3 ms·

Yeah... about that. I was completely pro-nuclear until very recently, when I learnt that: - the summer droughts caused nuclear reactors to stop due to the lack

by pmlnr 4y ago

Yeah... about that. I was completely pro-nuclear until very recently, when I learnt that: - the summer droughts caused nuclear reactors to stop due to the lack of water - russia provides ~40% of ALL nuclear fuel - even France is getting their from Kazahstan So in light of these: more solar and wind, combined with possibly metan generation to store it as per https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2022/07/22/were-going-to-need-a-lot-of-solar-panels/ https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2022/07/22/were-going-to-...

oneoff786 4y ago
Kazakhstan is not part of Russia. Russia appears to be a very small supplier? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_uranium_production https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_uranium...
- tschwimmer 4y ago
  Uranium != nuclear fuel. Uranium has to be processed and enriched for use in reactors. I wouldn't be surprised if your list is raw, mined uranium and Russia imports and processes it.
  - oneoff786 4y ago
    At a glance, Russia does not appear to be a noteworthy importer of uranium ore. I would be somewhat surprised to learn Russia is exporting large quantities of enriched uranium across the globe.
panick21_ 4y ago
> - the summer droughts caused nuclear reactors to stop due to the lack of water That very much depends on specific technology and is not inherent in all nuclear. If and how much water is needed depends very much on what and where you are building. If we were not stuck with technology from 1960 this wouldn't have been an issue for decades, but instead of innovating the last 40 years nuclear industry had to fight a battle for survival and with very little research. > - russia provides ~40% of ALL nuclear fuel This is because Russia had a explicit policy of underbidding nuclear everybody in nuclear fuel providing. This is not inevitable, there is plenty of nuclear material in lots of places and many places that can make fuel. Nuclear fuel is far easier to transport then gas.
flaviut 4y ago
According to [1], fully enriched and fabricated uranium fuel is approx $2770/kg, or about $0.0077/kWh. The average heat rate for natural gas is something like 7732BTU/kWh, or 44% efficient[2]. The cost of natural gas around Sep 2019, before this whole mess, was $2.56/MMBtu[3]. That comes out to $0.02/kWh, 2.5x per kWh than nuclear. At current price levels of $8.81/MMBtu, that comes to $0.068/kWh, or 8.8x per kWh than nuclear. Not even considering how nuclear fuel can be stored and stockpiled much more effectively than gas, the benefit to Russia of using gas is much much higher than using nuclear. [1]: http://www.energybc.ca/cache/nuclear/nuclear2/www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html http://www.energybc.ca/cache/nuclear/nuclear2/www.world-nucl... [2]: https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=667&t=3 https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=667&t=3 [3]: https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/rngwhhdm.htm https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/rngwhhdm.htm
akvadrako 4y ago
These are very weak arguments. Uranium is plentiful all over the world, it just isn't currently mined in the West because it's so cheap to buy. And Nuclear reactors can be designed to work without large supplies of fresh water. Even if they were good arguments, Nuclear isn't just slightly better than solar/wind, so some problems don't change the conclusion.
kalleboo 4y ago
> the summer droughts caused nuclear reactors to stop due to the lack of water From what I read, it wasn't "lack of water" but rather the rivers were so warm that the reactors dumping more warm water in the rivers would be a danger to the wildlife ecosystem of the river. If it was an emergency we could probably say "let the fish die, we need power". Reactors that had evaporation towers instead of dumping hot water in the river could keep running. If we want to prepare for inevitable global warming, we should invest in adding evaporation towers to the remaining reactors (good luck convincing anyone to pay for that though).

by pmlnr 4y ago

oneoff786 4y ago

Kazakhstan is not part of Russia. Russia appears to be a very small supplier? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_uranium_production https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_uranium...

tschwimmer 4y ago
Uranium != nuclear fuel. Uranium has to be processed and enriched for use in reactors. I wouldn't be surprised if your list is raw, mined uranium and Russia imports and processes it.
- oneoff786 4y ago
  At a glance, Russia does not appear to be a noteworthy importer of uranium ore. I would be somewhat surprised to learn Russia is exporting large quantities of enriched uranium across the globe.

panick21_ 4y ago

> - the summer droughts caused nuclear reactors to stop due to the lack of water That very much depends on specific technology and is not inherent in all nuclear. If and how much water is needed depends very much on what and where you are building. If we were not stuck with technology from 1960 this wouldn't have been an issue for decades, but instead of innovating the last 40 years nuclear industry had to fight a battle for survival and with very little research. > - russia provides ~40% of ALL nuclear fuel This is because Russia had a explicit policy of underbidding nuclear everybody in nuclear fuel providing. This is not inevitable, there is plenty of nuclear material in lots of places and many places that can make fuel. Nuclear fuel is far easier to transport then gas.

flaviut 4y ago

According to [1], fully enriched and fabricated uranium fuel is approx $2770/kg, or about $0.0077/kWh. The average heat rate for natural gas is something like 7732BTU/kWh, or 44% efficient[2]. The cost of natural gas around Sep 2019, before this whole mess, was $2.56/MMBtu[3]. That comes out to $0.02/kWh, 2.5x per kWh than nuclear. At current price levels of $8.81/MMBtu, that comes to $0.068/kWh, or 8.8x per kWh than nuclear. Not even considering how nuclear fuel can be stored and stockpiled much more effectively than gas, the benefit to Russia of using gas is much much higher than using nuclear. [1]: http://www.energybc.ca/cache/nuclear/nuclear2/www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html http://www.energybc.ca/cache/nuclear/nuclear2/www.world-nucl... [2]: https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=667&t=3 https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=667&t=3 [3]: https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/rngwhhdm.htm https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/rngwhhdm.htm

akvadrako 4y ago

These are very weak arguments. Uranium is plentiful all over the world, it just isn't currently mined in the West because it's so cheap to buy. And Nuclear reactors can be designed to work without large supplies of fresh water. Even if they were good arguments, Nuclear isn't just slightly better than solar/wind, so some problems don't change the conclusion.

kalleboo 4y ago

> the summer droughts caused nuclear reactors to stop due to the lack of water From what I read, it wasn't "lack of water" but rather the rivers were so warm that the reactors dumping more warm water in the rivers would be a danger to the wildlife ecosystem of the river. If it was an emergency we could probably say "let the fish die, we need power". Reactors that had evaporation towers instead of dumping hot water in the river could keep running. If we want to prepare for inevitable global warming, we should invest in adding evaporation towers to the remaining reactors (good luck convincing anyone to pay for that though).