10 ms·

Can someone much smarter than me opine on why nuclear is not lumped into the 100% clean energy category?

by awad 7y ago

whatshisface 7y ago
Nuclear waste and parts from decommissioned reactors are not that big of a deal, but they are also not 100% clean.
- nwah1 7y ago
  By that standard, the REEs required for solar definitely aren't 100% clean.
- dasd99 7y ago
  >not that big of a deal also known as 'who cares, we won't be here'
  - WorldMaker 7y ago
    Maybe more the opposite: in the long enough term radioactive materials are just ugly rocks. It's more the short term storage in the here and now that is the concern for most people, because they are understandably afraid of DNA damage and cancer.
- twunde 7y ago
  Disposing of nuclear waste is actually a big deal in the US. Last I heard, nuclear waste is kept on-site or close by since the Yucca mountain storage facility was never built[1]. These storage facilities weren't built or meant for long-term storage and could potentially (likely?) have radiation leaks. edited to add links [1] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-does-the-us-do-with-nuclear-waste/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-does-the-us-... [2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2019/05/31/new-map-shows-expanse-of-u-s-nuclear-waste-sites/#31d72cf7c2cf https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2019/05/31/new-map-...
heimatau 7y ago
It's 100% sustainable not 100% green. It should be the solution humanity picks, if we want to be serious about emission reduction but I wouldn't put my money on it.
- NikolaeVarius 7y ago
  Define 100% clean.
- bilbo0s 7y ago
  >but I wouldn't put my money on it... That's a large part of the reason that it likely won't be a part of the future mix. Because no investor groups want to "put their money on it". Nuclear is expensive to build out, it needs investment. The problem is that everyone sees the shit show that Vogtie has become. Also, energy investors can see what's happened to nuclear in places like Iowa where it almost seems as though every guy able to even get a USD100,000 loan has gotten a group of his buddies together and slapped up some windmills. (Seriously, have you ever driven through Iowa lately?) Anyway, what investor group wants to put up the USD4 Billion to compete against all that? Harsh reality is that, assuming all they care about is generating more money, there are better places for their money to go. That's why we need government investment. I've been saying for a while, we've reached the point where if we want nuclear to be a part of the future mix, government is going to have to step up in a big way. You could argue that the problem with Vogtie was that the government was unrealistic in expecting private industry to be able to pull that off with the provided level of assistance. (And yes, that also implies that private industry was just as unrealistic in believing they could pull that off without additional assistance.)
  - chr1 7y ago
    I've recently stumbled upon some videos where Kirk Sorensen describes LFTR reactors (Liquid fluoride thorium reactor) that his startup is working on, and he is claiming that their reactor can cover its costs simply by selling fission products like xenon, helium, and rare radioactive elements used in medicine.
  - heimatau 7y ago
dasd99 7y ago
IMHO something that leaves a toxic legacy for hundreds of generations to come is justifiably not 'clean'.
- HeWhoLurksLate 7y ago
  If you're smart, and careful and plan well and don't try to cut corners, you'll be safe. Chernobyl was hampered by design flaws [1] that can be pretty well avoided these days, and it's not like light water reactors are the only / best option, either. [1] https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1986-08-23-mn-15781-story.html https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1986-08-23-mn-15781-...
  - zdragnar 7y ago
    Right or wrong, people aren't worried about design flaws that are known about, it's the design flaws that aren't anticipated. There's plenty of safely operated nuclear energy facilities, but the prospect of one contaminating either a large urban area or a large agricultural area is pretty horrific. I suspect most people aren't worried that the theory and design of new plants is safe, but that the practice wouldn't result in at least one plant with corners cut. I'm personally comfortable with the idea of nuclear power, but I don't really begrudge people who aren't too much. It's all moot anyway; for providing base load, natural gas is going to be the hands down winner for awhile. I could be mistaken on this point, but I'm under the impression that they're both cheaper and faster to get going, and easier to decommission.
  - jfk13 7y ago
    Isn't hindsight great? I suspect the people who designed Chernobyl thought they were being smart and careful at the time. You can be as smart and careful as you like, and still get bitten by something you had no idea was a possibility. If you're building a wind turbine, there's likely to be a reasonable limit to how catastrophic that totally unanticipated problem might be. If you're building a nuclear plant, the stakes are a lot higher.
czinck 7y ago
I think it's just sloppy terminology on the authors part, using "clean energy" to refer to wind/solar/whatever new method that has much different pricing characteristics to stuff that was making up a large percentage of the grid 20 years ago (like nuclear). Like how in programming code written yesterday can be called "legacy code".

Can someone much smarter than me opine on why nuclear is not lumped into the 100% clean energy category?

by awad 7y ago

Can someone much smarter than me opine on why nuclear is not lumped into the 100% clean energy category?

whatshisface 7y ago

Nuclear waste and parts from decommissioned reactors are not that big of a deal, but they are also not 100% clean.

nwah1 7y ago
By that standard, the REEs required for solar definitely aren't 100% clean.
dasd99 7y ago
>not that big of a deal also known as 'who cares, we won't be here'
- WorldMaker 7y ago
  Maybe more the opposite: in the long enough term radioactive materials are just ugly rocks. It's more the short term storage in the here and now that is the concern for most people, because they are understandably afraid of DNA damage and cancer.
twunde 7y ago
Disposing of nuclear waste is actually a big deal in the US. Last I heard, nuclear waste is kept on-site or close by since the Yucca mountain storage facility was never built[1]. These storage facilities weren't built or meant for long-term storage and could potentially (likely?) have radiation leaks. edited to add links [1] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-does-the-us-do-with-nuclear-waste/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-does-the-us-... [2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2019/05/31/new-map-shows-expanse-of-u-s-nuclear-waste-sites/#31d72cf7c2cf https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2019/05/31/new-map-...

heimatau 7y ago

It's 100% sustainable not 100% green. It should be the solution humanity picks, if we want to be serious about emission reduction but I wouldn't put my money on it.

NikolaeVarius 7y ago
Define 100% clean.
bilbo0s 7y ago
>but I wouldn't put my money on it... That's a large part of the reason that it likely won't be a part of the future mix. Because no investor groups want to "put their money on it". Nuclear is expensive to build out, it needs investment. The problem is that everyone sees the shit show that Vogtie has become. Also, energy investors can see what's happened to nuclear in places like Iowa where it almost seems as though every guy able to even get a USD100,000 loan has gotten a group of his buddies together and slapped up some windmills. (Seriously, have you ever driven through Iowa lately?) Anyway, what investor group wants to put up the USD4 Billion to compete against all that? Harsh reality is that, assuming all they care about is generating more money, there are better places for their money to go. That's why we need government investment. I've been saying for a while, we've reached the point where if we want nuclear to be a part of the future mix, government is going to have to step up in a big way. You could argue that the problem with Vogtie was that the government was unrealistic in expecting private industry to be able to pull that off with the provided level of assistance. (And yes, that also implies that private industry was just as unrealistic in believing they could pull that off without additional assistance.)
- chr1 7y ago
  I've recently stumbled upon some videos where Kirk Sorensen describes LFTR reactors (Liquid fluoride thorium reactor) that his startup is working on, and he is claiming that their reactor can cover its costs simply by selling fission products like xenon, helium, and rare radioactive elements used in medicine.
- heimatau 7y ago

dasd99 7y ago

IMHO something that leaves a toxic legacy for hundreds of generations to come is justifiably not 'clean'.

HeWhoLurksLate 7y ago
If you're smart, and careful and plan well and don't try to cut corners, you'll be safe. Chernobyl was hampered by design flaws [1] that can be pretty well avoided these days, and it's not like light water reactors are the only / best option, either. [1] https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1986-08-23-mn-15781-story.html https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1986-08-23-mn-15781-...
- zdragnar 7y ago
  Right or wrong, people aren't worried about design flaws that are known about, it's the design flaws that aren't anticipated. There's plenty of safely operated nuclear energy facilities, but the prospect of one contaminating either a large urban area or a large agricultural area is pretty horrific. I suspect most people aren't worried that the theory and design of new plants is safe, but that the practice wouldn't result in at least one plant with corners cut. I'm personally comfortable with the idea of nuclear power, but I don't really begrudge people who aren't too much. It's all moot anyway; for providing base load, natural gas is going to be the hands down winner for awhile. I could be mistaken on this point, but I'm under the impression that they're both cheaper and faster to get going, and easier to decommission.
- jfk13 7y ago
  Isn't hindsight great? I suspect the people who designed Chernobyl thought they were being smart and careful at the time. You can be as smart and careful as you like, and still get bitten by something you had no idea was a possibility. If you're building a wind turbine, there's likely to be a reasonable limit to how catastrophic that totally unanticipated problem might be. If you're building a nuclear plant, the stakes are a lot higher.

czinck 7y ago

I think it's just sloppy terminology on the authors part, using "clean energy" to refer to wind/solar/whatever new method that has much different pricing characteristics to stuff that was making up a large percentage of the grid 20 years ago (like nuclear). Like how in programming code written yesterday can be called "legacy code".