Debate at COP27: Nuclear Energy, Climate Friend or Foe? (youtube.com) 273
Long-time Slashdot reader gordm shares an interesting video from the United Nations Climate Change Conference. "At COP27, Tobias Holle (activist with Youth Strike for Climate) debated Mark Nelson (founder of Radiant Energy Fund) as to whether nuclear power can help us tackle climate change."
The event took place at the International Atomic Energy Agency's "Atoms for Climate" pavillion, where the IAEA's climate advisor presented the debate's topic as "Nuclear Energy: Climate Friend or Foe?" (and introduced the two debaters as "enthusiastic young climate champions"). The Youth Strike for Climate activist objected to commiting humanity to 1 million years of maintaining nuclear waste. But he also argued that extreme weather was creating additional security risks, that the per-kilowatt hour cost was economically prohibitive, that nuclear plants were politically unpopular — and that anyways, they take too long to build given our current climate crisis. "We need fast solutions."
The Radiant Energy founder disagreed, arguing over specific statistics and insisting that nuclear energy should be considered a low-carbon energy solution, and also safe. (He pointed out that Chernobyl's nuclear plant actually continued operating for 14 years after its 1986 nuclear accident.) Interestingly he also argued that in the Netherlands there's a museum of nuclear waste — a science museum attached to their nuclear facility — "where they don't just have the high-level waste, they have the highest part of high-level waste, the most dangerous isotopes, separated from the nuclear fuel. The most radioactive stuff — very hot for 500 years — and they have a tour where you can walk over it, and you can feel the warmth from the floor from the radioactive isotopes....
"You can absolutely manage the safe, secure, and even educational storage of the most radioactive isotopes... We know very well how to manage it."
The event took place at the International Atomic Energy Agency's "Atoms for Climate" pavillion, where the IAEA's climate advisor presented the debate's topic as "Nuclear Energy: Climate Friend or Foe?" (and introduced the two debaters as "enthusiastic young climate champions"). The Youth Strike for Climate activist objected to commiting humanity to 1 million years of maintaining nuclear waste. But he also argued that extreme weather was creating additional security risks, that the per-kilowatt hour cost was economically prohibitive, that nuclear plants were politically unpopular — and that anyways, they take too long to build given our current climate crisis. "We need fast solutions."
The Radiant Energy founder disagreed, arguing over specific statistics and insisting that nuclear energy should be considered a low-carbon energy solution, and also safe. (He pointed out that Chernobyl's nuclear plant actually continued operating for 14 years after its 1986 nuclear accident.) Interestingly he also argued that in the Netherlands there's a museum of nuclear waste — a science museum attached to their nuclear facility — "where they don't just have the high-level waste, they have the highest part of high-level waste, the most dangerous isotopes, separated from the nuclear fuel. The most radioactive stuff — very hot for 500 years — and they have a tour where you can walk over it, and you can feel the warmth from the floor from the radioactive isotopes....
"You can absolutely manage the safe, secure, and even educational storage of the most radioactive isotopes... We know very well how to manage it."
Build more! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Build more! (Score:5, Informative)
The thing about TMI many people don't realize is that they never lost containment. The reactor was severely damaged and will never operate gain, but the radiation stayed where it was supposed to.
Also, nuclear reactors have a design element specifically to prevent the "China Syndrome" scenario. The concrete plate under the reactor is shaped so that it will separate any potential molten slag from a meltdown so it doesn't continue chain reacting.
Re:Build more! (Score:4, Informative)
The thing about TMI many people don't realize is that they never lost containment.
True, but much of that was by luck. All of the safety systems failed, primarily because of human error. The brave little pump that chugged away and prevented disaster was not intended to be part of the safety system.
TMI is often used as a case study of poor system management. For instance, it was designed to be "extra safe" by setting off an alarm anytime parameters moved outside a very tight envelope, resulting in the alarms going off several times per day ... so the workers taped over the alarms to silence them. When the real emergency happened, nobody paid attention. Treating everything as an emergency is the same as treating nothing as an emergency.
TMI wasn't a disaster, but it did show that, despite assurances that the people running our nukes know what they are doing, they obviously didn't. Fukushima showed that, 32 years later, they still didn't.
Re:Build more! (Score:5, Informative)
True, but much of that was by luck. All of the safety systems failed, primarily because of human error.
This is simply wrong. The system was put in a fault state by human error, but all the safety system worked exactly as designed. Despite what the anti nuclear propaganda says there was never a chance of major meltdown, explosion or containment breach at Three Mile Island. The incident at Three Mile Island is the most over hipped incident in history.
Re: (Score:2)
all the safety system worked exactly as designed.
No, they didn't. If they worked "exactly as designed" there would have been no meltdown.
The meltdown was contained, but it should have never happened at all.
Re:Build more! (Score:4)
The safety systems worked exactly as designed. That is what the official records state and we are going to stick to what the official records state. We are not going to entertain any anti-nuclear propaganda here.
On that note, this discussion is ended on this subject. Moving on.
Re: (Score:3)
The safety systems worked exactly as designed.
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident [wikipedia.org]:
"The accident began with failures in the non-nuclear secondary system[7] followed by a stuck-open pilot-operated relief valve (PORV) in the primary system[8] that allowed large amounts of nuclear reactor coolant to escape. The mechanical failures were compounded by the initial failure of plant operators to recognize the situation as a loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA). The failure of operators is attributed to the out-of-the-loop performance proble
Re:Build more! (Score:4)
Did you even read what you quoted? Do you even have a clue what you posted. That is part of the primary and secondary operating components. The safety systems are what kicked in and shut the reactor down and no significant radiation release. In other words, the safety systems worked exactly as designed bringing the reactor to a halt.
If you are going to attempt to post anti nuclear propaganda, in the future please be aware of how a nuclear reactor actually works.
Re: (Score:2)
It was actually somewhat similar to the failures seen at Fukushima. Vital parts of the cooling system were badly designed, so that recognizing the nature of the fault and why steps to fix it were not working was difficult.
That's not how the reactor was designed to operate. Had all the right information been available and accurate, the failure would have been less severe.
It's fair to say that the containment system and other emergency features did work to prevent substantial release of radioactive material,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm pretty sure that even one Chernobyl sized radiation leak would matter quite a lot. Perhaps not in terms of climate change, but to millions of people...
That said, nuclear power does emit about 2x the CO2 per watt as wind. It's still very low, but it will need to be offset to reach net zero.
Re: (Score:2)
That said, nuclear power does emit about 2x the CO2 per watt as wind. It's still very low, but it will need to be offset to reach net zero.
Must be that "new math" they teach kids these days. Wind and nuclear energy both emit zero CO2 during their normal operation. Now, if you want to discuss how much CO2 is necessary to create wind or nuclear capacity that is a fair argument, but it's also a different argument.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not the case. For nuclear there is the entire plant to operate. Vehicles to move staff and equipment around, periodic tests of fossil fuel powered backup systems, and all the general emissions from any industrial plant with a decent size staff.
For wind turbines it's primarily transport when engineers need to visit them.
Of course there are additional emissions during manufacturing/construction and decommissioning.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh, you have a lot of expertise on this? ...Why? I mean, are you familiar with any of the oil rigs that almost killed dozens of workers but didn't? Or a hydroelectric dam that had a mishap and almost broke? Are you even familiar with the dam that actually did break and most likely killed over 100,000 people? [wikipedia.org]
Nuclear power has been providing the world with about 10% of its electricity for the last 50 years, right? That means we have a lot of experience with it, and we have a pretty good idea how safe or da
Re: (Score:2)
It is true that the safety features were disabled by operators, but there was no heroic little pump, there were the two main pumps turned back on once the operators pulled their heads out of their asses.
So an old (now ancient) design where the operators did everything wrong managed to not cause any sort of disaster.
Re: (Score:2)
Are they blancmanges?
https://www.dailymotion.com/vi... [dailymotion.com]
Re: Build more! (Score:2)
When there are idiots on all sides arguing limited perspectives, the voice that insists upon objectivity is a lonely one.
The problem with nuclear power isn't the technology, it's people - or dare I say the inept people in the "commie powerstructures" we so blithely refer to as corporations.
Let's see you address that.
"Politically unpopular and expensive" (Score:3)
...because we've spent the last 50 years trashing in an all-hands, multi generation influence operation.
Is the next word to be vandalized in the dictionary going to be "disingenuous" or what?
Re:"Politically unpopular and expensive" (Score:5, Insightful)
And it worked. When people want to fight AGW, but won't even consider nuclear as an option (natural gas is considered preferable to nuclear power for fighting AGW), there's something fundamentally wrong...
Even if we count Chernobyl, Fukushima, and TMI there have been fewer deaths and less damage done by nuclear power than are routinely done by natural gas accidents year in and year out.
And yet, we fight to avoid using nuclear power in preference to natural gas.
Re: (Score:3)
And it worked. When people want to fight AGW, but won't even consider nuclear as an option (natural gas is considered preferable to nuclear power for fighting AGW), there's something fundamentally wrong...
China is the only country currently building nuclear power on an aggressive schedule. The West OTOH, especially since the Ukraine war, is massively building out natural gas infrastructure that will be in service for many decades to come. These are the only two realistic backstops for intermittent sources for the foreseeable future.
Time will tell which is better strategically, but not hard to tell which is better for the environment. On that we fail.
Not entirely true, Japan is quite aggressive (Score:2)
China is the only country currently building nuclear power on an aggressive schedule.
Actually I would consider at least one other to be aggressive as well - Japan. Between restarts and extending plant life and plans for new plants, they have shifted into overdrive supporting more nuclear power.
France is really pro nuclear as well, just not sure you could say they were aggressive about it at the moment (though they might be soon, and are planning some new plants as is the U.S.).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Europe is installing vast amounts of wind power, but could still do a lot more. There are other renewable opportunities too, like tidal and more solar. The French recently announced a massive solar installation programme, with a nameplate capacity of 11GW.
Gas is a stopgap. The choice is between spending tens of billions per new nuclear plant, to come online in approximately 20 years, or spending a lot less to maintain some gas capacity while renewable capacity increases.
Regardless of the reasons, nuclear is
Re: (Score:2)
It should be noted, perhaps, that much of the nuclear phobia in the US was a result of a Soviet-era disinformation campaign.
Citation needed.
I could very well believe that. But I won't believe it unless you can cite a credible source.
Re:"Politically unpopular and expensive" (Score:4, Insightful)
So I can't give you a link to where they specifically target civilian nuclear power. They just hit everything around it and fund the specific groups that oppose nuclear power. Is that good enough?
Re: (Score:2)
Does any of this matter now? We are where we are.
Nuclear is very expensive. Hinkley Point C in the UK is currently under construction, and the cost went by £3bn just this year alone. The new one they are talking about starting won't be on-line until the 2040s, according to the builder EDF.
There are lots of wonderful new designs on paper, people working on SMRs, but until someone brings one to market, proves it works, and can build them at low cost and high volume, this is all just speculation. I
Re:"Politically unpopular and expensive" (Score:4, Informative)
I'm pretty sure coal kills more operating normally than nuclear does when causing accidents.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure coal kills more operating normally than nuclear does when causing accidents.
The difference is that coal doesn't render cities uninhabitable for decades. They're STILL finding new areas they have to clean up in Fukushima, they're still dumping dirty water and finding new problems [reuters.com]. Now ramp up nuclear to cover our current use of coal, and then account for the number of incidents likely across the increased number of reactors... it's a bad idea.
Coal is shit, but nobody is building new coal plants outside of China (because they aren't profitable) so we don't really have to argue its la
I keep saying this (Score:3, Informative)
If you want guys like me on board for nuclear power your either going to have to point to a 100% safe design currently in production in another country alo
Re: (Score:3)
But the problem that I have with nuclear power, besides the fact that wind and solar are perfectly good stand ins, is that I don't trust American businessmen with the technology that dangerous and I have yet to see anything that indicates there are nuclear designs that are both in production and which don't have the risks of a meltdown like Fukushima.
Wind and solar are unpredictable. Yeah I know, just build a big enough grid lol.
Here in the real world, if you don't trust nuclear you get gas. Not any much simpler way to put it really.
Re: (Score:2)
Here in the real world...
Are you sure that's where you are? Because it doesn't sound like it.
Re: (Score:2)
We are pretty good at predicting the weather, especially in the short term.
Offshore wind now has a capacity factor rivalling nuclear. Offshore wind is around 50%, nuclear is around 50% too in states that rely heavily on it like France. The difference is that you can predict when wind power is going to reduce, but sometimes nuclear switches off a gigawatt without warning.
Re: (Score:2)
Offshore wind is at ~63-65%, nuclear is 92%, 96% with some newer designs. The downtime for nuclear can also generally be scheduled in advance.
My main criticism of your original argument though is that when there is a profit motive any technology can lead to a similar outcome. I remember the abandoned wind turbines at Altamont Pass that were there for over a decade, and it is not hard to imagine a grid-scale PV plant coming to the same fate after a "minor" incident. We have a lot of waste (independent of the
Re: (Score:2)
Wind and solar are unpredictable.
You are mixing up dispatch-able with predictable and hence un-predictable.
Hint: both wind and solar are perfectly predictable.
Re: (Score:2)
Nat gas [Re: "Politically unpopular and expensive] (Score:2)
Nat gas preferable to nuclear...
Not sure why you would say that. Ignoring leaks, natural gas produces roughly half the carbon dioxide per Joule of energy produced, but I can't see why that would make it preferable to nuclear, which is, in a perfect world, zero.
Re: (Score:2)
You can ask NASA: https://www.giss.nasa.gov/rese... [nasa.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Nat gas preferable to nuclear...
Not sure why you would say that. Ignoring leaks, natural gas produces roughly half the carbon dioxide per Joule of energy produced, but I can't see why that would make it preferable to nuclear, which is, in a perfect world, zero.
RightWingNutJob's post was far from clearly worded, but I'm pretty sure he was attributing the "gas is better than nuclear" sentiment to environmentalists who ought to know better, rather than to himself. I think he knows that nuclear power is much less carbon-intensive than ANY hydrocarbon fuel, and supports nuclear.
Re: (Score:2)
Nat gas preferable to nuclear.
NASA disagrees [nasa.gov].
Re: (Score:2)
Nat gas preferable to nuclear...
What a odd thing to say. I'm sure you meant to say "Nat gas is preferable to coal," which is true. It is silly to think or say that nat gas is preferable to nuclear. I mean while nat gas is a much better power source it is still a fossil fuel so does contribute to environmental issues. Whereas nuclear isn't and doesn't.
It's okay, we have all misspoken things before. No harm not foul
Re: (Score:2)
I guess I should just let the guy defend himself, but misunderstandings bug me, so I'll repeat what I said above: "RightWingNutJob's post was far from clearly worded, but I'm pretty sure he was attributing the "gas is better than nuclear" sentiment to environmentalists who ought to know better, rather than to himself. I think he knows that nuclear power is much less carbon-intensive than ANY hydrocarbon fuel, and supports nuclear."
BTW, his pseudonym gives a pretty strong indication that he's likely pro-nuke
Re: (Score:2)
BTW, his pseudonym gives a pretty strong indication that he's likely pro-nuke...
Yes, it says "nutjob" right in it
The Sun is the most dangerous object in our system (Score:2)
Sol is the most dangerous object in our solar system. It has the most capability to destroy us. In fact, it is constantly bombarding the earth with particles that mutate not just our DNA but all life on earth's dna. All those against climate change have to also be against DNA change. If we were exposed to the sun 24 hours a day, not only would we not survive but life on the other side of the earth without the sun would also die too. Why are we trying to collect more of this extremely dangerous object w
Even if there's an event... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
... less humans means less carbon.
I dunno - humans release a lot of carbon when they decompose or are burned... ;-)
Just kidding, of course. I felt the need to add the disclaimer because humour and irony seem to go over more heads here than they used to.
Nuclear Waste - It's all about perspective. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Launching nuclear waste into space: Besides the cost, space launches are carbon intensive, so unless we get something working like SpinLaunch's system working, it's never going to be practical. Likewise as long as there's a risk of launch catastrophe, the last thing we want is a radioactive launch catastrophe. And we not only need to reach orbit, but escape velocity. Or maybe store it all on the moon. What could possibly go wrong? (Space 1999 aside, an asteroid impact could send it back to us.) We're
Re: Nuclear Waste - It's all about perspective. (Score:2)
âoeWe could always just launch the stuff into spaceâ
https://youtu.be/Us2Z-WC9rao [youtu.be]
â¦absolutely fantastic video deep-dive on why not.
Recycling it into new fuel is very doable. Only 5% of âoenuclear wasteâ energy potential has been tapped.
Use it all up, becomes 500 year problem of Fission Products, rather than mostly Plutonium+ unused uranium.
Re: (Score:2)
Recycling nuclear waste into nuclear fuel isn't done because it's hideously expensive like literally 10x more expensive than the best renewables prices.
Re: (Score:2)
No one is going to say that Nuclear Waste is a great thing...
Wrong.
I will. Nuclear Waste is a great thing! The reason nuclear waste is dangerous is because it has latent energy that is so dense and powerful that it can harm people! It's a fantasticly enery-dense power source that's very low carbon. Nuclear Waste is like (the very unrealistic) buying a cardboard box of firewood for your fireplace, and then burning the box and throwing out the wood.
We use soooo little of the energy in nuclear fuel that the waste is dangerous and bad for the environment due to how extre
Re: (Score:2)
Nuclear waste stored safely in a facility is not harming anyone or the environment.
The problem is: no where on the world is such a facility.
Something has to fill the gap between idealistic fantasy and reality, and it's called Nuclear.
So you want to switch on and off nuclear power when the wind is not blowing? Interesting concept.
Re: (Score:2)
No one is going to say that Nuclear Waste is a great thing
Ok, I am going to say just that.
Nuclear "waste" is made up of exotic material you can't find anywhere else and gives off energy. It is only considered waste because we don't know how to exploit it now, but in the future, in may turn into a precious resource.
As for shooting nuclear waste into space, it is actually the worst idea ever, not only it is ridiculously expensive, but if it falls back on earth, and there are many ways it can happen, we will have to deal with radioactive rain. A more sensible approac
Why are these still being held in person? (Score:3)
Videoconf or GTFO
Re: Why are these still being held in person? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well (Score:2)
...until you say "friend" (not forever, maybe just for now, until other things are available) you're not actually all that serious about climate change being a crisis.
You don't hear a lot of people, when their house is burning down, say "oh, no, not THAT water."
Re: (Score:2)
The only reason nuclear reactors might not be a friend is that they take so long to build that they can stall more immediate efforts at grid decarbonization. Plus they're just not as cheap as renewables + storage now. For these reasons I wouldn't be surprised if fossil power companies were backing pro-nuclear PR at this point - it buys them time now and potentially greater competitiveness later. Nuclear power only really makes sense for places that don't have the geography for renewables now.
If your house i
Re: (Score:2)
Plus they're just not as cheap as renewables + storage now
If you could scale this combination then nobody would be talking about nuclear. The scientists and engineers who work in the power industry are not having this debate for fun. Seriously, it is more fun to bang your head into a brick wall. We are doing it because you can't scale renewables or storage. And it isn't for lack of trying. Germany has deployed 2x the renewable capacity as their peak usage yet they get less than 20% of their power from renewables and have one of the dirtiest grids in Europe (a
Re: (Score:2)
This is the first time I've been told that renewable power doesn't scale. Nobody told that to Denmark either:
https://www.cleanenergywire.or... [cleanenergywire.org]
Your numbers also appear to be off from what I can find:
https://foreignpolicy.com/2021... [foreignpolicy.com]
Frankly just due to the amount of time it takes to build a nuclear power plant, the window in which it can help prevent catastrophic warming is ending now. Turning away from nuclear energy to fossil power in the 20th century is one of humanity's greatest failures but it's too late
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Denmark "works" because they can import like 50% of their electricity as hydro/nuclear power from Norway and Sweden. When the wind doesn't blow much they supplement with coal & gas and emit 4 times more CO2/kWh than France. You check yourself: https://app.electricitymaps.co... [electricitymaps.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Legislation unfortunately is one of the slowest things to fix, which is why renewables' ability to evade that red tape is such a huge advantage, and may be the primary advantage of fusion power over fission, which at this rate might win the race to a new build.
Re: (Score:2)
For these reasons I wouldn't be surprised if fossil power companies were backing pro-nuclear PR at this point
In the US and some other places around the world the power companies only really profit from new generation projects because they fucked over their customers so many times that their profits have been capped. Even their profits on generation projects are capped, at a percentage of the costs. Consequently it is in their best interest as a public corporation to build the biggest, most wasteful generation projects possible. It is exactly the same reason why the ACA has raised the cost of medical procedures in
A million years?!? (Score:2)
Certainly, I recommend we do NOT commit to watching nuclear waste for a million years, mostly because it doesn't make much sense to guard un-remarkable junk.
If we followed the standards being set to come up with million year estimates, we would be obligated to dig up most of the painted desert and transfer it to a secure storage facility.
Basic assumption remains unaddressed (Score:2)
Before proceeding with these pointless and unscientific debates, please address the following: Why is reducing emissions the one and only method of reversing climate change?
Re: (Score:2)
Before proceeding with these pointless and unscientific debates, please address the following: Why is reducing emissions the one and only method of reversing climate change?
It's not. It's just the easiest.
Re: (Score:2)
Easiest, safest (reversing the cause directly rather than messing with something else), and possibly cheapest - what's the alternative, planetary-scale SRM, sea walls everywhere, and tweaking the pH of the whole damn ocean with mined chemicals somehow?
Re: (Score:2)
Geo-engineering would be much easier, cheaper and quicker.
Reducing emissions is difficult, expensive and increasingly unlikely to be sufficient.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You are listing methods of mitigating emissions. Please take off the blinders.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why is reducing emissions the one and only method of reversing climate change?
Because due to the laws of thermodynamics, it will always take more energy to put the genie back in the bottle. When you figure out how to bypass that, you can claim your Nobel Prize.
Economics (Score:3)
Nuclear is a fine option in theory. We can manage the waste, and newer systems alleviate the safety concerns. The issue is economics. Right now, it's far cheaper to build tons of wind and solar, even after factoring in battery storage and an upgraded grid, than it is to build nuclear. So for large scale deployment, solar and wind are the winners right now. That said, it would be wise to build a few nuclear plants just to push the technology forward and maintain options if the economics change. And nothing is going to displace nuclear for the navy anytime soon.
Re: (Score:2)
I expect nuclear could become a cost effective solution but it likely takes a large investment that no organization is currently willing to make. That needs to be combined with a change in attitudes about its perceived dangers, and its not at all clear how to get there from here. The public is not very good with statist
Takes too long to build? (Score:5, Insightful)
The numbers still are not clear on this topic though, and somehow no one seems to be interested in them. Yes, there is zero doubt that nuclear plants will reduce CO2 output, but with other technologies having gained ground, such as wind and solar combined with storage and hydrogen, nuclear plants may not be necessary. May. That is a big "may". Because somehow, we still need to run the numbers for our decision makers: how much power will we need, and where can it come from? It is also clear that wind and solar alone aren't going to cut it, not even with an EU-wide grid connected to solar farms in northern Africa, and hydro storage in Norway. So we'll need something else besides that. What, and how much, that is what the numbers ought to point out if we ever ran them.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
> If you look at the timeline of Hinkley Point C: no, they wouldn't be operational for a couple of years at least.
You can't look at the worst case scenario and present that as the likely outcome.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We had the same argument 10 years ago.
Since 2001 at least [science.org].
Re: (Score:2)
A couple of high-profile nuke projects in the US were cancelled over the past couple of decades, they failed. Nuke isn't at all economical compared to wind, solar, and storage which can be built in far less time than nuke plants.
Re:Takes too long to build? (Score:4, Insightful)
...I do not buy the cost argument:
Neither do I, both for the reasons you stated, and for a much more compelling one. Climate change costs a HELL of a lot more than a bunch of nuclear plants - it's just that nukes cost money NOW, while the bulk of climate change expense is in the future where it can be more easily ignored.
The cost of ANY viable antidote to greenhouse gas emissions is way lower than the cost of not adopting them. The 'thinking' that leads to fixating on the cost of nuclear plants, is the same kind of 'thinking' that got us into this mess.
Re: (Score:2)
On the cost issue, it's a question of what gets us to net zero the fastest. Because renewable energy is so much cheaper per watt, and because it can be deployed very quickly, it's not a good idea to be pursuing the most expensive source of energy that takes decades to build.
The other issue is that it's not just us. Every country needs to reach net zero, including the developing ones. Nuclear isn't a good fit for them. It needs fuel, it needs security, it needs skilled engineers and operators, and it needs a
Re: (Score:2)
All good points. I'm just not yet convinced that wind and solar can provide all the power the US needs - do you have any links that demonstrate they can?
Also, the nuclear discussion still tends to be predicated on the behemoth plants of yore that take a decade or more to build. There are smaller, cheaper, faster-to-roll-out new designs that I think might have significant nuclear capacity online within 5 years. And they have the advantage over big plants that they put fewer eggs in more baskets. Also, there
Re: (Score:2)
We had the same argument 10 years ago. Had we followed through back then, those reactors would be in operation right now
We did follow through. Hinkley Point C was greenlit in 2010, nuclear licence granted in 2012. It's still years away from operation and the costs keep increasing.
Re: (Score:2)
We had the same argument 10 years ago. Had we followed through back then
...we still would have derived more benefit from installing renewables than nuclear.
The waste is manageable
So why aren't we managing it responsibly now?
and I do not buy the cost argument
Covering your ears and shouting LA LA LA CAPITALISM DOESN'T EXIST doesn't make it go away.
nuclear does not compete with wind and solar
False.
it competes with whatever can provide power when wind and solar are down
Nuclear uptime is shit and it cannot follow load, so nuclear doesn't exist alone. It's not nuclear that renewables compete with, it's nuclear+fossil fuels. You are literally cheering for more fossil fuels, because that's what gets installed alongside the nuclear to do the load following
WTabsoluteF? (Score:2)
Also remember that 'waste heat' from nuclear?
China shows how NOT to waste it, you get the electricity, you USE the heat: https://news.cgtn.com/news/202... [cgtn.com]
Re: (Score:2)
This is one of the most important things that people miss with nuclear. Harnessing all of the thermal energy is really a cornerstone of using it properly. Desalination is a very easy use for the low-grade waste heat and can be used to load follow if needed. You can even pull off zero liquid discharge if you are so inclined.
Fast solutions (Score:5, Insightful)
and that anyways, they take too long to build giving our current climate crisis. "We need fast solutions"
There are no "fast solutions." Anything you try involves either massive infrastructure investment, or inventing new technology, or both. Nuclear is the fastest option out there.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. Wind only requires incremental infrastructure upgrades that would be necessary in any case. It's not nuclear doesn't require upgrades either.
EDF, the only company currently building new nuclear in Europe, is quoting 20 years for new plants, from the date of approval of the site. So it's actually more than 20 years, because the site has to be found, planning applications made, geological surveys done, all before approval is given. In the case of countries that don't have nuclear already, a regula
Re: (Score:2)
Anything you try involves either massive infrastructure investment, or inventing new technology, or both.
True. Even with Nuclear you need massive infrastructure investment, because the plants are large and located far from the point of use.
Nuclear is the fastest option out there.
What? Nuclear is literally the slowest and most expensive option. You started with a fact, then went totally batshit.
Re: (Score:2)
They don't have to be large
It doesn't make any sense to make them small. Nobody has yet built a viable SMR. It double extra doesn't make any sense not to put them far away. Nobody has ever demonstrated a viable meltdown-proof reactor.
China has opted into using modern modular designs that take way less time to build, have a much, MUCH smaller footprint,
China is playing fast and loose with safety, and doesn't tolerate dissent, which is why they are building reactors quickly.
and can be located right in and around cities.
Only if you don't care about consequences.
Re: (Score:2)
A solar farm can be installed in less than 2 years. With storage.
Not good storage.
Re: (Score:2)
Why did you link to a story about a gas power plant?
Err, what?
"Vistra (NYSE: VST) today announced that its Moss Landing Energy Storage Facility connected to the power grid and began operating on Dec. 11, 2020. At 300 megawatts/1,200 megawatt-hours, the lithium-ion battery storage system, located on-site at Vistra's Moss Landing Power Plant in Monterey County, California, will be the largest of its kind in the world..."
Look, I'm in favour of nuclear power, but it's hard to persuade others of its utility when other people are spouting obvious nonsense e.g. "Nu
Nuclear Fissions margin of utility is narrower ... (Score:2)
... than nuke fanboys usually admit, but AFAICT it would make sense to look into small fault-tolerant fission reactors as a buffer and stop-gap for what would otherwise be coal-fired plants.Look into I say. If modern small nuke-fission can provide electricity and heat and is reasonably safe it might be a feasible means of transition.
All that aside, there is no way around saving energy and switching to solar ASAP. It's a must, and we are still TO DAMN SLOW in finally getting the way overdue global eco- and
When CO2 and methane emissions are the only metric (Score:2)
Then nuclear power becomes more polarizing. The problem is that while the discussion USED to be around improving nuclear waste containment and nuclear reactor technologies, nowadays the only thing being discussed is the carbon emissions of nuclear energy. This creates a situation where financial cost becomes the single most decisive factor in nuclear alternatives. If nuclear advocates only tout the single most obvious advantage of nuclear power, then nuclear opponents will argue with the single most convinc
Missed Opportunity as Facts make Nuclear shine (Score:2)
For people who are meant to know the facts and safety was a major topic some better numbers would have been nice.
About 60 people in total including total lifetime cancer death resulted from Chernobyl
Zero deaths occurred due to Fukushima Nuclear disaster.
An estimated 3,630 people in Germany died from coal-related illnesses in 2013
There have been 161 wind turbine deaths by December 2021
78% of Germans are now in favour of keeping the Nuclear plant running compared to 22% against.
Sources in order of mention.
htt
Some aren't waiting around (Score:2)
Recently two utilities in North America made commitments to build SMRs:
https://www.timesfreepress.com... [timesfreepress.com]
TVA and Ontario Power, at the minimum.
Let the climate hucksters argue at conferences.
part of the climate problem (Score:2)
(Nuclear plants) "...take too long to build giving our current climate crisis. "We need fast solutions.""
There will be precisely zero substantive solutions to climate change that are enacted in less time than it takes to build a nuclear plant. None.
This is an endemic problem with the climate movement: there is a large segment of their supporters who are emotionally children demanding a solution NOW instead of working toward something that's, you know, sustainable.
Obviously a friend (Score:2)
As soon as they can get any insurance on the planet to cover them and when they have paid upfront for the armed guards protecting the ashes from terrorists for 184000 years.