Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because the plants are finished and working. They just shut them down.
Nuclear plants have a lifetime of 30ish years. Many are getting shutdown now because the first wave of builds was around 30-50 years ago. The risks of continuing to operate older designs gets higher if they're refurbished.
Nuclear power: Are we too anxious about the risks of radiation?
321–330 of 619 posts
Re: Nuclear power: Are we too anxious about the risks of radiation?
#322Earlier quoted context omitted.
> A battery for 100/kwh can be used several 100 to 1000s of cycles. You're making the same error as reitzensteinm. The fact that you can charge and discharge a 1 KWh battery a thousand times doesn't make it a 1 MWh battery. If the United States wants to use 80% renewables we need 12 hours of energy storage, which works out to 6 TWh. Even at a very generous cost estimate of $100/KWh, this works out to 600 billion doll…
You can avoid a lot of storage requirements by making your grid smarter and electrifying transportation and heating. 60% renewables are possible with hardly any storage at all, certainly less than 12 hours. Shifting demand is always cheaper than storage. Once you've electrified transportation, you have hundreds of millions of car batteries that can help out with demand spikes. That distributes the high upfront cost o…
Re: Nuclear power: Are we too anxious about the risks of radiation?
#323Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Does that mean nuclear is just a totally great idea? No; the issue with nuclear is cost. Oh don't forget the other issue: It takes decades to build a new plant. We don't got that time. For the $6 Billion or more it takes to build a nuclear plant that will then take 15 to 20 years to license and build before it generates a single Watt, we could have had a $6 Billion of solar and wind deployed and operating for 12+ ye…
> It takes decades to build a new plant. No, it doesn't. It only takes a few years. What takes decades is resolving all the NIMBY lawsuits.
Re: Nuclear power: Are we too anxious about the risks of radiation?
#324Earlier quoted context omitted.
None of the plants I mentioned were 40+ years ago. They are all contemporary. Vogtle is still under construction, Summer was cancelled a couple of years ago ($9B down the drain), Flamanville 3 is still under construction, and the last is near completion. You may be confused with earlier reactors at some of those sites.
Olkiluoto 3 is a new design though. Making a second exact same one again will be much faster and cheaper as you have now worked out most of the issues. Olkiluoto 1 and 2 were both built quickly and on schedule. Mainly because they were already proven designs with tens of other units already built around the world (and the second reactor is practically identical with the first one)
The second exact same one is actually Flamanville 3, the other one with the massive cost overruns.
Re: Nuclear power: Are we too anxious about the risks of radiation?
#325Re: Nuclear power: Are we too anxious about the risks of radiation?
#326Earlier quoted context omitted.
Um, are you sure about that? I can think of at least two.
I assume that you're referring to USS Thresher and Scorpion. These weren't nuclear accidents.
Of course they were, unless we assume that those nuclear plants were lost on purpose and not accidentally
Anything related with the destruction of a damned nuclear submarine that is lost somewhere in the sea bottom is a nuclear accident, by definition.
Re: Nuclear power: Are we too anxious about the risks of radiation?
#327Do we stress about the risks nuclear power far out of proportion to how safe it is? Yes. Even accounting for the worst accidents, it kills a very low number of people per TWh. Do we ignore the risks of fossil fuels far out of proportion to how dangerous they are? Also yes. They kill an absurdly high number of people per TWh; by most estimates coal is several hundred times more dangerous than nuclear. Does that mean n…
So, in order to be able to do a large roll-out of nuclear power, you need to:
1) Find a location where building a plant is viable and from where you will be able to transmit the produced energy to it's indended destination.
2) Convince the public that the plant won't render their home uninhabitable.
3) Convince the public that the plant won't result in more environtal damage in their back yard compared to someone else's back yard.
4) Convince the authorities to give you a permits for new plants.
5) Convince the authorities that you're the right one to build it, because they WILL have an issue if you involve people seen as political opponents, say a business from another power block.
5) Convince someone that it's OK if you dig down depleted fuel in their back yard for 100,000 years.
6) Convince the authorities that that it's OK to dig down that depleted fuel in someones back yard for 100,000 years.
Now, if you fail any of those things, then your new shiny plant will most likely never be constructed. Even if you do make it, you still need to compete with solar/wind/storage to make ends meet, while a semi-monopoly sold by the state to private investors in the 90's is still sitting on the huge dam built in the 20's, and can churn out base power from it considerably cheaper.
After all, it's not their problem if your local power grid is to weak to handle all that energy being sent through the entire country through one single line built in the 50's. You should have thought of that beforce you decided to replace your coal plant with a nuclear one!
End result: the owner of the local grid gets the blame and everyone switches to solar because the government is trying to stimulate the market and no matter how inefficient and insufficient it may or may not be compared to your nuclear plant, a solar panel on the roof is preferable to a nuclear power plant for many, many people.
I'm sure there will be new nuclear plants built in the future too. Not many though -- the situation's too messed up for that.
Re: Nuclear power: Are we too anxious about the risks of radiation?
#328Has anybody else noticed that this pro-nuclear "news" seems rather orchestrated throughout Europe/"The West"? These pro-nuclear ideas have recently been in the news and hot in politics in at least 4 European countries that I frequent and where I speak the language. All around the same time. Is this manufacturing consent in action? Who's behind this and why? There are no new arguments or information that I see for or…
Nope, haven't noticed that at all. I have yet to meet the first European in real life that's neutral, let alone in favor of, nuclear. I live in a border region between Germany, the Netherlands, and Belgium. They always bring up the (false) safety argument and when they discover that's an airplane vs cars kind of fear, they start about costs, which is not more than the off-shore wind we're already building. (And someo…
I've seen this happening around September 2020 in at least UK, Netherlands and France. I'm in Germany now where I haven't followed the news, but I expect no pro-nuclear propaganda in Germany since they're already set on getting their base load energy production out of Russian gas.
I estimate that turning public opinion around again in the EU to be accepting of nuclear will take at least a few months/years. That's just speculation though.
Re: Nuclear power: Are we too anxious about the risks of radiation?
#329Whenever people bring up "but how do we store the waste!?", how much storage space would the nuclear waste used to power all of America for a year take up? Feels like the amount is an important point, but I never hear it mentioned.
Re: Nuclear power: Are we too anxious about the risks of radiation?
#330Earlier quoted context omitted.
Three of the plants you mentioned were 40+ years ago, right? Seems a bit outdated to point to in 2020.
None of the plants I mentioned were 40+ years ago. They are all contemporary. Vogtle is still under construction, Summer was cancelled a couple of years ago ($9B down the drain), Flamanville 3 is still under construction, and the last is near completion. You may be confused with earlier reactors at some of those sites.