3 ms·

Why should two of the best solutions try to starve each other? The premise that nuclear is inferior compared to wind or solar in terms of safety or cleanliness

Why should two of the best solutions try to starve each other? The premise that nuclear is inferior compared to wind or solar in terms of safety or cleanliness is wrong (especially with the current generation of experimental reactors), it is just different.

toomuchtodo 8y ago
> The premise that nuclear is inferior compared to wind or solar in terms of safety or cleanliness is wrong (especially with the current generation of experimental reactors), it is just different. There is no long term storage option for nuclear power in the US. The ability to recycle it is questionable at best. If you want to build nuclear, I wholly endorse it, as long as you provide both functional waste recycling facilities and storage repositories before you load one pebble or rod into a reactor core. As of today, recycling wind turbines and solar panels is feasible, and failure scenarios for both are benign. Recycling of batteries from utility scale storage systems is also readily available through existing supply chains. "The United States has over 90,000 metric tons of nuclear waste that requires disposal. The U.S. commercial power industry alone has generated more waste (nuclear fuel that is "spent" and is no longer efficient at generating power) than any other country—nearly 80,000 metric tons. This spent nuclear fuel, which can pose serious risks to humans and the environment, is enough to fill a football field about 20 meters deep. The U.S. government’s nuclear weapons program has generated spent nuclear fuel as well as high-level radioactive waste and accounts for most of the rest of the total at about 14,000 metric tons, according to the Department of Energy (DOE). For the most part, this waste is stored where it was generated—at 80 sites in 35 states. The amount of waste is expected to increase to about 140,000 metric tons over the next several decades. However, there is still no disposal site in the United States. After spending decades and billions of dollars to research potential sites for a permanent disposal site, including at the Yucca Mountain site in Nevada that has a license application pending to authorize construction of a nuclear waste repository, the future prospects for permanent disposal remain unclear." https://www.gao.gov/key_issues/disposal_of_highlevel_nuclear_waste/issue_summary https://www.gao.gov/key_issues/disposal_of_highlevel_nuclear... Everyone can clamor on for nuclear while wind and solar continue to rapidly decline in cost, and manufacturing capacity for both continually increases. The hill for nuclear to climb gets higher every day. Lazard just released their 2018 Levelized Cost of Energy Analysis (LCOE 12.0); check out how wind and solar cut the legs out from under every other generation source. https://www.lazard.com/media/450769/unsubsidized-analysis-certain-100.jpg?width=994&height=442 https://www.lazard.com/media/450769/unsubsidized-analysis-ce... https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-and-levelized-cost-of-storage-2018/ https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-...
- Fej 8y ago
  Nuclear waste storage is a political problem, not a technical one. The Yucca Mountain project is the long term storage option. It's isn't really that hard, relatively speaking, to dispose of nuclear waste. Just put it in a hole and mark it so no one goes there. But no one wants to be the host - not because it's inherently dangerous, but because it's scary. Yucca Mountain would already store all the waste if it weren't for one Senator from Nevada.
  - toomuchtodo 8y ago
    It doesn't matter why it's a problem, all that matters is that it's a problem, and you have no ability to demand the residents of Nevada allow Yucca Mountain to open. With that said, there are valid geological and hydrological concerns as to why Yucca Mountain should not move forward. They are outlined here [1]. Therefore, there is no adequate solution, only a demand that a suboptimal solution be implemented to support a suboptimal generation technology. [1] http://www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/yucca/techcon1.htm http://www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/yucca/techcon1.htm
    - acidburnNSA 8y ago
      The salt deposits in New Mexico are a wonderful place for nuclear waste. It's almost a no-brainer [1]. "It doesn't matter why it's a problem, all that matters is that it's a problem..." Intermittency of wind and solar is a problem by any stretch of any imagination. Year-averaged wind capacity factor in USA is 35%. Solar is 25%. There are massive seasonal variations that batteries don't solve. It's a legit concern. Nukes help alleviate that because they're the only known dispatchable 24/7 carbon-free energy that we can scale to the necessary scale. Just gotta figure out how to make the more cheaply. Curing fears spawning from the linear no-threshold dose response model will help with that. [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2017/02/09/americas-high-level-nuclear-waste-is-gone/#2eb63c6f2e02 https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2017/02/09/americas-...
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
soundwave106 8y ago
The politics might be another story though? In particular, since there is a link between nuclear power and nuclear weapons, I wonder if, just due to the politics involving this alone, if nuclear can ever be adopted as a global solution for every nation.

toomuchtodo 8y ago

> The premise that nuclear is inferior compared to wind or solar in terms of safety or cleanliness is wrong (especially with the current generation of experimental reactors), it is just different. There is no long term storage option for nuclear power in the US. The ability to recycle it is questionable at best. If you want to build nuclear, I wholly endorse it, as long as you provide both functional waste recycling facilities and storage repositories before you load one pebble or rod into a reactor core. As of today, recycling wind turbines and solar panels is feasible, and failure scenarios for both are benign. Recycling of batteries from utility scale storage systems is also readily available through existing supply chains. "The United States has over 90,000 metric tons of nuclear waste that requires disposal. The U.S. commercial power industry alone has generated more waste (nuclear fuel that is "spent" and is no longer efficient at generating power) than any other country—nearly 80,000 metric tons. This spent nuclear fuel, which can pose serious risks to humans and the environment, is enough to fill a football field about 20 meters deep. The U.S. government’s nuclear weapons program has generated spent nuclear fuel as well as high-level radioactive waste and accounts for most of the rest of the total at about 14,000 metric tons, according to the Department of Energy (DOE). For the most part, this waste is stored where it was generated—at 80 sites in 35 states. The amount of waste is expected to increase to about 140,000 metric tons over the next several decades. However, there is still no disposal site in the United States. After spending decades and billions of dollars to research potential sites for a permanent disposal site, including at the Yucca Mountain site in Nevada that has a license application pending to authorize construction of a nuclear waste repository, the future prospects for permanent disposal remain unclear." https://www.gao.gov/key_issues/disposal_of_highlevel_nuclear_waste/issue_summary https://www.gao.gov/key_issues/disposal_of_highlevel_nuclear... Everyone can clamor on for nuclear while wind and solar continue to rapidly decline in cost, and manufacturing capacity for both continually increases. The hill for nuclear to climb gets higher every day. Lazard just released their 2018 Levelized Cost of Energy Analysis (LCOE 12.0); check out how wind and solar cut the legs out from under every other generation source. https://www.lazard.com/media/450769/unsubsidized-analysis-certain-100.jpg?width=994&height=442 https://www.lazard.com/media/450769/unsubsidized-analysis-ce... https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-and-levelized-cost-of-storage-2018/ https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-...

Fej 8y ago
Nuclear waste storage is a political problem, not a technical one. The Yucca Mountain project is the long term storage option. It's isn't really that hard, relatively speaking, to dispose of nuclear waste. Just put it in a hole and mark it so no one goes there. But no one wants to be the host - not because it's inherently dangerous, but because it's scary. Yucca Mountain would already store all the waste if it weren't for one Senator from Nevada.
- toomuchtodo 8y ago
  It doesn't matter why it's a problem, all that matters is that it's a problem, and you have no ability to demand the residents of Nevada allow Yucca Mountain to open. With that said, there are valid geological and hydrological concerns as to why Yucca Mountain should not move forward. They are outlined here [1]. Therefore, there is no adequate solution, only a demand that a suboptimal solution be implemented to support a suboptimal generation technology. [1] http://www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/yucca/techcon1.htm http://www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/yucca/techcon1.htm
  - acidburnNSA 8y ago
    The salt deposits in New Mexico are a wonderful place for nuclear waste. It's almost a no-brainer [1]. "It doesn't matter why it's a problem, all that matters is that it's a problem..." Intermittency of wind and solar is a problem by any stretch of any imagination. Year-averaged wind capacity factor in USA is 35%. Solar is 25%. There are massive seasonal variations that batteries don't solve. It's a legit concern. Nukes help alleviate that because they're the only known dispatchable 24/7 carbon-free energy that we can scale to the necessary scale. Just gotta figure out how to make the more cheaply. Curing fears spawning from the linear no-threshold dose response model will help with that. [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2017/02/09/americas-high-level-nuclear-waste-is-gone/#2eb63c6f2e02 https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2017/02/09/americas-...
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]

soundwave106 8y ago

The politics might be another story though? In particular, since there is a link between nuclear power and nuclear weapons, I wonder if, just due to the politics involving this alone, if nuclear can ever be adopted as a global solution for every nation.