Earlier quoted context omitted.
> geologically stable Isn't really a think when we thing about the time scale of nuclear wast... Additionally Politicians mess in seriously bad ways with anything related to nuclear. Like pushing for nuclear power but if it's found that the objective best place to store the wast underground is around where they live they will try all kind of things to exclude the best suited place from the list of potential candidate…
> Isn't really a think when we thing about the time scale of nuclear waste... it is. drill a few miles down into the miles-thick crystalline salt in the permian basin. it will not go anywhere for millions of years.
EU experts to say nuclear power qualifies for green investment label: document
221–230 of 567 posts
Re: EU experts to say nuclear power qualifies for green investment label: document
#222Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wind power is cheap when it's windy. When it's still the cost is $+inf. The grid still needs to maintain it's AC frequency. Wind power producers should be required to buy some kind of base load generation credits.
It's always windy somewhere. You just need to expand the electrical grid. We are still far from the point where we have enough wind that any of it goes unused. Also what is the cost of storing that energy? It's so much cheaper to generate it might still come out cheaper.
Doubt. Weather systems/patterns are often extremely large.
> Also what is the cost of storing that energy?
Insanely high compared to the cost of producing it.
For one common naive case: Storing the energy in Li-Ion batteries in e.g. a Tesla Powerwall: $437/kWh.
Re: EU experts to say nuclear power qualifies for green investment label: document
#223https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2009/ee/b8099...
Nuclear is just too slow to fix our CO2 problems
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-energy-nuclearpower/nucle...
Re: EU experts to say nuclear power qualifies for green investment label: document
#224Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Nuclear energy without subsidies is not sustainable at all And yet we seem to be doing just that here in Finland. The for profit companies operating and building the plants have been trying to get permits to build more (and very likely are going to get another one soon). Even with the "failure" of Olkiluoto 3 they seem to find a way to do it in a profitable enough way that they (2 companies TVO and Fennovoima) want…
This reactor? >This month, the Olkiluoto 3 nuclear power plant in Finland was supposed to start producing power. Instead, the plant is at least three and a half years late and more than 50 percent over-budget. Olkiluoto was to be the “poster child” for the new generation of nuclear power plant designs that would drive the “Nuclear Renaissance” and if any nuclear project was going to go well. Instead, it has become an…
However, also 50% over budget.
Re: EU experts to say nuclear power qualifies for green investment label: document
#225Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's worse than that. It's like they succeeded and then many decades later flight MH17 happened and the world collectively lost its mind and declared air travel as inherently unsafe and condemned all research into it as dangerous. The issue though, is that energy production is mostly quiet unless there's a problem, but people do see personal benefit in air travel. Add to that: Coal is a silent killer, it's not obviou…
The comparison of a happening with basically no longterm consequences to future generations like MH17 to nuclear fallout / necessary waste treatment is quite lame imho. Nuclear energy without subsidies is not sustainable at all. Just do the math if you need decades to dismantle and decontaminate an old nuclear power plant alone.
This is nonsense. We are basically using 60s technology that has some of these problems.
A modern reactor facility could be 10-50x smaller for the same output and that makes think like decontamination cheaper as well. Also, these facilities can run 100 years potentially, so the amount of money required for decommissioning is amortized of gigantic amounts of energy.
There is nothing inherent in nuclear that make it super expensive or unsustainable.
Re: EU experts to say nuclear power qualifies for green investment label: document
#226There's a lot of straw men being fought in the comments again. The main issue with nuclear power in Europe has always been the storage of nuclear waste, for which many countries still don't have a long-term solution. Proponents of nuclear power like to pretend the opposition exists merely on the basis of "but what if it goes boom!", so they don't need to face the reality that countries like Germany are sitting on a l…
I just don't really see how this is true. Isn't the basic idea to just dig a really deep hole somewhere geologically stable and dump it in? My impression isn't that the problem isn't solvable, but simply that no one has actually made the appropriate investment yet. That sounds like the same catch-22 as the rest of this. We've thrown up our hands and gone "Not worth it" and then our lack of investment in proper storag…
Who knows... perhaps in a few years we can dump the nuclear waste into space.
Re: EU experts to say nuclear power qualifies for green investment label: document
#227Earlier quoted context omitted.
A bigger factor to note is that 95% of radiation is contained within 1% of the waste. I think the problem here is that people don't realize how small this number is. Because 11ktons sounds like a lot. But if you compare it to any other waste in the world it is tiny. Perspective is lost. I also don't understand why not having a geological repository is an issue. Many researchers propose just storing it in place after…
Call me irrational but storing small amounts of highly radio active material in many locations is, from my point of view, basically asking for a dirty bomb to happen at some point. It only needs an event like the end of the soviet union to happen in a single country on earth and any terrorist organization would be able to buy enough of it. I acknowledge that this may happen anyways with the current situation but your…
So a terrorist just gets a slight increase in fear factor, but it doesn't increase deadliness of the weapon, requires a lot more work, greatly increases the chance that they get caught, puts them in more danger, and so they just don't do it. There's too many downsides for only a minor upside. Why do it when you could just make a dozen pipe bombs and put them in trash cans around the city?
Really just think if you were a terrorist and wanted to do damage. There's a lot of things you could do (bunch of rusty nails on the I-5) that just don't happen. They are easy to accomplish, can do a lot of damage, but just don't. Why? Different objectives and just terrorism is extremely rare in the first place. And I'm pretty sure a drilling through feet of concrete and metal in a likely highly monitored site is too big of a hurdle when you can just go to home depot and get some stump remover and some steel pipes.
Re: EU experts to say nuclear power qualifies for green investment label: document
#228Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morsleben_radioactive_waste_... Yeah because only fuel is highly radioactive... Texas failed to secure their electrical grid, that has nothing to do with renewables. We got renewables running in far worse weather conditions. Capitalism and greed killed those texans. You're making my case that people can't be trusted with nuclear, even though the tech in and of itself could be safe.
Ok, i'll bite. You know nothing about the operational details of power grid infrastructure in Texas and what lead to the problems encountered. Here is a good video explaining what happened: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08mwXICY4JM Just FYI, Grady from Practical Engineering channel who made the video is a civil engineer. I also recommend his entire series about power grid (well, actually all his videos are great).…
The video describes what happened, and summarizes the cause as:
> Basically, the entire system was ill-prepared for a storm of this magnitude.
The video addresses only what happened, and (intentionally) does not address why it happened - why the system was ill-prepared. but it's absolutely true that there are "renewables running in far worse weather conditions" (and natural gas). all of these systems can be winterized.
j-pb thinks that the system was unprepared due to "capitalism and greed," which IMO is not an unreasonable idea. Why do you think the various Texas organizations basically ignored the FERC/NERC recommendations for cold weather preparedness from 2011?
Re: EU experts to say nuclear power qualifies for green investment label: document
#2291. Nuclear has much worse failure modes. The Cybernobyl Exclusion Zone is quite literally 1,000 square miles [1];
2. Advocate like to talk about reprocessing as a solution to the waste problem. It seems to be missed that this is limited to spent fuel reprocessing. This appears to have significant cost and safety issues;
3. Separately to spent fuel, you also have to store enrichment byproducts (eg UF₆, UF₄) that have their own problems;
4. Stored nuclear waste is a security issue; and
5. Transportation of fuel and spent fuel is a security issue.
The big problems with nuclear aren't technical they're political but they are no less significant. For me, I just don't trust humans--either government entities or for-profit enterprises--to safely and responsibly build and manage a nuclear power plants as well as all the infrastructure to mine, process, transport, reprocess and store any byproducts.
Re: EU experts to say nuclear power qualifies for green investment label: document
#230Here we go again: 1. Nuclear has much worse failure modes. The Cybernobyl Exclusion Zone is quite literally 1,000 square miles [1]; 2. Advocate like to talk about reprocessing as a solution to the waste problem. It seems to be missed that this is limited to spent fuel reprocessing. This appears to have significant cost and safety issues; 3. Separately to spent fuel, you also have to store enrichment byproducts (eg UF…