5 ms·

a nuclear society is neither green nor sustainable.

adrianN 5y ago
It is pretty green compared to the alternatives. And if we wanted to we could build breeder reactors that stretch our nuclear fuel reserves to a few hundred years at least. It is an open question whether 100% nuclear is cheaper or more expensive than 100% renewables though.
- kergonath 5y ago
  100% nuclear is not economical or practical. Nuclear is poorly suited to regular spikes and short-term load balancing. It shines when you need reliable, cheap electricity 24 hours a day, all year round (or at least for several days). 100% solar and wind also isn’t economical or practical. Their output is more cyclical and less reliable, and they tend to fail together. The best way to run a power grid is actually to balance nuclear, wind/solar, and hydro (which has its own set of advantages and drawbacks). So, the “100% this or 100% that” question is a red herring. We must use all the tools available (because the situation is actually quite dire), where they make sense.
  - smotah 5y ago
    > 100% nuclear is not economical or practical. Nuclear is poorly suited to regular spikes and short-term load balancing. While using only nuclear power plants for all the domestic electricity generation of a country doesn't make much sense, some reactor design, notably French ones (in particular composition of the control rods and their placement in the core, among other things) allows for very flexible control over power output. [0] EDF makes the surprising claim that their plants are as flexible as gas plants, which are generally considered as the go-to method of load following. Also curious to why 100% nuclear wouldn't be economical, wouldn't this hypothetical situation benefits from the economy of scale and grid management simplification? [0] https://hal-edf.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01977209/document https://hal-edf.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01977209/document (PDF)
karteum 5y ago
But wind turbines and photovoltaic panels are also neither green nor sustainable (especially when you take into account all the mining and the CO2 involved in their manufacturing and transportation, and especially when you take into account the backup system e.g. gaz or batteries to compensate for their intermittent nature).
panick21_ 5y ago
Complete nonsense. The amount of uranium and thorium on this planet is almost unimaginable. In fact Thorium gets carried to the surface in volcanic activity. So a nuclear society would not have to worry about sustainability for literally 1000s of years. And that is before we even consider fusion. As for it not being green. Nuclear reactors have very controlled inputs and outputs. Nothing is lost and civilian nuclear waste has never hurt anybody and certainty not nature. By first principle, a nuclear society uses the least amount of resources in terms of mining and land to power human society for 1000s of years.
- mro_name 5y ago
  > Complete nonsense. please behave. > The amount of uranium and thorium on this planet is almost unimaginable. So is gold. Both don't fall from the sky however. > fusion Not currently option, but wee need one now. > Nuclear reactors have very controlled inputs and outputs. Waste with loooong times to take good care of. Calculate the provision for 10000 years of toilet paper for a single security guard. > By first principle, a nuclear society uses the least amount of resources in terms of mining and land to power human society for 1000s of years. So the hunter-gatherers were definitively nuclear.
  - panick21_ 5y ago
    > So is gold. Both don't fall from the sky however. Thorium is literally a waste product resulting from rare earth mining. With basically no effort we could have 100s of years of reserves. Thorium is also available in waste quantities in basically every country in the world. So its not at all like Gold. > Not currently option, but wee need one now. No we don't. Fusion actually make very economics sense outside of a few very specific issues. We certainty don't need it in the next 50 years. And practically speaking for power generation on earth fission will likely remain the cheaper option. > Waste with loooong times to take good care of. Calculate the provision for 10000 years of toilet paper for a single security guard. In any real nuclear society you would only produce waste that only needs a few 100 years of storage. And anyway toilet paper and pope are simply resources that are recyclable. So not sure why that would even be an issue. Also, you literally don't need a guard at all. > So the hunter-gatherers were definitively nuclear. Hunter-gathers required waste amount of land to produce their daily energy inputs.

It is pretty green compared to the alternatives. And if we wanted to we could build breeder reactors that stretch our nuclear fuel reserves to a few hundred years at least. It is an open question whether 100% nuclear is cheaper or more expensive than 100% renewables though.

kergonath 5y ago
100% nuclear is not economical or practical. Nuclear is poorly suited to regular spikes and short-term load balancing. It shines when you need reliable, cheap electricity 24 hours a day, all year round (or at least for several days). 100% solar and wind also isn’t economical or practical. Their output is more cyclical and less reliable, and they tend to fail together. The best way to run a power grid is actually to balance nuclear, wind/solar, and hydro (which has its own set of advantages and drawbacks). So, the “100% this or 100% that” question is a red herring. We must use all the tools available (because the situation is actually quite dire), where they make sense.
- smotah 5y ago
  > 100% nuclear is not economical or practical. Nuclear is poorly suited to regular spikes and short-term load balancing. While using only nuclear power plants for all the domestic electricity generation of a country doesn't make much sense, some reactor design, notably French ones (in particular composition of the control rods and their placement in the core, among other things) allows for very flexible control over power output. [0] EDF makes the surprising claim that their plants are as flexible as gas plants, which are generally considered as the go-to method of load following. Also curious to why 100% nuclear wouldn't be economical, wouldn't this hypothetical situation benefits from the economy of scale and grid management simplification? [0] https://hal-edf.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01977209/document https://hal-edf.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01977209/document (PDF)

karteum 5y ago

But wind turbines and photovoltaic panels are also neither green nor sustainable (especially when you take into account all the mining and the CO2 involved in their manufacturing and transportation, and especially when you take into account the backup system e.g. gaz or batteries to compensate for their intermittent nature).

panick21_ 5y ago

Complete nonsense. The amount of uranium and thorium on this planet is almost unimaginable. In fact Thorium gets carried to the surface in volcanic activity. So a nuclear society would not have to worry about sustainability for literally 1000s of years. And that is before we even consider fusion. As for it not being green. Nuclear reactors have very controlled inputs and outputs. Nothing is lost and civilian nuclear waste has never hurt anybody and certainty not nature. By first principle, a nuclear society uses the least amount of resources in terms of mining and land to power human society for 1000s of years.

mro_name 5y ago
> Complete nonsense. please behave. > The amount of uranium and thorium on this planet is almost unimaginable. So is gold. Both don't fall from the sky however. > fusion Not currently option, but wee need one now. > Nuclear reactors have very controlled inputs and outputs. Waste with loooong times to take good care of. Calculate the provision for 10000 years of toilet paper for a single security guard. > By first principle, a nuclear society uses the least amount of resources in terms of mining and land to power human society for 1000s of years. So the hunter-gatherers were definitively nuclear.
- panick21_ 5y ago
  > So is gold. Both don't fall from the sky however. Thorium is literally a waste product resulting from rare earth mining. With basically no effort we could have 100s of years of reserves. Thorium is also available in waste quantities in basically every country in the world. So its not at all like Gold. > Not currently option, but wee need one now. No we don't. Fusion actually make very economics sense outside of a few very specific issues. We certainty don't need it in the next 50 years. And practically speaking for power generation on earth fission will likely remain the cheaper option. > Waste with loooong times to take good care of. Calculate the provision for 10000 years of toilet paper for a single security guard. In any real nuclear society you would only produce waste that only needs a few 100 years of storage. And anyway toilet paper and pope are simply resources that are recyclable. So not sure why that would even be an issue. Also, you literally don't need a guard at all. > So the hunter-gatherers were definitively nuclear. Hunter-gathers required waste amount of land to produce their daily energy inputs.