4 ms·

Uranium can be endlessly and economically extracted from seawater - and maintains an equilibrium from continuously dissolving rock. In light of that it's perfec

Uranium can be endlessly and economically extracted from seawater - and maintains an equilibrium from continuously dissolving rock. In light of that it's perfectly reasonable to dub nuclear fission power a renewable resource. Commercial nuclear is incredibly safe (pointing to Chernobyl simply indicates profound ignorance or dishonesty) and there's no actually good reason not to be using it on a much wider scale - carbonless, extremely high density power generation reliably available 24/7/365.

xbmcuser 3y ago
Its more dishonest to say that the world has the capacity or the ability today to build and run 10000s of nuclear reactors safely or dispose of the spent nuclear fuel. We would be producing 100000-200000Mton of nuclear waste a year at today electricity usage levels.
- Paradigma11 3y ago
  It would still be the same few holes in the ground that we have to secure. Nobody cares how many Mton are stored below.
  - xbmcuser 3y ago
    Like I said people are telling tall tales who say Nuclear solves the problem. The world does not have the capacity or the ability to store or use 100000mton of Nuclear fuel safely. That's just nuclear fuel rods the multiple times that the other nuclear waste that will be generated I am not even counting. I think most of the nuclear zealots are engineers which don't look at reality just the math. I personally think nuclear has a part to play but not the current technology
- RagnarD 3y ago
  A large fraction of "spent" nuclear fuel is unfissioned Uranium that can (and should) be recycled. France does this. It's a fact of physics that the more radioactive is a material, the faster it decays. The most dangerous isotopes decay in years, not centuries or millenia. One stunning fact, originating in the incredible energy density of e=mc^2, is: "If we take that a step further, U.S. commercial reactors have generated about 90,000 metric tons of spent fuel since the 1950s. If all of it were able to be stacked together, it could fit on a single football field at a depth of less than 10 yards." Now ponder how much coal ash and CO2 has been released into the atmosphere since the 1950s (!!!) And more than that: how many heavy metals with an infinite half-life have been sent into the atmosphere by such burning and settled into the ground including agricultural soil. Nuclear waste is a gigantic straw-man. It's a manufactured issue by environmentalists who've wanted to kill nuclear for decades. Moreover, it's likely that Helion will create the first commercially viable fusion reactor in a small number of years. Once that happens, it becomes even better than fission. https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-nuclear-fuel https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-...
ViewTrick1002 3y ago
Disregarding $/kWh. Why spend more for less simply because it is nuclear power?
- fragmede 3y ago
  Because it works when the Sun is down and the wind isn't blowing, and doesn't pollute like coal does. It mean in the dead of winter when there is little/no sun, we can run electric heaters.
  - ViewTrick1002 3y ago
    Don't let perfect be the enemy of good. We can easily reach +95% renewable grids. The further north the more wind energy in the mix. Which is stronger and more prevalent during the winter. Lets see what we have left when we have reached 95%, it will not be the issues we think are most critical today. https://reneweconomy.com.au/a-near-100-per-cent-renewables-grid-is-well-within-reach-and-with-little-storage/ https://reneweconomy.com.au/a-near-100-per-cent-renewables-g...
irdc 3y ago
Why bother building expensive centralised power generation using nuclear fission when you can just put down some more cheap solar panels that don’t have even nearly the same regulatory burden? I’m asking this not to get into the usual discussion on baseload and the sun not always shining, but to point out the simple economics of renewables: they might not be ideal, but that won’t matter as they’ll be cheap.
- MagnumOpus 3y ago
  Baseload and nighttime cannot be ignored if you try to argue economics. You have to compensate with batteries or overbuild or a continent spanning grid - and suddenly “cheap” is not quite the word. And of course solar is “cheap” in SoCal or Morocco. North of latitude 50, in France or the UK or Canada or northern China it is more expensive than mass-produced nuclear power plants even without accounting for batteries and nighttime.
  - ViewTrick1002 3y ago
    Which is why those countries focus on wind energy. The northern regions, outside the Arctic are the windiest places on earth, and wind is anticorrelated with the sun being stronger in the winter. https://globalwindatlas.info/en https://globalwindatlas.info/en
- fho 3y ago
  There are economies of scale at play here. One large powerplant will be more efficient and easier to maintain than tens of thousand small ones. Distributed solar is also a regulation nightmare. If there is a fault in a powerplant you have experienced staff on site to deal with the issue. If there is a bug in the firmware of a cheap inverter that is installed thousand of times the owners probably won't even notice until the grid maintainer rings. (I am pro-nuclear, but definitely not against solar. Still looking at a cheap balcony system once I find some time.)
- RagnarD 3y ago
  Solar or wind makes sense on a small individualized basis for offgrid users. It’s a terrible idea for grid scale power vs. nuclear.

xbmcuser 3y ago

Its more dishonest to say that the world has the capacity or the ability today to build and run 10000s of nuclear reactors safely or dispose of the spent nuclear fuel. We would be producing 100000-200000Mton of nuclear waste a year at today electricity usage levels.

Paradigma11 3y ago
It would still be the same few holes in the ground that we have to secure. Nobody cares how many Mton are stored below.
- xbmcuser 3y ago
  Like I said people are telling tall tales who say Nuclear solves the problem. The world does not have the capacity or the ability to store or use 100000mton of Nuclear fuel safely. That's just nuclear fuel rods the multiple times that the other nuclear waste that will be generated I am not even counting. I think most of the nuclear zealots are engineers which don't look at reality just the math. I personally think nuclear has a part to play but not the current technology
RagnarD 3y ago
A large fraction of "spent" nuclear fuel is unfissioned Uranium that can (and should) be recycled. France does this. It's a fact of physics that the more radioactive is a material, the faster it decays. The most dangerous isotopes decay in years, not centuries or millenia. One stunning fact, originating in the incredible energy density of e=mc^2, is: "If we take that a step further, U.S. commercial reactors have generated about 90,000 metric tons of spent fuel since the 1950s. If all of it were able to be stacked together, it could fit on a single football field at a depth of less than 10 yards." Now ponder how much coal ash and CO2 has been released into the atmosphere since the 1950s (!!!) And more than that: how many heavy metals with an infinite half-life have been sent into the atmosphere by such burning and settled into the ground including agricultural soil. Nuclear waste is a gigantic straw-man. It's a manufactured issue by environmentalists who've wanted to kill nuclear for decades. Moreover, it's likely that Helion will create the first commercially viable fusion reactor in a small number of years. Once that happens, it becomes even better than fission. https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-nuclear-fuel https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-...

ViewTrick1002 3y ago

Disregarding $/kWh. Why spend more for less simply because it is nuclear power?

fragmede 3y ago
Because it works when the Sun is down and the wind isn't blowing, and doesn't pollute like coal does. It mean in the dead of winter when there is little/no sun, we can run electric heaters.
- ViewTrick1002 3y ago
  Don't let perfect be the enemy of good. We can easily reach +95% renewable grids. The further north the more wind energy in the mix. Which is stronger and more prevalent during the winter. Lets see what we have left when we have reached 95%, it will not be the issues we think are most critical today. https://reneweconomy.com.au/a-near-100-per-cent-renewables-grid-is-well-within-reach-and-with-little-storage/ https://reneweconomy.com.au/a-near-100-per-cent-renewables-g...

irdc 3y ago

Why bother building expensive centralised power generation using nuclear fission when you can just put down some more cheap solar panels that don’t have even nearly the same regulatory burden? I’m asking this not to get into the usual discussion on baseload and the sun not always shining, but to point out the simple economics of renewables: they might not be ideal, but that won’t matter as they’ll be cheap.

MagnumOpus 3y ago
Baseload and nighttime cannot be ignored if you try to argue economics. You have to compensate with batteries or overbuild or a continent spanning grid - and suddenly “cheap” is not quite the word. And of course solar is “cheap” in SoCal or Morocco. North of latitude 50, in France or the UK or Canada or northern China it is more expensive than mass-produced nuclear power plants even without accounting for batteries and nighttime.
- ViewTrick1002 3y ago
  Which is why those countries focus on wind energy. The northern regions, outside the Arctic are the windiest places on earth, and wind is anticorrelated with the sun being stronger in the winter. https://globalwindatlas.info/en https://globalwindatlas.info/en
fho 3y ago
There are economies of scale at play here. One large powerplant will be more efficient and easier to maintain than tens of thousand small ones. Distributed solar is also a regulation nightmare. If there is a fault in a powerplant you have experienced staff on site to deal with the issue. If there is a bug in the firmware of a cheap inverter that is installed thousand of times the owners probably won't even notice until the grid maintainer rings. (I am pro-nuclear, but definitely not against solar. Still looking at a cheap balcony system once I find some time.)
RagnarD 3y ago
Solar or wind makes sense on a small individualized basis for offgrid users. It’s a terrible idea for grid scale power vs. nuclear.