6 ms·
So many things! The country that had generated the most nuclear power IS the United States and it's also the one with the highest capacity https://en.m.wikiped
by kristopolous 4y ago
So many things! The country that had generated the most nuclear power IS the United States and it's also the one with the highest capacity
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_by_country https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_by_country
The depiction of it as a "failure" is the industry whining like the defense industry whines about not having 50,000 more airplanes
Despite being at scale and having 70 years to bring down costs, it's still prohibitively expensive in the full lifecycle analysis of the LCOE and it gets heavily subsidized to keep plants open.
People's energy prices have gone up because governments are Interfering With The Market in favor of nuclear: https://www.cnbc.com/2022/02/17/the-us-is-spending-billions-to-keep-money-losing-nuclear-plants-open.html https://www.cnbc.com/2022/02/17/the-us-is-spending-billions-...
Also it's not green. The mining of the fuel isn't, nor is its transportation, vitrification, fabrication, refinement or enrichment. The concrete and cooling of the plant isn't nor is the waste stream side of the equation. It's the classic hyperfocus on a small part of the chain and writing off everything else as externalities.
Now on to the last point. Yes! The back end is a trivial cost because it Has Not Been Dealt With.
Yucca Mountain 35 years in still has not been built and the only US site that currently exists is only for 10,000 years (1% of what's required), only does nuclear weapons, cost $19,000,000,000, took 29 years to build, and had a sealing schedule of 75 years.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waste_Isolation_Pilot_Plant https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waste_Isolation_Pilot_Plant
Currently the only US option is dry casks which have a shelf life between 30 and 100 years assuming no natural disasters, terrorist attacks, wars, or shoddy craftsmanship. We're leaving this problem for future generations.
In the same way people used to hunt animals to extinction so they could sell them as culinary delicacies, future civilizations will look back on us and curse us for being so stupid when we had far more reasonable options readily available that didn't require literally centuries of management.
Onkalo is going to get breached in the next ice age btw so let's just hope we figure out how to secure it against that in the next few generations
I don't care what your sci-fi shows say, it's a shit technology. And I haven't even touched upon the insane corruption behind plants such as Diablo canyon.
But hey call me an uninformed moron, I'm down
- pfdietz 4y agoThe point is that lack of a very long term solution to nuclear waste in the US has not been an obstacle that has impeded adoption of nuclear. It's a talking point, but if nuclear had otherwise made sense it would not have prevented it from going forward. If anything, the causation is in the other direction: we don't have Yucca Mountain because there are no stakeholders who really wanted it. The utilities don't need it. Dry casks work just fine for them, and are pretty darn cheap. The real problem with nuclear has been its overall poor economics, and a geological repository would not help with that.
- cyphar 4y ago> Also it's not green. The mining of the fuel isn't, nor is its transportation, vitrification, fabrication, refinement or enrichment. The concrete and cooling of the plant isn't nor is the waste stream side of the equation. It's the classic hyperfocus on a small part of the chain and writing off everything else as externalities. By the same token, no energy production technology is "green". Solar panels use rare earth metals (and require clearing land in many cases), batteries use lithium, and wind farms have to have replacement fan blades every decade or so (which are not recyclable, so much so that the current state of the art is to burn them[1]) and kill larger birds of prey as well. > The back end is a trivial cost because it Has Not Been Dealt With. There are viable solutions for this[2] and given how natural deposits of uranium fare (even without containment they move very little on geological timescales), it seems deep geological storage really is an incredibly simple solution to this problem. [1]: https://youtu.be/knX7NkJILhs https://youtu.be/knX7NkJILhs [2]: https://youtu.be/4aUODXeAM-k https://youtu.be/4aUODXeAM-k
- pfdietz 4y ago> Solar panels use rare earth metals This is a falsehood, one that Shellenberger was notorious for spreading. No, solar panels do not use rare earth metals. That you repeat this well-debunked lie suggests you're getting your talking points from an echo chamber, not reliable sources.
- cyphar 4y ago