5 ms·

the newer tech (e.g. Gen4 reactors) also have the benefit of reusing the existing radioactive waste rods https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor#Ad

the newer tech (e.g. Gen4 reactors) also have the benefit of reusing the existing radioactive waste rods https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor#Advantages_and_disadvantages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor#Advantag... so you wouldn't have to mine that much new uranium (or be that dependent on that)

mschuster91 5y ago
The problem is that Gen4 reactors are essentially vaporware, with the expected first reactors to come online in 2040-2050 - and given the desaster that has been the (third gen) EPR regarding timing and budget, I believe it's foolish to rely on that date. Especially since a lot of focus is on molten-salt reactors and to this date no one has come close to solving the problem that molten salt is highly aggressive towards pipes. We need solutions now, and we already have them in mass production: solar panels, wind power generation and battery storage.
- turbinerneiter 5y ago
  > We need solutions now, and we already have them in mass production: solar panels, wind power generation and battery storage. This is the one thing I like about Tesla and SpaceX: they solve problems with today's tech. When I imagined reusable spacecraft, I was dreaming about anti-gravity drives, which just furthered my believe of it being impossible. SpaceX did it on a kerosene rocket, same physics that the Saturn V used decades ago. We don't need to wait for some Sci-Fi physics to solve this issue. We can go really far with we already have today.
- skywal_l 5y ago
  > we already have them in mass production: solar panels, wind power generation and battery storage. I always hear that abstract argument but do we have the math right on this? What would it take to provide enough power in the US with only those solutions (+ hydro and other non nuclear non fossil fuel solutions)? Do we have an idea of the amount of material and pollution that would be generated by building (and then recycling) all those panels and batteries? I would like to live in a world where we don't need nuclear but I am not convinced we can realistically do without (assuming the same standard of living).
  - mschuster91 5y ago
    > What would it take to provide enough power in the US with only those solutions (+ hydro and other non nuclear non fossil fuel solutions)? A little more than the area of West Virginia [1] if you're only going for solar power using conventional panels. [1] https://www.axionpower.com/knowledge/power-world-with-solar/ https://www.axionpower.com/knowledge/power-world-with-solar/
    - tenuousemphasis 5y ago
      You're missing energy storage there, and also the logistics of producing that many solar panels.
      - mschuster91 5y ago
        We have better chances of producing that many solar panels than we have getting Gen4 reactors before 2050. As for energy storage - there's a lot of possibilities: 1) electric cars acting as buffers. Particularly rarely-used vehicles could earn some side money for being used in a smart grid. 2) battery storage like Tesla constructed in Australia 3) hydro pumped storage In particular, base load could also be generated by permanent renewable energy (e.g. geothermal or running-water hydro power aka dams) to ease the requirement for energy storage.
        ch4s3 5y ago
        > 1) electric cars acting as buffers. Particularly rarely-used vehicles could earn some side money for being used in a smart grid. Bidirectional V2G systems only exist as demonstration projects now, and we'll need a bunch of time to ramp that up. It requires a lot of EVs, lots of grid updates all over the place, and for people to willingly participate at a meaningful scale. This won't be cheap and the grid we have now can't handle it.
        tenuousemphasis 5y ago
        >3) hydro pumped storage Not likely to be a widely useful storage mechanism except in very specific geography. https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/11/pump-up-the-storage/ https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/11/pump-up-the-storage/
- panick21_ 5y ago
  This isnt really true. And even if it were, the main reason is limited financing. Look at Canada, their program is advancing reactors. They are targeting before 2030. if governemnt actually cared and invested the way they did in renwables these reactors would exist already. The tech was proven in the 60/70, its just investment that is needed. But reactor companies have a really hard time with that.

mschuster91 5y ago

The problem is that Gen4 reactors are essentially vaporware, with the expected first reactors to come online in 2040-2050 - and given the desaster that has been the (third gen) EPR regarding timing and budget, I believe it's foolish to rely on that date. Especially since a lot of focus is on molten-salt reactors and to this date no one has come close to solving the problem that molten salt is highly aggressive towards pipes. We need solutions now, and we already have them in mass production: solar panels, wind power generation and battery storage.

turbinerneiter 5y ago
> We need solutions now, and we already have them in mass production: solar panels, wind power generation and battery storage. This is the one thing I like about Tesla and SpaceX: they solve problems with today's tech. When I imagined reusable spacecraft, I was dreaming about anti-gravity drives, which just furthered my believe of it being impossible. SpaceX did it on a kerosene rocket, same physics that the Saturn V used decades ago. We don't need to wait for some Sci-Fi physics to solve this issue. We can go really far with we already have today.
skywal_l 5y ago
> we already have them in mass production: solar panels, wind power generation and battery storage. I always hear that abstract argument but do we have the math right on this? What would it take to provide enough power in the US with only those solutions (+ hydro and other non nuclear non fossil fuel solutions)? Do we have an idea of the amount of material and pollution that would be generated by building (and then recycling) all those panels and batteries? I would like to live in a world where we don't need nuclear but I am not convinced we can realistically do without (assuming the same standard of living).
- mschuster91 5y ago
  > What would it take to provide enough power in the US with only those solutions (+ hydro and other non nuclear non fossil fuel solutions)? A little more than the area of West Virginia [1] if you're only going for solar power using conventional panels. [1] https://www.axionpower.com/knowledge/power-world-with-solar/ https://www.axionpower.com/knowledge/power-world-with-solar/
  - tenuousemphasis 5y ago
    You're missing energy storage there, and also the logistics of producing that many solar panels.
    - mschuster91 5y ago
      We have better chances of producing that many solar panels than we have getting Gen4 reactors before 2050. As for energy storage - there's a lot of possibilities: 1) electric cars acting as buffers. Particularly rarely-used vehicles could earn some side money for being used in a smart grid. 2) battery storage like Tesla constructed in Australia 3) hydro pumped storage In particular, base load could also be generated by permanent renewable energy (e.g. geothermal or running-water hydro power aka dams) to ease the requirement for energy storage.
      - ch4s3 5y ago
        > 1) electric cars acting as buffers. Particularly rarely-used vehicles could earn some side money for being used in a smart grid. Bidirectional V2G systems only exist as demonstration projects now, and we'll need a bunch of time to ramp that up. It requires a lot of EVs, lots of grid updates all over the place, and for people to willingly participate at a meaningful scale. This won't be cheap and the grid we have now can't handle it.
      - tenuousemphasis 5y ago
        >3) hydro pumped storage Not likely to be a widely useful storage mechanism except in very specific geography. https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/11/pump-up-the-storage/ https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/11/pump-up-the-storage/
panick21_ 5y ago
This isnt really true. And even if it were, the main reason is limited financing. Look at Canada, their program is advancing reactors. They are targeting before 2030. if governemnt actually cared and invested the way they did in renwables these reactors would exist already. The tech was proven in the 60/70, its just investment that is needed. But reactor companies have a really hard time with that.