6 ms·

Same thing happened in Germany. This is a really hard problem. I consider myself pretty pro-nuclear but it can never be 100% safe. I can't blame Japan for wanti

by jgwil2 7y ago

Same thing happened in Germany. This is a really hard problem. I consider myself pretty pro-nuclear but it can never be 100% safe. I can't blame Japan for wanting out after Fukushima, but at the same time there has to be some kind of approach that balances short-term safety against the long-term consequences of carbonization.

joshvm 7y ago
Safety is not necessarily the concern, though clearly important. It's also the huge task of decommissioning afterwards. Even "safe" nuclear power stations require the disposal of all sorts of irradiated mundane things like PPE. Contrary to popular belief its not all spent fuel rods. When you dismantle it's even more difficult because you have to use specialised equipment to take buildings apart room by room. We're still not good at decommissioning, it's an active research area (lots of funding though) and it's going to be like this for decades.
- clSTophEjUdRanu 7y ago
  There is also the fact that no country on Earth can truly guarantee they can properly store the waste for the timelines required.
  - jodrellblank 7y ago
    Unlike coal power plants, where every country guarantees the radioactive, planet harming, human health harming, output is safely stored for as long as necessary, in a single place we can all easily avoid... right? https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-...
  - joshvm 7y ago
    A common argument used to be that at least the amount of uranium is finite, so we can simply plan where to put it. Another interesting aspect is that we only have a few centuries of nuclear power left at current reserve and consumption rates. Uranium is absolutely a non renewable fuel. This could change with breeder reactors or the various fancy things being researched, but I think there is a public perception that uranium is unlimited.
    - munk-a 7y ago
      Uranium mined on earth is a finite quantity - but I think the carve-outs you included in your statement are quite wide. We may find a way to artificially produce a high energy substance to use in place of Uranium, and other high number elements may provide alternatives for the primary fuel - additionally space may be an option to find new sources of Uranium if we really want to stick with it. "Peak oil" has been a vague concern for a great many years, with the deadline around the corner but that goalpost was repeatedly moved back as previously uneconomic sources became viable - like tar sand extraction. Similarly the available volume of natural gas was increased drastically with refined fracking techniques. All of these things are finite in quantity, but, if we're reliant on it, then efficiency of extraction and conversion will go up - it's actually an interesting contrast to fission, there really isn't that much research going on since the economic investment of each plant is so heavy.
      - smegger001 7y ago
        there are other fission fuel sources, thorium for example is a relatively abundant possible fuel
        munk-a 7y ago
        And actually, to this point, molten salt reactors[1] are one of the reactor search paths that looks pretty promising for better safety outcomes. Especially when compared against boiling water reactors[2]. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_water_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_water_reactor
      - joshvm 7y ago
        Absolutely, the key phrase is "current usage and reserves". There will almost certainly be ways developed to stretch or augment or displace uranium as a nuclear fuel. Thorium salt reactors look promising. But unfortunately there has been lack of political will to fund research and it's only recently that its being investigated seriously again. And this is a common story with virtually all the interesting nuclear technologies. Sounds great, but who's paying for the fundamental research? My point is that people often compare nuclear and coal as if radioactive ore - which today does mean uranium - is some infinite resource, just because it isn't made of fossils. The idea of "oh well, we'll just mine more as it gets economic to do so" isn't a sustainable solution to clean energy.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
jeltz 7y ago
No energy source is 100% safe. People die when working on windmills and hydroelectric disasters are way more deadly than nuclear disasters. I think 100% safe is an unreasonable requirement.
- nicoburns 7y ago
  I'd much rather be involved in a hydro-electric disaster than a nuclear one though...
  - Mythanar 7y ago
    Are you really? If you’re involved in nuclear accident, you get to live anywhere from days to months to years to decades. Even in the worst of the worst cases (you literally touched the fuel rod), you will have time to say farewells to the family, perhaps even write a will. With hydroelectric accident you drown. The end.
    - nicoburns 7y ago
      I'm not scared of dying. I am scared of dying slowly and painfully as I burn from the inside out.
  - zetazzed 7y ago
    Hydro disasters can be dams bursts and are no joke! Thousands dead, towns wiped away, stuff like that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1979_Machchhu_dam_failure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1979_Machchhu_dam_failure Luckily not that common especially with well-maintained dams. But it was a huge fear with the Mosul dam in Iraq, which was expected to put over a million lives at risk during the ISIL insurgency: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosul_Dam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosul_Dam I'm not anti-hydro at all! But it's important to understand how powerful these dams are...
    - usrusr 7y ago
      GP was saying, I think, that they'd prefer a quick violent water surge over slow radiation poisoning. You can say good bye, but you might have to do nothing else but saying good bye for an awful low of time (perhaps to similarly doomed people). I don't have data but I assume that most immediate dam breach deaths are from acute force trauma (and then drowning) rather than from just drowning. Less similar to the slow death of being without a boat in the middle of an ocean than to the hypothetical of getting stomped by the Terry Gilliam foot in Flying Circus.
lispm 7y ago
> Same thing happened in Germany. Germany turned to coal? It didn't happen. Germany actually turned to renewables. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_Germany#/media/File:Germany's_electricity_generation_by_major_fuel,_energy_sources_and_share_of_electricity_generation_by_fuel,_energy_source,_from_2000_through_2017_(47958295396).png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_Germany#...
- vkou 7y ago
  ... And to Russian natural gas. [1] For every MW of nuclear that was turned down, a MW of natgas was turned up. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Germany#/media/File:Germany's_electricity_generation_by_major_fuel,_energy_sources_and_share_of_electricity_generation_by_fuel,_energy_source,_from_2000_through_2017_(47958295396).png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Germany#/media/File:...
  - lispm 7y ago
    Renewables 2019: 46% Renewables 2000: 6% Coal + Gas 2019 40% Coal + Gas 2000 59% Fact: Germany reduced fossil fuels coal+gas and increased renewables massively. Gas itself has increased.
    - fiter 7y ago
      The graph shows 36% coal and 13% natural gas for 2016, meaning coal and gas for 2016 is 49%. There is the question of what this would look like if they didn't shut off their nuclear plants. It's my expectation that the nuclear would have replaced coal and natural gas. EDIT: Changed incorrect 2019 reference to 2016.
      - lispm 7y ago
        https://strom-report.de/strom/ https://strom-report.de/strom/ Share of electricity production in Germany in 2019: Coal 19.5% + 9.5% Gas 10.5% 19.8 + 9.5 + 10.5 = 39.8%
xxgreg 7y ago
The same thing did not happen in Germany. The increase in renewables more than made up for the decrease in nuclear. https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/gallery_image/public/paragraphs/images/fig2a-gross-power-production-germany-1990-2019-source.png?itok=gfWUQdcp https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/g... Also interesting, between 2000 and 2010, before Fukushima, Japan had a large increase in coal use.

by jgwil2 7y ago

joshvm 7y ago

Safety is not necessarily the concern, though clearly important. It's also the huge task of decommissioning afterwards. Even "safe" nuclear power stations require the disposal of all sorts of irradiated mundane things like PPE. Contrary to popular belief its not all spent fuel rods. When you dismantle it's even more difficult because you have to use specialised equipment to take buildings apart room by room. We're still not good at decommissioning, it's an active research area (lots of funding though) and it's going to be like this for decades.

clSTophEjUdRanu 7y ago
There is also the fact that no country on Earth can truly guarantee they can properly store the waste for the timelines required.
- jodrellblank 7y ago
  Unlike coal power plants, where every country guarantees the radioactive, planet harming, human health harming, output is safely stored for as long as necessary, in a single place we can all easily avoid... right? https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-...
- joshvm 7y ago
  A common argument used to be that at least the amount of uranium is finite, so we can simply plan where to put it. Another interesting aspect is that we only have a few centuries of nuclear power left at current reserve and consumption rates. Uranium is absolutely a non renewable fuel. This could change with breeder reactors or the various fancy things being researched, but I think there is a public perception that uranium is unlimited.
  - munk-a 7y ago
    Uranium mined on earth is a finite quantity - but I think the carve-outs you included in your statement are quite wide. We may find a way to artificially produce a high energy substance to use in place of Uranium, and other high number elements may provide alternatives for the primary fuel - additionally space may be an option to find new sources of Uranium if we really want to stick with it. "Peak oil" has been a vague concern for a great many years, with the deadline around the corner but that goalpost was repeatedly moved back as previously uneconomic sources became viable - like tar sand extraction. Similarly the available volume of natural gas was increased drastically with refined fracking techniques. All of these things are finite in quantity, but, if we're reliant on it, then efficiency of extraction and conversion will go up - it's actually an interesting contrast to fission, there really isn't that much research going on since the economic investment of each plant is so heavy.
    - smegger001 7y ago
      there are other fission fuel sources, thorium for example is a relatively abundant possible fuel
      - munk-a 7y ago
        And actually, to this point, molten salt reactors[1] are one of the reactor search paths that looks pretty promising for better safety outcomes. Especially when compared against boiling water reactors[2]. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_water_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_water_reactor
    - joshvm 7y ago
      Absolutely, the key phrase is "current usage and reserves". There will almost certainly be ways developed to stretch or augment or displace uranium as a nuclear fuel. Thorium salt reactors look promising. But unfortunately there has been lack of political will to fund research and it's only recently that its being investigated seriously again. And this is a common story with virtually all the interesting nuclear technologies. Sounds great, but who's paying for the fundamental research? My point is that people often compare nuclear and coal as if radioactive ore - which today does mean uranium - is some infinite resource, just because it isn't made of fossils. The idea of "oh well, we'll just mine more as it gets economic to do so" isn't a sustainable solution to clean energy.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

jeltz 7y ago

No energy source is 100% safe. People die when working on windmills and hydroelectric disasters are way more deadly than nuclear disasters. I think 100% safe is an unreasonable requirement.

nicoburns 7y ago
I'd much rather be involved in a hydro-electric disaster than a nuclear one though...
- Mythanar 7y ago
  Are you really? If you’re involved in nuclear accident, you get to live anywhere from days to months to years to decades. Even in the worst of the worst cases (you literally touched the fuel rod), you will have time to say farewells to the family, perhaps even write a will. With hydroelectric accident you drown. The end.
  - nicoburns 7y ago
    I'm not scared of dying. I am scared of dying slowly and painfully as I burn from the inside out.
- zetazzed 7y ago
  Hydro disasters can be dams bursts and are no joke! Thousands dead, towns wiped away, stuff like that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1979_Machchhu_dam_failure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1979_Machchhu_dam_failure Luckily not that common especially with well-maintained dams. But it was a huge fear with the Mosul dam in Iraq, which was expected to put over a million lives at risk during the ISIL insurgency: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosul_Dam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosul_Dam I'm not anti-hydro at all! But it's important to understand how powerful these dams are...
  - usrusr 7y ago
    GP was saying, I think, that they'd prefer a quick violent water surge over slow radiation poisoning. You can say good bye, but you might have to do nothing else but saying good bye for an awful low of time (perhaps to similarly doomed people). I don't have data but I assume that most immediate dam breach deaths are from acute force trauma (and then drowning) rather than from just drowning. Less similar to the slow death of being without a boat in the middle of an ocean than to the hypothetical of getting stomped by the Terry Gilliam foot in Flying Circus.

lispm 7y ago

> Same thing happened in Germany. Germany turned to coal? It didn't happen. Germany actually turned to renewables. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_Germany#/media/File:Germany's_electricity_generation_by_major_fuel,_energy_sources_and_share_of_electricity_generation_by_fuel,_energy_source,_from_2000_through_2017_(47958295396).png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_Germany#...

vkou 7y ago
... And to Russian natural gas. [1] For every MW of nuclear that was turned down, a MW of natgas was turned up. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Germany#/media/File:Germany's_electricity_generation_by_major_fuel,_energy_sources_and_share_of_electricity_generation_by_fuel,_energy_source,_from_2000_through_2017_(47958295396).png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Germany#/media/File:...
- lispm 7y ago
  Renewables 2019: 46% Renewables 2000: 6% Coal + Gas 2019 40% Coal + Gas 2000 59% Fact: Germany reduced fossil fuels coal+gas and increased renewables massively. Gas itself has increased.
  - fiter 7y ago
    The graph shows 36% coal and 13% natural gas for 2016, meaning coal and gas for 2016 is 49%. There is the question of what this would look like if they didn't shut off their nuclear plants. It's my expectation that the nuclear would have replaced coal and natural gas. EDIT: Changed incorrect 2019 reference to 2016.
    - lispm 7y ago
      https://strom-report.de/strom/ https://strom-report.de/strom/ Share of electricity production in Germany in 2019: Coal 19.5% + 9.5% Gas 10.5% 19.8 + 9.5 + 10.5 = 39.8%

xxgreg 7y ago

The same thing did not happen in Germany. The increase in renewables more than made up for the decrease in nuclear. https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/gallery_image/public/paragraphs/images/fig2a-gross-power-production-germany-1990-2019-source.png?itok=gfWUQdcp https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/g... Also interesting, between 2000 and 2010, before Fukushima, Japan had a large increase in coal use.