5 ms·

Nuclear is not an essential part of any solution, it is more expensive than solar and wind per Mwatt, it takes far longer to build new plants, and if you want t

Nuclear is not an essential part of any solution, it is more expensive than solar and wind per Mwatt, it takes far longer to build new plants, and if you want to make sure those plants are actually safe then you need to invest billions of dollars into them leading again to a higher price for electricity, the risks for said plants are still there, and unlike solar or wind they require big rivers or water bodies nearby. Uranium extraction and processing is still a dirty power hungry affair and that won't change any time soon. Having deaths/mwt is also stupidly misleading because no solar plant ever had the risk of exploding and decimating a chunk of Eastern Europe, not to mention forcing thousands out of their homes and abandoning everything behind never to return If you want to discuss things, then don't do it by misleading statements, that only makes you look like an angsty teen that opposes the status quo simply because it is cool to do so

nabla9 7y ago
More expensive than solar and wind per MW comparison misses something essential. If you can't figure it out, you are missing the big picture. Nuclear is not full solution for all energy needs, but it has that something that makes it very effective part in the mix together with wind and solar. Anyone?
- zwieback 7y ago
  Agreed - don't compare nuclear to solar, compare it to coal and gas.
- CyanBird 7y ago
  You are not impressing anyone by playing the "I'm smarter than you card", you are only shaming yourself and not addressing the points of the discussion Solar plants with natural gas backup turbines are still cheaper than nuclear plants per mwatt I hope I do t sound too irated, but I'm indeed highly frustrated by the fact that wherever I have this discussion about nuclear power i dont see anyone who is actually ready to have the discussion, only people who believe in an ideal world where nuclear plants are all safe, where 3 mile Island "wasn't a big deal", and where the exclusion area in Fukushima "is a minor externality" Again, if you want to argue, you will have to bring real world arguments
  - Juliate 7y ago
    Isn't natural gas a huge CO2 source, at a time we kind of have an issue with CO2 concentration in the atmosphere? (genuine question)
    - gnusty_gnurc 7y ago
      It’s bizarre how somehow the risk of nuclear is thought to be worse than the destruction caused by atmospheric carbon.
      - CyanBird 7y ago
        That's a false choice, as natural gas is already being wasted and burnt as a byproduct, if that natural gas were used as an energy source, then we could better control the burning process and reduce emissions. Building nuclear plants would actually just increase the amount of natural gas that ends up being burned as a byproduct all the while not helping us in the grand scheme of things
        gnusty_gnurc 7y ago
        > Building nuclear plants would actually just increase the amount of natural gas that ends up being burned as a byproduct all the while not helping us in the grand scheme of things. I don't know where you're sourcing that argument. Seems like nuclear beats most renewables (solar specifically) in terms of carbon emissions and potential for quickly and reliably replacing our generation in a centralized way: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse-gas_emissions_of_energy_sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse-gas_emis...
        CyanBird 7y ago
        Nuclear and Renewables are mostly equivalent when it comes to their CO2 cost https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-wind-nuclear-amazingly-low-carbon-footprints https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-wind-nuclear-amazingly-low... Solar in particular can vary wildly when it comes to the CO2/MWatt because of geography, the ratio of CO2/Mwatt in Atacama desert will be wildly different from a solar plant in Germany, but still, when averaged out, the values of the plants themselves are mostly equivalent. Yet the problem happens when costs and other externalities are thrown into the picture, a solar plant doesnt need to worry about the storage of nuclear waste, and the mining of new facilities to store that waste, nor the extraction and refining process for Uranium which has all sorts of caveats, solar needs only worry of silica extraction, rare earths (which are needed by other industrial processes anyways) and refining and production, then simple disposal. And unlike Nuclear, the waste disposal of solar panels is comparatively super straight forward. The big one is the economic cost, where solar and wind heavily undercuts nuclear energy production https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-2017/ https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-... And solar/wind can be expected to continue falling in price as technology continues to advance and economies of scale pick up the slack, same is not the case for nuclear technology, where safety requirements balloon up the price of the plants, waste management, uranium extraction, and in a competitive disrupted market such as the modern market of energy production, nuclear plants are falling by the wayside as a consequence of continued delays, ever increasing safety requirements and waste management fees increases. Lastly, nuclear plant construction, is neither "easy, nor speedy". it is an absolutely gruesome afair which has lead to the bankrupcy of many companies https://www.powermag.com/more-losses-for-firstenergy-fes-seeks-policy-backing-amid-bankruptcy/ https://www.powermag.com/more-losses-for-firstenergy-fes-see... https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/29/business/westinghouse-toshiba-nuclear-bankruptcy.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/29/business/westinghouse-tos...
- epistasis 7y ago
  Of course intermittency, and time matching electrical load to generation. Fortunately we have great technology for that: https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/pges-recording-breaking-battery-proposal-wins-loses https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/pges-recording-... Battery technology, be it lithium ion or one of the numerous flow chemistries, is on a continuously decreasing cost curve, while nuclear tech is on a continuously increasing cost curve, or at best stagnant. Additionally, with nuclear, we are locking in todays prices for 60 years, without taking delivery for 10-15 years. Investing in storage tech with a 15-20 life span allows reinvesting in a cheaper tech after that. Additionally, seasonal storage technologies, outside of the currently existing hydro dams, are likely to enter the stage, such as synthetic fuel. And since a huge amount of our emissions come from sources that can't yet be electrified easily, we really we will likely need some sort of synthetic fuel strategy, which would also turn into a seasonal storage tech. Electrical generation is just one part of the climate solution, and honestly renewables plus storage plus HVDC is, today, a 95% solution. Getting that last 5% also solves the other parts of the climate problem. We need to be looking beyond electrical grids to other regions of our economy, and we need to be doing it five years ago. If the nuclear renaissance of 2008 had delivered a desirable product, it would be deployed in far more places. Instead, it was late, and also way too expensive. Nuclear may come back in some form, such as SMR, but as it is, it's neither necessary nor desirable to tackle climate change.
  - nabla9 7y ago
    None of the solutions you propose scale cost effectively as replacement of nuclear power. We can't even recycle lithium for batteries cost effectively yet.
    - epistasis 7y ago
      I think that they're the only options that have a chance at scaling. We know how to build battery factories reliably, and we continually make them cheaper. We don't know how to build nuclear, much less on the grand scale that would be needed, probably 50-100 reactors for the US alone.
gnusty_gnurc 7y ago
Ok, so what are solar cells other than semiconductors that pretty rapidly wear out and need to be scrapped. Who is recycling these? Answer: no one. They’re going to be e-waste shipped off somewhere to seep cadmium and other harmful elements into the environment. The idea that nuclear is dirty, ignores the very real byproducts of current renewables. At least nuclear energy centralizes waste. With renewables we’re spreading generation across a country, with little control of ensuring the materials are ever recycled in a responsible way.
LorenPechtel 7y ago
The real price of solar and wind is vastly more than the current market price. The current system is highly subsidized by the existing power infrastructure. You use the sun when it's shining and the grid when it's not--but that means you need just as many generators, they just burn a bit less fuel. The cost per kWh for pure solar power is something that's not discussed much, I did manage to find one figure of over $1 per kWh and the lowest (which I considered questionable as they were pushing off-grid systems) was $.40 per kWh.

nabla9 7y ago

More expensive than solar and wind per MW comparison misses something essential. If you can't figure it out, you are missing the big picture. Nuclear is not full solution for all energy needs, but it has that something that makes it very effective part in the mix together with wind and solar. Anyone?

zwieback 7y ago
Agreed - don't compare nuclear to solar, compare it to coal and gas.
CyanBird 7y ago
You are not impressing anyone by playing the "I'm smarter than you card", you are only shaming yourself and not addressing the points of the discussion Solar plants with natural gas backup turbines are still cheaper than nuclear plants per mwatt I hope I do t sound too irated, but I'm indeed highly frustrated by the fact that wherever I have this discussion about nuclear power i dont see anyone who is actually ready to have the discussion, only people who believe in an ideal world where nuclear plants are all safe, where 3 mile Island "wasn't a big deal", and where the exclusion area in Fukushima "is a minor externality" Again, if you want to argue, you will have to bring real world arguments
- Juliate 7y ago
  Isn't natural gas a huge CO2 source, at a time we kind of have an issue with CO2 concentration in the atmosphere? (genuine question)
  - gnusty_gnurc 7y ago
    It’s bizarre how somehow the risk of nuclear is thought to be worse than the destruction caused by atmospheric carbon.
    - CyanBird 7y ago
      That's a false choice, as natural gas is already being wasted and burnt as a byproduct, if that natural gas were used as an energy source, then we could better control the burning process and reduce emissions. Building nuclear plants would actually just increase the amount of natural gas that ends up being burned as a byproduct all the while not helping us in the grand scheme of things
      - gnusty_gnurc 7y ago
        > Building nuclear plants would actually just increase the amount of natural gas that ends up being burned as a byproduct all the while not helping us in the grand scheme of things. I don't know where you're sourcing that argument. Seems like nuclear beats most renewables (solar specifically) in terms of carbon emissions and potential for quickly and reliably replacing our generation in a centralized way: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse-gas_emissions_of_energy_sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse-gas_emis...
        CyanBird 7y ago
        Nuclear and Renewables are mostly equivalent when it comes to their CO2 cost https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-wind-nuclear-amazingly-low-carbon-footprints https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-wind-nuclear-amazingly-low... Solar in particular can vary wildly when it comes to the CO2/MWatt because of geography, the ratio of CO2/Mwatt in Atacama desert will be wildly different from a solar plant in Germany, but still, when averaged out, the values of the plants themselves are mostly equivalent. Yet the problem happens when costs and other externalities are thrown into the picture, a solar plant doesnt need to worry about the storage of nuclear waste, and the mining of new facilities to store that waste, nor the extraction and refining process for Uranium which has all sorts of caveats, solar needs only worry of silica extraction, rare earths (which are needed by other industrial processes anyways) and refining and production, then simple disposal. And unlike Nuclear, the waste disposal of solar panels is comparatively super straight forward. The big one is the economic cost, where solar and wind heavily undercuts nuclear energy production https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-2017/ https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-... And solar/wind can be expected to continue falling in price as technology continues to advance and economies of scale pick up the slack, same is not the case for nuclear technology, where safety requirements balloon up the price of the plants, waste management, uranium extraction, and in a competitive disrupted market such as the modern market of energy production, nuclear plants are falling by the wayside as a consequence of continued delays, ever increasing safety requirements and waste management fees increases. Lastly, nuclear plant construction, is neither "easy, nor speedy". it is an absolutely gruesome afair which has lead to the bankrupcy of many companies https://www.powermag.com/more-losses-for-firstenergy-fes-seeks-policy-backing-amid-bankruptcy/ https://www.powermag.com/more-losses-for-firstenergy-fes-see... https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/29/business/westinghouse-toshiba-nuclear-bankruptcy.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/29/business/westinghouse-tos...
epistasis 7y ago
Of course intermittency, and time matching electrical load to generation. Fortunately we have great technology for that: https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/pges-recording-breaking-battery-proposal-wins-loses https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/pges-recording-... Battery technology, be it lithium ion or one of the numerous flow chemistries, is on a continuously decreasing cost curve, while nuclear tech is on a continuously increasing cost curve, or at best stagnant. Additionally, with nuclear, we are locking in todays prices for 60 years, without taking delivery for 10-15 years. Investing in storage tech with a 15-20 life span allows reinvesting in a cheaper tech after that. Additionally, seasonal storage technologies, outside of the currently existing hydro dams, are likely to enter the stage, such as synthetic fuel. And since a huge amount of our emissions come from sources that can't yet be electrified easily, we really we will likely need some sort of synthetic fuel strategy, which would also turn into a seasonal storage tech. Electrical generation is just one part of the climate solution, and honestly renewables plus storage plus HVDC is, today, a 95% solution. Getting that last 5% also solves the other parts of the climate problem. We need to be looking beyond electrical grids to other regions of our economy, and we need to be doing it five years ago. If the nuclear renaissance of 2008 had delivered a desirable product, it would be deployed in far more places. Instead, it was late, and also way too expensive. Nuclear may come back in some form, such as SMR, but as it is, it's neither necessary nor desirable to tackle climate change.
- nabla9 7y ago
  None of the solutions you propose scale cost effectively as replacement of nuclear power. We can't even recycle lithium for batteries cost effectively yet.
  - epistasis 7y ago
    I think that they're the only options that have a chance at scaling. We know how to build battery factories reliably, and we continually make them cheaper. We don't know how to build nuclear, much less on the grand scale that would be needed, probably 50-100 reactors for the US alone.

gnusty_gnurc 7y ago

Ok, so what are solar cells other than semiconductors that pretty rapidly wear out and need to be scrapped. Who is recycling these? Answer: no one. They’re going to be e-waste shipped off somewhere to seep cadmium and other harmful elements into the environment. The idea that nuclear is dirty, ignores the very real byproducts of current renewables. At least nuclear energy centralizes waste. With renewables we’re spreading generation across a country, with little control of ensuring the materials are ever recycled in a responsible way.

LorenPechtel 7y ago

The real price of solar and wind is vastly more than the current market price. The current system is highly subsidized by the existing power infrastructure. You use the sun when it's shining and the grid when it's not--but that means you need just as many generators, they just burn a bit less fuel. The cost per kWh for pure solar power is something that's not discussed much, I did manage to find one figure of over $1 per kWh and the lowest (which I considered questionable as they were pushing off-grid systems) was $.40 per kWh.