6 ms·

We really need to ramp up on nuclear. Either by building more traditional fission power plants, figuring out fusion, or capturing more of the energy from the gi

We really need to ramp up on nuclear. Either by building more traditional fission power plants, figuring out fusion, or capturing more of the energy from the giant, infinite nuclear reactor in the sky.

0xfaded 6y ago
It's too late for nuclear. If the last 30 years had seen R&D anything like wind and solar we'd be in a much better place. And the battle for public opinion is lost. Unfortunately, there's no time left for nuclear (fission), so the best we can do is jump on the renewables bandwagon.
- ethanbond 6y ago
  Could you offer some insight into why you believe this is the case? As someone in my 20s, I don’t think I know anyone who is opposed to nuclear. From my vantage it’s not clear why this would be considered a lost battle.
  - hvs 6y ago
    I think he's saying that research is far behind on fission because it hasn't been supported, and since it takes so long (and so much money) to spin up new plants, that it's better to invest that money into renewables. That's the impression I got. I don't know enough about the specifics to say if I agree with it or not. The opposition to nuclear was so effective in the 70's and 80's that they shutdown any further development on it. That's probably why you don't know anyone opposed to it. It's not really even an option anymore.
  - onelastjob 6y ago
    In my opinion, the biggest issue with nuclear energy is that you have to trust the competency of both the companies running the plants and the governments of the countries those plants exist in. The Fukushima disaster is a good example. The plant was set up to switch to backup power generators in the event of an earthquake, but those generators were located in basements that would flood in the event of a tsunami. Since a tsunami is usually caused by an earthquake, this was a bad plan. A Fukushima employee testified that the vice president of the company running the plant knew from a 2008 safety test that the sea walls were too low, but ultimately scrapped plans to improve the sea walls [1]. If this can happen in a country like Japan, how can we assume nuclear power plants in countries with struggling governments can be maintained safely? https://www.newsweek.com/fukushima-nuclear-plant-owners-face-trail-one-worlds-most-radioactive-886025 https://www.newsweek.com/fukushima-nuclear-plant-owners-face...
    - imtringued 6y ago
      At that point the entire plant should have been shut down and decommissioned and a new one should have been built in its place. It would have been the one best investments in the entire history of the Japan. Fukushima is just a bottomless money pit now.
- tasty_freeze 6y ago
  It seems like China could change this -- they have a dire need for vastly more energy as their per-capita GDP grows, and they are well aware of the problems caused in the big cities from burning coal. Nuclear could provide far more power and improve air quality. The government could simply prioritize development of modern nuclear power without much worry about NIMBY pushback.
  - loeg 6y ago
    Unlike the US, China is building new nuclear plants.
    - alacombe 6y ago
      The US has 2 reactors under construction...
      - joelhoffman 6y ago
        Is that a reference to these? "...The first new nuclear power plant to be licensed and begin construction in the United States in more than three decades." We've closed a few dozen plants over the same time. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-nuclearpower-vogtle-idUSKCN1R31X9 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-nuclearpower-vogtle-i...
        loeg 6y ago
        Good to see, although they won't be onlined until 2021 (per Wikipedia). China is onlining 5-10 a year.
- bassman9000 6y ago
  There's been much R&D, 4th gen coming. Third gen is ready. Public opinion is lost because of posts like yours, and it adds up in terms of costs. Millions of people dying every year from carbon burning power stations cannot wait for a 100% renewable cycle.
  - metta2uall 6y ago
    I really hope 4th gen succeeds since in high-population areas without much land for wind/solar it's badly needed. However the fact it's taking so long suggests there are serious challenges. For example, there is the neat idea of a fail-safe freeze-plug to stop a damaged molten salt reactor - but what happens next? The corrosive nuclear fuel needs to be safely contained for a long time or safely removed for re-processing.
    - bassman9000 6y ago
      It's taking long because it's absolutely taboo to even discuss these topics. We're suffering a series heat wave in California, power shutdowns loom, and we're asked to turn down the AC and don't use appliances. Sacramento voted to close a nuclear power plant not that long ago. And the same people that complain about the power outages vote against the only reliable, carbon-free energy source we have now.
- orangecat 6y ago
  Unfortunately, there's no time left for nuclear People have been making that argument for at least 30 years; renewables have always been just a few years away from being cheaper than coal and obsoleting nuclear. I remain skeptical. And the battle for public opinion is lost. I also question this. Countering FUD about nuclear power seems much more feasible than the Green New Deal approach of trying to ram through trillions in spending and substantial lifestyle changes.
  - tialaramex 6y ago
    > renewables have always been just a few years away from being cheaper than coal Because coal costs money wind farms are cheaper to operate than a coal plant and have been for many years. So then the question becomes is it cheap enough to offset the cost of building and installing the turbines? And in many places the answer to that has been "Yes" too for some time now. Energy producers in the sector can profitably build and run an onshore wind farm in the UK on the expectation of being paid about £50 per MWh which is a pretty typical market price. If it gets much cheaper it starts to compete with the open market price for coal ignoring the price of a power plant to burn it, and staff to run the plant. Natural gas is more competitive, because that's more efficient (more electricity for the same price of fuel), but it also doesn't cause air pollution deaths (it just drives climate change because it's shoving CO2 into the air) unlike coal which causes huge amounts of death and disease. Also: I've seen several reactions in this thread that express doubt that it can possibly be this bad, surely if burning coal emitted poisonous fumes that kill people we'd have noticed. But We did that's why that coal power plant has big chimneys, when people first built large coal powered machines they discovered the fumes are incredibly toxic and began choking people and so they... built taller chimneys to send the problem further away. But the problem wasn't gone, it was just dispersed. 5000 people get lung problems in the surrounding counties instead of five people choking to death in front of your eyes.
  - metta2uall 6y ago
    In Australia new renewables plus storage are already cheaper than new coal or nuclear. Ref: "New CSIRO, AEMO study confirms wind, solar and storage beat coal, gas and nuclear" https://reneweconomy.com.au/new-csiro-aemo-study-confirms-wind-solar-and-storage-beat-coal-gas-and-nuclear-57530/ https://reneweconomy.com.au/new-csiro-aemo-study-confirms-wi...
- p1mrx 6y ago
  It's never too late, if there is no alternative. How will renewables keep people warm all winter? Perhaps we could hope for a planet-scale superconducting grid, or a cheap way to make methane from sunlight, but those seem less practical than nuclear, which already works. Though it'd be nice if we poured more investment into "walk away safe" reactor designs.
- opo 6y ago
  >...Unfortunately, there's no time left for nuclear (fission) France was able to go from nothing to getting almost all of their electricity through nuclear in a couple of decades. It is possible that we will be able to ramp up grid storage enough that we don't have to rely on natural gas to make up for the intermittent nature of renewables, but there is no guarantee that will happen. Saying "it is too late" or "there is no time" for other options ignores the fact that we only have a fraction fo the grid storage we would need if we want to eliminate burning natural gas. >...And the battle for public opinion is lost. Even with a growing anti-science movement in the US, people are about evenly divided on nuclear power which is about a 5% improvement since 2016. https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/US-public-opinion-evenly-split-on-nuclear https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/US-public-opinion-ev...

0xfaded 6y ago

It's too late for nuclear. If the last 30 years had seen R&D anything like wind and solar we'd be in a much better place. And the battle for public opinion is lost. Unfortunately, there's no time left for nuclear (fission), so the best we can do is jump on the renewables bandwagon.

ethanbond 6y ago
Could you offer some insight into why you believe this is the case? As someone in my 20s, I don’t think I know anyone who is opposed to nuclear. From my vantage it’s not clear why this would be considered a lost battle.
- hvs 6y ago
  I think he's saying that research is far behind on fission because it hasn't been supported, and since it takes so long (and so much money) to spin up new plants, that it's better to invest that money into renewables. That's the impression I got. I don't know enough about the specifics to say if I agree with it or not. The opposition to nuclear was so effective in the 70's and 80's that they shutdown any further development on it. That's probably why you don't know anyone opposed to it. It's not really even an option anymore.
- onelastjob 6y ago
  In my opinion, the biggest issue with nuclear energy is that you have to trust the competency of both the companies running the plants and the governments of the countries those plants exist in. The Fukushima disaster is a good example. The plant was set up to switch to backup power generators in the event of an earthquake, but those generators were located in basements that would flood in the event of a tsunami. Since a tsunami is usually caused by an earthquake, this was a bad plan. A Fukushima employee testified that the vice president of the company running the plant knew from a 2008 safety test that the sea walls were too low, but ultimately scrapped plans to improve the sea walls [1]. If this can happen in a country like Japan, how can we assume nuclear power plants in countries with struggling governments can be maintained safely? https://www.newsweek.com/fukushima-nuclear-plant-owners-face-trail-one-worlds-most-radioactive-886025 https://www.newsweek.com/fukushima-nuclear-plant-owners-face...
  - imtringued 6y ago
    At that point the entire plant should have been shut down and decommissioned and a new one should have been built in its place. It would have been the one best investments in the entire history of the Japan. Fukushima is just a bottomless money pit now.
tasty_freeze 6y ago
It seems like China could change this -- they have a dire need for vastly more energy as their per-capita GDP grows, and they are well aware of the problems caused in the big cities from burning coal. Nuclear could provide far more power and improve air quality. The government could simply prioritize development of modern nuclear power without much worry about NIMBY pushback.
- loeg 6y ago
  Unlike the US, China is building new nuclear plants.
  - alacombe 6y ago
    The US has 2 reactors under construction...
    - joelhoffman 6y ago
      Is that a reference to these? "...The first new nuclear power plant to be licensed and begin construction in the United States in more than three decades." We've closed a few dozen plants over the same time. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-nuclearpower-vogtle-idUSKCN1R31X9 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-nuclearpower-vogtle-i...
      - loeg 6y ago
        Good to see, although they won't be onlined until 2021 (per Wikipedia). China is onlining 5-10 a year.
bassman9000 6y ago
There's been much R&D, 4th gen coming. Third gen is ready. Public opinion is lost because of posts like yours, and it adds up in terms of costs. Millions of people dying every year from carbon burning power stations cannot wait for a 100% renewable cycle.
- metta2uall 6y ago
  I really hope 4th gen succeeds since in high-population areas without much land for wind/solar it's badly needed. However the fact it's taking so long suggests there are serious challenges. For example, there is the neat idea of a fail-safe freeze-plug to stop a damaged molten salt reactor - but what happens next? The corrosive nuclear fuel needs to be safely contained for a long time or safely removed for re-processing.
  - bassman9000 6y ago
    It's taking long because it's absolutely taboo to even discuss these topics. We're suffering a series heat wave in California, power shutdowns loom, and we're asked to turn down the AC and don't use appliances. Sacramento voted to close a nuclear power plant not that long ago. And the same people that complain about the power outages vote against the only reliable, carbon-free energy source we have now.
orangecat 6y ago
Unfortunately, there's no time left for nuclear People have been making that argument for at least 30 years; renewables have always been just a few years away from being cheaper than coal and obsoleting nuclear. I remain skeptical. And the battle for public opinion is lost. I also question this. Countering FUD about nuclear power seems much more feasible than the Green New Deal approach of trying to ram through trillions in spending and substantial lifestyle changes.
- tialaramex 6y ago
  > renewables have always been just a few years away from being cheaper than coal Because coal costs money wind farms are cheaper to operate than a coal plant and have been for many years. So then the question becomes is it cheap enough to offset the cost of building and installing the turbines? And in many places the answer to that has been "Yes" too for some time now. Energy producers in the sector can profitably build and run an onshore wind farm in the UK on the expectation of being paid about £50 per MWh which is a pretty typical market price. If it gets much cheaper it starts to compete with the open market price for coal ignoring the price of a power plant to burn it, and staff to run the plant. Natural gas is more competitive, because that's more efficient (more electricity for the same price of fuel), but it also doesn't cause air pollution deaths (it just drives climate change because it's shoving CO2 into the air) unlike coal which causes huge amounts of death and disease. Also: I've seen several reactions in this thread that express doubt that it can possibly be this bad, surely if burning coal emitted poisonous fumes that kill people we'd have noticed. But We did that's why that coal power plant has big chimneys, when people first built large coal powered machines they discovered the fumes are incredibly toxic and began choking people and so they... built taller chimneys to send the problem further away. But the problem wasn't gone, it was just dispersed. 5000 people get lung problems in the surrounding counties instead of five people choking to death in front of your eyes.
- metta2uall 6y ago
  In Australia new renewables plus storage are already cheaper than new coal or nuclear. Ref: "New CSIRO, AEMO study confirms wind, solar and storage beat coal, gas and nuclear" https://reneweconomy.com.au/new-csiro-aemo-study-confirms-wind-solar-and-storage-beat-coal-gas-and-nuclear-57530/ https://reneweconomy.com.au/new-csiro-aemo-study-confirms-wi...
p1mrx 6y ago
It's never too late, if there is no alternative. How will renewables keep people warm all winter? Perhaps we could hope for a planet-scale superconducting grid, or a cheap way to make methane from sunlight, but those seem less practical than nuclear, which already works. Though it'd be nice if we poured more investment into "walk away safe" reactor designs.
opo 6y ago
>...Unfortunately, there's no time left for nuclear (fission) France was able to go from nothing to getting almost all of their electricity through nuclear in a couple of decades. It is possible that we will be able to ramp up grid storage enough that we don't have to rely on natural gas to make up for the intermittent nature of renewables, but there is no guarantee that will happen. Saying "it is too late" or "there is no time" for other options ignores the fact that we only have a fraction fo the grid storage we would need if we want to eliminate burning natural gas. >...And the battle for public opinion is lost. Even with a growing anti-science movement in the US, people are about evenly divided on nuclear power which is about a 5% improvement since 2016. https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/US-public-opinion-evenly-split-on-nuclear https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/US-public-opinion-ev...