5 ms·
Meanwhile, "The energy in nuclear waste could power the U.S. for 100 years, but the technology was never commercialized": > There is enough energy in the nucle
by throw0101a 4y ago
Meanwhile, "The energy in nuclear waste could power the U.S. for 100 years, but the technology was never commercialized":
> There is enough energy in the nuclear waste in the United States to power the entire country for 100 years, and doing so could help solve the thorny and politically fraught problem of managing spent nuclear waste.
> That’s according to Jess C. Gehin, an associate laboratory director at Idaho National Laboratory, one of the government’s premier energy research labs.
* https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/02/nuclear-waste-us-could-power-the-us-for-100-years.html https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/02/nuclear-waste-us-could-power...
- _ph_ 4y agoYes. Fast breeders are not new. But they are even more difficult than plain nuclear reactors. France built some, but gave up on the technology.
- pmyteh 4y agoYeah. The UK tried too, with a prototype reactor at Dounreay. We had all kinds of operational problems and gave up when it became apparent that the falling level of new nuclear installations meant that we weren't going to be short of uranium as a primary fuel. The economics, without a fuel shortage, were awful.
- Manuel_D 4y agoYou could also reprocess the fuel, and use normal reactors.
- ncmncm 4y agoAt even greater expense. But even at best they are not competitive.
- Manuel_D 4y agoNot competitive with mining fuel, yes. But if people are worries about waste, it represents more than an order of magnitude reduction in produced waste.
- ncmncm 4y agoWe have an overwhelmingly better way to reduce the amount of waste produced: not make it. Cheaper, too.
- Manuel_D 4y agoNuclear remains the only carbon-free dispatchable source of energy, besides geographically limited options like hydroelectricity and geothermal power. Any realistic plan to decarbonize energy grids has large proportions of nuclear power. The ones that don't assume some some form of extremely efficient form of storage will come along and make storage costs negligible.
- ncmncm 4y agoThe real plans recognize numerous cheap forms of storage are already well known, and will be built out after there is something to charge them from other than burning carbon. Efficiency has become much less important than capital cost because solar and wind have become so cheap.
- Manuel_D 4y agoCuriously, despite being "already well known" and "numerous" you neglect to actually mention any such storage system. Because then you'd actually have to defend the claims of such miraculously cheap storage. We've been down this road plenty of times before: we have no known way of storing energy at the required scales, your plan essentially amounts to "hope compressed air, hydrogen, or some other exotic form of storage becomes nearly-free".
- LatteLazy 4y ago>But it was never economical enough to develop at scale. Come on, please read things before citing them...