3 ms·

Why Nuclear Power Is Bad for Your Wallet and the Climate

4 points by locallost 5y ago

raxxorrax 5y ago
Finally some real science on this topic. Not against nuclear energy, but as a solution to climate change it did get some very unscientific arguments.
- cinntaile 5y ago
  It might not be the cheapest solution, but that it wouldn't be a solution to climate changes doesn't sound right. It doesn't use much resources, the plants last 40-80 years and there is hardly any CO2eq/kWh. You also need some form of storage or geographical interconnection for when renewables underperform. Which the sun does during the night and the wind does during certain, unpredictable intervals. You can build more than you need to increase the baseline, but this has an economic cost of course. It would also lower profitability when it does deliver.
GrumpyNl 5y ago
I dont see and calculations, only statements like its 3-8 times more expensive. Right now we already have a problem with the disposal of windmill wings, location problems. Nuclear plants have a much smaller footprint and they last longer.
- tuatoru 5y ago
  There's also no explanation of why it's more expensive. My understanding is that nuclear power plants are held to a ridiculously high, ever-changing standard for radiation emissions, which standard is due to the discredited linear-no-threshold theory of harm from radiation exposure. The "standard" is expressed as "as low as reasonably achievable". Who decides what is reasonable? How is that measured? Fixed objective numerical standards would be much better. (If LNT held, frequent fliers would fill the cancer wards of all our hospitals.) Note: I don't particularly like nuclear (PV and iron-air batteres FTW!), but my sense of fair play is offended by the way it's treated.
trinovantes 5y ago
All this talk about renewables replacing nuclear but nothing about the non-existent large scale storage needed for the equivalent the base load nuclear provides. e.g. If wind/solar is unavailable for 8h each day, don't we need a 24 GW battery to provide the base load of a 4 GWh nuclear plant? I don't think anyone is saying nuclear is a good energy source. It's just the most viable option given the our needs - and it actually exists
- raxxorrax 5y ago
  > [...] don't we need a 24 GW battery [...] I think you mean a fully charged 32 GWh battery to replace a 4GW power plant for 8 hours.
  - trinovantes 5y ago
    You're right. Trying to do math late at night is not a good idea

4 points by locallost 5y ago

Finally some real science on this topic. Not against nuclear energy, but as a solution to climate change it did get some very unscientific arguments.

cinntaile 5y ago
It might not be the cheapest solution, but that it wouldn't be a solution to climate changes doesn't sound right. It doesn't use much resources, the plants last 40-80 years and there is hardly any CO2eq/kWh. You also need some form of storage or geographical interconnection for when renewables underperform. Which the sun does during the night and the wind does during certain, unpredictable intervals. You can build more than you need to increase the baseline, but this has an economic cost of course. It would also lower profitability when it does deliver.

GrumpyNl 5y ago

I dont see and calculations, only statements like its 3-8 times more expensive. Right now we already have a problem with the disposal of windmill wings, location problems. Nuclear plants have a much smaller footprint and they last longer.

tuatoru 5y ago
There's also no explanation of why it's more expensive. My understanding is that nuclear power plants are held to a ridiculously high, ever-changing standard for radiation emissions, which standard is due to the discredited linear-no-threshold theory of harm from radiation exposure. The "standard" is expressed as "as low as reasonably achievable". Who decides what is reasonable? How is that measured? Fixed objective numerical standards would be much better. (If LNT held, frequent fliers would fill the cancer wards of all our hospitals.) Note: I don't particularly like nuclear (PV and iron-air batteres FTW!), but my sense of fair play is offended by the way it's treated.

trinovantes 5y ago

All this talk about renewables replacing nuclear but nothing about the non-existent large scale storage needed for the equivalent the base load nuclear provides. e.g. If wind/solar is unavailable for 8h each day, don't we need a 24 GW battery to provide the base load of a 4 GWh nuclear plant? I don't think anyone is saying nuclear is a good energy source. It's just the most viable option given the our needs - and it actually exists

raxxorrax 5y ago
> [...] don't we need a 24 GW battery [...] I think you mean a fully charged 32 GWh battery to replace a 4GW power plant for 8 hours.
- trinovantes 5y ago
  You're right. Trying to do math late at night is not a good idea