4 ms·
There are quite a lot of valid concerns against nuclear power. As you wrote, the current generation was aging and would not have operated much longer anyway. Th
by _ph_ 5y ago
There are quite a lot of valid concerns against nuclear power. As you wrote, the current generation was aging and would not have operated much longer anyway. There are valid concerns about nuclear waste (we just don't have a solution, but if that was the only thing, I would also argue, lets solve that problem another day). There are valid concerns about operational safety and due to recent events, even huge concerns about what happens when a nuclear reactor gets hit by a rocket. Lets hope we don't find out in Ukraine.
But the argument which makes the discussion now mostly irrelevant is simply: all available and reasonable designs are vastly expensive and take at least a decade to build, if not two including planning. That makes the question just moot. Not even France, which is all-in on nuclear has an answer to that.
Renewables are comparatively cheap and can be set up quickly. Germany already depends to a large part on renewable electricity. That is the cheap and efficient way forward. On top of that, nuclear power plants don't work well together with renewables, as they can't switch their output level enough.
Gas is the ideal partner for renewables and eventually will also be produced from renewable energy. Just recent events messed up the plan a bit, but not too much. We have to push quicker for renewables and pay a bit more for gas.
- ars 5y ago> nuclear waste (we just don't have a solution Yes we do. I post this is almost every thread about nuclear power, and it seems I find new people each time. If you combine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor you have essentially zero nuclear waste, and you also need something like 98% less Uranium. This is a completely solved problem. > On top of that, nuclear power plants don't work well together with renewables, as they can't switch their output level enough. This isn't true either. It's like everyone's opinion of nuclear power is stuck in the past, and no one can ever update their info.
- _ph_ 5y agoPlease point me out to any operating breeding reactor and how much nuclear fuel it can process. The French shut down their breeding reactors long ago, the only existing ones I know of are Russian, right now they are an even worse reference. I don't doubt they could be built, but the question is, what would they cost? Please point me out to a nuclear reactor design that can be switched from 100% to 0% in the matter of hours and back again.
- Joeri 5y agoWell, talk about not updating your info. The vision of reprocessing + breeder reactors is straight out of 1960. Several countries spent many billions and many decades trying to make it work, and discovered that it was safer and cheaper to keep using conventional light water reactors. Nothing has really changed that makes this concept more feasible.
- Paradigma11 5y agoIf we can not put some m3 into a robust container and burry it some km underground safely we really should reconsider our capability of running an advanced civilization.
- _ph_ 5y agoThis is a much harder problem than it might seem. You would need to find an underground storage site, where you can rule out any geological effects for a hundred millennia. In those time frames, even rigid rock moves quite a bit. There is no container solid enough, it can't be crushed. You would need to prevent any water coming to that place and carry the contamination away. Germany stored some nuclear waste in a salt mine, that turned into a huge debacle after only 30 years requiring now an immensely expensive recovery operation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asse_II_mine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asse_II_mine Oops.
- Paradigma11 5y agoThey did put it in a salt mine that was prone to water intrusions and not stable because it was mined/hollowed out. Maybe just dont do that without giving up the whole concept. Over those time frames that you mentioned the waste mostly the toxic properties are important. Btw how are we handling all that toxic chemical waste that is going to be toxic and dangerous not only for hundreds but thousands of millenia. Maybe we could just put it there.
- _ph_ 5y agoIt is difficult for me to judge what exactly were wrong and why they thought it was a good idea to put that stuff there. But I do think they honestly thought it was a good idea and that scares me. That it is so easy to make severe mistakes which in hindsight might look silly. We don't have any long time experience with this and won't have it, as we basically have to deal now with the waste.
- culopatin 5y agoCould we shoot it into space little my little?
- cptskippy 5y agoExactly this. All justifications for nuclear are always qualified with "if done properly|safely|correctly..." and no nuclear reactor incident was predicated with any sort of warning about safety or impropriety. The reality is that our world is inherently too unstable for the half century commitment necessary for each reactor. External influences always drive risky decisions which ultimately result in less than completely safe outcomes for both the operation of the reactor and the containment of the waste.