Security and Climate Change Drive a Return To Nuclear Energy as Over 30 Nations Sign Summit Pledge (apnews.com) 89
In the shadow of a massive monument glorifying nuclear power, over 30 nations from around the world pledged to use the controversial energy source to help achieve a climate-neutral globe while providing countries with an added sense of strategic security. Associated Press: The idea of a Nuclear Energy Summit would have been unthinkable a dozen years ago after the 2011 Fukushima nuclear accident in Japan, but the tide has turned in recent years. A warming planet has made it necessary to phase out fossil fuels, while the war in Ukraine has laid bare Europe's dependence on Russian energy. "We have to do everything possible to facilitate the contribution of nuclear energy," said Rafael Grossi, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency. "It is clear: Nuclear is there. It has an important role to play," he said.
In a solemn pledge, 34 nations, including the United States, China, France, Britain and Saudi Arabia, committed "to work to fully unlock the potential of nuclear energy by taking measures such as enabling conditions to support and competitively finance the lifetime extension of existing nuclear reactors, the construction of new nuclear power plants and the early deployment of advanced reactors." The statement adds: "We commit to support all countries, especially emerging nuclear ones, in their capacities and efforts to add nuclear energy to their energy mixes."
In a solemn pledge, 34 nations, including the United States, China, France, Britain and Saudi Arabia, committed "to work to fully unlock the potential of nuclear energy by taking measures such as enabling conditions to support and competitively finance the lifetime extension of existing nuclear reactors, the construction of new nuclear power plants and the early deployment of advanced reactors." The statement adds: "We commit to support all countries, especially emerging nuclear ones, in their capacities and efforts to add nuclear energy to their energy mixes."
Re:Bullshit. (Score:4, Informative)
I checked the Doc out. Interesting work. I do note, that as of 2012,
"Dr. Lindzen accepts the elementary tenets of climate science. He agrees that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, calling people who dispute that point 'nutty.' He agrees that the level of it is rising because of human activity and that this should warm the climate."
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
by all means anyone interested do watch the video but just some notes
Lindzend has not been a professor since 2013 and has instead worked for libertarian think-tank The CATO institute.
also his 1989 climate predictions on temperature rise have come up inaccurate compared to his peers:
Denial For Hire: Richard Lindzen Cites Debunked Science to Defend Willie Soon in Wall Street Journal [desmog.com]
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Yow. I didn't expect the climate-change deniers to be out in force.
Fuck that. CO2 wasn't a problem before 2014 and now it is.
I have no idea what you mean by "CO2 wasn't a problem before 2014". The effect of carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas was already well known long before 2014, and the fact that this would be a problem was well understood, and the effect on climate was already measured by 2014.
Why? Why why why?
Carbon dioxide is cumulative, so the effect increases with time. If you think it isn't a problem now, wait.
First it was "there's a hole in the ozone, stop with the CFCs." OK, done.
Not sure why you just changed the subject, but yes, this is a
Re:Bullshit. (Score:5, Interesting)
*massive* windfalls to China in the form of heavily increased battery purchases from them
That's a sidestep and if we don't like that outcome the US and EU should build more batteries, which we are. Also this article is about nuclear power, not batteries. More nukes means less storage solutions are needed.
"there's a hole in the ozone, stop with the CFCs"
And we did and it worked! Ozone layer recovery is on track, due to success of Montreal Protocol [un.org]
Now our ACs are worse than ever, requiring ever-larger compressors, evaporators, etc.
Were you alive in the 1980's and 90's? Air conditioners are way, way better. Modern refrigerants are far superior than the ones that were phased out earlier both in performance and environmental. Compressors are also way better, much quieter and far more efficent. Necessity is the mother of invention. R410 and R32 are just better than R22 and things get bigger because home shave gotten bigger and AC units have become cheaper so people can buy stronger units.
Now, there is some controversy about the fact that units most homes are built with are in fact oversized for the spaces.
Old HVAC industry practices are holding us back and costing us money. But we can fix it. [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Where was the idea that the government would be ordering anyone to have a tiny AC brought up or advocated for? The video in question is talking about how companies estimate HVAC loading for buildings.
Re: (Score:2)
The video in question is talking about how companies estimate HVAC loading for buildings.
I did not watch the video, but it makes sense to overprovision somewhat as future proofing, since everyone says the climate is going to get hotter. Or is that not the case?
Re: (Score:2)
The video in question discusses all that, the primary point is that gross overestimates can actually be negative for system performance and lifetimes, that there is actually a right sized system for a house that can be calculated (with some overhead to be sure) and that installers are probably just being lazy and speccing units that are way oversized for the homes.
To make a car analogy it's like putting a huge engine in a tiny framed car. You can't actually get the performance out of it because nothing els
Re: (Score:2)
If you have the time and you are interested it's worth a watch
I've bookmarked it. I'm interested insofar as my central A/C unit is ~25 years old and will probably have to be replaced soon. It's also a 120 year old house that was never designed with A/C in mind so does not have sufficient ductwork upstairs, requiring me to supplement it with a portable unit on the second floor. Unfortunately a larger central unit is not going to fix that.
To make a car analogy it's like putting a huge engine in a tiny framed car.
You mean like a Sunbeam Tiger, an AC Cobra, or a small block Chevy Miata conversion? May not be ideal but I would not totally dis
Re: (Score:2)
They actually discuss ductwork quite a bit as well. Definitely check it out if you are replacing an older unit, that guy has a whole series on HVAC.
I am not doubting those cars or fun or that it cannot be done but if you are unknowledgeable and just throw in a big engine without thinking about the frame, the suspension, the transmission, the differential ratio, your brakes, etc etc you could easily have a bad time.
There was an Regular Car Reviews video on a guy who LS swapped his DeLorean and since he kept
Re: (Score:2)
Now our ACs are worse than ever, requiring ever-larger compressors, evaporators, etc.
Were you alive in the 1980's and 90's? Air conditioners are way, way better. Modern refrigerants are far superior than the ones that were phased out earlier both in performance and environmental.
They are not far superior in every way, though. Per unit of cooling, they do use less energy. However, the coil size is so much larger on the new AC units that in some installation environments, it is not physically possible to install a replacement system in the same space as the old one, requiring costly construction work to move the outdoor unit — or worse, having to put in an undersized system that can't cool the space adequately (and might more than cancel out those energy savings).
Re: (Score:2)
I mean with the advent of single and multi zone mini split systems that seems like a pretty edge case scenario, especially for single family homes. There are a just a lot more options now with vertical condensers that can be attached to walls so you don't require a slab anymore.
And even so, while the units are physically bigger they are that way because they can remove heat faster and with less electricity so there is an upside to the challenges.
I think that also speaks to the experience of the technician.
Re: (Score:2)
It's usually cheaper and more effective to insulate your home properly, and then installer a smaller air conditioning system.
Insulation can usually be retrofitted without too much hassle or cost.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately that is not that simple.
In the USA, energy is usually cheap and many homes are in thin wood. So instead of insulating we brutalize the heat transfer with heating and AC. Insulating is expensive, energy is cheap and the mentality of many is not very concerned by environment.
That said i insulated my home and installed a solar boiler. But it was more a political choice than anything.
Re:Bullshit. (Score:5, Informative)
You mean... "A manipulation in how we read things have resulted in us declaring CO2 to be a bad gas, so we can push forward our plans to have the entire world be like Europe, while delivering *massive* windfalls to China in the form of heavily increased battery purchases from them."
Nope, they mean that Global Ocean Heat Has Hit a New Record Every Single Day For the Last Year [slashdot.org] and the planet is effectively on fire.
Fuck that. CO2 wasn't a problem before 2014 and now it is. Why? Why why why?
Water doesn't boil instantly when you turn on the heat. This problem has been building since the 1850s.
I will vote for anyone who stands up to Europe on this front.
Honestly, I pity people like who you are so certain of themselves that they can not and will not allow any alternative explanations of their own thinking to be explored.
Re: (Score:3)
No, I fully accept there is the possibility that climate change is no big deal. More than that, I hope that's the case. The difference is if I'm wrong then we've made a better and cleaner world but if you're wrong, you've sacrificed most of the ecosystem.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Well your uid marks you as old.
It's sad how the forward looking geeks of the past got reactionary, stupid and anti science as they got old.
CO2 was a problem long before the 1980s. Margaret Thatcher, a notable conservative, spoke of the problems coming back then. The actual reality we are living in is not far off from Arrhenius' predictions from 1896.
You being ignorant does not mean reality takes a break. And it appears you wish to be angry and ignorant rather than accept reality. Reality will win. It always
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I think you overestimate climate deniers. I doubt the OP is trolling. They belive that stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
what makes you think he's trolling?
Re:Bullshit. (Score:4, Insightful)
The main reason China is leading the world in manufacturing batteries and wind turbines is because dumbasses like you kneecapped every effort to cast the United States in that role. You and your fellow cretins squandered a golden opportunity to put US manufacturing back on the map, and get some of the hardest working, most productive blue collar workers on the planet back into well-paid jobs.
Congratulations. You won. Now can you at least STFU and go back to the MAGA rally?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Nukular power?!?! (Score:1)
(Huge inhale...) REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!
Ok, I feel better now. Whew....
Re: (Score:1)
The handful of disproportionately loud, vehemently anti-nuclear-power posters are real quiet since getting their shit pushed in.
I'd bathe in their frustrated tears, were it not for the fact there are only like 7 of them. Not enough tears to flll a shot glass.
Re: Nukular power?!?! (Score:5, Insightful)
Arguing in good faith means that you use and can provide reliable sources to back up your arguments. It means that when someone provides you with a counter argument, backed up with reliable data, you are willing to accept it and change your mind.
Germany emits 8-9 times more CO2 per kWh than it's french neighbor. This can be verified on any statistical site, like nowtricity [nowtricity.com], which sources it's data directly from each country open data APIs.
Since you can't acknowledge this simple fact, that shows you are indeed not arguing in good faith. Which is pretty normal actually, since the cognitive dissonance you have on this topic is too big.
Re: Nukular power?!?! (Score:4, Insightful)
No commercial operator will build them without guaranteed profits either, because they can see that renewables will undercut them
I consider that a valid argument, but the price depends a lot on political factors, for example the level of safety asked for. Or whether you can cheaply dispose of nuclear waste into the next river. The same is true for the price of non-fossil energy: You will find people opposing wind turbines, people opposing fields being covered with solar cells, people opposing the use of areas for growing energy plants, people opposing energy storage systems in their neighborhood. If you value the sensitivities of those people as much as the sensitivities of those opposing nuclear energy, then all those alternative energy sources become much more expensive. And in Germany, that is not just a theory, it is already happening.
Re: (Score:3)
Whenever the post office or NHS comes up you're one of the first people in line to point out how easy to is to claim something is a problem when you're the one who made damn sure it was a problem in the first place.
Well, leftists are the reason it takes 20 years minimum to get a nuclear reactor on line and why all those other reactors are so old and outdated. You've swallowed greenwashing propaganda funded by the liked of Putin and the CCP hook line and sinker and now first world countries are being wracked
Playing for keeps (Score:3, Insightful)
We have seen that it is a waste of time to argue in good faith with people dumb enough to play parrot for the nuclear industry.
I am playing for the good of all humanity.
You are playing against.
I would say thanks for playing but people like you and the prevention of the advancement of nuclear power have caused probably millions of deaths, so I really don't feel like thanking you for that.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm looking at the pricing for my fully renewable electricity tomorrow, and if I use some between 8:00 and 8:30 I'll actually get paid. Paid to consume energy, because renewables have pushed the price below zero. Guess when I'm charging my EV.
For much of the rest of the day, electricity will be free, or pennies per kWh.
https://agileprices.co.uk/ [agileprices.co.uk]
Even if you look at the rest of this month, the average is around 15p per kWh. UK average is over 28p per kWh. You know why it's so cheap? It's 100% renewable. 0% nu
Re: (Score:1)
That works great locally, but not for power for an entire grid... it's not practical for everyone to get individual solar panels.
It's a great option for us 1%ers though! Not to be trapped by bad life choices of our governments. I am right there with you brother, do not use the power of the peasants if you have the money to opt out.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a national energy supplier with millions of customers.
Re: (Score:2)
You know why it's so cheap? It's 100% renewable. 0% nuclear, 0% coal, 0% gas.
And no, the lights never go out. Octopus, my supplier, has not bought any non-renewable electricity since 2018.
Do you really believe that because your are choosing which electrons you consume? That "nuclear" electrons don't pass the barrier of your electric sockets?
The reason why it is "so cheap" is because green providers like Octopus only have to inject the same amount of green electricity into the grid than what is being used by their consumers. The trick they use is that they don't need to inject it back at the exact same time. Which means they can let you consume nuclear, or gas-based, electricity at night, and
Re: (Score:2)
Do you really not understand how the electrical grid works?
If you take energy out of it, you must pay someone to put energy into it. It's not the electrons that matter, it's where the additional energy comes from.
Like all energy providers, they need to bid on energy in half hour blocks to meet demand from their customers. They simply only ever bid on renewable sources. There is also a fixed charge that covers stuff like grid maintenance and standby. If there isn't enough renewable energy in the UK, they imp
Re: (Score:2)
Like all energy providers, they need to bid on energy in half hour blocks to meet demand from their customers.
Renewable Energy Guarantees of Origin (REGOs) are not inherently tied to specific dates or times. Instead, REGOs certify the renewable origin of electricity generated from renewable sources in the UK over a given period, typically corresponding to the renewable energy generation period.
For example, a REGO might certify that a certain quantity of electricity was generated from renewable sources over the course of a month or a year. The REGO indicates that this electricity can be considered green or renewable
Re: (Score:2)
This is also exactly what they are saying on their website:
"On top of this, we also invest in green generation by buying energy from the open market alongside green REGO certificates to supply our customers with reliable, consistent energy when the sun isn’t shining and the wind isn’t blowing."
Which is marketing talk to say that when the sun is not shining, and the wind not blowing, you are simply consuming nuclear/gas/coal electricity, and they are buying REGO (which span across months/years) t
Re: (Score:1)
And what causes the overruns?
Whacktivism and the associated bureaucratic interference.
Re: (Score:2)
Whatever. The problem is that nuclear isn't enough of a solution to save us. People waited too long, plus there's still lots of climate affecting emissions happening that this initiative will not change.
Re: (Score:2)
What about Thorium and molten salt reactors? (Score:4, Interesting)
If we're going to invest in nuclear then at least let's invest in significantly upgraded reactors. Uranium light water breeder reactors are fine but they have known issues which could be addressed making for much safer reactors and thus making them less expensive to build and enabling them to be built just about anywhere.
As far as existing reactors, we should also stop making new uranium cake and instead take spent fuel reprocessing more seriously. We should take the spent fuel that we have squirreled away and reprocess it for use in our reactors.
There's too much "well that's just idiotic" business going on because people are scared of their shadow.
Re: (Score:1)
Seems like corrosion is still a problem for most molten salt reactor designs.
Re: What about Thorium and molten salt reactors? (Score:1)
Or more accurately, no one has ever built a MSR which did not have corrosion issues, so any claims that they can be solved are unproven.
Re: (Score:3)
China has issued an operating permit [world-nuclear-news.org] for a thorium fueled molten salt reactor.
India [wikipedia.org] has been pretty active in developing thorium/MSR technology, too.
Re: (Score:2)
That's great. How long can those reactors last? How many MW are they cranking out right now?
Re: (Score:3)
Since it's a prototype still under development, I guess you're saying nobody should ever try anything new because it can't be fully developed before they even start?
Are you really that fucking stupid?
Yes. Yes, you are.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a tiny experimental reactor with a 2MWt output, about 1/500th the size of a practical and economically viable commercial one.
So give it 20 years to see if it corrodes, and then another few decades to build a commercial scale one and see if that survives a reasonable length of time. If Slashdot is still around you can be sure I'll still be on it.
Re: (Score:2)
They learn by doing.
I guess that's too subtle for you.
Re: (Score:1)
No one has ever built a PWR which did not have corrosion issues, but it is managed with chemistry control. The same can be done with salts, which if kept clean are even less corrosive than high pressure water.
It is a solved problem, because all of the MSR components (except the salt) are replaceable and dirt cheap, because they are built for ~1atm of pressure, and don't need to survive for the life of the plant. Just pump the salt to a parallel loop. Even neutron damage of the reactor vessel is all but elim
Re: What about Thorium and molten salt reactors? (Score:1)
"It is a solved problem"
Show me the operating reactor which doesn't have this problem. THEN it will be solved.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah I've always felt we need something akin to a "Manhattan Project II" (nuclear boogaloo) for GenIV reactors. There is a lot of excellent potential designs that really need some work to get off paper and into the real world but there just isn't a sustained effort so it comes in fits and spurts.
Phase 1 would be starting construction on new LWR reactors as they already exist and they are still excellent but then a Phase 2 of building out new designs like MSR, Lead/Bismuth reactors, breeder reactors for pr
Re: (Score:1)
It would be better to use that money to improve the grid and storage technologies. Even if we did manage to develop a better reactor, it's very unlikely to be cost competitive. It also concentrates energy production, when we need to be distributing it as much as possible.
Nuclear is also not a global solution. Lots of countries can't have it, either due to cost, or lack of resources (fuel, expertise), or because we don't want them to have nuclear technology.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for the insight, I forgot to mention thorium but i suppose that was the point in the comment and yeah, absolutely thorium and reactors and anything that can continue to close the fuel cycle should get priority. I just want to get these designs out of the research labs and seeing which ones are going to work and scale and which ones aren't. I also would want a viable SMR, whatever the fuel source.
I am a believer in the French model myself though, I think this all works "least bad" in a nationalized
Re: (Score:2)
There's investment into Thorium and molten salt reactors going on right now. But only a great fool would put all of their eggs in that basket. We should do it all. Keep doing what we know works until we're sure the replacement is ready, available, and scalable.
Re: (Score:3)
There's investment into Thorium and molten salt reactors going on right now.
Nothing serious.
But only a great fool would put all of their eggs in that basket.
Precisely why we shouldn't strictly stick to uranium light water reactors!
We should do it all.
Precisely what I'm suggesting.
The reason why it's more secure (Score:3, Insightful)
One thing about nuclear power most people do not think about, is how you an so easily store decades of spare power in a warehouse or two.
Nuclear energy is so powerful [euronuclear.org] that you can hold years worth of power for an entire nation in an amount of space, that would take entire U.S. states to store using any other form of energy.
This buffers any possible issues from supply shocks or other kinds of issues that can lead to you not having a stable energy supply for the nation.
Japan once had this, they when they shut down the nuclear reactors they sold off most of the spare stock... but now they are restarting a lot of reactors and sorely regretting selling off all of that massive energy reserve they once had.
Re:The reason why it's more secure (Score:4, Interesting)
Nuclear energy is so powerful [euronuclear.org] that you can hold years worth of power for an entire nation in an amount of space, that would take entire U.S. states to store using any other form of energy.
Or, to put it another way;
https://cna.ca/2019/06/25/your... [cna.ca]
Re: (Score:2)
This ain't going nowhere (Score:1)
"Building nuclear plants takes many years and projects are often marred by cost and deadline overruns", so demonstrably true.
“Nuclear, all the evidence shows, is too slow to build. It’s too expensive. Much more expensive than renewables”, also true and the past 2 decades of attempts in the US provide plenty of evidence.
Meanwhile renewables have boomed and generate electricity at prices lower than nukes and fossil.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>> You are quoting capacity cost
I didn't quote any particular cost, but the LCOE of nuclear is vastly higher than wind, solar, and batteries.
https://www.lazard.com/researc... [lazard.com]
Vogtle Unit 3 took 15 years to build at a cost of $35 billion. It was seven years late and $17 billion over budget. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law of 2021 allocated $6 billion just to prop up the nuke plants we already have.
It's the LED vs CFL battle all over again (Score:4, Interesting)
Government cramming shitty CFL bulbs down people's throats because CFL manufacturers i.e. GE were going to lose their shirts once LEDs became viable. The same thing is happening with wind and solar. Cram it down the throat of consumers because once Gen 4 nuclear power gets past the bureaucratic log jam, nobody is going to want anything else. I'm going to predict that in about 15 years when solar fields are going to need to be replaced, they won't be.
Re: (Score:2)
My take is it's a fusion vs fission thing. The old boys don't want to concede to the new fusion solutions in development on *just commercial funding alone.* Fusion tech is too easily reproduced across all borders and needs no controls. It's too clean for them.
These people have cracked fusion .. (Score:2)
“RocketStar has announced the successful initial demonstration of this electric propulsion technology, FireStar Drive.”
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think RocketStar understands physics.
> Also, that's propulsion, not generation which is entirely a different thing.
Fusion is fusion
“It is said to be the world’s first electric device for spacecraft propulsion boosted by nuclear fusion.”
Said by whom?
NIMBY Nuke style (Score:2)
Re:NIMBY Nuke style (Score:4, Insightful)
the dangerously radioactive thing in your backyard is a coal power plant.
Too Late (Score:2)
It's going to be too late for nuclear power to have much effect in reducing C02 emissions now. Nuclear has dropped from 17% to 9% of global electricity generation over the last 25 years. Before that it was over 20+%. The UK and France are building one new reactor each but it takes 20 years to design, get approval, build and test new large scale reactors. HInkley C is up to $27b/GW after all the cost blow outs. Japan has restarted some of the nuclear power stations they shut down after Fukushima, but Germany
Re: (Score:2)
Commerical fusion s probably more likely to save us than fission reactors now.
the other thing driving it is... (Score:2)
It is the far left liberals starting in the 70s, that had no real education or intelligence that ran around killing nuclear and pushing coal to replace it. IOW, much of the CO2 from mid-late 70s, through to about 2000 is to be blamed on far left.