6 ms·

> 1. Authors ignore how long it takes to bring a new nuclear plant online (>7 years). Most of the wait time is due to lack of demand, e.g. it takes multiple ye

> 1. Authors ignore how long it takes to bring a new nuclear plant online (>7 years). Most of the wait time is due to lack of demand, e.g. it takes multiple years to build a pressure vessel but this production could be ramped up 10-100x if need be. The Quora source you cite actually says 48 months for modern reactors so I'm not sure where >7 years came from. > 3. Authors ignore the waste storage problem, which is a debt future generations will be saddled with for hundreds or thousands of years. There is no waste storage problem. This is a myth that should have died a decade ago. Vitrified nuclear waste is inert and harmless. Modern reactors are also able to consume most of current waste. We already tolerate far worse waste products from e.g. the coal industry where it's a non-newsworthy occurrence for toxic tailings to completely destroy river systems. > 4. Authors ignore the power storage problem, which causes lots of energy to be wasted. The energy (not power) storage problem is unique to unreliable peaky power sources like solar and wind. Nuclear power plants provide a consistent and diallable power output. Energy storage is also a big impediment to large scale rollout of renewables because energy storage costs are superlinear with respect to demand. > 5. Authors ignore energy efficiency trends (electronics get more efficient over time). Increase in efficiency does not lead to decrease in consumption. It does the opposite. Look up induced demand. > 6. Authors ignore the safety data and that safety incidents are likely under-reported. Nuclear power is orders of magnitude safer and cleaner than anything else that exists including renewables. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-d... This comment is entirely misleading and the author is seriously misinformed about nuclear power. This should not be top comment on any discussion of nuclear power. This is just perpetuating FUD and myths that have all been deconstructed years ago.

Arbalest 7y ago
I would also argue that #2 was already being said 7 years ago. Further, growth is not always constant growth, let alone exponential growth. It may plateau, and then grow again further down the track after other problems (eg storage) are solved.
mch82 7y ago
There are 5 Quora answers: 3.3-5 years, 9 years, 7 years, 10-12 years (with 35 year outliers), and 4.8 years. 7 years is near the average of all those answers. > “ Most of the wait time is due to lack of demand” None of the Quora answers cited this as a reason. And the Quora answers are the low end of the scale (40 months) only included construction time in their answer, not site finding, licensing, or startup.
- downrightmike 7y ago
  There is a HUGE if, IF they get built. We can't actually build these anymore. There isn't enough funding/willingness to get these built. 16 billion pound project can't get off the ground: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jan/11/hitachi-cancel-plans-nuclear-power-station-angelsey-wales https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jan/11/hitachi-...
  - Gibbon1 7y ago
    I think building modern reactors just stretches our industrial capability too far. Doesn't help that in the US due to de-industrialization there isn't enough skilled managers, engineers or skilled workers either.
boyter 7y ago
The world is an oil based economy. If people really want to move away from oil you need to transform the economy from being based on it to on based on electricity. Which means you need a lot more power. Solar and wind still factor in but you still want that massive amount that a power plant provides, because all current storage technology won’t be able to keep up. Plus if all reactors were the same design such as in France it lowers costs dramatically as well.
mdorazio 7y ago
Your comment is entirely misleading, based on outdated data, and whitewashes the hell out of nuclear power. The fact you're trying to claim the parent post is bad is not cool. 1. Please look at actual data for power plant construction times. [1] provides an overview. Estimates are useless - if we look at how long things actually take to build... "The mean construction time of 441 reactors in use today was 7.5 years." 3. Are you actually serious right now? Radioactive waste sitting in temporary pools that will be an environmental catastrophe for hundreds of years if they leak isn't a problem? No, just because we tolerate other ecological disasters doesn't make this one ok. 4. This is no longer true, and will definitely not be true in another 5 years. Battery costs are decreasing at a reliable rate year over year. Power plants are already being built making use of them. Here's one going up now with 300MWh of storage [2]. 5. No, you look up per capita demand. Here: [3]. It’s been dropping for a decade. 6. Your link does not report solar farm deaths because as far as I can tell there haven't ever been any. Unless you count birds. Rooftop solar is "dangerous" because installers fall off roofs. [1] http://euanmearns.com/how-long-does-it-take-to-build-a-nuclear-power-plant/ http://euanmearns.com/how-long-does-it-take-to-build-a-nucle... [2] https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2019/10/08/the-sun-shines-only-at-night/ https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2019/10/08/the-sun-shines-only-a... [3] https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=32212 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=32212
- missosoup 7y ago
  > Radioactive waste sitting in temporary pools Spent fuel is sitting in cooling pools because it emits enough residual heat to melt if not in water. Spent fuel will typically sit in these pools for around a decade. At which point the residual heat is low enough to process it via vitrification (turning it into chemically inert glass) and then moving it to a permanent storage site. Vitrified spent fuel is radiologically and chemically safe. The only way it can become a danger is if somehow liquefied or aerosolised. The volume needed to store a century worth of all humanity's spent nuclear fuel is less than a single large landfill site, of which we have hundreds of thousands. > that will be an environmental catastrophe for hundreds of years if they leak If what leaks? Do you actually know what's in those pools and why? Spent fuel pools are harmless. You can go for a swim in them and receive a lower radiation dose than background. There's nothing to leak. The only failure mode is if water is not supplied to them and eventually evaporates. > This is no longer true, and will definitely not be true in another 5 years Cite this. Show that at any point in the foreseeable future the cost of energy storage with regard to total capacity is not superlinear. China would love to hear from you since they're stuck unable to use renewables at large scale because of this issue. > No, you look up per capita demand. Here: [3]. It’s been dropping for a decade. Per capita is not a relevant number, The number that is being discussed is total demand. The number that matters, since power sources need to supply a total demand not a per capita demand, whatever that would even mean. The number that's rapidly increasing.[1] Actually take the time to read up on induced demand, then you will understand that it results in a per-capita decrease in consumption (since higher efficiency) and a paradoxical higher total consumption, since now there are more consumers who were previously priced out. GP post is bad and your post is bad. Sorry. If you don't understand the very eli5 basics of nuclear power like the purpose of cooling ponds (and the fact that most modern reactor designs don't need them), then be aware that you're perpetuating a bunch of myths every time you talk about it. Energy science is not a topic where all opinions are equal. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption#Trends https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption#Trend...
aeternum 7y ago
As far as #6, it is disingenuous to count indirect coal deaths due to respiratory issues and completely ignore the indirect nuclear deaths. For example, the article you link does not seem to account for the 2000+ deaths that occurred due to the Fukushima evacuation, nor those that survived but later starved due to their homes and livelihood being destroyed in the Chernobyl accident. A proper model needs to take into account the economic implications of a nuclear incident.

Arbalest 7y ago

I would also argue that #2 was already being said 7 years ago. Further, growth is not always constant growth, let alone exponential growth. It may plateau, and then grow again further down the track after other problems (eg storage) are solved.

mch82 7y ago

There are 5 Quora answers: 3.3-5 years, 9 years, 7 years, 10-12 years (with 35 year outliers), and 4.8 years. 7 years is near the average of all those answers. > “ Most of the wait time is due to lack of demand” None of the Quora answers cited this as a reason. And the Quora answers are the low end of the scale (40 months) only included construction time in their answer, not site finding, licensing, or startup.

downrightmike 7y ago
There is a HUGE if, IF they get built. We can't actually build these anymore. There isn't enough funding/willingness to get these built. 16 billion pound project can't get off the ground: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jan/11/hitachi-cancel-plans-nuclear-power-station-angelsey-wales https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jan/11/hitachi-...
- Gibbon1 7y ago
  I think building modern reactors just stretches our industrial capability too far. Doesn't help that in the US due to de-industrialization there isn't enough skilled managers, engineers or skilled workers either.

boyter 7y ago

The world is an oil based economy. If people really want to move away from oil you need to transform the economy from being based on it to on based on electricity. Which means you need a lot more power. Solar and wind still factor in but you still want that massive amount that a power plant provides, because all current storage technology won’t be able to keep up. Plus if all reactors were the same design such as in France it lowers costs dramatically as well.

mdorazio 7y ago

Your comment is entirely misleading, based on outdated data, and whitewashes the hell out of nuclear power. The fact you're trying to claim the parent post is bad is not cool. 1. Please look at actual data for power plant construction times. [1] provides an overview. Estimates are useless - if we look at how long things actually take to build... "The mean construction time of 441 reactors in use today was 7.5 years." 3. Are you actually serious right now? Radioactive waste sitting in temporary pools that will be an environmental catastrophe for hundreds of years if they leak isn't a problem? No, just because we tolerate other ecological disasters doesn't make this one ok. 4. This is no longer true, and will definitely not be true in another 5 years. Battery costs are decreasing at a reliable rate year over year. Power plants are already being built making use of them. Here's one going up now with 300MWh of storage [2]. 5. No, you look up per capita demand. Here: [3]. It’s been dropping for a decade. 6. Your link does not report solar farm deaths because as far as I can tell there haven't ever been any. Unless you count birds. Rooftop solar is "dangerous" because installers fall off roofs. [1] http://euanmearns.com/how-long-does-it-take-to-build-a-nuclear-power-plant/ http://euanmearns.com/how-long-does-it-take-to-build-a-nucle... [2] https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2019/10/08/the-sun-shines-only-at-night/ https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2019/10/08/the-sun-shines-only-a... [3] https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=32212 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=32212

missosoup 7y ago
> Radioactive waste sitting in temporary pools Spent fuel is sitting in cooling pools because it emits enough residual heat to melt if not in water. Spent fuel will typically sit in these pools for around a decade. At which point the residual heat is low enough to process it via vitrification (turning it into chemically inert glass) and then moving it to a permanent storage site. Vitrified spent fuel is radiologically and chemically safe. The only way it can become a danger is if somehow liquefied or aerosolised. The volume needed to store a century worth of all humanity's spent nuclear fuel is less than a single large landfill site, of which we have hundreds of thousands. > that will be an environmental catastrophe for hundreds of years if they leak If what leaks? Do you actually know what's in those pools and why? Spent fuel pools are harmless. You can go for a swim in them and receive a lower radiation dose than background. There's nothing to leak. The only failure mode is if water is not supplied to them and eventually evaporates. > This is no longer true, and will definitely not be true in another 5 years Cite this. Show that at any point in the foreseeable future the cost of energy storage with regard to total capacity is not superlinear. China would love to hear from you since they're stuck unable to use renewables at large scale because of this issue. > No, you look up per capita demand. Here: [3]. It’s been dropping for a decade. Per capita is not a relevant number, The number that is being discussed is total demand. The number that matters, since power sources need to supply a total demand not a per capita demand, whatever that would even mean. The number that's rapidly increasing.[1] Actually take the time to read up on induced demand, then you will understand that it results in a per-capita decrease in consumption (since higher efficiency) and a paradoxical higher total consumption, since now there are more consumers who were previously priced out. GP post is bad and your post is bad. Sorry. If you don't understand the very eli5 basics of nuclear power like the purpose of cooling ponds (and the fact that most modern reactor designs don't need them), then be aware that you're perpetuating a bunch of myths every time you talk about it. Energy science is not a topic where all opinions are equal. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption#Trends https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption#Trend...

aeternum 7y ago

As far as #6, it is disingenuous to count indirect coal deaths due to respiratory issues and completely ignore the indirect nuclear deaths. For example, the article you link does not seem to account for the 2000+ deaths that occurred due to the Fukushima evacuation, nor those that survived but later starved due to their homes and livelihood being destroyed in the Chernobyl accident. A proper model needs to take into account the economic implications of a nuclear incident.