8 ms·

Zero emmissions If nuclear has to include the costs of dismantling the plants, batteries have to include the cost of building them. And wind generators are mas

Zero emmissions If nuclear has to include the costs of dismantling the plants, batteries have to include the cost of building them. And wind generators are massive aluminum structures, which are extremely costly to shape. Some day, maybe. Let's be fair in the meantime.

the8472 8y ago
> decomissioning You have to decomission nuclear plants unless you want radioactive waste in your ground water. You don't have to do such a thing with wind turbines. You could just let them turn into industrial ruins. It's probably more economical to recycle the materials, but that's a choice. > construction All plants require that. Nuclear or coal plants are not made from unicorn hair and dreams. And modern wind turbine blades are made of reinforced fiberglass composites, not aluminium.
- chatmasta 8y ago
  I'm not an environmental scientist, but I thought this argument is usually applied to the cost of mining and refining the materials used to make the batteries and solar cells, which are not necessary for other methods of electricity generation.
toomuchtodo 8y ago
No one has any way to dispose of nuclear waste (except reprocessing, which has significant cost and safety concerns). It sits in storage pools waiting for that day. Lithium batteries have no such issue.
- ovao 8y ago
  While not cost effective in the slightest, jettisoning nuclear waste into outer space is one proposition. Naturally, launching rockets filled with nuclear waste comes with its own safety concerns.
  - sxates 8y ago
    What's the carbon footprint of a thousand rocket launches?
    - ovao 8y ago
      An interesting question, actually. Presumably very, very large.
    - CommieBobDole 8y ago
      Somewhere in the ballpark of a thousand 747 flights at maximum range, maybe a little less. The Falcon 9 carries 147 metric tons of RP-1, which is functionally the same thing as Jet A (both are kerosene), while a 747-400 carries 165 metric tons of Jet A. For a very broad estimate, I'd say the carbon footprint of a thousand Falcon 9 rocket launches is somewhat less than the carbon footprint of a day's worth of aircraft travel, globally.
      - a1369209993 8y ago
        It's also relatively easy[1] to switch over to liquid hydrogen rocket fuel if you decide space lauches really must be hit with pointless double standards. 1: where "easy" means "literally rocket science"
    - proactivesvcs 8y ago
      And what's the radioactive footprint of the handful that catastrophically fail?
  - 205guy 8y ago
    Elon has the space-launch market covered too, he's one step ahead of everyone.
  - fvdessen 8y ago
    > While not cost effective in the slightest I looked it up, and underground storage seems to cost about the same as launching into space with falcon heavy launches, at about 1700$ per kg. [1] https://www.smh.com.au/business/underground-nuclear-waste-facility-could-cost-33-billion-20160216-gmuwsf.html https://www.smh.com.au/business/underground-nuclear-waste-fa... [2] https://www.quora.com/Rockets-What-is-cost-of-sending-1-kg-weight-into-space https://www.quora.com/Rockets-What-is-cost-of-sending-1-kg-w...
- klondike_ 8y ago
  Nuclear waste is supposed to be disposed of in an underground, geologically stable repository by law [1] but because of repeated government incompetence the project has yet to be completed. So now all nuclear waste across the country sits in pools instead of being disposed of properly. This should be trivial to fix but I suppose the government would rather wait for a disaster to happen than to deal with it proactively [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_repository#Delays_since_2009 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_r...
  - mmt 8y ago
    I thought one of the other problems was the safety (or lack thereof) of actually transporting all that waste, rather than leaving it on site, initially in pools but eventually in casks. At least in the US, the rail crash safety record is sufficiently poor for something this hazardous, and I think it's fairly well known how risky highways are. This is mentioned in the Wikipedia article, I don't now what the current risk estimate is. Suffice it to say, I disagree that there's anything trivial about a fix, be it dumping underground or reprocessing. I also disagree that there's some kind of looming, impending disaster brewing in on-site waste storage. My understanding was that waste stored in pools has to be there because it still produces significant heat, so taking out that waste and dumping it underground isn't even an option. Only waste that no longer requires cooling can be moved underground.
    - cf498 8y ago
      >Only waste that no longer requires cooling can be moved underground. Thats the point though. It should be moved into long term storage after that and not stay in the pool that needs to be cooled. Transporting is not the issue you make it out to be. Transport on trains has been a regular spectacle for decades in Europe, especially between La Hague and German nuclear power plants and the storage site in Gorleben. They are transported in nuclear flasks ("Castor" in German) under tight security measures in slow speed across extra checked railways lines. That takes a while, especially if every time ten thousands of protesters blockade the shipment and there is sabotage of the rail bed. All of that makes these transports extremely expensive. You of course cant simply put them in normal freight trains or simply dont put them in storage at all. In the best case you have to move them once the plant gets dismantled which simply makes the final costs higher. Nuclear power ignores most of those costs today and simply lets the public pay the bill in the end. To be a competitive power source the production price needs to also include the budget for waste management, which includes: * Transport of nuclear waste * Final storage of nuclear waste * Cleanup of the power plant This is not the case in most countries which makes nuclear power a highly subsidized energy source. The problem of final storage alone is an absolute nightmare, Germany realized their Morsleben and Asse II radioactive waste repositories were not suited for storage after all. Asse II has lost stability, became flooded and is at threat of collapse. It now has to be decommissioned, which includes a complete dig out.
- wycx 8y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synroc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synroc
seanalltogether 8y ago
Industrial CO2 emissions (building batteries, building power plants, building aluminum) fall under a different category then electricity production emissions, it's not deceptive to claim zero emissions here.
maxerickson 8y ago
Wind towers are mostly steel. (which doesn't really change the point)
ggm 8y ago
seen the prices EDF are asking to provide nuclear backed power as baseload? Distorted by lots of other costs, but those costs aren't going away. The power is huge, but the cost per delivered KWH is huge too. Yes, the PV/Wind sources are lower intensity of power, and yes they have energy input costs. But the delivered KWH cost is significantly lower. This feels like an O/R planning exercise. What we want is to understand all the simultaneous input components to a complex set of cost and benefit outcomes, and have a grid of the models we could do. (I'm pro nuke btw, but trying to be realistic)

the8472 8y ago

> decomissioning You have to decomission nuclear plants unless you want radioactive waste in your ground water. You don't have to do such a thing with wind turbines. You could just let them turn into industrial ruins. It's probably more economical to recycle the materials, but that's a choice. > construction All plants require that. Nuclear or coal plants are not made from unicorn hair and dreams. And modern wind turbine blades are made of reinforced fiberglass composites, not aluminium.

chatmasta 8y ago
I'm not an environmental scientist, but I thought this argument is usually applied to the cost of mining and refining the materials used to make the batteries and solar cells, which are not necessary for other methods of electricity generation.

toomuchtodo 8y ago

No one has any way to dispose of nuclear waste (except reprocessing, which has significant cost and safety concerns). It sits in storage pools waiting for that day. Lithium batteries have no such issue.

ovao 8y ago
While not cost effective in the slightest, jettisoning nuclear waste into outer space is one proposition. Naturally, launching rockets filled with nuclear waste comes with its own safety concerns.
- sxates 8y ago
  What's the carbon footprint of a thousand rocket launches?
  - ovao 8y ago
    An interesting question, actually. Presumably very, very large.
  - CommieBobDole 8y ago
    Somewhere in the ballpark of a thousand 747 flights at maximum range, maybe a little less. The Falcon 9 carries 147 metric tons of RP-1, which is functionally the same thing as Jet A (both are kerosene), while a 747-400 carries 165 metric tons of Jet A. For a very broad estimate, I'd say the carbon footprint of a thousand Falcon 9 rocket launches is somewhat less than the carbon footprint of a day's worth of aircraft travel, globally.
    - a1369209993 8y ago
      It's also relatively easy[1] to switch over to liquid hydrogen rocket fuel if you decide space lauches really must be hit with pointless double standards. 1: where "easy" means "literally rocket science"
  - proactivesvcs 8y ago
    And what's the radioactive footprint of the handful that catastrophically fail?
- 205guy 8y ago
  Elon has the space-launch market covered too, he's one step ahead of everyone.
- fvdessen 8y ago
  > While not cost effective in the slightest I looked it up, and underground storage seems to cost about the same as launching into space with falcon heavy launches, at about 1700$ per kg. [1] https://www.smh.com.au/business/underground-nuclear-waste-facility-could-cost-33-billion-20160216-gmuwsf.html https://www.smh.com.au/business/underground-nuclear-waste-fa... [2] https://www.quora.com/Rockets-What-is-cost-of-sending-1-kg-weight-into-space https://www.quora.com/Rockets-What-is-cost-of-sending-1-kg-w...
klondike_ 8y ago
Nuclear waste is supposed to be disposed of in an underground, geologically stable repository by law [1] but because of repeated government incompetence the project has yet to be completed. So now all nuclear waste across the country sits in pools instead of being disposed of properly. This should be trivial to fix but I suppose the government would rather wait for a disaster to happen than to deal with it proactively [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_repository#Delays_since_2009 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_r...
- mmt 8y ago
  I thought one of the other problems was the safety (or lack thereof) of actually transporting all that waste, rather than leaving it on site, initially in pools but eventually in casks. At least in the US, the rail crash safety record is sufficiently poor for something this hazardous, and I think it's fairly well known how risky highways are. This is mentioned in the Wikipedia article, I don't now what the current risk estimate is. Suffice it to say, I disagree that there's anything trivial about a fix, be it dumping underground or reprocessing. I also disagree that there's some kind of looming, impending disaster brewing in on-site waste storage. My understanding was that waste stored in pools has to be there because it still produces significant heat, so taking out that waste and dumping it underground isn't even an option. Only waste that no longer requires cooling can be moved underground.
  - cf498 8y ago
    >Only waste that no longer requires cooling can be moved underground. Thats the point though. It should be moved into long term storage after that and not stay in the pool that needs to be cooled. Transporting is not the issue you make it out to be. Transport on trains has been a regular spectacle for decades in Europe, especially between La Hague and German nuclear power plants and the storage site in Gorleben. They are transported in nuclear flasks ("Castor" in German) under tight security measures in slow speed across extra checked railways lines. That takes a while, especially if every time ten thousands of protesters blockade the shipment and there is sabotage of the rail bed. All of that makes these transports extremely expensive. You of course cant simply put them in normal freight trains or simply dont put them in storage at all. In the best case you have to move them once the plant gets dismantled which simply makes the final costs higher. Nuclear power ignores most of those costs today and simply lets the public pay the bill in the end. To be a competitive power source the production price needs to also include the budget for waste management, which includes: * Transport of nuclear waste * Final storage of nuclear waste * Cleanup of the power plant This is not the case in most countries which makes nuclear power a highly subsidized energy source. The problem of final storage alone is an absolute nightmare, Germany realized their Morsleben and Asse II radioactive waste repositories were not suited for storage after all. Asse II has lost stability, became flooded and is at threat of collapse. It now has to be decommissioned, which includes a complete dig out.
wycx 8y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synroc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synroc

seanalltogether 8y ago

Industrial CO2 emissions (building batteries, building power plants, building aluminum) fall under a different category then electricity production emissions, it's not deceptive to claim zero emissions here.

maxerickson 8y ago

Wind towers are mostly steel. (which doesn't really change the point)

ggm 8y ago

seen the prices EDF are asking to provide nuclear backed power as baseload? Distorted by lots of other costs, but those costs aren't going away. The power is huge, but the cost per delivered KWH is huge too. Yes, the PV/Wind sources are lower intensity of power, and yes they have energy input costs. But the delivered KWH cost is significantly lower. This feels like an O/R planning exercise. What we want is to understand all the simultaneous input components to a complex set of cost and benefit outcomes, and have a grid of the models we could do. (I'm pro nuke btw, but trying to be realistic)