6 ms·

Correct. The right questions to ask is not 'But what about Chernobyl' (which is unlikely in most countries) but instead: What about decommissioning costs? Fuk

Correct. The right questions to ask is not 'But what about Chernobyl' (which is unlikely in most countries) but instead: What about decommissioning costs? Fukushima is a good example of costs from a normal accident we can expect from time to time. Costs are at 200b USD and rising, and they still don't have the reactor site under control. Even normal decommissioning is incredibly expensive and usually covered by governments and ignored in the costs of electricity. https://nuclear-news.net/2020/09/24/9-1-2-years-after-meltdowns-no-end-in-sight-for-fukushima-nuke-plant-decommissioning/ https://nuclear-news.net/2020/09/24/9-1-2-years-after-meltdo... https://cleantechnica.com/2019/04/16/fukushimas-final-costs-will-approach-one-trillion-dollars-just-for-nuclear-disaster/ https://cleantechnica.com/2019/04/16/fukushimas-final-costs-... Nuclear fusion (if we ever get to commercial production), will make nuclear much more attractive again though and cut decommissioning costs a bit (though there is still the question of how to deal with reactor parts).

koheripbal 6y ago
Can you show me the costs associated with decommisioning a hydro electric dam? This is a hurdle people are only throwing in front of nuclear plants. Nuclear plants can run indefinitely if maintained - just like all major infrastructure.
- DanBC 6y ago
  I think we should be building nuclear everywhere, but it's important to realise the life of a nuclear power plant is between 20 to 40 years. https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/29402043133.pdf https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/29402043133.pdf > It is evident that the average age of power reactors in the IAEA's Member States is increasing. (See accompanying graphs.) By 2000, more than 50 nuclear plants will have been providing electricity for 25 years or longer. Most nuclear power plants have operating life-times of between 20 and 40 years. > Ageing is defined as a continuing time-dependent degradation of material due to service conditions,including normal operation and transient conditions. It is common experience that over long periods of time, there is a gradual change in the properties of materials. These changes can affect the capability of engineered components, systems, or structures to perform their required function. Not all changes are deleterious, but it is commonly observed that ageing processes normally involve a gradual reduction in performance capability. > All materials in a nuclear power plant can suffer from ageing and can partially or totally lose their designed function. Ageing is not only of concern for active components (for which the probability of malfunction increases with time) but also for passive ones, since the safety margin is being reduced towards the lowest allow-able level
  - marcus_holmes 6y ago
    Surely the same aging effects also affect dams too, though?
    - bregma 6y ago
      The construction materials becoming brittle due to constant bombardment with nuclear emissions? Not noticeable in a hydroelectric dam. The materials becoming brittle and breaking down due to constant exposure to heat? Steam does not normally factor in hydroelectric production. Nuclear ages faster then thermoelectric, which ages faster than hydroelectric. It's a tradeoff.
    - eeZah7Ux 6y ago
      Not at all.
    - natch 6y ago
      The aging effects are largely from radiation and heat.
  - vertak 6y ago
    This study is from 1987. Might it it be slightly outdated? This article from 2009 addresses the lower age estimates from the 1980’s era, saying reactors could last for 80 years or even more. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nuclear-power-plant-aging-reactor-replacement-/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nuclear-power-pla...
    - natch 6y ago
      In theory, there is no difference between theory and reality. In practice, there is.
    - wiz21c 6y ago
      FTA : "We think we can replace almost every component in a nuclear power plant," said Jan van der Lee, director of the Materials Ageing Institute (MAI), a nuclear research facility inaugurated this week in France and run by the state-owned nuclear giant EDF. EDF is state owned just as much as nuclear reactor construction company => I wouldn't trust that guy
swilliamsio 6y ago
"What about Chernobyl" is usually outright dismissed as being an edge case owing its disaster to the Soviet regime, more concerned over image than safety. The real important question, as you aluded to, is "What about Fukushima" - a disaster occuring in a rich, western nation, Japan; Japan is a nation generally seen as being on the leading edge of technology. If a disaster can occur in Japan, it can feasibly happen anywhere in the west.
- jakehop 6y ago
  Of course the probability is never 0,00%. But it is obvious that the Fukushima accident happened due to geological factors. The same power plant would hum away nicely in Germany to this day, where there is little to no seismic activity and none on the scale of what happened in Fukushima.
  - GekkePrutser 6y ago
    But unforeseen factors are always a component of accidents. Otherwise it wouldn't be an accident. Of course boost is planning for this to happen. The point is that it does happen despite planning. It won't happen in the same way in Germany but something else can happen.
    - nine_k 6y ago
      But the problems were very much foreseen! The chief architect of the Fukushima plant tried hard to convince his bosses that the wall which protects the plant is not tall enough to protect against rare but possible huge tsunami waves, but hasn't been heard. He turned out to be right. The plant also had emergency cooling pumps, but the pumps were connected incorrectly. This was unforeseen, I can give you that. In any case, the Fukushima disaster caused one direct human death, or something like that. In general, modern nuclear stations are no less reliable than fossil fuel plants, and only freak accidents, like a major earthquake and a tsunami, or personnel knowingly switching off all safety systems (the Chernobyl case) lead to catastrophic failures. This still can and should be improved upon, by using reactors with inherently self-contained designs, lack of high-pressure components within the reactor, etc.
willis936 6y ago
>there is still the question of how to deal with reactor parts I don’t think this has ever been a question. Put them in a shed for 100 years then recycle the metal.
- willis936 6y ago
  I would say the largest inherent danger with fusion reactors is the prospect of a tritium leak. D-D fusion reactor designs are not on the horizon. They are a “probably, one day” option. So for now we are aiming for D-T operation. All signs point towards a functional MCF reactor needing to be pretty large and, by extension, have a large recirculating stored energy (roughly 100 MJ). Tokamaks face the prospect of disruptions that slam all of that stored energy into the wall. An event like this would breach the reactor and leak the tritium fuel. The entire reactor and tritium processing facility should be behind a bioshield that shouldn’t leak, but the risk is there and real. It takes extreme care to prevent dire scenarios. Stellarators don’t have the chance of disruptions, but would still need to rely on tritium.

koheripbal 6y ago

Can you show me the costs associated with decommisioning a hydro electric dam? This is a hurdle people are only throwing in front of nuclear plants. Nuclear plants can run indefinitely if maintained - just like all major infrastructure.

DanBC 6y ago
I think we should be building nuclear everywhere, but it's important to realise the life of a nuclear power plant is between 20 to 40 years. https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/29402043133.pdf https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/29402043133.pdf > It is evident that the average age of power reactors in the IAEA's Member States is increasing. (See accompanying graphs.) By 2000, more than 50 nuclear plants will have been providing electricity for 25 years or longer. Most nuclear power plants have operating life-times of between 20 and 40 years. > Ageing is defined as a continuing time-dependent degradation of material due to service conditions,including normal operation and transient conditions. It is common experience that over long periods of time, there is a gradual change in the properties of materials. These changes can affect the capability of engineered components, systems, or structures to perform their required function. Not all changes are deleterious, but it is commonly observed that ageing processes normally involve a gradual reduction in performance capability. > All materials in a nuclear power plant can suffer from ageing and can partially or totally lose their designed function. Ageing is not only of concern for active components (for which the probability of malfunction increases with time) but also for passive ones, since the safety margin is being reduced towards the lowest allow-able level
- marcus_holmes 6y ago
  Surely the same aging effects also affect dams too, though?
  - bregma 6y ago
    The construction materials becoming brittle due to constant bombardment with nuclear emissions? Not noticeable in a hydroelectric dam. The materials becoming brittle and breaking down due to constant exposure to heat? Steam does not normally factor in hydroelectric production. Nuclear ages faster then thermoelectric, which ages faster than hydroelectric. It's a tradeoff.
  - eeZah7Ux 6y ago
    Not at all.
  - natch 6y ago
    The aging effects are largely from radiation and heat.
- vertak 6y ago
  This study is from 1987. Might it it be slightly outdated? This article from 2009 addresses the lower age estimates from the 1980’s era, saying reactors could last for 80 years or even more. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nuclear-power-plant-aging-reactor-replacement-/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nuclear-power-pla...
  - natch 6y ago
    In theory, there is no difference between theory and reality. In practice, there is.
  - wiz21c 6y ago
    FTA : "We think we can replace almost every component in a nuclear power plant," said Jan van der Lee, director of the Materials Ageing Institute (MAI), a nuclear research facility inaugurated this week in France and run by the state-owned nuclear giant EDF. EDF is state owned just as much as nuclear reactor construction company => I wouldn't trust that guy

swilliamsio 6y ago

"What about Chernobyl" is usually outright dismissed as being an edge case owing its disaster to the Soviet regime, more concerned over image than safety. The real important question, as you aluded to, is "What about Fukushima" - a disaster occuring in a rich, western nation, Japan; Japan is a nation generally seen as being on the leading edge of technology. If a disaster can occur in Japan, it can feasibly happen anywhere in the west.

jakehop 6y ago
Of course the probability is never 0,00%. But it is obvious that the Fukushima accident happened due to geological factors. The same power plant would hum away nicely in Germany to this day, where there is little to no seismic activity and none on the scale of what happened in Fukushima.
- GekkePrutser 6y ago
  But unforeseen factors are always a component of accidents. Otherwise it wouldn't be an accident. Of course boost is planning for this to happen. The point is that it does happen despite planning. It won't happen in the same way in Germany but something else can happen.
  - nine_k 6y ago
    But the problems were very much foreseen! The chief architect of the Fukushima plant tried hard to convince his bosses that the wall which protects the plant is not tall enough to protect against rare but possible huge tsunami waves, but hasn't been heard. He turned out to be right. The plant also had emergency cooling pumps, but the pumps were connected incorrectly. This was unforeseen, I can give you that. In any case, the Fukushima disaster caused one direct human death, or something like that. In general, modern nuclear stations are no less reliable than fossil fuel plants, and only freak accidents, like a major earthquake and a tsunami, or personnel knowingly switching off all safety systems (the Chernobyl case) lead to catastrophic failures. This still can and should be improved upon, by using reactors with inherently self-contained designs, lack of high-pressure components within the reactor, etc.

willis936 6y ago

>there is still the question of how to deal with reactor parts I don’t think this has ever been a question. Put them in a shed for 100 years then recycle the metal.

willis936 6y ago
I would say the largest inherent danger with fusion reactors is the prospect of a tritium leak. D-D fusion reactor designs are not on the horizon. They are a “probably, one day” option. So for now we are aiming for D-T operation. All signs point towards a functional MCF reactor needing to be pretty large and, by extension, have a large recirculating stored energy (roughly 100 MJ). Tokamaks face the prospect of disruptions that slam all of that stored energy into the wall. An event like this would breach the reactor and leak the tritium fuel. The entire reactor and tritium processing facility should be behind a bioshield that shouldn’t leak, but the risk is there and real. It takes extreme care to prevent dire scenarios. Stellarators don’t have the chance of disruptions, but would still need to rely on tritium.