4 ms·

> geologically stable Isn't really a think when we thing about the time scale of nuclear wast... Additionally Politicians mess in seriously bad ways with anyt

> geologically stable Isn't really a think when we thing about the time scale of nuclear wast... Additionally Politicians mess in seriously bad ways with anything related to nuclear. Like pushing for nuclear power but if it's found that the objective best place to store the wast underground is around where they live they will try all kind of things to exclude the best suited place from the list of potential candidates. Or adding a unsuited place close to the border of the neighbor country they don't like "because of reasons". Or pushing for nuclear power with arguments like it's electricity being very cheap while it's actually the most expensive electricity source in their country and that is even through it's highly subsidized (which the much cheaper alternatives are not). Etc. Etc. I would love I people would start to have a purely objective discussion about this.

rrss 6y ago
> Isn't really a think when we thing about the time scale of nuclear waste... it is. drill a few miles down into the miles-thick crystalline salt in the permian basin. it will not go anywhere for millions of years.
- dathinab 6y ago
  There is no Permian Basin in Germany ...
  - rrss 6y ago
    There are similar basins in Europe, probably similarly suitable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian_Basin_(Europe) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian_Basin_(Europe) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_German_basin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_German_basin
  - yellowapple 6y ago
    God forbid Germany exports its nuclear waste.
corty 6y ago
The IPCC report on climate change mitigation puts nuclear median cost on par with wind power (cheaper than offshore, slightly more expensive than onshore), cheaper than solar, more expensive than hydro. In total, squarely on par with the usual suspects for green energy. And they include fuel and decommissioning in that cost. See page 71 of https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5_full.pdf https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5... (caution, huge pdf). An objective discussion would be nice, but it can only be objective if it is based on available facts.
- dathinab 6y ago
  hm interesting the numbers are somewhat different then what I have seen in other places. I mean don't get me wrong offshore wind power is always expensive but enough sources list solar, on-shore wind power as cheaper. Hydro power as comparable and Geothermal power as much cheaper.
  - corty 6y ago
    Problem with most sources is, there are always assumptions and caveats: Such as cost-based calculations (maybe or maybe not) including teardown and recycling, storage cost, capital cost, land cost, etc. Others do market-price-based calculations (preferably in those markets that prove their point), so you get renewable prices from Germany (where renewables are hugely subsidized and have to be consumed preferentially) that are sometimes even negative, or you get nuclear prices from France, where the owner of all nuclear power plants is a state owned corp (EDF) that is "rescued" from bancruptcy every few years to keep prices down. I did pick the IPCC reports because those are usually regarded as being careful amalgamations of the available scientific data. Since there are lots of eyes on those reports, larger mistakes should have been pointed out already. But you are right that there is contradictory information out there, and I don't really have the perfect authoritative source either.
    - pyrale 6y ago
      > the owner of all nuclear power plants is a state owned corp (EDF) that is "rescued" from bancruptcy every few years to keep prices down. That is as dishonest a take as it gets. First, the "rescued from bankruptcy every few years" is simply not true. The company has been paying dividends every year for decades, and I can't think of a bailout of company debt in recent years. Second point: Like most french state-owned companies, EDF is a vessel of "creative" accounting from politicians, but you'll find out that it's not tied to operating nuclear plants specifically. It's just that as a public-owned company, EDF is a tool for public policy. Sometimes it takes on debt to do so. For instance, EDF is legally forced to buy back green energy at fixed rates as part of a package to help develop green energy. EDF is also forced to sell nuclear power to its competitors (ARENH policy) at fixed price, when they ask it. This means EDF competitors can arbitrage this agreement by buying nuclear power below market at times, and selling green power when market is saturated at other times. From the state's perspective, it's an OK thing to open the market and promote renewables, but from the company perspective it makes no sense. Thus, the company "pays" for a public policy. This kind of accounting is usual in other former public companies such as SNCF. That being said, nuclear costs figures should be accurate, since they come from the work of the french finance watchdog, the "cour des comptes", as well as from parlementarian investigations. You're right that these figures would probably not be possible without the scale economies of the initial rollout and without state-backing, but as you cite, this is also true for renewables or any other large industrial policy.
Youden 6y ago
> Isn't really a think when we thing about the time scale of nuclear wast... The people involved in these plans aren't idiots, they know what the time scale of nuclear waste is and they look for sites with that in mind [0]. They appear to be considering obvious problems like earthquakes and less obvious problems like ice ages. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_geological_repository https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_geological_repository

rrss 6y ago

> Isn't really a think when we thing about the time scale of nuclear waste... it is. drill a few miles down into the miles-thick crystalline salt in the permian basin. it will not go anywhere for millions of years.

dathinab 6y ago
There is no Permian Basin in Germany ...
- rrss 6y ago
  There are similar basins in Europe, probably similarly suitable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian_Basin_(Europe) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian_Basin_(Europe) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_German_basin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_German_basin
- yellowapple 6y ago
  God forbid Germany exports its nuclear waste.

corty 6y ago

The IPCC report on climate change mitigation puts nuclear median cost on par with wind power (cheaper than offshore, slightly more expensive than onshore), cheaper than solar, more expensive than hydro. In total, squarely on par with the usual suspects for green energy. And they include fuel and decommissioning in that cost. See page 71 of https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5_full.pdf https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5... (caution, huge pdf). An objective discussion would be nice, but it can only be objective if it is based on available facts.

dathinab 6y ago
hm interesting the numbers are somewhat different then what I have seen in other places. I mean don't get me wrong offshore wind power is always expensive but enough sources list solar, on-shore wind power as cheaper. Hydro power as comparable and Geothermal power as much cheaper.
- corty 6y ago
  Problem with most sources is, there are always assumptions and caveats: Such as cost-based calculations (maybe or maybe not) including teardown and recycling, storage cost, capital cost, land cost, etc. Others do market-price-based calculations (preferably in those markets that prove their point), so you get renewable prices from Germany (where renewables are hugely subsidized and have to be consumed preferentially) that are sometimes even negative, or you get nuclear prices from France, where the owner of all nuclear power plants is a state owned corp (EDF) that is "rescued" from bancruptcy every few years to keep prices down. I did pick the IPCC reports because those are usually regarded as being careful amalgamations of the available scientific data. Since there are lots of eyes on those reports, larger mistakes should have been pointed out already. But you are right that there is contradictory information out there, and I don't really have the perfect authoritative source either.
  - pyrale 6y ago
    > the owner of all nuclear power plants is a state owned corp (EDF) that is "rescued" from bancruptcy every few years to keep prices down. That is as dishonest a take as it gets. First, the "rescued from bankruptcy every few years" is simply not true. The company has been paying dividends every year for decades, and I can't think of a bailout of company debt in recent years. Second point: Like most french state-owned companies, EDF is a vessel of "creative" accounting from politicians, but you'll find out that it's not tied to operating nuclear plants specifically. It's just that as a public-owned company, EDF is a tool for public policy. Sometimes it takes on debt to do so. For instance, EDF is legally forced to buy back green energy at fixed rates as part of a package to help develop green energy. EDF is also forced to sell nuclear power to its competitors (ARENH policy) at fixed price, when they ask it. This means EDF competitors can arbitrage this agreement by buying nuclear power below market at times, and selling green power when market is saturated at other times. From the state's perspective, it's an OK thing to open the market and promote renewables, but from the company perspective it makes no sense. Thus, the company "pays" for a public policy. This kind of accounting is usual in other former public companies such as SNCF. That being said, nuclear costs figures should be accurate, since they come from the work of the french finance watchdog, the "cour des comptes", as well as from parlementarian investigations. You're right that these figures would probably not be possible without the scale economies of the initial rollout and without state-backing, but as you cite, this is also true for renewables or any other large industrial policy.

Youden 6y ago

> Isn't really a think when we thing about the time scale of nuclear wast... The people involved in these plans aren't idiots, they know what the time scale of nuclear waste is and they look for sites with that in mind [0]. They appear to be considering obvious problems like earthquakes and less obvious problems like ice ages. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_geological_repository https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_geological_repository