4 ms·

Aren’t Generation 3 reactors with passive cooling much safer than previous generations? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_III_reactor https://en.m.wik

Aren’t Generation 3 reactors with passive cooling much safer than previous generations? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_III_reactor https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_III_reactor

pfalafel 6y ago
Aren't wind and solar farms a much safer and cheaper source of energy these days?
- nefitty 6y ago
  Just naively, from what I understand, solar farms are liable to produce a lot of toxic waste. The DOE claims nuclear is 2.5 to 3.5 times more reliable than wind and solar energy.
- Arbalest 6y ago
  The important point is source of energy. That doesn't mean it can buffer.
- xupybd 6y ago
  Not when you have to fire coal and gas plants to cover peak demand. Then pay your neighbours to take your oversupply during peak generation.
  - mikelyons 6y ago
    Meaning we need batteries?
    - Mrdarknezz 6y ago
      Batteries are not feasible economically or capacity wise.
      - avmich 6y ago
        Today or in principle?
        xupybd 6y ago
        Today. Its just a technology problem. If batteries get developed that are up to the task it changes the equation completely. I honestly think that will take a few decades minimum.
- masonic 6y ago
  What happens (in the real world) with obsolete or damaged solar arrays in terms of environmental effects? Same with turbines, plus the added effects on wildlife.
NicolasGorden 6y ago
Thank you. Not to mention in the article: No numbers are reviewed, no deaths per million KWh of energy produced. No balance of pros and cons and the mixture of energy sources needed to address a modern economy. No addressing storage or peak production demands. I wonder who wrote the article: > Gregory Jaczko served on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission... he is the founder of Wind Future LLC So an ex-nuclear regulator who voted against nuclear is now a salesperson and profiteer for the wind industry. And the article was published on a news site that implies they are 'saving our democracy from darkness'. I feel this is such a blatant PR sub and obvious conflict of interest with no attempt at even feigning journalistic objectivity. If anything I'd say this article is less information about the perils of nuclear and instead is an example of the issues with revolving doors between regulators and the people they regulate and/or the competitors of the people they regulate plus a lack of journalistic ethics.
- zxcmx 6y ago
  The chutzpah of "big wind" profiteers! pushing their deadly renewables, part of a shadowy cabal holding back the nuclear future. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_Jaczko https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_Jaczko Seriously though, while he does seem pretty contentious as a regulator he does have a PhD in particle physics and the record of his actions aligns with his stated position(s) in this article. I agree the article is more human interest than reasoned argument but it is nonetheless good journalism (in my opinion...) because the story is good. I also agree it is a missed opportunity because I expect with his credentials and experiences it would be really interesting to see him defend a more quantitative argument.
  - NicolasGorden 6y ago
    > The chutzpah of "big wind" profiteers! pushing their deadly renewables, part of a shadowy cabal holding back the nuclear future. If you have a point, go ahead and make it. Hiding behind sarcasm is a bit weak intellectually and I believe is frowned upon on this site. There's a trend in society where people say sarcastic stuff to each other in an effort to put the other tribe down and 'show them' how silly they are. I believe this is deeply counter productive and extraordinarily silly. I invite you to resist such tribalistic urges. Also, I never said 'big wind'. That was you injecting a strawman element so you can counter it with your sarcasm. Like the sarcasm, modifying what I said in order to attack it is also a very weak form of argumentation. > he does have a PhD in particle physics We have a different epistemic perspective. Very different. I guess you can say I don't like sophism. > but it is nonetheless good journalism I'll invite you to read the definition of journalism and try to objectively consider if this article fits it: > Journalism is unbiased production and distribution of reports on current or past events based on facts and supported with proofs or evidences.
8bitsrule 6y ago
I'm still waiting to see one of these supposedly safe reactors actually in operation. We'll only know about their safety once a few have been in operation for a decade. Meanwhile, the climate clock is ticking. The select few that have controlled the world's energy supply for a century -- and have lied for so long and are so heavily invested in dying tech -- are getting desperate. The average nuclear plant generates 1GW. The world has added over 650GW of renewables so far ... over 60GW of wind in 2019 alone. Their fearful threats are empty. Japan has been and will be in debt for many decades just to clean up one very-poorly-sited reactor. I wonder how many solar and wind plants they could have built with that money. And who can and has accounted for the cost to the world's environment? Coverup, coverup, coverup. Tragic.
- Mrdarknezz 6y ago
  Wind and solar can't power civilization alone. You need either Nuclear or fossil to provide the baseload.
  - avmich 6y ago
    Why not to use batteries? Of different kinds.
    - Mrdarknezz 6y ago
      Because the amount of overcapacity needed both in terms of capacity and production will never be economically feasible compared to building a SMR grid. Also if we are to reach negative CO2 emissions it makes more sense to choose nuclear due to it having the lowest CO2 footprint
      - avmich 6y ago
        Are you sure we can't reach needed capacity and power from gravity batteries, water electrolizers, gas pressure holders, regular batteries, which keep improving? This is the essence of the question; I don't see it's impossible, and if it's possible, then why nuclear? I agree that as society we grow our needs in power, but solar and wind sources are relatively easy to distribute, and it's rare when a lot of installations doesn't get light and wind, and distribution grid alone - without fossil fuel plants or nuclear power plants - can help. So the need in nuclear fission power is questionable.

Aren’t Generation 3 reactors with passive cooling much safer than previous generations? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_III_reactor https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_III_reactor

pfalafel 6y ago

Aren't wind and solar farms a much safer and cheaper source of energy these days?

nefitty 6y ago
Just naively, from what I understand, solar farms are liable to produce a lot of toxic waste. The DOE claims nuclear is 2.5 to 3.5 times more reliable than wind and solar energy.
Arbalest 6y ago
The important point is source of energy. That doesn't mean it can buffer.
xupybd 6y ago
Not when you have to fire coal and gas plants to cover peak demand. Then pay your neighbours to take your oversupply during peak generation.
- mikelyons 6y ago
  Meaning we need batteries?
  - Mrdarknezz 6y ago
    Batteries are not feasible economically or capacity wise.
    - avmich 6y ago
      Today or in principle?
      - xupybd 6y ago
        Today. Its just a technology problem. If batteries get developed that are up to the task it changes the equation completely. I honestly think that will take a few decades minimum.
masonic 6y ago
What happens (in the real world) with obsolete or damaged solar arrays in terms of environmental effects? Same with turbines, plus the added effects on wildlife.

NicolasGorden 6y ago

Thank you. Not to mention in the article: No numbers are reviewed, no deaths per million KWh of energy produced. No balance of pros and cons and the mixture of energy sources needed to address a modern economy. No addressing storage or peak production demands. I wonder who wrote the article: > Gregory Jaczko served on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission... he is the founder of Wind Future LLC So an ex-nuclear regulator who voted against nuclear is now a salesperson and profiteer for the wind industry. And the article was published on a news site that implies they are 'saving our democracy from darkness'. I feel this is such a blatant PR sub and obvious conflict of interest with no attempt at even feigning journalistic objectivity. If anything I'd say this article is less information about the perils of nuclear and instead is an example of the issues with revolving doors between regulators and the people they regulate and/or the competitors of the people they regulate plus a lack of journalistic ethics.

zxcmx 6y ago
The chutzpah of "big wind" profiteers! pushing their deadly renewables, part of a shadowy cabal holding back the nuclear future. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_Jaczko https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_Jaczko Seriously though, while he does seem pretty contentious as a regulator he does have a PhD in particle physics and the record of his actions aligns with his stated position(s) in this article. I agree the article is more human interest than reasoned argument but it is nonetheless good journalism (in my opinion...) because the story is good. I also agree it is a missed opportunity because I expect with his credentials and experiences it would be really interesting to see him defend a more quantitative argument.
- NicolasGorden 6y ago
  > The chutzpah of "big wind" profiteers! pushing their deadly renewables, part of a shadowy cabal holding back the nuclear future. If you have a point, go ahead and make it. Hiding behind sarcasm is a bit weak intellectually and I believe is frowned upon on this site. There's a trend in society where people say sarcastic stuff to each other in an effort to put the other tribe down and 'show them' how silly they are. I believe this is deeply counter productive and extraordinarily silly. I invite you to resist such tribalistic urges. Also, I never said 'big wind'. That was you injecting a strawman element so you can counter it with your sarcasm. Like the sarcasm, modifying what I said in order to attack it is also a very weak form of argumentation. > he does have a PhD in particle physics We have a different epistemic perspective. Very different. I guess you can say I don't like sophism. > but it is nonetheless good journalism I'll invite you to read the definition of journalism and try to objectively consider if this article fits it: > Journalism is unbiased production and distribution of reports on current or past events based on facts and supported with proofs or evidences.

8bitsrule 6y ago

I'm still waiting to see one of these supposedly safe reactors actually in operation. We'll only know about their safety once a few have been in operation for a decade. Meanwhile, the climate clock is ticking. The select few that have controlled the world's energy supply for a century -- and have lied for so long and are so heavily invested in dying tech -- are getting desperate. The average nuclear plant generates 1GW. The world has added over 650GW of renewables so far ... over 60GW of wind in 2019 alone. Their fearful threats are empty. Japan has been and will be in debt for many decades just to clean up one very-poorly-sited reactor. I wonder how many solar and wind plants they could have built with that money. And who can and has accounted for the cost to the world's environment? Coverup, coverup, coverup. Tragic.

Mrdarknezz 6y ago
Wind and solar can't power civilization alone. You need either Nuclear or fossil to provide the baseload.
- avmich 6y ago
  Why not to use batteries? Of different kinds.
  - Mrdarknezz 6y ago
    Because the amount of overcapacity needed both in terms of capacity and production will never be economically feasible compared to building a SMR grid. Also if we are to reach negative CO2 emissions it makes more sense to choose nuclear due to it having the lowest CO2 footprint
    - avmich 6y ago
      Are you sure we can't reach needed capacity and power from gravity batteries, water electrolizers, gas pressure holders, regular batteries, which keep improving? This is the essence of the question; I don't see it's impossible, and if it's possible, then why nuclear? I agree that as society we grow our needs in power, but solar and wind sources are relatively easy to distribute, and it's rare when a lot of installations doesn't get light and wind, and distribution grid alone - without fossil fuel plants or nuclear power plants - can help. So the need in nuclear fission power is questionable.