The Nuclear Option
city-journal.org
The Nuclear Option
1–10 of 187 posts
Re: The Nuclear Option
#2We need nuclear. Not only is a reliable carbon-free source of nuclear energy, even if wind and solar continue to develop where they provide all the power for day to day use, we can use the excess energy generated to drive CO2 removal from the atmosphere. It is seeming less likely that we able to change course in time such that just stopping carbon emissions prevents disaster. We will likely also need to actively remove carbon from the atmosphere. All such processes are energy intensive, and having excess nuclear power will be helpful.
Re: The Nuclear Option
#3We need nuclear. Not only is a reliable carbon-free source of nuclear energy, even if wind and solar continue to develop where they provide all the power for day to day use, we can use the excess energy generated to drive CO2 removal from the atmosphere. It is seeming less likely that we able to change course in time such that just stopping carbon emissions prevents disaster. We will likely also need to actively remo…
It's our best chance going forward (short of Fusion) but how do you go about calming people who are quite rightfully scared by it? I live in Japan which has a long history with nuclear but after Fukushima people take to the streets whenever a nuclear plant comes (or is announced to come) back online. If a country like Japan can still screw nuclear up so monumentally I don't hold out much hope for the rest of the world.
Re: The Nuclear Option
#4Given the construction costs, the case for keeping existing, already paid-for nuclear plants open seems a lot stronger than building new plants that won't pay for themselves for decades. Who knows what the electricity market will look like then?
Solar and wind infrastructure is now mass-produced and competition is driving costs down. It's unclear what forms of energy storage will win, but I would expect it to be competitive as well.
Re: The Nuclear Option
#5Sigh.
I've been arguing this for so long, and gave up about 5 years ago. I can't think of a more scalable way than fission to combat carbon, yet it won't happen for so many reasons.
* There are too many solar and wind success stories to point to. "Why can't NYC be like Scotland with wind power?!" You start to list the reasons and the response is "we can accomplish it if we put our minds to it!". It's an endless cycle of optimistic non-problem-solving.
* No politician will back nuclear. If there's an accident, they'll be run out of town. Not worth the risk.
* Along the same lines, there is zero interest in technology research/investment. This became obvious when they shut down reprocessing in the 70s and IFR was shut down in the 90s. And the reprocessing ban was by a President who happened to be a nuclear engineer! If he won't do it, who will?
* The scare-mongering in the media over accidents is impossible to overcome. There's no way to have a rational discussion when all someone has to do is point to the endless exclusion zone documentaries to win their argument.
* And then much of the blame needs to be shared by the nuclear engineers. They had decades to make nuclear safer before TMI, Chernobyl, and Fukushima (1942 -> 1970s, 80s, 2010s). And yet, here we are, with the same light water reactors that Rickover speced out in the 50s! Yes, I get that has something to do with building restrictions since TMI... so how about before that?
Re: The Nuclear Option
#6Given the construction costs, the case for keeping existing, already paid-for nuclear plants open seems a lot stronger than building new plants that won't pay for themselves for decades. Who knows what the electricity market will look like then? Solar and wind infrastructure is now mass-produced and competition is driving costs down. It's unclear what forms of energy storage will win, but I would expect it to be comp…
Except that's why we have so many power plants based 1950's era designs instead of safer, more modern plants.
Re: The Nuclear Option
#7My issue with trying to calm people down on the subject of nuclear is as far as I can tell they are scared of risks that don't exist. That can't be controlled with engineering solutions; so making nuclear energy safer won't do anything.
Take a recent article [0]. Now, they talk about getting "one chest X-ray every week", and apparently a chest Xray is about as radiation as 10 days of background radiation [1]. We're talking about a bit more than doubling a completely safe background rate to a figure that we have no evidence is of practically different, and that the experts claim is safe. I'm not going to look in to it, but I bet that the 'international limit' they talk about wasn't even derived scientifically, they probably just multiplied average background rate by some constant.
This is almost literally the same as taking the anti-vaccination crowd seriously. People who seem to be anti-chest-xray are being treated like credible sources of information! How can we expect sane policy in that sort of environment.
[0] https://eandt.theiet.org/content/articles/2018/03/fukushima-...
[1] https://www.radiologyinfo.org/en/info.cfm?pg=safety-xray
Re: The Nuclear Option
#8Sigh. I've been arguing this for so long, and gave up about 5 years ago. I can't think of a more scalable way than fission to combat carbon, yet it won't happen for so many reasons. * There are too many solar and wind success stories to point to. "Why can't NYC be like Scotland with wind power?!" You start to list the reasons and the response is "we can accomplish it if we put our minds to it!". It's an endless cycle…
The overall incredible ignorance around nuclear is staggering. If you ask the average person how many people have died as a result of the Chernobyl incident, they’re usually going to estimate high by orders of magnitude. In general what people don’t understand about radiation is effectively everything about it, and worse, they don’t want to know. Meanwhile trying to explain how many million die each and every year from burning hydrocarbons rolls right off them. It’s pathetic and infuriating and I’ve also given up completely.
And then much of the blame needs to be shared by the nuclear engineers. They had decades to make nuclear safer before TMI, Chernobyl, and Fukushima (1942 -> 1970s, 80s, 2010s). And yet, here we are, with the same light water reactors that Rickover speced out in the 50s! Yes, I get that has something to do with building restrictions since TMI... so how about before that?
It has to do with fuck all investment, a dead regulatory environment, and inability to test new designs at scale. For all the other reasons you mentioned the investment isn’t there. I’d add that the waste issue is seen by most of the public as technically insurmountable, whereas in fact it’s technically simple, but politically insurmountable. At this point you’d need it to be the platform issue for a popular president, along with a truly huge education initiative and a lot of arm-twisting in the senate. It would cost a fortune, but less than the inevitable disaster were hurtling toward without nuclear.
Unfortunately even on a site like HN, optimism about renewables and new tech combines with ignorance of nuclear power; how can we expect better from the average American?
Re: The Nuclear Option
#9Sigh. I've been arguing this for so long, and gave up about 5 years ago. I can't think of a more scalable way than fission to combat carbon, yet it won't happen for so many reasons. * There are too many solar and wind success stories to point to. "Why can't NYC be like Scotland with wind power?!" You start to list the reasons and the response is "we can accomplish it if we put our minds to it!". It's an endless cycle…
I agree with most of your points, however: most of the accidents have more to do with flaws in regulations than mistakes from the nuclear engineers. Chernobyl, which is arguably the worst and most iconic nuclear disaster of all times was mostly caused by a severe violation of procedures.
When you take into account he amount of energy that has been produced by nuclear power since the 50s, I'd say we have a pretty good record when it comes to overall safety.
Re: The Nuclear Option
#10...Less radioactive material than coal ash as well. Very excited for he NRG Thorium reactor test going on in the Netherlands.
Coal Ash more radioactive: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-...
NRG Thorium Reactor tests: https://www.technologyreview.com/the-download/608712/a-thori...