Ultra Safe Nuclear

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Sep 18, 2020, 1:13 AM UTC

jay_kyburz wrote: post #284

WalterBright wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> an armed guard almost forever Things that have long half-lives are not very dangerous, as in order to have a long half-life it must be emitting radiation at correspondingly lower levels. For example, something with a half-life of 100,000 years is emitting 1/100,000 of the radiation that one with a half-life of a year is.

I actually have no idea how long waste needs to be kept out of the hands of criminals, but I assume it's "a long time". My comment was mostly facetious, but the point I was making was serious. We never really take the full cost of disposing waste and pollution into consideration. I think, when you buy a new solar panel, you should also pay the full cost to pull it apart and dispose of it as well.

Post by godelski » Fri, Sep 18, 2020, 1:14 AM UTC

ChuckMcM wrote: post #288

ajross wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And unlike a natural gas plant, it costs 3-10x what the equivalent generating capacity in renewables would cost. I come to post this Same Thing every time this discussion comes up. It's not about safety. Everyone serious understand nuclear, even current technologies, is "safe enough" to be useful to build out. Nuclear is outrageously expensive , though. And new reactor designs don't seem to be making much progress on…

Picking a nit here. You wrote: > Nuclear is outrageously expensive, though. And new reactor designs don't seem to be making much progress on that. Nuclear plants are expensive the way GE and Bechtel build them not inherently so. At some point I got to look at the Diablo Canyon cost-to-build breakdown and about 2/3ds of the cost were litigation, licensing, and specialized site and construction prep. Finding people who…

Post by flor1s » Fri, Sep 18, 2020, 1:23 AM UTC

steeve wrote: post #28

grawprog wrote: post #8

So why has nuclear waste become a thing that's not mentioned anymore? It was a pretty big thing in the 90's, now it seems to get brushed under the rug for all this 'safe' nuclear power marketing. It's mot just meltdowns and containment breaches that are a problem with nuclear power. None of the renewable alternatives produce radioactive waste that needs to be stored and dealt with. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rad…

A few hints: - read about CIGEO - nuclear waste, once it has decayed, becomes metal in glass - nuclear waste is _small_, see [1], the nuclear fuel waste is the tiny red cube. - wind turbines have a 20 years lifespan, after which the blades are buried and forgotten, and will stay there forever [2] - renewables are more CO2 intensive than nuclear, fuel cycle included, see IPCC reports (there is a debate for nuclear vs…

Post by projektfu » Fri, Sep 18, 2020, 1:34 AM UTC

lucb1e wrote: post #244

jka wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know, and I have been wondering whether much of the evident pro-nuclear lobbying recently (it seems apparent on many threads here related to energy generation) might be due to the nuclear industry being in serious threat of becoming obsolete. I've harped on about this many times before, but the levelized cost of energy[1] for renewables like solar and wind power is substantially cheaper than nuclear power now…

I'm a little disappointed that the Levelized cost of energy link does not include, you know, the levelized cost of various energy sources. Also, it doesn't include the number of hours needed to find and debate a place where you can actually put down renewables. Places using the most power (those most densely populated, like the Netherlands where I come from) have enough space for nuclear reactors to keep the country…

Post by projektfu » Fri, Sep 18, 2020, 1:38 AM UTC

shireboy wrote: post #68

grawprog wrote: post #8

So why has nuclear waste become a thing that's not mentioned anymore? It was a pretty big thing in the 90's, now it seems to get brushed under the rug for all this 'safe' nuclear power marketing. It's mot just meltdowns and containment breaches that are a problem with nuclear power. None of the renewable alternatives produce radioactive waste that needs to be stored and dealt with. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rad…

Counterpoint: why is environmental impact of solar+batteries often not mentioned? Lithium, silicon tetrachloride, hydrochloric and hydrofluoric acid isn't exactly nice to produce or put into rivers. My 2c: have an "all of the above" approach towards research, dispassionately understand pros and cons and big-picture complexity, instead of retreating to tribes that ignore the complexity.