4 ms·

How will nuclear solve the problem? Does it provide enough energy?

by quest88 4y ago

thepasswordis 4y ago
Yes
QuarterReptile 4y ago
It does if you build it. Edit: a typo
WaitWaitWha 4y ago
Absolutely; the following countries have most of their electricity made by nuke plants[0]: France 69.0% Ukraine 55.0% Slovakia 52.3% Belgium 50.8% Hungary 46.8% [0] International atomic energy agency; US Energy Information Administration Updated: August 2022
- berkut 4y ago
  It can solve the problem: that doesn't mean there aren't other potential issues that need to be handled correctly. Take France for instance - it's currently becoming a net importer of electricity due to many (~60%) of its Nuclear reactors being offline for maintenance.
swarnie 4y ago
Far better than dinosaur juice imo.
acidburnNSA 4y ago
It's the only energy source that can run 24/7 on a tiny land footprint without emitting carbon or being overly dependent on local weather. The one nuclear plant in California makes 10% of the entire states electricity. And last night the state assembly voted 31/1 to not prematurely shut it down as planned.
- croes 4y ago
  We see in France how good that works. And we don't fear russia bombing Ukraine's WECs
  - acidburnNSA 4y ago
    Climate change and the 8 million people who die per year from fossil and renewable biofuel combustion products (WHO numbers) are far more concerning. Nuclear solves wayyy more problems than it causes. Oh and nuclear fission used in breeder reactors is just as renewable as the fusion fuel in the sun that powers wind/solar/hydro/bio. We can make 100% of the world's primary energy for 4 billion years with nuclear before running out of fuel.
- falcolas 4y ago
  > or being overly dependent on local weather. It was interesting to see (thanks, Europe) how nuclear power plants are still somewhat susceptible to global climate change, since they require vast amounts of water below a certain temperature to run.
  - acidburnNSA 4y ago
    Those are administrative limits set before climate change to help protect fish. You can solve the problem by keeping fish farther away from the outlets. Nuclear plants can also be cooled with nearly zero water usage, using dry cooling (dump heat straight to air basically with air radiators). This is more expensive, but may make sense as climate change kicks in. It's perfectly doable and safe.
    - Gwypaas 4y ago
      So you're with more words saying - lets take the by far most expensive energy source and make it more expensive? Today creating hydrogen from solar and burning it in a turbine is competitive with new built nuclear. Not that anyone suggests it for anything else than emergencies, since the round trip efficiency cost would be ludicrous.
vitiral 4y ago
"8 kWh of heat can be generated from 1 kg of coal, approx. 12 kWh from 1 kg of mineral oil and around 24,000,000 kWh from 1 kg of uranium-235." https://www.euronuclear.org/glossary/fuel-comparison/ https://www.euronuclear.org/glossary/fuel-comparison/ That is 24 giga watt hours from a kg or uranium. The article says California is set to "top 48 gigawatts" on some days. If it stayed at peak usage all year 48 * 24 * 365 / 24 = 17,520 kg of uranium for constant peak California consumption. That seems like a lot until you think about how much oil it saves
- sologoub 4y ago
  Interesting thought experiment - for the same capacity, we’d need 2300 sq.mi of photovoltaic gross land[1], assuming we need to way overbuild let’s make that 3x (6900 sq. mi). That’s equivalent to ~15% of Mojave desert being covered in solar and not accounting for battery storage needed. That same capacity would require 26 Diablo canyon equivalent stations or only 30.5 sq.mi. [2] Of course, Greater Los Angeles area itself is 33,954 sq.mi, so if we assume 10% of that are roofs, parking lots and other structures that can be covered with a solar panel setup somehow (big assumption, but this is a thought experiment after all), we’d have close to 1/2 of the total already covered. Add other populated areas in CA and things don’t look so outlandish with some combination of Nuclear/storage/solar. The big question is whether we have the social cohesion to pull this off or not. The train from LA to SF mess has me worried here… [1]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_plants_in_the_Mojave_Desert https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_plants_in_the_Mo... [2]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diablo_Canyon_Power_Plant https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diablo_Canyon_Power_Plant
  - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
    The initial quote is for "heat" energy. To get that into electricity in a steam turbine you lose about 2/3rds of it.
    - vitiral 4y ago
      Pretty sure modern steam conversion is now over 50%, should be higher for super heated. It's come a long ways.

How will nuclear solve the problem? Does it provide enough energy?

thepasswordis 4y ago

Yes

QuarterReptile 4y ago

It does if you build it. Edit: a typo

WaitWaitWha 4y ago

Absolutely; the following countries have most of their electricity made by nuke plants[0]: France 69.0% Ukraine 55.0% Slovakia 52.3% Belgium 50.8% Hungary 46.8% [0] International atomic energy agency; US Energy Information Administration Updated: August 2022

berkut 4y ago
It can solve the problem: that doesn't mean there aren't other potential issues that need to be handled correctly. Take France for instance - it's currently becoming a net importer of electricity due to many (~60%) of its Nuclear reactors being offline for maintenance.

swarnie 4y ago

Far better than dinosaur juice imo.

acidburnNSA 4y ago

It's the only energy source that can run 24/7 on a tiny land footprint without emitting carbon or being overly dependent on local weather. The one nuclear plant in California makes 10% of the entire states electricity. And last night the state assembly voted 31/1 to not prematurely shut it down as planned.

croes 4y ago
We see in France how good that works. And we don't fear russia bombing Ukraine's WECs
- acidburnNSA 4y ago
  Climate change and the 8 million people who die per year from fossil and renewable biofuel combustion products (WHO numbers) are far more concerning. Nuclear solves wayyy more problems than it causes. Oh and nuclear fission used in breeder reactors is just as renewable as the fusion fuel in the sun that powers wind/solar/hydro/bio. We can make 100% of the world's primary energy for 4 billion years with nuclear before running out of fuel.
falcolas 4y ago
> or being overly dependent on local weather. It was interesting to see (thanks, Europe) how nuclear power plants are still somewhat susceptible to global climate change, since they require vast amounts of water below a certain temperature to run.
- acidburnNSA 4y ago
  Those are administrative limits set before climate change to help protect fish. You can solve the problem by keeping fish farther away from the outlets. Nuclear plants can also be cooled with nearly zero water usage, using dry cooling (dump heat straight to air basically with air radiators). This is more expensive, but may make sense as climate change kicks in. It's perfectly doable and safe.
  - Gwypaas 4y ago
    So you're with more words saying - lets take the by far most expensive energy source and make it more expensive? Today creating hydrogen from solar and burning it in a turbine is competitive with new built nuclear. Not that anyone suggests it for anything else than emergencies, since the round trip efficiency cost would be ludicrous.

vitiral 4y ago

"8 kWh of heat can be generated from 1 kg of coal, approx. 12 kWh from 1 kg of mineral oil and around 24,000,000 kWh from 1 kg of uranium-235." https://www.euronuclear.org/glossary/fuel-comparison/ https://www.euronuclear.org/glossary/fuel-comparison/ That is 24 giga watt hours from a kg or uranium. The article says California is set to "top 48 gigawatts" on some days. If it stayed at peak usage all year 48 * 24 * 365 / 24 = 17,520 kg of uranium for constant peak California consumption. That seems like a lot until you think about how much oil it saves

sologoub 4y ago
Interesting thought experiment - for the same capacity, we’d need 2300 sq.mi of photovoltaic gross land[1], assuming we need to way overbuild let’s make that 3x (6900 sq. mi). That’s equivalent to ~15% of Mojave desert being covered in solar and not accounting for battery storage needed. That same capacity would require 26 Diablo canyon equivalent stations or only 30.5 sq.mi. [2] Of course, Greater Los Angeles area itself is 33,954 sq.mi, so if we assume 10% of that are roofs, parking lots and other structures that can be covered with a solar panel setup somehow (big assumption, but this is a thought experiment after all), we’d have close to 1/2 of the total already covered. Add other populated areas in CA and things don’t look so outlandish with some combination of Nuclear/storage/solar. The big question is whether we have the social cohesion to pull this off or not. The train from LA to SF mess has me worried here… [1]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_plants_in_the_Mojave_Desert https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_plants_in_the_Mo... [2]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diablo_Canyon_Power_Plant https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diablo_Canyon_Power_Plant
- ZeroGravitas 4y ago
  The initial quote is for "heat" energy. To get that into electricity in a steam turbine you lose about 2/3rds of it.
  - vitiral 4y ago
    Pretty sure modern steam conversion is now over 50%, should be higher for super heated. It's come a long ways.