17 ms·

We need 70x more nuclear power than we have today, just replacing electricity with zero carbon power only fixes some of the problem, still have all the fossil f

by mavhc 7y ago

We need 70x more nuclear power than we have today, just replacing electricity with zero carbon power only fixes some of the problem, still have all the fossil fuel powered machines to replace. If everyone in the world reduced the energy usage to 2kW (which if you switched to electric motors rather than fossil fuel would be quite easy) we'd need to build 3000 nuclear power stations per year for 10 years, to cover 50% of our total energy needs. Better start yesterday.

HaukeHi 7y ago
Yes, current nuclear technology will not play a big part in preventing climate change because: It’s not infinitely powerful: It only contributes 5% to the world’s energy supply[159] and even in China, where regulation is lax and public opposition to nuclear is not as big an issue for policy-makers, few reactors are currently being built (_six_ in the last 18 months). It carries safety risks.[160] While advanced nuclear power in some advanced economies might actually reduce nuclear proliferation risk by using up nuclear material, in other countries, nuclear power might increase proliferation risks.[161] It will not be used in many emerging economies.[162] Consider that only 1–5 countries in Sub-Saharan Africa are currently plan to have commercial nuclear power and these countries are at least 10 years away from starting construction on nuclear plants.[163] Continued reliance on outdated nuclear technology might not have the same crucial global technology spillovers as investments in other clean energy (including advanced nuclear). Since the best path towards global decarbonization is through global technology spillover into emerging economies, the actors that have the best emissions score may, surprisingly, not be the most effective actors at reducing the global rate of emissions in the future. We need more energy R&D to make nuclear better new small modular nuclear reactor designs. All citations here: https://lets-fund.org/clean-energy/ https://lets-fund.org/clean-energy/
- WillPostForFood 7y ago
  On the other hand, France seems to have gotten it right: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France
  - jhayward 7y ago
    France is phasing out 35% of their nuclear power in the next few years. With one exception[1], there are no new nuclear power plants in planning to replace any of the existing fleet, which will all have to be retired soon. [1] Flamanville, which is 400% over budget and behind schedule by 11 years.
    - WillPostForFood 7y ago
      France made a policy decision to reduce Nuclear from 75% of 50%, largely a populist response to Fukushima, and the perception that Nuclear is dangerous, not green, etc.. It was a political decision, not practical. We'll see if they actually are able to meet that goal, but most signs point to no. Regardless, my point is France, a G7 nation got to 75% nuclear. Fear is the main reason other countries can't.
  - adrianN 7y ago
    France started sufficiently early. I don't think we have the production capacities to switch over completely to nuclear power over the next twenty years (worldwide!). Building reactors takes a lot of time and is quite expensive.
    - _Tev 7y ago
      Then we better start with it soon, right? Also we should start subsidizing batteries (and their research) more. How else do you propose to eliminate CO2 from electricity production?
      - adrianN 7y ago
        I think right now renewable energy with storage and improved grids provides a better carbon reduction per dollar than nuclear. There is also a pretty big potential for saving energy, for example for AC. We need to be at net zero in ten to fifteen years. Building reactors takes a pretty long time. I don't think we even have enough qualified personnel to build the huge number of reactors we'd need to replace fossil power plants. Solar and wind seems like it needs less expertise, but I'm not an expert on this topic.
thatfrenchguy 7y ago
Or we can produce and consume less ?
- HaukeHi 7y ago
  The problem of population growth and higher overall populations in emerging economies adopting more energy intensive lifestyles remains. These economies and their citizens are likely to use an enormous amount of cheap energy to grow their economies: Global energy demand is forecasted to rise by 30% as of 2040[119] because energy demand and thus per capita carbon footprints increase in proportion to income[120], mainly due to increases in China and India. Policy-makers should reorient their focus to develop policies that contribute to the global public good through cheap, clean energy technology.[123] With access to cheaper clean energy and more energy efficient technology (e.g. smart grids), countries can grow their economies without emitting as much carbon and also help us decarbonize our economies. citations here: https://lets-fund.org/clean-energy/ https://lets-fund.org/clean-energy/
  - Gravityloss 7y ago
    It can be argued that people really want things like happiness or security. If they can get this more directly, they can leapfrog some of the materialism. Of course for the ultra poor things like medicine are rational materialism. But there is diminishing rational value for example in dwelling size. For example there is nothing inherent in status symbols that they need to be environmentally harmful. We can change our values.
- Kiro 7y ago
  Yeah, let's go back to the stone age. Problem solved.
  - vkou 7y ago
    After all, there is no middle ground between living in caves and dying of getting gored by a mammoth at the age of 14, and having say, billions of people drive 20 miles a day, as they commute to work, in an opposite direction of other commuters, alone in their three-tonne vehicles powered by dead dinosaurs. No middle ground whatsoever.
anoncake 7y ago
Renewables are a somewhat less insane and less impossible plan.
ourlordcaffeine 7y ago
>We need 70x more nuclear power than we have today A nuclear fission world will never happen due to the economics of it. Fission plants are hugely expensive, and take a decade or more to construct. Investors would prefer to bring 100MW a year online every year than wait 10 years for 1GW to come online and hope the power produced is still competitive. Then after the plant has lived its useful life, it cannot simply be demolished like a gas plant or wind turbine. It takes specialists a good few years and more money to decommission the plant.
- mavhc 7y ago
  If we're building 70x more than today, are there any economies of scale? Problem is we can't wait for research into better designs, have to act yesterday
  - imtringued 7y ago
    That entirely depends on your time frame. If you're willing to wait 70 years then sure there will be economies of scale to be exploited. If you want to do it in 20 then you will have to build more highly specialized factories that produce the custom parts needed by nuclear plants. After that the factories will be useless for the next 50 years after which you need them again because the 50 year old plants are about to be decommissioned and replaced with never plants.
- roenxi 7y ago
  > A nuclear fission world will never happen due to the economics of it. 'Economics of it' means different things to different people, but I'm just looking through the wiki page for electricity costs [0]. I'd bet when a lot of older people talked about solar being too expensive they set their expectations based on prices in the 80s [1]. Or they mean that renewables are horrible value technically for the money spent because they have highly cyclical output vs. consistent controllable output of a thermal plant. The economics of nuclear aren't the best, but they also aren't that bad. Government policy routinely changes the price of things by 10-30%. We can cope with that easily, and that brings a fully nuclear world well into the realm of the possible. Investors aren't scared of the high upfront cost of nuclear. They are scared by the risk of spending the high upfront cost of nuclear then having the rug pulled out from under them by hostile government policy. If there was no risk of government interference and a supportive policy environment (eg, blanket ban on competition from fossil fuels) investors would be more than happy to invest. They are looking to park their money somewhere. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Price_history_of_silicon_PV_cells_since_1977.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Price_history_of_silicon_...
cobbzilla 7y ago
> still have all the fossil fuel powered machines to replace. not necessarily, if we can synthesize new fossil fuel from atmospheric carbon, as at least one new company is now trying to do at scale.
- edraferi 7y ago
  God I hope that works
- wcoenen 7y ago
  Either the machines are replaced by ones that run on electricity, or the fuel is synthesized from CO2 by a process that uses electricity (like the process of the Prometheus startup). Either way, more electricity will be needed.
  - cobbzilla 7y ago
    the idea is that the energy used is from renewable sources, so you get carbon-neutral fossil fuels.
    - rtkwe 7y ago
      Yeah, the issue is we already need to build huge amounts of renewable/nuclear to replace existing. Trying to also add on carbon -> fuel 'sequestering' just massively increases the amount of energy production required.
      - VBprogrammer 7y ago
        One of the 'features' of nuclear power is that it the marginal cost of running the plant at full capacity is low compared to running it in line with demand. That's why the UK have large interconnects with France. If instead they could turn the excess power production into fuel then I'm sure that'd be a nice side effect. Solar power has the peak load problem too, though I'm not sure how economically these systems could be built to run a fraction of the time.
LoSboccacc 7y ago
there are many problems with that, first of being that at 70x current nuclear power we're going to reach peak uranium in 2 to 5 years. second is that nuclear power require massive cooling. even if (if!) the coolant don't contaminate the water that cools it down you are going to dump massive heat directly into water and rivers and oceans with significant increase in local alga bloom and measurable increase in global water temperature and of course you get the waste problem.
- peteradio 7y ago
  > first of being that at 70x current nuclear power we're going to reach peak uranium in 2 to 5 years. Can you show your math?
  - LoSboccacc 7y ago
    https://web.archive.org/web/20090320104608if_/http://www.neutron.kth.se/courses/reactor_physics/NEA-redbook2003.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20090320104608if_/http://www.neu... optimistic prediction at current usage pin peak uranium around 270yr without breeding. now add 70x more reactor and that's that. if we ever get to thorium breeders we get a chance of sustaining society for 120years, so 3-5 generation down the road.. and every year of 70x nuclear without breeders we lose a fifth of that.
    - Mirioron 7y ago
      Sounds like that might tide us over until fusion. We probably should've invested more into fusion.
      - LoSboccacc 7y ago
        we don't have working breeder tho
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - 7y ago
TaylorAlexander 7y ago
One issue I have with nuclear is the potential for widespread environmental damage if there is a technical problem either in the power plant or in the subsequent containment systems (which so far have not been well managed). I suppose some of the new-tech nuclear offers environmental benefits compared to other technologies - I'm not very familiar with those options. But if the proposed technology could risk destroying huge parts of the environment, that does make me seriously question it. Others have said the unit economics of nuclear are so poor that a solar field the size of the power plants containment area would produce more energy faster and at a lower price, but I don't know how true that is. I guess my point is - I've been giving a lot more consideration to the environmental negatives of nuclear lately.
- kikoreis 7y ago
  Reactors of Gen III and beyond have significantly different safety characteristics. And solar (inherently) is unable to produce continuous 24x7 energy. Those together should be enough to warrant a fresh look at nuclear. The main practical issues with modern nuclear are up front investment and timelines, and overall economics. Those could be addressed via regulations and subsidies, but more of the general population would need to support the idea before it becomes safe politically to consider.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
AngryData 7y ago
Also fossil-fuel chemical reagents used for all sorts of material production. And the big one, artificial fertilizer, which uses natural gas because the electrical equivalent to pull what we need from the air is astronomical.
- pfdietz 7y ago
  Nothing "pulled from air" in ammonia production is expensive. The energy intensive part is making hydrogen, and then pressurizing the nitrogen and hydrogen. Currently, hydrogen is produced from natural gas, but renewable hydrogen from electrolysis would be fine. And at the rate the cost of solar is declining renewable hydrogen is going to be competitive soon (nuclear hydrogen, not so much.) And if renewables are over-installed to deal with intermittency there will be a lot of excess power intermittently available. The key technology here would be mediocre efficiency, but low capital cost, membraneless electrolyzers.
rndgermandude 7y ago
70x more nuclear power requires 70x more nuclear fuel too (or even if we doubled efficiency, that's still 35x more nuclear fuel). And nuclear fuel does not exactly grow on trees...
- _Tev 7y ago
  We can use spent fuel to make more. It's just too expensive now because we still have a lot of natural sources, so this will fix itself by supply & demand process. And fuel costs are really tiny fraction of nuclear energy cost so this won't even affect nuclear costs much.
Creationer 7y ago
Rerun that analysis for everyone on the planet with an IQ of 90 of higher - who could actually use that energy - and you will end up with a more reasonable end point.
geophertz 7y ago
You seem to be ignoring the fact that nuclear power does produce a lot of green house gases "passively". Just to mine it and transport it to other countries. Than most importantly there is refining which also produces a lot of green house gases. Not that other renewable energy do not produce any green house gases. Also regardless of how much waste is produced, there is still waste which will live on probably longer than the human specie.
- godelski 7y ago
  >You seem to be ignoring the fact that nuclear power does produce a lot of green house gases "passively". > Not that other renewable energy do not produce any green house gases. I mean... it is about comparisons, right? Here's just a handful of reports showing lifetime emissions of energy sources. Spoiler alert, nuclear is better than PV, but not better than wind and hydro. But that's besides the point, because you can't load balance with PV, wind, or hydro. So you can't completely replace coal with renewables. https://www.world-nuclear.org/uploadedFiles/org/WNA/Publications/Working_Group_Reports/comparison_of_lifecycle.pdf https://www.world-nuclear.org/uploadedFiles/org/WNA/Publicat... (page 539 (29/88)) https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5_chapter7.pdf https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5... https://www.geni.org/globalenergy/library/technical-articles/carbon-capture/parliamentary-office-of-science-and-technology/carbon-footprint-of-electricity-generation/file_9270.pdf https://www.geni.org/globalenergy/library/technical-articles... https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-wind-nuclear-amazingly-low-carbon-footprints https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-wind-nuclear-amazingly-low...
perfunctory 7y ago
Interesting comment on nuclear by Mike O’Sullivan, Senior Vice President, Development, NextEra Energy Resources https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2SXxJWUv-x4&t=77m59s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2SXxJWUv-x4&t=77m59s
spopejoy 7y ago
In which a community dominated by nerds and physicists pretend to understand the longstanding and largely irrefutable arguments against nuclear because nerds and physicists understand nukes and don't have a clue about - public health & epidemiology (c.f. 1999 report on deformities throughout Eastern Europe post-chernobyl) - ecosystemology (c.f. radiation from Fukushima showing up in seafood on US Pacific coasts) - politics (c.f. the fully-captured regulator DOE in US with a rotating door into GE et al) Yay let's talk about all the next-gen reactor designs that have never seen the light of day, and ignore Indian Point waiting for a terrorist attack just north of NYC. Yay let's decry anti-nuke as "hysteria" and ignore all the contaminated sites we haven't cleaned up (c.f. Hanford WA). Please proceed.
- tarsinge 7y ago
  These problems are real but are orders of magnitude less important than climate change. Nuclear has plenty of issues, but currently it's the only possible realistic solution for zero-carbon energy given the timeframe. It's irrational to compare local issues like waste storage with the global one at hand. https://www.electricitymap.org/?page=map&solar=false&remote=true&wind=false https://www.electricitymap.org/?page=map&solar=false&remote=...
- godelski 7y ago
  I just want to make sure I'm characterizing your comment right. You're saying that because we're nerds and physicists we can't understand public health, epidemiology, ecosystemology, politics, or (what you alluded to) caring about others? Did I get the gist? Because I'm confused. Who do you think creates the models for public health? Who do you think does ecosystemology, biology, climate studies, and the rest? I'll admit that you got me on politics, but the other parts are kinda laughable. We are pro-nuclear BECAUSE we care about public health. We just have read the numbers and have seen them say that this energy source does the least damage (while filling in gaps that before only fossil fuels could fill). We, unfortunately, can't save everyone, but we're doing our damnedest to save as many as we can. The same goes for the wild life and well being of the planet. We can't send everyone back to the dark ages, so we'll do our best to find ways that minimize the damage, and where possible reverse it or even make things better than we found them (but that is almost impossible, though we're getting closer to being able to do it). I write this comment BECAUSE I care about the world and the people living on it. That is why we fight. And I need to stress that no one that is advocating nuclear is saying that are whole grid should be nuclear. We want diversified portfolios. We support France's goals of reduction and increase in renewables. We see that as an ideal model which should be emulated. Yay let's talk about how nerds are heartless and just don't care about people. Yay let's decry the third world and all those affected by the worsening effects of climate change, just because we have the money to deal with the harsh realities of climate change. But yeah, call us heartless. Call us naive. Tell us about how our only cry is about hysteria. I hope you have showed everyone just how much you care. We see it. But we do not see action. So you have told us how much we don't care. Now show us how much YOU do. Not by decree, but by what can be done to address these problems you accuse us of not caring about. Please proceed.

by mavhc 7y ago

HaukeHi 7y ago

Yes, current nuclear technology will not play a big part in preventing climate change because: It’s not infinitely powerful: It only contributes 5% to the world’s energy supply[159] and even in China, where regulation is lax and public opposition to nuclear is not as big an issue for policy-makers, few reactors are currently being built (_six_ in the last 18 months). It carries safety risks.[160] While advanced nuclear power in some advanced economies might actually reduce nuclear proliferation risk by using up nuclear material, in other countries, nuclear power might increase proliferation risks.[161] It will not be used in many emerging economies.[162] Consider that only 1–5 countries in Sub-Saharan Africa are currently plan to have commercial nuclear power and these countries are at least 10 years away from starting construction on nuclear plants.[163] Continued reliance on outdated nuclear technology might not have the same crucial global technology spillovers as investments in other clean energy (including advanced nuclear). Since the best path towards global decarbonization is through global technology spillover into emerging economies, the actors that have the best emissions score may, surprisingly, not be the most effective actors at reducing the global rate of emissions in the future. We need more energy R&D to make nuclear better new small modular nuclear reactor designs. All citations here: https://lets-fund.org/clean-energy/ https://lets-fund.org/clean-energy/

WillPostForFood 7y ago
On the other hand, France seems to have gotten it right: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France
- jhayward 7y ago
  France is phasing out 35% of their nuclear power in the next few years. With one exception[1], there are no new nuclear power plants in planning to replace any of the existing fleet, which will all have to be retired soon. [1] Flamanville, which is 400% over budget and behind schedule by 11 years.
  - WillPostForFood 7y ago
    France made a policy decision to reduce Nuclear from 75% of 50%, largely a populist response to Fukushima, and the perception that Nuclear is dangerous, not green, etc.. It was a political decision, not practical. We'll see if they actually are able to meet that goal, but most signs point to no. Regardless, my point is France, a G7 nation got to 75% nuclear. Fear is the main reason other countries can't.
- adrianN 7y ago
  France started sufficiently early. I don't think we have the production capacities to switch over completely to nuclear power over the next twenty years (worldwide!). Building reactors takes a lot of time and is quite expensive.
  - _Tev 7y ago
    Then we better start with it soon, right? Also we should start subsidizing batteries (and their research) more. How else do you propose to eliminate CO2 from electricity production?
    - adrianN 7y ago
      I think right now renewable energy with storage and improved grids provides a better carbon reduction per dollar than nuclear. There is also a pretty big potential for saving energy, for example for AC. We need to be at net zero in ten to fifteen years. Building reactors takes a pretty long time. I don't think we even have enough qualified personnel to build the huge number of reactors we'd need to replace fossil power plants. Solar and wind seems like it needs less expertise, but I'm not an expert on this topic.

thatfrenchguy 7y ago

Or we can produce and consume less ?

HaukeHi 7y ago
The problem of population growth and higher overall populations in emerging economies adopting more energy intensive lifestyles remains. These economies and their citizens are likely to use an enormous amount of cheap energy to grow their economies: Global energy demand is forecasted to rise by 30% as of 2040[119] because energy demand and thus per capita carbon footprints increase in proportion to income[120], mainly due to increases in China and India. Policy-makers should reorient their focus to develop policies that contribute to the global public good through cheap, clean energy technology.[123] With access to cheaper clean energy and more energy efficient technology (e.g. smart grids), countries can grow their economies without emitting as much carbon and also help us decarbonize our economies. citations here: https://lets-fund.org/clean-energy/ https://lets-fund.org/clean-energy/
- Gravityloss 7y ago
  It can be argued that people really want things like happiness or security. If they can get this more directly, they can leapfrog some of the materialism. Of course for the ultra poor things like medicine are rational materialism. But there is diminishing rational value for example in dwelling size. For example there is nothing inherent in status symbols that they need to be environmentally harmful. We can change our values.
Kiro 7y ago
Yeah, let's go back to the stone age. Problem solved.
- vkou 7y ago
  After all, there is no middle ground between living in caves and dying of getting gored by a mammoth at the age of 14, and having say, billions of people drive 20 miles a day, as they commute to work, in an opposite direction of other commuters, alone in their three-tonne vehicles powered by dead dinosaurs. No middle ground whatsoever.

anoncake 7y ago

Renewables are a somewhat less insane and less impossible plan.

ourlordcaffeine 7y ago

>We need 70x more nuclear power than we have today A nuclear fission world will never happen due to the economics of it. Fission plants are hugely expensive, and take a decade or more to construct. Investors would prefer to bring 100MW a year online every year than wait 10 years for 1GW to come online and hope the power produced is still competitive. Then after the plant has lived its useful life, it cannot simply be demolished like a gas plant or wind turbine. It takes specialists a good few years and more money to decommission the plant.

mavhc 7y ago
If we're building 70x more than today, are there any economies of scale? Problem is we can't wait for research into better designs, have to act yesterday
- imtringued 7y ago
  That entirely depends on your time frame. If you're willing to wait 70 years then sure there will be economies of scale to be exploited. If you want to do it in 20 then you will have to build more highly specialized factories that produce the custom parts needed by nuclear plants. After that the factories will be useless for the next 50 years after which you need them again because the 50 year old plants are about to be decommissioned and replaced with never plants.
roenxi 7y ago
> A nuclear fission world will never happen due to the economics of it. 'Economics of it' means different things to different people, but I'm just looking through the wiki page for electricity costs [0]. I'd bet when a lot of older people talked about solar being too expensive they set their expectations based on prices in the 80s [1]. Or they mean that renewables are horrible value technically for the money spent because they have highly cyclical output vs. consistent controllable output of a thermal plant. The economics of nuclear aren't the best, but they also aren't that bad. Government policy routinely changes the price of things by 10-30%. We can cope with that easily, and that brings a fully nuclear world well into the realm of the possible. Investors aren't scared of the high upfront cost of nuclear. They are scared by the risk of spending the high upfront cost of nuclear then having the rug pulled out from under them by hostile government policy. If there was no risk of government interference and a supportive policy environment (eg, blanket ban on competition from fossil fuels) investors would be more than happy to invest. They are looking to park their money somewhere. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Price_history_of_silicon_PV_cells_since_1977.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Price_history_of_silicon_...

cobbzilla 7y ago

> still have all the fossil fuel powered machines to replace. not necessarily, if we can synthesize new fossil fuel from atmospheric carbon, as at least one new company is now trying to do at scale.

edraferi 7y ago
God I hope that works
wcoenen 7y ago
Either the machines are replaced by ones that run on electricity, or the fuel is synthesized from CO2 by a process that uses electricity (like the process of the Prometheus startup). Either way, more electricity will be needed.
- cobbzilla 7y ago
  the idea is that the energy used is from renewable sources, so you get carbon-neutral fossil fuels.
  - rtkwe 7y ago
    Yeah, the issue is we already need to build huge amounts of renewable/nuclear to replace existing. Trying to also add on carbon -> fuel 'sequestering' just massively increases the amount of energy production required.
    - VBprogrammer 7y ago
      One of the 'features' of nuclear power is that it the marginal cost of running the plant at full capacity is low compared to running it in line with demand. That's why the UK have large interconnects with France. If instead they could turn the excess power production into fuel then I'm sure that'd be a nice side effect. Solar power has the peak load problem too, though I'm not sure how economically these systems could be built to run a fraction of the time.

LoSboccacc 7y ago

there are many problems with that, first of being that at 70x current nuclear power we're going to reach peak uranium in 2 to 5 years. second is that nuclear power require massive cooling. even if (if!) the coolant don't contaminate the water that cools it down you are going to dump massive heat directly into water and rivers and oceans with significant increase in local alga bloom and measurable increase in global water temperature and of course you get the waste problem.

peteradio 7y ago
> first of being that at 70x current nuclear power we're going to reach peak uranium in 2 to 5 years. Can you show your math?
- LoSboccacc 7y ago
  https://web.archive.org/web/20090320104608if_/http://www.neutron.kth.se/courses/reactor_physics/NEA-redbook2003.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20090320104608if_/http://www.neu... optimistic prediction at current usage pin peak uranium around 270yr without breeding. now add 70x more reactor and that's that. if we ever get to thorium breeders we get a chance of sustaining society for 120years, so 3-5 generation down the road.. and every year of 70x nuclear without breeders we lose a fifth of that.
  - Mirioron 7y ago
    Sounds like that might tide us over until fusion. We probably should've invested more into fusion.
    - LoSboccacc 7y ago
      we don't have working breeder tho
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - 7y ago

TaylorAlexander 7y ago

One issue I have with nuclear is the potential for widespread environmental damage if there is a technical problem either in the power plant or in the subsequent containment systems (which so far have not been well managed). I suppose some of the new-tech nuclear offers environmental benefits compared to other technologies - I'm not very familiar with those options. But if the proposed technology could risk destroying huge parts of the environment, that does make me seriously question it. Others have said the unit economics of nuclear are so poor that a solar field the size of the power plants containment area would produce more energy faster and at a lower price, but I don't know how true that is. I guess my point is - I've been giving a lot more consideration to the environmental negatives of nuclear lately.

kikoreis 7y ago
Reactors of Gen III and beyond have significantly different safety characteristics. And solar (inherently) is unable to produce continuous 24x7 energy. Those together should be enough to warrant a fresh look at nuclear. The main practical issues with modern nuclear are up front investment and timelines, and overall economics. Those could be addressed via regulations and subsidies, but more of the general population would need to support the idea before it becomes safe politically to consider.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

AngryData 7y ago

Also fossil-fuel chemical reagents used for all sorts of material production. And the big one, artificial fertilizer, which uses natural gas because the electrical equivalent to pull what we need from the air is astronomical.

pfdietz 7y ago
Nothing "pulled from air" in ammonia production is expensive. The energy intensive part is making hydrogen, and then pressurizing the nitrogen and hydrogen. Currently, hydrogen is produced from natural gas, but renewable hydrogen from electrolysis would be fine. And at the rate the cost of solar is declining renewable hydrogen is going to be competitive soon (nuclear hydrogen, not so much.) And if renewables are over-installed to deal with intermittency there will be a lot of excess power intermittently available. The key technology here would be mediocre efficiency, but low capital cost, membraneless electrolyzers.

rndgermandude 7y ago

70x more nuclear power requires 70x more nuclear fuel too (or even if we doubled efficiency, that's still 35x more nuclear fuel). And nuclear fuel does not exactly grow on trees...

_Tev 7y ago
We can use spent fuel to make more. It's just too expensive now because we still have a lot of natural sources, so this will fix itself by supply & demand process. And fuel costs are really tiny fraction of nuclear energy cost so this won't even affect nuclear costs much.

Creationer 7y ago

Rerun that analysis for everyone on the planet with an IQ of 90 of higher - who could actually use that energy - and you will end up with a more reasonable end point.

geophertz 7y ago

You seem to be ignoring the fact that nuclear power does produce a lot of green house gases "passively". Just to mine it and transport it to other countries. Than most importantly there is refining which also produces a lot of green house gases. Not that other renewable energy do not produce any green house gases. Also regardless of how much waste is produced, there is still waste which will live on probably longer than the human specie.

godelski 7y ago
>You seem to be ignoring the fact that nuclear power does produce a lot of green house gases "passively". > Not that other renewable energy do not produce any green house gases. I mean... it is about comparisons, right? Here's just a handful of reports showing lifetime emissions of energy sources. Spoiler alert, nuclear is better than PV, but not better than wind and hydro. But that's besides the point, because you can't load balance with PV, wind, or hydro. So you can't completely replace coal with renewables. https://www.world-nuclear.org/uploadedFiles/org/WNA/Publications/Working_Group_Reports/comparison_of_lifecycle.pdf https://www.world-nuclear.org/uploadedFiles/org/WNA/Publicat... (page 539 (29/88)) https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5_chapter7.pdf https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5... https://www.geni.org/globalenergy/library/technical-articles/carbon-capture/parliamentary-office-of-science-and-technology/carbon-footprint-of-electricity-generation/file_9270.pdf https://www.geni.org/globalenergy/library/technical-articles... https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-wind-nuclear-amazingly-low-carbon-footprints https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-wind-nuclear-amazingly-low...

perfunctory 7y ago

Interesting comment on nuclear by Mike O’Sullivan, Senior Vice President, Development, NextEra Energy Resources https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2SXxJWUv-x4&t=77m59s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2SXxJWUv-x4&t=77m59s

spopejoy 7y ago

In which a community dominated by nerds and physicists pretend to understand the longstanding and largely irrefutable arguments against nuclear because nerds and physicists understand nukes and don't have a clue about - public health & epidemiology (c.f. 1999 report on deformities throughout Eastern Europe post-chernobyl) - ecosystemology (c.f. radiation from Fukushima showing up in seafood on US Pacific coasts) - politics (c.f. the fully-captured regulator DOE in US with a rotating door into GE et al) Yay let's talk about all the next-gen reactor designs that have never seen the light of day, and ignore Indian Point waiting for a terrorist attack just north of NYC. Yay let's decry anti-nuke as "hysteria" and ignore all the contaminated sites we haven't cleaned up (c.f. Hanford WA). Please proceed.

tarsinge 7y ago
These problems are real but are orders of magnitude less important than climate change. Nuclear has plenty of issues, but currently it's the only possible realistic solution for zero-carbon energy given the timeframe. It's irrational to compare local issues like waste storage with the global one at hand. https://www.electricitymap.org/?page=map&solar=false&remote=true&wind=false https://www.electricitymap.org/?page=map&solar=false&remote=...
godelski 7y ago
I just want to make sure I'm characterizing your comment right. You're saying that because we're nerds and physicists we can't understand public health, epidemiology, ecosystemology, politics, or (what you alluded to) caring about others? Did I get the gist? Because I'm confused. Who do you think creates the models for public health? Who do you think does ecosystemology, biology, climate studies, and the rest? I'll admit that you got me on politics, but the other parts are kinda laughable. We are pro-nuclear BECAUSE we care about public health. We just have read the numbers and have seen them say that this energy source does the least damage (while filling in gaps that before only fossil fuels could fill). We, unfortunately, can't save everyone, but we're doing our damnedest to save as many as we can. The same goes for the wild life and well being of the planet. We can't send everyone back to the dark ages, so we'll do our best to find ways that minimize the damage, and where possible reverse it or even make things better than we found them (but that is almost impossible, though we're getting closer to being able to do it). I write this comment BECAUSE I care about the world and the people living on it. That is why we fight. And I need to stress that no one that is advocating nuclear is saying that are whole grid should be nuclear. We want diversified portfolios. We support France's goals of reduction and increase in renewables. We see that as an ideal model which should be emulated. Yay let's talk about how nerds are heartless and just don't care about people. Yay let's decry the third world and all those affected by the worsening effects of climate change, just because we have the money to deal with the harsh realities of climate change. But yeah, call us heartless. Call us naive. Tell us about how our only cry is about hysteria. I hope you have showed everyone just how much you care. We see it. But we do not see action. So you have told us how much we don't care. Now show us how much YOU do. Not by decree, but by what can be done to address these problems you accuse us of not caring about. Please proceed.