5 ms·

The attitude on risks of radiation have little to do with the economic and technological failures of nuclear power. With multiple schedule and cost failures it

by dv_dt 6y ago

The attitude on risks of radiation have little to do with the economic and technological failures of nuclear power. With multiple schedule and cost failures it seems like fission nuclear is an exercise in what is possible, but not really practical compared to what is accessible via renewables + storage and it's far less constrained financial and technological foundations.

coredog64 6y ago
Nuclear opponents: File lawsuits and generally propose BANANA policy Also nuclear opponents: Gee, look how long it takes to build a nuclear plant.
- pfdietz 6y ago
  Except failures were more due to insider problems. No one forced Westinghouse to screw up on Summer or Vogtle. No one forced the welds to be botched on Flamanville 3.
- dv_dt 6y ago
  There were also cost and schedule overruns in other nations like China and France, besides the ones in the US and UK.
- hwillis 6y ago
  Absolute nonsense. Owners of nuclear plants are far more likely to open suits, and the suits against plants are over quickly and very rarely successful: https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1901/ML19010A148.pdf https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1901/ML19010A148.pdf Take SCANA as an example. They apply to the NRC in March 2008, are granted a price increase three days later, and are granted project approval 5 months after that. 4 months after that the construction plan is approved. 10 months from filing to green light, with first construction in 3 years and completion in 10 years. Projected cost is 9.8 billion for two AP1000 units- $5.4 million per MW capacity (inflation adjusted). Far more expensive than gas or renewable energy: https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/assumptions/pdf/table_8.2.pdf https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/assumptions/pdf/table_8.2.p... Before even starting, they need to redesign. NRC approves. First new US reactor in 30 years. Construction begins in 2013. In 2014, they suddenly need an extra year and 1.2 billion more. By 2016 they have hiked rates NINE times. In 2017 Westinghouse goes bankrupt trying to build these reactors. Estimates put the total cost to finish at 23 BILLION USD. The parent company votes to abandon the project. https://www.chooseenergy.com/news/article/failed-v-c-summer-nuclear-project-timeline/ https://www.chooseenergy.com/news/article/failed-v-c-summer-... That has absolutely nothing to do with lawsuits or policy. The legislature gave them absolutely everything they wanted, and they had a wide open door to build reactors. They couldn't do it. It's a simple as that.
  - throwaway0a5e 6y ago
    >and the suits against plants are over quickly and very rarely successful Because the court system is well practiced at identifying and dismissing suits that are brought for no other reason than to delay and obstruct something.
bpodgursky 6y ago
This is a ridiculous statement. The schedule and cost overruns is BECAUSE of un-ending environmental reviews, community protests, more safety planning lawsuits, then lawsuits over the disposal of waste, then another environmental impact review... These are all problems for which we have reasonable technical solutions (ex: Yucca mountain was a GREAT solution for nuclear waste storage until breeder reactors come online). The problem is in the politics and planning.
- imtringued 6y ago
  No the reasons are far simpler. Nuclear has been abandoned for decades. Anyone who wants to do anything in this space has to start from scratch, which is very expensive. There is a reason why there is a move to modular reactors. It's easier to produce a thousand of them (or at least finish your first 10 prototypes before you go bankrupt), than to produce 20 "boutique" power plants.
  - pfdietz 6y ago
    HMRs (Hail Mary Reactors) are being pursued because all other options for nuclear are gone. I very much doubt they're going to go anywhere.
dandare 6y ago
Also let's not forget the problem of burnt fuel storage. Burned nuclear fuel will stay radioactive for tens of thousands of years. Unless we plan to offload the cost of storage to future generations - which we actually do now - nuclear power is horribly unprofitable.
- jimmaswell 6y ago
  As far as I've heard, newer designs can reuse this spent fuel but there's no political will to go forward with it for some reason.
  - pfdietz 6y ago
    It's not economical.
- vbezhenar 6y ago
  Bury it into 1-kilometer shaft and forget about it?
- titzer 6y ago
  Reprocessing is a thing. https://www.heritage.org/environment/commentary/recycling-nuclear-fuel-the-french-do-it-why-cant-oui https://www.heritage.org/environment/commentary/recycling-nu...
- ende 6y ago
  Storage is overblown. Newer techniques have created additional uses for waste, and storage space really isn’t much of an issue.
- arrosenberg 6y ago
  It's far less of a problem than advertised. Nuclear fuel contains far more energy per kg of fuel than carbon-based, so the total stock of nuclear waste in the US could fit in a two-story warehouse the size of a football field. It doesn't make sense to store it unless we discover fusion, since at some point we will come to our senses and use that "waste" as fuel for newer reactors. https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-nuclear-fuel https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-...
glogla 6y ago
Do we have any examples of working renewables + storage? Because as far as I know, nobody in the world ever built grid scale storage. There are no proven commercial solutions available, no expertise built. There might not even be enough lithium on the planet to support all of this, who knows. Relying on something unproven to swoop in and save us ... might as well wait for fusion, right? In the end, what you're doing is extending the reign of fossil fuels and destroying the world.
- theshrike79 6y ago
  The only valid storage for renewables as of today (already built or could be built today) is pumping water or pressurizing air inside rock. Both of which are only valid if you've already got the natural formations for that.

by dv_dt 6y ago

coredog64 6y ago

Nuclear opponents: File lawsuits and generally propose BANANA policy Also nuclear opponents: Gee, look how long it takes to build a nuclear plant.

pfdietz 6y ago
Except failures were more due to insider problems. No one forced Westinghouse to screw up on Summer or Vogtle. No one forced the welds to be botched on Flamanville 3.
dv_dt 6y ago
There were also cost and schedule overruns in other nations like China and France, besides the ones in the US and UK.
hwillis 6y ago
Absolute nonsense. Owners of nuclear plants are far more likely to open suits, and the suits against plants are over quickly and very rarely successful: https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1901/ML19010A148.pdf https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1901/ML19010A148.pdf Take SCANA as an example. They apply to the NRC in March 2008, are granted a price increase three days later, and are granted project approval 5 months after that. 4 months after that the construction plan is approved. 10 months from filing to green light, with first construction in 3 years and completion in 10 years. Projected cost is 9.8 billion for two AP1000 units- $5.4 million per MW capacity (inflation adjusted). Far more expensive than gas or renewable energy: https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/assumptions/pdf/table_8.2.pdf https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/assumptions/pdf/table_8.2.p... Before even starting, they need to redesign. NRC approves. First new US reactor in 30 years. Construction begins in 2013. In 2014, they suddenly need an extra year and 1.2 billion more. By 2016 they have hiked rates NINE times. In 2017 Westinghouse goes bankrupt trying to build these reactors. Estimates put the total cost to finish at 23 BILLION USD. The parent company votes to abandon the project. https://www.chooseenergy.com/news/article/failed-v-c-summer-nuclear-project-timeline/ https://www.chooseenergy.com/news/article/failed-v-c-summer-... That has absolutely nothing to do with lawsuits or policy. The legislature gave them absolutely everything they wanted, and they had a wide open door to build reactors. They couldn't do it. It's a simple as that.
- throwaway0a5e 6y ago
  >and the suits against plants are over quickly and very rarely successful Because the court system is well practiced at identifying and dismissing suits that are brought for no other reason than to delay and obstruct something.

bpodgursky 6y ago

This is a ridiculous statement. The schedule and cost overruns is BECAUSE of un-ending environmental reviews, community protests, more safety planning lawsuits, then lawsuits over the disposal of waste, then another environmental impact review... These are all problems for which we have reasonable technical solutions (ex: Yucca mountain was a GREAT solution for nuclear waste storage until breeder reactors come online). The problem is in the politics and planning.

imtringued 6y ago
No the reasons are far simpler. Nuclear has been abandoned for decades. Anyone who wants to do anything in this space has to start from scratch, which is very expensive. There is a reason why there is a move to modular reactors. It's easier to produce a thousand of them (or at least finish your first 10 prototypes before you go bankrupt), than to produce 20 "boutique" power plants.
- pfdietz 6y ago
  HMRs (Hail Mary Reactors) are being pursued because all other options for nuclear are gone. I very much doubt they're going to go anywhere.

dandare 6y ago

Also let's not forget the problem of burnt fuel storage. Burned nuclear fuel will stay radioactive for tens of thousands of years. Unless we plan to offload the cost of storage to future generations - which we actually do now - nuclear power is horribly unprofitable.

jimmaswell 6y ago
As far as I've heard, newer designs can reuse this spent fuel but there's no political will to go forward with it for some reason.
- pfdietz 6y ago
  It's not economical.
vbezhenar 6y ago
Bury it into 1-kilometer shaft and forget about it?
titzer 6y ago
Reprocessing is a thing. https://www.heritage.org/environment/commentary/recycling-nuclear-fuel-the-french-do-it-why-cant-oui https://www.heritage.org/environment/commentary/recycling-nu...
ende 6y ago
Storage is overblown. Newer techniques have created additional uses for waste, and storage space really isn’t much of an issue.
arrosenberg 6y ago
It's far less of a problem than advertised. Nuclear fuel contains far more energy per kg of fuel than carbon-based, so the total stock of nuclear waste in the US could fit in a two-story warehouse the size of a football field. It doesn't make sense to store it unless we discover fusion, since at some point we will come to our senses and use that "waste" as fuel for newer reactors. https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-nuclear-fuel https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-...

glogla 6y ago

Do we have any examples of working renewables + storage? Because as far as I know, nobody in the world ever built grid scale storage. There are no proven commercial solutions available, no expertise built. There might not even be enough lithium on the planet to support all of this, who knows. Relying on something unproven to swoop in and save us ... might as well wait for fusion, right? In the end, what you're doing is extending the reign of fossil fuels and destroying the world.

theshrike79 6y ago
The only valid storage for renewables as of today (already built or could be built today) is pumping water or pressurizing air inside rock. Both of which are only valid if you've already got the natural formations for that.