4 ms·

Yes, we need a mix of technologies. But at the current state of things, nuclear shouldn't be something to invest into. Yes, existing reactors should be used for

by _ph_ 3y ago

Yes, we need a mix of technologies. But at the current state of things, nuclear shouldn't be something to invest into. Yes, existing reactors should be used for their full life time, but there is far too much speaking against building new ones.

viknesh 3y ago
Other than the practical reality of it being expensive to construct nuclear facilities (which may or may not be solvable), what is speaking against building new ones?
- _ph_ 3y ago
  Several reasons: - it takes way to long to finish them, renewables can be set up much quicker - as they are too expensive, they are binding money which could be used more efficiently somewhere else. - we haven't solved the waste problem - nuclear is the worst companion to renewables, as nuclear power plants are limited in their regulation capacity and you cannot afford to keep them not running at a high load or the electrictiy would become even more expensive.
pfdietz 3y ago
I think it still makes sense to do R&D on nuclear, for example new reactor types, just as insurance. There's a low bar to justify R&D.
- _ph_ 3y ago
  Sure, I am always strongly in favor of doing R&D on alternative technologies. But it also is important to understand that this takes a lot of time. But we need to get our grid quickly off fossil fuels and for that we need to use the thechnologies which can be rolled out now. Which would be the renewables. But any R&D we do now could come handy for the last step, to get the grid fully carbon neutral.
  - pfdietz 3y ago
    Or for niche uses, such as military naval propulsion, space, and actinide destruction. Technologies with multiple uses beyond nuclear would also be worth looking at. A very interesting one is CO2 turbines, which could be much smaller (and cheaper) than steam turbines. These are available, but have not been pushed to their optimized limits like steam turbines have.

by _ph_ 3y ago

viknesh 3y ago

Other than the practical reality of it being expensive to construct nuclear facilities (which may or may not be solvable), what is speaking against building new ones?

_ph_ 3y ago
Several reasons: - it takes way to long to finish them, renewables can be set up much quicker - as they are too expensive, they are binding money which could be used more efficiently somewhere else. - we haven't solved the waste problem - nuclear is the worst companion to renewables, as nuclear power plants are limited in their regulation capacity and you cannot afford to keep them not running at a high load or the electrictiy would become even more expensive.

pfdietz 3y ago

I think it still makes sense to do R&D on nuclear, for example new reactor types, just as insurance. There's a low bar to justify R&D.

_ph_ 3y ago
Sure, I am always strongly in favor of doing R&D on alternative technologies. But it also is important to understand that this takes a lot of time. But we need to get our grid quickly off fossil fuels and for that we need to use the thechnologies which can be rolled out now. Which would be the renewables. But any R&D we do now could come handy for the last step, to get the grid fully carbon neutral.
- pfdietz 3y ago
  Or for niche uses, such as military naval propulsion, space, and actinide destruction. Technologies with multiple uses beyond nuclear would also be worth looking at. A very interesting one is CO2 turbines, which could be much smaller (and cheaper) than steam turbines. These are available, but have not been pushed to their optimized limits like steam turbines have.