11 ms·

You're underplaying the danger and overplaying the value. Who exactly is investing in this "green gold"? If it's so valuable why does no one actually want it, a

by Klinky 6y ago

You're underplaying the danger and overplaying the value. Who exactly is investing in this "green gold"? If it's so valuable why does no one actually want it, and why is the DoE stuck with half a trillion liability?

rstupek 6y ago
Isn't the "green gold" as you state it what the traveling wave reactor folks https://www.terrapower.com/our-work/traveling-wave-reactor-technology/ https://www.terrapower.com/our-work/traveling-wave-reactor-t... hoping to use to generate their power?
- Klinky 6y ago
  A nuclear concept product. It's probably eternally "10 years from commercialization".
briffle 6y ago
They are stuck with the liability, because President Carter Banned reprocessing of Uranium in 1977, and nobody has changed it. If we reprocessed Uranium, we would end up with much less low level waste, and some very, very small amounts of more radioactive materials (that can be burned in some other types of reactors)
- waterhouse 6y ago
  > President Carter Banned reprocessing of Uranium in 1977, and nobody has changed it Are you sure? Wiki says: "On 7 April 1977, President Jimmy Carter banned the reprocessing of commercial reactor spent nuclear fuel. The key issue driving this policy was the risk of nuclear weapons proliferation [...] President Reagan lifted the ban in 1981, but did not provide the substantial subsidy that would have been necessary to start up commercial reprocessing." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing#History
godelski 6y ago
> Who exactly is investing in this "green gold"? France[0] > If it's so valuable why does no one actually want it, I mean France does... we actually gave them the tech. The reason we stopped is more political. But more people do this than just France, but they are the biggest example since 17% of their entire grid is powered from recycled nuclear. The other reason we don't do it is that it is just cheaper to buy more Uranium than setup reprocessing plants. France doesn't have as easy of a supply chain so it makes sense for them to recycle. Obviously the US's supply chain could change, so access to that waste is a potential benefit. [0] https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/france.aspx https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-pr...
- natmaka 6y ago
  In France this 'success story' led to a state law (2015-992, from 2015, the "loi relative à la transition énergétique pour la croissance verte") stating that the part of nuke-produced electricity must fall to less than 50% in 2025, from 72% then, and that renewables must replace it. In France nuke-power is backed by gas (which produced 10,3% of gridpower in 2017). The sole reactor currently planned (Flamanville-3) is a complete disaster, more than 10 years behind schedule and 4x overbudget. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plant#Unit_3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plan...
  - godelski 6y ago
    I'm unsure what you are suggesting here, so I want to be extra clear about the French policy and current state of affairs. As in stands, France has one of the lowest CO2 emissions per capita[0][1]. No one is saying that we should _only_ use nuclear. Not diversifying your energy portfolio is a terrible idea. France is trying to reduce its dependence upon nuclear (which is a good idea) and replace its fossil fuel infrastructure first. This is because renewables are becoming cheaper. The plan is to have a diversification of nuclear + renewables (which is what pro-nuclear advocates are fighting for). Nuclear serves as a baseload and backbone and is supported by renewables to fill the gap. You will not find pro-nuclear supporters upset with France's decision to reduce their dependence on nuclear. In fact you will often find support. As battery technology gets better and cheaper and as price of renewables continue to fall you will also find that pro-nuclear advocates will cheer this on. There is a big misconception that many believe people are arguing nuclear vs renewables or arguing that the grid should be _only_ nuclear. What we are arguing for is nuclear + renewables vs renewables + coal + oil + gas. The reason being that _today_ we have the technology to dramatically reduce our carbon emissions with _current_ technologies. We are looking at countries that already have successful models for emissions and saying "hey, we should do something similar to that, since it clearly works." It would be insane to not look at what models are already successful and try to say that the technologies they use are counter productive. The proof is sitting right there, all you have to do is look. We are arguing for models closer to Sweden (since we, the US, have lots of access to hydro) than were are for France's current system (though their goals would also be a good model to consider). [0] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita?tab=chart&year=latest&country=FRA~DEU~NOR~SWE~GBR https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita?t... [1] https://www.electricitymap.org/zone/FR?wind=false&solar=false https://www.electricitymap.org/zone/FR?wind=false&solar=fals... [1.5] Note that Sweden also uses a significant amount of nuclear

by Klinky 6y ago

rstupek 6y ago

Isn't the "green gold" as you state it what the traveling wave reactor folks https://www.terrapower.com/our-work/traveling-wave-reactor-technology/ https://www.terrapower.com/our-work/traveling-wave-reactor-t... hoping to use to generate their power?

Klinky 6y ago
A nuclear concept product. It's probably eternally "10 years from commercialization".

briffle 6y ago

They are stuck with the liability, because President Carter Banned reprocessing of Uranium in 1977, and nobody has changed it. If we reprocessed Uranium, we would end up with much less low level waste, and some very, very small amounts of more radioactive materials (that can be burned in some other types of reactors)

waterhouse 6y ago
> President Carter Banned reprocessing of Uranium in 1977, and nobody has changed it Are you sure? Wiki says: "On 7 April 1977, President Jimmy Carter banned the reprocessing of commercial reactor spent nuclear fuel. The key issue driving this policy was the risk of nuclear weapons proliferation [...] President Reagan lifted the ban in 1981, but did not provide the substantial subsidy that would have been necessary to start up commercial reprocessing." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing#History

godelski 6y ago

> Who exactly is investing in this "green gold"? France[0] > If it's so valuable why does no one actually want it, I mean France does... we actually gave them the tech. The reason we stopped is more political. But more people do this than just France, but they are the biggest example since 17% of their entire grid is powered from recycled nuclear. The other reason we don't do it is that it is just cheaper to buy more Uranium than setup reprocessing plants. France doesn't have as easy of a supply chain so it makes sense for them to recycle. Obviously the US's supply chain could change, so access to that waste is a potential benefit. [0] https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/france.aspx https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-pr...

natmaka 6y ago
In France this 'success story' led to a state law (2015-992, from 2015, the "loi relative à la transition énergétique pour la croissance verte") stating that the part of nuke-produced electricity must fall to less than 50% in 2025, from 72% then, and that renewables must replace it. In France nuke-power is backed by gas (which produced 10,3% of gridpower in 2017). The sole reactor currently planned (Flamanville-3) is a complete disaster, more than 10 years behind schedule and 4x overbudget. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plant#Unit_3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plan...
- godelski 6y ago
  I'm unsure what you are suggesting here, so I want to be extra clear about the French policy and current state of affairs. As in stands, France has one of the lowest CO2 emissions per capita[0][1]. No one is saying that we should _only_ use nuclear. Not diversifying your energy portfolio is a terrible idea. France is trying to reduce its dependence upon nuclear (which is a good idea) and replace its fossil fuel infrastructure first. This is because renewables are becoming cheaper. The plan is to have a diversification of nuclear + renewables (which is what pro-nuclear advocates are fighting for). Nuclear serves as a baseload and backbone and is supported by renewables to fill the gap. You will not find pro-nuclear supporters upset with France's decision to reduce their dependence on nuclear. In fact you will often find support. As battery technology gets better and cheaper and as price of renewables continue to fall you will also find that pro-nuclear advocates will cheer this on. There is a big misconception that many believe people are arguing nuclear vs renewables or arguing that the grid should be _only_ nuclear. What we are arguing for is nuclear + renewables vs renewables + coal + oil + gas. The reason being that _today_ we have the technology to dramatically reduce our carbon emissions with _current_ technologies. We are looking at countries that already have successful models for emissions and saying "hey, we should do something similar to that, since it clearly works." It would be insane to not look at what models are already successful and try to say that the technologies they use are counter productive. The proof is sitting right there, all you have to do is look. We are arguing for models closer to Sweden (since we, the US, have lots of access to hydro) than were are for France's current system (though their goals would also be a good model to consider). [0] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita?tab=chart&year=latest&country=FRA~DEU~NOR~SWE~GBR https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita?t... [1] https://www.electricitymap.org/zone/FR?wind=false&solar=false https://www.electricitymap.org/zone/FR?wind=false&solar=fals... [1.5] Note that Sweden also uses a significant amount of nuclear