4 ms·

Finland has just (in last year) commissioned a huge nuclear power plant. It's true it took them 14 years longer than expected (they started in 2005). However,

Finland has just (in last year) commissioned a huge nuclear power plant. It's true it took them 14 years longer than expected (they started in 2005). However, there are places in the world (Japan) where a modern design nuclear power plant is built in 3.5 years. South Korea is very close behind. And it's not just a one off. Japan built 8 new nuclear power plants and South Korea built 13 in last 20 years. These plants are every bit as safe as plants built elsewhere, perhaps even safer as they're new designs. This suggest it is not technology that's holding us(US and majority of EU) back, but bad project management practices. We too could have a new plant built in few years. Add to this SMRs (small modular reactors) which are hopefully becoming available in next 2'years and anyone that can't see nuclear is the only hope for decarbonisation is misinformed. Then take a country like Germany that has recently shut down perfectly working nuclear power plants and opened the first new brown coal burning plant in Europe in a very long time (also they activated many others that were doing very little before). I don't know if this is irony or what, but when "green" efforts make an industrialised country give up nuclear and switch to coal there is something seriously wrong. Also few words on the type of coal they burn there. There are (broadly) two types of coal. There is coal proper (resembles black stone, mined in deep mines, high quality, little sulphur and oil/tar content) and there is lignite. A brown smelly thing that crumbles when you squeeze it leaving a tarry residue everywhere. It's "mined" from just below the surface by gargantuan machines that destroy thousands and thousands of hectares of land leaving a moonscape behind. Why is it used? Because when you build your power plant next to a source of lignite the electricity is really cheap. This kind of "coal" emits a lot more pollutants when burned. This can be mitigated somewhat by using modern tech, but still it should be our last power source choice. Not first. If the people say no to nuclear they'll not get renewable for base load, but lignite burning plants. BTW, CO2 is not really the worst these plants emit. They emit tiny particulates that get in your lungs. Incidence of child asthma is a lot higher near such plants as well as many other diseases.

__m 3y ago
Fukushima Daiichi was built in just 5 years and see how that went.
bugglebeetle 3y ago
> This suggest it is not technology that's holding us(US and majority of EU) back, but bad project management practices. We too could have a new plant built in few years. The US demolishes any and all of its state capacity anytime a company calls the congressman they bribe to complain that the government doing (insert project here) intrudes on their right to make money. That’s the difference. The Navy has been running nuclear power plants underwater for 50+ years at this point, but having a state organization that builds and maintains energy infrastructure would compete with all the existing energy sector interests, so it can’t be allowed to happen. Contrast this to China, where businesses do not have authority to override the state and this difference is obvious.
defrost 3y ago
> I don't know if this is irony or what, but when "green" efforts make an industrialised country give up nuclear and switch to coal there is something seriously wrong. Blame where blame is due, please. Germany's energy issues don't stem from green policies themselves, they track back to a single individual directing energy policy while in bed with Russian gas providers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerhard_Schr%C3%B6der https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerhard_Schr%C3%B6der Schröder was criticized for his policies towards Vladimir Putin's government, his work for Russian state-owned companies, and his lobbying on behalf of Russia. On 1 March 2022, Schröder's entire staff including long-time office manager Albrecht Funk resigned due to Schröder's alliances with Russia and Putin directly. Since leaving public office, Schröder has worked for Russian state-owned energy companies, including Nord Stream AG, Rosneft, and Gazprom. This is not an example of failure of green policy, it is very much a failure of implementation, oversight, and independance. These are serious failures to be sure but failures of the kind that occur with any policy, be it green, military procurement, national parks, housing, etc.
XorNot 3y ago
Coal plants literally emit more radiation then nuclear power plants[1], because it turns out digging up a whole lot of coal (particularly in Australia, which also has a whole lot of uranium) also digs up quite a lot of radioactive materials which are trapped in the same deposits. And you know, do so my emitting it into the atmosphere. [1] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-...
- defrost 3y ago
  I won't disagree but perspective is important: The chances of experiencing adverse health effects from radiation are slim for both nuclear and coal-fired power plants—they're just somewhat higher for the coal ones. "You're talking about one chance in a billion for nuclear power plants," Christensen says. "And it's one in 10 million to one in a hundred million for coal plants." and McBride and his co-authors estimated that individuals living near coal-fired installations are exposed to a maximum of 1.9 millirems of fly ash radiation yearly. To put these numbers in perspective, the average person encounters 360 millirems of annual "background radiation" from natural and man-made sources, including substances in Earth's crust, cosmic rays, residue from nuclear tests and smoke detectors. ( ^^ above quotes from above comments link [1] ) So, bugger all in both cases particularly when compared to normal background radiation exposure. > digging up a whole lot of coal (particularly in Australia, which also has a whole lot of uranium) Australia is kind of big (the same land area essentially as the contiguous United States of America) and I don't see the major uranium deposits in Australia being especially close to the massive coal beds. For comparison, the USGS database on Coal quality states [2][3] In the majority of samples, concentrations of uranium fall in the range from slightly below 1 to 4 parts per million (ppm). Similar uranium concentrations are found in a variety of common rocks and soils, as indicated in figure 2. Coals with more than 20 ppm uranium are rare in the United States. Thorium concentrations in coal fall within a similar 1–4 ppm range, compared to an average crustal abundance of approximately 10 ppm. Coals with more than 20 ppm thorium are extremely rare. and Australia's CSIRO has it (tables 5 and 6 and end of PDF doc) [4] that Australian coals typically have 1ppm U and 3.5 ppm Th. These figures for coal are all less than typical crustal concentrations. The below link [5] is a throw in that doesn't address U-Th-K in Australian coal but does address the major properties of Australian thermal coals. [1] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-... [2] https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/1997/fs163-97/FS-163-97.html https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/1997/fs163-97/FS-163-97.html [3] https://ncrdspublic.er.usgs.gov/coalqual/ https://ncrdspublic.er.usgs.gov/coalqual/ [4] https://publications.csiro.au/rpr/download?pid=csiro:EP114248&dsid=DS7 https://publications.csiro.au/rpr/download?pid=csiro:EP11424... [5] https://minerals.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Best-in-Class-Australian-Export-Thermal-Coal-2021.pdf https://minerals.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Best-in-C...
pyrale 3y ago
> It's true it took them 14 years longer than expected 14 years longer than promised, not expected. I don't know what drugs the salesmen were on, but they promised delivery 50% faster than any serial-built french plant for a model that was 1) more complex, 2) never built before and 3) with half of the experienced team missing.

__m 3y ago

Fukushima Daiichi was built in just 5 years and see how that went.

bugglebeetle 3y ago

> This suggest it is not technology that's holding us(US and majority of EU) back, but bad project management practices. We too could have a new plant built in few years. The US demolishes any and all of its state capacity anytime a company calls the congressman they bribe to complain that the government doing (insert project here) intrudes on their right to make money. That’s the difference. The Navy has been running nuclear power plants underwater for 50+ years at this point, but having a state organization that builds and maintains energy infrastructure would compete with all the existing energy sector interests, so it can’t be allowed to happen. Contrast this to China, where businesses do not have authority to override the state and this difference is obvious.

defrost 3y ago

> I don't know if this is irony or what, but when "green" efforts make an industrialised country give up nuclear and switch to coal there is something seriously wrong. Blame where blame is due, please. Germany's energy issues don't stem from green policies themselves, they track back to a single individual directing energy policy while in bed with Russian gas providers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerhard_Schr%C3%B6der https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerhard_Schr%C3%B6der Schröder was criticized for his policies towards Vladimir Putin's government, his work for Russian state-owned companies, and his lobbying on behalf of Russia. On 1 March 2022, Schröder's entire staff including long-time office manager Albrecht Funk resigned due to Schröder's alliances with Russia and Putin directly. Since leaving public office, Schröder has worked for Russian state-owned energy companies, including Nord Stream AG, Rosneft, and Gazprom. This is not an example of failure of green policy, it is very much a failure of implementation, oversight, and independance. These are serious failures to be sure but failures of the kind that occur with any policy, be it green, military procurement, national parks, housing, etc.

XorNot 3y ago

Coal plants literally emit more radiation then nuclear power plants[1], because it turns out digging up a whole lot of coal (particularly in Australia, which also has a whole lot of uranium) also digs up quite a lot of radioactive materials which are trapped in the same deposits. And you know, do so my emitting it into the atmosphere. [1] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-...

defrost 3y ago
I won't disagree but perspective is important: The chances of experiencing adverse health effects from radiation are slim for both nuclear and coal-fired power plants—they're just somewhat higher for the coal ones. "You're talking about one chance in a billion for nuclear power plants," Christensen says. "And it's one in 10 million to one in a hundred million for coal plants." and McBride and his co-authors estimated that individuals living near coal-fired installations are exposed to a maximum of 1.9 millirems of fly ash radiation yearly. To put these numbers in perspective, the average person encounters 360 millirems of annual "background radiation" from natural and man-made sources, including substances in Earth's crust, cosmic rays, residue from nuclear tests and smoke detectors. ( ^^ above quotes from above comments link [1] ) So, bugger all in both cases particularly when compared to normal background radiation exposure. > digging up a whole lot of coal (particularly in Australia, which also has a whole lot of uranium) Australia is kind of big (the same land area essentially as the contiguous United States of America) and I don't see the major uranium deposits in Australia being especially close to the massive coal beds. For comparison, the USGS database on Coal quality states [2][3] In the majority of samples, concentrations of uranium fall in the range from slightly below 1 to 4 parts per million (ppm). Similar uranium concentrations are found in a variety of common rocks and soils, as indicated in figure 2. Coals with more than 20 ppm uranium are rare in the United States. Thorium concentrations in coal fall within a similar 1–4 ppm range, compared to an average crustal abundance of approximately 10 ppm. Coals with more than 20 ppm thorium are extremely rare. and Australia's CSIRO has it (tables 5 and 6 and end of PDF doc) [4] that Australian coals typically have 1ppm U and 3.5 ppm Th. These figures for coal are all less than typical crustal concentrations. The below link [5] is a throw in that doesn't address U-Th-K in Australian coal but does address the major properties of Australian thermal coals. [1] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-... [2] https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/1997/fs163-97/FS-163-97.html https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/1997/fs163-97/FS-163-97.html [3] https://ncrdspublic.er.usgs.gov/coalqual/ https://ncrdspublic.er.usgs.gov/coalqual/ [4] https://publications.csiro.au/rpr/download?pid=csiro:EP114248&dsid=DS7 https://publications.csiro.au/rpr/download?pid=csiro:EP11424... [5] https://minerals.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Best-in-Class-Australian-Export-Thermal-Coal-2021.pdf https://minerals.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Best-in-C...

pyrale 3y ago

> It's true it took them 14 years longer than expected 14 years longer than promised, not expected. I don't know what drugs the salesmen were on, but they promised delivery 50% faster than any serial-built french plant for a model that was 1) more complex, 2) never built before and 3) with half of the experienced team missing.