5 ms·

4) Nuclear is and always was incredibly expensive to set up. There is a reason why nuclear plants are never paid for in their entirety by any private firm/opera

by bipson 7y ago

4) Nuclear is and always was incredibly expensive to set up. There is a reason why nuclear plants are never paid for in their entirety by any private firm/operator and heavily subsidized (at least in the EU) 5) I am still fascinated by the lack of awareness regarding waste (particularly since it is with well educated/smart people) Yes, I know, there are alternative nuclear power sources where we don't need to safely store nuclear waste for millions of years. But those are not readily available. We still do not have a real solution for nuclear waste. Just dumping something so dangerous for thousands (or millions) of years is mindbogglingly reckless. And loudly asking to increase this amount by plastering waste-producing facilities everywhere... That's like pouring poison in the floor below your own garden, hoping the next guy will have a solution for it. But I guess good ol' America, where dumping any waste is not considered a problem, there is simply no awareness for this practice. Just because you don't see it, doesn't mean it has no effect. Dumping. is. not. a. long-term. solution. And just because You don't need to care about it anymore, doesn't mean nobody has to.

keanzu 7y ago
All of the used fuel ever produced by the commercial nuclear industry since the late 1950s would cover a football field to a depth of less than 10 yards. https://www.nei.org/fundamentals/nuclear-waste https://www.nei.org/fundamentals/nuclear-waste
- jusssi 7y ago
  Could you store it that way though, or would it start a spontaneous chain reaction?
  - keanzu 7y ago
    There would be no spontaneous chain reaction, the waste is depleted below the radioactivity of naturally occurring sources. You can't practically store it that way though because no-one really likes moving waste any distance for fear of spillage.
- silvester23 7y ago
  Without disputing that assertion, you might not have chosen the most unbiased source to back it up.
  - keanzu 7y ago
    Upvoted :) I'll concede that point.
adrianN 7y ago
Nuclear waste is not a serious problem. It's pretty small by volume and if you're willing to build breeder reactors you can reduce it by 95% or so.
Symmetry 7y ago
Is nuclear power so very expensive right now? My understanding is that one of the main drivers behind the huge up front costs of nuclear power is that the builder had to take out a loan to cover the cost of construction before the wheels of regulatory approval started turning. After several years approval would be granted and then construction would still take quite a bit more time. And over all this time that initial loan was accumulating interest - often doubling or more the total capital cost of building a new plant. But these days interest rates are pretty low and I wonder how much this has affected the price of building new nuclear power plants.
- bipson 7y ago
  "The project completion cost at Hinkley Point C is now estimated at 21.5 billion to 22.5 billion pounds". [1] Agreed, the project hit some regulatory roadblocks, yet, this is a lot of money. The original cost bid was 18 billion already. Imagine how much solar/wind that would give you. And the costs for operation and waste storage are not even considered. Also in this article: "The giant atomic project is expensive compared with U.K. wind, for example, where power from the latest offshore auction sold at less than half that from Hinkley" [...] "The additional costs will be borne by EDF [...], though they’re still set to receive 92.50 pounds for every megawatt-hour of power Hinkley generates -- more than double the current market price" [1] This is a state-of-the-art reactor. Nuclear is not the solution, particularly not the "cheapest", and particularly not green. [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-09-25/edf-raises-cost-of-flagship-u-k-nuclear-project-warns-of-delay https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-09-25/edf-raise... edit: forgot to cite source
mcjiggerlog 7y ago
Nuclear waste is not "dumped". It is stored under the strictest safety regulations possible. It is the only energy source where 100% of the waste is captured and securely managed. Yes, even renewables create unmanaged waste. Nobody has EVER died from nuclear waste, whereas millions (www.who.int/airpollution/en/) of people a year are estimated to die from the effects of fossil fuel waste.
- bipson 7y ago
  Hm, if you consider storing something for a timeframe that well exceeds everything we are possible to plan ahead "safe". We simply put it in underground storages we consider "safe" for the time being. We have no idea what will happen with this deposits considering such a long timespan. And this storage does not come for free. All these sites are maintained and must be. Just as much as the (very complicated) transport of the material. Every single castor transport in Germany and France is a huge operation. And "Nobody has ever died from" is such a great argument. "Nobody has ever died from radiation in space" does not mean we should ignore it, does it?
  - mcjiggerlog 7y ago
    Yes, I consider storing something in a way that is a demonstrably secure as feasibly possible "safe", regardless of the timespans. Especially when compared to the alternative, which is fossil fuels spewing their waste straight into the air. And a better analogy would be that what anti-nuclear folk are arguing is like saying we shouldn't go to space at all because there's radiation there.
    - bipson 7y ago
      Nothing can be "demonstrably" secure if we cannot demonstrate it. We simply cannot guarantee control over the depot for the given time-frame. A lot of things can happen in 1 million years. You should really read this for another view on that "simple" topic: https://www.forbes.com/sites/christinero/2019/11/26/the-staggering-timescales-of-nuclear-waste-disposal/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/christinero/2019/11/26/the-stag...

by bipson 7y ago

keanzu 7y ago

All of the used fuel ever produced by the commercial nuclear industry since the late 1950s would cover a football field to a depth of less than 10 yards. https://www.nei.org/fundamentals/nuclear-waste https://www.nei.org/fundamentals/nuclear-waste

jusssi 7y ago
Could you store it that way though, or would it start a spontaneous chain reaction?
- keanzu 7y ago
  There would be no spontaneous chain reaction, the waste is depleted below the radioactivity of naturally occurring sources. You can't practically store it that way though because no-one really likes moving waste any distance for fear of spillage.
silvester23 7y ago
Without disputing that assertion, you might not have chosen the most unbiased source to back it up.
- keanzu 7y ago
  Upvoted :) I'll concede that point.

adrianN 7y ago

Nuclear waste is not a serious problem. It's pretty small by volume and if you're willing to build breeder reactors you can reduce it by 95% or so.

Symmetry 7y ago

Is nuclear power so very expensive right now? My understanding is that one of the main drivers behind the huge up front costs of nuclear power is that the builder had to take out a loan to cover the cost of construction before the wheels of regulatory approval started turning. After several years approval would be granted and then construction would still take quite a bit more time. And over all this time that initial loan was accumulating interest - often doubling or more the total capital cost of building a new plant. But these days interest rates are pretty low and I wonder how much this has affected the price of building new nuclear power plants.

bipson 7y ago
"The project completion cost at Hinkley Point C is now estimated at 21.5 billion to 22.5 billion pounds". [1] Agreed, the project hit some regulatory roadblocks, yet, this is a lot of money. The original cost bid was 18 billion already. Imagine how much solar/wind that would give you. And the costs for operation and waste storage are not even considered. Also in this article: "The giant atomic project is expensive compared with U.K. wind, for example, where power from the latest offshore auction sold at less than half that from Hinkley" [...] "The additional costs will be borne by EDF [...], though they’re still set to receive 92.50 pounds for every megawatt-hour of power Hinkley generates -- more than double the current market price" [1] This is a state-of-the-art reactor. Nuclear is not the solution, particularly not the "cheapest", and particularly not green. [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-09-25/edf-raises-cost-of-flagship-u-k-nuclear-project-warns-of-delay https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-09-25/edf-raise... edit: forgot to cite source

mcjiggerlog 7y ago

Nuclear waste is not "dumped". It is stored under the strictest safety regulations possible. It is the only energy source where 100% of the waste is captured and securely managed. Yes, even renewables create unmanaged waste. Nobody has EVER died from nuclear waste, whereas millions (www.who.int/airpollution/en/) of people a year are estimated to die from the effects of fossil fuel waste.

bipson 7y ago
Hm, if you consider storing something for a timeframe that well exceeds everything we are possible to plan ahead "safe". We simply put it in underground storages we consider "safe" for the time being. We have no idea what will happen with this deposits considering such a long timespan. And this storage does not come for free. All these sites are maintained and must be. Just as much as the (very complicated) transport of the material. Every single castor transport in Germany and France is a huge operation. And "Nobody has ever died from" is such a great argument. "Nobody has ever died from radiation in space" does not mean we should ignore it, does it?
- mcjiggerlog 7y ago
  Yes, I consider storing something in a way that is a demonstrably secure as feasibly possible "safe", regardless of the timespans. Especially when compared to the alternative, which is fossil fuels spewing their waste straight into the air. And a better analogy would be that what anti-nuclear folk are arguing is like saying we shouldn't go to space at all because there's radiation there.
  - bipson 7y ago
    Nothing can be "demonstrably" secure if we cannot demonstrate it. We simply cannot guarantee control over the depot for the given time-frame. A lot of things can happen in 1 million years. You should really read this for another view on that "simple" topic: https://www.forbes.com/sites/christinero/2019/11/26/the-staggering-timescales-of-nuclear-waste-disposal/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/christinero/2019/11/26/the-stag...