4 ms·
>Go ahead and keep arguing about whether or not nuclear is a good idea. Earth doesn't care. The water will be lapping at your feet soon. How's that for external
by macspoofing 6y ago
>Go ahead and keep arguing about whether or not nuclear is a good idea. Earth doesn't care. The water will be lapping at your feet soon. How's that for externalizing a cost to future generations?
Agreed. The reality is there is nothing like nuclear energy. We lost (and continue losing) decades of nuclear development and deployment due to the anti-nuke movement (environmental or otherwise). This resulted in hundreds of billions of tons of CO2 emitted that otherwise wouldn't have been emitted (imagine if the developed world invested in nuclear to the same level as France in the 70s) - emissions that would have bought us more decades to tackle climate change.
But physics are physics. Nuclear will come back because you cannot beat the energy density of nuclear in a world which requires more and more power, with a growing population and living standards, and is dealing with the double environmental whammy of global warming and your generic environmental collapse. Things like wind and solar need huge surface areas to operate in, and require environmentally disastrous mining as well as huge swaths of landfill once decommissioned ... and need fossil fuel base load to be viable.
I watched a YouTube video recently that compared nuclear-powered and diesel-powered aircraft carriers [1]. The diesel-powered carrier needs to refuel every few weeks, while nuclear-powered carrier needs to refuel every 20 years. That is just insanity. Living in the modern world, we have an intuitive understanding how often things need to recharged and/or refueled, and nuclear just breaks your mind.
[1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObTKRHkIkgI&t=493s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObTKRHkIkgI&t=493s
- qayxc 6y ago> The diesel-powered carrier needs to refuel every few weeks, while nuclear-powered carrier needs to refuel every 20 years. True, but while refuelling only takes hours, ROH operations on a naval reactor are usually scheduled to last 46 months [edit] and cost several billion dollars [/edit]. That's just insanity :D
- patmorgan23 6y agoA lot of that can be reduced by innovative designs, such as having a modular reactor when you can slide out the vessel(or some other sub set of the reactor, not a nuclear engineer here) with the spent fuel and slide in a new one. Then you can refuel the old vessel to be ready for the next swap. You can gain economics of scale if you build a lot of plants in a region with the same modular design and have a central refueling facility. (yes I know I switch from ships to plants, same benefits accrue though)
- indymike 6y agoCarriers typical undergo a service life extension overhaul (think overhaul the whole ship, stem to stern) in conjunction with refueling. The 46 month figure is for a RCOH (Refueling and Complex OverHaul). Subs can and are refueled much more quickly (and in many cases more often).