3 ms·

There's plenty of room for nuclear, as well.

toomuchtodo 11y ago
Nuclear power plants take 10+ years to commission (Watts Bar in TN took nearly 36 years to complete), $1 billion USD to start (frequently approaching $2-4 billion), and have no permanent waste storage. Newer reactor designs that can burn up waste products instead of a once-through system haven't been tested in over 60 years (since first tested at Oak Ridge during the Manhattan Project in the late 50s; Thorium in a breeder blanket configuration). There simply is no time to further entertain the notion that nuclear is a solution. It currently makes up only ~4% of US generating capacity, and it continues to be phased out, as its not cost competitive with wind (unsubsidized) and natural gas.
- Paperweight 11y ago
  People have used that excuse for decades...and here we are.
  - toomuchtodo 11y ago
    By "here", do you mean solar already cheaper than utility power in 36 states [1], it estimated to reach grid parity in all 50 states next year [2], and US solar generation capacity surging to almost 40GW by the end of 2016? [3] Because that is where "here" is. [1] http://news.investors.com/technology/061515-757277-tesla-sees-battery-costs-following-solar.htm http://news.investors.com/technology/061515-757277-tesla-see... [2] http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/deutsche-bank-sees-50-us-states-solar-grid-parity-2016 http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/deutsche-bank-sees-50-us-sta... [3] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-05-26/solar-as-fastest-growing-u-s-power-source-rivals-shale-boom http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-05-26/solar-as-f... EDIT: Want to save the world? Build out solar and wind as quickly as possible. We have a lot of coal, natural gas, and nuclear generation to replace quickly (in that order).
    - coryrc 11y ago
      Yes, solar is cheaper than the retail with massive subsidies, not having to pay for storage (they don't supply power in the evening nor at night), and not paying for grid (hence cheaper than retail). From your third link: "New York State’s Public Service Commission is overhauling its rate system to keep transmission owners profitable as more consumers produce their own power". So the rest of us are subsidizing solar owners through income taxes (federal) and the rates we pay for electricity.
      - toomuchtodo 11y ago
        > Yes, solar is cheaper than the retail with massive subsidies The numbers I quote are without subsidies. Wind is already cheaper than nuclear without subsidies, even taking into account nuclear power plants receive enormous liability waivers that wind doesn't require (they're only liable for the first $13 billion USD in damages from an accident; the US government picks up the rest). > So the rest of us are subsidizing solar owners through income taxes (federal) and the rates we pay for electricity. And the rest of us our subsidizing cheap coal by not paying for the damage it does through carbon dioxide and radioactive material release. Your point?
    - chris_va 11y ago
      Solar and wind are decent, and I agree that we should build more, and reaching carbon neutrality is a great goal. However, since you care about this subject, I feel compelled to point out that: - Neither produce power all the time (i.e. at night for solar), and can be transiently unreliable (i.e. weather). This is OK if all you care about is moving water around from one large reservoir to another, but less so for anything else. - Both are (currently, granted) much more expensive than nuclear if you care about generating large amounts of power. - They both kill about 5x more people than nuclear (deaths/injuries per tWh), even taking into account nuclear waste disposal. Subsidizing rooftop solar is one of the stupider things we have done as a society. Subsidizing large plants makes a lot more sense, since at least large scale solar plants are somewhat safe.
      - toomuchtodo 11y ago
- shiny 11y ago
  Oak Ridge is working in tandem with a Canadian company to build a Molten Salt Reactor [1], and China is trying to build them as well. Seems pretty dumb to completely give up on a nearly-unlimited, potentially very clean/safe form of energy production. [1]: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2015/01/07/nuclear-power-turns-to-salt/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2015/01/07/nuclear-po...
  - toomuchtodo 11y ago
    Are there any financial penalties if they don't meet their turnup date? Seems pretty dumb to bet the fate of the world's climate on a technology that has consistently failed to be successful both from a time and cost perspective.
- sliverstorm 11y ago
  There's simply no time to do it right, I love that argument. It's usually the reason for all the problems I wrestle.
  - toomuchtodo 11y ago
    Keep in mind, it's your opinion that nuclear is right. Can I store concrete casks of spent fuel with a half life into the tens of thousands of years in your backyard? Because everyone else has said no, including the Nevada government. Nuclear is "the right choice" up until someone needs to pay for it, or be liable for it, or responsible for it. Then the hand waving starts about how its all a "solved problem".
    - sliverstorm 11y ago
      "Right" was referring to developing better reactors & fuel cycles. You were the one saying we don't have enough time to employ anything other than the reactor designs from thirty years ago.
      - toomuchtodo 11y ago
        Are you volunteering to fund better reactors and fuel cycles? Because no one has stepped forward to fund them, not even governments that supposedly are pro-fuel reuse and safer reactor design.
        sliverstorm 11y ago
        Do I want some of my tax dollars going towards them? Yes. Do I possess enough capital to personally fund an entire nuclear program? No. Does that invalidate my opinion? No.
    - 1053r 11y ago
      I personally volunteer my backyard. My neighbors will probably disagree with me, but all I require is $100 per household-year of high level waste generated. Since nuclear power generates approximately 1 coke can worth of waste per year of powering a household, a 55 gallon concrete cask will hold 586 households worth of waste for a year. My disposal plan will add approximately half a cent per kilowatt hour to the price of electricity, and I have a minimum order size of 10000 casks, or the waste of 5,860,000 households. My half billion dollars will be primarily invested in: 1) storing the casks in my backyard as a depot while I load them onto a container ship. 2) A single container ship which I'll float over deep ocean trenches, dodge hurricanes, and run fuel and supply ships out to. 3) Approximately 1/4th of a presidential campaign ($250 million) worth of advertising, marketing, and education about the safety of 3rd generation nuclear reactors. I will then sell the "waste" back to the resulting 3rd generation reactors for $100,000 per cask (for around 5000 household-years worth of energy per cask). I figure I should net a profit on the scheme of around a billion dollars per iteration of this scheme, once I factor in my expenses. Seriously. The "waste" problem is not a problem. It's a massive profit opportunity waiting for an entrepreneur.

Nuclear power plants take 10+ years to commission (Watts Bar in TN took nearly 36 years to complete), $1 billion USD to start (frequently approaching $2-4 billion), and have no permanent waste storage. Newer reactor designs that can burn up waste products instead of a once-through system haven't been tested in over 60 years (since first tested at Oak Ridge during the Manhattan Project in the late 50s; Thorium in a breeder blanket configuration). There simply is no time to further entertain the notion that nuclear is a solution. It currently makes up only ~4% of US generating capacity, and it continues to be phased out, as its not cost competitive with wind (unsubsidized) and natural gas.

Paperweight 11y ago
People have used that excuse for decades...and here we are.
- toomuchtodo 11y ago
  By "here", do you mean solar already cheaper than utility power in 36 states [1], it estimated to reach grid parity in all 50 states next year [2], and US solar generation capacity surging to almost 40GW by the end of 2016? [3] Because that is where "here" is. [1] http://news.investors.com/technology/061515-757277-tesla-sees-battery-costs-following-solar.htm http://news.investors.com/technology/061515-757277-tesla-see... [2] http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/deutsche-bank-sees-50-us-states-solar-grid-parity-2016 http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/deutsche-bank-sees-50-us-sta... [3] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-05-26/solar-as-fastest-growing-u-s-power-source-rivals-shale-boom http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-05-26/solar-as-f... EDIT: Want to save the world? Build out solar and wind as quickly as possible. We have a lot of coal, natural gas, and nuclear generation to replace quickly (in that order).
  - coryrc 11y ago
    Yes, solar is cheaper than the retail with massive subsidies, not having to pay for storage (they don't supply power in the evening nor at night), and not paying for grid (hence cheaper than retail). From your third link: "New York State’s Public Service Commission is overhauling its rate system to keep transmission owners profitable as more consumers produce their own power". So the rest of us are subsidizing solar owners through income taxes (federal) and the rates we pay for electricity.
    - toomuchtodo 11y ago
      > Yes, solar is cheaper than the retail with massive subsidies The numbers I quote are without subsidies. Wind is already cheaper than nuclear without subsidies, even taking into account nuclear power plants receive enormous liability waivers that wind doesn't require (they're only liable for the first $13 billion USD in damages from an accident; the US government picks up the rest). > So the rest of us are subsidizing solar owners through income taxes (federal) and the rates we pay for electricity. And the rest of us our subsidizing cheap coal by not paying for the damage it does through carbon dioxide and radioactive material release. Your point?
  - chris_va 11y ago
    Solar and wind are decent, and I agree that we should build more, and reaching carbon neutrality is a great goal. However, since you care about this subject, I feel compelled to point out that: - Neither produce power all the time (i.e. at night for solar), and can be transiently unreliable (i.e. weather). This is OK if all you care about is moving water around from one large reservoir to another, but less so for anything else. - Both are (currently, granted) much more expensive than nuclear if you care about generating large amounts of power. - They both kill about 5x more people than nuclear (deaths/injuries per tWh), even taking into account nuclear waste disposal. Subsidizing rooftop solar is one of the stupider things we have done as a society. Subsidizing large plants makes a lot more sense, since at least large scale solar plants are somewhat safe.
    - toomuchtodo 11y ago
shiny 11y ago
Oak Ridge is working in tandem with a Canadian company to build a Molten Salt Reactor [1], and China is trying to build them as well. Seems pretty dumb to completely give up on a nearly-unlimited, potentially very clean/safe form of energy production. [1]: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2015/01/07/nuclear-power-turns-to-salt/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2015/01/07/nuclear-po...
- toomuchtodo 11y ago
  Are there any financial penalties if they don't meet their turnup date? Seems pretty dumb to bet the fate of the world's climate on a technology that has consistently failed to be successful both from a time and cost perspective.
sliverstorm 11y ago
There's simply no time to do it right, I love that argument. It's usually the reason for all the problems I wrestle.
- toomuchtodo 11y ago
  Keep in mind, it's your opinion that nuclear is right. Can I store concrete casks of spent fuel with a half life into the tens of thousands of years in your backyard? Because everyone else has said no, including the Nevada government. Nuclear is "the right choice" up until someone needs to pay for it, or be liable for it, or responsible for it. Then the hand waving starts about how its all a "solved problem".
  - sliverstorm 11y ago
    "Right" was referring to developing better reactors & fuel cycles. You were the one saying we don't have enough time to employ anything other than the reactor designs from thirty years ago.
    - toomuchtodo 11y ago
      Are you volunteering to fund better reactors and fuel cycles? Because no one has stepped forward to fund them, not even governments that supposedly are pro-fuel reuse and safer reactor design.
      - sliverstorm 11y ago
        Do I want some of my tax dollars going towards them? Yes. Do I possess enough capital to personally fund an entire nuclear program? No. Does that invalidate my opinion? No.
  - 1053r 11y ago
    I personally volunteer my backyard. My neighbors will probably disagree with me, but all I require is $100 per household-year of high level waste generated. Since nuclear power generates approximately 1 coke can worth of waste per year of powering a household, a 55 gallon concrete cask will hold 586 households worth of waste for a year. My disposal plan will add approximately half a cent per kilowatt hour to the price of electricity, and I have a minimum order size of 10000 casks, or the waste of 5,860,000 households. My half billion dollars will be primarily invested in: 1) storing the casks in my backyard as a depot while I load them onto a container ship. 2) A single container ship which I'll float over deep ocean trenches, dodge hurricanes, and run fuel and supply ships out to. 3) Approximately 1/4th of a presidential campaign ($250 million) worth of advertising, marketing, and education about the safety of 3rd generation nuclear reactors. I will then sell the "waste" back to the resulting 3rd generation reactors for $100,000 per cask (for around 5000 household-years worth of energy per cask). I figure I should net a profit on the scheme of around a billion dollars per iteration of this scheme, once I factor in my expenses. Seriously. The "waste" problem is not a problem. It's a massive profit opportunity waiting for an entrepreneur.