8 ms·

I'd argue the largest factor was the accident at Chernobyl with a very real risk of contamination. We haven't found a site for final storage yet either.

by kaybe 7y ago

gridlockd 7y ago
> We haven't found a site for final storage yet either. Nuclear waste storage shouldn't ever be "final". Nuclear waste processing and recycling today is far more advanced than it was in the past. Nobody knows what we can do in the future. It's intellectually dishonest to extrapolate technological progress of so-called green technologies, but then not afford the same to nuclear technology, which has effectively been left in limbo for decades.
- Retric 7y ago
  Fuel can be reprocessed, but most nuclear waste is not fuel. Nuclear has received 100’s of billions in funding and shows little signs of the massive improvement needed to be cost competitive. It’s going to take a ~60% cost reduction to just catch up with current rentable prices. Giant concrete structures, armed guards, medical officers, highly trained staff, decommissioning etc. Nuclear has never been cheap, and shows little sign of becoming so in the next 10 years.
  - gridlockd 7y ago
    I could say the same about wind or solar, it all depends on what you mean by "significant". The difference is that nuclear can actually support virtually any nation's energy needs today, wind and solar (or any other "clean" form of energy) can not.
    - Retric 7y ago
      Based on what evidence? Replacing all infrastructure today is hardly worth it, but wind and solar backed up by battery or hydro storage costs less than even base load Nuclear power. Load following nuclear power costs even more per kWh than base load nuclear power. Which is why France imported and exported so much electricity while being theoretically 100% nuclear. PS: Even battery backed up nuclear seems to be much cheaper than peaking nuclear power based on current market prices.
      - gridlockd 7y ago
        > Based on what evidence? Replacing all infrastructure today is hardly worth it, but wind and solar backed up by battery or hydro storage costs less than even base load Nuclear power. A back-of-the-envelope calculation reveals that the amount of hydro or battery storage needed to support base load is orders of magnitude beyond current capacities: https://www.oulu.fi/blogs/how-much-storage-does-the-energiewende-need https://www.oulu.fi/blogs/how-much-storage-does-the-energiew... Batteries themselves aren't that green anyway, Lithium can be considered a "conflict material" and there's no better "eco-friendly" alternative today. Now I'm not saying technology and production can't or won't improve for these complements, but that's way into the future. If we count that progress in, we can't just discount nuclear progress. > Load following nuclear power costs even more per kWh than base load nuclear power. Which is why France imported and exported so much electricity while being theoretically 100% nuclear. Riddle me this, then: France has among the cheapest electricity prices in Europe, Germany has the highest after Denmark. France is almost entirely nuclear, Germany is big on wind, but also coal. France imports/exports energy because that is how the grid in Europe works. If France didn't export to Germany, they'd need even more coal or natural gas to support base load. Germany's wind energy also causes peaks that need to be exported, sometimes at negative prices, more so than coal or nuclear: https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/why-power-prices-turn-negative https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/why-power-prices-...
        Retric 7y ago
        > France has among the cheapest electricity prices in Europe No, France has extremely subsidized electricity for consumers, but the economy pays the real price. Notably, French nuclear power is generated by the government rather than private industry allowing for minimal transparency in these subsidies. France regularly needs to import electricity to cover peak demand despite being one of the world’s top exporters of electricity. It also meeds to regularly operate nuclear power plants at below 100% output because the market price often can’t support operations let alone capital costs. This was true before wind or solar became significant energy sources. This means if other countries had adopted Nuclear then France would have needed even more subsidies. In a theoretical world with increasing Nuclear production globally, it’s costs just keep rising because demand is not a steady state.
- pjc50 7y ago
  The high level waste can be reprocessed. The low level waste, which is ordinary materials which have been exposed to high neutron flux, can't.
  - gridlockd 7y ago
    It can't be recycled, that doesn't mean it never will be possible to neutralize it. This is a problem we can put off for a thousand years, we'll likely figure out a solution in the meantime. You can't say the same about climate change.

I'd argue the largest factor was the accident at Chernobyl with a very real risk of contamination. We haven't found a site for final storage yet either.

by kaybe 7y ago

I'd argue the largest factor was the accident at Chernobyl with a very real risk of contamination. We haven't found a site for final storage yet either.

gridlockd 7y ago

> We haven't found a site for final storage yet either. Nuclear waste storage shouldn't ever be "final". Nuclear waste processing and recycling today is far more advanced than it was in the past. Nobody knows what we can do in the future. It's intellectually dishonest to extrapolate technological progress of so-called green technologies, but then not afford the same to nuclear technology, which has effectively been left in limbo for decades.

Retric 7y ago
Fuel can be reprocessed, but most nuclear waste is not fuel. Nuclear has received 100’s of billions in funding and shows little signs of the massive improvement needed to be cost competitive. It’s going to take a ~60% cost reduction to just catch up with current rentable prices. Giant concrete structures, armed guards, medical officers, highly trained staff, decommissioning etc. Nuclear has never been cheap, and shows little sign of becoming so in the next 10 years.
- gridlockd 7y ago
  I could say the same about wind or solar, it all depends on what you mean by "significant". The difference is that nuclear can actually support virtually any nation's energy needs today, wind and solar (or any other "clean" form of energy) can not.
  - Retric 7y ago
    Based on what evidence? Replacing all infrastructure today is hardly worth it, but wind and solar backed up by battery or hydro storage costs less than even base load Nuclear power. Load following nuclear power costs even more per kWh than base load nuclear power. Which is why France imported and exported so much electricity while being theoretically 100% nuclear. PS: Even battery backed up nuclear seems to be much cheaper than peaking nuclear power based on current market prices.
    - gridlockd 7y ago
      > Based on what evidence? Replacing all infrastructure today is hardly worth it, but wind and solar backed up by battery or hydro storage costs less than even base load Nuclear power. A back-of-the-envelope calculation reveals that the amount of hydro or battery storage needed to support base load is orders of magnitude beyond current capacities: https://www.oulu.fi/blogs/how-much-storage-does-the-energiewende-need https://www.oulu.fi/blogs/how-much-storage-does-the-energiew... Batteries themselves aren't that green anyway, Lithium can be considered a "conflict material" and there's no better "eco-friendly" alternative today. Now I'm not saying technology and production can't or won't improve for these complements, but that's way into the future. If we count that progress in, we can't just discount nuclear progress. > Load following nuclear power costs even more per kWh than base load nuclear power. Which is why France imported and exported so much electricity while being theoretically 100% nuclear. Riddle me this, then: France has among the cheapest electricity prices in Europe, Germany has the highest after Denmark. France is almost entirely nuclear, Germany is big on wind, but also coal. France imports/exports energy because that is how the grid in Europe works. If France didn't export to Germany, they'd need even more coal or natural gas to support base load. Germany's wind energy also causes peaks that need to be exported, sometimes at negative prices, more so than coal or nuclear: https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/why-power-prices-turn-negative https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/why-power-prices-...
      - Retric 7y ago
        > France has among the cheapest electricity prices in Europe No, France has extremely subsidized electricity for consumers, but the economy pays the real price. Notably, French nuclear power is generated by the government rather than private industry allowing for minimal transparency in these subsidies. France regularly needs to import electricity to cover peak demand despite being one of the world’s top exporters of electricity. It also meeds to regularly operate nuclear power plants at below 100% output because the market price often can’t support operations let alone capital costs. This was true before wind or solar became significant energy sources. This means if other countries had adopted Nuclear then France would have needed even more subsidies. In a theoretical world with increasing Nuclear production globally, it’s costs just keep rising because demand is not a steady state.
pjc50 7y ago
The high level waste can be reprocessed. The low level waste, which is ordinary materials which have been exposed to high neutron flux, can't.
- gridlockd 7y ago
  It can't be recycled, that doesn't mean it never will be possible to neutralize it. This is a problem we can put off for a thousand years, we'll likely figure out a solution in the meantime. You can't say the same about climate change.