3 ms·

Where would one build them? Since the USA has no long term nuclear waste storage plan, the current plan is to store at the plants for the most part which is a h

Where would one build them? Since the USA has no long term nuclear waste storage plan, the current plan is to store at the plants for the most part which is a huge NIMBY issue. IIRC Texas went mostly in on gas/wind because of prevailing prices for the different fuel/plant options. This article gives a bit more data about current generation sources in Texas. https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/nation/2021/02/16/texas-weather-power-outage-rolling-blackouts-leave-millions-dark/6764764002/ https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/nation/2021/02/16/tex... Also, the alternative coal plants had pretty big waste/cleanup issues with existing plants in addition to costing more based on projections last time I remember reading about this.

epistasis 6y ago
NIMBYs are not an impediment to building nuclear. The first impediment is finding a funding for a project of a class that has a huge chance of being a multi-billion dollar economic disaster. If you can find the money, the problem is actually completing it, and continuing to find new funding as build times go to 2-3x initial estimates, and costs balloon to 2-5x initial estimates. There are plenty of sites that welcome new nuclear, usually any existing nuclear site would welcome more as its an economic engine for towns. The issue is it's just really poor and overly complicated technology, requiring miles of precision welds, the failure of any of which could cause big problems, and which must last for 50 years. It shouldn't be a surprise that this is hard to do well.
- huffmsa 6y ago
  They are to building the waste facility you need for long term storage of spent fuel. See Harry Reid vs Yucca Mountain
throwaway0a5e 6y ago
>Where would one build them? Nuclear energy is insanely efficient from a "materials that need to move around" perspective. That's why not having long term storage and just cobbling together short term on-site storage hasn't caused a crisis. The maintenance department at a plant generates more waste by volume. Finding the space isn't the issue. Anywhere we could fit a couple container ships is fair game if you're looking for a national level solution. Politics is the problem. People are more scared of "magical glowing toxic waste" than normal toxic waste for whatever reason.

epistasis 6y ago

NIMBYs are not an impediment to building nuclear. The first impediment is finding a funding for a project of a class that has a huge chance of being a multi-billion dollar economic disaster. If you can find the money, the problem is actually completing it, and continuing to find new funding as build times go to 2-3x initial estimates, and costs balloon to 2-5x initial estimates. There are plenty of sites that welcome new nuclear, usually any existing nuclear site would welcome more as its an economic engine for towns. The issue is it's just really poor and overly complicated technology, requiring miles of precision welds, the failure of any of which could cause big problems, and which must last for 50 years. It shouldn't be a surprise that this is hard to do well.

huffmsa 6y ago
They are to building the waste facility you need for long term storage of spent fuel. See Harry Reid vs Yucca Mountain

throwaway0a5e 6y ago

>Where would one build them? Nuclear energy is insanely efficient from a "materials that need to move around" perspective. That's why not having long term storage and just cobbling together short term on-site storage hasn't caused a crisis. The maintenance department at a plant generates more waste by volume. Finding the space isn't the issue. Anywhere we could fit a couple container ships is fair game if you're looking for a national level solution. Politics is the problem. People are more scared of "magical glowing toxic waste" than normal toxic waste for whatever reason.