Senate Passes Bill To Support Advanced Nuclear Energy Deployment (reuters.com) 151
The U.S. Senate has passed a bill to accelerate the deployment of nuclear energy capacity, including by speeding permitting and creating new incentives for advanced nuclear reactor technologies. From a report: Expanding nuclear power has broad bipartisan support, with Democrats seeing it as critical to decarbonizing the power sector to fight climate change and Republicans viewing it as a way to ensure reliable electricity supply and create jobs. A version of the bill had already passed in the House of Representatives and it will now go to President Joe Biden for a signature to become law. It passed the Senate 88-2 votes.
"In a major victory for our climate and American energy security, the U.S. Senate has passed the ADVANCE Act with overwhelming, bipartisan support," said Senator Tom Carper, a Democrat, who is Chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. "Today, we sent the ADVANCE Act to the president's desk because Congress worked together to recognize the importance of nuclear energy to America's future and got the job done," said Republican Shelley Moore Capito, a ranking member of the committee.
"In a major victory for our climate and American energy security, the U.S. Senate has passed the ADVANCE Act with overwhelming, bipartisan support," said Senator Tom Carper, a Democrat, who is Chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. "Today, we sent the ADVANCE Act to the president's desk because Congress worked together to recognize the importance of nuclear energy to America's future and got the job done," said Republican Shelley Moore Capito, a ranking member of the committee.
Why? (Score:2)
Alternate source (Score:3)
That source requires registration. Try here: https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/19... [cnn.com]
Or the senate page here:
https://www.epw.senate.gov/pub... [senate.gov]
Re: Why? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. But at least we would get something for our money even at huge overhead than just a lousy noisy call for support
Everybody advocating nuclear power here keeps continuously stating that a big problem is the time and expense of permitting. So, this is a bill "to make it easier, cheaper and faster to permit and build new nuclear reactors", and you are complaining "don't do that"?
Re: (Score:2)
The project was required to issue updated estimates of schedule and wholesale price for the electricity on a regular basis. The project was cancelled this past December, just before the next update was scheduled. Speculation is that the new esti
Re: (Score:2)
Your sig lied!
"Don't feed the trolls."
"That trick never works."
Passed the Senate 88-2 votes. (Score:2)
In case anyone is wondering, Huffpost notes [huffpost.com]:
In a rare show of bipartisan unity on clean energy, the House of Representatives voted 365 to 36 last month to pass its version of the legislation, called the ADVANCE Act. All but two senators — Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Ed Markey (D-Mass.) — supported the bill in Tuesday’s vote or abstained, with a final tally of 88-2.
Doesn't include their reasons though.
Re: (Score:2)
Pork barrel spending.
Billion$ in subsidies.
Re: (Score:2)
The US has three power grids with minimal connections between them -- the Eastern, the Western, and Texas. (Note that the interconnect boundaries don't necessary follow state lines; parts of the State of Texas fall in each of the three.) The national labs have studied plans to make the grids carbon-free for go
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously the tarriffs aren't about climate change, it says right there in the statement, it's a political, natsec and economic problem. Two problems can exist at once and we end up having to do some things to remedy one and it will hurt the other, these are all political calculus questions. China is free to treaty up with Taiwan if they really want to make an actual political case against the tarriffs.
Fact is right now we are at long last heavily subsidizing wind and solar energy to the tune of way more
Subsidy [Re:Passed the Senate 88-2 votes.] (Score:2)
Fact is right now we are at long last heavily subsidizing wind and solar energy to the tune of way more Federal dollars than nuclear is getting even with this bill.
Nope, nuclear subsidies are still high. The DOE is still pumping huge amounts of money into nuclear, both fission and fusion. And a huge invisible subsidy is the Price-Anderson Act limits on the liability of the nuclear industry.
... Doesn't mean we can't also bring some nuclear into the mix as well so long as we are finally getting serious about things.
yes, realistically a solution will be a mixture of sources.
Re: (Score:2)
Renewable energy (including biofuels) comprised 53 percent of total energy subsidies in FY 2022–up from 41 percent in FY 2016. In FY 2022, tax expenditures accounted for 98 percent of total renewable energy subsidies. Biofuels represented 42 percent of total subsidies for renewable energy in FY 2022 while renewable energy used in electricity production represented the other 58 percent.
https://www.instituteforenergy... [institutef...search.org].
And that was before the IRA bill. To be clear this is how it should be, renewables
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, the biofuels subsidy primarily means ethanol from corn, and that's driven by the fact that it's a subsidy to agriculture in the corn-growing states, only incidentally a subsidy for renewable en
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah totally agree ehtanol and biofuel is a boondoggle and eats up too much money but even still, wind and solar get more $$ than nuclear and this is also pre-IRA and the BIB so all those numbers i imagine have shifted.
On biased think tanks, I assume at this point there does not exist an unbiased think tank on earth but just on those numbers pretty sure everyone including them just uses the EIA data which from a quick glance it seems to line up with.
I agree I wouldn't trust their narrative around the number
Some interesting things in the bill (Score:3)
Here is the text of the actual bill: https://www.epw.senate.gov/pub... [senate.gov]
It is incredibly hard to read these bills, since they are written like git updates ("section A of paragraph subpart AA sentence J is replaced with paragraph 1(c)d.3"). But there are a couple of interesting tidbits that can be gleaned. Apparently there will be a single Commission that will organize all advanced nuclear licensing, and they are going to have a contest for the first vendor that can achieve various technical milestones. The prize appears to be (if I'm reading this right) that the winner gets to have all their licensing costs refunded. That's probably substantial!
The prize categories are:
- uses isotopes derived from spent nuclear fuel or depleted uranium as fuel
- a nuclear integrated energy system that reduces greenhouse gas emissions
- operates flexibly to generate electricity or high temperature process heat for nonelectric applications
Re: (Score:2)
How fortuitous that right after several large international holders of US treasury bonds start dumping them, suddenly an USD-denominated investment opportunity capable of absorbing a very large quantity of dollars shows up.
Re: (Score:2)
I had not thought of the investment angle. How interesting. I believe I also read some updated language in there that mentions Russia and China by name as countries that are forbidden from providing investment. But maybe I have that wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Off-topic, but my state legislature writes bills, amendments, and committee reports in the same style. (I'm old, so still think of them as diff instructions rather than git.) When a bill -- as you say, a diff from the current body of statute -- moves along, it may be amended in the first committee -- a diff to a diff -- then that committ
Re: (Score:2)
Fascinating! Is any of that automated? Like, how can the people debating the bill even read it to figure out what they are discussing? Tools like this are ubiquitous in software, are they not used in legislation?
Re: (Score:2)
That last one is interesting but also a bit worrying. Presumably they mean stuff like producing steel... Which means temperatures that would melt many of the materials used in reactors.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, it's indirectly referring to hydrogen production, e.g. see some of the discussion here [stanford.edu].
"At any cost" or "The free market" (Score:2)
Every country will have to make a choice: Remove fossil fuels at any cost (See: "nuclear energy" and "kinetic battery") or wait for the free market (with government incentives) to fix the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Every government that said that, has promptly been un-elected: A big change to government and the economy is an easy target for every fear-monger in the country.
To date, government can effect change only by buying more stuff: That can be solar panels or nuclear power-stations.
The Act (Score:2)
Thanks for posting the name of the act in the summary. Here is S.1111 - Accelerating Deployment of Versatile, Advanced Nuclear for Clean Energy Act of 2023 [congress.gov] (warning: pdf). It will be interesting to see what it is in it.
Re:The Act - References (Score:2)
It references S.512 - An act to modernize the regulation of nuclear energy [congress.gov] and also repeals some clauses within the 1954 Atomic Energy Act.
As expected SEC.302 extends funding for the Price Anderson Act to 2045.
Re:The Act - Title 1 "International Nuclear" (Score:2)
Some interesting stuff here. Internationali(s|z)ing Nuclear reactor development and improving ties with the OECD and the NEA. Creation of international standards,which could be good if regulatory authorities learn from each other about basis design issues. Provisions for international training and legal frameworks.
Creation of an ‘‘International Nuclear Reactor Export and Innovation Branch’’ - increased funding to export reactor tech around the world, creation of exchange program
Re: (Score:2)
I am not fan of Greta but she wasn't antinuclear.
Re:Apologies, are in order. (Score:4, Informative)
You can't invoke the free market when governments impose impediments to building nuclear power. Most other forms of power are subsidized in one form or another, which further distorts the market. Coal, oil, and gas have existing industries and lobby groups to keep themselves in business and renewables get special treatment (on top of subsidies) that if you were to translate it to any other industry would sound so stupid you'd question what the hell anyone was thinking agreeing to such terms, and then there's a entire contingent of at best well meaning anti-nuclear idiots that do more to keep coal and oil running than they've ever done to get wind or solar in place.
Quit subsidizing any form of energy generation and you will find out what it really costs.
Re:Apologies, are in order. (Score:5, Informative)
If nuclear were that expensive you'd really need to explain why France has lower rates than most other European countries given their larger reliance on nuclear.
Nuclear power is heavily government subsidized (and in part by the EU, as well) in France. It's also worth pointing out that what's considered a cheap utility rate in France is still damned expensive compared against the USA. [statista.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The point is NOT "cheapest possible" energy.
The point is "MOST STABLE, DEPENDABLE".
Even with a cost premium.
Re: (Score:3)
And in Sweden too. they have a similar mix. Nuclear and hydroelectric.
Re: (Score:2)
French electricity is heavily subsidised. The company that builds and runs the nuclear power power plants, EDF, is state owned. The price they sell electricity at has nothing to do with the actual cost.
Re:Apologies, are in order. (Score:5, Interesting)
> After that massive upfront cost, the operating expenses more than make up for it over the lifetime.
The O&M expenses for nuclear are among the most expensive of industrial-scale systems:
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_08_04.html
Nuclear is around 16 mills, natgas is about 5.
As PV has no per-kWh price (it doesn't wear out faster if you run it at full power, unlike a turbine) so it's difficult to find a direct comparison. However, NREL puts it at about $17/kW of capacity per year. So if you have a US fleet average of 25% CF and 8760 hours in a year, then 1 kW of capacity gets you 2190 kWh so that's about 7 mills.
> If nuclear were that expensive you'd really need to explain why France has lower rates than most
> other European countries given their larger reliance on nuclear
If we need to explain that, then we also need to explain why Spain's rates are lower than France's even though they are all-in on PV.
If you're interested in this topic and not just copypasting some nukeboi crap you found on the 'net, you would know that France's retail rate is heavily subsidized, and their wholesale rate (what it costs to generate the power) is not very competitive.
Right now the *wholesale* rate varies between 3.6 (peak) and 2.7 (night) euros, or 3.8 to 2.9 USD. As more power is used on-peak, that pushes the average towards 3.6 USD. Here in Ontario, the average wholesale rate is currently 2.84 CAD, or 2.1 USD. Our average rate is 50% less. Quebec doesn't publish theirs monthly, but the last price to their "heritage" generators was 2.79, or 2 USD, in 2014. In 2015, Ontario's price was a little over 6, so I assume the cost of generation has fallen by a similar amount there. So to summarize:
France: 75% nuclear - 3.5 cents
Ontario: 50% nuclear, 25% hydro - 2.1 cents
Quebec: 95% hydro, 4% wind - 2 cents
Pattern seems clear.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I know you are refuting a point about cost, which is why your post focused on that, but cost isn't the issue here.
If it were, we would conclude that France should replace all their nuclear power with hydroelectric. That would be impossible since France has 5 times the population of Ontario + Quebec combined, on half the land, and isn't covered in streams and lakes. We could imagine a cost comparison between France and Saudi Arabia, then conclude that France should replace all their nuclear power with sola
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. Stop spreading lies.
Re:Apologies, are in order. (Score:5, Informative)
If nuclear were that expensive you'd really need to explain why France has lower rates than most other European countries given their larger reliance on nuclear.
Before you can claim nuclear vs non nuclear here you need to understand that France pays the same power as other European countries. There's an open power market with a price control pegged at the cost of running natural gas plants. It doesn't matter how much you generate power for, or what you use to generate it it, France will buy at the same price as other countries. The differences in the bill are made up largely of non-power costs, i.e. Germany slaps some insane taxes on their bill, the Netherlands incredible connection surcharges (on top of lower taxes). France is lower in this regards.
Likewise there's another side of the equation: How much you sell your power for. How's that play out in France? Well the French government bailing out the nuclear industry which is virtually bankrupt since it is unable to compete with gas power is how. The French government being the main driver of reforming the "Electricity Market Design" because their nuclear power plants are currently unable to compete with the fixed price contracts. They specifically had an amendment added to the upcoming changes in the law back in January allowing states to add guarantee schemes, throwing the nuclear industry a lifeline since it was unable to compete at 43EUR/MWh and raising the cost of purchasing to 70EUR/MWh for its reactors in a 15 year agreement. So yeah the French tax payer may not see anything on their bill, but the power is definitely being paid for by them in other means.
To quote something I read on the internet: "Quit subsidizing any form of energy generation and you will find out what it really costs." - And if you do that, EDF would be bankrupt. ... I mean bankrupt again. We're talking about an industry that needed a bail out despite already getting subsidies.
your daily reminder (Score:2)
Nuclear fanboys ignore facts and mod down opposition because they are fragile cucks.
Re:Apologies, are in order. (Score:5, Interesting)
Nuclear power needs to be treated like the defense department: a bottomless pit of expenses. In a way it is defending against climate collapse.
Nuclear will never be a candidate for privatization because it is simply not profitable. Time to admit this and just get it done.
Re: (Score:2)
The IPCC rates renewables as 10x more effective at reducing CO2 by 2030, compared to nuclear. The reasons are obvious: cost, and the fact that you can't build a single nuclear plant by 2030 in most countries. Less than 5.5 years is nowhere near long enough.
If you actually care about keeping the planet inhabitable, it needs to be renewables. Feel free to look at nuclear long term, but the reality is that by the time you actually build any nuclear plants they will be largely obsolete, unable to integrate well
Re: (Score:2)
The IPCC rates renewables as 10x more effective at reducing CO2 by 2030, compared to nuclear.
And we are going to sit back, relax, and watch them fail. Comfortable in the knowledge that we are not participating, never mind complicit, in their failure.
Oh sorry, I meant to say I'm super glad you have the problem fixed, and for cheap no less! We will move our attention to other more important things.
Re:Apologies, are in order. (Score:5, Insightful)
Ignoring the can of worms that is the waste disposal issue, the big problem with nuclear power is that's simply not cheap. It's the same flaw with the argument made by people who want to cling to their ICE vehicles by proposing that we switch to synthetic fuels. Yeah, it's technically possible, but economically it's gonna screw you hard in the pocket book.
If nuclear was this wildly competitive energy panacea, the free hand of the market would've done its thing with investors dumping boatloads of money into what would certainly be a windfall of ROI. Instead, we've got the government agreeing to subsidize it, because it's yet another thing that really only works when we pay for it with newly printed "money".
Nuclear power and deployment doesn't really deploy on an "urgent" timeline. And between the government corruption and NIMBY bullshit, it amounts to literal decades of nothing but bullshit red tape.
THAT, is why nuclear has been traditionally 'expensive'. Now that we seem to be growing more and more of an urgent need to deploy clean power, perhaps the bipartisan corruption can curb some of those senseless billions from being pissed away before ground even breaks.
Sorry, but I have little sympathy for this "problem" when we've been paying for that kind of bullshit for decades.
Re: (Score:2)
the big problem with nuclear power is that's simply not cheap.
Yes, it is a premium product.
It's the same flaw with the argument made by people who want to cling to their ICE vehicles by proposing that we switch to synthetic fuels. Yeah, it's technically possible, but economically it's gonna screw you hard in the pocket book.
Also a premium product. Given the actual choice I'm not sure it would not have been better.
A) Replace fossil fuels with syn fuels. Cons - expensive (though with vast potential to scale), pros - works for all existing vehicles globally, uses existing distribution infrastructure. Drop in, plug and play.
B) Replace fossil fuels with batteries. Pros - more efficient use of energy than making liquid fuels. Cons - requires replacing all motor vehicles globally, retooling of
Re: (Score:2)
the big problem with nuclear power is that's simply not cheap.
Yes, it is a premium product.
And yet the electricity it produces is no different from any one else's.
Electricity is the product, not the plant - which is merely the means of production.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I could operate both at 50% CF .., or 60% / 40% ...
They are the same engines.
Yes, but it is not economical to build and maintain plants for only occasional use. Aren't you anti-nuclear people obsessed with economics?
In other words: a nuke has a CF of over 90% because
Because it is intended to be used that way. Whatever means of generation you choose, you should run it as much as you possibly can.
Re: (Score:2)
>"If nuclear was this wildly competitive energy panacea, the free hand of the market would've done its thing with investors dumping boatloads of money into what would certainly be a windfall of ROI."
You can't call on the free market on one hand and ignore the extreme regulatory controls on that market on the other hand. Nuclear is not cheap, that is true. But what probably makes it uncompetitive has been mostly over-regulation. It is such a high barrier to entry (both inherently AND the regulation req
Re: (Score:2)
You probably also believe that nuclear power is super, super safe. And that regulation had absolutely nothing to do with that.
Re: (Score:2)
>"You probably also believe that nuclear power is super, super safe."
It is inherently dangerous. Far moreso than other energy production.
>"And that regulation had absolutely nothing to do with that."
Never said that. Also never said there shouldn't be regulation. But there is sensible regulation and irrational over-regulation. The former keeps things safe, the latter makes things nearly impossible with red tape.
Re: (Score:2)
The math for nuclear has never worked and it keeps getting worse.
It seems like you're still at an elementary school math level, isn't it?
Re:Apologies, are in order. (Score:5, Informative)
> It seems like you're still at an elementary school math level, isn't it?
Can't speak for the OP, but mine is university physics level and based on 10 years in the energy industry on the money side. So I'll be happy to present the numbers:
Cost of construction for nuclear currently averages about $12/W in "the west". That's an average over all new reactors built in the last 15 years or to be completed in the next five.
The cost of construction for new PV on one-axis trackers with a 25% fleet average CF is $0.95/W.
CF on new nuclear is a bit better than 90%, so to match the performance of new nuclear we would have to install 3.6 times as much PV. That means it costs $3.42/W to produce the same amount of power as the $12 nuclear plant.
As the price of electricity in both systems has a vanishing fuel cost (uranium is cheap, sunlight is free) the bottom line is largely the amortization of the capital cost. Right now that comes to about 16 cents/kWh for nuclear, and about 2 cents/kWh for PV. That latter number is based on in-market contracts signed for 20-year PPAs in the USA, that's not some made-up value, that's the actual number.
And before you say it, most PV systems in the US in the last four years are so are actually battery hybrids with an average 4 hours peak storage - meaning 8 hours night use. Those are signing 20-year contracts at 4 cents.
And that is why PV is the fastest growing power source in history and nuclear is dead.
Re: (Score:2)
And how much of that $12/W for nuclear is all the bullshit that has to get paid for - like the NIMBY bullshit lawsuits, extra red tape that got pushed through on all political levels to slow down nuclear since the 50's and 60's by "green" "eco friendly" groups, and other the other unnecessary ( in other words - non safety critical ) hoops that have to be jumped through just to get plans approved, much less before breaking ground?
And yay... solar can run for (up to) 8 hours at night. If you upkeep your batte
Re: (Score:2)
Very little. The cost of litigating NYMBI issues is dwarfed by the cost of construction. Most people who think this is a NYMBI issue really have no comprehension of the complexity of a nuclear plant construction, both in terms of scale, materials, QA, certification, and all those "safety critical hoops" which judging by your post you think are minor - when in fact they are major.
A lot of the regulations and red tape are the result of the industry, not the government. This shit costs a lot of money, the only
Re: (Score:2)
> And how much of that $12/W for nuclear is all the bullshit that has to get paid for
Yes, people in the US often claim every problem is the fault of the gubmint, and I knew you would raise this point and had my reply ready.
According to MITs Nuclear Engineering department, the total amount of cost rise due to safety changes is approximately 25%. That is, the rough doubling of the total cost from ~$6 in the 1970s to ~$12 today is due only in a small part to changing requirements.
The vast majority of the co
Re: (Score:2)
The problems are everywhere the same.
Does not matter if it is about software or construction.
First of all: the contractors are always lying cheating bastards, that sell you something for a price and time frame which is bluntly impossible. Then the buyer is usually so stupid that he picks the cheapest or second cheapest supplier.
If it is a gigantic project, then the supplier will have sub contractors. They play the same game. Or half of the subcontractors are freshly made companies, just for the purpose of t
Re: (Score:2)
So how does your 8 whole hours of battery storage get through an 11 day dunkelflaute in December?
If other words, when the batteries are flat, and the inversion has shut down the wind and the overcast has the PV at 7% of nameplate? Gas turbines? Does your calculation account for the cost of keeping men and equipment idle from March until November?
Re: (Score:2)
> So how does your 8 whole hours of battery storage get through an 11 day dunkelflaute in December?
The same way we get through it when they take a reactor offline for refuelling - you use one of the many other sources that are already attached to your grid.
> Gas turbines? Does your calculation account for the cost of keeping men and equipment idle from March until November?
Not my calculations, the power company's. After all, they already built them for exactly that reason, their idle opex is among the
Re: (Score:2)
So Thailand Never has cloudy days? I thought that was monsoon country, my mistake. And apparently it never has calm days either, according to you.
As you surmised, "Dunkelflaute" is a German term. It was a rude surprise to them. It's also common here in this part of the US (Washington State between the Cascades and the Idaho border.
Granted in Thailand having the power go out will not kill you. Here it's quite different, or it can be. I have a wood stove to back up the heat pump, which by the way was not all
Re: (Score:2)
Cost of construction for nuclear currently averages about $12/W in "the west". That's an average over all new reactors built in the last 15 years or to be completed in the next five.
Which means your numbers are already too high. There is a subtle acknowledgement of that fact with your
"the west"
qualification to your numbers. The West has been saddled with arbitrary costs by folks who want to prevent nuclear power for whatever reasons they have. These costs are not entirely about safety, even if they are justified with the word "safety".
Nuclear would not be so expensive if we just decided to do it and ensured safety without any political fearmongering.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that many places in the world don't physically have the land mass or sunlight that PV could ever work, even given infinite money. Take for example Japan -- if they built-out every possible watt of wind and solar power that the island could produce, it wouldn't make a dent in their energy usage. For some places, nuclear is the only option.
Re: (Score:3)
> US Congress just passed a bill in support of new nuclear power plants
US Congress has passed any number of similar bills over the last 25 years. They have had no discernable effect.
For instance, here are some recent ones that have either passed or are still being worked on:
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/118/hr6544
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/118/s1111 - this is the one this article is about
https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/826/text
https://www.govtrack.us/congress
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, that's 370 GW for nuclear capacity, the 270 is a typo.
Re: (Score:2)
It's really simple math.
Which number is greater?
Nuclear power at $130/MWh
or
Solar at $50/MWh
Re: (Score:2)
It's really simple math. Which number is greater? Nuclear power at $130/MWh or Solar at $50/MWh
Solar with required storage and grid upgrades which you don't quote? Do you sell used cars?
Re: (Score:2)
Batteries for overnight storage are about $20/MWh
Nuclear doesn't require grid upgrades?
BTW, these are old numbers.
Solar and batteries keep getting cheaper.
Nuclear power keeps getting more expensive.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>"We are at the point where we need to change energy production to keep our planet habitable to us humans, cost is now irrelevant"
1) If you believe that. Many don't. Or they certainly don't believe it is "inevitable and immediate doom".
2) If you completely ignore that there are limits to what we can do, and how quickly, without collapsing the economy and throwing us back into the dark ages.
Even if you are in the "I don't believe it" camp, that doesn't mean there aren't fantastic and valid reasons for g
Re: (Score:2)
The only victims will be the corporations sucking up tax money to build reactors that never actually build them, Boo Hoo.
Re: (Score:2)
>"about 2, there is an entire defense department with an enormous budget. It has not ruined the economy due to it's cost."
1) We need national defense. It is also a clear duty, as spelled out in the Constitution.
2) We now pay MORE ON THE NATIONAL DEBT in interest EACH YEAR than we do on defense.
3) Our economy will do mostly fine until some tipping point, and we are very dangerously close to it right now with high inflation and very high debt. We cannot continue to pour money into the economy we don't ha
Re: (Score:2)
Cost is never irrelevant.
Why should we build the most expensive energy generators?
Why not build wind, solar, batteries which will do the job at much lower cost and a much faster time scale?
Re: Still haven't solved the worst problems (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Did they make radioactive elements less usable for a dirty bomb?
That is obviously impossible, though the threat is far lower than you would seem to believe.
Did they solve the issue where when the fuel is spent it needs to be stored somewhere *forever*?
As I'm sure you're aware, this is a long since solved problem and exists for political reasons and not technical reasons.
Did they close all the meltdown prone plants and replace them with ones that physically cannot melt down?
No, largely because of people like you that prevented us from doing so for decades. If you want to replace older plants, you need to, you, know, allow people to replace them.
If wind, solar, and tidal power can already fill all our power needs, why even consider nuclear power?
Because wind and solar canno
Re: (Score:2)
Did they solve the issue where when the fuel is spent it needs to be stored somewhere *forever*?
As I'm sure you're aware, this is a long since solved problem and exists for political reasons and not technical reasons.
The political aspect is integral to why the problem is hard. But the actual answer is, no, the problem has not been solved.
The problem gets harder if you want nuclear power to be a significant part of the energy source, because you're going to have to start fuel reprocessing, which we haven't done in the US for nearly fifty years; and in the longer term, you're going to have to start using breeder reactors or else switch to a thorium-based cycle.
That's not to say that the problems aren't solvable, but no,
Re: (Score:2)
The problem gets harder if you want nuclear power to be a significant part of the energy source, because you're going to have to start fuel reprocessing
With the nuclear power industry we actually have, based on light water moderation, spent fuel reprocessing extends the fuel supply by only 25-30%. This does not meaningfully change the prospects for nuclear power as "a significant part of the energy source". If uranium resources is insufficient then extending them by 25-30% does not change that, and if they are sufficient then that extension makes no difference. But the cost of that added fuel is much higher than the cost of newly mined and enriched uranium
Reprocessing [Re:Still haven't solved the wors...] (Score:2)
The problem gets harder if you want nuclear power to be a significant part of the energy source, because you're going to have to start fuel reprocessing
With the nuclear power industry we actually have, based on light water moderation, spent fuel reprocessing extends the fuel supply by only 25-30%.
"At 40,000 MWd/tonne burn-up, the spent fuel assembly contains approximately 94.5% unused uranium,"
--Source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/... [sciencedirect.com]
Is this inaccurate? That number corresponds to extending the fuel supply by a factor of 18, not 1.25-1.3. For reference, we currently have 90,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel
If it is inaccurate... then we have to move to breeders sooner.
...
If the TerraPower approach proves practical and cost-effective in several years then reprocessing plants will be unnecessary.
Basically TerraPower is a breeder, in this case breeding 239Pu So, you're saying that, having dismissed other technologie
Re: (Score:2)
We don't need, and shouldn't advocate "reprocessing" in the conventional sense, which involves an endless cycle of burning a tiny fraction of the fuel, waiting for it to cool, separating the plutonium, and then re-manufacturing it into new solid fuel.
You give reprocessing far too much credit. With the light water technology used in all U.S. nuclear power plants it is not an "endless cycle" but a "twice through process" that only extends the fuel supply 25-30%, After the freshly mined and enriched uranium fuel load is spent, reprocessed and burned you are done. The build up of even numbered isotopes of both uranium and plutonium makes it useless as a light water fuel load.
Re: (Score:3)
My guess would be that they want SMRs for military use. Or someone made some hefty donations to campaign funds. It doesn't make any sense to throw good money after bad with all these failed next gen wonder reactors that inevitably fail.
Re:This is what bugs me about tech nerds (Score:5, Interesting)
Finally bottom line we have a limited amount of money to spend on clean energy because the oil companies fight us to the nail.
Oil companies, particularly natural gas companies, are the biggest proponents of solar and wind energy. They understand that with solar and wind energy, there will always be a need to burn gas. In contrast, oil companies strongly oppose nuclear energy because it poses a significant threat to their monopoly.
You are just pushing the narrative of big oil, but you head is so deep in the sand you don't realize it.
Re: (Score:2)
>So when someone asks, have we solved the problem with nuclear waste needing to be stored somewhere forever The response is to pretend that because we can technically do it the political problems preventing us from doing it just plain don't exist.
No, it's been solved for a very, very, long time. It's political crap, mostly that came from the tree hugging hippy groups, that "Using reactors that can burn 'waste' as fuel COULD be used to make more weapons grade materiel". You know because making bomb number
Re:Still haven't solved the worst problems (Score:4, Insightful)
Pity no one has come up with a way of storing energy.
Solar and wind are not nearly as cheap if you have to store it. Especially if you have to store it for any significant period of time.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Indeed. When you add the cost of storage solar and wind are only slightly cheaper than coal and nuclear instead of a shitload cheaper.
Re: (Score:2)
"Spent fuel" is not waste to be disposed of, it still has vast amounts of energy. The solution to the "problem" is to keep burning it, not figure out some means of disposing of it. The reason we don't keep burning it is not technical, it is political.
Re: (Score:2)
If wind, solar, and tidal power can already fill all our power needs
That's the thing, we don't know that answer yet. Part of that hinges on what is going to happen in regards with grid-scale storage in the next decade and the changing economics as more and more wind and solar come online. Every MW of solar and windyou install will be more difficult than the last, just the same with oil, the easiest to exploit resources are developed first.
Currently around 60% of the US grid is still fossil fuels and renewables make up about 21% of the total pie, so renewables have at a be
Re: (Score:3)
If the goal is to have a 100% wind/solar/tidal/hydro grid, then great, lets go that route, but if the goal is "displace as much fossil fuel with non-fossil sources" then nuclear absolutely should be on the table.
But when we're presently nowhere near that 100%, is nuclear the best use of government handouts? Maybe, in very limited situations where you can't generate enough energy with renewables and can't get the electricity there from somewhere else because reasons (Texas, I'm looking at you). Once you factor in the waste disposal issue and true economic costs of maintaining a reactor from cradle to grave, nuclear really starts losing its luster.
Re: (Score:2)
Now we are back to why I always support the French model of nuclear energy, the conomics are a problem and the waste are a problem but after those it literally is pretty much all upsides: 24/7 huge amount of power for the land space taken, very reliable, very safe with very low carbon emissions. Every nuclear plant that goes online is eating bug chunks from that 60% fossil fuels and that is a good thing worth the money. Waste is not some unsolvable intractable problem but the private market is not going
Re: (Score:2)
>"Currently around 60% of the US grid is still fossil fuels and renewables make up about 21% of the total pie"
As of 2023, total US energy production:
https://www.eia.gov/energyexpl... [eia.gov]
Natural gas 38%
Petroleum (crude oil and natural gas plant liquids) 34%
Coal 11%
Renewable energy 8%
Nuclear electric power 8%
That means 80% is fossil fuels.
Electricity ONLY is:
Natural gas 43%
Renewables 21%
Nuclear 19%
Coal 16%
Quadrillion BTU's by use type:
Electric: 37.75
Transportation: 27.47 (almost all of which is petroleum)
Indus
Re: (Score:2)
Pumped storage isn't exactly a plug and play operation that can be done anywhere without massive costs and infrastrucure. Don't get me wrong, pumped storage is cool as shit and I want more of it but it's not some magic wand. A large facility is going to incur millions and millions of dollars to create as well.
Every roof on a Walmart or Home Depot is ripe for solar farms as are their parking lots. Solar over highways and solar over crops that don't need combining or maximum sunlight.
Rooftop solar is rapidly becoming known as a something of a boondoggle that isn't making economic sense and grid solar is becoming the lowest cost most return projects. Same with solar over highway
Re: (Score:2)
Pumped storage isn't exactly a plug and play operation that can be done anywhere without massive costs and infrastrucure.
It also comes with it's own environmental damage as you basically need to carve out at least one, usually two lakes (upper and lower reservoirs), and flatten the top of a mountain or other high terrain. Not saying it's not worth it, but it is there and you will get NIMBY and environmentalist push back. Plus bad things happen when you skimp on the maintenance part, which is much less regulated than in nuclear. Just google Taum Sauk failure to see what that can look like.
Re: (Score:2)
I think point is that unless you are in favorable geography already then constructing the artificial lakes required for a large pumped storage facility is a large infrastructure project that will costs millions if not billions of dollars and have significant safety and engineering challenges so in a lot of ways pumped storage and nuclear powere are more common than they are apart: huge upfront capital costs but long term a good investment but each have unique safety considerations.
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, when I say boondoggle I don't mean people shouldn't do it if it makes sense for them to do it but that we should not subsidize it's costs, the return in terms of power production and co2 reduction is much lower than grid scale solutions, public dollars are best served with those large scale solutions.
And as you said, this stuff is getting cheaper and cheaper everyday so I would definitely grease the regulation process for people to install their own solar panels but kill the rebates and subisidies, esp
Re: (Score:2)
...vastly cheaper than tens of billions for a new nuclear power plant and who knows how many billions to store the waste until the sun goes nova. As it will remain a highly toxic concentrated metal literally forever after it has ceased to be radioactive.
Every dollar put into a nuclear plant is going to produce more MW for it's lifetime than a pumped storage facility. Say what you want about Voglte but it is going to produce 4.5GW for 50+ years. How much pumped storage is going to cost to produce those same numbers?
Also for just pure storage the estimated cost before it was cancelled for the Yucca mountain facility was something like $100B over 25 years, or $4B a year. But that was to store effectively all waste in the country in a single facility. $4B
Re: (Score:2)
Sure we do. You just keep building out wind and solar and pumped storage backup [wikipedia.org]
Pumped storage works in some locations, but not everywhere. An advantage of battery storage is that it works pretty much anywhere (although batteries do have problems at extreme temperatures).
Not for a veeeeery long time.
Yes. Because both solar and wind resources are very location dependent, so you start with installations in the desirable places first.
https://cdn.britannica.com/27/... [britannica.com]
https://www.eia.gov/energyexpl... [eia.gov]
As you increase the implementation percentage, you have to go to progressively less and less desirable locations, o
Re: (Score:2)
If wind, solar, and tidal power can already fill all our power needs, why even consider nuclear power?
Well, they can't. What is your next argument?
Re: (Score:2)
Can you say the same about oil? No you can not because right now you are breathing the problems of burning oil. You are living the climate changes from burning oil. The drawbacks of oil are direct and are already here.
*I had to hedge that a bit since some outraged victim will say yes; I am sure there are a handful - but everyone on the planet is currently a victim of oil, there is no hiding from the air
Re: (Score:2)
Of all the nuclear 'problems', are any directly affecting [a significant* number of] you right now?
Yes, price.
Re: (Score:2)
Probably doesn't count as significant on a country scale, but where I live uranium mine tailings still leach assorted heavy metals into the source for our drinking water. One of the former military nuclear locations nearby is now "leaking" detectable amounts of plutonium into wind-blown dust at a DOE-certified "clean" site.
Re: (Score:2)
>"Congress started throwing every damned thing it wanted into these massive singular budget bills and then shoving them at the President and saying "sign this entire pile of crap, or the government shuts down and the elderly don't get their Social Security checks and Medicare coverage". This scheme has worked so well, it's been the rule, rather than the exception, ever since"
^^^ THIS
Politicians can shove all kinds of crap in there, and they do, and know that NOBODY can read or understand it, and that nob
Will Biden SIGN it? (Score:2)
As I said, 90% of legislation when we have divided government is phony - not intended to become law. This is fully-consistent with the idea that THIS particular bill MIGHT be one of the rare non-phony ones... however, it will anger many in the President's political base. The way you will know if this particular bill is phony is to watch to see what the House and the President do with it.
Chuck Schumer (Democrat Senate Majority Leader, from New York) NEVER brings anything up for a vote without knowing where t