3 ms·

"Most people will automatically scoff at the claim that a nuclear power plant should cost less to build than a coal plant. It is received wisdom that nuclear pl

by worik 5y ago

"Most people will automatically scoff at the claim that a nuclear power plant should cost less to build than a coal plant. It is received wisdom that nuclear plants are outrageously expensive. And most recent nuclear projects confirm that belief. But why" Because of the potential of catastrophic failure. Duh! That and these people are not counting the discounted cost, over 200,000 years, of storing their long term waste and maintaining the site. Nuclear power looks cheap if you completely discount the future - and you are unethical enough to make future generations pay for current consumption. (Ditto coal)

NumberWangMan 5y ago
I think that the cost of maintaining a site over 200,000 years is a fair point. That said...is it better or worse than coal? Because practically speaking, that's what the choice is here, as far as I can tell. I'd love to say we can quickly convert the whole world to pure renewables, but it's very likely that we can cut our GHG emissions fastest using a mix of multiple approaches rather than ruling out the good in favor of the best. And note that when you consider costs of something that you have to make a payment on in perpetuity, we don't calculate that as an infinite cost[1]. To say that we'll have to safeguard this nuclear waste in, say year 100,000 of its lifetime, is a lot less of an ask, simply because we have no idea how advanced human technology will be then, maybe making the problem trivial, or whether humans will be completely gone, etc. I agree it's important to think about future generations and to have a very long term view, but the problem of nuclear waste seems much less urgent than the rapidly mounting costs of climate change. Even if we end up using nuclear for, say, 100 years while we transition to completely sustainable, renewable energy, that would be a win over continuing to use fossil fuels. And I don't think it would even add that much to the existing burden of dealing with nuclear waste. Maybe in 200 years we find a spot and put all the waste there with big warning signs etched in stone, and then the main cost is only one of ensuring that we main translations and records of the danger of the site as language evolves. Dealing with solid waste, however careful you need to be with it, seems much easier than trying to collect gases that have mixed into the atmosphere. [1] https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/knowledge/finance/perpetuity/ https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/knowledge/fi...
panick21_ 5y ago
> That and these people are not counting the discounted cost, over 200,000 years This is not factually correct. In fact you can burn up the highly radioactive waste to only 200-300 years. But that fact often gets ignore by people trying to prevent all technology development so they can continue to be anti-nuclear. And even if we stick with that crazy 200k number, there would be many solution. Deep drilling is one that will surely be available in the next 100-200 years as it has applications other then nuclear disposal. If you have a rocket like Starship and launch it from a oil platform you can launch all the waste into deep space if you really want. Even if you don't do want to do that, advanced laser technology also has potential reduce that in the future. Its a problem that is not actually pressing, we can easily store waste without negative consequences for the next couple 100 years. It will hurt absolutely nobody in that time and will use basically no land and almost no resources. In 100-200 years we will have many more options what do with it then we have now. Or they will just continue to stand around doing nothing. Lets go to the worst possible scenario, total government collapse and anarchy. Ok, in such a situation people will have 1000x more 1000x bigger problems then a few tons of nuclear 'waste' standing around. Not to mention that this fuel contains amazing materials that have other applications. Lets call it 'waste' because we are dumb enough not to realize its a resource. Medical isotopes, nuclear batteries and many other amazing materials are in that 'waste'. > Because of the potential of catastrophic failure. Duh! Coal and gas infrastructure have lead to far more death in far more catastrophic failures. And even the worst possible failure you can come up with in the ThorCon design is hard to imagine how it could kill more then a few people. If you disagree please explain what kind of scenario you imagine where 10000s of people could die. > Nuclear power looks cheap if you completely discount the future And by 'future' here you mean your overly vivid imagination?
imtringued 5y ago
The concentration of nuclear fuels isn't that high in the ground. If one were to dilute nuclear waste down to natural levels the fact that it lasts thousands of years shouldn't be a problem. However, what I usually see are proposals to put all the waste in the same spot, with a concentration as high as possible. This is justified by the fact that the storage site is a special location with unique geographical features. I agree though that people aren't accounting for the full cost. Japan ran a nuclear reactor that was older than the one in Chernobyl. Now their clean up costs exceed the costs of shutting all nuclear power plants down and replacing them with new designs assuming each reactor will cost $30 billion and there are no learning effects that reduce the cost of additional units. If you were generous with the learning rate, Japan could have donated a dozen nuclear power plants to other countries on top of rebuilding its entire nuclear power plant fleet.

by worik 5y ago

NumberWangMan 5y ago

I think that the cost of maintaining a site over 200,000 years is a fair point. That said...is it better or worse than coal? Because practically speaking, that's what the choice is here, as far as I can tell. I'd love to say we can quickly convert the whole world to pure renewables, but it's very likely that we can cut our GHG emissions fastest using a mix of multiple approaches rather than ruling out the good in favor of the best. And note that when you consider costs of something that you have to make a payment on in perpetuity, we don't calculate that as an infinite cost[1]. To say that we'll have to safeguard this nuclear waste in, say year 100,000 of its lifetime, is a lot less of an ask, simply because we have no idea how advanced human technology will be then, maybe making the problem trivial, or whether humans will be completely gone, etc. I agree it's important to think about future generations and to have a very long term view, but the problem of nuclear waste seems much less urgent than the rapidly mounting costs of climate change. Even if we end up using nuclear for, say, 100 years while we transition to completely sustainable, renewable energy, that would be a win over continuing to use fossil fuels. And I don't think it would even add that much to the existing burden of dealing with nuclear waste. Maybe in 200 years we find a spot and put all the waste there with big warning signs etched in stone, and then the main cost is only one of ensuring that we main translations and records of the danger of the site as language evolves. Dealing with solid waste, however careful you need to be with it, seems much easier than trying to collect gases that have mixed into the atmosphere. [1] https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/knowledge/finance/perpetuity/ https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/knowledge/fi...

panick21_ 5y ago

> That and these people are not counting the discounted cost, over 200,000 years This is not factually correct. In fact you can burn up the highly radioactive waste to only 200-300 years. But that fact often gets ignore by people trying to prevent all technology development so they can continue to be anti-nuclear. And even if we stick with that crazy 200k number, there would be many solution. Deep drilling is one that will surely be available in the next 100-200 years as it has applications other then nuclear disposal. If you have a rocket like Starship and launch it from a oil platform you can launch all the waste into deep space if you really want. Even if you don't do want to do that, advanced laser technology also has potential reduce that in the future. Its a problem that is not actually pressing, we can easily store waste without negative consequences for the next couple 100 years. It will hurt absolutely nobody in that time and will use basically no land and almost no resources. In 100-200 years we will have many more options what do with it then we have now. Or they will just continue to stand around doing nothing. Lets go to the worst possible scenario, total government collapse and anarchy. Ok, in such a situation people will have 1000x more 1000x bigger problems then a few tons of nuclear 'waste' standing around. Not to mention that this fuel contains amazing materials that have other applications. Lets call it 'waste' because we are dumb enough not to realize its a resource. Medical isotopes, nuclear batteries and many other amazing materials are in that 'waste'. > Because of the potential of catastrophic failure. Duh! Coal and gas infrastructure have lead to far more death in far more catastrophic failures. And even the worst possible failure you can come up with in the ThorCon design is hard to imagine how it could kill more then a few people. If you disagree please explain what kind of scenario you imagine where 10000s of people could die. > Nuclear power looks cheap if you completely discount the future And by 'future' here you mean your overly vivid imagination?

imtringued 5y ago

The concentration of nuclear fuels isn't that high in the ground. If one were to dilute nuclear waste down to natural levels the fact that it lasts thousands of years shouldn't be a problem. However, what I usually see are proposals to put all the waste in the same spot, with a concentration as high as possible. This is justified by the fact that the storage site is a special location with unique geographical features. I agree though that people aren't accounting for the full cost. Japan ran a nuclear reactor that was older than the one in Chernobyl. Now their clean up costs exceed the costs of shutting all nuclear power plants down and replacing them with new designs assuming each reactor will cost $30 billion and there are no learning effects that reduce the cost of additional units. If you were generous with the learning rate, Japan could have donated a dozen nuclear power plants to other countries on top of rebuilding its entire nuclear power plant fleet.