4 ms·

The nuclear power plant of the future can be found in a science museum. All dangers of a catastrophic accident aside, nuclear energy has become economically inf

by _ph_ 8y ago

The nuclear power plant of the future can be found in a science museum. All dangers of a catastrophic accident aside, nuclear energy has become economically infeasible. Just recently, half-build powerplants have been abandoned in the US for pure financial reasons, and the other projects under constructions face severe cost problems too. And this is not counting for the still unsolved problem of disposing the nuclear waste. Meanwhile, solar and wind have become much cheaper than nuclear, and counting in the construction costs for new clean plants, even coal. The idea of putting a nuclear power plant on a float is faszinating. It solves cooling, allows relocation of the power plant and in the case of disaster, it can be dumped into the ocean, which is somewhat better than contaminating occupied land, but still isn't acceptable. Unless there is some significant breakthrough in operating costs and safety as well as a solution for the nuclear waste, nuclear isn't the future.

dmos62 8y ago
> unsolved problem of disposing the nuclear waste I'm not sure what you mean by unsolved disposal. Nuclear waste from power plants is stored in secure facilities. It takes up a manageable amount of space, is low maintanance and isn't dangerous. Furthermore, future reactors will be able to reuse it; the current reactors only use up a small fraction of the fuel. So actually, you wouldn't even want to throw it away. Also, nuclear fuel is advantageous logistically. A typical plant needs 1 train-load of fuel a year. That's a relatively small freight, you can ship that from anywhere around the world. On the other hand, for carbon-fuel powerplants, you need a train load of fuel per day. I'd love to see the planet off non-renewable-fuels, but a big hurdle is that, unless we figure out storage, the renewable energy sources have to be supplemented with something for when it's night and there's no wind. I don't see a better option for that something than nuclear. Of course, an alternative would be for society to switch to an energy usage scheme that doesn't presume that power is uninterruptable. However, that would require profound changes to our everyday lives, and I don't think we're quite mature enough as a species to go through with something like that at scale.
- fghhfgg 8y ago
  Future reactors? Rosatom has 800 MW breeders now!
  - philipkglass 8y ago
    It has one 800 MW breeder that has been operating at full power for two years. Plans to build more of them in China appear to have been shelved. The successor BN-1200 implementation has also been suspended. The 6 reactors that Russia currently has under construction are all PWRs. I think that referring to breeders as future reactors (in the context of commercial power plants) is appropriate.
    - fghhfgg 8y ago
      But it’s not like it’s a brand new design just out of prototyping. It’s a continuation of a 350 MW unit that ran for decades and provided drinking water. Point is the Russians have breeder technology fairly well figured out.
      - philipkglass 8y ago
        The BN-800 is certainly better proven than other breeder designs, which are either much smaller or operate only in PowerPoint slides. Can it or something like it be built at prices to make breeder power reactors commercially mainstream? That's still unknown. Commercial viability is the biggest unknown for every new power reactor design.
- _ph_ 8y ago
  What do you mean by "secure facilities"? Yes, currently the nuclear waste is in intermediate storage facilities. Which are buildings, with an useful life time of 50 years. Unless a nuclear technology for reusing or processing the waste appears, we are talking about safe storage for thousands of years.
  - fifnir 8y ago
trhway 8y ago
>in the case of disaster, it can be dumped into the ocean, which is somewhat better than contaminating occupied land, but still isn't acceptable. dumping the stuff into ocean results in spreading the stuff around the world. It is much more preferable to keep it contained - like in case of Chernobyl's 30km exclusion zone at least we have a chance 100years from now when technology allows to clean up the zone - no such luck if it happens in the open ocean. Fukushima is still fighting to contain the stuff on site and don't let it get out to avoid making the disaster into a global one.
- _ph_ 8y ago
  Most of the contaminated material in Fukushima, which isn't the molten core, has already escaped into the Pacific ocean. Which is not good for sure. Luckily, the Pacific ocean contains a lot of water. So the dilution is massive. Still, nothing I would consider acceptable.

by _ph_ 8y ago

dmos62 8y ago

> unsolved problem of disposing the nuclear waste I'm not sure what you mean by unsolved disposal. Nuclear waste from power plants is stored in secure facilities. It takes up a manageable amount of space, is low maintanance and isn't dangerous. Furthermore, future reactors will be able to reuse it; the current reactors only use up a small fraction of the fuel. So actually, you wouldn't even want to throw it away. Also, nuclear fuel is advantageous logistically. A typical plant needs 1 train-load of fuel a year. That's a relatively small freight, you can ship that from anywhere around the world. On the other hand, for carbon-fuel powerplants, you need a train load of fuel per day. I'd love to see the planet off non-renewable-fuels, but a big hurdle is that, unless we figure out storage, the renewable energy sources have to be supplemented with something for when it's night and there's no wind. I don't see a better option for that something than nuclear. Of course, an alternative would be for society to switch to an energy usage scheme that doesn't presume that power is uninterruptable. However, that would require profound changes to our everyday lives, and I don't think we're quite mature enough as a species to go through with something like that at scale.

fghhfgg 8y ago
Future reactors? Rosatom has 800 MW breeders now!
- philipkglass 8y ago
  It has one 800 MW breeder that has been operating at full power for two years. Plans to build more of them in China appear to have been shelved. The successor BN-1200 implementation has also been suspended. The 6 reactors that Russia currently has under construction are all PWRs. I think that referring to breeders as future reactors (in the context of commercial power plants) is appropriate.
  - fghhfgg 8y ago
    But it’s not like it’s a brand new design just out of prototyping. It’s a continuation of a 350 MW unit that ran for decades and provided drinking water. Point is the Russians have breeder technology fairly well figured out.
    - philipkglass 8y ago
      The BN-800 is certainly better proven than other breeder designs, which are either much smaller or operate only in PowerPoint slides. Can it or something like it be built at prices to make breeder power reactors commercially mainstream? That's still unknown. Commercial viability is the biggest unknown for every new power reactor design.
_ph_ 8y ago
What do you mean by "secure facilities"? Yes, currently the nuclear waste is in intermediate storage facilities. Which are buildings, with an useful life time of 50 years. Unless a nuclear technology for reusing or processing the waste appears, we are talking about safe storage for thousands of years.
- fifnir 8y ago

trhway 8y ago

>in the case of disaster, it can be dumped into the ocean, which is somewhat better than contaminating occupied land, but still isn't acceptable. dumping the stuff into ocean results in spreading the stuff around the world. It is much more preferable to keep it contained - like in case of Chernobyl's 30km exclusion zone at least we have a chance 100years from now when technology allows to clean up the zone - no such luck if it happens in the open ocean. Fukushima is still fighting to contain the stuff on site and don't let it get out to avoid making the disaster into a global one.

_ph_ 8y ago
Most of the contaminated material in Fukushima, which isn't the molten core, has already escaped into the Pacific ocean. Which is not good for sure. Luckily, the Pacific ocean contains a lot of water. So the dilution is massive. Still, nothing I would consider acceptable.