclear power is much too expensive to not run plants at maximum capacity all the time.
>Add a price to low-carbon load following and all the plants in the US will start doing it.
Citation needed. Considering the price of wind or solar, investors are much mor elikley to over provision using those technologies. Nuscale just had to axe their SMR (supposedly the future of nuclear) project in Idaho, because they couldn't find subscribers and their cost of overrunning massively.
> Batteries have a big disadvantage in that they do not generate any electricity. They also have pretty miserable energy density, which correlates eventually to chemical waste. To store power in batteries for a night in the US, you'd need many thousands of skyscrapers full of batteries.
Except you don't need to store the power to run all of the US for a night, you're just making a strawman.
> That's a nice way of saying that nuclear power is much too expensive to not run plants at maximum capacity all the time.
Nope. It means that the variable costs are low. The fuel costs for a nuclear plant are so low that it’s essentially free.
Which is also the primary reason we throw away 95% of the fuel unused: given the low cost of fuel, recycling just isn’t viable. And again, not because recycling is so expensive, but because new fuel is so cheap.
Yes the variable costs are low _compared to the fixed costs_. That's the point I made.
If you bought a nuclear power plant for $10 billion and your calculation to get an ROI requires that you make $100 per MWh running at 80% load factor, you will not be willing to run your plant only at 50% of the time, because it does not make economic sense. Variable costs are irrelevant in this case.
> How often can they repeatedly ramp without getting into trouble with reactor poisoning?
Every day, several times a day. That is literally the requirement for modern reactors (where modern means any reactor in the past 30 years, or more, and most retrofitted reactors from previous years)
Didn't France very recently have to shut down or limit a bunch of reactors due to <checks notes> the river water being too warm.
It's one of the safest when compared to coal. How exactly do you accurately calculate the "safety" of something that produces toxic waste with a lifespan in the thousands of years?
> Didn't France very recently have to shut down or limit a bunch of reactors due to <checks notes> the river water being too warm.
Because of environmental limits to protect the river ecosystems, not because of any safety or operational constraints. Many of these limits were set years ago, when the water temperature in rivers was lower, and haven't been increased since - leading to very tight margins. When the grid is stretched, the plant operators usually get a temporary authorization to exceed the environmental limits.
Every year this is big news for some reason, even though it amounts to a roughly 0.3% reduction of yearly electricity generation. It only impacts river cooled plants, and only those that don't also have a cooling tower.
Killing wildlife would be okay? Wow we saved some carbon emission (so it can wasted somewhere else...) and saved some lives (i don't see the connection you are implying), so now we can live in a barren land with plenty energy. We have already done a lot of harm to the environment, we should try to preserve as much as possible of what is left.
(And this goes for hydro especially, and somewhat for solar and wind as well, all have environmental impacts, which must be taken into account and sensible compromises need to be made).
So if even THE nuclear nation on this planet "neglects" its reactors, wouldn't that be an argument against nuclear?
I mean, if that claim of negligance would be true which I doubt it is of course...those things grow old and France failed to diversify it's power generation in the last decades but hey...new ones are planned...maybe in a decade one will even be finished...
> So if even THE nuclear nation on this planet "neglects" its reactors, wouldn't that be an argument against nuclear?
No. It would be an argument against anti-nuclear
> those things grow old and France failed to diversify it's power generation in the last decades
"Decades" implies 20 years or more. Even now France's nuclear provides more energy than anything it has, and France routinely exports energy to Germany who have shattered their nuclear power plants and are now busy burning coal and importing electricity to cover the needs.
>> So if even THE nuclear nation on this planet "neglects" its reactors, wouldn't that be an argument against nuclear?
> No. It would be an argument against anti-nuclear
How? Proper maintenance would increase the price of electricity produced by nuclear.
> "Decades" implies 20 years or more. Even now France's nuclear provides more energy than anything it has, and France routinely exports energy to Germany who have shattered their nuclear power plants and are now busy burning coal and importing electricity to cover the needs.
Their nuclear reactors are 37 years old on average (they were originally only commissioned to run for 40 years, until an extension in 2012) [1]. They don't have a reactor younger than 21 years old [2]. So I would argue they did not just not diversify, they also neglected to keep up with building nuclear reactors.
Their flagship EPR reactor (Flamanville 3) has been been delayed and delayed. Work started in 2007, in 2020 when it was already significantly delayed it was 5 times over budget and it is still not in operation. The current date is early 2024, but that's almost a running gag now. [3]
They are also planning to build new reactors which are supposed to come online earliest 2035, but based on what happened with Flamanville, that's completely unrealistic.
So in summary decades is very justified.
I encourage everyone to read the wikipedia article on Flamanville. You can't make this up. Construction started in 2007 with estimated costs of 3.3 billion euro and completion date of 2012. The last estimate was in 2020 with costs at 19.1 billion and a commissioning date at the end of 2022. Well that didn't happen yet. And somehow we are supposed to throw more money at this completely incompetent industry?
> Their nuclear reactors are 37 years old on average (they were originally only commissioned to run for 40 years, until an extension in 2012) [1]. They don't have a reactor younger than 21 years old [2]. So I would argue they did not just not diversify, they also neglected to keep up with building nuclear reactors.
> What is this powerful anti-nuclear lobby in France supposed to be?
1. France isn't an isolated country.
2. That "lobby" is decades of various actvists fear-mongering and politicians afraid of unpopular decisions.
And so you have:
--- start quote ---
In May 2001, an Ipsos poll found that nearly 70% of the population had a 'good opinion' of nuclear power, however 56% also preferred not to live near a nuclear plant.
In 2006, BBC/GlobeScan poll found 57% of the French opposed to nuclear energy
What is this supposed to mean? Do you want to imply that the German Green party for example, dictates the politics in France??
> 2. That "lobby" is decades of various actvists fear-mongering and politicians afraid of unpopular decisions.
Nuclear is popular in France...your own quote says it.
Not wanting to live near a nuclear plant is hardly an argument against nuclear power itself. You are twisting the facts.
> Follow the link above for a description of anti-nuclear activism
I did. The newest info on this powerful lobby:
> In March 2014, police arrested 57 Greenpeace protesters who used a truck to break through security barriers and enter the Fessenheim nuclear in eastern France.
This is hilarious. THIS is supposed to be that powerful anti-nuclear lobby in France? 57 Greenpeace protesters? Are you joking?
> Even now France's nuclear provides more energy than anything it has, and France routinely exports energy to Germany who have shattered their nuclear power plants and are now busy burning coal and importing electricity to cover the needs.
Adding to what cycomanic wrote already:
Germany has replaced what it lost on the nuclear shutdown with renewables years ago. They also reduced coal and even have a law to phase it out completely. The fact that Germany imported nuclear power doesn't say anything about the fact that they HAD to import it. Just like anyone connected to the grid, they buy when it's cheap and sell when it's expensive. Due to Germany's mix they're flexible there while France has to keep on running and selling as much as they can since they're losing money. See EDF.
As I have said: the transformation is not finished yet. Germany did almost nothing during Merkels time and renewables have still generated more than they lost due to the shutdown of nuclear.
Meaning: Germany would STILL burn coal even if they'd have kept nuclear.
It's not that hard to understand if you know the facts and the facts are that Germany has a law to phase out coal completely while expanding renewables. A law which few (no other?) countries even have. Even France will keep on burning coal when the last plant is closed in Germany.
It's definitely versatile but it does need access to a lot of water, and a lot of trained staff to run it. PV and wind also have staff constraints, of course, but plenty of smaller scale PV setups are fairly hands-off.
It's never sounded futuristic to me. Nuclear just boils water to make steam, the same as James Watt's steam engine. (Well, actually, steam turbines, but still pretty old technology.) Boiling water to make electricity? How quaint.
Slight tangent: radioisotope thermoelectric generators use a different mechanism to generate electricity.
Though honestly, they just heat some pieces of metal, instead of heating water.
Photovoltaic heats a bunch of hydrogen ions until they glow. (But those ions are in the sun.) Wind power mostly comes from air and water being heated unevenly.
Tidal power is perhaps the coolest here: no heat involved, the energy comes from the motion of the earth and the moon.
Batteries also have other downsides. Poor density, chemical waste, usually limited discharge cycle.
The PV/turbines are intermittent and will suffer more in extreme climate conditions (winds forcing shutdown and PV getting caught in dust storms), than nuclear (which are more vulnerable to droughts).
For hydro, there's already seasonal variation with rain/snow melt.
Beyond that, it looks like the majority of hydro in the US is on the west coast, which has been experiencing a drought for years and is projected to get worse. The west coast is big on removing dams for habitat restoration, too.
Wind: Admittedly I have no idea what sort of consistency wind has. But it does seem reasonable to assume the overall reliability of wind power will decrease as installed capacity increases, assuming we started with the most productive geographies first and then move to increasingly marginal areas.
In the same way that storm fronts travel through an area and bring high speed winds perhaps there is the opposite, where relatively sudden, large-scale lulls form?
To minimize the likelihood of blackouts we'd need to either:
1) Build sufficient excess capacity of wind/solar/hydro to overcome variance in output. This may not be feasible, if even possible, considering the points above.
2) Maintain fossil fuel peaker plants.
3) More nuclear for base load.
Having written these thoughts out I now realize your statement presumes we can ever (and always) meet 100% of electricity demand with wind/solar/hydro in the first place.
Solar does not drop to zero every night if you connect enough countries to the west and the east or your country is big enough. And there's literally always wind because the ground heats up as the sun moves, creating imbalance in temperature and therefore air pressure.
There's enough countries out there that have been using renewables consistently for years (esp. EU countries). I don't understand how this is still a talking point. Daily variance in supply is equalized by trading energy with your neighbors which uses the phenomenon described above: The sun is always shining somewhere.
For Germany in particular it was a mistake to move away from nuclear before coal (imo lobbying is mostly at fault here) but they've been building renewables since the late nineties. It took them the time it takes to build a single nuclear reactor to move to more than 50% renewables and those are much easier (= cheaper) to maintain for the years to come.
Also, batteries. Storage is being deployed in a huge fraction of new solar installs already, as time based pricing makes it extremely economical to add batteries even after only small amounts of solar penetration on the grid.
And there are great savings by packing batteries behind the inverters along with the DC panels. Inverters can be a shared cost between the panels and batteries. Already, falling panel prices make the inverters an be increasing cost. Second, because panels are so cheap relative to the full install cost, most installations already have undersized inverters compared to maximum solar output. This lets all that "wasted" energy get stored and delivered later when it has much more value and a higher grid price.
Honestly, in the year 2023, batteries are a much more capable and scalable and realistic grid asset than a nuclear reactor.
Solar definitely does drop to zero every night and no, we don't have the connectivity, or the land-mass, to have sunshine somewhere all the time. Russia does...but well, Russia.
There is not "literally always wind". And we've had several days of "Dunkelflaute" in Germany per year now, much higher than anyone predicted.
Renewable advocates like to average over time, so having too much energy at some point in time (which makes the energy worthless and prices go negative, as in "please stop feeding energy into the grid, it's harmful!!") and having too little at other times averages out. As my statistics professor used to joke: if your left leg is standing in liquid nitrogen and your right leg in boiling fat, you are enjoying a nearly perfect mean temperature. Variance matters.
And so the real world does not work the way renewable advocates would like, and no, we don't have nearly the storage to make that work, nor a credible way to create such storage at remotely affordable prices, never mind the horrific environmental impact of that much battery production.
> There's enough countries out there that have been using renewables consistently for years
Nope. One example that is frequently cited is Denmark, but they themselves say that this is only possible because they are a tiny country with lots of neighbours with reliable electricity supply from whom they can purchase when they need it. They also have more interconnect with those neighbouring countries than typical total demand. This is not a model for other countries, particularly not for larger countries.
> The sun is always shining somewhere.
This is simply not true.
> For Germany in particular it was a mistake to move away from nuclear
Absolutely. Probably the biggest political mistake of the after-war period.
> Having written these thoughts out I now realize your statement presumes we can ever (and always) meet 100% of electricity demand with wind/solar/hydro in the first place.
If you don't believe that we can meet our needs with wind/solar/hydro/batteries, then you haven't bothered to study the problem at all.
There's soooo much literature out there on how to do this.
And even without 100%, getting to 90% wind/solar is super cheap and deployable today, and by the time we spend the 15+ years deploying that, we will have tons of new tech to deal with the remains few percent.
Even France never got to 100% nuclear carbon free power, why not do the cheap thing to get to better than France levels of low carbon energy?
When I wrote this it was even worse in Germany. 30% of total electricity coming from coal. Because:
- The total installed capacity of wind covers Germany's needs. Only 28% of installed capacity is produced
- The total installed capacity of solar exceeds Germany's needs. Only 2.7% of installed capacity is produced
That is, currently Germany needs 65 GW of electricity. Solar + wind have a total installed capacity of 134 GW, double what Germany needs. And together they still barely produce 30% of what Germany requires.
So Germany supplements that by burning coal, biomass and gas, and importing electricity.
Germany is currently in an unplanned surprise energy war with Russia that coincided with the start of a shift to greener power. Fairly unique and relatively short-term set of circumstances.
The lesson learned is not “green power bad”, it’s “don’t rely on gas from dictators”.
> Germany is currently in an unplanned surprise energy war with Russia
Ah yes. This war is the reason why 134 GW of renewable energy only produce ~20GW, and why Germany burns 20 GW of coal (by pure coincidence that's about as much as the capacity of all decommissioned reactors since 2011)
> The war is why coal specifically is being used to make up demand, yes.
Again:
- is it war that makes renewables produce 15% of their installed capacity?
- is it war that made Germany shut down 20GW of nuclear power plants?
> That plan isn’t complete.
And it never will be complete. Because when it's cloudy in Germany, those clouds don't stop at Germany's borders. Literally see the comment above about Denmark.
> is it war that makes renewables produce 15% of their installed capacity?
No form of power meets its theoretical "installed capacity". No one runs their nuclear, gas, coal, or oil plants at 100% 24/7/365 either. Yes, some days it's less windy; some days it's more cloudy. The dramatic fall in cost for new solar and wind capacity makes the solution pretty obvious; you build more to account.
> is it war that made Germany shut down 20GW of nuclear power plants?
It's war that makes Germany temporarily wish they hadn't.
> Because when it's cloudy in Germany, those clouds don't stop at Germany's borders.
They're unlikely to cover the entire EU's interconnected grid (and there's talk of generation in Morocco; https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-solutions/2023/04/13/...). When the entire EU is covered in clouds, it's especially unlikely that there's no wind at the same time.
Given Germany's plan is 60% renewable generation by 2050, not 100%, they clearly understand the need for some flexible options for the tail ends of things.
> No form of power meets its theoretical "installed capacity".
And yet unlike renewables nuclear (and coal and gas etc.) are very close to that. And nuclear routinely runs close to its capacity, predictably.
> When the entire EU is covered in clouds, it's especially unlikely that there's no wind at the same time.
So each EU country has to overprovision enough solar and wind to potentially generate power for the rest of the EU countries? Case in point: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38276778
> And yet unlike renewables nuclear (and coal and gas etc.) are very close to that. And nuclear routinely runs close to its capacity, predictably.
Sure. Apples to oranges; they're not the same thing. Theoretical perfect-day max generation isn't how you provision solar/wind, that'd be stupid; the folks building out Germany's renewable efforts aren't stupid.
If you need a certain baseline of a certain renewable, you overprovision (and trade capacity with other areas and generation methods). Given the cost of new solar/wind capacity these days, that still makes perfect economic sense. Any long-term renewables plan is going to include energy storage and peaker plants of some kind to ensure a reliable grid on a national/continental scale.
Again, you act like building power infrastructure is a "we're done!" scenario. It's like demanding to know how many more lines of code Linux will need to be finished.
Germany - and the rest of their interconnected EU grid - will continue to build out cheap, clean power for the forseeable future.
What's your point? Summer - October 2022 only half of the French nuclear power plants were operational, they had to import electricity over long periods of time. However, that's the whole point of the European integrated electricity market, you diversify geographically and by generation. By building more renewable sources, we will need less and less fossil capacity.
I think you're conflating the terms capacity and peak production here.
As mentioned elsewhere in this thread, the peak production makes German electricity cheap enough to make everyone around them use it when it's available. If all the neighbors used this approach too, over the course of a day it would be everybody's turn to provide energy for the neighbors as renewables production will never be zero globally.
> I think you're conflating the terms capacity and peak production here.
I'm not.
What I'm pointing out is that renewables in Germany are significantly overprovisioned. And still produce just 15% of their installed capacity because it's a quiet cloudy day.
> the peak production makes German electricity cheap enough to make everyone around them use it when it's available.
Ah yes. When they are available. That's the point, isn't it?
> If all the neighbors used this approach
Denmark is at 150% of its needs, was importing 40% of its energy from neighbors, and, ironically, from Germany which was burning coal.
So. How much each of the neighbors, and each of those neighbors' neighbors etc. need to overprovision renewables?
Denmark is a state-sized grid by US terms. They have the EU to draw on for the same reason US states draw from the two national-scale grids; wind is unlikely to be out across the entire EU. (Night also means lower demand.)
To be clear, Norway has no nuclear. 99% of generation there is hydro. Low wind in Denmark likely means they release more water for a bit; system works as intended.
See my addendum comment about Germany for example. They had to burn coal to keep up with the demand while their 200% overprovisioned renewables could only generate 20% of required electricity.
Today the only countries were renewables worked at close to 50% installed capacity were UK (wind) and Greece (solar). Everywhere else at best wind and solar were at 30% production. The entire Europe was busy burning gas, coal, or hoping that neighbours have enough nuclear and hydro installed.
> Norway has no nuclear. 99% of generation there is hydro.
Yes, this was my mistake. I should've said: propped up by stable energy sources: nuclear (Sweden) and hydro (Norway and Sweden)
People claim there's no need for nuclear, and that all the needs are covered by renewables, we "just" need to maybe overprovision them.
Germany already overprovisioned. 200% of electricity requirements. And yet...
When I point out that even overprovisioning doesn't seem to work, people deflect, deny, stop responding, or reply in non-sequiturs.
So. Given that yesterday renewables in only two countries (Greece) managed to reach 50% of their installed capacity (not all renewables, but different types of renewables), how many renewables need to built to make sure that all of EU needs are met?
You keep saying this, and then you keep saying they don't have enough. These both cannot be true, and Germany's continuing to expand their wind/solar efforts indicate they don't believe they've "overprovisioned" yet.
Germany's plan goes out to the 2050s. Your complaint that they haven't provisioned enough yet is not in good faith.
Wait, you think my post sounds naive but you can't conceive of how to charge the batteries?
With the cheapest, most scalable, safe, and environmentally sustainable methods we have, which are wind and solar.
Batteries have the potential to make transmission and distribution far far cheaper than they are today, because without batteries, the grid has to be able to respond to the maximum demand at any given time, meaning that all parts of the grid are sized for maximum capacity, even if that maximum capacity is used less than 0.1% of the time.
With storage on the grid, we can now delay transmission and distribution upgrades far into the future, which decreases the biggest chunk of most electricity bills: transmission and distribution.
Christopher Clack's grid modeling on this shows a route to by far the cheapest energy models which includes massive amounts of highly distributed solar and beefing up the distribution system to match.
Too many people optimize energy costs without even considering that most expensive part of electricity: the grid.
> There's so many complaints about cost overruns, etc.
This is ironic. I recommend you read How Big Things Get Done[1], by Bent Flyvbjerg, the world's foremost expert on megaprojects. The book discusses an analysis of about 10,000 projects of over a billion dollars each.
Which projects were most likely to come in on time and on budget, and deliver the promised returns? PV solar.
Which projects were third most likely to overrun by 100% or more, be 100% late or more, and deliver only a fraction of the promised returns? Nuclear power plants.
Edit: The book's ratings are based on construction phase only, after all the permitting and other planning work has been completed.
(Third worst? What could be worse? Answer: nuclear waste storage sites, and Olympic Games hosting.)
Who'd have thought that the targets of perhaps the world's largest anti-anything campaign can slow them down so much? In the 1991 the anti-nuclear industry published its strategy to use everything in their power to slow down nuclear plants and especially nuclear waste sites. It's in black and white. [1]
But not at a rate that can keep up with the growth in demand, especially in China. Demand in China has grown more than 20-fold over the 21st Century but nuclear installs have not come close to keeping up with that.
In contrast solar PV and wind have now grown to the point where they are overtaking the growth in demand, meaning that fossil plants can soon start to be be retired.
So how to anti nuclear activists cause massive cost overruns? The nuclear industry is a multibillion dollar industry with extremely close ties to government (probably one of the closest after the military industry). But somehow a movement, that still gets largely dismissed by politicians as environmental nutters managed to get them to overrun costs?
I mean the myth of the supposedly all powerful anti-nuclear lobby is actually hilarious. I mean took fukushima to get Germany (arguably on of the most nuclear sceptical countries) to decide on stopping nuclear (despite the majority of the population being against nuclear power for years prior) and under quite favourable conditions for the nuclear industry.
If you think about it, what is the argument for why nuclear is to plan? Nuclear is impossible to plan because ... pixies steal the computers the planners are using? Note that whatever factors you identify, the people estimating the plant build process are aware of that.
The planners know exactly how long it takes to build a nuclear plant, and they learn just as quickly as everyone watching from the sidelines. Their assumptions are being thrown by something - almost certainly anti-nuclear campaigners in government or regulatory forces warping incentives. Those are the only things that can consistently diver overruns. Otherwise it is hard for overruns of a nuclear plant to be different from any other project.
Are you joking? This is a blog post by some guy from a venture which invests into nuclear outlining a conspiracy theory where the Nuclear Information Resource Service (NIRS), the Safe Energy Communication Council (SECC), and Greenpeace slowed down nuclear around the world? What?
The blog post simply links to a scanned 1991 document from the major anti-nuclear players laying out their strategy. It includes folks like Ralph Nader.
Given the absolutely massive popularity of the antinuclear movement, the fringe belief is actually to think the legal intervenors that came out of it had negligible impact.
Germany for example had a 100% complete fast breeder reactor called SNR-300, designed to provide sustainable low carbon 24/7 energy for decades. Before it could turn on for the first time, protestors rioted. They never turned it on. Today it's an amusement park. Now that is impact.
Not to double-spiderman you or anything, but from my perspective, your claims that the anti-nuclear movement was not a significant cause of nuclear power cost escalations worldwide appear to be baseless. Not sure how old you are, but the scale of the movement worldwide is pretty flabbergasting.
My claim is that the conspiracy theory that you shared here and which is based upon that scanned document is just that. A conspiracy theory.
I never said there were no anti-nuclear movement.
There are many and in every country they have their own reasons and are more or less influential. For example: there hasn't been a anti-nuclear movement as influential as it was in Germany. This is why Germany was able to replace nuclear with renewables and push it's development for the whole planet. However, no German politician participated in your conspiracy.
Your pitiful attempt at derailing only say something about yourself.
I think you misunderstand. The comment you reply to I think acknowledges that there are problems with nuclear project management - they're saying that with that in mind, let's figure out how to do it better, to make nuclear projects less risky, more reproducible, and subsequently more commercially attractive.
Sure. To go down the Wright's Law learning curve at a rate that keeps pace with PV, we need to ramp up manufacturing to a rate of about a million reactors per year. Is that feasible? In what time frame?
This is a misguided response. Nuclear power plants have all been essentially custom, one-off projects built by inexperienced crews. It’s little surprise the cost overruns. It’s a very different proposition with identical, smaller modular plants that are being proposed that will be built in the tens to hundreds. Costs will drop dramatically while safety will increase, both by the design of the plants and the economies of scale.
You are correct - one offs incur huge "unknowns" which bloat budgets.
You are correct that the obvious solution is standard production of modular designs are the solution to that.
This has all be true and obvious for several decades. Yet the realisation of this approach seems to still be far away.
It also doesn't factor in the non-technical hurdles, costs, and delays that are involved here. Environmental impacts, and local-population-resistance are significant, often terminal, factors in plant construction.
Put another way, nobody cares if I have solar panels on my roof. But if I have a tiny modular reactor in the garden the neighbours will (not surprisingly) object.
> Put another way, nobody cares if I have solar panels on my roof. But if I have a tiny modular reactor in the garden the neighbours will (not surprisingly) object.
Yes, though your neighbours will probably also object to you putting up one of those big wind turbines in your backyard. Or a coal fired power plant.
Im not sure they'd complain if I put up a small wind turbine. If I was in a more rural area I doubt theyd object to a big wind turbine. (The extent of their worry being noise, and danger if it self destructed in bad weather.)
Clearly a coal-fired plant would be an issue, to the degree to which they pollute the neighbours. There are diesel generators here attached to factories etc, and nobody really cares.
Objection to nuclear though is more visceral. With diesel I can hear the noise and decide if I don't like it. With coal I might notice the smell. But I don't think either would silently kill me. Nuclear leaks are invisible, and accumulative, so it can be (disproportionately) scary. Certainly those who are opposed to it will use fear to rally other people to their side. Fear is a strong motivating emotion that is easily manipulated.
> If I was in a more rural area I doubt theyd object to a big wind turbine
You'd be surprised. There was a protest in my area against putting up five new wind turbines at an industrial site as the existing buildings are take down. People object that it would ruin their view... The current buildings is part of a massive coal fired power plant which is slowly being decommissioned and there are already three existing turbines.
France, France, France, France, France. I need nuclear proponents to read about France.
A nation made a bet on "let's do all nuclear". It basically worked, but there was no magical cost decrease. They have an immense amount of institutional knowledge, huge educational system, massive amounts of resources. Their nukes are big and expensive and not really on time. There is no magic at the end of the tunnel if Greenpeace disappears.
The world isn't Sim City, power plants need water access and have location concerns, and it's not a question of just dropping a bunch of truck-sized plants across the world and magically solving everything.
Having said that, France is a success story of course. It's cool that it's all set up. But even after building it up, running these plants are expensive, there's often load issues meaning they are not fully utilized... "nuclear is free easy energy" is science fiction. That's fine, though! It's normal that we have to do stuff to power society.
EDIT: to be clear, I'm cool with nuclear, but I am not picky about where my watts come from.
> The French nuclear case illustrates the perils of the assumption of robust learning effects resulting in lowered costs over time in the scale-up of large-scale, complex new energy supply technologies. The uncertainties in anticipated learning effects of new technologies might be much larger that often assumed, including also cases of “negative learning” in which specific costs increase rather than decrease with accumulated experience.
Oof, talk about a nasty abstract. Will need to find a way to look at this paper later.
France also suffered from the same anti-nuclear sentiment as the rest of the world. To the point that they a couple of years ago they were forced to shutdown their plants for maintenance after a decade or more of neglect.
it was in fact the last winter just at the worst moment possible when electricity price was exploding. Half of them were in maintenance for various reasons
It is funny what all gets blamed on anti-nuclear sentiment or the anti-nuclear lobby. This is a new one though. The neglect was because of anti-nuclear sentiment? In France? I think France is probably one of the countries with the highest approval for nuclear (well > 50%).
The neglect was because maintenance costs money and as usual people (+governments, corporations ...) want to save money/increase earnings/profit, so upkeep gets neglected.
Of course the issue is more complex than just one cause, but anti-nuclear sentiment plays a huge role:
--- start quote ---
Following the 2011 Fukushima I nuclear accidents, an OpinionWay poll at the end of March found that 57% of the French population were opposed to nuclear energy in France.[119] A TNS-Sofres poll in the days following the accident found 55% in favour of nuclear power.[119] In 2006, BBC/GlobeScan poll found 57% of the French opposed to nuclear energy.[120]
In May 2001, an Ipsos poll found that nearly 70% of the population had a 'good opinion' of nuclear power, however 56% also preferred not to live near a nuclear plant and the same proportion thought that a 'Chernobyl-like accident' could occur in France
It's also one of the major reasons why no new nuclear reactors appeared in France after 2000, and why the government would neglect the existing reactors.
An important detail to go with the statement that we rely on Russia for most of our nuclear fuel is that the market for nuclear fuel was disrupted for ten years by the Megatons to Megawatts program [0]
Centrus, the company cited in the ieee article, was the US based side of that exchange, then under the name of the US Enrichment Corporation. [1]
While the program was successful at nuclear disarmament ( to the tune of 20,008 warheads [wiki] ) it tanked the market by effectively 'dumping' the fuel, driving centrifuge operators out.
I argue: it goes back further than that - Chernobyl and 3-mile island[0]. Deeply ingrained in the collective psyche that nuclear - when it goes wrong goes _really_ wrong.
That really set the tone for where US was willing to go and even if it's overall a better solution people weren't willing to back it while it was too easy to kill politically. Jack Welch's book "Straight from the Gut" talks about how they shifted their entire business to nuclear servicing from development because they saw the changing winds - the correct bet.
I'm super excited by this latest development as we accept that we need to learn how to tame the beast that is nuclear fission because the benefits really do outweigh the drawbacks.
The Simpsons came out when the mainstream view of nuclear had already long been developed, with Chernobyl and 3Mile being the cherries on top. By the '90s, the anti-nuke protesters of the '70s / early '80s had grown up and got into power.
That is what happened, but I can't pass by without highlighting how irrational the response was.
I've been watching a livestream of Reykjanes in the vague hope of seeing some magma. Somewhere globally needs to be evacuated every year or so. Going from base rate to base rate +1 per 2 decades or thereabouts is a perfectly acceptable deal. Nobody is going to die (which is more than can be said about coal). We'd get cheap clean energy.
And instead people decided that the best plan was to panic and we end up with the gently building energy crisis that has been rolling on for a few years now. It is entirely plausible we see the bloodiest war in human history as a result of the Western derailment of the transition to nuclear power. It was really foolish.
Who cares that the US government are incompetent? Yeah they're incompetent. They've been incompetent for a long while. They still snuffed out one of the most (arguably the most?) promising technologies of a generation out of fear and ignorance.
That irrational response was heavily fueled by fear mongering from environmental activists and financed by oil producing hostile countries.
In the 70s and 80s leftists couldn't much keep pushing socialism (like they are now) since the horrors of their ideology was quite visible to everybody in the example of USSR. So they embraced environmentalism - just another way for them to fight capitalism and consumerism.
Russia (through the KGB) was quite happy to finance their cause. It meant Western countries (and especially Western Europe) stayed dependent on them for their energy. The folly of our strategy became quite apparent during the last few years with the Ukraine invasion and revelations of EU politicians fully paid and owned by the Russians.
Together with infiltrating the Western Academia, this was probably one of the most successful undercover secret service operation ever.
This view is extremely US centrict with regards to what socialism is. It also ignores decades of history when it comes European relations with the USSR and Russia later. Mixed with some red-scare level fears it turns into pure dilussion at the end...
Funny enough I was born, grew up and I currently live in the Eastern Europe.
I could tell you so much about our history and relations with Russia. From my own experience before '90, from my parents' during communism horror years and from my grandparents' during the War and the soviet occupation after.
But all that info is freely available in books and online - for naught. You can't change the mind of the Western leftists who never had to live through an actual implementation of their pet ideology. They dream about Norway, Sweden and Denmark while never even visiting Cuba, North Korea or Venezuela.
Communism isn't socialism. Cuba is as close to old school communism as you get nowadays, Venezuela is cleptocratic, deeply corrupt regime ehixh has not much to do with either socialism or communism. And North Korea, well, what can I say, is just North Korea.
Who talked about true communism? Communism was tried, didn't work. Your own words by the way.
There is a very important difference between communism and socialism, because the latter has been tried multiple times and worked comparatively well. You even named some of the poster child countries yourself. As I said, it is a truely US thing to equate socialism with communism, followed by touting Cuba, Venezuela and North Korea as negative examples of it.
Oversight that is explicitly called out throughout the repoets on the Chernobyl desaster, by both the IAEA and the USSR. Always funny how the hardest nuclear proponents can't even bothered reading the executive summaries of incident reports prepared by the nuclear industry itself.
Am I going to get push-back for saying economic policy makers should hold USSR reports with suspicion? Their ability to make rational decisions was so hopeless their civilisation collapsed. Doing the exact opposite of their economic recommendations is a strategy that is legitimately on the table.
And oversight is different from strangulation. If we could dial back the regulations to mere oversight I'd go find something else to talk about.
Who talked about "economic recommendations"? The IAEA INSAG-7 report, an update on the initial Chernobyl report INSAG-1, is a quick read (I just did it in the last 20 minutes or so).
That report, which includes official translations of two USR incident reports, is all about safety and technical aspectsbof RBMK reactors, nowhere do they talk about the future use and deploymant of nuclear power plants. After all, all those reports were written by the people being as pro-nuclear as you could be in the late 80s... Granted, people back then wrote long form documents not published on social media.
I linoed to the report elsewhere, ypu honestly should read it. Including the truely damning ones the Soviets wrote regarding safety, regulation and oversight at, and around, the Chernobyl power plant, especially affecting the extension units incl. rwaczor No. 4 which ultimately exploded.
Are you suggesting we should roll nuclear safety back to 1980s USSR standards? That is a lot more extreme than what I'm comfortable with, and sounds like it is bordering on recklessness. Those were the goons that caused Chernobyl.
I'm saying we should accept some level of accidents, not that we want to purposefully try to cause nuclear meltdowns. It is tolerance, not a target. Nobody is advocating ignoring 50 years of improvements in safety tech and understanding, we just shouldn't be bankrupting nuclear companies in pursuit of impossible goals.
The standard for damage should be similar to coal.
Are you intentinaly misreading my comments? Sure seems so.
If anything, Chernobyl shows us that, regardless of how low regulatory and safety standards are, economic and career interests always push people and organizations to violate them. Hence, the point would be to put even stricter regulations in place.
On the other hand, you took official incident reports as, to qupte, economic recommendations. And you advocated for regulation to be loosened to oversight.
Generally so, HN has a really problem with quantifying risks. In FMEAs, the detectability, propability and severity of a failure mode are combined to calculate a risk value. If a risk is potentially disastrous, and if nuclear accidents are disastrous they really and truely are, the underlying failure modes have to be mitigated rigirously. There is no thought of "some accidents have to be accepted for the greater good" in developing systems that can, and have, killed people. This attitude shows in each and every discussion around aerospace accidents as well... And it is the main rwason I have a hard time accepting software devs as part of the greater engineering community.
If you think someone is misreading your comments, my advice is to either shrug and accept that not everyone understands or try to explain yourself more clearly. Paranoia is a bad mindset. And energy policy is, fundamentally, about economics. We've regulated a lot of industries out of existence for no particular reason and, while that annoys me, the damage is slight compared to the huge societal costs of the crazy energy policies the Western powers have been adopting.
1980s standards of safety aren't really an acceptable option in the modern era, and you are the person laying down 1980s and 1990s reports as something to be referred to. That isn't a very good strategy IMO, we should be aiming for higher standards than they could achieve then. We have much better tech and science now. The issue is that the regulations have gone waaay overboard, we're pushing huge costs onto the nuclear industry for next to no benefit to anyone.
> And you advocated for regulation to be loosened to oversight.
I still am, the amount of oversight the nuclear industry has been subjected to is silly.
However, and this is a point I thought was going to be obvious to everyone, 1980s USSR standards are also silly. Not as silly as the modern standard, in principle, but nevertheless I think we can do better.
I'm thinking that society can maybe be talked down off the ledge and accept airline-industry levels of safety. Then we can have cheap power and historically outstanding safety and an order of magnitude less environmental damage than coal, and cheaper power prices. It'd be a great equilibrium. Regressing to the 80s is not really something I'm tabling as an option here. If the plan was to do that then the anti-nuclear people would have some respectable points.
Airline industry levels of safety? So real six sigma? I am all for that! Just as a heads up, that includes all those incidents that never make to the news. You know, a crack here, corrosion there. A failed sensor, a insignificant coolant leak...
And you know why the Chernobyl reports are so significant? Because to date it is the worst nuclear accident, also the most thoroughly investigated one. And specifically because of all the fuck ups, it allows us to see a lot of risks and issues in one single report, not spread across a half dozen or so. Added bonus, everyone knows about Chernobyl.
After all, I read it, multiple times actually. I also read some of the public reports on the 737 Max, and the basic parallels in behaviour of people and organizations are astonishing.
Just im case so, I am not saying coal is better, we absolutely should leave existing nuclear plants online as long as sofely possible. Building new ones is just not economically feasible anymore, for almost a decade so. Wind and solar are simply cheaper, and hence more profitable fprninvestors, and the environment. And until tue transition is complete, nuclear and some gas plants for covering peak demand short notice, is a viable way to go.
By the way, regarding 80s and 90s safety regulations, you do know from when most of the current nuclear fleet dates, right? And there is so much retrofitting you can do...
Humans, in general have a real problem quantifying risks, especially risks involving low probability events. I don't think this is unique to HN (although, it seems like there may be a disproportionate amount of confidence discussing these risks).
> I'm saying we should accept some level of accidents, not that we want to purposefully try to cause nuclear meltdowns. It is tolerance, not a target.
The problem is: what are you willing to tolerate? Here in Bavaria, many decades after Chernobyl, you still have to scan wild game meat and shrooms for radioactivity. You can't even assume that a dead zone around a disaster site will be kept secure - the Ukraine war proved that, with uneducated Russian troops disturbing the radioactive dust layer as they moved around and entrenched themselves around Chernobyl. The only place where it's really feasible to have a nuclear accident site contained reasonably well is the continental United States, everything else is way too much at risk for third-party interference.
Nuclear radiation is among the worst issues you can have... you can't see it, people aren't aware of how radiation sources look like, and it's way WAY too easy to cause serious incidents the more widespread its use is - the "orphan sources" wikipedia article is pretty damning, and a lot of that is the relatively small amounts that are used in radiotherapy devices. As a species, we can't even have these secured and protected from theft and incompetent idiots - how anyone can ask for even more usage of nuclear energy is beyond me.
In the end it seems the pro nuclear, and indirectly anti-renewables, argument seems to boil to renewables being a socialist conspiracy to sabotage the Western economy and society or something like that.
There we agree. There is only one problem: nobody wants to build new nuclear reactors in the West, they are not competetive with renewables anymore. So every dollar invested in new nuclear reactors is a wasted dollar. The fossil fuel lobby benegits largely from that, because every dollar going into nuclear projects, which will be completed at least a decade later if not more, is a dollar not going into renewables going online in the next year. And it is the latter that posses a problem for fossil fuel plants, not the former.
Anyway, as with EVs, capitalism has decided: wind and solar it is, that's where the money goes and not nuclear. For mostly the same reasons come 2030 you wont be able to buy ICE cars anymore. Profits and money.
Yes, free markets have fuelled a technological boom that delivered us renewables - an incredible, completely unexpected feat. But it may be a case of too little too late.
The problem is we spent last 100 years spewing CO2 into the atmosphere instead of switching to nuclear due to the nuclear fear-mongering from environmentalists. Now we are facing Climate Change, a civilization-ending danger. And I am not sure the renewable build-up is fast enough to replace hydrocarbon burning, especially since it also has an availability problem.
The rational strategy would thus be a (slow, controlled, careful) cost-reducing deregulation and nuclear buildup in parallel with renewables and closing down of legacy plants.
But we are facing the same resistance and fear mongering from the exact same politicians and ideologues that got us into this predicament in the first place. I am pretty sure no solution can come from the same people and way of thinking that created the problem.
> And I am not sure the renewable build-up is fast enough to replace hydrocarbon burning, especially since it also has an availability problem.
It absolutely is. Germany is building about 1.5GW a month of solar and wind combined, so over a year the equivalent of a dozen average large scale NPPs.
Even accounting for the availability problem, aka capacity factor (wind ~0.3-0.5, solar .25), that's the equivalent of four NPPs a year. The rest? Can easily be covered with a combination of hydro, geothermal, massive grids and dynamic load management (both on the demand side aka load shedding and on the source side aka powerwalls with feedback capability).
Meh, a lot of heavy industry is still running on machines from the 60s. Incentivising them to upgrade their old crap to modern times would cost them billions (which is why they've been dragging their arses so long), but it would bring a lot of consumption savings and flexibility to the grid.
I personally knownof three energy hungry places, two former employers and and one nearby, that runs those really old machines (chemical plants from before the war, WW1 in one case, graphite production of the same age and paper machines at pretty old sites) that are perfectly able for almost a decade now to adapt their production, within certain limits of course, to provide load balancing. They even go as far as adapting production to electricity prices in the spot market and speculate with their long term contract volumes. Litterally making millions, to the point production for zhe waste bin is almost profitable (which renders the whole sustainability angle moot, but I digress).
Morw of that, some storage, bio gas and hydrogen peaker plants, geo thermal and renewables and we are good to go.
JFC. I get why this is profitable, these machines have been written off financially a century ago and have been money printers ever since for that reason, but this kind of behavior should be seriously penalized - it makes competition for new companies really hard (because they have to pay down the value for new machines), and it's bad for the environment as a whole because if they're still running the same motors and control units from back then, then they are wasting a lot of electricity, most likely also emit a lot more toxic effluents than a plant with modern emission controls and mitigations would, and most likely run at lower yield rates than modern processes so they're wasting more raw materials.
The machines were old, control equipement was / is newish. The same stuff would be impossible to produce on new plants in Germany, environmental restrictions are too strict. Kazachstan, India and China are the places to go. And even China didn't want that dirty shit anymore. The old sites work because they operated for ages.
> Germany is building about 1.5GW a month of solar and wind
I root for them to succeed. I do love renewables. But I know that in my country at least the waiting time today for panel purchase, installation and grid connection is over a year. However they are subsidized by the state so that adds time and bureaucracy.
The rest… I have my doubts: it’s all ideas but little reality. We’ll see in about 5 years time, I guess.
Fun fact: Free markets have not a lot to do with the technological leap of solar, that was mostly German subsidies for PV. In the end only Chinese companies benegited from that, but that is a different topic.
Nobody, I repeat nobody, is financing new nuclear reactors in the developed world (except specialized and military applications). The money goes, for quote a while now, into renewables and, sadly, some coal plants (which is mainly due to CO2 certificates being too dirt cheap, and making coal plants financially viable). The free market and financials decided against nuclear, as did politics in a lot of countries.
One thing you do ignore so, getting new nuclear reactors up and running takes decades in Europe, there is no such thing as a fast built out. Not even if the public and political will would be there, which it isn't. All we do achieve with argueing for new nuclear capacity is slowing the build out of wind and solar down and slow development of grid scale storage tech.
> Free markets have not a lot to do with the technological leap of solar, that was mostly German subsidies
The technology used to make solar panels is the same used for semiconductors. It evolved al Moore's law speed thanks to an unregulated free market for the tech industry. Same reason we enjoy a cheap supercomputer in every pocket in 2023 instead of the city’s Eniac. That’s what lack of regulation does.
What German guvernamental subsidies did was to build a lot of Solar capacity in a country with relatively little sun. I hope it works out for them, but I remember earlier this year importing nuclear electricity from France.
>The free market and financials decided against nuclear
I'm just trying to fully understand the position here. How do you mean "free market"? Because it seems a disproportionate amount of nuclear cost is driven by regulation. I'm not even saying that unwarranted, but it certainly seems to be very different from the colloquial definition of a "free market".
"It seems" is usually not true. Sure, nuclear is regulated. As are all other forms of electricity generation. As usual, regulation is written in blood, or in the case of nuclear three figure billions of clean-up costs after Chernobyl and Fukushima.
Regulation, I might remind you, that was written by staunchly pro-nuclear organizations.
Also, just necause you have regulations doesn't mean you don't have a free market. Hence, there is a free market for nuclear electricity. Thing is, nobody wants to finance new projects (with the exception of developing countries, but those have a lot of catching up to do).
One cost nuclear power plants do not have to carry is insurance against large accidents. No insurance comoany would take on said risk, hence the state is carrying that risk. Soubds to me like a huge cost factor is taken off from nuclear power plant operators here (just to pick one example).
As said elsewhere, I'm all for keeping existing NPPs running as long as safely possible (which was the reason Germany had to shut down a couple), and shut down coal plants instead. Building new NPPs takes too long to be a viable solution, and is too expensive (and hence the lack of fubding for new ones).
The rants about regulation being rooted in safety miss the point. As I stated before, I'm not making a claim that regulation is bad or unwarranted. What I'm pushing back on is the idea that the nuclear industry operates in a "free market." Utilities, in general, do not operate in a free market in the US. They are regulated monopolies. A startup cannot just decide to start generating electricity and tie into the grid, irrespective of whether they meet all the safety regulations. Not all regulations are safety-based but rather based on economics of scale being beneficial for the consumer. That's why it's not a free market.
So while there's a lot to discuss about the relative costs of nuclear, claiming they are the result of a free market doesn't really hold water.
I'm expecting the automotive industry will just start producing vehicles that aren't effected by that requirement and those will be marketed in much the same way as SUVs have become pretty much the only vehicle type available because they're permitted to emmit more CO2.
> I don't know any pro-nuclear that is anti-renewables. We see nuclear as an alternative to burning coal, gas or oil, not to renewables.
We have a ton of these people in Germany. "Technologieoffen" they call themselves - the reality is that they want to keep the old structure of big utilities and massive profits for shareholders alive.
> Renewables are great. We all love them. It's just that they are not here just yet, not 24h/day 265days/year anyway. They need a complement.
That's what a grid is for. Build a national grid with serious transfer capacities (China can do it over 1000s of km's, so the US can just as well if it wanted), and suddenly you can use East Coast solar to power the West Coast. Or here in Europe, with French and Portuguese offshore wind and solar from Northern Africa. On top of that, incentivise large consumers (data centers, heavy industry) to upgrade their processes to be able to handle dynamic load shedding, and invest into powerful gas and hydrogen fuel cell based peaker plants to cover for the very small amount in a year where neither solar, wind nor dammed hydro is enough to supply the entire country.
The serious issue with nuclear is that they cost billions of dollars to build. At the moment, in Germany 44% of the total power is generated using renewables [1], in peak times (i.e. summer) renewables account for up to 70% of the month's load [2]. The investment for NPPs can't ever be recouped at that point, which is why even small scale projects such as NuScale got the boot [3]. No matter what the pro-nuclear crowd hopes, the free market has decided against it.
Nuclear is expensive because of overregulation. Hence no free market when it comes to building nuclear power plants, unfortunately. Otherwise we’d have a glut of safe electricity at amazingly low prices. Of course safety was the pretext for that overregulation but when such a complex technology has the lowest deaths per megawatt (except solar) [0] - maybe we can relax the rules a little.
I know about your suggestions and while they are all good ideas I just don’t see them widely implemented in reality for some reason. Maybe because they all require government intervention which is slow, expensive and prone to corruption from the fossil fuel lobby.
Meanwhile the non-renewable part of energy generation is made burning coal, gas and oil and spewing pollution and even radioactive particles in the air, pollution that kills millions every year. Also spewing CO2 causing climate change, e civilization-ending danger getting closer and harder to avoid.
No free market for nuclear? Interesting, but not true. Simoly kWh prices show that wind and solar were cheaper than Hinkley C already, what, 5 years ago? Since then, solar is getting cheaper every year.
On electricity markets, which in Europe only take variable coats into account, the ranking, cheapest to most expensive, is: wind and solar, hydro, coal, nuclear and oil followed by gas. So even there, in hard cold numbers, nuclear looses. Even without taking the huge fix costs of nuclear plants into account, or the long term coats like waste storage.
Why do you think even small, and potentially cheaper, reactor projects get axed?
> Nuclear is expensive because of overregulation. There is no free market when it comes to nuclear, unfortunately.
And for good reason. There is no power generation that has a potential for serious damage compared to nuclear. The cost of Chernobyl was at least 235 billion dollars [1], Fukushima is estimated to end up at around 200 billion dollars [2]. The only other kind of power generation that can destroy entire swaths of land in a single strike is dammed hydro, but even the largest catastrophe to date, the Kakhovka dam destruction in Ukraine, cost only 14 billion dollars [3] - and it didn't render the affected land permanently uninhabitable and only cost the lives of about 50 people, compared to Chernobyl's death toll.
It's utter madness to risk this much money and this much destruction when there are so many different ways of getting power. Nuclear power may be the cheapest per kWh on paper, but that is only because the worst-case risk is implicitly assumed by the government without accounting for it in insurance premiums - at least the major Western countries limit operator exposure to liability claims to a fraction of the potential cost [4]. This is beyond unsustainable, it's financial russian roulette.
We will not be able to live entirely without NPPs, I agree on that one, as we need them to create Co-60 for radiotherapy sources and the nuclear weapon powers to get new feedstock to maintain the warheads, but we should try as a species to get rid of nuclear weapons anyway and only keep the minimum we need for radiotherapy and fundamental research.
I totally forgot that now insurance, or re-insurance company is willing to insure against that risk. I am sure that is because those companies a anti-nuclear environmentalists and it has nothing to do with their risk models showing nuclear power plants to be uninsurable from a risk / profit perspective.
> There is no power generation that has a potential for serious damage compared to nuclear
Of course there is. Good old oil, coal and gas burning. Since we’re fear-mongering on potentials here, would you like to estimate the cost of a runaway green house effect that turns the whole Earth into Venus? Climate scientists are warning we may already be beyond that point of no return. And we are still putting CO2 into the atmosphere while arguing the “potential” dangers of nuclear!
> And we are still putting CO2 into the atmosphere while arguing the “potential” dangers of nuclear!
We're building renewable generation capacity at a far greater speed (as said, Germany alone > 1GW a month...) than we ever could using nuclear power. This in turn enables us to shift residential and commercial heating to heat pumps - even assuming a gas power plant, 1 kWh of electric power replaces 4 kWh of heat power.
Let me know when you start closing fossil fuel power plants like you closed your nuclear ones. So far you’ve just restarted some coal-fueled ones until the LGN terminal is done next year. And that terminal will bring in GAS, not solar or wind. [0]
Till then - you’re selling pretty dreams, while in reality killing people and dooming the planet.
2) lacks the skills to properly independently evaluate the scope of (99% of the public doesn’t own a Geiger counter, and 99.9% would be unable to quantify risks even if they did)
3) is potentially lethal
And the authorities the are supposed to be able to do #1 and #2 are caught repeatedly and obviously lying about the hazard.
It’s perfectly rational for people to get ‘irrationally’ scared. All they know is the folks who are supposed to be protecting them from this actual threat are not credible! And there is an actual threat (probably)!
You basically summarzied the reasoning of a Soviet working group investigating Chernobyl. The investigation is needed, because people, being occupied with the clean up, are reasonably scared and have no reason to believe government claims without a proper investigation.
Yes, I spent some time today reading official reports on Chernobyl, again. Hell, even the Soviet reports are damning for their own nuclear industry, calling out organizations, people and structural defficiencies. As is the IAEA. And none of those groups can even remotely be accussed of being anti-nuclear.
Couldn't you say all of the same things about coal? The risks are largely invisible, people can't assess them, and people definitely die due to its use.
Maybe there needs to be another criteria. Something like, "when the hazard comes with a scary label"?
Acid rain is pretty obvious (and easy to measure with ph strips, which are easy to find).
Nasty smog is pretty obvious.
Plumes of gunk from smoke stacks are obvious.
Now, co2 and fine particulate contamination (like say radioactive contamination from ash), yes. Those take decades to be noticable (if at all). There have been big issues because of it, statistically. But those are not well known/accepted either by the public. And certainly not the most common 'acute' problems.
Something like a release of radiation from a nuclear power plant can (and usually is), completely invisible. As is things like ingesting fallout. It usually kills years or decades later.
If you can see radiation, you're pretty much a dead man walking already.
A reactor melting down is a sudden acute incident that can release massive amounts of completely invisible radioactive elements that won't kill anyone for decades - or in weeks/months, if really bad.
By the time something has obviously gone wrong from the outside (like the core blowing up in Chernobyl, or the reactor building blowing up due to Hydrogen explosion in Fukushima), massive releases are essentially guaranteed. But still usually invisible. Cherenkov radiation 'sky beam' from chernobyl excepted. [https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1142309/Chernobyl-dis...]
And with a little avoidance, a lethal dose might be easy to not have! If you have good data. Without good data, it's a crap shoot though.
You lead with a questioning No - but then about half way through your post you came to a certain yes. The threat of governments not protecting us from nuclear radiation is smaller than the actual costs of governments not protecting us from coal.
And the idea that there is a risk we can't detect is silly, we radiation is easy to detect. The issue is we can't detect a threat because there appears not to be one. The risks aren't quantified because the threshold for a paniced response has been set far too low, so there is panic without a problem. And the population doesn't own Geiger counters because they are canny with their money and they don't have a reason to own one. If there was a risk, it'd be easy to make measuring devices generally available. You can buy one for less than $100.
My ‘yes’ was for long term, persistent exposure. Not an acute accident.
Panic tends to happen in acute accidents because people
don’t have time to prepare or do any of those things you’re talking about.
When the folks who are in charge during a crisis are clearly either incompetent or lying, and it’s one of those acute situations where people don’t have time to get all those things, that’s when it’s perfectly rational to be ‘irrationally worried’.
When there is a history of that kind of thing happening, that’s when it’s perfectly rational to be ‘irrationally worried’ long term.
That's exactly my point, though. Lots of people die from coal mining as an industry. That is largely invisible.
The health effects on the population at large are also significant, but largely invisible. Radiation? Also measurable, but largely invisible.
But often the same people who are fine with coal will tell me how terrible three mile island was and that it is evidence that we shouldn't expand nuclear.
Coal mining deaths are very, very visible. Coal mining is also clearly filthy and dangerous. If you don’t see it, it’s only because you’ve never seen coal mining or been to a coal mining town.
No one who mined coal - ever - was unclear on how bad for them it was. Even long before we had x-rays or modern medical anything.
Mining uranium kills people in ways that aren’t so obvious, and in proportions that didn’t make any sense even based on radiation models.
It turns out radon gets easily carried in on dust, and miners were getting 300x the radiation exposure that their Geiger counters or dosimeters showed was possible.
They also were ingesting/breathing in trace amounts of things like Polonium, which also weren’t showing up.
Radiation is scarier because it’s not obvious when it’s there, or how bad it’s going to be for someone until way after it’s too late. And it’s hard to figure out - like you really need a solid physics degree AND a medical degree to understand becquerels (or curies) vs rads vs rem, and what that actually means for a random human somewhere in a mine.
The unknown is always scarier.
Coal dust is not confusing anyone, and requires zero degrees to understand how shitty it is to breath.
Humans are inherently bad at estimating risk when it comes to low probability events. The fact that there was an irrational response shouldn’t surprise anyone.
It was a partial meltdown in a pressurized water reactor, it cannot be compared to Chernobyl, it's a completely different technology. PWRs can't explode like what happened in Chernobyl.
PWR is a "Pressurized Water Reactor" using (light) water under pressure as the primary coolant. The Chernobyl block #4 RBMK-1000 was certainly a PWR.
While the precise mechanism by which the #4 reactor in Chernobyl was destroyed in 1986 was rooted in the flawed design combined with unsafe operation, this does not mean that other reactor designs cannot fail catastrophically with loss of containment and release of radioactive material. Particularly when operated outside of their specification through operator error, accidents or a combination thereof.
RBMK is not considered a PWR because it is graphite-moderated. Most reactors are classified first by their moderator. PWRs and BWRs are both LWRs, moderated by light water, as opposed to HWRs moderated by heavy water, or graphite-moderated reactors like RBMK, or fast reactors which have no moderator at all.
Any reactor can fail and any can be operated safely. The reactivity coefficients of RBMK made it harder to control, perhaps, than a PWR. Modifications made after the Chernobyl accident have improved this.
The main issue with Chernobyl 4 was its lack of a containment building. Even so, the response was an over-reaction that made the situation worse.
RBMKs are not PWRs, full stop. You're completely wrong. These terms have clear, precise established meanings, you cannot redefine them willy nilly to suit your rhetorical needs.
To be fair, the show over dramatized the KGB angle. But yes, the Soviets knew RBMKs were not the safest design, reactor 4 was built violating safety standards, operators for the test were not properly trained and then safety procedures were ignored during the test. The official incident report is a fascinating read, and should be mandatory reading for everyone studying with goal of having the word engineer in his future job title.
What with regards to the effect of graphite tipped control rods was, IMHO, as bad as having a dramatic KGB effort to keep it secret: it was forgotten. In 1983, there was an incident in an other RBMK reactor, the HBO series claims the KGB kept it secret, in reality this happened (from the INSAG-7 report and the cited USSR investigative reports):
>> The SCSSINP Commission (Annex I, Section 1-3.8) reports that, after discov-
ery of the positive scram effect at Ignalina in 1983, the chief engineering organiza-
tion informed other organizations and all nuclear power plants with RBMK reactors
that it intended to impose restrictions on the complete withdrawal of control and
safety rods from the core. Such restrictions were never imposed and apparently the
matter was forgotten.
That means in the fact it coupd explode was known, but ignored. Ignored by everyone in the Soviet scientific establishment and nuclear authorities. I don't what's worse, a secret police intervention or a whole science and industry community ignoring safety concerns until it is too late.
> Ignored by everyone in the Soviet scientific establishment and nuclear authorities. I don't know what's worse, a secret police intervention or a whole science and industry community ignoring safety concerns until it is too late.
“Whole .. community” is a stretch here.
Keep in mind that information spread is different in ussr. Kgb had people recruited from all over the place (from factory workers to politicians; 0.1% of population were in kgb). Also, lot of institutions had party representative present (officially, not hidden).
Press did not report accidents or significantly under-report casualties, and of course various good metrics were inflated a lot, even to comical levels.
In this environment, somebody using his influence in kgb or party to stop certain restrictions (because they would point to design flaw and would delay stuff) is very believable, and probably common.
Well, that the whole community of nuclear scientists, engineers and operators ignored the design flaws of RBMK reactors was an indirect conclusion of the two late 80s investigation boards the USSR (!) put in place. Read the annexes to INSAG-7, you can even find the design bureaus and directors named in there.
The KGB blocking the refit of the RBMK fleet is a myth from HBOs Chernobyl series. Truth is rather different, Legasov was seen by the younger generation as part of the establishment that held back modifications, while he simultaniously managed to piss off said establishment. And without support from the rank and file, and some enemies with the higher ups, his career was shot. Compounded by serious health issues following the Chernobyl clean up. Less dramatic than a KBG conspiracy for sure, but still bad enough.
If the HBO show had the science somwhat correct, then the operators did everything they could to make it go boom. In failure modes already defined and warned about.
That, and the fact that it wasn't was not communicated. The necessary assessments have not been done during Chernobyl No. 4s commissioning, hence not counter measures have beem defined and put in the procedures. The RBMK chief engineering org wanted to adress the incident in Lithuania, and informed operators and authorities about that intention. Chief engineering didn't follow up so, and nobody bothered asking where the announced measures and procedures were.
In the end the operators of Chernobyl No. 4 were the fucked ones, their procedures were incomplete, sometimes dangerously wrong. Leadership, incl. Dyatlov, failed to put a safety culture in place. The reactor design was not well understood, operating characteristics at below 50% capacity were never even analyzed or modelled, and inheretly unsafe (missing sensors, bad control rod design and operating procedures...). And the night shift wasn't even briefed on the test to be conducted.
One of the conclusions of INSAG-7 was, that the accident could even have happened with properly designed control rods, coolant failure could have led to the same accident. If your equipment is so inherently unstable and fragile, operating procedure, training and operators have to compensate. None of those measures was taken.
Heck, in some circunstances RBMK operators had to conduct up to 1,000 manual operations per hour (!) to keep the reactor stable. And by the way, the RBMK design didn't even meet Soviet design and safety requirements applicable in 70s when those reactors were designed.
A complete clusterfuck. The circumstances allowing said clusterfuck still exist everywhere, in all countries, industries and organisations to this day.
The containment vessel held, and most of the radiation released was in the form of xenon and krypton gas vented from the reactor.
“ It was later found that about half the core had melted, and the cladding around 90% of the fuel rods had failed,[21][76] with 5 ft (1.5 m) of the core gone, and around 20 short tons (18 t) of uranium flowing to the bottom head of the pressure vessel, forming a mass of corium.[77] The reactor vessel—the second level of containment after the cladding—maintained integrity and contained the damaged fuel with nearly all of the radioactive isotopes in the core.”
Definitely not Chernobyl, but it was a significant amount of damage to the reactor. It was totaled.
There is a lot to be said for big, strong containment vessels. Fukishima's was too small and overpressure broke it open. Chernobyl didn't have one. Three Mile Island had a good one.
Many of the "small modular reactor" schemes say they don't need a big, strong, expensive containment vessel because, reasons. You can read those arguments for NuScale in NRC documents. The prototype was going to be built at the Idaho National Laboratory, formerly the National Reactor Testing Station, which is in outer nowhere, just in case.
If I remember correctly, part of the issue has been supply chain - the equipment necessary to forge the large steel parts necessary for these containment vessels are few and far between - and now all foreign.
> PWRs can't explode like what happened in Chernobyl.
No, sadly.
PWR's sure can explode (due to hydrogen, vapor...).
The root causes will not be identical to Chernobyl's causes, and the containment will probably limit leaks for a while (theoretically at least a few days), but they sure can explode.
It also happened at Fukushima.
Some protective measures are PACs and containment, however nothing can guarantee that an explosion won't happen, nor that dangerous radionuclides won't leak outside the plant.
Compared with the constant deaths from coal, yeah, it's a much better bet. Thankfully moot these days, but the overreaction to these problems set us back generations at solving climate change.
It was a partial meltdown that cause 2 billion dollars in inflation adjusted damages.
While it harmed the public perception of nuclear, it was really the cost that slowed down investments in US nuclear which then had knock on effects long term. The best way to think about it is power companies had other investments they could make that had less risks even if they had lower returns. Thus the cost is balanced not vs 0 returns but in comparison to the added benefit from nuclear.
Fewer investments meant losing knowledge of how to build the things which further reduced nuclear’s advantages. Until today when nuclear just can’t compete successfully and anyone that tries sees vast cost overruns.
No one has mentioned yet (what I find to be) the most important fact: radioactive gases were vented in a populated area without any consent, review, or approval. (inb4 the nerdsniping about how and why it had to be done,it's irrelevant to my point). If you lived in the area, your community was exposed to radioactive substances, and thats where the incident really crossed the line and got people worried.
don't forget Silkwood. now i know a lot of people are not convinced by her story, but the fact remains that even without her story, the nuclear energy industry in Oklahoma was a complete shit show, they were spreading nuclear waste on farm fields for cows to eat, to save money, and one time they blew open a huge container of uranium hexafluoride, killed a guy, injured a bunch of people, and sprayed a cloud of material over several counties because they couldn't follow simple procedures.
I would be hesitant to use Jack Welch and correct bet in the same sentence.
His overall strategy at GE was to shift it from it's traditional roles in heavy industry to instead focus on finance and real estate. This worked temporarily as the company rode the real estate bubble. When the bubble pop'd the company lost half its value.
In other words, don't evaluate his statements on nuclear without context or critical thought.
Jack himself said he should be judged by where the company was 10 years after he left. That comment did not age well.
I'm saying he had a larger agenda at the time that comment was made, one that had him divesting not just from nuclear but many other of GE's historic heavy industry and power related business lines.
The implication when a comment is made like that about one's self is that it should be a positive reflection. Most people are not asking people to berate them.
Welch actually said 20 years. And when confronted about that performance he refuses to discuss it. That should tell you something.
DUBNER: Let me ask you this: in 1999, not long before you retired from G.E., you said that your ultimate success would be determined by how well your successor grows the company over the next 20 years. When you said that, G.E.’s market cap was up north of $450 billion. Now it’s almost 20 years later, it’s just north of $200 billion. So talk to me about that. I know that you —
WELCH: I don’t talk about that.
Now maybe Welch doesn't want to seem like he's bad-mouthing the performance of those who came after him, but he does have at least some responsibility for ensuring a good continuity of leadership.
Nuclear fuel used to mean give an entire town radiation induced cancers while gas lighting them. Dark Circle is required watching.
You’re super excited and all I see is super excited for poor people who can’t move towns getting cancer, while misdirecting toward 3-Mile.
There’s no reason we can’t have safe nuclear power but we won’t get there if past wrongs aren’t fixed, and it seems like everyone is focusing on the wrong things.
> Nuclear fuel used to mean give an entire town radiation induced cancers while gas lighting them. Dark Circle is required watching.
If you are talking about Rocky Flats, wasn't that related to nuclear weapons production? It's plutonium, not uranium.
We have safe nuclear reactors, today. What we need to do is build more, with newer designs, and retire those that are past the end of their lifetime.
Most importantly, this discussion doesn't even make sense when we have coal plants spewing all sorts of terrible stuff in the atmosphere, including radiation.
"Wasn't that related to nuclear weapons production? It's plutonium, not uranium"
One of the contentions of the movie is that nuclear weapons and nuclear energy production are inextricably linked in the US. I felt it made a decent argument that "there is no clean coal" but for nuclear energy as well, because of this historical link.
When did Chernobyl break ground? 1972, operated by lying soviet bureaucrats.
When Fukushima Daiichi break ground? 1967
When did Three Mile island break ground? 1968
There have been a half-dozen whole generations of nuclear reactor developed since then, drastic reductions in the amount of waste they generate through advancements in nuclear chemistry, and now a whole new paradigm of SMRs.
All in pursuit of greater safety from a bogyman that is nothing but an echo of the past. It's like the Mill architecture people, still trying to design a CPU to beat the itanic when the rest of processor design has moved on.
we rely on Russia for nuclear fuel because our government approved selling many of our own uranium mines to state backed Russian organizations using shell companies
And then the Russians shipped those mines to Siberia? Impressive!
A lot of Germany's gas storage facilities were owned by Russian companies, or rather Germans subsidiaries of Russian companies. As soon as the war in Ukraine hit, those have been quickly nationalized. What makes you think US uranium mines would be any different? Or that there are now export restrictions forburanium in the first place?
But apparently that was NuScale's reactor that was canceled, while TerraPower is still going, which may have something to do with the exceptional wealth of its founder:
Another unwanted dependency on Russia is the finished fuel for Russian reactor designs. Luckily a lot of countries start to go to Westinghouse to let them produce an alternative, but as far as I see it’s only for one nuclear reactor design (VVER-440)
And that is actually a good thing, at least as far as climate change is concerned. In the West, it is about existing power plants and energy mixes. In those developing countries tjose nuclear plants actually replace yet-to-be-built coal and other fossil fuel plants. If they are finished fast enough, that is. And operated safely.
Where are you going to get the uranium ore from to run this project? Where are the high-grade uranium ores that can be economically processed into the required ~200 tons of rods that each 1 GW nuclear power plant requires each year? Let's say we have 0.1% uranium ore, that means we need 1000 tons of ore for each ton of uranium. Huge energy costs, huge waste stream to get that one ton of uranium, by the way. And each 1 GW reactor needs 200 tons - per year. So that's 200,000 tons of ore per year.
Now, in comparison, a 1 GW coal-fired power plant needs to be fed with 3-4 million tons of coal per year (energy content of coal varies a bit, in relation to oxygen-based combustion at least).
And, a 1 GW reliable 24/7 solar/wind/storage system needs how many tons per year? (OK battery replacement is an issue... work it out yourself).
The highest yield current mining and enriching processes beat that by about a factor of 10; there are a few sites globally that achieve that, Canada would be the most relevant.
Don't forget that only the high density fuel needs to be shipped long distance as well...
For a fully reliable 1gw of wind, that's something like 600 turbines (to simply), each turbine lasts about 20 years, and weighs about 200 tonnes. So about 5000 tonnes of finished wind turbine a year, with an equivalent waste stream.
It's a bit disappointing how the solar/wind folks neglect to consider the fact that such a storage system does not exist. Before one goes to the "but muh batteries" rebuttal, it's a useful exercise to see how much Lithium would need to be mined to provide reliable baseload power.
Simon Michaux has already done this. It's worth a read through his reports [0].
Also, it's quite possible to reprocess spent fuel. France has been doing it for decades. [1] The price has not been enough to justify it, but eventually it will (or if other costs are imposed, like a tax on the mineral rights that would favor reprocessing fuel).
If you're not limited by the need to move around, then lithium doesn't make as much sense for power arbitrage technologies. There are literally dozens of such technologies capabale of storing intermittent solar/wind inputs in physical or chemical forms that can be pumped back out onto the grid as needed.
It's so ridiculous to think that human civilization would collapse just because we will eventually run out of stuff to dig out of the ground and burn, when the biosphere has been humming along on sunlight for about three billion years. Why is this so hard to explain to people?
I agree, but we also need a storage system that can move around, and the aggregate scale of that is inherently more than enough for grid storage. This is why I'm not going to rule out hydrogen despite it having not worked out even back during the 1973 OPEC fuel crisis when alternatives were desperately needed and nuclear power (which is useful for among other things electrolysis) was The Future.
(Also, on paper one doesn't need any grid storage, if only we could get governments to cope rates on a planetary grid. Texas doing it's own thing and Japan having two frequency zones shows how hard this would be in practice, but in principle it can work just fine).
How much energy does all of humanity use compared to the rest of the biosphere? Genuine question not intended to be leading, it's a very interesting point.
Those are breeder reactors. In breeders, less fissile materials are transformed into more fissile ones. That's interesting technology and very nice on paper, but there are practical challenges.
Reprocessing is another thing entirely. It relies on the fact that used nuclear fuel is mainly not reusable due to accumulation of neutron poisons. In reprocessing, these poisons are removed so that the rest of the fuel can be reused. This too has many practical challenges as you end up with liquid radioactive materials and a lot of it is waste. So far it has proven more practical than breeders, though. Perhaps that is because the same processes can be used to extract materials for nuclear weapons.
Yes, I believe MOX is one option of what you can make from what's left from reprocessing. I think it's possible to make more conventional fuel there too, but then what are you going to do with the plutonium.
Thanks for arguing in such bad faith by default. But let's just say there are other ways of storing energy that don't need huge amounts of processed lithium.
Have you perhaps heard of "muh pumped hydro", "muh flow batteries", "muh hydrogen", and the myriad of other less mature storage technologies currently being developed?
The world has already used most of the useful locations for hydro. It works well where there are abundant resources, but there are no more areas to put in hydro (even ignoring the local environmental disaster that hydro often is which means we probably wouldn't build it if it could). The locations that have and use it don't have any to spare for the rest of us to live places that are not a good location for hydro.
The problem is scale. Since the other responder didnt want to do napkin math - you could give it a go w.r.t to hydrogen. It gets very very expensive rather quickly. So very expensive you might start to wonder if you shouldn't have built a nuclear plant instead.
Local factories etc. might see a need/use for hydrogen production (Swedish Hybrit comes to mind) but as a national grid stabilizer.. I'm doubtful
They all have something in common: they are very expensive at the scale we need. Hydro is one off the cheapest we have, and if you had a good location you would still be looking at hundreds of millions of dollars (or likely billions!) to build it.
When those solutions don't wreak environmental havoc (dams [0]) or are out of the experimental stage, I'll be interested. I'm actually following Ambri for this reason [1].
Even if you go with "muh flow batteries" or "muh hydrogen", we would require far more land with wind/solar to fill up those storage technologies than just use nuclear plants.
Even if I were to concede that covering every last surface with solar cells is a good idea (or what to do when recycling them), this doesn't take into account the enormous amount of energy currently used to make process heat. Neither wind nor solar are able to generate the hundreds of degrees necessary for so many chemical and manufacturing processes.
Don't let yourself get bamboozled by shiny futuristic graphics of storage or generation solutions without at least doing some basic napkin math about feasibility.
Assuming you're asking a literal question and want an answer, the current global total of "reasonably assured resource" uranium (known, tested to a degree of certainty by sampling, modelled for economic recovery costs) that can be extracted at less than $130 US / kg usable uranium is 3.8 million tonnes, roughly 28% of which is in Australia, 10% in Canada, ~1% in the USofA, etc.
You can find a full table, distribution maps, guesstimates for known but as yet untested deposits, etc in the big Red Book of Uranium stuff (free to download):
> a 1 GW reliable 24/7 solar/wind/storage system needs how many tons per year?
Currently panels drop to 80% efficacy after 10 years and are doorstops in 20 - replacement | recovery is an ongoing process and that currently requires raw materials that come with a cost - including slave labour.
Monocrystalline silicon panels last >30 years at near-initial production unless subjected to physical damage.
Yes, investors in the uranium fuel rod production pipeline will feel a lot of pain as a result of what's going on right now, but it's not like they weren't warned. Like Theranos investors, they failed to do their due diligence.
[edit] Just to add, the metric you want is ENERGY not $US, because what really matters is the amount of energy you have to put into mining the ore, extracting the uranium from the ore, enriching the uranium-235 in the ore to the point where it's useful in a nuclear reactor, and then packaging that refined product into highly expensive fuel rods made of fairly expensive materials. By the time you do that energy calculation, per-year, for the reactor (on top of ridiculously high initial construction costs), the whole thing looks like a massive long-term liability.
Monocrystalline is the most expensive one to produce, the process of manufacturing monocrystalline solar cells is very energy-intensive and produces a big amount of silicon waste.
They're not especially robust in cold weather and while they do last longer, they do also degrade in output over time just as the poly versions do.
To maintain a 1 GW farm requires ongoing upkeep, etc.
Again, there are no magic problem free resources, just like low volume uranium mining, large volume mining and production processing to sustain solar power has toxic side effects and impacts people.
I think that the overall cost of producing 1 GW of monocrystalline solar PV (a technique China has apparently mastered) is very comparable to the cost of producing a single year's worth of enriched uranium fuel rods, at that's from comparing the costs of acquiring the raw materials, putting them through the requisite processing stages, and producing the finished product.
It's not even close, with some limited exceptions, like Finland and other Artic Circle zones.
In the case of GW scale solar farms that's essentially true.
Polycrystalline panels last 20 years, sometimes longer (the sales pitch is "up to 25 years") but the 20% fall off in deliverable power after 10 years is real.
Monocrystalline last longer, they also gradually fall off and they cost more.
Now it's a game of Backblaze storage stats only with solar panels - how does an at scale solar farm balance purchase costs and maintainance costs, where's the optimal sweet spot for buying new and rotating out on a schedule | reacting to failure.
I'm not opposed to solar, I'm in Australia in one of the states with large amounts of residential solar and heavy mining industries that dwarf anything in the US currently going electric - we're costing out massive farms to run solar power to asia via HVDC cable.
The supply side of all that is sourcing the copper, the lithium, the aluminium framing, the long list of other raw material inputs, the processing to get from concentrate ores to usable elements, etc.
It's a wildly exaggerated figure. Maxeon cells are rated for 0.25% degradation per year which works out to about 8% in 30 years. An inferior cell might be rated for 0.75% which works out to 20% in 30 years rather than 10 years. I believe a lot of the panels rated for 0.75% are seeing around half that actual rate of degradation.
Yup that's what I found with a cursory google, I kind of hoped OP would at least have the courage to post some reference even if it wasn't accurate, but no.
Unfortunately this is par for the course in discussions with nuclear power cultists. It honestly is that bad.
Because I went to bed, it was late in my time zone.
> nuclear power cultists.
Say what now? Are you an idiot?
The vast bulk of PV performance studies are dominated by relatively short term studies in temperate climates - the latitudes of California and Germany eg:
references Australia and links to papers from Perth and Melbourne which are cooler climates.
See my comment above re: my region of interest - equatorial tropical regions with harhser temperature cycling and probable requirements for cooling to maximise returns (still part of an open study).
I'd be happy to provide more details but I'm afraid your comment above doesn't warrent engagement.
> Polycrystalline panels last 20 years, sometimes longer (the sales pitch is "up to 25 years") but the 20% fal
Your numbers seem off by atleast a facotor of 2. Average degradation is .5% per year so panels are guarantees are usually that you'll have 90% capacity after 10 years and 80% after 20 years.
> Now it's a game of Backblaze storage stats only with solar panels - how does an at scale solar farm balance purchase costs and maintainance costs,
The failure mode for solar is unlike traditional spinning hard drives. There isn't a "data loss" downside to waiting to replace. There won't be any risk mitigation, just calculations of when the opportunity costs become high enough to warrant replacement. I suspect in areas with cheap land, it'll be easier to build additional capacity than to replace existing degraded panels.
As I mentioned in a peer comment I'm more interested in tropical | equatorial performance and the vast majority of PV performance studies are in temperate climates - it's not currently clear whether monocrsytalline deliver peak power in such climates .. quoting a study I have here:
His work has shown that in this tropical climate, with high ambient temperatures and high humidity during the wet season, the a-Si array produces up to 20% more energy than ...
(It's an ongoing bit of work ATM)
The optimisation issues include other factors, the cost of panel cooling techniques Vs their benefits for one.
Your average degradation figures are the figures from big meta studies such as the US Dept of Energy NREL lab Photovoltaic Degradation Rateshttps://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy12osti/51664.pdf which you'll notice is dominated by temperate climate studies at the latitudes of Perth | Melbourne | Germany | Arcata, California etc.
> As I mentioned in a peer comment I'm more interested in tropical | equatorial performance
Perhaps you should qualify your statements, because this:
> Currently panels drop to 80% efficacy after 10 years and are doorstops in 20
This is an unqualified factual statement and is simply not true.
> Your average degradation figures are the figures from big meta studies
The big meta studies do show that degradation is a bit faster in higher temp environments for some kinds of panels. There is however zero evidence that solar panels will be "door stops in 20".
> There is however zero evidence that solar panels will be "door stops in 20".
If you're building a large area solar farm to ship power to Singapore would you keep a panel after 20 years or door stop it?
What if the peak power output for particular climatic conditions comes from lesser used cheaper PV types that degrade faster than common ones at temperate latitudes?
The people studying this are coming at this with mindset of those that move 800 million tonne of iron ore per annum.
My original comment was framed to indicate the interest was hyper efficient at scale deployment in specific environments .. not running a beer fridge in Melbourne.
> My original comment was framed to indicate the interest was hyper efficient at scale deployment in specific environments
No, it wasn't. If that was your intent, you should go reread it to see why everyone else sees you making a clearly false claim that does not contribute to the discussion.
> If you're building a large area solar farm to ship power to Singapore would you keep a panel after 20 years or door stop it?
That's gonna depend on land value, non-panel infrastructure costs and replacement costs. If replacement costs are high then and land value and other infrastructure costs are low, then solar farms will be expanded and replacement will be delayed. If the opposite then you'll see existing panels replaced sooner.
I do expect that in a couple of decades we will see solar panel reconditioning and recycling becoming increasingly important.
Regarding slave labour, I might have bad news for you: Not a single product you use in your lofe is free of exploitation, child labor or slave labor. Not a single one, from the clothes you wear to the food you eat.
"Currently panels drop to 80% efficacy after 10 years and are doorstops in 20"
This wasn't true when I manufactured them almost a decade ago. We were offering 30 year warranties with only 15% drop after 30 years - polycrystalline 20% efficiency.
Generation doesn't matter, the weakest link will always be human greef, changing the spec to save cost, changing safety tests to extend the lifetime past when it should be shut down, poor maintenance, etc
Then we can discount all people being hurt from falls when building solar plants because the panels themselves did not kill them, they just did not follow OSHA regulations!
Solar = 0.0!
Why don't we abolish the Price–Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act and see how far nuclear gets when having to pay the true cost for their insurance?
Are you implying that if there was no Nuclear plant in Fukushima, the Tsunami would not have happened, or the people living there wouldn't have been needed to be evacuated?
Show me a general solar or wind solution that works just about anywhere that is guaranteed to have at least 1 week of back up power when the power takes a nose dive during extreme weather or even just when the wind/solar dips, even 1 day would be a great improvement over what we have now. I would be onboard with solar/wind all day if this was true.
"In 2012, ex-prime minister Naoto Kan was interviewed about the Fukushima nuclear disaster, and has said that at one point Japan faced a situation where there was a chance that people might not be able to live in the capital zone including Tokyo and would have to evacuate ((...)) If things had reached that level, not only would the public have had to face hardships but Japan's very existence would have been in peril"
An absurd counterfactual. This was assuming a scenario in which Fukushima released a ridiculously high level of radiation, which it didn't, that would necessitate other nuclear power plants to be immediately evacuated with nothing done to shut down their reactors resulting in a "chain reaction" of other plants releasing radiation presumably from the engineers just running away and letting a meltdown take place. Absolute FUD and bullshit since this would be an incredibly irresponsible thing to do and the Japanese people are far too competent and conscientious to enact such a hare brained evacuation.
At the time of the Fukushima disaster no one could assess in real-time, and therefore according to the then-prime minister the worst case scenario was worked on. You can call it 'disinformation' (in other words: 'he is a liar'!) without any source all day, those are hard facts.
Nominally it includes Chernobyl. Caveat, noby, not in the USSR, the successor states nor the West ever really counted the Chernobyl victims, hence the official.number of what, 30-ish victims.
The hydro stats are mainly due to the Banqiao case, which is a fluke: in similar conditions anything would go boom with way less latency:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35521090
Here's the thing: you wouldn't have to, there's no need for compromise. We can build a safe nuclear energy infrastructure, go 100% carbon emission free, etc.
But there's still no solution for safely storing or disposing of nuclear waste, so all those power plants currently have a stockpile of spent fuel rods, which is a huge risk imo. But everyone's like "not in my backyard", even though the backyard is a deep cave in a mountain or down in the earth where the stuff will be put in lead and reinforced concrete, the cave sealed off or collapsed, forgotten by time and where it will remain dormant and slowly go inert over the next geological era.
Of course there is a technical solution already and there has been one for decades. You Yanks could have a deep geological repository by now, but NIMBYs in Nevada blocked it.
>>But there's still no solution for safely storing or disposing of nuclear waste, so all those power plants currently have a stockpile of spent fuel rods,
There is, we know what it is, but no one wants to pay for it - it's called deep borehole storage. You basically put your fuel in cylinders, dig boreholes few miles deep, put all the waste at the bottom, done. It's not coming back ever, it doesn't pose any danger to anything or anyone on anything other than geological timescales(and if the geology starts pushing stuff buried 5 miles deep to the surface you have other bigger problems to worry about).
It's estimated that "just" 800 boreholes would be enough to store all nuclear waste ever produced.
But yeah, cost is one thing, but the other is that this material then becomes truly and irreversibly irretrievable - which actually might not be desirable since we know that even spent nuclear fuel can be reprocessed to make more fuel or weapons, which is not something that countries like US would want to dismiss as a possibility.
And also - storage of spent nuclear fuel is actually a lot safer and less scary than most people think. In Netherlands they literally made a museum out of their spent fuel storage facility, you can walk in between the casks that hold material radioactive enough to kill you in minutes, it's that safe.
It needs to be recoverable if it's the actual fuel rods that you're storing. Only a tiny fraction of the total usable energy in those is used in the currently deployed fission reactors and the "spent" fuel rods can be reprocessed and used in other reactor designs. Putting them somewhere we can't get them is just throwing away usable uranium.
it really doesn't, those would be nice to have but to get rid of the "where are we gonna store it" crowd for a while then this doesn't sound like a bad idea if it's even remotely economically feasible. I reckon after drilling a couple hundres of these bore holes we'd get pretty good at working out the kinks
The difference is that if you recycle it you effectively get 30% more energy from the same amount of fuel. It also reduces the volume and radioactivity of waste so it's an all around good thing to do. Newer thorium reactors can also utilize the waste to be even more efficient.
You are right, but there is no realistic scenario in the next 100 years where it will be more economical for a power plant to reprocess spent fuel than to use freshly mined uranium.
Nah. That’s just talking in circles to rationalize bad choices. The whole point of long term thinking is being able to acknowledge short term losses so that you arrive at a better position in the more distant future.
If you talk in general about bad choices, you are right.
On the specific topic of reprocessing though. Reprocessing achieves 2 things: 1. it can extract usable fissile fuel from spent fuel, and 2. it can reduce the amount of long lived radioactive waste, by a factor of 30. Point 1 can be further split in 1.a. usable fuel for the current generation reactors and 1.b. usable fuel for future, fast reactors (U-238).
1.a. Per wikipedia [1]
Reprocessing the plutonium into usable fuel increases the energy derived from the original uranium by some 12%, and if the uranium-235 is also recycled by re-enrichment, this becomes about 20%
In other words, all this reprocessing can reduce overall the total volume of uranium mined and spent fuel by 20%. That's not a game changer, and it certainly does not come for free.
1.b. reprocessing in order to extract U-238 for fast reactors. That's a nice concept, but if we ever build fast reactors that can burn U-238 (fingers crossed), we already have a huge stockpile of depleted uranium. The US alone has more than half a million tons, and the rest of the world at least as much. That's enough to keep the lights on in the entire world for hundreds of years.
2. reprocessing in order to reduce the waste. That makes sense. But burying the waste is probably cheaper. We have already buried hundreds of thousands of tons of waste at WIPP. We know it works and it is safe. We know we will need to eventually bury some waste, even if its 30 times lower. If we, as a society, agree to open some deep geological repositories for nuclear waste, then it doesn't make all that much of a difference if we bury 10000 tons or a million tons.
This is the one no one understands. And the only reason breeders are not operated is because of proliferation risks. Breeders will make material that could be used to make weapons, which can also be used as fuel, but it has to be tracked even better. It's a solvable problem.
Breeders are also not operated because they cost more to build and operate than conventional light water reactors. Conventional light water reactors already cost too much to attract robust private sector investment. There are only two breeder power reactors operating currently: the BN-600 and BN-800, both in Russia. The successor BN-1200 design that was supposed to be commercially competitive is now extremely delayed:
In early 2012, Rosatom's Science and Technology Council approved the construction of a BN-1200 reactor at the Beloyarsk Nuclear Power Station. Technical design was scheduled for completion by 2013, and manufacture of equipment would start in 2014. Construction would begin in 2015 with first fuel loads in 2017 and full commercial operation as early as 2020.
...
In 2015, after several minor delays, problems at the recently completed BN-800 indicated a redesign of the fuel was needed. Construction of the BN-1200 was put on "indefinite hold", and Rosenergoatom stated that no decision to continue would be made before 2019. In January 2022, Rosatom announced that a pilot BN-1200M would be built by 2035.
> But there's still no solution for safely storing or disposing of nuclear waste, so all those power plants currently have a stockpile of spent fuel rods, which is a huge risk imo
It isn't a huge risk. The really hot stuff decays quickly and that can happen next to the power plants no problem. What you end up left with is far less energetic and is self-contained – look up dry casks. You can stand next to them no problem and they are incredibly sturdy.
That's ignoring reprocessing. If it is radioactive enough to cause serious harm long term, it is radioactive enough to still use as fuel. There are reactor designs that can re-use them.
Honestly, I would rather have some dry casks stored at Yucca Mountain than breathing coal dust (that's often radioactive).
That comment is hilarious considering that nuclear has recent several multiples of the subsidies that renewables received and is still much more expensive. And we are not even counting the military (the nuclear industry would likely be in a much worse state if it wasn't for the militaries demand for nuclear engineers and scientists and financing much of the R&D).
Ok, so the argument is that we know we went nuts regulating it to oblivion, and this is a fault in the technology and not ourselves - then you go to admit that it is a massive tactical and technological advantage we need?
Ok, strange flex but this about what I have come to expect from this “debate”.
Nuclear is not so expensive because of regulation that's another myth. Considering the scale and possible impact wind and solar often have much more regulations (just look at Bavaria where the ruling party essentially blocked all new wind installations by creating requirements that reduced potential sites to nearly 0). A nuclear power plant is essentially a thermal plant plus the nuclear part so how would it be cheaper than a coal plant?
I was talking capital costs, not operational costs. My point is, to build a nuclear power plant you essentially need to build a thermal power plant first and then add things for the nuclear part (which is arguably more complicated/safety critical than for e.g. a coal plant).
So the whole argument for economics of scale doesn't work, thermal power plants have not reduced dramatically in price over the last decades despite lots of them being build. Half of your plant not really reducing much in price, will limit the benefits you can get even if the other half sees massive cost reductions.
> I was talking capital costs, not operational costs.
Ok, but surely the only cost that matters is the lifetime cost? (Including whatever cleanup is needed for both nuclear and whichever fossil and/or renewable+storage combination it is compared against).
> Half of your plant not really reducing much in price, will limit the benefits you can get even if the other half sees massive cost reductions.
Sure, absolutely. But coal is pretty expensive over the course of a year, so it can look like a good opportunity (if only for the reality hadn't turned out so fragile and, when it goes wrong, severe).
Nuclear is arguably only safe due to those regulations. The case of falsified certificates in Korea shows that you need plenty of margins to account for some of the regulations not being followed properly, even in a first world country.
Maybe there is 20% too many regulations. That could be the case. But having 20% too many regulations is far preferable than 20% too few.
Even if you are staunchly pro-nuclear you should want regulations that reduces the chance for even a minor accident to almost exactly 0%, because even a minor accident will cause fear that’ll set nuclear back by two decades. Maybe that fear is irrational. Tough luck. Humans are irrational. Most of them would rather be slowly poisoned by coal and die a couple years early, than living with the thought of maybe having to suddenly have to abandon their home and established life like in Fukushima.
> But having 20% too many regulations is far preferable than 20% too few.
The problem is when that extra 20% regulation makes the technology so expensive the world chooses to keep burning coal, oil and gas thus poisoning and killing millions through pollution and endangering life on the entire planet through Climate Change.
Right now nuclear is so frozen and so useful that I'd take the change of a (PR) disaster and (slowly, carefully, partially) deregulate: it can't get much worse than already is.
Energy subsidizes in Europe looks different. Wind/Solar are the single biggest recipient of subsidies and receive about as much as the combined total of all other subsidies in the energy sector. They get far more per watt produced than anything else, mostly going to grid connections, building, deconstruction, and price guaranties. (The yearly report is produced and published by the European commission at ec.europa.eu)
Nuclear get subsidies in term of research, building, deconstruction, waste storage and price guaranties. Around 70% goes to the single fusion research project called ITER (international research, non-military).
Hydro receives an increasing amount of subsidies for repair and modernization. Dam repair and flooding protection is expensive and with climate change there is even bigger need for fixing Europe old hydro power dams. They are also in general non-compliant with the European environmental regulations (several species are going extinct), but that is not a subsidies issues directly. Fixing the dams so they allow for fish to pass is however a subsidies issue, but as far the budget to fix that has yet to be allocated and the costs are estimated to be exceedingly high.
And last we have fossil fuel subsidies. A large portion of the "reserve energy" plan in eu in order to address increased gird variability is based on keeping a large number of fossil fuel plants on stand-by, paid through subsidies. Then there is subsidies on extracting the fuel itself, subsidies on trading fuel, and subsidies on storage of the fuel, and transportation of the fuel. This is not accounting for the environmental cost from burning fossil fuels, which some see as a form of subsidies.
Subsidies-like part not included are insurance against nuclear accidents, insurance against floods from dam failures, and insurance against forest fires. It is also not accounting for land usage nor damage to wildlife.
> Energy subsidizes in Europe looks different. Wind/Solar are the single biggest recipient of subsidies and receive about as much as the combined total of all other subsidies in the energy sector. They get far more per watt produced than anything else, mostly going to grid connections, building, deconstruction, and price guaranties. (The yearly report is produced and published by the European commission at ec.europa.eu)
So we should cut off subsidies agreed on 10 years ago during renewables learning curve to make it even? The renewable subsidies for new builds today are miniscule in Europe, which is what we are making the decisions based on.
How many Hinkley Point Cs costing ~€0.15/kWh to the consumers, very similar to energy crisis prices, should we fund just so you can stop complaining about past history for renewables?
There is no single solution to reduce the massive amount of energy subsidizes. We could however start to demand a bit more efficiency and targeted approach that more align with political will of the citizens that pays the taxes.
To put down to facts, Europe paid 172 billions in 2021 on energy subsidies. This is 54% increase since 2015. 76 billions went to renewables. Between 2019 and 2020 the amount going to renewables increased by 7%, while between 2020 and 2021 it decreased by 3%. The second largest recipient of subsidies was fossil fuel energy with 50 billions. Subsidies for nuclear has remain mostly stable since 2015, sitting at around 4 billions, but with Germany closing several plants last year it has now increased to 7 billions. (The report do not consider R&D to be subsidies, so ITER is not included).
We should not try to make things "even". We should cut fossil fuel subsidies and decommission the fossil fuel plants that operate as reserve energy. The cost of high variability in the grid should not be carried through tax money. Market forces can't be applied correctly when taxes are being funneled to fix a problem caused by using high variability energy production.
Subsidies to renewables are slowly being reduced. It is no longer a given that grid connections will be given out for free and paid by taxes. Both nuclear and renewables should also carry their own weight and not have price guaranties. Companies that need those should have the cost baked into the energy price.
A solution that is acknowledged by the European report but often overlooked is energy usage reduction and increased efficiencies.
"Firmed" renewables are cheaper than nuclear today. [1] Any nuclear project started today will finish ~2040 and then not recoup the investment until ~2070. If nuclear is uncompetitive today, how do you think it will fare against 30 years of renewable development?
Lets also remove the Price–Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act [2] with equivalents across the world so the nuclear industry has to bear the true insurance cost.
Nuclear accidents, flooding and forest fires are three areas where insurance do not cover the cost. Fossil fuel usage are also exempted from paying insurance regarding climate change and health costs associated with pollution. Wind power are mostly exempted from paying damages when hurting endangered wildlife.
I would not be completely against demanding that all commercial activity in the energy sector must cover every negative effect on society and the environment. It would in effect ban all fossil fuel, nuclear, and hydro. Would be a fair price to pay for getting rid of fossil fuels.
> Wind/Solar are the single biggest recipient of subsidies
According to the IEA: "EU electricity consumers are expected to save an estimated EUR 100 billion during 2021-2023 thanks to additional electricity generation from newly installed solar PV and wind capacity"
Danish TV had a documentary about the nuclear opposition in the country in the 60s and 70s. One of the most interesting lines is pretty much a throwaway line by one of the former activists. The interviewer remarks that it's a little strange to be anti-nuclear, when the alternative is burning fossil fuel and the activist interjects with "But we didn't believe/understand that the alternative was coal and oil, we thought it would be solar and wind". That was never going to work, nuclear power was available as an option, wind turbines and solar cells where never going to be able to fulfill the energy requirement at the time, certainly not at a price the country could afford.
To me that really highlighted the naivety of many environmental activists. They mean well and we need them, but they so often fail to look at the problems holistically and zooms in on single issues.
That's very fair. I think it extends to people who care about energy in general though, not just environmentalists. For example on the Internet, there is always a highly vocal pro-nuclear camp to be found. Some of them -- but not all by all means -- will often claim that nuclear is the "One True Solution" to clean energy.
I think at the end of the day it comes down to tribalism, sadly. People choose their "side" and pitch in to defend its merits and attack the other "side"'s deficiencies. As with many things, there isn't a whole lot of room left for holistic approaches.
I'm personally not a huge fan of nuclear because I'm a pragmatist, and I think most people are pragmatists at the end of the day, being human. And pragmatists don't make good operators of nuclear power plants. But I definitely don't think any existing nuclear plants should be closed. They should be (safely) continued to run as long as possible to provide the clean energy we desperately need while other safer (and often cheaper) renewables+storages ramp up.
Keeping existing plants running is the sensible approach in my mind. We can't build new nuclear power to reduce CO2 emission, it's much to late for that. We want drastic reductions in 5 - 6 years, the first nuclear power plant won't be ready for another 10, 15, 20 years. If we wanted to go nuclear we should have started in 2000. Right now we start reducing consumption, build wind turbines like crazy and close the coal and oil fired power plants first, then gas and nuclear last.
Speak for your own country because others have built huge numbers of nuclear plants with an average of 4 years for completion. The anti-nuke sentiment from the environmental movement is the only reason the U.S. isn't entirely energy independent. That attitude has probably done more to contribute to climate change than anything else, ironically.
This might become a discussion about the definition of pragmatism, but I find the most pragmatic solution is to simply ban the use of fossil fuel in the energy grid. Remove the easy, cheap and extremely harmful substance, and people will be forced to find a working solution. If that happen to be nuclear then that is that. If that happen to be renewables + some yet to be developed technology to address grid variability, then lets do that. I have no horse in that race except that hydropower need to get their very old infrastructure fixed so that we don't make eels and other species extinct, and water constructions on the ocean need to be a bit careful around nature reserves and places like the baltic ocean. Ocean based wind farms like to build on shallows for economical reasons, and those places have a tendency to be nurseries for fish and other animals.
What I really can't stand is the use of fossil fuels in the grid when there is known and effective alternatives, and it gives a bad taste in the mouth that tax money intended for grid stability is used on fossil fuels.
> nuclear is the "One True Solution" to clean energy
Not to be that guy but it sort of is. Comparing nuclear power to renewables is a lot like comparing a truck to an electric scooter. Sure, both can transport you to your destination and both work equally well in many scenarios, maybe the scooter even has advantages in some places but when it comes to handling the entirety of possible scenarios the truck is the clear choice. That doesn't mean you can't have a truck and a scooter and use each where appropriate, it's just that you'll probably use the truck a lot more.
Countries like France went all-in on nuclear - didn't change much really. Theoretical nuclear is risk free and low carbon but actual nuclear (that was available in the 60s/70s) is neither.
Well, nuclear power is literally the reason why in this map: https://app.electricitymaps.com/map France is almost constantly green, while Germany, Poland, and most of the US, are just different shades of brown...
Dude is bringing petrol and heating oil/gas into the discussion in addition to electricity - while ignoring that the EV transition is also greener for France than for the rest of Europe/US which runs their EVs with fossil-generated electricity.
Emissions are to be reduced. All of them, not only those related to gridpower generation.
To do so electrifying usages is key.
This in turn imply that more electricity has to be generated.
Each and every nation in the EU27 moves towards this, and France (while chanting 'my electricity is low-carbon, yay!' and neglecting that doesn't do anything about the remaining 63% of final energy consumed in France obtained by burning fossil fuels) is the red lantern:
https://www.lemonde.fr/en/environment/article/2022/11/25/ren...
And that 63% is far lower than any country/region at that latitude that doesn't have lucky geography for hydro power. And that 63% can be easily reduced in France by introducing heatpumps and EVs, but the same is not true in the UK/Germany/Poland without building metric arseloads of zero-carbon power plants.
> that 63% can be easily reduced in France by introducing heatpumps and EVs
Nope, as it is only possible by generating more gridpower, and France tries to do so using nuclear since 2007... in vain as the sole and only nuclear reactor being built in France (which should have started a new batch in 2012) is the 'Flamanville-3' EPR:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plan...
> the same is not true in the UK/Germany/Poland without building metric arseloads of zero-carbon power plants.
There is no 'zero-carbon plants', only 'low-carbon plants'.
> Greta is not pro-nukes. Most of the environment activists are not.
And we're reaping the "benefits" of the same people in the 70s campaigning against all forms of nuclear back then. So we built oil, gas, and coal power stations to meet our energy needs instead. slow applause for the activists
The biggest issue with nuke power is it takes forever to build and we just stopped for 30+ years in the US so we're behind the curve and it wouldn't come online fast enough to hit climate goals so we need to do other faster stuff and nukes to build a baseline power support.
we aren't going to meet "climate goals" anyway, lets opt for the sure thing. We should have done what France did, maybe even poached half their nuclear engineers.
Even if we aren't going all in on nuclear and not other renewable energy sources just means we'll blow past it. You can see this happening on the US right these days where there's some admission that something needs to change but it's pushed towards longer timeline changes like nuclear because it pushes out the date that existing interests like coal plants (and by extension coal mines, hello West Virginia) would be pushed out of the market.
I'd love to see tons more nuclear including fuel reprocessing which the US was very resistant to for a long time due I think to proliferation concerns.
> The company is on track to produce 20 kilograms of HALEU by the end of the year, and then expects to produce 900 kg in 2024
> Centrus and the Russian state-owned company Tenex, which are the only two outfits that can produce HALEU in the world
> For now, the DOE intends to purchase about 25 tonnes of HALEU per year to kick-start the industry and give HALEU producers secure contracts from which they can expand production
So in 2024 the DoE will buy 0.9T from the only American producer, and the remaining 24.1T from Russia?
> The company is on track to produce 20 kilograms of HALEU by the end of the year, and then expects to produce 900 kg in 2024
> 3 tablespoons of HALEU can supply a lifetime’s worth of power for the average U.S. consumer
So if I did my math right[1], 20 kg is enough for 1867 U.S. consumers for one year, and 900 kg is enough for 84,000 U.S. consumers? It's a start, I guess.
Sigh. No, the US hasn't been out of the "nuclear fuel game". There are commercial separation plants, including URENCO in Nevada. That fuels existing reactors and new
conventional designs such as the AP-1000.
This press release is about "high-assay, low-enriched uranium", which isn't used by many reactors yet.
If any. NuScale was going to use this stuff. But that project was cancelled a few weeks ago. Costs too much. There are advanced reactors being talked about. Does anyone know of any that actually need this fuel right now? Maybe outside the US there are some.
(NRC: "Natural uranium is made of about 0.7 % U-235 and traditional reactor fuel is enriched to between 3% and 5% U-235." High-assay, low-enriched uranium is, per the NRC, 5% - 20% u-235. Weapons grade is around 90%.)
> Normal Light Water reactors could also use HALEU, which would improve the economics, due to less fuel refueling outages.
Not really. Most reactors in the US produce power about 90% of the time. Reducing the refueling time can increase that to 95%, but that's not going to make a big difference in the profitability of the plant.
Trillions on military, not even 100 billion for a manhattan style project to come up with a better fission design that would solve all of our energy problems as well as global warming. Until we have battery densities 10X-20X what we have now solar and wind will always be second tier power sources to traditional and nuclear
I was pro-nuclear up until ZPP happened. In order to make nuclear safe you would need to know the future and where the frontlines will be which is impossible. Just in my country there are 2 NPP that will be directly on the frontline when Hungary invades us.
This july Orban said in Romania he considers Slovakia to be land forcibly separated from Hungary (https://spectator.sme.sk/c/23197964/viktor-orban-slovakia-ro...). Here is Orban with map of Hungary on his scarf that includes Slovakia: https://www.startitup.sk/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/fidesz-o... and with current pro-russian slovak government it is not impossible to imagine Slovakia leaving NATO. Then all it takes is one false flag operation and Orban can invade. Orban's Hungary is the same as Putin's Russia. They need external enemy to hold power.
CANDU are fine reactors, but the US uses pressurized water reactors (64) and boiling water reactors (31), which are better. Why? Reactors have various feedback loops, some positive, some negative. You want negative feedback loops rather than positive ones. One of the main feedback loops in water cooled reactors is negative in PWRs and BWRs and positive in CANDU reactors. That doesn't mean CANDU reactors are not usable, but PWRs and BWRs are inherently safer.
503 comments
[ 7.4 ms ] story [ 184 ms ] threadIsn't not 'burnt' by any reasonable interpretation of the word, what happens is that the fuel becomes too hot to handle in any of today's working reactors because of the buildup of radioactive fission products as well as transuranic species. If the fuel rods were left in the reactor, they'd probably swell and eventually block circulation of the primary coolant, and the high radioactive flux would have other negative effects on the reactor core material itself (as well as on any workers that had to fix the mess).
This is well known and many proposals have been made to recover this energy from the 'spent' 'burnt' fuel rods, but it's mostly been an expensive mess. Reprocessing to recover the transuranics for use in MOX (plutonium-based fuel, basically) is really expensive as well as generating large amounts of highly toxic waste as well as raising the plutonium-nuclear-weapon proliferation issue.
Instead, this 2000 tons per year represents an ever-increasing long-term headache that generally has to be stored onsight for about a decade at the nuclear power plant before it can be transferred to long-term dry cask storage, all at considerable expense and with high security costs.
With costs for solar/wind/storage dropping every year, isn't it time to give up on this pipe dream?
Compare to the approx 1 billion tons of oil consumption per year, or 4 billion tons of CO2 emissions per year that the rest of the economy burns through, to get a sense of relative scale.
Not great, not terrible :)
It is super radioactive for centuries though. We really really need to get the long-term storage worked out.
We did.
And there's $52+ billion in the Nuclear Waste Fund.
Nevada is just really good at complaining.
Finland might do it? (They are also sophisticated and stable enough, that you don't need to worry about the fuel being mishandled. At least not any more than for the US.)
Longer half-life -> less radioactive, by definition. Infinite half-life -> not radioactive at all.
Also containers that don't break down under centuries of ionising radiation bombardment haven't been invented yet.
The notion of it being INSTANT!!! DEATH!!!! FOR MILLIONS OF YEARS!!!! is just plain wrong.
A similar mix, yes.
A similar concentration, absolutely not. The concentration in ore is extremely low. The Soviets ruined the landscape of half the Czech Republic for a few warheads.
You're separating out the "depleted" uranium and using it to breed more fuel (potentially orders of magnitude cheaper than extracting fresh uranium from ore and enriching it).
Fun fact: nuclear waste becomes less radioactive than the original uranium in about 300-500 years. The problem with the waste is that it's concentrated in a tiny amount of space that will stay dangerous for geological periods.
https://www.iaea.org/publications/7112/implications-of-parti...
Edit: I'm a nuclear engineer.
I'll try to re-do calculations and see what I get.
The publication above shows the graph vs. time in terms of radiotoxicity, which is widely considered to be the key metric.
What'd you use for the calculations? Generally you need to use something like ORIGEN to get it right.
But in aggregate, it will be less radioactive than the uranium (and its natural daughter products in secular equilibrium) that was expended to produce the waste.
I guess that specific metric would make heavy water infinitely radioactive?
This has been an ongoing debate though. Scientists have developed more sophisticated reprocessing processes that keep all the actinides together rather than pulling out Plutonium on its own. And in any case, the plutonium is reactor-grade rather than weapons grade, (but super-sophisticated weapons designers can make bombs out of any-grade plutonium).
George Bush Jr. tried something called the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, where existing weapons states would run a bunch of reprocessing plants and contribute fuel to an international fuel bank. Non-weapons countries could reliably get fuel from it and give the spent fuel (aka nuclear waste) back for further recycling/reprocessing/treatment. It wasn't super popular among the 'have not' countries, who didn't want to be beholden to some random fuel bank.
https://atomicinsights.com/jimmy-carter-never-served-nuclear...
I suppose a lot of this is still embedded in top secret red tape :(
It doesn't have to be that way. With nuclear fuel reprocessing you can burn all the highly radioactive stuff completely, and what's left either decays quickly or isn't very radioactive.
When will we give up the pipedream that it's always going to be sunny and windy, especially as climate change continues to exacerbate destructive weather patterns.
And when will we give up the pipedream that everywhere in the world is sunny and windy all the time to.
Also worth pointing out that a large fraction of the world’s population lives in places where seasonal storage is not nearly as much of a problem. Seasonal storage is much more of an issue for cool temperate and subarctic zones in the northern hemisphere, where maximum energy demand and minimum solar energy supply occur at the same time. Several billion people across South Asia, south-east Asia, most of South America, Oceania, and most of Africa don’t have this unfortunate misalignment.
So not much opportunity to expand there.
Nuclear proponents really need to give up these tired arguments. Wake up to reality. Your favored technology lost. It has zero economic benefits and you have to face reality. We live in a profit driven world, and no sane profit driven enterprise would bet on nuclear power because it's been proven to be such a loser decade after decade. The evidence is plain to see for anyone willing to take a look.
By the way, even accounting for China's recent investment in nuclear they are only projecting to have 10% of their power generated by nuclear by 2050. The US is already close to 20%, or twice as much as China as a percentage of power generated. But sure, let's just keep pretending these situations are the same.
Storage remains a big barrier to wide-scale deployment of intermittent power sources in a manner truly independent of a fossil fuel grid. While costs may be dropping, scale and competition with electric vehicles means grid storage isn't growing all that quickly. Many solar plants that are employing storage are only installing 2-4 hours worth of storage, which isn't sufficient to even out the duck curve let alone seasonal variations. Wind also has big swings in seasonal production. Even with significant overproduction, most grids are still looking at several days worth of storage to account for a string a cloudy or less-windy days.
Another factor is that wind and solar have significantly different output depending on geography and weather. Nuclear's only geographic requirement is a source of water for cooling - and that doesn't have to be potable water, it can be salt water or wastewater. And since human beings need water, too, this is rarely an impediment to deploying nuclear power plants near the population centers that use the most power. By contrast, wind and solar often need to be produced hundreds of miles away from population centers. This tends to overload the transmission capacity of rural power infrastructure [1], sometimes halting wind and solar projects.
1. https://www.vox.com/videos/22685707/climate-change-clean-ene...
It's just yet another example of how the nuclear industry tries to spin its activies as safe and harmless. They probably spend as much money on PR these days as they do on R & D.
The IEAA says so -> https://www.iaea.org/publications/10959/high-burnup-fuel-imp...
Nuclear physics says so -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-burning_process
The term gets used in rocketry, and not all rockets use combustion (doing a burn with a cold gas thruster)
Hey, might as well get into CD's -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_disc_authoring
Why is it that the entire industry uses the term just fine, but not you? Because you're wrong.
Now, the fission fragments are highly radioactive and unstable isotopes of lighter elements. These fragments undergo beta and gamma decay, emitting high-energy particles and photons, transforming into stable isotopes over time. Furthermore, some neutrons, instead of inducing fission in uranium-235, are absorbed by uranium-238 nuclei, typically actinides, like plutonium and neptunium.
So this ridiculously toxic brew of rather random radioactive heavy elements is what we call a 'spent fuel rod'. If you were to pack a few kilos of high explosive around one of these 'spent' fuel rods and detonate it in a city center, it would probably cost at least a billion dollars to clean up, if that.
It sounds kind of ridiculous when you can build 1 GW of reliable 24/7 wind/solar/storage power generation for the same cost as a 1 GW nuclear power plant, and then you never have to buy fuel or deal with the waste stream ever, doesn't it?
Using spent nuclear fuel as a terror weapon would be vastly less deadly than more conventional means. Think about the immense effort of planning and manpower to steal nuclear waste, weaponize it, and then deliver that weapon to a population center. Now think about all that planning and manpower going towards a more conventional attack, like flying a plane into a building or detonating a normal explosive bomb.
Nuclear waste can be deadly, but it's a slow killer. We regularly test our water supply for uranium not out of any fear of a dirty bomb, but because naturally occurring uranium is common enough that it's a problem: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC359425/
In short, fears over nuclear waste are incredibly contrived.
... and if properly distributed, is enough to kill every human being on the planet.
Which proves the ridiculousness of such comparisons, i.e. enough bullets were produced in World War Two to wipe out the global human population too.
Stars "burn" their fuel. This usage is deeply precedented in astrophysics.
Direct link here: https://doomberg.substack.com/p/angels-on-a-pin
It actually is. Spent nuclear fuel goes from 3-5% of U-235 at the start to 0.3% at the end of the fuel campaign. There will also be some fissile plutonium, but not much.
Having just 1/10-th of initial fuel left definitely qualifies as "burnt".
That's also why reprocessing isn't economical right now. You just won't get that much new fuel.
> If the fuel rods were left in the reactor, they'd probably swell
That can't physically happen. Nuclear fuel is made of tablets of sintered oxide powders, and they are permeable to gases (helium is the main one produced as a result of fission).
FYI, this is a pretty typical industry term. Even to the point where "burn up" is a unit of measure tracked at operation and within model predictions.
There is no beating the energy density of uranium.
Anyway, too bad we have too few breeding reactors
I'm also personally still concerned about transportation accidents resulting in permanently contaminated areas.
[1] https://www.posiva.fi/en/index.html
As for transportation, this has been a big concern for some time but has pretty rock-solid technical solutions [2]. We regularly ship high-level nuclear waste around (e.g. from nuclear submarines to Hanford) and haven't really had any incidents. I'd claim that the issue is basically solved with these robust containers.
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?vW=hlextDSoVkQ
There's only a tiny amount of high level nuclear waste.
Yucca mountain has been designated as the long term storage site since 1987 by Congress. Every change of party majority since then has either stopped or restarted work on it.
The bottom line is the nastiest stuff in spent nuclear fuel are the actinides. They're all naturally radioactive and most of the stuff with long (10,000+ year) half lives that requires long-term storage. You need Yucca Mountain mostly for the actinides. If instead you smash them with fast neutrons you can get them to fission, releasing some energy (though sub-critical) and transmuting them into either much more stable isotopes (little radioactive decay) or really unstable ones (nasty but they decay so fast you only need to hold onto them for a few days/months/years).
The short version is besides reprocessing spent fuel we should be putting the nasty stuff through the sausage grinder again to turn it into much less nasty stuff instead of fighting over where to keep the nasty stuff safe for 100,000 years.
And it's true that the sun shines about 100 PW, or 5000x humanity's total energy usage (≈20 TW) on the surface of earth on a nice day.
Even if you assume that the fusion part is cheap, you still have to convert the energy to electricity or at a minimum mechanical work (unless you're using the process heat, which is admittedly a possibility for a fair bit of current demand).
Steam turbines aren't exactly cheap to build.
Yes, there are alternative energy conversion possibilities for some possible fusion fuel cycles, but as I understand it those fuel cycles are much more difficult than D-T fusion and therefore are even further away from being a practical power source.
Renewables already figured it out. They're already cheaper. Nuclear already lost.
Until next-gen nuclear is developed, it's over. They're welcome to keep researching it though. Meanwhile, renewables are also getting better, and much faster. And they're already better than nuclear.
Nuclear has a niche, but it got steamrolled by the S curve of solar, wind, and batteries.
Edit: Nuclear power generation in China has, IIRC, tripled in the 21st century.
But demand has gone up much more than twentyfold though, and this year we are the crossover point where wind an PV manufacturing and install rates, and transmission line build rates, exceed the growth of demand, so fossil plants can start to be retired there.
If nuclear can't be built fast in China, where can it?
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/nov/13/chinas-carb...
> The most striking growth has been in solar power, according to Myllyvirta. Solar installations increased by 210 gigawatts (GW) this year alone, which is twice the total solar capacity of the US and four times what China added in 2020.
> The analysis, which is based on official figures and commercial data, found that China installed 70GW of wind power this year – more than the entire power generation capacity of the UK. It is also expected to add 7GW of hydro power and 3GW of nuclear power capacity this year, said the report.
Edit: I found the 2022 numbers on Wikipedia and got curious what the 2023 outlook is going to be. It is shocking: https://www.rystadenergy.com/news/china-s-solar-capacity-sur... Their 2023 numbers are double the 2022.
Shoeboxes are dead.
But a practical issue here is that there hasn't really been much motivation to develop this industry, because there's been relatively little critical necessity for high capacity at-scale energy storage.
> Installed battery capacity increased from 153 MW in 2019 to 3,518 MW in 2023. Interconnection agreements have been signed for an additional 7,945 MW of battery storage through 2024, allowing batteries to play a growing role in daily power needs in the near future.
https://www.dallasfed.org/research/economics/2023/1017
I say this as someone who bikes their kid around most of the time; I love biking but it is way of life that only a minority of people can make work.
It’s taken that long for renewables to get marginally cheaper without solving the base load problem one bit. Meanwhile natural gas has dominated both.
"By 1986, the Reagan administration had gutted the research and development budgets for renewable energy at the then-fledgling U.S. Department of Energy (DoE) and eliminated tax breaks for the deployment of wind turbines and solar technologies—recommitting the nation to reliance on cheap but polluting fossil fuels, often from foreign suppliers."
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/carter-white-hous...
Also, "marginally cheaper" can't help but sound like sour grapes; the cost-per-watt of solar has fallen by 500x in the past 50 years (https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/evolution-of-...). How many hundreds of times cheaper per-watt is nuclear since then?
Higher interest rates make everything more difficult of course - ask the auto or mortgage industries.
The debate at this point isn’t about whether renewables will scale: China has already answered that question. There is a very real question about whether the West will be able to keep up. There seem to be a lot of people who want to sit around and fantasize about 1970s-era nuclear tech while our neighbors undergo what is effectively a second Industrial Revolution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_China#/m... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas_emissions_by_Ch...
440 people die for every 1000TW of solar, compared to 90 for nuclear: https://www.engineering.com/story/whats-the-death-toll-of-nu...
Solar panel disposal impact: https://hbr.org/2021/06/the-dark-side-of-solar-power
Renewables have a place in our energy future. Fanaticism about them does not.
"The number of deaths for every 1000TWh of energy generated by rooftop solar panels is 440. Put simply, this means that for every 1000TWh of energy produced via rooftop solar power, 440 people lose their lives. Other estimates [obfuscated hyperlink to a Forbes page] place this number to be around 150. These deaths are mostly the result of electrocution and other hazards that occur during rooftop solar panel installation (such as falling)."
So they're not happy with the official statistics bureau that is Forbes and chose to stick with their uncited 440. It sounds made up to me. Searching for that exact datum actually yielded the original source [1], and yeah - it's made up. It's from a 2008 article where some guy just started hand-waving hard in a not entirely coherent fashion.
A quick search for something more reasonable turns up this. [2] The data comes from multiple studies and the UN Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. Wind/Nuclear/Solar all have pretty much the same mortality rate: 0.04/0.03/0.02 per unit of electricity, respectively. If I want to be disingenuous I can claim [accurately] that nuclear is 50% deadlier than solar (and obviously many many magnitudes deadlier per installation), but the numbers in terms of energy/watt are low enough to be irrelevant.
[1] - https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-per-twh-for-all...
[2] - https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-p...
If solar profitability is affected by higher interest rates (I'm not arguing this point) nuclear would be much more effected. Nuclear power is the most capital intensive form of power, they are a huge up front investment with very long ROI (incidentally they almost always require significant price guarantees over for decades and backed by the government to derisk the investment).
If you just plant a single wind turbine in some unused space of an otherwise productive piece of land you can obviously derive value from it. That's not what I was talking about though. I was talking about massive wind farm power generation operations. There's better uses for that area. Same logic applies to just laying massive amounts of solar panels over a wide area. Better to put them on everyone's roofs.
You seem to have a funny definition of "empty space" when the post you're replying to explicitly called out the uses for land in between wind turbines or leveraging wind turbines in areas where much of the land isn't usable for much else. If your argument requires completely ignoring points made by someone else, you probably don't have very strong of an argument.
Which are almost universally placed in said farm fields, unproductive hillsides, and open ocean. No one's clearing city blocks to place a wind turbine. These "massive wind farm power generation operations" already exist in the middle of Indiana's cornfields. Drive from Chicago to Cincinnati and you'll quickly see how little land they can eat up.
Concrete example: https://www.google.com/maps/place/40%C2%B035'55.2%22N+87%C2%...
> Same logic applies to just laying massive amounts of solar panels over a wide area.
Same response; they only make financial sense to place on low-value land. A solar farm will be very happy on shitty land that's not particularly suitable for farming, grazing, or habitation. They can even benefit farmland in some climates; https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2023/03/made-shade-growing-....
Putting them on peoples roofs is actually a terrible option from a GW/$ equation due to install costs, and lack of operational scale.
However in practice it has never turned out to be that great. There's little to recommend it: it requires massive amounts of labor, double checking high skill welds, documentation, and nobody in the industry seems the least bit interested in making this an efficiency process.
Nuclear rockets sound cool. Nuclear electricity plants are pretty awful in practice.
Batteries are about 1000x more useful on the grid than nuclear, it will greatly enhance reliability as they are super scalable and have the potential to massively increase the efficiency of grid transmission and distribution, the most expensive part of electricity for most. Nuclear has none of those benefits.
Citation needed! Also: did you know that all existing commercial nuclear plants can ramp up and down in power at about 2-3% (~25 MWe) per minute? They often simply choose not to because the current market structure doesn't incentivize them to. Add a price to low-carbon load following and all the plants in the US will start doing it.
Batteries have a big disadvantage in that they do not generate any electricity. They also have pretty miserable energy density, which correlates eventually to chemical waste. To store power in batteries for a night in the US, you'd need many thousands of skyscrapers full of batteries.
> Citation needed! Also: did you know that all existing commercial nuclear plants can ramp up and down in power at about 2-3% (~25 MWe) per minute? They often simply choose not to because the current market structure doesn't incentivize them to.
That's a nice way of saying that nuclear power is much too expensive to not run plants at maximum capacity all the time.
>Add a price to low-carbon load following and all the plants in the US will start doing it.
Citation needed. Considering the price of wind or solar, investors are much mor elikley to over provision using those technologies. Nuscale just had to axe their SMR (supposedly the future of nuclear) project in Idaho, because they couldn't find subscribers and their cost of overrunning massively.
> Batteries have a big disadvantage in that they do not generate any electricity. They also have pretty miserable energy density, which correlates eventually to chemical waste. To store power in batteries for a night in the US, you'd need many thousands of skyscrapers full of batteries.
Except you don't need to store the power to run all of the US for a night, you're just making a strawman.
Nope. It means that the variable costs are low. The fuel costs for a nuclear plant are so low that it’s essentially free.
Which is also the primary reason we throw away 95% of the fuel unused: given the low cost of fuel, recycling just isn’t viable. And again, not because recycling is so expensive, but because new fuel is so cheap.
If you bought a nuclear power plant for $10 billion and your calculation to get an ROI requires that you make $100 per MWh running at 80% load factor, you will not be willing to run your plant only at 50% of the time, because it does not make economic sense. Variable costs are irrelevant in this case.
The variable costs are not low because the fixed costs are too expensive, which was what you wrote before and what you imply here.
The variable costs are low because fuel is incredibly cheap for the amount of power you get out of it.
So you get the ratio correct, but miss on the cause for that ratio.
How often can they repeatedly ramp without getting into trouble with reactor poisoning?
To load follow with nuclear France devised an entire scheme where their monopoly owner would let reactors take turns reducing their output.
Then on top of that the fueling schedule is synced since the later a reactor is in the fuel lifecycle the less it can ramp.
Try that on a free market.
Every day, several times a day. That is literally the requirement for modern reactors (where modern means any reactor in the past 30 years, or more, and most retrofitted reactors from previous years)
Graph and text on page 8: https://www.oecd-nea.org/upload/docs/application/pdf/2021-12...
It's not that it's one of the safest energy sources in existence that works in all weather conditions?
Didn't France very recently have to shut down or limit a bunch of reactors due to <checks notes> the river water being too warm.
It's one of the safest when compared to coal. How exactly do you accurately calculate the "safety" of something that produces toxic waste with a lifespan in the thousands of years?
Because of environmental limits to protect the river ecosystems, not because of any safety or operational constraints. Many of these limits were set years ago, when the water temperature in rivers was lower, and haven't been increased since - leading to very tight margins. When the grid is stretched, the plant operators usually get a temporary authorization to exceed the environmental limits.
Every year this is big news for some reason, even though it amounts to a roughly 0.3% reduction of yearly electricity generation. It only impacts river cooled plants, and only those that don't also have a cooling tower.
So what you're saying is, nuke plants can operate in any weather if you give zero fucks about how they affect nature..?
(And this goes for hydro especially, and somewhat for solar and wind as well, all have environmental impacts, which must be taken into account and sensible compromises need to be made).
This affects all thermal plants, it has nothing to do with nuclear.
And as the parent pointed out, it only affects plants where you cheap out and skip building the otherwise required cooling towers.
So it’s trivially solvable: build cooling towers.
No, no they didn't. Most reactors that were shut down that summer were shut down for maintenance after a decade or more of neglect.
I mean, if that claim of negligance would be true which I doubt it is of course...those things grow old and France failed to diversify it's power generation in the last decades but hey...new ones are planned...maybe in a decade one will even be finished...
More details on the problems: https://www.neimagazine.com/features/featuredealing-with-cra...
No. It would be an argument against anti-nuclear
> those things grow old and France failed to diversify it's power generation in the last decades
"Decades" implies 20 years or more. Even now France's nuclear provides more energy than anything it has, and France routinely exports energy to Germany who have shattered their nuclear power plants and are now busy burning coal and importing electricity to cover the needs.
Even the countries who "diversified" depend on those with stable electricity production all the time. See example from just today: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38274335
> No. It would be an argument against anti-nuclear
How? Proper maintenance would increase the price of electricity produced by nuclear.
> "Decades" implies 20 years or more. Even now France's nuclear provides more energy than anything it has, and France routinely exports energy to Germany who have shattered their nuclear power plants and are now busy burning coal and importing electricity to cover the needs.
Their nuclear reactors are 37 years old on average (they were originally only commissioned to run for 40 years, until an extension in 2012) [1]. They don't have a reactor younger than 21 years old [2]. So I would argue they did not just not diversify, they also neglected to keep up with building nuclear reactors.
Their flagship EPR reactor (Flamanville 3) has been been delayed and delayed. Work started in 2007, in 2020 when it was already significantly delayed it was 5 times over budget and it is still not in operation. The current date is early 2024, but that's almost a running gag now. [3]
They are also planning to build new reactors which are supposed to come online earliest 2035, but based on what happened with Flamanville, that's completely unrealistic.
So in summary decades is very justified.
I encourage everyone to read the wikipedia article on Flamanville. You can't make this up. Construction started in 2007 with estimated costs of 3.3 billion euro and completion date of 2012. The last estimate was in 2020 with costs at 19.1 billion and a commissioning date at the end of 2022. Well that didn't happen yet. And somehow we are supposed to throw more money at this completely incompetent industry?
[1] https://www.lemonde.fr/en/france/article/2023/02/03/the-long... [2] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1351839/age-of-nuclear-p... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plan...
Yup. Thanks to anti-nuclear lobby.
Please show us some sources.
1. France isn't an isolated country.
2. That "lobby" is decades of various actvists fear-mongering and politicians afraid of unpopular decisions.
And so you have:
--- start quote ---
In May 2001, an Ipsos poll found that nearly 70% of the population had a 'good opinion' of nuclear power, however 56% also preferred not to live near a nuclear plant.
In 2006, BBC/GlobeScan poll found 57% of the French opposed to nuclear energy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France?wprov=...
--- end quote ---
Follow the link above for a description of anti-nuclear activism
What is this supposed to mean? Do you want to imply that the German Green party for example, dictates the politics in France??
> 2. That "lobby" is decades of various actvists fear-mongering and politicians afraid of unpopular decisions.
Nuclear is popular in France...your own quote says it.
Not wanting to live near a nuclear plant is hardly an argument against nuclear power itself. You are twisting the facts.
> Follow the link above for a description of anti-nuclear activism
I did. The newest info on this powerful lobby:
> In March 2014, police arrested 57 Greenpeace protesters who used a truck to break through security barriers and enter the Fessenheim nuclear in eastern France.
This is hilarious. THIS is supposed to be that powerful anti-nuclear lobby in France? 57 Greenpeace protesters? Are you joking?
Adding to what cycomanic wrote already:
Germany has replaced what it lost on the nuclear shutdown with renewables years ago. They also reduced coal and even have a law to phase it out completely. The fact that Germany imported nuclear power doesn't say anything about the fact that they HAD to import it. Just like anyone connected to the grid, they buy when it's cheap and sell when it's expensive. Due to Germany's mix they're flexible there while France has to keep on running and selling as much as they can since they're losing money. See EDF.
Funny how today they were burning 20GW of coal because they replaced 20GW of nuclear power with renewables.
> The fact that Germany imported nuclear power doesn't say anything about the fact that they HAD to import it.
Of course they had to. Because they don't have enough energy generation of their own when the day is like today: cloudy and quiet.
This is a lie.
Germany has been reducing coal and will keep on doing so until there is none. It's a law.
https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/156695/umfrag...
> Of course they had to. Because they don't have enough energy generation of their own when the day is like today: cloudy and quiet.
This is a lie also.
Germany is an energy export nation since 2002 even with the EEX trading you probably never heard of. https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/153533/umfrag...
Funny indeed...
They were literally burning 20GW of coal yesterday because the 200% overprovisioned renewables were producing only 15% of their maximum output
As I have said: the transformation is not finished yet. Germany did almost nothing during Merkels time and renewables have still generated more than they lost due to the shutdown of nuclear.
Meaning: Germany would STILL burn coal even if they'd have kept nuclear.
It's not that hard to understand if you know the facts and the facts are that Germany has a law to phase out coal completely while expanding renewables. A law which few (no other?) countries even have. Even France will keep on burning coal when the last plant is closed in Germany.
Though honestly, they just heat some pieces of metal, instead of heating water.
Photovoltaic heats a bunch of hydrogen ions until they glow. (But those ions are in the sun.) Wind power mostly comes from air and water being heated unevenly.
Tidal power is perhaps the coolest here: no heat involved, the energy comes from the motion of the earth and the moon.
The PV/turbines are intermittent and will suffer more in extreme climate conditions (winds forcing shutdown and PV getting caught in dust storms), than nuclear (which are more vulnerable to droughts).
> Batteries are about 1000x more useful on the grid than nuclear
Even if I agree batteries are the answer, how do you intend to charge this batteries?!
Solar is great, wind is great, Hydro is great - what happens when these don't work? What will you use?
The chances of a simultaneous and extensive wind, solar, and hydro outage on a national grid scale is... fairly low.
Solar drops to zero every night.
For hydro, there's already seasonal variation with rain/snow melt. Beyond that, it looks like the majority of hydro in the US is on the west coast, which has been experiencing a drought for years and is projected to get worse. The west coast is big on removing dams for habitat restoration, too.
Wind: Admittedly I have no idea what sort of consistency wind has. But it does seem reasonable to assume the overall reliability of wind power will decrease as installed capacity increases, assuming we started with the most productive geographies first and then move to increasingly marginal areas.
In the same way that storm fronts travel through an area and bring high speed winds perhaps there is the opposite, where relatively sudden, large-scale lulls form?
To minimize the likelihood of blackouts we'd need to either:
1) Build sufficient excess capacity of wind/solar/hydro to overcome variance in output. This may not be feasible, if even possible, considering the points above.
2) Maintain fossil fuel peaker plants.
3) More nuclear for base load.
Having written these thoughts out I now realize your statement presumes we can ever (and always) meet 100% of electricity demand with wind/solar/hydro in the first place.
Yes.
There's enough countries out there that have been using renewables consistently for years (esp. EU countries). I don't understand how this is still a talking point. Daily variance in supply is equalized by trading energy with your neighbors which uses the phenomenon described above: The sun is always shining somewhere.
For Germany in particular it was a mistake to move away from nuclear before coal (imo lobbying is mostly at fault here) but they've been building renewables since the late nineties. It took them the time it takes to build a single nuclear reactor to move to more than 50% renewables and those are much easier (= cheaper) to maintain for the years to come.
And there are great savings by packing batteries behind the inverters along with the DC panels. Inverters can be a shared cost between the panels and batteries. Already, falling panel prices make the inverters an be increasing cost. Second, because panels are so cheap relative to the full install cost, most installations already have undersized inverters compared to maximum solar output. This lets all that "wasted" energy get stored and delivered later when it has much more value and a higher grid price.
Honestly, in the year 2023, batteries are a much more capable and scalable and realistic grid asset than a nuclear reactor.
Solar definitely does drop to zero every night and no, we don't have the connectivity, or the land-mass, to have sunshine somewhere all the time. Russia does...but well, Russia.
There is not "literally always wind". And we've had several days of "Dunkelflaute" in Germany per year now, much higher than anyone predicted.
Renewable advocates like to average over time, so having too much energy at some point in time (which makes the energy worthless and prices go negative, as in "please stop feeding energy into the grid, it's harmful!!") and having too little at other times averages out. As my statistics professor used to joke: if your left leg is standing in liquid nitrogen and your right leg in boiling fat, you are enjoying a nearly perfect mean temperature. Variance matters.
And so the real world does not work the way renewable advocates would like, and no, we don't have nearly the storage to make that work, nor a credible way to create such storage at remotely affordable prices, never mind the horrific environmental impact of that much battery production.
> There's enough countries out there that have been using renewables consistently for years
Nope. One example that is frequently cited is Denmark, but they themselves say that this is only possible because they are a tiny country with lots of neighbours with reliable electricity supply from whom they can purchase when they need it. They also have more interconnect with those neighbouring countries than typical total demand. This is not a model for other countries, particularly not for larger countries.
> The sun is always shining somewhere.
This is simply not true.
> For Germany in particular it was a mistake to move away from nuclear
Absolutely. Probably the biggest political mistake of the after-war period.
If you don't believe that we can meet our needs with wind/solar/hydro/batteries, then you haven't bothered to study the problem at all.
There's soooo much literature out there on how to do this.
And even without 100%, getting to 90% wind/solar is super cheap and deployable today, and by the time we spend the 15+ years deploying that, we will have tons of new tech to deal with the remains few percent.
Even France never got to 100% nuclear carbon free power, why not do the cheap thing to get to better than France levels of low carbon energy?
If you have any literature to recommend, I'm happy to read it.
As I write it right now Denmark is producing 0 solar, and only 12.5% of its wind production. Because its cloudy and there's little wind.
So they have to import almost 40% of electricity from Norway and Sweden where electricity generation is propped up by nuclear
When I wrote this it was even worse in Germany. 30% of total electricity coming from coal. Because:
- The total installed capacity of wind covers Germany's needs. Only 28% of installed capacity is produced
- The total installed capacity of solar exceeds Germany's needs. Only 2.7% of installed capacity is produced
That is, currently Germany needs 65 GW of electricity. Solar + wind have a total installed capacity of 134 GW, double what Germany needs. And together they still barely produce 30% of what Germany requires.
So Germany supplements that by burning coal, biomass and gas, and importing electricity.
The lesson learned is not “green power bad”, it’s “don’t rely on gas from dictators”.
Ah yes. This war is the reason why 134 GW of renewable energy only produce ~20GW, and why Germany burns 20 GW of coal (by pure coincidence that's about as much as the capacity of all decommissioned reactors since 2011)
https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/energy-crisis-fu...
The long term plan was always EU-wide energy projects to account for “its cloudy in Germany” scenarios. That plan isn’t complete.
Again:
- is it war that makes renewables produce 15% of their installed capacity?
- is it war that made Germany shut down 20GW of nuclear power plants?
> That plan isn’t complete.
And it never will be complete. Because when it's cloudy in Germany, those clouds don't stop at Germany's borders. Literally see the comment above about Denmark.
No form of power meets its theoretical "installed capacity". No one runs their nuclear, gas, coal, or oil plants at 100% 24/7/365 either. Yes, some days it's less windy; some days it's more cloudy. The dramatic fall in cost for new solar and wind capacity makes the solution pretty obvious; you build more to account.
> is it war that made Germany shut down 20GW of nuclear power plants?
It's war that makes Germany temporarily wish they hadn't.
> Because when it's cloudy in Germany, those clouds don't stop at Germany's borders.
They're unlikely to cover the entire EU's interconnected grid (and there's talk of generation in Morocco; https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-solutions/2023/04/13/...). When the entire EU is covered in clouds, it's especially unlikely that there's no wind at the same time.
Given Germany's plan is 60% renewable generation by 2050, not 100%, they clearly understand the need for some flexible options for the tail ends of things.
And yet unlike renewables nuclear (and coal and gas etc.) are very close to that. And nuclear routinely runs close to its capacity, predictably.
> When the entire EU is covered in clouds, it's especially unlikely that there's no wind at the same time.
So each EU country has to overprovision enough solar and wind to potentially generate power for the rest of the EU countries? Case in point: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38276778
Sure. Apples to oranges; they're not the same thing. Theoretical perfect-day max generation isn't how you provision solar/wind, that'd be stupid; the folks building out Germany's renewable efforts aren't stupid.
If you need a certain baseline of a certain renewable, you overprovision (and trade capacity with other areas and generation methods). Given the cost of new solar/wind capacity these days, that still makes perfect economic sense. Any long-term renewables plan is going to include energy storage and peaker plants of some kind to ensure a reliable grid on a national/continental scale.
How much? Is 200% of required generation enough? Is 500%?
Germany - and the rest of their interconnected EU grid - will continue to build out cheap, clean power for the forseeable future.
Indeed. And what's your point?
> By building more renewable sources, we will need less and less fossil capacity.
How many more renewables?
The installed capacity of renewables in Germany is double its needs for power.
The installed capacity of renewables in Denmark is 1.5 times its needs for power.
Do we need 10 times more? 100 times more?
As mentioned elsewhere in this thread, the peak production makes German electricity cheap enough to make everyone around them use it when it's available. If all the neighbors used this approach too, over the course of a day it would be everybody's turn to provide energy for the neighbors as renewables production will never be zero globally.
I'm not.
What I'm pointing out is that renewables in Germany are significantly overprovisioned. And still produce just 15% of their installed capacity because it's a quiet cloudy day.
> the peak production makes German electricity cheap enough to make everyone around them use it when it's available.
Ah yes. When they are available. That's the point, isn't it?
> If all the neighbors used this approach
Denmark is at 150% of its needs, was importing 40% of its energy from neighbors, and, ironically, from Germany which was burning coal.
So. How much each of the neighbors, and each of those neighbors' neighbors etc. need to overprovision renewables?
And we get it, Germany burn coal for electricity. And we all know that is bad. Point taken and not objected.
To be clear, Norway has no nuclear. 99% of generation there is hydro. Low wind in Denmark likely means they release more water for a bit; system works as intended.
See my addendum comment about Germany for example. They had to burn coal to keep up with the demand while their 200% overprovisioned renewables could only generate 20% of required electricity.
Today the only countries were renewables worked at close to 50% installed capacity were UK (wind) and Greece (solar). Everywhere else at best wind and solar were at 30% production. The entire Europe was busy burning gas, coal, or hoping that neighbours have enough nuclear and hydro installed.
> Norway has no nuclear. 99% of generation there is hydro.
Yes, this was my mistake. I should've said: propped up by stable energy sources: nuclear (Sweden) and hydro (Norway and Sweden)
Which is up from pretty close to 0% just a few decades ago (example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Germany#/media/F...). We're just getting started; this is a multi-generational megaproject.
You seem to think people are declaring the shift to renewables to be finished. I'm not sure where you obtained that misunderstanding.
Germany already overprovisioned. 200% of electricity requirements. And yet...
When I point out that even overprovisioning doesn't seem to work, people deflect, deny, stop responding, or reply in non-sequiturs.
So. Given that yesterday renewables in only two countries (Greece) managed to reach 50% of their installed capacity (not all renewables, but different types of renewables), how many renewables need to built to make sure that all of EU needs are met?
You keep saying this, and then you keep saying they don't have enough. These both cannot be true, and Germany's continuing to expand their wind/solar efforts indicate they don't believe they've "overprovisioned" yet.
Germany's plan goes out to the 2050s. Your complaint that they haven't provisioned enough yet is not in good faith.
They are not.
With the cheapest, most scalable, safe, and environmentally sustainable methods we have, which are wind and solar.
Batteries have the potential to make transmission and distribution far far cheaper than they are today, because without batteries, the grid has to be able to respond to the maximum demand at any given time, meaning that all parts of the grid are sized for maximum capacity, even if that maximum capacity is used less than 0.1% of the time.
With storage on the grid, we can now delay transmission and distribution upgrades far into the future, which decreases the biggest chunk of most electricity bills: transmission and distribution.
Christopher Clack's grid modeling on this shows a route to by far the cheapest energy models which includes massive amounts of highly distributed solar and beefing up the distribution system to match.
Too many people optimize energy costs without even considering that most expensive part of electricity: the grid.
This is ironic. I recommend you read How Big Things Get Done[1], by Bent Flyvbjerg, the world's foremost expert on megaprojects. The book discusses an analysis of about 10,000 projects of over a billion dollars each.
Which projects were most likely to come in on time and on budget, and deliver the promised returns? PV solar.
Which projects were third most likely to overrun by 100% or more, be 100% late or more, and deliver only a fraction of the promised returns? Nuclear power plants.
Edit: The book's ratings are based on construction phase only, after all the permitting and other planning work has been completed.
(Third worst? What could be worse? Answer: nuclear waste storage sites, and Olympic Games hosting.)
1. https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/672118/how-big-thin...
[1] https://atomicinsights.com/anti-nuclear-movement-strategy-ci...
In contrast solar PV and wind have now grown to the point where they are overtaking the growth in demand, meaning that fossil plants can soon start to be be retired.
In China and Russia they don't have as much clout, so they use lots of coal, if it's cheaper.
I mean the myth of the supposedly all powerful anti-nuclear lobby is actually hilarious. I mean took fukushima to get Germany (arguably on of the most nuclear sceptical countries) to decide on stopping nuclear (despite the majority of the population being against nuclear power for years prior) and under quite favourable conditions for the nuclear industry.
The planners know exactly how long it takes to build a nuclear plant, and they learn just as quickly as everyone watching from the sidelines. Their assumptions are being thrown by something - almost certainly anti-nuclear campaigners in government or regulatory forces warping incentives. Those are the only things that can consistently diver overruns. Otherwise it is hard for overruns of a nuclear plant to be different from any other project.
ICYMI: https://atomicinsights.com/wp-content/uploads/Antinuclear-st...
Given the absolutely massive popularity of the antinuclear movement, the fringe belief is actually to think the legal intervenors that came out of it had negligible impact.
Germany for example had a 100% complete fast breeder reactor called SNR-300, designed to provide sustainable low carbon 24/7 energy for decades. Before it could turn on for the first time, protestors rioted. They never turned it on. Today it's an amusement park. Now that is impact.
You both imply a conspiracy resulting from this document. You have no proof for any connection to anything relevant going from that.
The SNR-300 story is also completely unrelated. You just stacked it upon the conspiracy theory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-nuclear_movement
I never said there were no anti-nuclear movement.
There are many and in every country they have their own reasons and are more or less influential. For example: there hasn't been a anti-nuclear movement as influential as it was in Germany. This is why Germany was able to replace nuclear with renewables and push it's development for the whole planet. However, no German politician participated in your conspiracy.
Your pitiful attempt at derailing only say something about yourself.
You are correct that the obvious solution is standard production of modular designs are the solution to that.
This has all be true and obvious for several decades. Yet the realisation of this approach seems to still be far away.
It also doesn't factor in the non-technical hurdles, costs, and delays that are involved here. Environmental impacts, and local-population-resistance are significant, often terminal, factors in plant construction.
Put another way, nobody cares if I have solar panels on my roof. But if I have a tiny modular reactor in the garden the neighbours will (not surprisingly) object.
I say this as a nuclear supporter.
Yes, though your neighbours will probably also object to you putting up one of those big wind turbines in your backyard. Or a coal fired power plant.
Clearly a coal-fired plant would be an issue, to the degree to which they pollute the neighbours. There are diesel generators here attached to factories etc, and nobody really cares.
Objection to nuclear though is more visceral. With diesel I can hear the noise and decide if I don't like it. With coal I might notice the smell. But I don't think either would silently kill me. Nuclear leaks are invisible, and accumulative, so it can be (disproportionately) scary. Certainly those who are opposed to it will use fear to rally other people to their side. Fear is a strong motivating emotion that is easily manipulated.
You'd be surprised. There was a protest in my area against putting up five new wind turbines at an industrial site as the existing buildings are take down. People object that it would ruin their view... The current buildings is part of a massive coal fired power plant which is slowly being decommissioned and there are already three existing turbines.
A nation made a bet on "let's do all nuclear". It basically worked, but there was no magical cost decrease. They have an immense amount of institutional knowledge, huge educational system, massive amounts of resources. Their nukes are big and expensive and not really on time. There is no magic at the end of the tunnel if Greenpeace disappears.
The world isn't Sim City, power plants need water access and have location concerns, and it's not a question of just dropping a bunch of truck-sized plants across the world and magically solving everything.
Having said that, France is a success story of course. It's cool that it's all set up. But even after building it up, running these plants are expensive, there's often load issues meaning they are not fully utilized... "nuclear is free easy energy" is science fiction. That's fine, though! It's normal that we have to do stuff to power society.
EDIT: to be clear, I'm cool with nuclear, but I am not picky about where my watts come from.
[1]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03014...
[2]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Pl...
Oof, talk about a nasty abstract. Will need to find a way to look at this paper later.
https://www.tf1info.fr/economie/crise-de-l-energie-nucleaire...
The neglect was because maintenance costs money and as usual people (+governments, corporations ...) want to save money/increase earnings/profit, so upkeep gets neglected.
--- start quote ---
Following the 2011 Fukushima I nuclear accidents, an OpinionWay poll at the end of March found that 57% of the French population were opposed to nuclear energy in France.[119] A TNS-Sofres poll in the days following the accident found 55% in favour of nuclear power.[119] In 2006, BBC/GlobeScan poll found 57% of the French opposed to nuclear energy.[120]
In May 2001, an Ipsos poll found that nearly 70% of the population had a 'good opinion' of nuclear power, however 56% also preferred not to live near a nuclear plant and the same proportion thought that a 'Chernobyl-like accident' could occur in France
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France#Public...
--- end quote ---
It's also one of the major reasons why no new nuclear reactors appeared in France after 2000, and why the government would neglect the existing reactors.
China built as much solar as the US has entirely last year alone, it can be done
We have the money to afford it, ergo we have enough of a workforce to do it.
Centrus, the company cited in the ieee article, was the US based side of that exchange, then under the name of the US Enrichment Corporation. [1]
While the program was successful at nuclear disarmament ( to the tune of 20,008 warheads [wiki] ) it tanked the market by effectively 'dumping' the fuel, driving centrifuge operators out.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megatons_to_Megawatts_Program
[1] https://www.centrusenergy.com/who-we-are/history/megatons-to...
That really set the tone for where US was willing to go and even if it's overall a better solution people weren't willing to back it while it was too easy to kill politically. Jack Welch's book "Straight from the Gut" talks about how they shifted their entire business to nuclear servicing from development because they saw the changing winds - the correct bet.
I'm super excited by this latest development as we accept that we need to learn how to tame the beast that is nuclear fission because the benefits really do outweigh the drawbacks.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident
And everyone got very scared, and the gov’t lost a lot of credibility.
It was no Chernobyl, but it made it clear the US wasn’t perfect either.
I've been watching a livestream of Reykjanes in the vague hope of seeing some magma. Somewhere globally needs to be evacuated every year or so. Going from base rate to base rate +1 per 2 decades or thereabouts is a perfectly acceptable deal. Nobody is going to die (which is more than can be said about coal). We'd get cheap clean energy.
And instead people decided that the best plan was to panic and we end up with the gently building energy crisis that has been rolling on for a few years now. It is entirely plausible we see the bloodiest war in human history as a result of the Western derailment of the transition to nuclear power. It was really foolish.
Who cares that the US government are incompetent? Yeah they're incompetent. They've been incompetent for a long while. They still snuffed out one of the most (arguably the most?) promising technologies of a generation out of fear and ignorance.
In the 70s and 80s leftists couldn't much keep pushing socialism (like they are now) since the horrors of their ideology was quite visible to everybody in the example of USSR. So they embraced environmentalism - just another way for them to fight capitalism and consumerism.
Russia (through the KGB) was quite happy to finance their cause. It meant Western countries (and especially Western Europe) stayed dependent on them for their energy. The folly of our strategy became quite apparent during the last few years with the Ukraine invasion and revelations of EU politicians fully paid and owned by the Russians.
Together with infiltrating the Western Academia, this was probably one of the most successful undercover secret service operation ever.
I could tell you so much about our history and relations with Russia. From my own experience before '90, from my parents' during communism horror years and from my grandparents' during the War and the soviet occupation after.
But all that info is freely available in books and online - for naught. You can't change the mind of the Western leftists who never had to live through an actual implementation of their pet ideology. They dream about Norway, Sweden and Denmark while never even visiting Cuba, North Korea or Venezuela.
There is a very important difference between communism and socialism, because the latter has been tried multiple times and worked comparatively well. You even named some of the poster child countries yourself. As I said, it is a truely US thing to equate socialism with communism, followed by touting Cuba, Venezuela and North Korea as negative examples of it.
I care, if they are responsible for overseeing the safety of the nuclear reactors.
And oversight is different from strangulation. If we could dial back the regulations to mere oversight I'd go find something else to talk about.
That report, which includes official translations of two USR incident reports, is all about safety and technical aspectsbof RBMK reactors, nowhere do they talk about the future use and deploymant of nuclear power plants. After all, all those reports were written by the people being as pro-nuclear as you could be in the late 80s... Granted, people back then wrote long form documents not published on social media.
I linoed to the report elsewhere, ypu honestly should read it. Including the truely damning ones the Soviets wrote regarding safety, regulation and oversight at, and around, the Chernobyl power plant, especially affecting the extension units incl. rwaczor No. 4 which ultimately exploded.
I'm saying we should accept some level of accidents, not that we want to purposefully try to cause nuclear meltdowns. It is tolerance, not a target. Nobody is advocating ignoring 50 years of improvements in safety tech and understanding, we just shouldn't be bankrupting nuclear companies in pursuit of impossible goals.
The standard for damage should be similar to coal.
If anything, Chernobyl shows us that, regardless of how low regulatory and safety standards are, economic and career interests always push people and organizations to violate them. Hence, the point would be to put even stricter regulations in place.
On the other hand, you took official incident reports as, to qupte, economic recommendations. And you advocated for regulation to be loosened to oversight.
Generally so, HN has a really problem with quantifying risks. In FMEAs, the detectability, propability and severity of a failure mode are combined to calculate a risk value. If a risk is potentially disastrous, and if nuclear accidents are disastrous they really and truely are, the underlying failure modes have to be mitigated rigirously. There is no thought of "some accidents have to be accepted for the greater good" in developing systems that can, and have, killed people. This attitude shows in each and every discussion around aerospace accidents as well... And it is the main rwason I have a hard time accepting software devs as part of the greater engineering community.
1980s standards of safety aren't really an acceptable option in the modern era, and you are the person laying down 1980s and 1990s reports as something to be referred to. That isn't a very good strategy IMO, we should be aiming for higher standards than they could achieve then. We have much better tech and science now. The issue is that the regulations have gone waaay overboard, we're pushing huge costs onto the nuclear industry for next to no benefit to anyone.
> And you advocated for regulation to be loosened to oversight.
I still am, the amount of oversight the nuclear industry has been subjected to is silly.
However, and this is a point I thought was going to be obvious to everyone, 1980s USSR standards are also silly. Not as silly as the modern standard, in principle, but nevertheless I think we can do better.
I'm thinking that society can maybe be talked down off the ledge and accept airline-industry levels of safety. Then we can have cheap power and historically outstanding safety and an order of magnitude less environmental damage than coal, and cheaper power prices. It'd be a great equilibrium. Regressing to the 80s is not really something I'm tabling as an option here. If the plan was to do that then the anti-nuclear people would have some respectable points.
And you know why the Chernobyl reports are so significant? Because to date it is the worst nuclear accident, also the most thoroughly investigated one. And specifically because of all the fuck ups, it allows us to see a lot of risks and issues in one single report, not spread across a half dozen or so. Added bonus, everyone knows about Chernobyl.
After all, I read it, multiple times actually. I also read some of the public reports on the 737 Max, and the basic parallels in behaviour of people and organizations are astonishing.
Just im case so, I am not saying coal is better, we absolutely should leave existing nuclear plants online as long as sofely possible. Building new ones is just not economically feasible anymore, for almost a decade so. Wind and solar are simply cheaper, and hence more profitable fprninvestors, and the environment. And until tue transition is complete, nuclear and some gas plants for covering peak demand short notice, is a viable way to go.
By the way, regarding 80s and 90s safety regulations, you do know from when most of the current nuclear fleet dates, right? And there is so much retrofitting you can do...
Humans, in general have a real problem quantifying risks, especially risks involving low probability events. I don't think this is unique to HN (although, it seems like there may be a disproportionate amount of confidence discussing these risks).
The problem is: what are you willing to tolerate? Here in Bavaria, many decades after Chernobyl, you still have to scan wild game meat and shrooms for radioactivity. You can't even assume that a dead zone around a disaster site will be kept secure - the Ukraine war proved that, with uneducated Russian troops disturbing the radioactive dust layer as they moved around and entrenched themselves around Chernobyl. The only place where it's really feasible to have a nuclear accident site contained reasonably well is the continental United States, everything else is way too much at risk for third-party interference.
Nuclear radiation is among the worst issues you can have... you can't see it, people aren't aware of how radiation sources look like, and it's way WAY too easy to cause serious incidents the more widespread its use is - the "orphan sources" wikipedia article is pretty damning, and a lot of that is the relatively small amounts that are used in radiotherapy devices. As a species, we can't even have these secured and protected from theft and incompetent idiots - how anyone can ask for even more usage of nuclear energy is beyond me.
Renewables are great. We all love them. It's just that they are not here just yet, not 24h/day 265days/year anyway. They need a complement.
Anyway, as with EVs, capitalism has decided: wind and solar it is, that's where the money goes and not nuclear. For mostly the same reasons come 2030 you wont be able to buy ICE cars anymore. Profits and money.
The problem is we spent last 100 years spewing CO2 into the atmosphere instead of switching to nuclear due to the nuclear fear-mongering from environmentalists. Now we are facing Climate Change, a civilization-ending danger. And I am not sure the renewable build-up is fast enough to replace hydrocarbon burning, especially since it also has an availability problem.
The rational strategy would thus be a (slow, controlled, careful) cost-reducing deregulation and nuclear buildup in parallel with renewables and closing down of legacy plants.
But we are facing the same resistance and fear mongering from the exact same politicians and ideologues that got us into this predicament in the first place. I am pretty sure no solution can come from the same people and way of thinking that created the problem.
It absolutely is. Germany is building about 1.5GW a month of solar and wind combined, so over a year the equivalent of a dozen average large scale NPPs.
Even accounting for the availability problem, aka capacity factor (wind ~0.3-0.5, solar .25), that's the equivalent of four NPPs a year. The rest? Can easily be covered with a combination of hydro, geothermal, massive grids and dynamic load management (both on the demand side aka load shedding and on the source side aka powerwalls with feedback capability).
Morw of that, some storage, bio gas and hydrogen peaker plants, geo thermal and renewables and we are good to go.
JFC. I get why this is profitable, these machines have been written off financially a century ago and have been money printers ever since for that reason, but this kind of behavior should be seriously penalized - it makes competition for new companies really hard (because they have to pay down the value for new machines), and it's bad for the environment as a whole because if they're still running the same motors and control units from back then, then they are wasting a lot of electricity, most likely also emit a lot more toxic effluents than a plant with modern emission controls and mitigations would, and most likely run at lower yield rates than modern processes so they're wasting more raw materials.
I root for them to succeed. I do love renewables. But I know that in my country at least the waiting time today for panel purchase, installation and grid connection is over a year. However they are subsidized by the state so that adds time and bureaucracy.
The rest… I have my doubts: it’s all ideas but little reality. We’ll see in about 5 years time, I guess.
Nobody, I repeat nobody, is financing new nuclear reactors in the developed world (except specialized and military applications). The money goes, for quote a while now, into renewables and, sadly, some coal plants (which is mainly due to CO2 certificates being too dirt cheap, and making coal plants financially viable). The free market and financials decided against nuclear, as did politics in a lot of countries.
One thing you do ignore so, getting new nuclear reactors up and running takes decades in Europe, there is no such thing as a fast built out. Not even if the public and political will would be there, which it isn't. All we do achieve with argueing for new nuclear capacity is slowing the build out of wind and solar down and slow development of grid scale storage tech.
The technology used to make solar panels is the same used for semiconductors. It evolved al Moore's law speed thanks to an unregulated free market for the tech industry. Same reason we enjoy a cheap supercomputer in every pocket in 2023 instead of the city’s Eniac. That’s what lack of regulation does.
What German guvernamental subsidies did was to build a lot of Solar capacity in a country with relatively little sun. I hope it works out for them, but I remember earlier this year importing nuclear electricity from France.
And I remember france hat to partially shut down their reactors in the summer, because the rivers were too warm to cool them.
I'm just trying to fully understand the position here. How do you mean "free market"? Because it seems a disproportionate amount of nuclear cost is driven by regulation. I'm not even saying that unwarranted, but it certainly seems to be very different from the colloquial definition of a "free market".
Regulation, I might remind you, that was written by staunchly pro-nuclear organizations.
Also, just necause you have regulations doesn't mean you don't have a free market. Hence, there is a free market for nuclear electricity. Thing is, nobody wants to finance new projects (with the exception of developing countries, but those have a lot of catching up to do).
One cost nuclear power plants do not have to carry is insurance against large accidents. No insurance comoany would take on said risk, hence the state is carrying that risk. Soubds to me like a huge cost factor is taken off from nuclear power plant operators here (just to pick one example).
As said elsewhere, I'm all for keeping existing NPPs running as long as safely possible (which was the reason Germany had to shut down a couple), and shut down coal plants instead. Building new NPPs takes too long to be a viable solution, and is too expensive (and hence the lack of fubding for new ones).
So while there's a lot to discuss about the relative costs of nuclear, claiming they are the result of a free market doesn't really hold water.
I'm not convinced.
I'm expecting the automotive industry will just start producing vehicles that aren't effected by that requirement and those will be marketed in much the same way as SUVs have become pretty much the only vehicle type available because they're permitted to emmit more CO2.
We have a ton of these people in Germany. "Technologieoffen" they call themselves - the reality is that they want to keep the old structure of big utilities and massive profits for shareholders alive.
> Renewables are great. We all love them. It's just that they are not here just yet, not 24h/day 265days/year anyway. They need a complement.
That's what a grid is for. Build a national grid with serious transfer capacities (China can do it over 1000s of km's, so the US can just as well if it wanted), and suddenly you can use East Coast solar to power the West Coast. Or here in Europe, with French and Portuguese offshore wind and solar from Northern Africa. On top of that, incentivise large consumers (data centers, heavy industry) to upgrade their processes to be able to handle dynamic load shedding, and invest into powerful gas and hydrogen fuel cell based peaker plants to cover for the very small amount in a year where neither solar, wind nor dammed hydro is enough to supply the entire country.
The serious issue with nuclear is that they cost billions of dollars to build. At the moment, in Germany 44% of the total power is generated using renewables [1], in peak times (i.e. summer) renewables account for up to 70% of the month's load [2]. The investment for NPPs can't ever be recouped at that point, which is why even small scale projects such as NuScale got the boot [3]. No matter what the pro-nuclear crowd hopes, the free market has decided against it.
[1] https://www.bundesregierung.de/breg-de/schwerpunkte/klimasch...
[2] https://www.focus.de/earth/news/knapp-70-prozent-unbemerkt-f...
[3] https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/nuscale-power-uamps-...
I know about your suggestions and while they are all good ideas I just don’t see them widely implemented in reality for some reason. Maybe because they all require government intervention which is slow, expensive and prone to corruption from the fossil fuel lobby.
Meanwhile the non-renewable part of energy generation is made burning coal, gas and oil and spewing pollution and even radioactive particles in the air, pollution that kills millions every year. Also spewing CO2 causing climate change, e civilization-ending danger getting closer and harder to avoid.
Maybe nuclear deserves a second chance?
[0] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-p...
On electricity markets, which in Europe only take variable coats into account, the ranking, cheapest to most expensive, is: wind and solar, hydro, coal, nuclear and oil followed by gas. So even there, in hard cold numbers, nuclear looses. Even without taking the huge fix costs of nuclear plants into account, or the long term coats like waste storage.
Why do you think even small, and potentially cheaper, reactor projects get axed?
And for good reason. There is no power generation that has a potential for serious damage compared to nuclear. The cost of Chernobyl was at least 235 billion dollars [1], Fukushima is estimated to end up at around 200 billion dollars [2]. The only other kind of power generation that can destroy entire swaths of land in a single strike is dammed hydro, but even the largest catastrophe to date, the Kakhovka dam destruction in Ukraine, cost only 14 billion dollars [3] - and it didn't render the affected land permanently uninhabitable and only cost the lives of about 50 people, compared to Chernobyl's death toll.
It's utter madness to risk this much money and this much destruction when there are so many different ways of getting power. Nuclear power may be the cheapest per kWh on paper, but that is only because the worst-case risk is implicitly assumed by the government without accounting for it in insurance premiums - at least the major Western countries limit operator exposure to liability claims to a fraction of the potential cost [4]. This is beyond unsustainable, it's financial russian roulette.
We will not be able to live entirely without NPPs, I agree on that one, as we need them to create Co-60 for radiotherapy sources and the nuclear weapon powers to get new feedstock to maintain the warheads, but we should try as a species to get rid of nuclear weapons anyway and only keep the minimum we need for radiotherapy and fundamental research.
[1] https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/article/chernobyl...
[2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK253929/
[3] https://www.voanews.com/a/un-reports-staggering-14-billion-c...
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_nuclear_power_pla...
Of course there is. Good old oil, coal and gas burning. Since we’re fear-mongering on potentials here, would you like to estimate the cost of a runaway green house effect that turns the whole Earth into Venus? Climate scientists are warning we may already be beyond that point of no return. And we are still putting CO2 into the atmosphere while arguing the “potential” dangers of nuclear!
We're building renewable generation capacity at a far greater speed (as said, Germany alone > 1GW a month...) than we ever could using nuclear power. This in turn enables us to shift residential and commercial heating to heat pumps - even assuming a gas power plant, 1 kWh of electric power replaces 4 kWh of heat power.
Till then - you’re selling pretty dreams, while in reality killing people and dooming the planet.
[0] https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/germany-approves-bri...
1) the public cannot see
2) lacks the skills to properly independently evaluate the scope of (99% of the public doesn’t own a Geiger counter, and 99.9% would be unable to quantify risks even if they did)
3) is potentially lethal
And the authorities the are supposed to be able to do #1 and #2 are caught repeatedly and obviously lying about the hazard.
It’s perfectly rational for people to get ‘irrationally’ scared. All they know is the folks who are supposed to be protecting them from this actual threat are not credible! And there is an actual threat (probably)!
Yes, I spent some time today reading official reports on Chernobyl, again. Hell, even the Soviet reports are damning for their own nuclear industry, calling out organizations, people and structural defficiencies. As is the IAEA. And none of those groups can even remotely be accussed of being anti-nuclear.
Maybe there needs to be another criteria. Something like, "when the hazard comes with a scary label"?
Coal fires are pretty obvious.
Acid rain is pretty obvious (and easy to measure with ph strips, which are easy to find).
Nasty smog is pretty obvious.
Plumes of gunk from smoke stacks are obvious.
Now, co2 and fine particulate contamination (like say radioactive contamination from ash), yes. Those take decades to be noticable (if at all). There have been big issues because of it, statistically. But those are not well known/accepted either by the public. And certainly not the most common 'acute' problems.
Something like a release of radiation from a nuclear power plant can (and usually is), completely invisible. As is things like ingesting fallout. It usually kills years or decades later.
If you can see radiation, you're pretty much a dead man walking already.
A reactor melting down is a sudden acute incident that can release massive amounts of completely invisible radioactive elements that won't kill anyone for decades - or in weeks/months, if really bad.
By the time something has obviously gone wrong from the outside (like the core blowing up in Chernobyl, or the reactor building blowing up due to Hydrogen explosion in Fukushima), massive releases are essentially guaranteed. But still usually invisible. Cherenkov radiation 'sky beam' from chernobyl excepted. [https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1142309/Chernobyl-dis...]
And with a little avoidance, a lethal dose might be easy to not have! If you have good data. Without good data, it's a crap shoot though.
And the idea that there is a risk we can't detect is silly, we radiation is easy to detect. The issue is we can't detect a threat because there appears not to be one. The risks aren't quantified because the threshold for a paniced response has been set far too low, so there is panic without a problem. And the population doesn't own Geiger counters because they are canny with their money and they don't have a reason to own one. If there was a risk, it'd be easy to make measuring devices generally available. You can buy one for less than $100.
My ‘yes’ was for long term, persistent exposure. Not an acute accident.
Panic tends to happen in acute accidents because people don’t have time to prepare or do any of those things you’re talking about.
When the folks who are in charge during a crisis are clearly either incompetent or lying, and it’s one of those acute situations where people don’t have time to get all those things, that’s when it’s perfectly rational to be ‘irrationally worried’.
When there is a history of that kind of thing happening, that’s when it’s perfectly rational to be ‘irrationally worried’ long term.
The health effects on the population at large are also significant, but largely invisible. Radiation? Also measurable, but largely invisible.
But often the same people who are fine with coal will tell me how terrible three mile island was and that it is evidence that we shouldn't expand nuclear.
Radiation is somehow scarier.
No one who mined coal - ever - was unclear on how bad for them it was. Even long before we had x-rays or modern medical anything.
Mining uranium kills people in ways that aren’t so obvious, and in proportions that didn’t make any sense even based on radiation models.
It turns out radon gets easily carried in on dust, and miners were getting 300x the radiation exposure that their Geiger counters or dosimeters showed was possible.
They also were ingesting/breathing in trace amounts of things like Polonium, which also weren’t showing up.
Radiation is scarier because it’s not obvious when it’s there, or how bad it’s going to be for someone until way after it’s too late. And it’s hard to figure out - like you really need a solid physics degree AND a medical degree to understand becquerels (or curies) vs rads vs rem, and what that actually means for a random human somewhere in a mine.
The unknown is always scarier.
Coal dust is not confusing anyone, and requires zero degrees to understand how shitty it is to breath.
While the precise mechanism by which the #4 reactor in Chernobyl was destroyed in 1986 was rooted in the flawed design combined with unsafe operation, this does not mean that other reactor designs cannot fail catastrophically with loss of containment and release of radioactive material. Particularly when operated outside of their specification through operator error, accidents or a combination thereof.
Any reactor can fail and any can be operated safely. The reactivity coefficients of RBMK made it harder to control, perhaps, than a PWR. Modifications made after the Chernobyl accident have improved this.
The main issue with Chernobyl 4 was its lack of a containment building. Even so, the response was an over-reaction that made the situation worse.
Not sure which response to the accident was an over-reaction in your opinion so.
Edit: That should be the one https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/Pub913e_web.p...
You also have this one: https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML0716/ML071690245.pdf
Edit 2:
What with regards to the effect of graphite tipped control rods was, IMHO, as bad as having a dramatic KGB effort to keep it secret: it was forgotten. In 1983, there was an incident in an other RBMK reactor, the HBO series claims the KGB kept it secret, in reality this happened (from the INSAG-7 report and the cited USSR investigative reports):
>> The SCSSINP Commission (Annex I, Section 1-3.8) reports that, after discov- ery of the positive scram effect at Ignalina in 1983, the chief engineering organiza- tion informed other organizations and all nuclear power plants with RBMK reactors that it intended to impose restrictions on the complete withdrawal of control and safety rods from the core. Such restrictions were never imposed and apparently the matter was forgotten.
That means in the fact it coupd explode was known, but ignored. Ignored by everyone in the Soviet scientific establishment and nuclear authorities. I don't what's worse, a secret police intervention or a whole science and industry community ignoring safety concerns until it is too late.
“Whole .. community” is a stretch here.
Keep in mind that information spread is different in ussr. Kgb had people recruited from all over the place (from factory workers to politicians; 0.1% of population were in kgb). Also, lot of institutions had party representative present (officially, not hidden).
Press did not report accidents or significantly under-report casualties, and of course various good metrics were inflated a lot, even to comical levels.
In this environment, somebody using his influence in kgb or party to stop certain restrictions (because they would point to design flaw and would delay stuff) is very believable, and probably common.
Conspiracy in ussr != conspiracy in us.
The KGB blocking the refit of the RBMK fleet is a myth from HBOs Chernobyl series. Truth is rather different, Legasov was seen by the younger generation as part of the establishment that held back modifications, while he simultaniously managed to piss off said establishment. And without support from the rank and file, and some enemies with the higher ups, his career was shot. Compounded by serious health issues following the Chernobyl clean up. Less dramatic than a KBG conspiracy for sure, but still bad enough.
In the end the operators of Chernobyl No. 4 were the fucked ones, their procedures were incomplete, sometimes dangerously wrong. Leadership, incl. Dyatlov, failed to put a safety culture in place. The reactor design was not well understood, operating characteristics at below 50% capacity were never even analyzed or modelled, and inheretly unsafe (missing sensors, bad control rod design and operating procedures...). And the night shift wasn't even briefed on the test to be conducted.
One of the conclusions of INSAG-7 was, that the accident could even have happened with properly designed control rods, coolant failure could have led to the same accident. If your equipment is so inherently unstable and fragile, operating procedure, training and operators have to compensate. None of those measures was taken.
Heck, in some circunstances RBMK operators had to conduct up to 1,000 manual operations per hour (!) to keep the reactor stable. And by the way, the RBMK design didn't even meet Soviet design and safety requirements applicable in 70s when those reactors were designed.
A complete clusterfuck. The circumstances allowing said clusterfuck still exist everywhere, in all countries, industries and organisations to this day.
It took years to find that out though.
The containment vessel held, and most of the radiation released was in the form of xenon and krypton gas vented from the reactor.
“ It was later found that about half the core had melted, and the cladding around 90% of the fuel rods had failed,[21][76] with 5 ft (1.5 m) of the core gone, and around 20 short tons (18 t) of uranium flowing to the bottom head of the pressure vessel, forming a mass of corium.[77] The reactor vessel—the second level of containment after the cladding—maintained integrity and contained the damaged fuel with nearly all of the radioactive isotopes in the core.”
Definitely not Chernobyl, but it was a significant amount of damage to the reactor. It was totaled.
Many of the "small modular reactor" schemes say they don't need a big, strong, expensive containment vessel because, reasons. You can read those arguments for NuScale in NRC documents. The prototype was going to be built at the Idaho National Laboratory, formerly the National Reactor Testing Station, which is in outer nowhere, just in case.
[https://www.newequipment.com/plant-operations/article/219218...]
No, sadly.
PWR's sure can explode (due to hydrogen, vapor...).
The root causes will not be identical to Chernobyl's causes, and the containment will probably limit leaks for a while (theoretically at least a few days), but they sure can explode.
It also happened at Fukushima.
Some protective measures are PACs and containment, however nothing can guarantee that an explosion won't happen, nor that dangerous radionuclides won't leak outside the plant.
PAC: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_autocatalytic_recombin...
Containment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Containment_building
So if it had killed ~6000 people it would be within the accepted norms of the energy industry for anything that isn't nuclear.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-p...
While it harmed the public perception of nuclear, it was really the cost that slowed down investments in US nuclear which then had knock on effects long term. The best way to think about it is power companies had other investments they could make that had less risks even if they had lower returns. Thus the cost is balanced not vs 0 returns but in comparison to the added benefit from nuclear.
Fewer investments meant losing knowledge of how to build the things which further reduced nuclear’s advantages. Until today when nuclear just can’t compete successfully and anyone that tries sees vast cost overruns.
Any enterprise needs to be sufficiently safe as a complete shit show, because it will happen.
His overall strategy at GE was to shift it from it's traditional roles in heavy industry to instead focus on finance and real estate. This worked temporarily as the company rode the real estate bubble. When the bubble pop'd the company lost half its value.
In other words, don't evaluate his statements on nuclear without context or critical thought.
They had a relatively larger fall from grace in the recession than the rest of the index.
In any case, even if he was a terrible executive what does that have to do with whether he was correct about general trends in the nuclear industry?
I'm saying he had a larger agenda at the time that comment was made, one that had him divesting not just from nuclear but many other of GE's historic heavy industry and power related business lines.
How so? Don't you agree with it?
DUBNER: Let me ask you this: in 1999, not long before you retired from G.E., you said that your ultimate success would be determined by how well your successor grows the company over the next 20 years. When you said that, G.E.’s market cap was up north of $450 billion. Now it’s almost 20 years later, it’s just north of $200 billion. So talk to me about that. I know that you —
WELCH: I don’t talk about that.
Now maybe Welch doesn't want to seem like he's bad-mouthing the performance of those who came after him, but he does have at least some responsibility for ensuring a good continuity of leadership.
https://freakonomics.com/podcast/extra-jack-welch-full-inter...
You’re super excited and all I see is super excited for poor people who can’t move towns getting cancer, while misdirecting toward 3-Mile.
There’s no reason we can’t have safe nuclear power but we won’t get there if past wrongs aren’t fixed, and it seems like everyone is focusing on the wrong things.
If you are talking about Rocky Flats, wasn't that related to nuclear weapons production? It's plutonium, not uranium.
We have safe nuclear reactors, today. What we need to do is build more, with newer designs, and retire those that are past the end of their lifetime.
Most importantly, this discussion doesn't even make sense when we have coal plants spewing all sorts of terrible stuff in the atmosphere, including radiation.
One of the contentions of the movie is that nuclear weapons and nuclear energy production are inextricably linked in the US. I felt it made a decent argument that "there is no clean coal" but for nuclear energy as well, because of this historical link.
When did Chernobyl break ground? 1972, operated by lying soviet bureaucrats.
When Fukushima Daiichi break ground? 1967
When did Three Mile island break ground? 1968
There have been a half-dozen whole generations of nuclear reactor developed since then, drastic reductions in the amount of waste they generate through advancements in nuclear chemistry, and now a whole new paradigm of SMRs.
All in pursuit of greater safety from a bogyman that is nothing but an echo of the past. It's like the Mill architecture people, still trying to design a CPU to beat the itanic when the rest of processor design has moved on.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_One
A lot of Germany's gas storage facilities were owned by Russian companies, or rather Germans subsidiaries of Russian companies. As soon as the war in Ukraine hit, those have been quickly nationalized. What makes you think US uranium mines would be any different? Or that there are now export restrictions forburanium in the first place?
If you're like me, you read this sentence and thought: "hey, wasn't that canceled last week?"
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38199061
But apparently that was NuScale's reactor that was canceled, while TerraPower is still going, which may have something to do with the exceptional wealth of its founder:
https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/bill-gates-future-nuclear-...
And they seem to have found a way to get even more billionaire bucks:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jun/03/bill-gates-w...
There's a "hero we deserve" meme hiding in here somewhere...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_the_United_St...
Now, in comparison, a 1 GW coal-fired power plant needs to be fed with 3-4 million tons of coal per year (energy content of coal varies a bit, in relation to oxygen-based combustion at least).
And, a 1 GW reliable 24/7 solar/wind/storage system needs how many tons per year? (OK battery replacement is an issue... work it out yourself).
Don't forget that only the high density fuel needs to be shipped long distance as well...
For a fully reliable 1gw of wind, that's something like 600 turbines (to simply), each turbine lasts about 20 years, and weighs about 200 tonnes. So about 5000 tonnes of finished wind turbine a year, with an equivalent waste stream.
Simon Michaux has already done this. It's worth a read through his reports [0].
Also, it's quite possible to reprocess spent fuel. France has been doing it for decades. [1] The price has not been enough to justify it, but eventually it will (or if other costs are imposed, like a tax on the mineral rights that would favor reprocessing fuel).
[0] https://www.simonmichaux.com/gtk-reports [1] https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/frances-efficiency-in-t...
It's so ridiculous to think that human civilization would collapse just because we will eventually run out of stuff to dig out of the ground and burn, when the biosphere has been humming along on sunlight for about three billion years. Why is this so hard to explain to people?
(Also, on paper one doesn't need any grid storage, if only we could get governments to cope rates on a planetary grid. Texas doing it's own thing and Japan having two frequency zones shows how hard this would be in practice, but in principle it can work just fine).
The total sunlight that hits the Earth in 2 minutes is more than whats needed to power the entire world for a year.
Wasn't that the SuperPhoenix and Astrid reactors? I thought both had been cancelled because of politics?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superphénix
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASTRID_(reactor)
Reprocessing is another thing entirely. It relies on the fact that used nuclear fuel is mainly not reusable due to accumulation of neutron poisons. In reprocessing, these poisons are removed so that the rest of the fuel can be reused. This too has many practical challenges as you end up with liquid radioactive materials and a lot of it is waste. So far it has proven more practical than breeders, though. Perhaps that is because the same processes can be used to extract materials for nuclear weapons.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOX_fuel
Thanks for arguing in such bad faith by default. But let's just say there are other ways of storing energy that don't need huge amounts of processed lithium.
Have you perhaps heard of "muh pumped hydro", "muh flow batteries", "muh hydrogen", and the myriad of other less mature storage technologies currently being developed?
The point is that there are many ways to store energy. The fact that there isn't enough lithium or not enough hydro sites doesn't change much.
Local factories etc. might see a need/use for hydrogen production (Swedish Hybrit comes to mind) but as a national grid stabilizer.. I'm doubtful
Fucking mong.
Even if you go with "muh flow batteries" or "muh hydrogen", we would require far more land with wind/solar to fill up those storage technologies than just use nuclear plants.
Even if I were to concede that covering every last surface with solar cells is a good idea (or what to do when recycling them), this doesn't take into account the enormous amount of energy currently used to make process heat. Neither wind nor solar are able to generate the hundreds of degrees necessary for so many chemical and manufacturing processes.
Don't let yourself get bamboozled by shiny futuristic graphics of storage or generation solutions without at least doing some basic napkin math about feasibility.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dam_failure#List_of_major_dam_... [1] https://ambri.com/
You can find a full table, distribution maps, guesstimates for known but as yet untested deposits, etc in the big Red Book of Uranium stuff (free to download):
https://www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_28569/uranium-resources-pro...
> a 1 GW reliable 24/7 solar/wind/storage system needs how many tons per year?
Currently panels drop to 80% efficacy after 10 years and are doorstops in 20 - replacement | recovery is an ongoing process and that currently requires raw materials that come with a cost - including slave labour.
https://blog.ucsusa.org/charlie-hoffs/mining-raw-materials-f...
There are no magic problem free resources.
Yes, investors in the uranium fuel rod production pipeline will feel a lot of pain as a result of what's going on right now, but it's not like they weren't warned. Like Theranos investors, they failed to do their due diligence.
[edit] Just to add, the metric you want is ENERGY not $US, because what really matters is the amount of energy you have to put into mining the ore, extracting the uranium from the ore, enriching the uranium-235 in the ore to the point where it's useful in a nuclear reactor, and then packaging that refined product into highly expensive fuel rods made of fairly expensive materials. By the time you do that energy calculation, per-year, for the reactor (on top of ridiculously high initial construction costs), the whole thing looks like a massive long-term liability.
They're not especially robust in cold weather and while they do last longer, they do also degrade in output over time just as the poly versions do.
To maintain a 1 GW farm requires ongoing upkeep, etc.
Again, there are no magic problem free resources, just like low volume uranium mining, large volume mining and production processing to sustain solar power has toxic side effects and impacts people.
It's not even close, with some limited exceptions, like Finland and other Artic Circle zones.
Oh come on. This is an absurd claim with no evidence. Don't be ridiculous.
Polycrystalline panels last 20 years, sometimes longer (the sales pitch is "up to 25 years") but the 20% fall off in deliverable power after 10 years is real.
Monocrystalline last longer, they also gradually fall off and they cost more.
Now it's a game of Backblaze storage stats only with solar panels - how does an at scale solar farm balance purchase costs and maintainance costs, where's the optimal sweet spot for buying new and rotating out on a schedule | reacting to failure.
I'm not opposed to solar, I'm in Australia in one of the states with large amounts of residential solar and heavy mining industries that dwarf anything in the US currently going electric - we're costing out massive farms to run solar power to asia via HVDC cable.
The supply side of all that is sourcing the copper, the lithium, the aluminium framing, the long list of other raw material inputs, the processing to get from concentrate ores to usable elements, etc.
If it's real, why don't you provide evidence?
Unfortunately this is par for the course in discussions with nuclear power cultists. It honestly is that bad.
Because I went to bed, it was late in my time zone.
> nuclear power cultists.
Say what now? Are you an idiot?
The vast bulk of PV performance studies are dominated by relatively short term studies in temperate climates - the latitudes of California and Germany eg:
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy12osti/51664.pdf
references Australia and links to papers from Perth and Melbourne which are cooler climates.
See my comment above re: my region of interest - equatorial tropical regions with harhser temperature cycling and probable requirements for cooling to maximise returns (still part of an open study).
I'd be happy to provide more details but I'm afraid your comment above doesn't warrent engagement.
Your numbers seem off by atleast a facotor of 2. Average degradation is .5% per year so panels are guarantees are usually that you'll have 90% capacity after 10 years and 80% after 20 years.
> Now it's a game of Backblaze storage stats only with solar panels - how does an at scale solar farm balance purchase costs and maintainance costs,
The failure mode for solar is unlike traditional spinning hard drives. There isn't a "data loss" downside to waiting to replace. There won't be any risk mitigation, just calculations of when the opportunity costs become high enough to warrant replacement. I suspect in areas with cheap land, it'll be easier to build additional capacity than to replace existing degraded panels.
The optimisation issues include other factors, the cost of panel cooling techniques Vs their benefits for one.
Your average degradation figures are the figures from big meta studies such as the US Dept of Energy NREL lab Photovoltaic Degradation Rates https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy12osti/51664.pdf which you'll notice is dominated by temperate climate studies at the latitudes of Perth | Melbourne | Germany | Arcata, California etc.
Perhaps you should qualify your statements, because this:
> Currently panels drop to 80% efficacy after 10 years and are doorstops in 20
This is an unqualified factual statement and is simply not true.
> Your average degradation figures are the figures from big meta studies
The big meta studies do show that degradation is a bit faster in higher temp environments for some kinds of panels. There is however zero evidence that solar panels will be "door stops in 20".
If you're building a large area solar farm to ship power to Singapore would you keep a panel after 20 years or door stop it?
What if the peak power output for particular climatic conditions comes from lesser used cheaper PV types that degrade faster than common ones at temperate latitudes?
The people studying this are coming at this with mindset of those that move 800 million tonne of iron ore per annum.
My original comment was framed to indicate the interest was hyper efficient at scale deployment in specific environments .. not running a beer fridge in Melbourne.
No, it wasn't. If that was your intent, you should go reread it to see why everyone else sees you making a clearly false claim that does not contribute to the discussion.
> If you're building a large area solar farm to ship power to Singapore would you keep a panel after 20 years or door stop it?
That's gonna depend on land value, non-panel infrastructure costs and replacement costs. If replacement costs are high then and land value and other infrastructure costs are low, then solar farms will be expanded and replacement will be delayed. If the opposite then you'll see existing panels replaced sooner.
I do expect that in a couple of decades we will see solar panel reconditioning and recycling becoming increasingly important.
Regarding slave labour, I might have bad news for you: Not a single product you use in your lofe is free of exploitation, child labor or slave labor. Not a single one, from the clothes you wear to the food you eat.
This wasn't true when I manufactured them almost a decade ago. We were offering 30 year warranties with only 15% drop after 30 years - polycrystalline 20% efficiency.
Eg: https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/3-advanced-reactor-system...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disa...
Solar = 0.0!
Why don't we abolish the Price–Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act and see how far nuclear gets when having to pay the true cost for their insurance?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear...
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_reaction_to_Fukushima...
Stop spreading disinformation please.
1: https://www.statista.com/statistics/494425/death-rate-worldw...
But there's still no solution for safely storing or disposing of nuclear waste, so all those power plants currently have a stockpile of spent fuel rods, which is a huge risk imo. But everyone's like "not in my backyard", even though the backyard is a deep cave in a mountain or down in the earth where the stuff will be put in lead and reinforced concrete, the cave sealed off or collapsed, forgotten by time and where it will remain dormant and slowly go inert over the next geological era.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_r...
There is, we know what it is, but no one wants to pay for it - it's called deep borehole storage. You basically put your fuel in cylinders, dig boreholes few miles deep, put all the waste at the bottom, done. It's not coming back ever, it doesn't pose any danger to anything or anyone on anything other than geological timescales(and if the geology starts pushing stuff buried 5 miles deep to the surface you have other bigger problems to worry about).
It's estimated that "just" 800 boreholes would be enough to store all nuclear waste ever produced.
But yeah, cost is one thing, but the other is that this material then becomes truly and irreversibly irretrievable - which actually might not be desirable since we know that even spent nuclear fuel can be reprocessed to make more fuel or weapons, which is not something that countries like US would want to dismiss as a possibility.
And also - storage of spent nuclear fuel is actually a lot safer and less scary than most people think. In Netherlands they literally made a museum out of their spent fuel storage facility, you can walk in between the casks that hold material radioactive enough to kill you in minutes, it's that safe.
On the specific topic of reprocessing though. Reprocessing achieves 2 things: 1. it can extract usable fissile fuel from spent fuel, and 2. it can reduce the amount of long lived radioactive waste, by a factor of 30. Point 1 can be further split in 1.a. usable fuel for the current generation reactors and 1.b. usable fuel for future, fast reactors (U-238).
1.a. Per wikipedia [1]
In other words, all this reprocessing can reduce overall the total volume of uranium mined and spent fuel by 20%. That's not a game changer, and it certainly does not come for free.1.b. reprocessing in order to extract U-238 for fast reactors. That's a nice concept, but if we ever build fast reactors that can burn U-238 (fingers crossed), we already have a huge stockpile of depleted uranium. The US alone has more than half a million tons, and the rest of the world at least as much. That's enough to keep the lights on in the entire world for hundreds of years.
2. reprocessing in order to reduce the waste. That makes sense. But burying the waste is probably cheaper. We have already buried hundreds of thousands of tons of waste at WIPP. We know it works and it is safe. We know we will need to eventually bury some waste, even if its 30 times lower. If we, as a society, agree to open some deep geological repositories for nuclear waste, then it doesn't make all that much of a difference if we bury 10000 tons or a million tons.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOX_fuel
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waste_Isolation_Pilot_Plant
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BN-1200_reactor
In early 2012, Rosatom's Science and Technology Council approved the construction of a BN-1200 reactor at the Beloyarsk Nuclear Power Station. Technical design was scheduled for completion by 2013, and manufacture of equipment would start in 2014. Construction would begin in 2015 with first fuel loads in 2017 and full commercial operation as early as 2020.
...
In 2015, after several minor delays, problems at the recently completed BN-800 indicated a redesign of the fuel was needed. Construction of the BN-1200 was put on "indefinite hold", and Rosenergoatom stated that no decision to continue would be made before 2019. In January 2022, Rosatom announced that a pilot BN-1200M would be built by 2035.
It isn't a huge risk. The really hot stuff decays quickly and that can happen next to the power plants no problem. What you end up left with is far less energetic and is self-contained – look up dry casks. You can stand next to them no problem and they are incredibly sturdy.
That's ignoring reprocessing. If it is radioactive enough to cause serious harm long term, it is radioactive enough to still use as fuel. There are reactor designs that can re-use them.
Honestly, I would rather have some dry casks stored at Yucca Mountain than breathing coal dust (that's often radioactive).
Ok, strange flex but this about what I have come to expect from this “debate”.
> A nuclear power plant is essentially a thermal plant plus the nuclear part so how would it be cheaper than a coal plant?
Fuel costs?
So the whole argument for economics of scale doesn't work, thermal power plants have not reduced dramatically in price over the last decades despite lots of them being build. Half of your plant not really reducing much in price, will limit the benefits you can get even if the other half sees massive cost reductions.
Ok, but surely the only cost that matters is the lifetime cost? (Including whatever cleanup is needed for both nuclear and whichever fossil and/or renewable+storage combination it is compared against).
> Half of your plant not really reducing much in price, will limit the benefits you can get even if the other half sees massive cost reductions.
Sure, absolutely. But coal is pretty expensive over the course of a year, so it can look like a good opportunity (if only for the reality hadn't turned out so fragile and, when it goes wrong, severe).
Maybe there is 20% too many regulations. That could be the case. But having 20% too many regulations is far preferable than 20% too few.
Even if you are staunchly pro-nuclear you should want regulations that reduces the chance for even a minor accident to almost exactly 0%, because even a minor accident will cause fear that’ll set nuclear back by two decades. Maybe that fear is irrational. Tough luck. Humans are irrational. Most of them would rather be slowly poisoned by coal and die a couple years early, than living with the thought of maybe having to suddenly have to abandon their home and established life like in Fukushima.
The problem is when that extra 20% regulation makes the technology so expensive the world chooses to keep burning coal, oil and gas thus poisoning and killing millions through pollution and endangering life on the entire planet through Climate Change.
Right now nuclear is so frozen and so useful that I'd take the change of a (PR) disaster and (slowly, carefully, partially) deregulate: it can't get much worse than already is.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/11/14/wind-farm-or...
If off-shore wind companies are struggling then nuclear projects are deep deep in the red.
Nuclear get subsidies in term of research, building, deconstruction, waste storage and price guaranties. Around 70% goes to the single fusion research project called ITER (international research, non-military).
Hydro receives an increasing amount of subsidies for repair and modernization. Dam repair and flooding protection is expensive and with climate change there is even bigger need for fixing Europe old hydro power dams. They are also in general non-compliant with the European environmental regulations (several species are going extinct), but that is not a subsidies issues directly. Fixing the dams so they allow for fish to pass is however a subsidies issue, but as far the budget to fix that has yet to be allocated and the costs are estimated to be exceedingly high.
And last we have fossil fuel subsidies. A large portion of the "reserve energy" plan in eu in order to address increased gird variability is based on keeping a large number of fossil fuel plants on stand-by, paid through subsidies. Then there is subsidies on extracting the fuel itself, subsidies on trading fuel, and subsidies on storage of the fuel, and transportation of the fuel. This is not accounting for the environmental cost from burning fossil fuels, which some see as a form of subsidies.
Subsidies-like part not included are insurance against nuclear accidents, insurance against floods from dam failures, and insurance against forest fires. It is also not accounting for land usage nor damage to wildlife.
So we should cut off subsidies agreed on 10 years ago during renewables learning curve to make it even? The renewable subsidies for new builds today are miniscule in Europe, which is what we are making the decisions based on.
How many Hinkley Point Cs costing ~€0.15/kWh to the consumers, very similar to energy crisis prices, should we fund just so you can stop complaining about past history for renewables?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_...
To put down to facts, Europe paid 172 billions in 2021 on energy subsidies. This is 54% increase since 2015. 76 billions went to renewables. Between 2019 and 2020 the amount going to renewables increased by 7%, while between 2020 and 2021 it decreased by 3%. The second largest recipient of subsidies was fossil fuel energy with 50 billions. Subsidies for nuclear has remain mostly stable since 2015, sitting at around 4 billions, but with Germany closing several plants last year it has now increased to 7 billions. (The report do not consider R&D to be subsidies, so ITER is not included).
We should not try to make things "even". We should cut fossil fuel subsidies and decommission the fossil fuel plants that operate as reserve energy. The cost of high variability in the grid should not be carried through tax money. Market forces can't be applied correctly when taxes are being funneled to fix a problem caused by using high variability energy production.
Subsidies to renewables are slowly being reduced. It is no longer a given that grid connections will be given out for free and paid by taxes. Both nuclear and renewables should also carry their own weight and not have price guaranties. Companies that need those should have the cost baked into the energy price.
A solution that is acknowledged by the European report but often overlooked is energy usage reduction and increased efficiencies.
The report for those wanted to read it: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELE...
Lets also remove the Price–Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act [2] with equivalents across the world so the nuclear industry has to bear the true insurance cost.
[1]: https://www.lazard.com/research-insights/levelized-cost-of-e...
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear...
How expensive is a resounding "No" by insurers?
I would not be completely against demanding that all commercial activity in the energy sector must cover every negative effect on society and the environment. It would in effect ban all fossil fuel, nuclear, and hydro. Would be a fair price to pay for getting rid of fossil fuels.
According to the IEA: "EU electricity consumers are expected to save an estimated EUR 100 billion during 2021-2023 thanks to additional electricity generation from newly installed solar PV and wind capacity"
https://www.iea.org/reports/renewable-energy-market-update-j...
To me that really highlighted the naivety of many environmental activists. They mean well and we need them, but they so often fail to look at the problems holistically and zooms in on single issues.
I think at the end of the day it comes down to tribalism, sadly. People choose their "side" and pitch in to defend its merits and attack the other "side"'s deficiencies. As with many things, there isn't a whole lot of room left for holistic approaches.
I'm personally not a huge fan of nuclear because I'm a pragmatist, and I think most people are pragmatists at the end of the day, being human. And pragmatists don't make good operators of nuclear power plants. But I definitely don't think any existing nuclear plants should be closed. They should be (safely) continued to run as long as possible to provide the clean energy we desperately need while other safer (and often cheaper) renewables+storages ramp up.
What I really can't stand is the use of fossil fuels in the grid when there is known and effective alternatives, and it gives a bad taste in the mouth that tax money intended for grid stability is used on fossil fuels.
Not to be that guy but it sort of is. Comparing nuclear power to renewables is a lot like comparing a truck to an electric scooter. Sure, both can transport you to your destination and both work equally well in many scenarios, maybe the scooter even has advantages in some places but when it comes to handling the entirety of possible scenarios the truck is the clear choice. That doesn't mean you can't have a truck and a scooter and use each where appropriate, it's just that you'll probably use the truck a lot more.
A new nuclear reactor is being built since 2007, it should have launched a new set of reactors, and this WIP is a disaster: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plan...
have you go a source for that? the parent comment seems to contradict that fact
To do so electrifying usages is key.
This in turn imply that more electricity has to be generated.
Each and every nation in the EU27 moves towards this, and France (while chanting 'my electricity is low-carbon, yay!' and neglecting that doesn't do anything about the remaining 63% of final energy consumed in France obtained by burning fossil fuels) is the red lantern: https://www.lemonde.fr/en/environment/article/2022/11/25/ren...
Final energy in France, by source: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89nergie_en_France#%C3%89n...
Nope. We have to take into account consumption-based CO₂ emissions: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/prod-cons-co2-per-capita?...
> that 63% can be easily reduced in France by introducing heatpumps and EVs
Nope, as it is only possible by generating more gridpower, and France tries to do so using nuclear since 2007... in vain as the sole and only nuclear reactor being built in France (which should have started a new batch in 2012) is the 'Flamanville-3' EPR: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plan...
> the same is not true in the UK/Germany/Poland without building metric arseloads of zero-carbon power plants.
There is no 'zero-carbon plants', only 'low-carbon plants'.
They all do so, much more efficiently than France (where electricity is already low-carbon but where the plan to pump up more nuclear is stuck) https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-electricity-low-car...
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-change-renewables?...
And we're reaping the "benefits" of the same people in the 70s campaigning against all forms of nuclear back then. So we built oil, gas, and coal power stations to meet our energy needs instead. slow applause for the activists
The road to hell and all that...
I'd love to see tons more nuclear including fuel reprocessing which the US was very resistant to for a long time due I think to proliferation concerns.
> Centrus and the Russian state-owned company Tenex, which are the only two outfits that can produce HALEU in the world
> For now, the DOE intends to purchase about 25 tonnes of HALEU per year to kick-start the industry and give HALEU producers secure contracts from which they can expand production
So in 2024 the DoE will buy 0.9T from the only American producer, and the remaining 24.1T from Russia?
The existing reactors don't use this fuel. This fuel is being ramped up for new reactors that haven't been built yet.
> 3 tablespoons of HALEU can supply a lifetime’s worth of power for the average U.S. consumer
So if I did my math right[1], 20 kg is enough for 1867 U.S. consumers for one year, and 900 kg is enough for 84,000 U.S. consumers? It's a start, I guess.
1. https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=20+kg+%2F+%28%283+table...
That’s 6,700,000 for one year. There only 16 states with populations greater than that.
IDK. Seems decent. If we wanted better we should have started 50 years ago. Although now is good too.
3 tbsp of Uranium is about 0.85 kg.
900 kg / 0.85 kg = 1060 US consumer lifetimes worth of energy.
Multiply by 79 (average lifespan) and you get 83,740 US consumer years worth of energy.
If any. NuScale was going to use this stuff. But that project was cancelled a few weeks ago. Costs too much. There are advanced reactors being talked about. Does anyone know of any that actually need this fuel right now? Maybe outside the US there are some.
(NRC: "Natural uranium is made of about 0.7 % U-235 and traditional reactor fuel is enriched to between 3% and 5% U-235." High-assay, low-enriched uranium is, per the NRC, 5% - 20% u-235. Weapons grade is around 90%.)
TerraPower (the one where Bill Gates is one of the co-founders) is also planning to use HALEU in this decade to fuel their Natrium reactor.
Not really. Most reactors in the US produce power about 90% of the time. Reducing the refueling time can increase that to 95%, but that's not going to make a big difference in the profitability of the plant.
No, NuScale's reactor will use 4.95% enriched Uranium [1].
[1] https://www.nuscalepower.com/-/media/nuscale/pdf/fact-sheets...
Why would Hungary invade Slovakia ? Because the Little War happened in 1939 ?
They are not Turkey or Russia.
> Orban's Hungary is the same as Putin's Russia
yeah except 15 times smaller and with a military that does not compare.
So it seems the only way to make Hungary invade Slovakia is to make Slovakia leave NATO. We'll see.