4 ms·

1. What will the net online time be? (Lots of these plants go in maintenance for long stretches of time) The term you're referring to is capacity factor. Nucle

1. What will the net online time be? (Lots of these plants go in maintenance for long stretches of time) The term you're referring to is capacity factor. Nuclear power typically has the highest capacity factor of any energy source. [1] [2] For reference, nuclear is 92%, while wind is 35% and photovoltaic solar at 25%. > 2. Spent fuel? It can be reprocessed, reclaiming over 90% of fuel. Even without reprocessing, nuclear fuel's energy density is such that a tiny amount of waste is produced per unit of energy. For comparison, the sum total of all of the USA's nuclear electricity production occupies a volume the footprint of a football field, and 10 yards high. [3] > 3. Proliferation risk? Nuclear fuel is refined to about ~20% fissile material. Nuclear weapons typically need over 80% or 90%. Countries would need to build their own enrichment facilities to bring nuclear fuel to weapons grade uranium, and then further refine that to plutonium. If they had such facilities they'd be able to refine natural uranium to weapons grade anyway. > 4. Accident mitigation? First of all, even if you include Chernobyl nuclear power (which didn't even have secondary storage) has the lowest fatalities per unit of energy produced [4]. People often neglect the fact that fossil fuels kill millions each year due to air pollution. Renewables like hydroelectricity have had accidents far more devastating that nuclear power [5]. Nuclear plants are expensive because a lot of effort is made to make them safe, and to contain a potential failure. People often forget that the USA had a reactor meltdown analogous to Chernobyl during the Three Mile Island incident. Except nobody died and there was no widespread contamination because the reactor had a big concrete condom over it, unlike Chernobyl. 1. https://www.statista.com/statistics/183680/us-average-capacity-factors-by-selected-energy-source-since-1998/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/183680/us-average-capaci... 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacity_factor#Worldwide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacity_factor#Worldwide 3. https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-nuclear-fuel https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-... 4. https://www.statista.com/statistics/494425/death-rate-worldwide-by-energy-source/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/494425/death-rate-worldw... 5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure

wolverine876 5y ago
> Nuclear fuel is refined to about ~20% fissile material. Nuclear weapons typically need over 80% or 90%. Countries would need to build their own enrichment facilities to bring nuclear fuel to weapons grade uranium, and then further refine that to plutonium. If they had such facilities they'd be able to refine natural uranium to weapons grade anyway. I've wondered about that. On one hand, the reasoning above makes sense. On the other, people who know far more than I do say there is proliferation risk. I suspect there is something I don't understand.
- Manuel_D 5y ago
  The proliferation risk is that countries build enrichment facilities claiming it's for nuclear electricity production, but instead used for weapons production. This can be addressed by prohibiting the construction of enrichment facilities and having countries that already possess nuclear weapons enrich fuel for other countries pro-bono.
  - godelski 5y ago
    I think it is also worth mentioning that enrichment plants don't scale linearly. So it starts to become fairly obvious when a country is producing more enriched material than what is necessary for their energy production.
    - wolverine876 5y ago
      That doesn't seem to have occurred to the nuclear nonproliferation community.
      - godelski 5y ago
        I'm not sure who you're talking about. If we're talking about nuclear scientists who are pro nonproliferation, well they're the ones who invented it. If we're talking about green peace, well, they are neither green nor peaceful.
natmaka 5y ago
Not so sure about Banquiao, at it "took place during the Chinese Cultural Revolution when most people were busy with the "revolution" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure The "Cultural Revolution" began in 1966. In such a context an otherwise avoidable catastrophe may happen. This Revolution followed the "Great Leap Forward" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward ), with famines. "In the subsequent famines of the early 1960s popularly attributed to the Great Leap Forward, Henan was one of the hardest hit and millions of lives were lost." Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henan#Modern_Era https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henan#Modern_Era . Moreover all this came after a civil war and violent Japanese invasion, during which dams were bombed, causing "massive flooding in Henan" (same source). In such a context and chain of events a nuclear reactor and its nearby spent fuel may cause some headaches. Banqiao: predicting and adverting this catastrophe was possible, but given such a context nobody was able to do so.

wolverine876 5y ago

> Nuclear fuel is refined to about ~20% fissile material. Nuclear weapons typically need over 80% or 90%. Countries would need to build their own enrichment facilities to bring nuclear fuel to weapons grade uranium, and then further refine that to plutonium. If they had such facilities they'd be able to refine natural uranium to weapons grade anyway. I've wondered about that. On one hand, the reasoning above makes sense. On the other, people who know far more than I do say there is proliferation risk. I suspect there is something I don't understand.

Manuel_D 5y ago
The proliferation risk is that countries build enrichment facilities claiming it's for nuclear electricity production, but instead used for weapons production. This can be addressed by prohibiting the construction of enrichment facilities and having countries that already possess nuclear weapons enrich fuel for other countries pro-bono.
- godelski 5y ago
  I think it is also worth mentioning that enrichment plants don't scale linearly. So it starts to become fairly obvious when a country is producing more enriched material than what is necessary for their energy production.
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    That doesn't seem to have occurred to the nuclear nonproliferation community.
    - godelski 5y ago
      I'm not sure who you're talking about. If we're talking about nuclear scientists who are pro nonproliferation, well they're the ones who invented it. If we're talking about green peace, well, they are neither green nor peaceful.

natmaka 5y ago

Not so sure about Banquiao, at it "took place during the Chinese Cultural Revolution when most people were busy with the "revolution" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure The "Cultural Revolution" began in 1966. In such a context an otherwise avoidable catastrophe may happen. This Revolution followed the "Great Leap Forward" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward ), with famines. "In the subsequent famines of the early 1960s popularly attributed to the Great Leap Forward, Henan was one of the hardest hit and millions of lives were lost." Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henan#Modern_Era https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henan#Modern_Era . Moreover all this came after a civil war and violent Japanese invasion, during which dams were bombed, causing "massive flooding in Henan" (same source). In such a context and chain of events a nuclear reactor and its nearby spent fuel may cause some headaches. Banqiao: predicting and adverting this catastrophe was possible, but given such a context nobody was able to do so.