4 ms·

But nothing is without tail risk. The more CO2 we release, the more we throw the climate out of its historical equilibrium and risk triggering positive feedback

But nothing is without tail risk. The more CO2 we release, the more we throw the climate out of its historical equilibrium and risk triggering positive feedback loops that will make the planet permanently much harder for billions of people to inhabit. Renewables are preferable for new energy development, but turning off existing nuclear plants is not good for the planet's future IMO.

wingineer 5y ago
What about the tail risk of mismanagement of spent fuel?
- acidburnNSA 5y ago
  We've managed spent fuel for decades with very little incident. Meanwhile continuing to power 80% of the world with combustion of fossil and biofuel kills ~8 million people per year. Comparing the very hypothetical tail of spent fuel risk to current and very real 8 million deaths/year is extremely difficult to justify. Oh yeah and combustion also causes climate change, which brings in all sorts of additional risks on top of the air pollution one.
- andbberger 5y ago
  Once again, there was never really a 'waste problem' [0], and to the extent it does exist it has been definitively solved [1] [0] https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-nuclear-fuel https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repository https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repo...
fulafel 5y ago
Painting the history as "CO2 emissions or Nuclear" is misleading though. If the public money sunk into nuclear (in form of industry subsidies, and military & other national research programs) had been directed to renewables since the 40's, we would have most of today's wind, solar and energy storage tech decades earlier. So in that way nuclear had a severe opportunity cost, especially from today's perspective when we see that it's going to lose out to renewables. (And of course CO2 emissions could have been reduced decades ago, when we noticed the problem, by capping fossil fuel use without replacement energy sources, since the majority of energy use is non-essential and starting early would have made the transition slow and smooth)
- orwin 5y ago
  You seems to think research and funding exist in a vacuum. This is not the case. You also seems to think that civil nuclear R&D is expensive. It is, but not that much. Gen2 and Gen3 reactor R&D cost was around 50 millions in todays euros. Gen4 cost was 650 millions in France, and might reach one billion, but since we stopped our planned economy for energy and started subcontracting everything our engineering costs have exponentially risen, even with tech we didn't stop for 30 year like barrages. I seriously doubt your assertion on solar and energy storage. To much of it relies on fondamental or material discoveries made in the 80s, and 2000 for the graphene (probably the next gen will based of graphene). Maybe the wind tech would've been here earlier, but when you see nuclear enterprise capital and compare it to Boeing/Airbus R&D budget, more likely than not, we would've maybe saved 5, 10 years? Not even sure. France took 5 (5!) year of middling effort to develop a nuclear program. The budget allocated then was big (well, not that big really), but compare it to the Airbus program budget, it is ridiculously small. If all the tax break money since the 70s, and all the war money since the 40s were spend on fundamental physics, chemistry and geology, yes, we would've a much better tech, obviously. Not happening. Moving one or two billions from nuclear tech (that helped a LOT with discoverability of new materials) most likely wouldn't have any impact.
  - fulafel 5y ago
    The civil nuclear power stuff that you refer to is just easily funded incremental refinement of the military applications from way back when, and those had huge budgets that were risky bets. Especially if we account for compound interest of all that 40s and 50s fundamentals research and applications research money, representing the opportunity cost, it's.. a lot. And a lot of time to develop materials (60-70 years).
    - orwin 5y ago
      Agree, but that's the reason why even replacing nuclear research with something else wouldn't have improved at all renewables (au contraire). Science is incremental. You wouldn't have any of the new materials research without nuclear research. Any. Because you can't understand them if you don't understand the atom, you can't observe them without the electronic microscope, you can't test the interactions without a collider. Also, scientific discoveries are either focused by the state/profit, or happenstance, luck and opportunity (if Einstein did not work at Bern's patent office, we wouldn't have taken an interest on time and space). And all the new material we think can revolutionize storage are lucky breaks. Supraconductors, especially the new ceramic ones, are complete luck. You could've throne any amount of money on graphene research, i'm pretty sure you wouldn't have had the technology we have now without luck (and electronic microscope). I'd say "but you're right, the war budget...", but i forgot that the war economy gave use the basics of the computer, new tools, and the cold war was even better for scientific discoveries.

wingineer 5y ago

What about the tail risk of mismanagement of spent fuel?

acidburnNSA 5y ago
We've managed spent fuel for decades with very little incident. Meanwhile continuing to power 80% of the world with combustion of fossil and biofuel kills ~8 million people per year. Comparing the very hypothetical tail of spent fuel risk to current and very real 8 million deaths/year is extremely difficult to justify. Oh yeah and combustion also causes climate change, which brings in all sorts of additional risks on top of the air pollution one.
andbberger 5y ago
Once again, there was never really a 'waste problem' [0], and to the extent it does exist it has been definitively solved [1] [0] https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-nuclear-fuel https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repository https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repo...

fulafel 5y ago

Painting the history as "CO2 emissions or Nuclear" is misleading though. If the public money sunk into nuclear (in form of industry subsidies, and military & other national research programs) had been directed to renewables since the 40's, we would have most of today's wind, solar and energy storage tech decades earlier. So in that way nuclear had a severe opportunity cost, especially from today's perspective when we see that it's going to lose out to renewables. (And of course CO2 emissions could have been reduced decades ago, when we noticed the problem, by capping fossil fuel use without replacement energy sources, since the majority of energy use is non-essential and starting early would have made the transition slow and smooth)

orwin 5y ago
You seems to think research and funding exist in a vacuum. This is not the case. You also seems to think that civil nuclear R&D is expensive. It is, but not that much. Gen2 and Gen3 reactor R&D cost was around 50 millions in todays euros. Gen4 cost was 650 millions in France, and might reach one billion, but since we stopped our planned economy for energy and started subcontracting everything our engineering costs have exponentially risen, even with tech we didn't stop for 30 year like barrages. I seriously doubt your assertion on solar and energy storage. To much of it relies on fondamental or material discoveries made in the 80s, and 2000 for the graphene (probably the next gen will based of graphene). Maybe the wind tech would've been here earlier, but when you see nuclear enterprise capital and compare it to Boeing/Airbus R&D budget, more likely than not, we would've maybe saved 5, 10 years? Not even sure. France took 5 (5!) year of middling effort to develop a nuclear program. The budget allocated then was big (well, not that big really), but compare it to the Airbus program budget, it is ridiculously small. If all the tax break money since the 70s, and all the war money since the 40s were spend on fundamental physics, chemistry and geology, yes, we would've a much better tech, obviously. Not happening. Moving one or two billions from nuclear tech (that helped a LOT with discoverability of new materials) most likely wouldn't have any impact.
- fulafel 5y ago
  The civil nuclear power stuff that you refer to is just easily funded incremental refinement of the military applications from way back when, and those had huge budgets that were risky bets. Especially if we account for compound interest of all that 40s and 50s fundamentals research and applications research money, representing the opportunity cost, it's.. a lot. And a lot of time to develop materials (60-70 years).
  - orwin 5y ago
    Agree, but that's the reason why even replacing nuclear research with something else wouldn't have improved at all renewables (au contraire). Science is incremental. You wouldn't have any of the new materials research without nuclear research. Any. Because you can't understand them if you don't understand the atom, you can't observe them without the electronic microscope, you can't test the interactions without a collider. Also, scientific discoveries are either focused by the state/profit, or happenstance, luck and opportunity (if Einstein did not work at Bern's patent office, we wouldn't have taken an interest on time and space). And all the new material we think can revolutionize storage are lucky breaks. Supraconductors, especially the new ceramic ones, are complete luck. You could've throne any amount of money on graphene research, i'm pretty sure you wouldn't have had the technology we have now without luck (and electronic microscope). I'd say "but you're right, the war budget...", but i forgot that the war economy gave use the basics of the computer, new tools, and the cold war was even better for scientific discoveries.