21–30 of 142 posts
Is there a way of designing safe nuclear plants in safe places in the world and efficiently exporting that energy to other parts within that same region?
Thank you for your answers. I know v little on the subject but am a big believer in the inherent power that nuclear generates and its’ cost effectiveness.
Future generations will equate this logic to that of the people who healed all ailments with leeches.
A disaster. I'm opposed to the construction of new nuclear plants (still open to possibility of new fusion plants at some in the future) but from an environmental standpoint it makes far more sense to maintain the existing nuclear plants - at least for now. The biggest drawbacks of nuclear power (expensive and slow plant construction) are off the table with existing plants! Hardening existing plants against possible…
In Japan and wait for the next major earthquakes?
> Hardening existing plants against possible future catastrophe is probably far cheaper
Probably not. That's the case in Japan where several reactors will never be restarted again.
Same thing happened in Germany. This is a really hard problem. I consider myself pretty pro-nuclear but it can never be 100% safe. I can't blame Japan for wanting out after Fukushima, but at the same time there has to be some kind of approach that balances short-term safety against the long-term consequences of carbonization.
> Same thing happened in Germany. Germany turned to coal? It didn't happen. Germany actually turned to renewables. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_Germany#...
For every MW of nuclear that was turned down, a MW of natgas was turned up.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Germany#/media/File:...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is also the fact that no country on Earth can truly guarantee they can properly store the waste for the timelines required.
A common argument used to be that at least the amount of uranium is finite, so we can simply plan where to put it. Another interesting aspect is that we only have a few centuries of nuclear power left at current reserve and consumption rates. Uranium is absolutely a non renewable fuel. This could change with breeder reactors or the various fancy things being researched, but I think there is a public perception that u…
"Peak oil" has been a vague concern for a great many years, with the deadline around the corner but that goalpost was repeatedly moved back as previously uneconomic sources became viable - like tar sand extraction. Similarly the available volume of natural gas was increased drastically with refined fracking techniques. All of these things are finite in quantity, but, if we're reliant on it, then efficiency of extraction and conversion will go up - it's actually an interesting contrast to fission, there really isn't that much research going on since the economic investment of each plant is so heavy.
Same thing happened in Germany. This is a really hard problem. I consider myself pretty pro-nuclear but it can never be 100% safe. I can't blame Japan for wanting out after Fukushima, but at the same time there has to be some kind of approach that balances short-term safety against the long-term consequences of carbonization.
No energy source is 100% safe. People die when working on windmills and hydroelectric disasters are way more deadly than nuclear disasters. I think 100% safe is an unreasonable requirement.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Same thing happened in Germany. Germany turned to coal? It didn't happen. Germany actually turned to renewables. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_Germany#...
... And to Russian natural gas. [1] For every MW of nuclear that was turned down, a MW of natgas was turned up. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Germany#/media/File:...
Renewables 2000: 6%
Coal + Gas 2019 40%
Coal + Gas 2000 59%
Fact: Germany reduced fossil fuels coal+gas and increased renewables massively. Gas itself has increased.
Knowledgeable nuclear folks: Is there a way of designing safe nuclear plants in safe places in the world and efficiently exporting that energy to other parts within that same region? Thank you for your answers. I know v little on the subject but am a big believer in the inherent power that nuclear generates and its’ cost effectiveness.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current#Ad...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Misinformed opinions like this always make me so angry. A major industrial power house like Japan or Korea simply has no way of building enough renewable energy sources. It is nonsense.
If you're going to call someone misinformed, i think it would only be fair if you cited sources
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onsen
My cousin is a Mechanical Engineer with a concentration on renewable energy sources, and while at school for his masters he was telling about his professor he was working under who had his work halted after 3/11 (Tsunami and Fukushima meltdown) on exploring the viability of steam powered turbines to offset energy needs for Nuclear, which by the way at its peak never exceed 30%. I as a anti-nuclear activist was dismayed to hear that.
It was going well with promising leads, apparently he still needed gather like 3 more years of data to present to the Japanese government before he got grants and permission to move forward with projects and proofs of concept. Sadly, it never happened.
Knowledgeable nuclear folks: Is there a way of designing safe nuclear plants in safe places in the world and efficiently exporting that energy to other parts within that same region? Thank you for your answers. I know v little on the subject but am a big believer in the inherent power that nuclear generates and its’ cost effectiveness.
In general, build a not-fancy light water reactor away from the ocean and major fault lines.
We have the most experience with LWRs, and they are pretty safe except for the impact of major natural disasters.
There are other reactor designs, but we really need more experience with them.
.png){kind=link}