4 ms·

Neither of these is an important variable. Nuclear waste is in general mostly a solved problem. A bunch of barrels less or more over the lifecycle of the plant

Neither of these is an important variable. Nuclear waste is in general mostly a solved problem. A bunch of barrels less or more over the lifecycle of the plant in the storage site does not move a needle much, economically or otherwise. Initial investment dominates the equation. It mostly does not make sense to ramp nuclear power up and down, because of economical reasons. Gas costs are mostly dominatd by the fuel, so there ramping up and down makes sense. Nuclear costs are dominated by the initial investment. But even without ramping up and down, still nuclear power helps integrate variable renewables, since it is providing valuable inertia to keep the grid stable.

nerdponx 4y ago
> Nuclear waste is in general mostly a solved problem. A bunch of barrels less or more over the lifecycle of the plant in the storage site does not move a needle much, economically or otherwise. Storage of nuclear waste was one of several issues that led residents around the Indian Point nuclear plant to push hard for its shutdown, at which they eventually succeeded. Other issues included ecological harm to the adjacent Hudson River due to discharge of unnaturally warm water, and (probably the biggest one) the risk of widespread death and injury in the event of an accident or terrorist attack. Indian Point is in relatively densely populated area with relatively low-capacity highways, and there was a pervasive sense that the official evacuation plans would be insufficient in case of a disaster. If the plan here is to make more, smaller, cheaper nuclear plants in or near more cities and towns, this means you are going to have even more towns putting up the same local resistance on those same issues. Advocates of nuclear will need to have answers.
- marmetio 4y ago
  > Advocates of nuclear will need to have answers. Not really. Nobody ever wants power generation in their backyard. Doesn't matter if it's dangerous nuclear or polluting fossil fuel or eye-sore wind. The answer is always one of the same two options: do it anyway, or put it in someone else's backyard.
  - nerdponx 4y ago
    This is nihilistic and disrespectful of the actual humans involved. Resistance is a matter of proportion and intensity. A few assholes will complain about wind. A lot of people remember Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, and wouldn't care about an eyesore wind farm but would worry about the effects of an accident at a nuclear plant. You are basically saying that NIMBYs exist and therefore nobody's complaints about nuclear power are valid. Good luck with that attitude.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - marmetio 4y ago
      That's not what I said. I even called nuclear dangerous, so how did you conclude that I invalidated concerns besides NIMBYism? Every option has downsides. Every proposal faces opposition. Every project is decided individually. The nuclear advocates don't need a special extra requirement to convince everyone in the world to choose nuclear. They're going to go through the same process as everyone else every time. I said something neutral about nuclear and you invented a personal attack on yourself and reprimanded me for it. Good luck with that attitude, I guess?
      - nerdponx 4y ago
        > Not really. Nobody ever wants power generation in their backyard. Doesn't matter if it's dangerous nuclear or polluting fossil fuel or eye-sore wind. The answer is always one of the same two options: do it anyway, or put it in someone else's backyard. This is what I responded to. It sounds pretty absolute to me.
        marmetio 4y ago
        > dangerous nuclear That's the same part where I validated other concerns. Wtf is wrong with you
  - fragmede 4y ago
- throw0101c 4y ago
  > Storage of nuclear waste was one of several issues that led residents around the Indian Point nuclear plant to push hard for its shutdown, at which they eventually succeeded. Solar power plants produce zero waste, and those are opposed: * https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/oct/30/its-got-nasty-the-battle-to-build-the-uss-biggest-solar-power-farm https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/oct/30/its-got-... * https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-solar-expansion-stalled-by-rural-land-use-protests-2022-04-07/ https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-solar-expansion-stalled-... Wind farms create no waste, and are also opposed: * https://www.npr.org/2022/03/28/1086790531/renewable-energy-projects-wind-energy-solar-energy-climate-change-misinformation https://www.npr.org/2022/03/28/1086790531/renewable-energy-p... Seems like people are just opposed to building anything around them, waste or not.
  - nerdponx 4y ago
    When is the last time a wind farm was the a target of a 30-year shutdown campaign, that succeeded?
TheRealNGenius 4y ago
[dead]
grecy 4y ago
> A bunch of barrels less or more over the lifecycle of the plant So, ah, where are those "few" barrels getting stored? https://www.cnbc.com/2021/12/18/nuclear-waste-why-theres-no-permanent-nuclear-waste-dump-in-us.html https://www.cnbc.com/2021/12/18/nuclear-waste-why-theres-no-...
jillesvangurp 4y ago
The solution in many countries basically amounts to letting future generations deal with the problem. A lot of nuclear waste is being stored in temporary places awaiting a permanent solution that does not yet exist. That solution is going to be expensive and nobody is particularly eager to have that in their back yard even though the risks are very low. So, lots of countries have been deferring solving that problem and only talk in terms of hypothetical solutions that could work that somebody else (i.e. future generations) might want to pay for. Only a few countries (e.g. Finland) have permanent storage underground for nuclear waste. But that was only opened fairly recently. France actually used to just dump it in the ocean. These days they are a bit more responsible. I think they are building a storage facility that is supposed to open some time next decade. Meanwhile, just like in most other places, they just store the waste in sealed containers and store those on site. I would say it's a solvable problem but not a solved problem. The solution has a large price tag with absolutely no return on investment. And that's a problem that doesn't have any solution.
einpoklum 4y ago
> Nuclear waste is in general mostly a solved problem. It's mostly solved - solved for most of the waste material, just not for a few bits which, dag nab it, seem to radiate out of those barrels.

nerdponx 4y ago

> Nuclear waste is in general mostly a solved problem. A bunch of barrels less or more over the lifecycle of the plant in the storage site does not move a needle much, economically or otherwise. Storage of nuclear waste was one of several issues that led residents around the Indian Point nuclear plant to push hard for its shutdown, at which they eventually succeeded. Other issues included ecological harm to the adjacent Hudson River due to discharge of unnaturally warm water, and (probably the biggest one) the risk of widespread death and injury in the event of an accident or terrorist attack. Indian Point is in relatively densely populated area with relatively low-capacity highways, and there was a pervasive sense that the official evacuation plans would be insufficient in case of a disaster. If the plan here is to make more, smaller, cheaper nuclear plants in or near more cities and towns, this means you are going to have even more towns putting up the same local resistance on those same issues. Advocates of nuclear will need to have answers.

marmetio 4y ago
> Advocates of nuclear will need to have answers. Not really. Nobody ever wants power generation in their backyard. Doesn't matter if it's dangerous nuclear or polluting fossil fuel or eye-sore wind. The answer is always one of the same two options: do it anyway, or put it in someone else's backyard.
- nerdponx 4y ago
  This is nihilistic and disrespectful of the actual humans involved. Resistance is a matter of proportion and intensity. A few assholes will complain about wind. A lot of people remember Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, and wouldn't care about an eyesore wind farm but would worry about the effects of an accident at a nuclear plant. You are basically saying that NIMBYs exist and therefore nobody's complaints about nuclear power are valid. Good luck with that attitude.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - marmetio 4y ago
    That's not what I said. I even called nuclear dangerous, so how did you conclude that I invalidated concerns besides NIMBYism? Every option has downsides. Every proposal faces opposition. Every project is decided individually. The nuclear advocates don't need a special extra requirement to convince everyone in the world to choose nuclear. They're going to go through the same process as everyone else every time. I said something neutral about nuclear and you invented a personal attack on yourself and reprimanded me for it. Good luck with that attitude, I guess?
    - nerdponx 4y ago
      > Not really. Nobody ever wants power generation in their backyard. Doesn't matter if it's dangerous nuclear or polluting fossil fuel or eye-sore wind. The answer is always one of the same two options: do it anyway, or put it in someone else's backyard. This is what I responded to. It sounds pretty absolute to me.
      - marmetio 4y ago
        > dangerous nuclear That's the same part where I validated other concerns. Wtf is wrong with you
- fragmede 4y ago
throw0101c 4y ago
> Storage of nuclear waste was one of several issues that led residents around the Indian Point nuclear plant to push hard for its shutdown, at which they eventually succeeded. Solar power plants produce zero waste, and those are opposed: * https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/oct/30/its-got-nasty-the-battle-to-build-the-uss-biggest-solar-power-farm https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/oct/30/its-got-... * https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-solar-expansion-stalled-by-rural-land-use-protests-2022-04-07/ https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-solar-expansion-stalled-... Wind farms create no waste, and are also opposed: * https://www.npr.org/2022/03/28/1086790531/renewable-energy-projects-wind-energy-solar-energy-climate-change-misinformation https://www.npr.org/2022/03/28/1086790531/renewable-energy-p... Seems like people are just opposed to building anything around them, waste or not.
- nerdponx 4y ago
  When is the last time a wind farm was the a target of a 30-year shutdown campaign, that succeeded?

TheRealNGenius 4y ago

[dead]

grecy 4y ago

> A bunch of barrels less or more over the lifecycle of the plant So, ah, where are those "few" barrels getting stored? https://www.cnbc.com/2021/12/18/nuclear-waste-why-theres-no-permanent-nuclear-waste-dump-in-us.html https://www.cnbc.com/2021/12/18/nuclear-waste-why-theres-no-...

jillesvangurp 4y ago

The solution in many countries basically amounts to letting future generations deal with the problem. A lot of nuclear waste is being stored in temporary places awaiting a permanent solution that does not yet exist. That solution is going to be expensive and nobody is particularly eager to have that in their back yard even though the risks are very low. So, lots of countries have been deferring solving that problem and only talk in terms of hypothetical solutions that could work that somebody else (i.e. future generations) might want to pay for. Only a few countries (e.g. Finland) have permanent storage underground for nuclear waste. But that was only opened fairly recently. France actually used to just dump it in the ocean. These days they are a bit more responsible. I think they are building a storage facility that is supposed to open some time next decade. Meanwhile, just like in most other places, they just store the waste in sealed containers and store those on site. I would say it's a solvable problem but not a solved problem. The solution has a large price tag with absolutely no return on investment. And that's a problem that doesn't have any solution.

einpoklum 4y ago

> Nuclear waste is in general mostly a solved problem. It's mostly solved - solved for most of the waste material, just not for a few bits which, dag nab it, seem to radiate out of those barrels.