4 ms·
The fundamental problems with nuclear can't be solved by redesigning them. They are waste management (a political problem), cost, risk (a societal problem). You
by LatteLazy 4y ago
The fundamental problems with nuclear can't be solved by redesigning them. They are waste management (a political problem), cost, risk (a societal problem). You cant design any of those away. We tried. We failed.
- bioemerl 4y agoRedesigning reduces, or can reduce, waste, cost, and risk.
- qeternity 4y agoYeah I’m very confused. Every single thing mentioned can be improved through better designs.
- ncmncm 4y agoNot noticeably. All those things, were they amenable to improvement, could have been done decades past. They were not done, or not enough. Spending more on nukes now is throwing good money after bad, the classic sunk-cost delusion.
- BuyMyBitcoins 4y agoThose improvements have been done, decades ago and now. They’re called Generation III / III+ and Generation IV reactors. How are such improvements not enough? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_III_reactor https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_III_reactor
- ncmncm 4y agoYet, not built. For reasons.
- BuyMyBitcoins 4y ago>”Yet, not built. For reasons.” You clearly didn’t read the list of constructed and operating Gen III / III+ reactors on the page I linked. Not sure why you’re ignoring them. For reasons?
- ncmncm 4y agoFrom the article: "relatively few third generation reactors have been built" and "Gen IV reactors ... are concepts for which no concrete prognoses for realization exist".
- BuyMyBitcoins 4y agoYou had said “not built” and now you’re weaseling out of it. Both the constructed Gen III and yet to be built Gen IV reactors represent design improvements you claimed never materialized in an earlier post.
- qsdf38100 4y agoNuclear energy bad. No fix. Trust me. Must not try again.
- Manuel_D 4y agoYep, worked terribly for France. They emit way more carbon dioxide than Germany \s.
- ncmncm 4y agoFrance likes their nukes so well they have no plans to replace them as they age out. Germany is emitting much less CO2 than before they shut down their nukes. They elected to spend what it would have cost, to keep them working, instead on wind turbines. This has yielded much more generation than the refurbished nukes would eventually have offered, but immediately. Germany is actively building out more renewable generating capacity to displace more carbon emissions, but there is a very large amount of work to be done. Building nukes instead would take much longer and yield much less.
- Manuel_D 4y agoThis is misinformation, France 14 more nuclear reactors in the works: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/02/france-to-cut-carbon-emissions-russian-energy-influence-with-14-nuclear-reactors/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/02/france-to-cut-ca... Germany's CO2 emissions are on an upward trend now that there reactivating coal plants to get off of Russian gas. Furthermore, the decision to shut down nuclear plants resulted in greater emissions that what would have occurred had they kept them active.
- ncmncm 4y agoOoh, 14 reactors "planned". Of course they will be cancelled when it turns out no one will buy their power at a price they can offer. Germany is burning more coal than last year and less NG, which drove up CO2. That says nothing about what they would be emitting with the nukes and without the wind farms. But we already know that answer.
- 6yyyyyy 4y ago>waste management Not a real problem. >cost Self-inflicted problem. >risk Not a real problem.
- pydry 4y ago>>risk >Not a real problem. Good. Lets kill the $200 million liability cap then. If it's not a real problem they should have no issue paying for their own insurance. Once the tech has plunged in price to solar/wind/pumped storage levels and the industry feels confident enough in its own safety that it doesnt need taxpayers to shoulder potential catastrophe costs we should absolutely build tons of nuclear power.
- Manuel_D 4y ago200 million liability cap? Nuclear plants are required to have a minimum of $375 million dollars of insurance per reactor [1]. So I'm not sure where that figure of $200 million comes from. Nuclear is cheaper than solar, wind and pumped storage. There's a limited number of economically viable pumped storage sites. You essential need an alpine lake close to a freeway to build one economically. Otherwise you're talking about pouring massive amounts of concrete to build a big tub, which is an expensive project. The reality is that dams are the only effective means of energy storage. Lake Meade is one the biggest batteries in the world. Intermittent sources are viable for regions close to hydroelectric plants, but for everywhere else nuclear power is the only feasible route to decarbonization. 1. https://www.iii.org/article/insurance-coverage-nuclear-accidents https://www.iii.org/article/insurance-coverage-nuclear-accid...
- ncmncm 4y ago"Minimum" meaning maximum. Taxpayers are obliged to pick up the difference. There are not, in fact, a limited number of pumped storage sites, and you do not, in fact, need any alpine lakes. Dikes are not commonly made of concrete. And, there are numerous other cheap alternative storage media, for places without hills. But first we need to build out enough renewable generating capacity to charge it from. It would be stupid to pour capital into storage that cannot be charged, particularly as prices are falling so fast that building will be radically cheaper when we come to need it.
- ETH_start 4y ago99% of the waste is eliminated by reprocessing it via breeder reactors. What's left has a half life in the hundreds of years instead of billions. Reprocessing also increases the extractable energy density of uranium 100 fold, meaning that with only known uranium reserves, humanity could meet 100% of its current energy needs from fission for 38,000 years.