5 ms·

Your power storage is the Uranium fuel, which is a better battery than batteries. Much denser and lasts longer. In a sanely designed grid you overprovision non

by phil21 4mo ago

Your power storage is the Uranium fuel, which is a better battery than batteries. Much denser and lasts longer. In a sanely designed grid you overprovision non-reliable renewables like solar and wind to provide your peak daytime usage and nuclear (or hydro if you are lucky enough) takes up the rest during the night and when wind is not blowing. Batteries to further flatten the duck curve and provide grid firming as required. Then you have fallback to nuclear and load shedding programs for rare seasonal issues solving that last 1-3% that is incredibly expensive with non-dispatchable power sources. No need to build natural gas plants that sit idle 95% of the time. You overbuild solar since it's basically free from a capex standpoint and use that to charge your batteries when the sun shines. This lets you maximize capital investment over your entire generating fleet while still providing relatively cheap and - most importantly - reliable power for industrial usage. Of course, the choice society has made to make nuclear exceedingly expensive might make it pencil out that it's cheaper to subsidize natural gas. But I think that's naive and foolish for the long run. Nuclear waste would be the other large remaining issue, but again - society chose to create that problem and not solve it. It's not technical in nature. Batteries have no reasonable path forward for seasonal storage in many locations in the world. Nuclear does. Solving overnight storage is simply not interesting, as it's the easy problem to solve. tldr; Build it all. Nuclear, solar, wind, batteries, and hell - even natural gas as a last resort.

awesome_dude 4mo ago
> Nuclear waste would be the other large remaining issue, but again - society chose to create that problem and not solve it. It's not technical in nature. Care to explain, I've never seen a genuine solution that goes beyond hand waving, bad faith arguing, and aggressiveness.
- zdragnar 4mo ago
  For one thing, nuclear power plants produce much less waste than most people imagine. Waste can also be reprocessed into new fuel, further reducing it. In the US, we have a suitable site that has been authorized and cancelled for 20 some years now: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_repository https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_r... The reasons it keeps being cancelled, and the waste is stored on-site at nuclear plants instead, is purely political and nothing to do with the technological or safety aspects, according to the GAO.
  - awesome_dude 4mo ago
    I've never understood how people think "less" solves the issue, it's not negligible and asking to increase the number of plants surely increases the waste. Reprocessing, isn't infinite. There's going to be waste to deal with. You've not presented any technical solutions, instead you made it political by claiming that's the only problem. Do you have an actual understanding of the problems or are you just pushing nuclear because it's aligning with you politically Edit: it's clear from the down votes i am getting that this is political, not technical. If you're down voting with no technical understanding you're political.
    - fc417fc802 4mo ago
      I think it is you who hasn't bothered to do basic research before forming an opinion. I suggest at least skimming the wikipedia page on radioactive waste. [0] There's also a page documenting the various national management plans. [1] > I've never understood how people think "less" solves the issue, it's not negligible ... It just needs to be little enough that the cost of constructing long term storage space isn't cost prohibitive. The amount produced is something like 25 to 30 tons per GW per year before reprocessing; after reprocessing it's something like ~5% of that. Unfortunately I couldn't readily find numbers for the dilution rate when vitrifying the waste for geological disposal. Regardless, that amount is almost nothing when considered in terms of volume. A full size shipping container is somewhere between 75 and 108 cubic meters depending on which standard you prefer. To give a rough idea that equates to ~180 (US) tons of borosilicate glass (one of the materials commonly used to vitrify high level waste) on the low end (assuming I got the math right). There are also alternative disposal methods to consider such as breeder reactors (rather expensive at present) or horizontal drillholes. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-level_radioactive_waste_management#National_management_plans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-level_radioactive_waste_m...
      - awesome_dude 4mo ago
        You're repeating the problem - You're saying that there is less waste to deal with which magically means it's safe. You do understand that don't you?
- NuclearPM 4mo ago
  Nuclear waste isn’t an issue.
dalyons 4mo ago
Your proposal is to use nuclear as only backup? Or for only late nights (after batteries have discharged)? That dooms nukes economically, they need to run and sell power at close to 100% 24/7 to have any chance paying back the capex & opex. What you’re saying makes sense but only for a planned state economy where the government owns (or subsidizes) all generation. It’s not possible in a free market economy, the nukes would go bankrupt/ never be built
- hdgvhicv 4mo ago
  Nuclear advocates say “we want to sell power at the same price 24/7” They can’t cope with variable load, they can’t cope with other sources. They are only remotely viable with large amounts of storage.
- kelseydh 4mo ago
  Most electricity generation is handled by the government already, particularly in Canada. Worldwide approximately 88% of global electricity generation capacity is owned or controlled by national and local governments. Some Canadian provinces have IPPs -- Independent Private-Power companies but they are often operating under the patronage of government. Many owe their existence to privatisation, lobbying and sweetheart contracts. (E.g. in British Columbia, private run-of-river hydro companies scandalously secured a 60 year guaranteed non-market rate on electricity. https://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2016/09/12/BC-Hydro-Public-Interest-Private-Profits/?PageSpeed=noscript https://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2016/09/12/BC-Hydro-Public-Intere... )
  - dalyons 4mo ago
    88% seems impossibly high. “Or controlled by” must be doing some heavy lifting. Government owned power is 9% of the US, 25% of Australia, 1% of the UK. If “or controlled by” means privately owned plants that are subject to local regulations, then that is not particularly interesting or relevant to the discussion

by phil21 4mo ago

awesome_dude 4mo ago

> Nuclear waste would be the other large remaining issue, but again - society chose to create that problem and not solve it. It's not technical in nature. Care to explain, I've never seen a genuine solution that goes beyond hand waving, bad faith arguing, and aggressiveness.

zdragnar 4mo ago
For one thing, nuclear power plants produce much less waste than most people imagine. Waste can also be reprocessed into new fuel, further reducing it. In the US, we have a suitable site that has been authorized and cancelled for 20 some years now: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_repository https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_r... The reasons it keeps being cancelled, and the waste is stored on-site at nuclear plants instead, is purely political and nothing to do with the technological or safety aspects, according to the GAO.
- awesome_dude 4mo ago
  I've never understood how people think "less" solves the issue, it's not negligible and asking to increase the number of plants surely increases the waste. Reprocessing, isn't infinite. There's going to be waste to deal with. You've not presented any technical solutions, instead you made it political by claiming that's the only problem. Do you have an actual understanding of the problems or are you just pushing nuclear because it's aligning with you politically Edit: it's clear from the down votes i am getting that this is political, not technical. If you're down voting with no technical understanding you're political.
  - fc417fc802 4mo ago
    I think it is you who hasn't bothered to do basic research before forming an opinion. I suggest at least skimming the wikipedia page on radioactive waste. [0] There's also a page documenting the various national management plans. [1] > I've never understood how people think "less" solves the issue, it's not negligible ... It just needs to be little enough that the cost of constructing long term storage space isn't cost prohibitive. The amount produced is something like 25 to 30 tons per GW per year before reprocessing; after reprocessing it's something like ~5% of that. Unfortunately I couldn't readily find numbers for the dilution rate when vitrifying the waste for geological disposal. Regardless, that amount is almost nothing when considered in terms of volume. A full size shipping container is somewhere between 75 and 108 cubic meters depending on which standard you prefer. To give a rough idea that equates to ~180 (US) tons of borosilicate glass (one of the materials commonly used to vitrify high level waste) on the low end (assuming I got the math right). There are also alternative disposal methods to consider such as breeder reactors (rather expensive at present) or horizontal drillholes. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-level_radioactive_waste_management#National_management_plans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-level_radioactive_waste_m...
    - awesome_dude 4mo ago
      You're repeating the problem - You're saying that there is less waste to deal with which magically means it's safe. You do understand that don't you?
NuclearPM 4mo ago
Nuclear waste isn’t an issue.

dalyons 4mo ago

Your proposal is to use nuclear as only backup? Or for only late nights (after batteries have discharged)? That dooms nukes economically, they need to run and sell power at close to 100% 24/7 to have any chance paying back the capex & opex. What you’re saying makes sense but only for a planned state economy where the government owns (or subsidizes) all generation. It’s not possible in a free market economy, the nukes would go bankrupt/ never be built

hdgvhicv 4mo ago
Nuclear advocates say “we want to sell power at the same price 24/7” They can’t cope with variable load, they can’t cope with other sources. They are only remotely viable with large amounts of storage.
kelseydh 4mo ago
Most electricity generation is handled by the government already, particularly in Canada. Worldwide approximately 88% of global electricity generation capacity is owned or controlled by national and local governments. Some Canadian provinces have IPPs -- Independent Private-Power companies but they are often operating under the patronage of government. Many owe their existence to privatisation, lobbying and sweetheart contracts. (E.g. in British Columbia, private run-of-river hydro companies scandalously secured a 60 year guaranteed non-market rate on electricity. https://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2016/09/12/BC-Hydro-Public-Interest-Private-Profits/?PageSpeed=noscript https://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2016/09/12/BC-Hydro-Public-Intere... )
- dalyons 4mo ago
  88% seems impossibly high. “Or controlled by” must be doing some heavy lifting. Government owned power is 9% of the US, 25% of Australia, 1% of the UK. If “or controlled by” means privately owned plants that are subject to local regulations, then that is not particularly interesting or relevant to the discussion