7 ms·
>in an era where solar is competitively priced We're not in that era though. Solar is only competitive if you don't account for storage, which is required if i
by hueving 10y ago
>in an era where solar is competitively priced
We're not in that era though. Solar is only competitive if you don't account for storage, which is required if it's going to replace any large percentage of generation.
- cma 10y agoNuclear waste storage is subsidized and nuclear liability is too (capped near $12billion; plausible accident scenarios can go over $1trillion).
- blackguardx 10y agoNuclear waste recycling is heavily restricted in the US. It only makes sense to subsidize storage if recycling is restricted.
- hueving 10y ago>plausible accident scenarios can go over $1trillion Citation? Something like Chernobyl isn't even plausible with newer reactors and it wasn't $1t.
- lamontcg 10y agoFukushima is up to $200bn and rising.
- MichaelApproved 10y agoHere's a recent source that puts it close to that figure ($180 billion) http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-38131248 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-38131248
- Crito 10y agoIf you took AGW seriously, you would laugh as such a pitiful expense.
- DennisP 10y agoFukushima is not a "newer reactor." It was built in the 70s.
- lamontcg 10y agoYeah, and I still remember when Chernobyl happened in 1986 and they told us that it was all due to shitty Russian design and that it could never happen to a reactor like Fukushima. Those goal posts keep conveniently moving. Today's brand new reactors eventually become the 30 or 40 year old reactors that are allowed to have meltdowns that "could never happen with new reactor design".
- calibration263 10y agoFukushima was commissioned in 1971, Chernobyl was commissioned in 1977. That said Fukushima was a better design, and as a result was a much less significant event. Reactors built today will be 30-40 years old one day, but we also have 30 years more knowledge about nuclear power than when either of those reactors were built.
- coldtea 10y ago>Something like Chernobyl isn't even plausible with newer reactors That's what they said for Chernobyl too.
- throwanem 10y agoIt really isn't. Also, no one still builds reactors out of graphite, or without containment vessels. So there's that.
- coldtea 10y ago>Also, no one still builds reactors out of graphite, or without containment vessels. So there's that. At the point they were built, Chernobyl, Fukushima etc were thought OK to be built in that way. Which doesn't give much credence to "this time it's different, we've finally nailed this security thing", so there's that too. Except in the sense that "technology always progress". Which while generally true, is a moot point for first-generation new approaches. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-safe-are-old-nuclear-reactors-lessons-from-fukushima/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-safe-are-old-... http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/nuclear-near-misses-a-decade-of-accidents-at-us-nuclear-energy-power-plants-may-2016-3mb.pdf?f3025c http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/nuc...
- Paradigma11 10y agoDid any Non-Soviet scientists and engineers say this?
- coldtea 10y agoNo, but Non-Soviet scientists said the same things for other reactors that ended in disasters.
- calibration263 10y agoWhich reactors? And which had disasters anywhere close to the scale of Chernobyl? And of those, which of those reactors were newer than Chernobyl?
- paulddraper 10y agoNuclear waste storage is only a problem because we want it to be a problem. Once we actually need alternative energy, we'll figure out that out real quick.
- sdoering 10y agoYeah. Because we didn't already have 60+ years of time with actual smart people trying to find a solution. I am all in for nuclear and much more so for doing ground work and heavily investing in research on nuclear recyclability. But doing the math this will not get as anywhere. We would non the less need to add 1GW of power to the grid nearly every day to fulfill projected demand over the next generation. So this would mean to add ~1 plant every day somewhere on this planet. I am not sure on how much nuclear fuel would be needed to even do this. Then estimate the costs - and the amount of storage needed for the radwaste (not only the fuel, but also the material plants are build of and such. So even being pro nuclear the math tells me, that this is at best a in between solution to buy us some more time until we figure out a better, longterm solution. And no - I do not believe in the fusion singularity to come in my lifetime.
- paulddraper 10y ago> Yeah. Because we didn't already have 60+ years of time with actual smart people trying to find a solution. My point is that it's an artificial problem, not a technical problem.
- hvidgaard 10y agoStorage and recycling of spend fuel rods are not a problem. We have not all that much waste, and plenty of places to put it. And breeder reactors seems to be able to convert part of it into usable fuel again. I agree that it is a temporary solution, but it's the best we got until we figure out how to store energy efficiently, and generate truly renewable energy. I'm sceptical of wind, because it produce a large amount of waste (rotorblade composite) that is only recently started to be recycled, and the question of what to do with the recycled material have to my knowledge not been answered yet. Solar is still dependend on a few rare earth minerals, but some promesing alternatives are actively being researched.
- rbanffy 10y agoIt would be cool if someone could certify an MSR design that burns nuclear waste.
- toomuchtodo 10y agoWe've got these things you know, batteries. And they don't need to be stored somewhere safe for hundreds of years while they cool off. And they decrease in cost as you make more, which nuclear doesn't. Every time an article about nuclear hits HN or Reddit, everyone chicken littles "Nuclear! Won't someone think of the atom!", while solar is on track to have ~80GW installed this year and next year in the US alone. Its over. Nuclear lost. Its never coming back. (10+ years to build a new nuclear generator and billions of dollars? With solar and wind getting cheaper every 6 months? What patsy is going to pay for nuclear?) Now go get some solar panels on your roof and a Powerwall in your garage. Or buy some renewables from your utility if they have a program where you choose your supplier. Even the Union of Concerned Scientists agrees: http://blog.ucsusa.org/steve-clemmer/renewable-energy-to-surpass-coal-and-nuclear-by-2030-eia-annual-energy-outlook-2016 http://blog.ucsusa.org/steve-clemmer/renewable-energy-to-sur...
- iopq 10y agoWhat happens to batteries that leak and no longer work?
- darkmarmot 10y agoRecycling batteries, especially large ones, is very cost effective.
- toomuchtodo 10y agoWhat darkmont and mikeyouse said (Tesla warranties their batteries for 10 years). And fires? https://electrek.co/2016/12/19/tesla-fire-powerpack-test-safety/ https://electrek.co/2016/12/19/tesla-fire-powerpack-test-saf...
- hueving 10y ago10 years? That's pathetic considering the cost. Tesla's powerwalls still aren't even close to economical.[1] "Even at Tesla’s low wholesale price, a 500-cycle battery just doesn’t pencil out against the alternatives, especially once the inverter and other system costs are included. " 1. https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/Tesla-Discontinues-10kWh-Powerwall-Home-Battery https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/Tesla-Discontin...
- tlocke 10y agoOn your point about storage, if more renewable electricity is generated than is needed in a particular area, it's much cheaper to transport it than to store it. For example, this happens on a continental scale in Europe where there are interconnectors between countries that form a Europe-wide grid. The losses for transmission of electricity are about 3.5% per 1,000 km. The losses for storage are at least 15%.