As long as nuclear energy is treated as PICK_ANY(obsolete, uneconomical, systemically dangerous) it leaves me with zero hope for humanity. Nuclear is way more than technology, it's Prometheus' fire. It may burn the unprepared but it is incomparable to anything else we possess. That factor million more energy per gram than chemical reactions should be enough for us to treat it as literally unlocking the next level of…
The first person to build a safe, economic, waste free reactor will be a billionaire. But so far that hasn't happened.
All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected
211–220 of 437 posts
Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected
#212Earlier quoted context omitted.
With renewables baseline doesn’t make sense. Nuclear doesn’t combine well with renewables, not in a way that would complete the picture. Meaning: you can’t build something that works with only those two building blocks. Even more: baseline is not at all needed with renewables. Renewables need to be combined with power sources that can be turned on and off quickly and on demand. Nuclear emphatically cannot provide tha…
Nuclear power can shed energy as heat with a massive radiator. You don't need to shut it off, you can just "waste it" when there's over supply.
Not exactly what the planet needs.
Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected
#213Read between the lines. It's not about the best solution(s), it's about _their_ solution. Nuclear solves the problem they champion, which means, it negates the need for their efforts and existence (economic). Ironically, the rejection of nuclear as a viable option seems to be the result of a psychological existential threat to the supposed "elite" of our world. The mask is off. Protecting the future of humanity isn't…
The reason nuclear is unpopular is that it is expensive. It's more expensive than coal and gas typically. It's also very slow to deploy. A decade is nothing. We'll hit 2035 when several countries are planning to be 100% renewable powered in about 13 years. That's not a lot of time to build a meaningful amount of nuclear plants. Nuclear plants coming online recently are not great examples of speedily execution on a ti…
This!
Almost all of the pro-nuclear crowd misses that nuclear is just too expensive.
Nobody brought a convincing argument why e.g. China wouldn't push Nuclear way more if nuclear would economically be viable - there are no "activists" over there that would stop them from building thousands of reactors.
Additionally, most calculations that result in somewhat competitive prices for nuclear energy dismiss the implied subsidies (state guarantees as nuclear plants are uninsurable, waste handling until eternity) which are massive.
Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected
#214As long as nuclear energy is treated as PICK_ANY(obsolete, uneconomical, systemically dangerous) it leaves me with zero hope for humanity. Nuclear is way more than technology, it's Prometheus' fire. It may burn the unprepared but it is incomparable to anything else we possess. That factor million more energy per gram than chemical reactions should be enough for us to treat it as literally unlocking the next level of…
If it is Prometheus' fire, we are not ready to handle that fire yet. When one of the core concerns of using a technology is to prevent it being used to create weapons capable of obliterating entire cities, we are not as a species mature enough to use it on a wider scale. This is only one example of why we are not ready yet. Nuclear (fission) technology is not the problem, we are the problem. Looking at the recent his…
I'm unclear about what your point is. Are you saying that Nuclear power production is somehow linked to nuclear arms production?
Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected
#215It's so frustrating seeing nuclear pitted against renewables, while fossil fuel powerplants are still operating/being built, whose baseline power could be replaced by nuclear. But somehow the idea took hold that nuclear would be built instead of solar, and not instead of coal.
With renewables baseline doesn’t make sense. Nuclear doesn’t combine well with renewables, not in a way that would complete the picture. Meaning: you can’t build something that works with only those two building blocks. Even more: baseline is not at all needed with renewables. Renewables need to be combined with power sources that can be turned on and off quickly and on demand. Nuclear emphatically cannot provide tha…
Nuclear emphatically can provide enough scaling to follow the broad diurnal solar cycle and the duck curve.
> Historically, nuclear power plants were built as baseload plants, without load following capability to keep the design simple. Their startup or shutdown took many hours as they were designed to operate at maximum power, and heating up steam generators to the desired temperature took time.[2]
> Modern nuclear plants with light water reactors are designed to have maneuvering capabilities in the 30-100% range with 5%/minute slope. Nuclear power plants in France and in Germany operate in load-following mode and so participate in the primary and secondary frequency control.
Also this is what we are capable of now. Imagine what we could do with advances in thermal storage. Nuclear has one huge advantage over other power sources: you can simply throw more power at the problem. E2E efficiency is less of a factor when you have excess capacity you can't otherwise do anything with.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Load_following_power_plant#N...
Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected
#216As long as nuclear energy is treated as PICK_ANY(obsolete, uneconomical, systemically dangerous) it leaves me with zero hope for humanity. Nuclear is way more than technology, it's Prometheus' fire. It may burn the unprepared but it is incomparable to anything else we possess. That factor million more energy per gram than chemical reactions should be enough for us to treat it as literally unlocking the next level of…
While I agree with you regarding the political dimension, the technical, especially regarding safety may not be underestimated regarding cost implications. But the right political setting could imply cheap, mass produced plants, e.g. SMR's. The problem is that were too late, would take several decades to scale up to where we we should be already...
I'm not sure I follow this. Nuclear power is significantly less deadly than coal and that's just talking about accidents in power generation. If you include general death by radiation pollution, that difference grows more disparate (coal energy production emits an enormous amount of radiation into the atmosphere as pollution).
Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected
#217ctrl+f 'fukushima' = 1 match
ctrl+f 'chernobyl' = 1 match
ctrl+f 'weapons' = 2 matches
Good, we are getting over childish concerns about it's safety. Nuclear energy is way better than any other known so far.
Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected
#218This is not the actual title.
"Message: Nuclear must be represented at COP26, says World Nuclear Association"
Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected
#219Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it is Prometheus' fire, we are not ready to handle that fire yet. When one of the core concerns of using a technology is to prevent it being used to create weapons capable of obliterating entire cities, we are not as a species mature enough to use it on a wider scale. This is only one example of why we are not ready yet. Nuclear (fission) technology is not the problem, we are the problem. Looking at the recent his…
I'm unclear about what your point is. Are you saying that Nuclear power production is somehow linked to nuclear arms production?
are you saying that nuclear power related accidents like chernobyl don't happen?
Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected
#220As long as nuclear energy is treated as PICK_ANY(obsolete, uneconomical, systemically dangerous) it leaves me with zero hope for humanity. Nuclear is way more than technology, it's Prometheus' fire. It may burn the unprepared but it is incomparable to anything else we possess. That factor million more energy per gram than chemical reactions should be enough for us to treat it as literally unlocking the next level of…
If it is Prometheus' fire, we are not ready to handle that fire yet. When one of the core concerns of using a technology is to prevent it being used to create weapons capable of obliterating entire cities, we are not as a species mature enough to use it on a wider scale. This is only one example of why we are not ready yet. Nuclear (fission) technology is not the problem, we are the problem. Looking at the recent his…
Regardless of whether the big carbon-producing nations use nuclear power, they will stock nuclear bombs. Thermonuclear, in fact.