116
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 16 Nov 2024
116 points (93.3% liked)
World News
32315 readers
794 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
I don’t get it. Current nuclear power solutions take longer to set up, have an effectively permanently harmful byproduct, have the (relatively small) potential to catastrophically fail, almost always depend on an abundant supply of fresh water, and are really expensive to build, maintain and decommission.
If someone ever comes up with a functional fusion reactor, I could see the allure; in all other cases, a mix of wind, wave, geothermal, hydro and solar, alongside energy storage solutions, will continually outperform fission.
I suspect that the reason some countries like nuclear energy is that it also puts them in a position of nuclear power on the political stage.
There's a good youtube video from Sabine Hossenfelder that covers the benefits of nuclear. Definitely worth the watch.
One more aspect to nuclear power is its vulnerability to destructive forces, whether that be natural disasters or acts of war via either cyber attacks or direct bombing.
Given the abundance of safer alternatives, I don’t see why anyone would accept the risk associated with nuclear reactors.
certainly not saying you’re wrong, but the base load problem is still a problem afaik… storage solves some of it, but i think storage isn’t a full solution - we’d still need some other 24/7 generation capacity
Base load is an outdated concept. It is cheaper, by an order of magnitude, to install surplus generation capacity using renewables and build storage to cover periods of reduced production.
Nuclear reactors actually make terrible 'base load' generation anyway, as large swings in output induce thermal cycling stress in their metal components AND the economics of these multi-billion dollar investments depend on running near max output at all times - otherwise the payback time from selling power will extend beyond the useful life of the plant.
The policy wonks shilling for nuclear are not being honest. The economics for these plants are terrible, they are especially terrible if The Plan (tm) is to use nuclear as a transition fuel to be replaced by renewables - as then they won't even reach break even. To say nothing of the fact that a solar installation in the US takes 6 months, while there have been two reactors under construction in Georgia for a decade...
50 years ago, nuclear was a great option. Today, it is too expensive, too slow to build, and simply unnecessary with existing storage technologies.
If y'all were really worried about base load power, you'd be shilling for natural gas peaker plants + carbon capture which has much better economics.
Ah there it is. Another anti-nuclear shill for the fossil fuel industry. Sprinkling nebulous "economic" claims.
Storage at grid scale doesn't exist, and probably never will, but natural gas peak plants exist today and are extremely lucrative for the fossil fuel industry. Every watt of solar or wind has a built in fossil fuel component that is necessary for grid stability. Nuclear eliminates the fossil fuel component, why would you be against that?
The purpose of nuclear power is zero-carbon emissions. That is the most important part. The economic value of them is secondary.
You clearly didn't comprehend what I wrote. Educate yourself on this topic - not from forum arguments, but from TEA and policy papers.
For one, I said 'base load' generation isn't needed. Your thinking that is is means your thinking on the matter is 10 years out of date. If you insist base load is needed, then gas plants and carbon capture systems are far cheaper and faster to build.
You don't care, though, as you aren't seriously involved in the policy and just want to live in a world where you are right 🤷.
Carbon capture is fossil fuel industry green washing. It doesn't exist and completely ignores other greenhouse gases that are endemic to natural gas extraction and use. Again the purpose of base load, which is needed regardless of the propaganda, is to have a stable grid. The only way base load won't be needed is if grid-scale storage both could be built (it can't) and was built (it isn't). So conveniently natural gas plants are built instead and now the US is the world's number one producer of fossil fuels.
Isn't that interesting?
The conspiratorial thinking isn't helping your argument.
It's quite clear you haven't engaged with this topic outside of internet arguments. I sincerely hope you do some reading and learn more here - you clearly have the passion.
Until then, find someone else to harass.
Agreed; and it will become more of a problem as water becomes less predictable. Problem is, for most atomic generators, that also holds true.
Investment in research is definitely needed, but building existing systems isn’t going to solve the issues either.
Thorium Salt reactors can recycle their water source and also use water from waste treatment or even sea water as they're not high pressure water reactors.
When you don't need the result of power generation to be fissionable material for warheads there are a lot more options available to you, such as using the waste from older reactors to generate energy and output much less reactive material.
Nuclear missiles are an albatross around the neck of nuclear power.
In what universe do those other power generation methods even come close to nuclear power?
It would take about 800 wind turbines or 8.5 million solar panels to replace the power output of one nuclear reactor.
And the fissile material can be reprocessed after it’s been spent. Like 90% of the spent fuel can be reprocessed and reused, but the Carter administration banned nuclear waste recycling in the US for fears it would hasten nuclear proliferation.
https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/fuel-recycling/processing-of-used-nuclear-fuel
Wind, hydro, solar, and geothermal are all great. Anything is better than coal or gas power generation. But to say these green power generation methods come close to nuclear… not a chance.
I can set up 20 GW of solar panels to match the capacity of a 4 GW nuclear power plant. And I can set up 20 GW of PV in a year. China installs about 30 GW of solar capacity in a quarter.
It takes about 8-10 years to build a nuclear power plant. In 8 years, I could have installed the equivalent of 8 nuclear power plants using Solar PV that it would take me to build one nuclear power plant.
You can theoretically. Unfortunately, you are not considering the land difference.
More to the point, the absolute political nightmare of buying and getting permission to use so much land.
It is a nightmare for both. But rare to see the amount of land needed for the power station, have to argue about arable use. Whereas, it's pretty hard in the UK to locate the solar without others claiming land is lost. Farm land mainly as that is the cheap build option. (pricy land, lower labour).
But even brownfield land. Once you have the area to host something like this. You are usually talking about close to populated areas. And just about every NIMBY crap excuse is thrown up about history or other potential use. Meaning, at best you end up with some huge project that takes decades. With a vague plan to add solar generation to the roof.
Honestly I agree. It should be fucking easy to build these plants. Farming should be updating. And honestly can benefit from well-designed solar if both parties are willing to invest and research.
But we have been seeing these arguments for the last 20 years. And people are arseholes, mostly.
And this is all before you consider the need for storage. Again solvable with hydro etc. Theoretically easy. But more land and way way more politics and time. If hydro the cost goes insane. And the type of land become more politically complex. If battery, you instantly get the comparison of mining and transport costs. So again more insane politics.
Right. The UK it will be a challenge for sure. Any western democracy that's stuck due to the nature of its governance system indeed. BRICS countries OTOH are some of the fastest installers of solar. Maybe we're looking at a mean regression for the west.
Yep.
Also while the UK governance structure is crap.
Other EU nations have some of the same issues. (As has briccs nations in the past)
This is more about corperation power. Capatalims control over government is everywhere. But fully embedded in the west.
That's a lot of text, and yet, solving all of that is easier, faster and less expensive than nuclear.
Solving politics is cheap and fast.
Utter crap. Solar power companies have been trying for 20 years.
Its not like you came up with a new idea.
AI post? The reply doesn't even make sense.
Only fails to make sense. If you failed to read any significant portion of the said wall of text.
It was a wall because It was detailed in the history of solar power. Ill ELI5 for you.
We have funded solar power for decades. By allowing the industry to charge equal to other fuels. Meaning, for 20 years or more, companies have been trying to build solar plants all over the nation. And those that got there made a fucking fortune. Until the Tories ended part of it nearly 14 years ago. They stopped the subsidies. But still paid the same rate as more expensive power.
The problem with building solar is the politics from farmers and local communities. As the text described.
So
Of building solar over nuclear. We have been trying for decades.
Then get to work.
I've considered it, some renewables installation jobs I've seen are extremely well paid.
You have two votes, and they matter: where you work, and where you spend your money.
But then you don't have power at night. Cost comparisons of renewables vs nuclear very often neglect storage. It is not a trivial cost. Nuclear doesn't perfectly match demand either, but it can provide a baseload.
It's not renewables or nuclear, it's renewables and nuclear.
Storage is a kludge. Regardless of the power source, we should be building power plants to consistently exceed electricity demand. The excess power can go towards hydrogen production and desalination.
You may not be aware, but most governments now require storage to be added as part of solar projects.
Those 800 wind turbines can be built in a month. Building a nuclear plant takes decades. And nuclear fuel reprocessing had never been economical by a long shot. Your pipe dreams will always regain just that and that's before we even start talking about proliferation and nuclear waste.
In China they do it in 6 years...
https://www.statista.com/statistics/712841/median-construction-time-for-reactors-since-1981/
And in those 6 years, you could have built over 6x that capacity in renewables, easy.
You can also built more than 1 reactor at the same time
The same can be said of any power source?
Sure, but the other commenter conveniently forgot that that's the case for nuclear as well
You could, but with that colossal amount of resources you could have built 12x in renewables, probably more because of economy of scale.
And if you decide to commit all those resources to renewables, you probably just created a booming local industry of well paying jobs.
But then you still haven't solved any of the issues with renewables (at least solar and wind); The amount of space they take up, their inconsistent power output and power grids which haven't been designed for them.
It saddens me that we're here dealing with a push for obsolete, untenable solutions, and all the while, China keeps solving your "impossible issues" on the daily:
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20241113-will-chinas-ultra-high-voltage-grid-pay-off-for-renewable-power
I'm very glad I don't live anywhere near one of those.
And why is that?
The Chinese are really famous for their safety culture, right?
None of their reactors have blown up yet and they've had nuclear plants since the 50's
The performance of nuclear power must be calculated in relation to its cost and risk. And here renewable energy is more than competitive.
This is a much more reasonable argument than most.
But third and fourth-gen nuclear are excellent sources of constant energy that don't require storage, and some of which have a tiny percentage of the waste stream of prior generations, and what waste they do produce is problematic along the lines of 400 years (as opposed to 27,000 years).
Third and fourth gen can also use the waste that's currently being warehoused as well. So they'll be reducing environmental impact that's caused by the current waste stream.
Good point.
I concur. Nuclear has had seventy years to compete. Renewable is cheaper and has nowhere near the political hurdles of nuclear.
That is the point. 30 years ago going nuclear was extremely viable. Now it is a distraction.
Nuclear takes 10 years to build. Renewables are extremely cheap and work directly.
By pretending to advocate for nuclear energy the fossil fuel industry can keep selling their trash for another 10 years. When the plants are almost done they will start fearmongering against nuclear to cancel the plants.