7 ms·

> The main cost of a nuclear plant is the initial construction the main cost is storing the waste for 10k+ years with zero defect rate

by tmh79 7y ago

AnthonyMouse 7y ago
Newer reactors don't produce long-lived waste, and for that matter can use the waste from existing reactors as fuel. So if you don't like the nuclear waste we already have, build newer reactors to get rid of it.
- carlisle_ 7y ago
  That's pretty neat, what makes the newer reactors able to use old waste as fuel?
  - adrianN 7y ago
    A large part of the "waste" gets turned into fuel through breeding. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor
  - TomMarius 7y ago
    I can't answer you but this concept is part of 4th generation reactor design. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor
  - fulafel 7y ago
    They don't - unless we talk about prospective future designs or small research reactors. There are big downsides to these designs, which is why their development stalled in the 70s and have been on life support since. (Technically an exception is the bn-800 but it was modified rebuild from an 80s aborted reactor construction project, to get rid of weapons grade plutonium, before the the us/russia treaty fell apart... Good story at http://euanmearns.com/the-bn-800-fast-reactor-a-milestone-on-a-long-road/ http://euanmearns.com/the-bn-800-fast-reactor-a-milestone-on... )
    - Recurecur 7y ago
      "There are big downsides to these designs, which is why their development stalled in the 70s and have been on life support since." Not really, what happened is there were "good enough" designs, there was a China Syndrome inspired move away from nuclear, and the government had little to no interest in reactor designs that made it hard to recover weapon materials. Bill Gates is championing both molten salt and traveling wave reactors that "burn" nuclear waste. There are other very interesting designs, including the Xscale helium-cooled pebble bed design. It, and many of the molten salt designs, don't require water cooling. Not needing a source of nearby water vastly expands siting options. https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/x-energy-developing-pebble-bed-reactor-they-say-cant-melt-down https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/x-energy-developing-pebbl... Another interesting design is ThorCon's molten salt reactor, which it recommends siting 100 feet underground, eliminating almost all security issues including plane strike. http://thorconpower.com/ http://thorconpower.com/
      - fulafel 7y ago
        No, there were no good enough designs, and after decades of effort they are still elusive: There has been huge amounts of subsidy money poured into breeder reactors and Pu fuel in the west, much later than China Syndrome. The subsidies have been in the form of the MOX program, PRISM, and other gov funded fuel recycling programs in many countries. The problems remain: weapons grade Pu profileration risk, unviable cost, dearth of demonstrated working large plants due to technical difficulties inherent in the designs, difficulties scaling up to commercial sizes competitive w traditional designs. Yes, there are many interesting designs on the drawing table, same as it has been for decades...
- ranbumo 7y ago
  Sure, newer plants produce less highly radioactive waste than old ones. Don't those plants also still contaminate their building materials over time, which then results in literal tons of somewhat radioactive waste that also needs to be stored, albeit with less stringent requirements?
- inflatableDodo 7y ago
  Hi from the UK. We started doing that with BNFL ages ago. Then we faked the measurement data of the fuel pellets we were shipping to Japan, Tepco noticed and sent them back, no new customers appeared and BNFL collapsed. We are now getting China and France to build our new nuclear, having successfully driven our own industry into the ground by lying to our customers. edit - what worries me about nuclear power is the attitude and practices of the industry, not the technology per-se. The only group I have ever heard of that comes up to scratch for how you would want nuclear plants to be run is the US Navy, though that might be because they live on them.
newnewpdro 7y ago
Or the cost of handling a Fukushima-level disaster. "In December 2016 the government estimated decontamination, compensation, decommissioning, and radioactive waste storage costs at 21.5 trillion yen ($187 billion), nearly double the 2013 estimate." [1] For comparison purposes, Diablo Canyon cost $13.8B to construct in 2018 dollars. [2] That same page states graceful decommissioning of the plant is estimated to cost $4B (!) dollars. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster#Compensation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disa... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diablo_Canyon_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diablo_Canyon_Power_Plant
- adrianN 7y ago
  Amortized over the number of reactors in the world, Fukushima probably isn't all that expensive.
  - imtringued 7y ago
    But the world didn't pay for it. The japanese government did. This money could have been spent on 50GW of wind capacity instead.
    - Recurecur 7y ago
      > But the world didn't pay for it. The japanese government did. That is poetic justice, given that the Japanese government could have made sure the backup generators were stored securely. They were, as it turned out, fairly important. ;-) Don't forget that a couple of working diesel generators providing power to keep the cooling working would have entirely avoided the disaster. Some were actually flown there in time, but the connectors were wrong and time ran out. > This money could have been spent on 50GW of wind capacity instead. Sure, and when the wind doesn't blow, and the storage runs out, and it's a nighttime cold event - people freeze to death. That's aside from the economic effects on industry from unreliable energy sources. Wind costs generally aren't being calculated correctly, as reliable backup power is required for any wind that dips into the "minimum baseline" power supply, which is the essential power required for basic needs and industry. Nuclear is overall one of the safest ways of producing energy, and is the ONLY scalable, reliable power source that doesn't emit CO2. With mass-produced, modular, reactors, it can also be the cheapest power source overall. Cheaper than wind, solar or coal. The world desperately needs mass nuclear power from a couple of perspectives. If Global Warming is in fact a major threat, there is no choice in the matter. That is my touchstone as to whether or not the "Green" movement has gotten serious about it.
Mirioron 7y ago
Nuclear reactors produce so little waste that I very much doubt that storing the waste would be the main cost. It's even likely that some of the spent fuel would simply be used in newer reactors later.
- Retric 7y ago
  Spent fuel is a small portion of the waste generated. Even equipment used to decommission a nuclear reactor becomes contaminated. It’s not that dangerous for very long, but safe disposal is still expensive.
  - Retric 7y ago
    Not sure why that was downvoted, it’s easy to demonstrate with even minimal research. From a pro nuclear website: 97% of the waste produced is classified as low- or intermediate-level waste (LLW or ILW). Such waste has been widely disposed of in near-surface repositories for many years. In France, where fuel is reprocessed, just 0.2% of all radioactive waste by volume is classified as high-level waste (HLW) http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-wastes/radioactive-wastes-myths-and-realities.aspx http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fue...
    - adrianN 7y ago
      The claim is that the most expensive part is storing the waste for 10000 years. All LLW and ILW doesn't have to be stored that long.
      - Retric 7y ago
        ILW and HLW are generally assumed to both be stored in the same areas long term. Which means they are about as expensive to deal with long term. For example: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_repository#/media/File%3AYucca_Mountain_-_Nuclear_Waste_Repository.jpg https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste...

> The main cost of a nuclear plant is the initial construction the main cost is storing the waste for 10k+ years with zero defect rate

by tmh79 7y ago

> The main cost of a nuclear plant is the initial construction the main cost is storing the waste for 10k+ years with zero defect rate

AnthonyMouse 7y ago

Newer reactors don't produce long-lived waste, and for that matter can use the waste from existing reactors as fuel. So if you don't like the nuclear waste we already have, build newer reactors to get rid of it.

carlisle_ 7y ago
That's pretty neat, what makes the newer reactors able to use old waste as fuel?
- adrianN 7y ago
  A large part of the "waste" gets turned into fuel through breeding. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor
- TomMarius 7y ago
  I can't answer you but this concept is part of 4th generation reactor design. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor
- fulafel 7y ago
  They don't - unless we talk about prospective future designs or small research reactors. There are big downsides to these designs, which is why their development stalled in the 70s and have been on life support since. (Technically an exception is the bn-800 but it was modified rebuild from an 80s aborted reactor construction project, to get rid of weapons grade plutonium, before the the us/russia treaty fell apart... Good story at http://euanmearns.com/the-bn-800-fast-reactor-a-milestone-on-a-long-road/ http://euanmearns.com/the-bn-800-fast-reactor-a-milestone-on... )
  - Recurecur 7y ago
    "There are big downsides to these designs, which is why their development stalled in the 70s and have been on life support since." Not really, what happened is there were "good enough" designs, there was a China Syndrome inspired move away from nuclear, and the government had little to no interest in reactor designs that made it hard to recover weapon materials. Bill Gates is championing both molten salt and traveling wave reactors that "burn" nuclear waste. There are other very interesting designs, including the Xscale helium-cooled pebble bed design. It, and many of the molten salt designs, don't require water cooling. Not needing a source of nearby water vastly expands siting options. https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/x-energy-developing-pebble-bed-reactor-they-say-cant-melt-down https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/x-energy-developing-pebbl... Another interesting design is ThorCon's molten salt reactor, which it recommends siting 100 feet underground, eliminating almost all security issues including plane strike. http://thorconpower.com/ http://thorconpower.com/
    - fulafel 7y ago
      No, there were no good enough designs, and after decades of effort they are still elusive: There has been huge amounts of subsidy money poured into breeder reactors and Pu fuel in the west, much later than China Syndrome. The subsidies have been in the form of the MOX program, PRISM, and other gov funded fuel recycling programs in many countries. The problems remain: weapons grade Pu profileration risk, unviable cost, dearth of demonstrated working large plants due to technical difficulties inherent in the designs, difficulties scaling up to commercial sizes competitive w traditional designs. Yes, there are many interesting designs on the drawing table, same as it has been for decades...
ranbumo 7y ago
Sure, newer plants produce less highly radioactive waste than old ones. Don't those plants also still contaminate their building materials over time, which then results in literal tons of somewhat radioactive waste that also needs to be stored, albeit with less stringent requirements?
inflatableDodo 7y ago
Hi from the UK. We started doing that with BNFL ages ago. Then we faked the measurement data of the fuel pellets we were shipping to Japan, Tepco noticed and sent them back, no new customers appeared and BNFL collapsed. We are now getting China and France to build our new nuclear, having successfully driven our own industry into the ground by lying to our customers. edit - what worries me about nuclear power is the attitude and practices of the industry, not the technology per-se. The only group I have ever heard of that comes up to scratch for how you would want nuclear plants to be run is the US Navy, though that might be because they live on them.

newnewpdro 7y ago

Or the cost of handling a Fukushima-level disaster. "In December 2016 the government estimated decontamination, compensation, decommissioning, and radioactive waste storage costs at 21.5 trillion yen ($187 billion), nearly double the 2013 estimate." [1] For comparison purposes, Diablo Canyon cost $13.8B to construct in 2018 dollars. [2] That same page states graceful decommissioning of the plant is estimated to cost $4B (!) dollars. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster#Compensation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disa... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diablo_Canyon_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diablo_Canyon_Power_Plant

adrianN 7y ago
Amortized over the number of reactors in the world, Fukushima probably isn't all that expensive.
- imtringued 7y ago
  But the world didn't pay for it. The japanese government did. This money could have been spent on 50GW of wind capacity instead.
  - Recurecur 7y ago
    > But the world didn't pay for it. The japanese government did. That is poetic justice, given that the Japanese government could have made sure the backup generators were stored securely. They were, as it turned out, fairly important. ;-) Don't forget that a couple of working diesel generators providing power to keep the cooling working would have entirely avoided the disaster. Some were actually flown there in time, but the connectors were wrong and time ran out. > This money could have been spent on 50GW of wind capacity instead. Sure, and when the wind doesn't blow, and the storage runs out, and it's a nighttime cold event - people freeze to death. That's aside from the economic effects on industry from unreliable energy sources. Wind costs generally aren't being calculated correctly, as reliable backup power is required for any wind that dips into the "minimum baseline" power supply, which is the essential power required for basic needs and industry. Nuclear is overall one of the safest ways of producing energy, and is the ONLY scalable, reliable power source that doesn't emit CO2. With mass-produced, modular, reactors, it can also be the cheapest power source overall. Cheaper than wind, solar or coal. The world desperately needs mass nuclear power from a couple of perspectives. If Global Warming is in fact a major threat, there is no choice in the matter. That is my touchstone as to whether or not the "Green" movement has gotten serious about it.

Mirioron 7y ago

Nuclear reactors produce so little waste that I very much doubt that storing the waste would be the main cost. It's even likely that some of the spent fuel would simply be used in newer reactors later.

Retric 7y ago
Spent fuel is a small portion of the waste generated. Even equipment used to decommission a nuclear reactor becomes contaminated. It’s not that dangerous for very long, but safe disposal is still expensive.
- Retric 7y ago
  Not sure why that was downvoted, it’s easy to demonstrate with even minimal research. From a pro nuclear website: 97% of the waste produced is classified as low- or intermediate-level waste (LLW or ILW). Such waste has been widely disposed of in near-surface repositories for many years. In France, where fuel is reprocessed, just 0.2% of all radioactive waste by volume is classified as high-level waste (HLW) http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-wastes/radioactive-wastes-myths-and-realities.aspx http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fue...
  - adrianN 7y ago
    The claim is that the most expensive part is storing the waste for 10000 years. All LLW and ILW doesn't have to be stored that long.
    - Retric 7y ago
      ILW and HLW are generally assumed to both be stored in the same areas long term. Which means they are about as expensive to deal with long term. For example: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_repository#/media/File%3AYucca_Mountain_-_Nuclear_Waste_Repository.jpg https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste...