4 ms·

There was a discussion about this a few days ago, and this comment thread [0] featured some criticism from experts on these claims. [0] https://news.ycombinato

There was a discussion about this a few days ago, and this comment thread [0] featured some criticism from experts on these claims. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31642424 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31642424

logifail 4y ago
and yet one of the comments from that thread stated: > The correct answer is that there is no way to make fission cost-competitive with the near-term price of renewables + storage, or even with imported synthetic fuel produced with renewables, waste or no waste. Thus, the whole issue is moot. No such SMRs will be built except where coerced funding carefully excludes true cost from the process (as indeed happened on behalf of every single utility reactor in operation
- ClumsyPilot 4y ago
  There are countries where no combination of renewables + storage is possible. Places with little sunlight and little wind. What do they do?
  - logifail 4y ago
    Q: Do those countries already have long term nuclear waste storage facilities? There are countries that have been spectacularly failing to provide their own such facilities for decades.
    - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
      Suppose they don't - so what is you proposed solution - they live in the dark ages?
      - ncmncm 4y ago
        That is not the alternative.
    - Dylan16807 4y ago
      How about they just prepay another country for ten thousand years of storage multiplied by 100 square meters? I don't see why it has to be local.
      - logifail 4y ago
        > I don't see why it has to be local If we propose to allow countries to outsource their nuclear waste disposal, wouldn't it be simpler, cheaper and safer to just skip nuclear entirely and outsource the power generation? All those countries with apparently not enough access to sunlight or wind will save an awful lot of time and money messing about with nuclear and just buy in their renewable power. If it works, could the Xlinks Morocco-UK power project could be a template for this kind of solution?[0]: "A 10.5 gigawatt (GW) solar and wind farm will be built in Morocco’s Guelmim-Oued Noun region, and it will supply the UK with clean energy via subsea cables. The twin 1.8 GW high voltage direct current (HVDC) subsea cables will be the world’s longest." [0] https://electrek.co/2022/04/21/the-worlds-longest-subsea-cable-will-send-clean-energy-from-morocco-to-the-uk/ https://electrek.co/2022/04/21/the-worlds-longest-subsea-cab...
        Dylan16807 4y ago
        I think whether it's cheaper is begging the question. And I couldn't tell you what's safer. But there's definite risk in outsourcing the majority of your power production, risk that doesn't exist if you're outsourcing long-term storage. If something goes wrong with the storage ecosystem, you can keep it on-site for a few extra months.
        logifail 4y ago
        > there's definite risk in outsourcing the majority of your power production, risk that doesn't exist if you're outsourcing long-term storage. If something goes wrong with the storage ecosystem, you can keep it on-site for a few extra months I think trusting another country to look after your radioactive waste for a few thousand years might involve a fair amount of risk. It's hard enough trying to look after it yourself. At the simplest level, what if the storage facility has a design fault or some geological event happens and suddenly loads more work and/or money is required? Or, in the spirit of bad movie plots: What happens if the other country changes its mind, perhaps after a major change of government or referendum? "We instruct you to take all your nuclear waste back. Right Now!" What happens if the other country doesn't maintain the storage properly / fails to keep it safe? Who's to blame for any leak / accident / incident / attack?
    - Paradigma11 4y ago
      Nuclear produces very little waste. One or two sites world wide should be enough for the current or 100 times the amount. Since we already need these sites and they cost practically the same regardless how much waste is buried, any additional nuclear waste is stored for free.
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    They today import fuel and burn it. They are equipped to continue doing so. They can add transmission lines, for cheaper importation. As fuel synthesis -- ammonia and hydrogen -- comes online and undercuts NG, they can import that instead, at times when their transmission line power capacity or availability is exceeded. Fuel synthesis from solar in the tropics undercutting NG extraction will be a big business. Synthesis using reliable wind, in other places, likewise. In the meantime, as minority participants, their contribution to the ongoing climate catastrophe is relatively small.
    - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
      fuel synthesis is one of the few trully plausible solutions to the storage problem, but i am not sure it will be cheaper - hydrogen is so much more difficult to handle than petrolium. I am not up to date with ammonia based processed.
      - ncmncm 4y ago
        There are many obviously practical storage methods. Ammonia and hydrogen are attractive because you can sell extra production after your local tankage is full, keeping your synthesis equipment busy whenever you are not drawing down your storage.
  - trhway 4y ago
    >There are countries where no combination of renewables + storage is possible. Places with little sunlight and little wind. which places are these? I'm not sure they exist.

logifail 4y ago

and yet one of the comments from that thread stated: > The correct answer is that there is no way to make fission cost-competitive with the near-term price of renewables + storage, or even with imported synthetic fuel produced with renewables, waste or no waste. Thus, the whole issue is moot. No such SMRs will be built except where coerced funding carefully excludes true cost from the process (as indeed happened on behalf of every single utility reactor in operation

ClumsyPilot 4y ago
There are countries where no combination of renewables + storage is possible. Places with little sunlight and little wind. What do they do?
- logifail 4y ago
  Q: Do those countries already have long term nuclear waste storage facilities? There are countries that have been spectacularly failing to provide their own such facilities for decades.
  - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
    Suppose they don't - so what is you proposed solution - they live in the dark ages?
    - ncmncm 4y ago
      That is not the alternative.
  - Dylan16807 4y ago
    How about they just prepay another country for ten thousand years of storage multiplied by 100 square meters? I don't see why it has to be local.
    - logifail 4y ago
      > I don't see why it has to be local If we propose to allow countries to outsource their nuclear waste disposal, wouldn't it be simpler, cheaper and safer to just skip nuclear entirely and outsource the power generation? All those countries with apparently not enough access to sunlight or wind will save an awful lot of time and money messing about with nuclear and just buy in their renewable power. If it works, could the Xlinks Morocco-UK power project could be a template for this kind of solution?[0]: "A 10.5 gigawatt (GW) solar and wind farm will be built in Morocco’s Guelmim-Oued Noun region, and it will supply the UK with clean energy via subsea cables. The twin 1.8 GW high voltage direct current (HVDC) subsea cables will be the world’s longest." [0] https://electrek.co/2022/04/21/the-worlds-longest-subsea-cable-will-send-clean-energy-from-morocco-to-the-uk/ https://electrek.co/2022/04/21/the-worlds-longest-subsea-cab...
      - Dylan16807 4y ago
        I think whether it's cheaper is begging the question. And I couldn't tell you what's safer. But there's definite risk in outsourcing the majority of your power production, risk that doesn't exist if you're outsourcing long-term storage. If something goes wrong with the storage ecosystem, you can keep it on-site for a few extra months.
        logifail 4y ago
        > there's definite risk in outsourcing the majority of your power production, risk that doesn't exist if you're outsourcing long-term storage. If something goes wrong with the storage ecosystem, you can keep it on-site for a few extra months I think trusting another country to look after your radioactive waste for a few thousand years might involve a fair amount of risk. It's hard enough trying to look after it yourself. At the simplest level, what if the storage facility has a design fault or some geological event happens and suddenly loads more work and/or money is required? Or, in the spirit of bad movie plots: What happens if the other country changes its mind, perhaps after a major change of government or referendum? "We instruct you to take all your nuclear waste back. Right Now!" What happens if the other country doesn't maintain the storage properly / fails to keep it safe? Who's to blame for any leak / accident / incident / attack?
  - Paradigma11 4y ago
    Nuclear produces very little waste. One or two sites world wide should be enough for the current or 100 times the amount. Since we already need these sites and they cost practically the same regardless how much waste is buried, any additional nuclear waste is stored for free.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  They today import fuel and burn it. They are equipped to continue doing so. They can add transmission lines, for cheaper importation. As fuel synthesis -- ammonia and hydrogen -- comes online and undercuts NG, they can import that instead, at times when their transmission line power capacity or availability is exceeded. Fuel synthesis from solar in the tropics undercutting NG extraction will be a big business. Synthesis using reliable wind, in other places, likewise. In the meantime, as minority participants, their contribution to the ongoing climate catastrophe is relatively small.
  - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
    fuel synthesis is one of the few trully plausible solutions to the storage problem, but i am not sure it will be cheaper - hydrogen is so much more difficult to handle than petrolium. I am not up to date with ammonia based processed.
    - ncmncm 4y ago
      There are many obviously practical storage methods. Ammonia and hydrogen are attractive because you can sell extra production after your local tankage is full, keeping your synthesis equipment busy whenever you are not drawing down your storage.
- trhway 4y ago
  >There are countries where no combination of renewables + storage is possible. Places with little sunlight and little wind. which places are these? I'm not sure they exist.