5 ms·

That, or we switch to a safer nuclear. Turns out nuclear is the only CLEAN baseload energy provider. The rest is all intermittent. Fun fact: Nuclear (in the US

That, or we switch to a safer nuclear. Turns out nuclear is the only CLEAN baseload energy provider. The rest is all intermittent. Fun fact: Nuclear (in the US) is 50 times safer than hydro-electric (in the US) and 4400 times safer than rooftop solar (global) as measured by deaths per watt-hour. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accidents#Fatalities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accidents#Fatalities Say what you will about Chernobyl and Fukushima, but if LFTRs can provide a better and safer nuclear? Then it's about time environmentalists started pulling their heads from their asses and reconsider nuclear before we irreversibly fuck up our entire planet and ecosystem.

spenrose 8y ago
"Is nuclear power going to help the United States decarbonize its energy supply and fight climate change? Probably not. That is the conclusion of a remarkable new study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in early July — remarkable because it is not written by opponents of nuclear power, as one might expect given the conclusion. The authors are in fact extremely supportive of nuclear and view its loss as a matter of “profound concern”" https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/7/11/17555644/nuclear-power-energy-climate-decarbonization-renewables https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/7/11/1755564...
- DennisP 8y ago
  But it's worth noting that the study focused on the U.S., and much of the problem with advanced nuclear in the U.S. comes from the NRC's blinkered approach to regulating new designs. A couple years ago I got to sit in a meeting between a former head of the NRC, and representatives from over a dozen advanced reactor startups. The main complaint of the startup people was that the NRC requires them to spend several hundred million dollars on a detailed design before the NRC will even look at their proposal. Then the NRC gives a straight yes or no. If "no" then the project is over; if "yes" then they still have nothing but a paper reactor. It's a very difficult environment for investors. The startups said just going with a more phased approach would be a huge help. By contrast, Canada has regulators much more friendly to new technology, without compromising safety. Terrestrial Energy, a molten salt reactor startup in Canada, has spoken highly of their regulators, and thinks they can have reactors on the grid by the mid-2020s.
  - toomuchtodo 8y ago
    Most of the grid will be hydro, solar, wind, and utility scale battery storage before Terrestrial Enegry has their first reactor operational.
    - DennisP 8y ago
      I don't think we'll make that much progress by 2025, though I'd love to be wrong about that.
      - toomuchtodo 8y ago
        Countries are meeting their renewables targets years ahead of schedule, and the cost of wind, solar, and batteries will continue to decline. I don’t see any way we’re still using fossil fuels for electricity by 2030. It’s not optimism, just curve fitting.
        hueving 8y ago
        Except batteries aren't even close to where they need to be in costs to cover windless nights.
        toomuchtodo 8y ago
        They will be in the next 5 years.
        DennisP 8y ago
        Maybe. And maybe Terrestrial Energy really will deliver a molten salt reactor delivering nuclear at 3 cents/kWh in 2025. Renewables advocates have a bad habit of comparing the renewables of the future to the nuclear of the past.
        toomuchtodo 8y ago
- tjoff 8y ago
  You don't answer the parent. Parent: "[...] but if LFTRs can provide a better and safer nuclear? Then it's about time environmentalists started pulling their heads from their asses and reconsider nuclear before we irreversibly fuck up our entire planet and ecosystem." Your article: Nuclear isn't economically/politically likely. Well, if the safest and greenest form of electricity was also the cheapest and most politically friendly alternative then we wouldn't be having this discussion. If the environment was prioritized enough then neither would pose any obstacle, what remains is the debate of whether nuclear really is the greenest and safest form of energy.
  - spenrose 8y ago
    I linked to a write-up of peer-reviewed research which focused on the "if" and demonstrated that the odds are daunting. That ... is an answer. I linked to a second article showing that renewables are reducing emissions from natural gas today. "If the environment was prioritized enough" then either would work. Renewables are making headway given the current political economy of energy, nuclear is not. And to repeat: I wish it were!
    - tjoff 8y ago
      Odds are daunting that it is a green and safe source of energy?
      - spenrose 8y ago
        That new nuclear will be deployed at scale in the next two decades that wind and solar are being deployed at now.
pjc50 8y ago
Too late: the LFTR is still vapourware, although not as much as fusion, and the existing technology of reactors already takes ages to build and is prone to cost and time overruns. We need to keep the renewables buildout going while we wait for someone to produce a working non-pilot commercial LFTR.
- korantu 8y ago
  Why even the focus on LFTR, what is wrong with proven technology in modular form? Just dont build reactors gigantic, make them walkaway-safe instead - [1], they are quite resilient - [2] and can be produced on a factory, so inspections are easier and costs are lower. [1] https://www.nuscalepower.com/technology/design-innovations https://www.nuscalepower.com/technology/design-innovations [2] https://www.nuscalepower.com/-/media/Nuscale/Files/Technology/Technical-Publications/nuscale-power-plant-resilience.ashx?la=en&hash=CCC319499E3E5DD65A1941F1471DD6D3EE264D7E https://www.nuscalepower.com/-/media/Nuscale/Files/Technolog...
  - marcosdumay 8y ago
    The "proven" technology was proven not to be reliable enough, to be too expensive for use, and to create some large problems down the line. Besides, if you change the size, it's not "proven" anymore.
    - korantu 8y ago
      This new smaller design solves reliability and cost issues of older bigger designs.
    - wbl 8y ago
      France and the US navy both rely on PWRs. France built a fleet to get the benefits of scale. Nuclear works.
  - greglindahl 8y ago
    Modular would be great, that's a big part of why wind, solar, and batteries are doing so well these days.
Tade0 8y ago
> Turns out nuclear is the only CLEAN baseload energy provider. Thing is in the long run we don't even need baseload power. Renewables have become so cheap now that power plants need to optimize for flexibility rather than efficiency to stay profitable[0]. [0] https://www.ge.com/power/transform/article.transform.articles.2018.jan.evolution-of-combined-cycle-pe# https://www.ge.com/power/transform/article.transform.article... EDIT: emphasis.
- DennisP 8y ago
  Power plants right now have to optimize for working around varying wind/solar supply, but if we tried to run civilization on wind/solar alone, we'd rediscover the need for good baseload supply when the wind stops blowing at night.
  - Tade0 8y ago
    Actually no, because this function is already being taken over by gas peaker plants. It's less expensive to have such a plant and fire it once in a while than to keep a large nuclear/coal plant churning.
    - DennisP 8y ago
      Both of us were talking about the long run, and what I said was "wind/solar alone." Of course we can run on wind/solar/gas but that doesn't decarbonize the grid.
Zigurd 8y ago
If solar had the same record of construction delay, cost overruns, and exorbitant hidden costs in waste storage and decommissioning, nobody would start a solar project. Instead, solar projects fall in cost and exceed their lifecycle expectations. If you can't demonstrate a full life cycle that happens on time and on budget, and without risks that carry costs that wipe out all the value delivered by nuclear, nuclear power is theoretical.

spenrose 8y ago

"Is nuclear power going to help the United States decarbonize its energy supply and fight climate change? Probably not. That is the conclusion of a remarkable new study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in early July — remarkable because it is not written by opponents of nuclear power, as one might expect given the conclusion. The authors are in fact extremely supportive of nuclear and view its loss as a matter of “profound concern”" https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/7/11/17555644/nuclear-power-energy-climate-decarbonization-renewables https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/7/11/1755564...

DennisP 8y ago
But it's worth noting that the study focused on the U.S., and much of the problem with advanced nuclear in the U.S. comes from the NRC's blinkered approach to regulating new designs. A couple years ago I got to sit in a meeting between a former head of the NRC, and representatives from over a dozen advanced reactor startups. The main complaint of the startup people was that the NRC requires them to spend several hundred million dollars on a detailed design before the NRC will even look at their proposal. Then the NRC gives a straight yes or no. If "no" then the project is over; if "yes" then they still have nothing but a paper reactor. It's a very difficult environment for investors. The startups said just going with a more phased approach would be a huge help. By contrast, Canada has regulators much more friendly to new technology, without compromising safety. Terrestrial Energy, a molten salt reactor startup in Canada, has spoken highly of their regulators, and thinks they can have reactors on the grid by the mid-2020s.
- toomuchtodo 8y ago
  Most of the grid will be hydro, solar, wind, and utility scale battery storage before Terrestrial Enegry has their first reactor operational.
  - DennisP 8y ago
    I don't think we'll make that much progress by 2025, though I'd love to be wrong about that.
    - toomuchtodo 8y ago
      Countries are meeting their renewables targets years ahead of schedule, and the cost of wind, solar, and batteries will continue to decline. I don’t see any way we’re still using fossil fuels for electricity by 2030. It’s not optimism, just curve fitting.
      - hueving 8y ago
        Except batteries aren't even close to where they need to be in costs to cover windless nights.
        toomuchtodo 8y ago
        They will be in the next 5 years.
        DennisP 8y ago
        Maybe. And maybe Terrestrial Energy really will deliver a molten salt reactor delivering nuclear at 3 cents/kWh in 2025. Renewables advocates have a bad habit of comparing the renewables of the future to the nuclear of the past.
        toomuchtodo 8y ago
tjoff 8y ago
You don't answer the parent. Parent: "[...] but if LFTRs can provide a better and safer nuclear? Then it's about time environmentalists started pulling their heads from their asses and reconsider nuclear before we irreversibly fuck up our entire planet and ecosystem." Your article: Nuclear isn't economically/politically likely. Well, if the safest and greenest form of electricity was also the cheapest and most politically friendly alternative then we wouldn't be having this discussion. If the environment was prioritized enough then neither would pose any obstacle, what remains is the debate of whether nuclear really is the greenest and safest form of energy.
- spenrose 8y ago
  I linked to a write-up of peer-reviewed research which focused on the "if" and demonstrated that the odds are daunting. That ... is an answer. I linked to a second article showing that renewables are reducing emissions from natural gas today. "If the environment was prioritized enough" then either would work. Renewables are making headway given the current political economy of energy, nuclear is not. And to repeat: I wish it were!
  - tjoff 8y ago
    Odds are daunting that it is a green and safe source of energy?
    - spenrose 8y ago
      That new nuclear will be deployed at scale in the next two decades that wind and solar are being deployed at now.

pjc50 8y ago

Too late: the LFTR is still vapourware, although not as much as fusion, and the existing technology of reactors already takes ages to build and is prone to cost and time overruns. We need to keep the renewables buildout going while we wait for someone to produce a working non-pilot commercial LFTR.

korantu 8y ago
Why even the focus on LFTR, what is wrong with proven technology in modular form? Just dont build reactors gigantic, make them walkaway-safe instead - [1], they are quite resilient - [2] and can be produced on a factory, so inspections are easier and costs are lower. [1] https://www.nuscalepower.com/technology/design-innovations https://www.nuscalepower.com/technology/design-innovations [2] https://www.nuscalepower.com/-/media/Nuscale/Files/Technology/Technical-Publications/nuscale-power-plant-resilience.ashx?la=en&hash=CCC319499E3E5DD65A1941F1471DD6D3EE264D7E https://www.nuscalepower.com/-/media/Nuscale/Files/Technolog...
- marcosdumay 8y ago
  The "proven" technology was proven not to be reliable enough, to be too expensive for use, and to create some large problems down the line. Besides, if you change the size, it's not "proven" anymore.
  - korantu 8y ago
    This new smaller design solves reliability and cost issues of older bigger designs.
  - wbl 8y ago
    France and the US navy both rely on PWRs. France built a fleet to get the benefits of scale. Nuclear works.
- greglindahl 8y ago
  Modular would be great, that's a big part of why wind, solar, and batteries are doing so well these days.

Tade0 8y ago

> Turns out nuclear is the only CLEAN baseload energy provider. Thing is in the long run we don't even need baseload power. Renewables have become so cheap now that power plants need to optimize for flexibility rather than efficiency to stay profitable[0]. [0] https://www.ge.com/power/transform/article.transform.articles.2018.jan.evolution-of-combined-cycle-pe# https://www.ge.com/power/transform/article.transform.article... EDIT: emphasis.

DennisP 8y ago
Power plants right now have to optimize for working around varying wind/solar supply, but if we tried to run civilization on wind/solar alone, we'd rediscover the need for good baseload supply when the wind stops blowing at night.
- Tade0 8y ago
  Actually no, because this function is already being taken over by gas peaker plants. It's less expensive to have such a plant and fire it once in a while than to keep a large nuclear/coal plant churning.
  - DennisP 8y ago
    Both of us were talking about the long run, and what I said was "wind/solar alone." Of course we can run on wind/solar/gas but that doesn't decarbonize the grid.

Zigurd 8y ago

If solar had the same record of construction delay, cost overruns, and exorbitant hidden costs in waste storage and decommissioning, nobody would start a solar project. Instead, solar projects fall in cost and exceed their lifecycle expectations. If you can't demonstrate a full life cycle that happens on time and on budget, and without risks that carry costs that wipe out all the value delivered by nuclear, nuclear power is theoretical.