6 ms·

I wish nuclear opponents would perform a like for like analysis of non-nuclear vs nuclear. - How much does it raise co2 parts per million when operational? -

I wish nuclear opponents would perform a like for like analysis of non-nuclear vs nuclear. - How much does it raise co2 parts per million when operational? - How much does it raise co2 parts per million when being built? - Full environmental cost of the entire supply including construction? - Deaths during construction. - Deaths in the general population from "emissions" or accidents. - Deaths during use and maintenance. - How much area does the site area? - How much area lost to 'contamination'? Oil spills, coal slag piles [1], but for nuclear, nature does quite well after humans leave the area. What are the byproducts of producing turbine blades and solar panels, including the construction of new factories and all the transport of materials to those factories, and the emissions of those factories? - Post-use recycling (solar panels after 20yrs, wind turbines when a blade breaks) Nuclear power hasn't been industrialized until recently and even then there's not a huge effort towards that. Imagine if every single modern plane built is a one-off ad-hoc design. I wonder how much they'd cost? Best example I can think of, but huge complexity, safety-critical, a similar lifespan, with on going maintenance. > A manufacturing facilities that produce 4 GW of solar/year is an exponential improvement over a 1GW nuclear reactor. How are they an "exponential" improvement? There's a vast amount of digging in some out-of-sight out-of-mind country to get materials out of the ground, with sketchy practices, shipped across the sea in a diesel power ship, to be refined, consuming more power, day-in-day out. And then there's the solar panel recycling story that we haven't even figured out yet. [2] And with wind turbines, we started off on the wrong foot there as well. [3] Apparently we're in a critical climate emergency, but nuclear is "too costly". And 'green' solutions are seen to be greener than they actually are. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberfan_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberfan_disaster 2. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-65602519 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-65602519 3. https://www.nationalgrid.com/stories/energy-explained/can-wind-turbine-blades-be-recycled https://www.nationalgrid.com/stories/energy-explained/can-wi...

tpm 3y ago
> - Full environmental cost of the entire supply including construction? And also including dismantling and spent fuel/ contaminated material storage and disposal for unknown time to come. Also not only environmental, but social cost of creating a spent fuel site that does have to be cared for hundreds of years while bringing no benefit at all, with huge costs. That BBC article is actually funny. There is no disaster, it's glass, aluminum and some metals, all of them eminently recyclable but since there was not a lot of PV panels until now it was not an issue. It will be an issue now and it will be solved, but it pales in comparison with other waste.
- evilos 3y ago
  The solution to nuclear waste is simple. Build a single warehouse in the desert somewhere and keep it there until we use it as fuel later in breeder reactors. The waste is already in concrete casks. You basically just need a concrete pad for them to sit on. Hell, just build it at Area 52 or something. Or the existing WIPPS site where military nuclear waste is disposed of. It was originally meant for civilian waste as well anyways. Lets say you insist we bury perfectly good U238. Fine, just expand WIPPs a bit. Or we can use deep borehole disposal to bury it several km underground in a seismically stable location. Done. No monitoring necessary. We know this will be fine because nature formed natural nuclear reactors in the ground billions of years ago and the 'waste' has moved less than a meter in billions of years. The dangerous part of the waste (fission products) will be gone in a few hundred years anyways. What is left after that needs to be ground up and eaten to be dangerous.
  - tpm 3y ago
    > Build a single warehouse in the desert There are countries with no desert and for some unknown reason most countries are not desperate to import spent fuel. > You basically just need a concrete pad for them to sit on. And the elements and radiation to take the 'concrete casks' apart and blow the bad stuff out. All solutions to that are expensive and you have to monitor and fix leaks for a very long time. The deeper you bury it, the deeper you have to dig later to fix the leaks. > will be gone in a few hundred years anyways That's a lot of time (and associated costs) in human lifetimes.
    - evilos 3y ago
      It doesn't literally need to be a desert. Just somewhere with low population density. This isn't a final disposal site. Just a central monitored place to hold the waste in a warehouse before the fuel is recycled or buried. The casks are rated for 100+ years and if they wear out, it's easy to swap casks. Deep borehole tech is readily available since America got so good at shale operations. It would be extremely cheap compared to building a huge underground facility like Finland is planning. > That's a lot of time (and associated costs) in human lifetimes. Again, no monitoring necessary once you bury it several km underground and fill the channel with concrete.
ZeroGravitas 3y ago
Renewables lead on all these metrics. People who support nuclear as anything more than a footnote in the future energy mix are, at best, looking at decades old data in an area that is famous for changing faster than even proponents expected.
- DrBazza 3y ago
  > Renewables lead on all these metrics. Do they? That's my question, "citation needed". I've yet to find empirical evidence of a like for like comparison of the full and complete lifecycle and supply chain of both. And that's in addition to environmental costs. Nuclear: dig uranium out of the ground, refine it. Build power station building (pipes, concrete, etc.), maintenance (replacing mechanical parts, etc.). Decommissioning. Renewable proponents always talk about the end product, the panels or turbines. But not the continual manufacturing chain (new factories, consuming more raw materials and power), or the on going maintenance (how often do turbines fail, blades fail, panels fail), or the end-of-life recycling. Nuclear power stations are a one off. Wind turbines and solar panels are being manufactured continually, consuming huge amounts of raw materials and power before they even come online. And don't forget storage of excess power for a rainy/dark/windless day. So then there's whole other supply chain and manufacturing processes for battery storage. Renewables on their own are no good for baseload because of the variability.
  - tpm 3y ago
    > Nuclear power stations are a one off. No? You still have to replace fuel, fix mechanical issues (if they are fixable). There are turbines in nuclear plants too. And another thing is that nuclear plants need highly competent and educated specialist workforce, and after that the very expensive decommissioning needs another specialist workforce, and so on.
    - DrBazza 3y ago
      Nuclear power stations are a one off build. I can’t think of two or more identical builds.

tpm 3y ago

> - Full environmental cost of the entire supply including construction? And also including dismantling and spent fuel/ contaminated material storage and disposal for unknown time to come. Also not only environmental, but social cost of creating a spent fuel site that does have to be cared for hundreds of years while bringing no benefit at all, with huge costs. That BBC article is actually funny. There is no disaster, it's glass, aluminum and some metals, all of them eminently recyclable but since there was not a lot of PV panels until now it was not an issue. It will be an issue now and it will be solved, but it pales in comparison with other waste.

evilos 3y ago
The solution to nuclear waste is simple. Build a single warehouse in the desert somewhere and keep it there until we use it as fuel later in breeder reactors. The waste is already in concrete casks. You basically just need a concrete pad for them to sit on. Hell, just build it at Area 52 or something. Or the existing WIPPS site where military nuclear waste is disposed of. It was originally meant for civilian waste as well anyways. Lets say you insist we bury perfectly good U238. Fine, just expand WIPPs a bit. Or we can use deep borehole disposal to bury it several km underground in a seismically stable location. Done. No monitoring necessary. We know this will be fine because nature formed natural nuclear reactors in the ground billions of years ago and the 'waste' has moved less than a meter in billions of years. The dangerous part of the waste (fission products) will be gone in a few hundred years anyways. What is left after that needs to be ground up and eaten to be dangerous.
- tpm 3y ago
  > Build a single warehouse in the desert There are countries with no desert and for some unknown reason most countries are not desperate to import spent fuel. > You basically just need a concrete pad for them to sit on. And the elements and radiation to take the 'concrete casks' apart and blow the bad stuff out. All solutions to that are expensive and you have to monitor and fix leaks for a very long time. The deeper you bury it, the deeper you have to dig later to fix the leaks. > will be gone in a few hundred years anyways That's a lot of time (and associated costs) in human lifetimes.
  - evilos 3y ago
    It doesn't literally need to be a desert. Just somewhere with low population density. This isn't a final disposal site. Just a central monitored place to hold the waste in a warehouse before the fuel is recycled or buried. The casks are rated for 100+ years and if they wear out, it's easy to swap casks. Deep borehole tech is readily available since America got so good at shale operations. It would be extremely cheap compared to building a huge underground facility like Finland is planning. > That's a lot of time (and associated costs) in human lifetimes. Again, no monitoring necessary once you bury it several km underground and fill the channel with concrete.

ZeroGravitas 3y ago

Renewables lead on all these metrics. People who support nuclear as anything more than a footnote in the future energy mix are, at best, looking at decades old data in an area that is famous for changing faster than even proponents expected.

DrBazza 3y ago
> Renewables lead on all these metrics. Do they? That's my question, "citation needed". I've yet to find empirical evidence of a like for like comparison of the full and complete lifecycle and supply chain of both. And that's in addition to environmental costs. Nuclear: dig uranium out of the ground, refine it. Build power station building (pipes, concrete, etc.), maintenance (replacing mechanical parts, etc.). Decommissioning. Renewable proponents always talk about the end product, the panels or turbines. But not the continual manufacturing chain (new factories, consuming more raw materials and power), or the on going maintenance (how often do turbines fail, blades fail, panels fail), or the end-of-life recycling. Nuclear power stations are a one off. Wind turbines and solar panels are being manufactured continually, consuming huge amounts of raw materials and power before they even come online. And don't forget storage of excess power for a rainy/dark/windless day. So then there's whole other supply chain and manufacturing processes for battery storage. Renewables on their own are no good for baseload because of the variability.
- tpm 3y ago
  > Nuclear power stations are a one off. No? You still have to replace fuel, fix mechanical issues (if they are fixable). There are turbines in nuclear plants too. And another thing is that nuclear plants need highly competent and educated specialist workforce, and after that the very expensive decommissioning needs another specialist workforce, and so on.
  - DrBazza 3y ago
    Nuclear power stations are a one off build. I can’t think of two or more identical builds.