5 ms·

I'm a convert. I was anti-nuclear power, now I am pro with a boatload of caveats. As a person who changed their mind, let me offer this advice to the people co

I'm a convert. I was anti-nuclear power, now I am pro with a boatload of caveats. As a person who changed their mind, let me offer this advice to the people commenting here. Don't pretend there aren't legitimate concerns with nuclear power. Accidents did in fact happen and, given enough time and more reactors, will absolutely happen again. That's not a reason not to build more nuclear power, but let's not play make-believe about it. Don't pretend that just because we are better at handling nuclear waste it is a solved problem. It isn't. A hundred-fold increase in nuclear power generation would be a roughly hundred-fold increase in nuclear waste that must be stored away from all life for several hundred years (until we develop technology to resolve the issue, likely long after we're all dead). And maybe most importantly, acknowledge that nuclear energy is far more expensive than other green energy options and, even if we could drive down the cost, it will not solve all our problems. It is, at best, a big part of the solution, not "the" solution.

krasin 6y ago
The new types of reactors can run on the "standard" nuclear waste: https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Russia-proposes-new-closed-fuel-cycle https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Russia-proposes-new-... In Russia, they are slowly getting adoption. Not only that allows to use the same fuel twice (so, cheaper energy), the end result is significantly less radioactive and does not contain isotopes with ~10k years life, which are short enough to be dangerous and long enough to be a hassle to store. A hundred fold increase in the reactors will mean that the new closed-fuel-cycle economy will have even more sense, since the second stage reactors will also benefit economies of scale. (not objecting your comment, just adding one improvement)
syshum 6y ago
>>And maybe most importantly, acknowledge that nuclear energy is far more expensive than other green energy options It is not really though when you factor in ALL of the costs of the main renewables (wind and solar), one of the big problems with both is the fact their output curves normally do not match demand curves every well, meaning when wind and solar are producing power, the demand for that power is at its lowest. Thus wind and solar can only be a viable replacement for Fossil fuel and nuclear if you add in methods of energy storage, so electricity can be stored when it being produced and then consumed when it is needed. Once you factor in this storage / demand problem the costs of wind and solar go through the roof
arithmomachist 6y ago
Nuclear definitely should be paired with energy sources like wind and photovoltaics. These sources are aren't consistent, so you need something to balance the load at night or when the wind isn't blowing. I find it hard to imagine another non-carbon energy source that could fill that role aside from nuclear energy. Disposing of nuclear waste is certainly a difficult problem, since it requires designing structures to last longer than recorded history up to this point. There is at least one good answer to this problem that's under construction now in Finland, called Onkalo. The issue of nuclear waste disposal seems to be as much a political as an engineering problem. People don't want to have a nuclear waste dump anywhere near them, because they justifiably don't trust the government or industry to build it so that it works.
opo 6y ago
>...Accidents did in fact happen and, given enough time and more reactors, will absolutely happen again. Well it is a straw man to claim that anyone says there won't be nuclear accidents. What people have said is that historically nuclear power has been much safer than all the alternatives that have been available: https://www.statista.com/statistics/494425/death-rate-worldwide-by-energy-source/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/494425/death-rate-worldw... https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-ener... https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/?sh=54873a23709b https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-d... Unfortunately anything at all related to nuclear is covered by the media orders of magnitude more than other power sources so many people have an understandable misperception that it is more dangerous than other sources of power. 200 thousand people had to be evacuated in CA a couple of years ago because of a lack of maintenance on a hydroelectric dam could have let to catastrophic failure. We got lucky that time as the rains stopped just in time, but how much did the media cover that story? How much would the media have covered that if 200 thousand had been evacuated because of a nuclear power plant? >...Don't pretend that just because we are better at handling nuclear waste it is a solved problem. It isn't. A hundred-fold increase in nuclear power generation would be a roughly hundred-fold increase in nuclear waste that must be stored away from all life for several hundred years (until we develop technology to resolve the issue, likely long after we're all dead). In terms of the waste, right now nuclear waste can be recycled (as it is in France) which would reduce the amount of waste: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste Soon it will be possible to use most of the waste as fuel: "...What is more important today is why fast reactors are fuel-efficient: because fast neutrons can fission or "burn out" all the transuranic waste (TRU) waste components (actinides: reactor-grade plutonium and minor actinides) many of which last tens of thousands of years or longer and make conventional nuclear waste disposal so problematic. Most of the radioactive fission products (FPs) the reactor produces have much shorter half-lives: they are intensely radioactive in the short term but decay quickly. The IFR extracts and recycles 99.9% of the uranium and Transuranium elements on each cycle and uses them to produce power; so its waste is just the fission products; in 300 years their radioactivity will fall below that of the original uranium " >...IFR development began in 1984 and the U.S. Department of Energy built a prototype, the Experimental Breeder Reactor II. On April 3, 1986, two tests demonstrated the inherent safety of the IFR concept. These tests simulated accidents involving loss of coolant flow. Even with its normal shutdown devices disabled, the reactor shut itself down safely without overheating anywhere in the system. The IFR project was canceled by the US Congress in 1994, three years before completion. Unfortunately, the IFR work was cancelled by the incoming administration because "it's a symbol": >...Despite support for the reactor by then-Rep. Richard Durbin (D-IL) and U.S. Senators Carol Moseley Braun (D-IL) and Paul Simon (D-IL), funding for the reactor was slashed, and it was ultimately canceled in 1994, at greater cost than finishing it. When this was brought to President Clinton's attention, he said "I know; it's a symbol." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_fast_reactor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_fast_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor >...And maybe most importantly, acknowledge that nuclear energy is far more expensive than other green energy options Cost should always be a consideration, but when you see people conveniently ignore some costs and focus on others, it does a disservice to the goal of decarbonizing the grid and it isn't clear what they are really trying to accomplish. The levelized cost for residential rooftop solar is about as high as nuclear, but that cost doesn't seem to matter to some advocates and they continue to strongly support subsidizing it. The potential costs for renewables + storage is about the cost of nuclear, but that cost also doesn't matter to some advocates. (If grid storage was cheap, we would have built it decades ago.) https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-and-levelized-cost-of-storage-2020/ https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-... Some advocates recommend massively overbuilding solar or wind to deal with seasonal differences. This is obviously at least a direct cost multiplier but that doesn't seem to matter to some advocates. Advocates also describe how we will rebuild the electrical grid to move vast amounts of solar or wind power across the USA. This will not be cheap, simple or easy to protect against terrorism. Even the relatively small proposed Tres Amigas super station hasn’t been completed yet. The potential costs here don't seem to matter to some advocates. Some advocates for renewables seem happy with relying on natural gas peaker plants where necessary to get around the costs of building grid storage, but methane is a very potent GHG in the short term. (There are lots of atmospheric losses in the capture and distribution of natural gas.) No one concerned about climate change seriously thinks that burning natural gas is a long term answer. >...It is, at best, a big part of the solution, not "the" solution. I agree.
JamesBarney 6y ago
I don't think anyone is pretending accidents don't happen, only that over all there are far fewer deaths per gigawatt of nuclear than other options. Handling nuclear waste is a hard problem but it's 100x easier than handling CO2 waste. And is nuclear more expensive than other renewables? I think that really depends, I don't think you can compare 99.9% reliability power to 95% reliability power. They're two different goods sold at two different prices. You can use batteries or other storage to convert the 95% reliability into 99.9% but then that puts renewables at a cost far above nuclear.
- godelski 6y ago
  I think the major issue is that those uninformed on the subjects treat the energy problem as if there is a singular solution: renewables, nuclear, fossil fuels. Which this is such a weird way to present the problem. But then again I see a lot of people complain about CCS because it "encourages the use of fossil fuels," implying that means emissions, which it doesn't. The conversation has become political and not technical and I think that's what is frustrating to me. (I bring up CCS because it is discussed in the article and also something controversial in the public eye but not in the scientific community)
- throw0101a 6y ago
  > I think that really depends, I don't think you can compare 99.9% reliability power to 95% reliability power. I question whether you can call any renewable 95% reliable. The capacity factor of solar in the US has averaged 25% and wind at about 35%: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacity_factor#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacity_factor#United_States One can certainly argue a large enough grid can shuffle energy to and from across large areas to create 'aggregate reliability' of course.

krasin 6y ago

The new types of reactors can run on the "standard" nuclear waste: https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Russia-proposes-new-closed-fuel-cycle https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Russia-proposes-new-... In Russia, they are slowly getting adoption. Not only that allows to use the same fuel twice (so, cheaper energy), the end result is significantly less radioactive and does not contain isotopes with ~10k years life, which are short enough to be dangerous and long enough to be a hassle to store. A hundred fold increase in the reactors will mean that the new closed-fuel-cycle economy will have even more sense, since the second stage reactors will also benefit economies of scale. (not objecting your comment, just adding one improvement)

syshum 6y ago

>>And maybe most importantly, acknowledge that nuclear energy is far more expensive than other green energy options It is not really though when you factor in ALL of the costs of the main renewables (wind and solar), one of the big problems with both is the fact their output curves normally do not match demand curves every well, meaning when wind and solar are producing power, the demand for that power is at its lowest. Thus wind and solar can only be a viable replacement for Fossil fuel and nuclear if you add in methods of energy storage, so electricity can be stored when it being produced and then consumed when it is needed. Once you factor in this storage / demand problem the costs of wind and solar go through the roof

arithmomachist 6y ago

Nuclear definitely should be paired with energy sources like wind and photovoltaics. These sources are aren't consistent, so you need something to balance the load at night or when the wind isn't blowing. I find it hard to imagine another non-carbon energy source that could fill that role aside from nuclear energy. Disposing of nuclear waste is certainly a difficult problem, since it requires designing structures to last longer than recorded history up to this point. There is at least one good answer to this problem that's under construction now in Finland, called Onkalo. The issue of nuclear waste disposal seems to be as much a political as an engineering problem. People don't want to have a nuclear waste dump anywhere near them, because they justifiably don't trust the government or industry to build it so that it works.

opo 6y ago

>...Accidents did in fact happen and, given enough time and more reactors, will absolutely happen again. Well it is a straw man to claim that anyone says there won't be nuclear accidents. What people have said is that historically nuclear power has been much safer than all the alternatives that have been available: https://www.statista.com/statistics/494425/death-rate-worldwide-by-energy-source/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/494425/death-rate-worldw... https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-ener... https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/?sh=54873a23709b https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-d... Unfortunately anything at all related to nuclear is covered by the media orders of magnitude more than other power sources so many people have an understandable misperception that it is more dangerous than other sources of power. 200 thousand people had to be evacuated in CA a couple of years ago because of a lack of maintenance on a hydroelectric dam could have let to catastrophic failure. We got lucky that time as the rains stopped just in time, but how much did the media cover that story? How much would the media have covered that if 200 thousand had been evacuated because of a nuclear power plant? >...Don't pretend that just because we are better at handling nuclear waste it is a solved problem. It isn't. A hundred-fold increase in nuclear power generation would be a roughly hundred-fold increase in nuclear waste that must be stored away from all life for several hundred years (until we develop technology to resolve the issue, likely long after we're all dead). In terms of the waste, right now nuclear waste can be recycled (as it is in France) which would reduce the amount of waste: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste Soon it will be possible to use most of the waste as fuel: "...What is more important today is why fast reactors are fuel-efficient: because fast neutrons can fission or "burn out" all the transuranic waste (TRU) waste components (actinides: reactor-grade plutonium and minor actinides) many of which last tens of thousands of years or longer and make conventional nuclear waste disposal so problematic. Most of the radioactive fission products (FPs) the reactor produces have much shorter half-lives: they are intensely radioactive in the short term but decay quickly. The IFR extracts and recycles 99.9% of the uranium and Transuranium elements on each cycle and uses them to produce power; so its waste is just the fission products; in 300 years their radioactivity will fall below that of the original uranium " >...IFR development began in 1984 and the U.S. Department of Energy built a prototype, the Experimental Breeder Reactor II. On April 3, 1986, two tests demonstrated the inherent safety of the IFR concept. These tests simulated accidents involving loss of coolant flow. Even with its normal shutdown devices disabled, the reactor shut itself down safely without overheating anywhere in the system. The IFR project was canceled by the US Congress in 1994, three years before completion. Unfortunately, the IFR work was cancelled by the incoming administration because "it's a symbol": >...Despite support for the reactor by then-Rep. Richard Durbin (D-IL) and U.S. Senators Carol Moseley Braun (D-IL) and Paul Simon (D-IL), funding for the reactor was slashed, and it was ultimately canceled in 1994, at greater cost than finishing it. When this was brought to President Clinton's attention, he said "I know; it's a symbol." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_fast_reactor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_fast_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor >...And maybe most importantly, acknowledge that nuclear energy is far more expensive than other green energy options Cost should always be a consideration, but when you see people conveniently ignore some costs and focus on others, it does a disservice to the goal of decarbonizing the grid and it isn't clear what they are really trying to accomplish. The levelized cost for residential rooftop solar is about as high as nuclear, but that cost doesn't seem to matter to some advocates and they continue to strongly support subsidizing it. The potential costs for renewables + storage is about the cost of nuclear, but that cost also doesn't matter to some advocates. (If grid storage was cheap, we would have built it decades ago.) https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-and-levelized-cost-of-storage-2020/ https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-... Some advocates recommend massively overbuilding solar or wind to deal with seasonal differences. This is obviously at least a direct cost multiplier but that doesn't seem to matter to some advocates. Advocates also describe how we will rebuild the electrical grid to move vast amounts of solar or wind power across the USA. This will not be cheap, simple or easy to protect against terrorism. Even the relatively small proposed Tres Amigas super station hasn’t been completed yet. The potential costs here don't seem to matter to some advocates. Some advocates for renewables seem happy with relying on natural gas peaker plants where necessary to get around the costs of building grid storage, but methane is a very potent GHG in the short term. (There are lots of atmospheric losses in the capture and distribution of natural gas.) No one concerned about climate change seriously thinks that burning natural gas is a long term answer. >...It is, at best, a big part of the solution, not "the" solution. I agree.

JamesBarney 6y ago

I don't think anyone is pretending accidents don't happen, only that over all there are far fewer deaths per gigawatt of nuclear than other options. Handling nuclear waste is a hard problem but it's 100x easier than handling CO2 waste. And is nuclear more expensive than other renewables? I think that really depends, I don't think you can compare 99.9% reliability power to 95% reliability power. They're two different goods sold at two different prices. You can use batteries or other storage to convert the 95% reliability into 99.9% but then that puts renewables at a cost far above nuclear.

godelski 6y ago
I think the major issue is that those uninformed on the subjects treat the energy problem as if there is a singular solution: renewables, nuclear, fossil fuels. Which this is such a weird way to present the problem. But then again I see a lot of people complain about CCS because it "encourages the use of fossil fuels," implying that means emissions, which it doesn't. The conversation has become political and not technical and I think that's what is frustrating to me. (I bring up CCS because it is discussed in the article and also something controversial in the public eye but not in the scientific community)
throw0101a 6y ago
> I think that really depends, I don't think you can compare 99.9% reliability power to 95% reliability power. I question whether you can call any renewable 95% reliable. The capacity factor of solar in the US has averaged 25% and wind at about 35%: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacity_factor#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacity_factor#United_States One can certainly argue a large enough grid can shuffle energy to and from across large areas to create 'aggregate reliability' of course.