4 ms·

You decommission a nuclear plant only once, after 60-100 years of operation (or even later). You need to replace the wind turbine blades every 15-25 years - the

You decommission a nuclear plant only once, after 60-100 years of operation (or even later). You need to replace the wind turbine blades every 15-25 years - the blades could literally fly apart if you didn't. And there's no good way to recycle them, so it goes into landfill. Not great.

Reason077 4y ago
Not many nuclear plants last for 60-100 years. Most existing ones have an operational life of about 40 years. Those that run longer have invariably received an extensive (and expensive) mid-life refurbishment. Then they are left in a shutdown, de-fuelled state (safe storage) for 60 years or so before they can be safely dismantled. This whole process is very expensive, in part because you have to pay to manage and maintain the site for such a long time. Decommissioning all the UK’s existing civil nuclear sites is estimated to cost taxpayers over £132bn, and the work will not be complete for 120 years.
- Huh1337 4y ago
  Sure, refurbishment is necessary - my country just went through the process after 35 years of operation of the oldest reactors, now it's certified for 50 years more and another refurbishment is expected after that - not decommissioning. It wasn't that bad. We pay more for maintenance of the little wind power we have (less than 15% of our energy production on windy days) than we pay for nuclear reactor refurbishment (>30% of our baseload, works all day and night, all year).
  - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
    The estimated costs for energy from refurbishing France's nuclear plants till 2050 is 15% higher than building new offshore wind today. And that's EDFs own estimate. Onshore wind and solar are already cheaper than offshore and all are predicted to continue to get cheaper.
    - sofixa 4y ago
      > The estimated costs for energy from refurbishing France's nuclear plants till 2050 is 15% higher than building new offshore wind today. And that's EDFs own estimate. Do you have a link to that? Are we talking same effective generation capacity?
      - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
        https://jeromeaparis.substack.com/p/there-will-be-no-new-nuclear-power https://jeromeaparis.substack.com/p/there-will-be-no-new-nuc... Especially the section that starts: > As a starting point: it is undoubtedly true that industrial-scale nuclear power, as built in advanced Western countries in the 1970s-1990s, has provided, and still provides, cheap power, even taking into account the uncertainty on the cost of both long term waste storage and dismantling of the plants. And, until recently, low carbon alternatives like wind and solar were between “somewhat” and “a lot” more expensive. To a large extent, French skepticism about renewables over the past 20 years was not unreasonable given that the country did not have carbon-spewing (and otherwise polluting) coal-fired plants to replace - it had and has a low-carbon and cost competitive power sector. And that references these: https://www.edf.fr/sites/default/files/contrib/groupe-edf/espaces-dedies/espace-medias/notes/2016/note_information_grand-carenage_20160519_vf.pdf https://www.edf.fr/sites/default/files/contrib/groupe-edf/es... https://www.lemondedelenergie.com/edf-carenage-parc-nucleaire/2020/10/29/ https://www.lemondedelenergie.com/edf-carenage-parc-nucleair... > Le coût complet économique du parc nucléaire en exploitation, incluant le Grand Carénage, s’élèvera environ à 55 €/MWh avec une durée de fonctionnement de 50 ans, en moyenne sur la période d’ici 2025, un prix permettant aux clients de bénéficier d’une électricité compétitive (Source : Cour des comptes).
        sofixa 4y ago
        So, few disagreements with that article. First, why does he discard the idea that nuclear power plants can be fully financed by the state, as RTE assumed in their report (in which nuclear came out slightly cheaper)? EDF is getting renationalised currently, and honestly financing from private markets something as expensive, crucial and with such a long life doesn't make much sense. A Nuclear Power Plant can operate for many decades (50+ years easily), so even if it breaks even in 40 years, that's completely acceptable for a state and it's budget. Private investors, and private financing, would like returns much easier. Second, the elephant in the room - not all MWh are equal. When they are produced, and the load factor. Onshore wind, which the author mentions as cheaper, doesn't produce at 100% all the time. Solar is even worse, because at best it could produce energy during half the day. Both are subject to weather, like the few months of clouds and low winds we had last autumn all across Western Europe. To even them out, you either need luck, or storage, lots of it. Price that in, over a 50 year lifespan, and i very much doubt it will come out cheaper.
  - Reason077 4y ago
    > "Sure, refurbishment is necessary - my country just went through the process after 35 years of operation of the oldest reactors, now it's certified for 50 years more" Canada? It's not quite adding 50 more years: it adds around a 30-35 year life extension to each refurbished reactor, so the reactors currently being refurbished will be certified through to about 2055. And the refurbs aren't exactly cheap: they replace all the major reactor components, and cost a significant portion of the price of a new build. Nevertheless, it does seem better to extend the life of existing sites where it's possible to do so. It speaks highly of the CANDU reactor design that this has been possible! Most other country's reactor designs haven't been so successful in this aspect. > "We pay more for maintenance of the little wind power we have than we pay for nuclear reactor refurbishment" I doubt this very much.
adrianN 4y ago
Wind turbine blades probably only make up a very small fraction of the nonrecycleable waste we produce. Personally I'm not very worried about them sitting in a landfill somewhere. "Just bury it somewhere" seems to be an acceptable solution for nuclear waste, why not turbine blades? And then there are efforts to make them recycleable: https://www.siemensgamesa.com/en-int/explore/journal/recyclable-blade https://www.siemensgamesa.com/en-int/explore/journal/recycla...
- Huh1337 4y ago
  Because there's already thousands of times more wasted blades (by mass as well as land use) from the little wind power we use now. Also, nuclear "waste" is reusable as fuel for other kinds of reactors, waste is a misnomer. There's never ever going to be this much nuclear "waste" from all reactors worldwide (notice the tiny machine for scale): https://assets.bwbx.io/images/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/itxthAhXDALA/v1/-1x-1.jpg https://assets.bwbx.io/images/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/itxthAhXDAL... For comparison, ALL of Switzerland's nuclear "waste" is on this picture (and it's going to be used as fuel in the future): https://external-preview.redd.it/8EhLSoS5P8Cmi-ytsY_XoDrTnh6lxQlxEFdECgSHNos.jpg?width=960&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=7769356ac024e3e47ca09444a9a3733f826916f7 https://external-preview.redd.it/8EhLSoS5P8Cmi-ytsY_XoDrTnh6... > Wind turbine blades probably only make up a very small fraction of the nonrecycleable waste we produce. Then stop producing so much other waste. Producing even more is super-bullshit, and your mentality is exactly what caused the current situation.
  - adrianN 4y ago
    Mass and volume conveniently omit how careful you have to be when handling the waste. I thimble full of radioactive waste in the wrong spot can be pretty bad. Turbine blades on the other hand are not more dangerous than normal household waste.
    - Huh1337 4y ago
      No, it's really not that hard. My country's nuclear waste sits in containers placed outside for decades. Even shooting the container with a machine gun wouldn't produce any danger.
Schroedingersat 4y ago
The wind turbines outmass an equivalent capacity of nuclear reactor but not by a huge factor (about 2W/kg total or 8W/kg of not-concrete vs 15 or 30). The blades are a tiny fraction of that and the rest is fully recyclable. 100t of turbine blades per century per MW is at least as easy to handle as 200t of low grade nuclear waste in the form of radiation shielding and various other neutron poisoned materials.
- mrguyorama 4y ago
  Wind turbine blades are also pretty damn inert. We could literally just dump them into a giant pile in arizona for centuries with no issue, paying them a pittance for the privilege. Getting pissy about inert trash is silly. Maybe they shed microplastics? Oh no, now the useless desert sand is full of microplastics that it was probably already full of because of decades of plastic use.
  - Schroedingersat 4y ago
    I'm also certain they'll see down-cycling. 10t of the strongest and lightest materials on earth is by no means worthless even if it's anisotropic and needs an ultrasound before relying on it.

Reason077 4y ago

Not many nuclear plants last for 60-100 years. Most existing ones have an operational life of about 40 years. Those that run longer have invariably received an extensive (and expensive) mid-life refurbishment. Then they are left in a shutdown, de-fuelled state (safe storage) for 60 years or so before they can be safely dismantled. This whole process is very expensive, in part because you have to pay to manage and maintain the site for such a long time. Decommissioning all the UK’s existing civil nuclear sites is estimated to cost taxpayers over £132bn, and the work will not be complete for 120 years.

Huh1337 4y ago
Sure, refurbishment is necessary - my country just went through the process after 35 years of operation of the oldest reactors, now it's certified for 50 years more and another refurbishment is expected after that - not decommissioning. It wasn't that bad. We pay more for maintenance of the little wind power we have (less than 15% of our energy production on windy days) than we pay for nuclear reactor refurbishment (>30% of our baseload, works all day and night, all year).
- ZeroGravitas 4y ago
  The estimated costs for energy from refurbishing France's nuclear plants till 2050 is 15% higher than building new offshore wind today. And that's EDFs own estimate. Onshore wind and solar are already cheaper than offshore and all are predicted to continue to get cheaper.
  - sofixa 4y ago
    > The estimated costs for energy from refurbishing France's nuclear plants till 2050 is 15% higher than building new offshore wind today. And that's EDFs own estimate. Do you have a link to that? Are we talking same effective generation capacity?
    - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
      https://jeromeaparis.substack.com/p/there-will-be-no-new-nuclear-power https://jeromeaparis.substack.com/p/there-will-be-no-new-nuc... Especially the section that starts: > As a starting point: it is undoubtedly true that industrial-scale nuclear power, as built in advanced Western countries in the 1970s-1990s, has provided, and still provides, cheap power, even taking into account the uncertainty on the cost of both long term waste storage and dismantling of the plants. And, until recently, low carbon alternatives like wind and solar were between “somewhat” and “a lot” more expensive. To a large extent, French skepticism about renewables over the past 20 years was not unreasonable given that the country did not have carbon-spewing (and otherwise polluting) coal-fired plants to replace - it had and has a low-carbon and cost competitive power sector. And that references these: https://www.edf.fr/sites/default/files/contrib/groupe-edf/espaces-dedies/espace-medias/notes/2016/note_information_grand-carenage_20160519_vf.pdf https://www.edf.fr/sites/default/files/contrib/groupe-edf/es... https://www.lemondedelenergie.com/edf-carenage-parc-nucleaire/2020/10/29/ https://www.lemondedelenergie.com/edf-carenage-parc-nucleair... > Le coût complet économique du parc nucléaire en exploitation, incluant le Grand Carénage, s’élèvera environ à 55 €/MWh avec une durée de fonctionnement de 50 ans, en moyenne sur la période d’ici 2025, un prix permettant aux clients de bénéficier d’une électricité compétitive (Source : Cour des comptes).
      - sofixa 4y ago
        So, few disagreements with that article. First, why does he discard the idea that nuclear power plants can be fully financed by the state, as RTE assumed in their report (in which nuclear came out slightly cheaper)? EDF is getting renationalised currently, and honestly financing from private markets something as expensive, crucial and with such a long life doesn't make much sense. A Nuclear Power Plant can operate for many decades (50+ years easily), so even if it breaks even in 40 years, that's completely acceptable for a state and it's budget. Private investors, and private financing, would like returns much easier. Second, the elephant in the room - not all MWh are equal. When they are produced, and the load factor. Onshore wind, which the author mentions as cheaper, doesn't produce at 100% all the time. Solar is even worse, because at best it could produce energy during half the day. Both are subject to weather, like the few months of clouds and low winds we had last autumn all across Western Europe. To even them out, you either need luck, or storage, lots of it. Price that in, over a 50 year lifespan, and i very much doubt it will come out cheaper.
- Reason077 4y ago
  > "Sure, refurbishment is necessary - my country just went through the process after 35 years of operation of the oldest reactors, now it's certified for 50 years more" Canada? It's not quite adding 50 more years: it adds around a 30-35 year life extension to each refurbished reactor, so the reactors currently being refurbished will be certified through to about 2055. And the refurbs aren't exactly cheap: they replace all the major reactor components, and cost a significant portion of the price of a new build. Nevertheless, it does seem better to extend the life of existing sites where it's possible to do so. It speaks highly of the CANDU reactor design that this has been possible! Most other country's reactor designs haven't been so successful in this aspect. > "We pay more for maintenance of the little wind power we have than we pay for nuclear reactor refurbishment" I doubt this very much.

adrianN 4y ago

Wind turbine blades probably only make up a very small fraction of the nonrecycleable waste we produce. Personally I'm not very worried about them sitting in a landfill somewhere. "Just bury it somewhere" seems to be an acceptable solution for nuclear waste, why not turbine blades? And then there are efforts to make them recycleable: https://www.siemensgamesa.com/en-int/explore/journal/recyclable-blade https://www.siemensgamesa.com/en-int/explore/journal/recycla...

Huh1337 4y ago
Because there's already thousands of times more wasted blades (by mass as well as land use) from the little wind power we use now. Also, nuclear "waste" is reusable as fuel for other kinds of reactors, waste is a misnomer. There's never ever going to be this much nuclear "waste" from all reactors worldwide (notice the tiny machine for scale): https://assets.bwbx.io/images/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/itxthAhXDALA/v1/-1x-1.jpg https://assets.bwbx.io/images/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/itxthAhXDAL... For comparison, ALL of Switzerland's nuclear "waste" is on this picture (and it's going to be used as fuel in the future): https://external-preview.redd.it/8EhLSoS5P8Cmi-ytsY_XoDrTnh6lxQlxEFdECgSHNos.jpg?width=960&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=7769356ac024e3e47ca09444a9a3733f826916f7 https://external-preview.redd.it/8EhLSoS5P8Cmi-ytsY_XoDrTnh6... > Wind turbine blades probably only make up a very small fraction of the nonrecycleable waste we produce. Then stop producing so much other waste. Producing even more is super-bullshit, and your mentality is exactly what caused the current situation.
- adrianN 4y ago
  Mass and volume conveniently omit how careful you have to be when handling the waste. I thimble full of radioactive waste in the wrong spot can be pretty bad. Turbine blades on the other hand are not more dangerous than normal household waste.
  - Huh1337 4y ago
    No, it's really not that hard. My country's nuclear waste sits in containers placed outside for decades. Even shooting the container with a machine gun wouldn't produce any danger.

Schroedingersat 4y ago

The wind turbines outmass an equivalent capacity of nuclear reactor but not by a huge factor (about 2W/kg total or 8W/kg of not-concrete vs 15 or 30). The blades are a tiny fraction of that and the rest is fully recyclable. 100t of turbine blades per century per MW is at least as easy to handle as 200t of low grade nuclear waste in the form of radiation shielding and various other neutron poisoned materials.

mrguyorama 4y ago
Wind turbine blades are also pretty damn inert. We could literally just dump them into a giant pile in arizona for centuries with no issue, paying them a pittance for the privilege. Getting pissy about inert trash is silly. Maybe they shed microplastics? Oh no, now the useless desert sand is full of microplastics that it was probably already full of because of decades of plastic use.
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  I'm also certain they'll see down-cycling. 10t of the strongest and lightest materials on earth is by no means worthless even if it's anisotropic and needs an ultrasound before relying on it.