5 ms·

50MW per reactor at 12 per plant is 600MW. Or 600k homes powered by a single power plant. Nuclear is now very safe, and cleaner than coal. I am glad this projec

50MW per reactor at 12 per plant is 600MW. Or 600k homes powered by a single power plant. Nuclear is now very safe, and cleaner than coal. I am glad this project is moving forwards. EDIT: Opportunities for more skilled jobs is always a plus too.

acidburnNSA 9y ago
> cleaner than coal It's also cleaner and less carbon intensive (12 gCO2/kWh) than pretty much everything else out there. Wind beats it as the least carbon intensive (11 gCO2/kWh). Original reference: https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg3/ipcc_wg3_ar5_annex-iii.pdf https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg3/ipcc_wg3_a... Writeup with plots: https://partofthething.com/thoughts/a-medium-length-primer-on-energy-greenhouse-gas-intermittency-and-nuclear/ https://partofthething.com/thoughts/a-medium-length-primer-o...
Angostura 9y ago
How is the long-term waste handled?
- devhead 9y ago
  transferred across our roads, rails, rivers and then returned to earth with a sign that says stay out forever. These are not points to ignore when talking about the benefits of using this process. I haven't read the reports, hopefully the accounted for that extra co2 from disposal processes, clean up and recovery.
  - rwcarlsen 9y ago
    Modern transport and disposal techniques are much safer than the transport and disposal of many other industrial chemicals/waste both due to the nature of the waste as well as precautions taken. And disposal cost and carbon footprint are absolutely accounted for in all studies/reports worth their salt. I'd be totally fine having the spent fuel buried in my backyard (in typical/standard disposal canisters) and drinking well-water pumped from below. I am a nuclear engineer FWIW.
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago
  Given it’s not pumped into the atmosphere to be finely dispersed globally and stored in our childrens’ bones and lungs, almost any solution beats the status quo.
  - Retric 9y ago
    That's already changing very rapidly. "World coal production fell by 6.2%, or 231 million tonnes of oil equivalent (mtoe) in 2016" What changed is both solar and wind cost less than coal. So, coal is being fazed out about as fast as alternatives come online. Give it another 10 years and the landscape will look very different.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - acidburnNSA 9y ago
      The majority of coal displacement in the US has been natural gas which is cleaner from a lung disease perspective but just as bad for climate change.
      - alkonaut 9y ago
        Actually LNG is 30% less CO2 per unit of energy which isn't revolutionary but it's not a tiny difference either. If a lot of things that currently burn other hydrocarbons (such as ships) would instead burn LNG we could cut emissions quite a bit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquefied_natural_gas#Environmental_concerns https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquefied_natural_gas#Environm...
        acidburnNSA 9y ago
        But then you have to account for methane leaks from pipelines and account for the fact that methane has 60x more warming power than co2 and they end up being basically a wash. Consider the error bars in, i.e. https://partofthething.com/thoughts/wp-content/uploads/ipcc-co2-of-fuels.png https://partofthething.com/thoughts/wp-content/uploads/ipcc-... Data from https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg3/ipcc_wg3_ar5_annex-iii.pdf https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg3/ipcc_wg3_a...
- stevenwoo 9y ago
  In Europe, it's going to a places like the one for Finland. France has similar plans. https://www.pri.org/stories/2017-07-31/finlands-solution-nuclear-waste-storage-may-set-example-world https://www.pri.org/stories/2017-07-31/finlands-solution-nuc... In the US, it stays at the plant for the next generation to figure out what to do with it. Then that problem gets passed to the next generation.
  - smcl 9y ago
    If anyone finds this interesting the film "Into Eternity" is about the construction of Onkalo, a huge underground nuclear waste store in Finland. It's a nice watch, trailer here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoUkhOup1C4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoUkhOup1C4
averagewall 9y ago
How is more skilled jobs a plus? Doesn't the US have an excess of skilled job vacancies and and excess of unskilled people? I would think more unskilled jobs would balance the market out better. Of course any kind of job is also a cost to the company running the plant, which means more of an obstacle to the adoption of more nuclear power. If we could do it without any jobs, I'm sure it'd be much cheaper and more prevalent!
- ajuc 9y ago
  You can always educate more people. Not only helping the economy, and the people, but also getting side benefits like more informed society that makes better decisions in elections. > Doesn't the US have an excess of skilled job vacancies and and excess of unskilled people? Yeah, mostly because of its obsolete education system.
- Density 9y ago
  The US has a massive shortage of non computing related technical jobs: https://nytimes.com/2017/11/01/education/edlife/stem-jobs-industry-careers.html?_r=0 https://nytimes.com/2017/11/01/education/edlife/stem-jobs-in...

acidburnNSA 9y ago

> cleaner than coal It's also cleaner and less carbon intensive (12 gCO2/kWh) than pretty much everything else out there. Wind beats it as the least carbon intensive (11 gCO2/kWh). Original reference: https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg3/ipcc_wg3_ar5_annex-iii.pdf https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg3/ipcc_wg3_a... Writeup with plots: https://partofthething.com/thoughts/a-medium-length-primer-on-energy-greenhouse-gas-intermittency-and-nuclear/ https://partofthething.com/thoughts/a-medium-length-primer-o...

Angostura 9y ago

How is the long-term waste handled?

devhead 9y ago
transferred across our roads, rails, rivers and then returned to earth with a sign that says stay out forever. These are not points to ignore when talking about the benefits of using this process. I haven't read the reports, hopefully the accounted for that extra co2 from disposal processes, clean up and recovery.
- rwcarlsen 9y ago
  Modern transport and disposal techniques are much safer than the transport and disposal of many other industrial chemicals/waste both due to the nature of the waste as well as precautions taken. And disposal cost and carbon footprint are absolutely accounted for in all studies/reports worth their salt. I'd be totally fine having the spent fuel buried in my backyard (in typical/standard disposal canisters) and drinking well-water pumped from below. I am a nuclear engineer FWIW.
JumpCrisscross 9y ago
Given it’s not pumped into the atmosphere to be finely dispersed globally and stored in our childrens’ bones and lungs, almost any solution beats the status quo.
- Retric 9y ago
  That's already changing very rapidly. "World coal production fell by 6.2%, or 231 million tonnes of oil equivalent (mtoe) in 2016" What changed is both solar and wind cost less than coal. So, coal is being fazed out about as fast as alternatives come online. Give it another 10 years and the landscape will look very different.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - acidburnNSA 9y ago
    The majority of coal displacement in the US has been natural gas which is cleaner from a lung disease perspective but just as bad for climate change.
    - alkonaut 9y ago
      Actually LNG is 30% less CO2 per unit of energy which isn't revolutionary but it's not a tiny difference either. If a lot of things that currently burn other hydrocarbons (such as ships) would instead burn LNG we could cut emissions quite a bit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquefied_natural_gas#Environmental_concerns https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquefied_natural_gas#Environm...
      - acidburnNSA 9y ago
        But then you have to account for methane leaks from pipelines and account for the fact that methane has 60x more warming power than co2 and they end up being basically a wash. Consider the error bars in, i.e. https://partofthething.com/thoughts/wp-content/uploads/ipcc-co2-of-fuels.png https://partofthething.com/thoughts/wp-content/uploads/ipcc-... Data from https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg3/ipcc_wg3_ar5_annex-iii.pdf https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg3/ipcc_wg3_a...
stevenwoo 9y ago
In Europe, it's going to a places like the one for Finland. France has similar plans. https://www.pri.org/stories/2017-07-31/finlands-solution-nuclear-waste-storage-may-set-example-world https://www.pri.org/stories/2017-07-31/finlands-solution-nuc... In the US, it stays at the plant for the next generation to figure out what to do with it. Then that problem gets passed to the next generation.
- smcl 9y ago
  If anyone finds this interesting the film "Into Eternity" is about the construction of Onkalo, a huge underground nuclear waste store in Finland. It's a nice watch, trailer here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoUkhOup1C4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoUkhOup1C4

averagewall 9y ago

How is more skilled jobs a plus? Doesn't the US have an excess of skilled job vacancies and and excess of unskilled people? I would think more unskilled jobs would balance the market out better. Of course any kind of job is also a cost to the company running the plant, which means more of an obstacle to the adoption of more nuclear power. If we could do it without any jobs, I'm sure it'd be much cheaper and more prevalent!

ajuc 9y ago
You can always educate more people. Not only helping the economy, and the people, but also getting side benefits like more informed society that makes better decisions in elections. > Doesn't the US have an excess of skilled job vacancies and and excess of unskilled people? Yeah, mostly because of its obsolete education system.
Density 9y ago
The US has a massive shortage of non computing related technical jobs: https://nytimes.com/2017/11/01/education/edlife/stem-jobs-industry-careers.html?_r=0 https://nytimes.com/2017/11/01/education/edlife/stem-jobs-in...