7 ms·

Well if the japanese could not foresee it, i can imagine what would have happened in a less developed country. I fully agree that we should be switching to nucl

by return0 11y ago

Well if the japanese could not foresee it, i can imagine what would have happened in a less developed country. I fully agree that we should be switching to nuclear already, but everyone who agrees should be willign to sign a petition to build a nuclear plant 10km from their home. I suspect a large reason it's not being promoted is the fear of developing nuclear weapon tech.

DanBC 11y ago
I would gladly have a nuclear power station in my back garden. Show me where I can signup to have eg Toshiba 4s in my back yard and I'll sign today. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toshiba_4S https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toshiba_4S FWIW I have written to my MP and said this.
- toomuchtodo 11y ago
  Just go buy a bunch of solar panels. Even if you signed up for a Toshiba 4s, it won't be cost competitive with solar by the time its installed. Wind is already cheaper than nuclear in the US, and our fleet will probably start being turned down over the next decade due to it [1] It's also evident in Europe [2]. [1] http://midwestenergynews.com/2015/05/01/exelon-we-have-to-have-an-answer-on-nuclear-plants/ http://midwestenergynews.com/2015/05/01/exelon-we-have-to-ha... [2] http://cleantechnica.com/2013/11/05/nuclear-prices-market-graph/ http://cleantechnica.com/2013/11/05/nuclear-prices-market-gr...
  - DanBC 11y ago
    I'd happily have both - solar panels on roof and nuclear in the neigbourhood.
    - toomuchtodo 11y ago
      I'd too live next to a nuclear power plant. Free heat! But it doesn't look like the economics work anymore.
  - chc 11y ago
    Isn't wind mainly "cheaper" because the government pays for it with the Production Tax Credit? Or is my information outdated?
    - toomuchtodo 11y ago
      Yep, but that's no different than the US government subsidizing liability insurance for nuclear generators, as well as allowing nuclear generators to store their waste onsite (with no permanent storage facility on the horizon). Everyone gets a subsidy.
  - Recurecur 11y ago
    Solar is not a reliable form of power. There need to be 24/7 power sources as well. Nuclear is the best candidate for this, and it is already one of the most cost-effective sources of energy. It could be much less expensive with more companies competing to produce better reactor designs. There's quite a bit of activity in that area right now, with companies like TerraPower, Thorcon, Flibe Energy, Moltex, and Terrestrial Energy bringing new nuclear designs to the marketplace. Thorcon believes its reactors will produce power for as little as two cents per KWH. All of these new designs will be meltdown proof, and they don't need to be sited near water.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - toomuchtodo 11y ago
      Maybe these nuclear startups deliver, maybe they don't. Each year they're not operational is another year the price of wind and solar drops (wind is already below 2 cents/kwh in some markets).
      - bryondowd 11y ago
        Well, considering solar is only available during the day, and wind only when there is sufficient wind, you're making a flawed comparison. You would have to add storage for those sources to compete with nuclear. Now you've got a much lower bar to meet, since we don't really have mass energy storage yet, outside of limited areas where pumped water storage is possible. I expect the cost of using current battery tech to balance solar/wind day to day throughout a typical/ideal month would be huge, let alone however much you would need to cover the possibility of a stretch of overcast days and calm winds. Using nuclear to provide a baseline, and other renewable sources to provide peak power seems to be the way to go for the foreseeable future. I'm not sure how long it will be before we can get to a point where we can use purely non-nuclear renewable sources and storage to cover the baseline power draw, but I don't like the idea of sticking with carbon until then.
        toomuchtodo 11y ago
- achamayou 11y ago
  Why would you sign up to have an unproven (sodium-cooled!) design in your back yard!?
mcv 11y ago
The problem is that as long as nuclear is seen as the best solution, every country will want nuclear energy. See the whole mess around Iran why that is a problem. Nuclear energy is too tied to nuclear weaponry. We need something that's both safer and less easily weaponized. That said, if nuclear can help us get rid of coal faster, I'm fine with it as a transitional technology. Because coal really needs to die. But I'd rather replace it with wind and solar. Or maybe Thorium, if that actually works (any progress there?).
- Recurecur 11y ago
  Read up on next-gen nuclear, especially liquid fueled thorium reactors (LFTR). They will be extremely safe, including being completely meltdown proof. They also represent no threat of weapons proliferation. Although the focus is on China, this article touches on many other developments: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/542526/china-details-next-gen-nuclear-reactor-program/ https://www.technologyreview.com/s/542526/china-details-next...
  - chefkoch 11y ago
    But this is all not production ready. There could be very well unforeseen problems like the ones the german Thorium reactor had. The engineers also didn't think their pebles would break and scatter.
    - Recurecur 11y ago
      A LFR ran at Oak Ridge for several years. The technology is well understood, the only reason it was never developed is it is not an efficient way to produce weaponizable material.
jahewson 11y ago
The Japanese knew about it. They just chose to ignore it. The area around Fukishima has stone markers from equally large Tsunamis hundreds of years ago which basically say "the water reached here".

by return0 11y ago

DanBC 11y ago

I would gladly have a nuclear power station in my back garden. Show me where I can signup to have eg Toshiba 4s in my back yard and I'll sign today. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toshiba_4S https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toshiba_4S FWIW I have written to my MP and said this.

toomuchtodo 11y ago
Just go buy a bunch of solar panels. Even if you signed up for a Toshiba 4s, it won't be cost competitive with solar by the time its installed. Wind is already cheaper than nuclear in the US, and our fleet will probably start being turned down over the next decade due to it [1] It's also evident in Europe [2]. [1] http://midwestenergynews.com/2015/05/01/exelon-we-have-to-have-an-answer-on-nuclear-plants/ http://midwestenergynews.com/2015/05/01/exelon-we-have-to-ha... [2] http://cleantechnica.com/2013/11/05/nuclear-prices-market-graph/ http://cleantechnica.com/2013/11/05/nuclear-prices-market-gr...
- DanBC 11y ago
  I'd happily have both - solar panels on roof and nuclear in the neigbourhood.
  - toomuchtodo 11y ago
    I'd too live next to a nuclear power plant. Free heat! But it doesn't look like the economics work anymore.
- chc 11y ago
  Isn't wind mainly "cheaper" because the government pays for it with the Production Tax Credit? Or is my information outdated?
  - toomuchtodo 11y ago
    Yep, but that's no different than the US government subsidizing liability insurance for nuclear generators, as well as allowing nuclear generators to store their waste onsite (with no permanent storage facility on the horizon). Everyone gets a subsidy.
- Recurecur 11y ago
  Solar is not a reliable form of power. There need to be 24/7 power sources as well. Nuclear is the best candidate for this, and it is already one of the most cost-effective sources of energy. It could be much less expensive with more companies competing to produce better reactor designs. There's quite a bit of activity in that area right now, with companies like TerraPower, Thorcon, Flibe Energy, Moltex, and Terrestrial Energy bringing new nuclear designs to the marketplace. Thorcon believes its reactors will produce power for as little as two cents per KWH. All of these new designs will be meltdown proof, and they don't need to be sited near water.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - toomuchtodo 11y ago
    Maybe these nuclear startups deliver, maybe they don't. Each year they're not operational is another year the price of wind and solar drops (wind is already below 2 cents/kwh in some markets).
    - bryondowd 11y ago
      Well, considering solar is only available during the day, and wind only when there is sufficient wind, you're making a flawed comparison. You would have to add storage for those sources to compete with nuclear. Now you've got a much lower bar to meet, since we don't really have mass energy storage yet, outside of limited areas where pumped water storage is possible. I expect the cost of using current battery tech to balance solar/wind day to day throughout a typical/ideal month would be huge, let alone however much you would need to cover the possibility of a stretch of overcast days and calm winds. Using nuclear to provide a baseline, and other renewable sources to provide peak power seems to be the way to go for the foreseeable future. I'm not sure how long it will be before we can get to a point where we can use purely non-nuclear renewable sources and storage to cover the baseline power draw, but I don't like the idea of sticking with carbon until then.
      - toomuchtodo 11y ago
achamayou 11y ago
Why would you sign up to have an unproven (sodium-cooled!) design in your back yard!?

mcv 11y ago

The problem is that as long as nuclear is seen as the best solution, every country will want nuclear energy. See the whole mess around Iran why that is a problem. Nuclear energy is too tied to nuclear weaponry. We need something that's both safer and less easily weaponized. That said, if nuclear can help us get rid of coal faster, I'm fine with it as a transitional technology. Because coal really needs to die. But I'd rather replace it with wind and solar. Or maybe Thorium, if that actually works (any progress there?).

Recurecur 11y ago
Read up on next-gen nuclear, especially liquid fueled thorium reactors (LFTR). They will be extremely safe, including being completely meltdown proof. They also represent no threat of weapons proliferation. Although the focus is on China, this article touches on many other developments: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/542526/china-details-next-gen-nuclear-reactor-program/ https://www.technologyreview.com/s/542526/china-details-next...
- chefkoch 11y ago
  But this is all not production ready. There could be very well unforeseen problems like the ones the german Thorium reactor had. The engineers also didn't think their pebles would break and scatter.
  - Recurecur 11y ago
    A LFR ran at Oak Ridge for several years. The technology is well understood, the only reason it was never developed is it is not an efficient way to produce weaponizable material.

jahewson 11y ago

The Japanese knew about it. They just chose to ignore it. The area around Fukishima has stone markers from equally large Tsunamis hundreds of years ago which basically say "the water reached here".