6 ms·

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 decarboni

by opo 5y ago

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. Why is that? https://www.lazard.com/perspective/lcoe2020 https://www.lazard.com/perspective/lcoe2020 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.) 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 don't seem to matter to some advocates for some reason. Some advocates for renewables seem happy with relying on natural gas peaker plants 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.

Krasnol 5y ago
I like how you talk about ignoring costs but don't even scratch on that nuclear waste burden which generations will have to carry.
- opo 5y ago
  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 " 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 While there are issues with nuclear power, the worry some people have about nuclear waste is greatly overblown to say the least. The US government has been taxing power generated by nuclear power for decades and has collected billions of dollars to cover any costs in the future. The amount of waste is very manageable (the Netherlands actually stores their waste in an art museum!) and in a relatively short amount of time we will likely be able to use most of this "waste" to generate electricity. (To help put it in perspective, do some web searches about the problems with coal waste - it will be a much harder problem to solve than nuclear waste and no money has been collected to cover the costs. The problems with coal waste aren't discussed much since people focus on the air pollution from burning coal as it directly kills so many people.)
  - Krasnol 5y ago
    > In terms of the waste, right now nuclear waste can be recycled Waste is not "recycled" it's reprocessed. Recycling is what you do with materials from renewable energy sources. Also, it's not "waste" but only the fuel which is a tiny amount of the waste you have to store for decades and reprocessing is not making it go away. Those small parts which are added to fresh fuel come back later, the rest remains and needs to be stored too. Also: the whole process is extremely expensive and those costs also do not appear on the energy price. You people sound sometimes as if you believe that the waste somehow magically disappears or something. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_fast_reactor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_fast_reactor "At present there are no Integral Fast Reactors in commercial operation." > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor "In January 2018, it was reported that "the first installation of the pressure vessel cover of the world's first Gen IV reactor" had been completed on the HTR-PM.[12]" "Work on the first demonstration HTR-PM power plant, composed of two reactors driving a single steam turbine, began in December 2012 [...] On 12 September 2021, one of the two reactor achieved criticality, becoming the first 4th generation nuclear reactor in the world to do so, and is scheduled to be connected to the electricity grid before the end of 2021" So you have ONE reactor. In China. It took 9 years to get it into operation. How is this again supposed to fight climate change? You don't even know how well it works...not even mentioning the costs in countries with proper safety and construction laws. > The US government has been taxing power generated by nuclear power for decades and has collected billions of dollars to cover any costs in the future Interesting. I'm sure you have some facts to support this claim. I'm especially interested in the estimates for "future" and what they're based upon. Especially in the US where nuclear power has been known for different reasons regarding taxpayer money: https://news.yahoo.com/ex-ceo-oversaw-doomed-nuclear-052903490.html https://news.yahoo.com/ex-ceo-oversaw-doomed-nuclear-0529034... > The amount of waste is very manageable This is a gross generalisation which has not source in reality. There are different storages of waste. Some are good, some are bad. Some leak. Others don't...yet. Some waste just lies around in remote areas. Stop spreading misinformation. > the Netherlands actually stores their waste in an art museum No they don't...museums can store their art in some of the nuclear storage facilities...my god the crap some people believe...https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/WR-The_art_of_radioactive_waste_storage-1604094.html https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/WR-The_art_of_radioactive... > and in a relatively short amount of time we will likely be able to use most of this "waste" to generate electricity. No we won't. As I said above and you could have found out with very little research (actually just reading some of the wikipedia articles you've linked would help), it is only the fuel which can be reprocessed and only if it has been properly stored just for this cause and if you have the facility which almost nobody has. Most of the fuel we have and is being used atm is not suited for reprocessing and never will be. We usually don't even know the state of the stored stuff because we don't even have the facility to "look" into the containers. And as I said: fuel is only a very small amount of the waste a nuclear facility produces and which has to be stored for generations. I won't even go into your whataboutism for coal because there is no connection to this discussion. You know...the one where you desperately try to play down the cost for nuclear waste storage instead just admitting that those costs are nowhere to be found in the energy prices.

by opo 5y ago

Krasnol 5y ago

I like how you talk about ignoring costs but don't even scratch on that nuclear waste burden which generations will have to carry.

opo 5y ago
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 " 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 While there are issues with nuclear power, the worry some people have about nuclear waste is greatly overblown to say the least. The US government has been taxing power generated by nuclear power for decades and has collected billions of dollars to cover any costs in the future. The amount of waste is very manageable (the Netherlands actually stores their waste in an art museum!) and in a relatively short amount of time we will likely be able to use most of this "waste" to generate electricity. (To help put it in perspective, do some web searches about the problems with coal waste - it will be a much harder problem to solve than nuclear waste and no money has been collected to cover the costs. The problems with coal waste aren't discussed much since people focus on the air pollution from burning coal as it directly kills so many people.)
- Krasnol 5y ago
  > In terms of the waste, right now nuclear waste can be recycled Waste is not "recycled" it's reprocessed. Recycling is what you do with materials from renewable energy sources. Also, it's not "waste" but only the fuel which is a tiny amount of the waste you have to store for decades and reprocessing is not making it go away. Those small parts which are added to fresh fuel come back later, the rest remains and needs to be stored too. Also: the whole process is extremely expensive and those costs also do not appear on the energy price. You people sound sometimes as if you believe that the waste somehow magically disappears or something. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_fast_reactor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_fast_reactor "At present there are no Integral Fast Reactors in commercial operation." > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor "In January 2018, it was reported that "the first installation of the pressure vessel cover of the world's first Gen IV reactor" had been completed on the HTR-PM.[12]" "Work on the first demonstration HTR-PM power plant, composed of two reactors driving a single steam turbine, began in December 2012 [...] On 12 September 2021, one of the two reactor achieved criticality, becoming the first 4th generation nuclear reactor in the world to do so, and is scheduled to be connected to the electricity grid before the end of 2021" So you have ONE reactor. In China. It took 9 years to get it into operation. How is this again supposed to fight climate change? You don't even know how well it works...not even mentioning the costs in countries with proper safety and construction laws. > The US government has been taxing power generated by nuclear power for decades and has collected billions of dollars to cover any costs in the future Interesting. I'm sure you have some facts to support this claim. I'm especially interested in the estimates for "future" and what they're based upon. Especially in the US where nuclear power has been known for different reasons regarding taxpayer money: https://news.yahoo.com/ex-ceo-oversaw-doomed-nuclear-052903490.html https://news.yahoo.com/ex-ceo-oversaw-doomed-nuclear-0529034... > The amount of waste is very manageable This is a gross generalisation which has not source in reality. There are different storages of waste. Some are good, some are bad. Some leak. Others don't...yet. Some waste just lies around in remote areas. Stop spreading misinformation. > the Netherlands actually stores their waste in an art museum No they don't...museums can store their art in some of the nuclear storage facilities...my god the crap some people believe...https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/WR-The_art_of_radioactive_waste_storage-1604094.html https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/WR-The_art_of_radioactive... > and in a relatively short amount of time we will likely be able to use most of this "waste" to generate electricity. No we won't. As I said above and you could have found out with very little research (actually just reading some of the wikipedia articles you've linked would help), it is only the fuel which can be reprocessed and only if it has been properly stored just for this cause and if you have the facility which almost nobody has. Most of the fuel we have and is being used atm is not suited for reprocessing and never will be. We usually don't even know the state of the stored stuff because we don't even have the facility to "look" into the containers. And as I said: fuel is only a very small amount of the waste a nuclear facility produces and which has to be stored for generations. I won't even go into your whataboutism for coal because there is no connection to this discussion. You know...the one where you desperately try to play down the cost for nuclear waste storage instead just admitting that those costs are nowhere to be found in the energy prices.