Earlier quoted context omitted.
This thread is a great example of how the meanings of words can be taken differently by different people. "Unreliable" is less of a description and more of a flag. Either it is or isn't. But the original commenter's threshold for unreliable = true is much much lower than most people's as illuminated in this discussion. It seems like this is a daily occurrence online and in person.
I'm guessing "micro breaches" refers to hydrogen-induced cracks. Media likes to talk about it in bigly, threatening terms such as "THOUSANDS OF CRACKS FOUND IN REACTOR VESSEL" - of course anyone with half a brain starts to wonder "aren't these PWRs?". Much like people like to write headlines such as "HUNDREDS OF NUCLEAR INCIDENTS AT NPP XYZ", where "nuclear incident" means "reported event", which includes such dramat…
Nuclear Power Is the Answer to Global and Environmental Energy Woes
451–460 of 568 posts
Re: Nuclear Power Is the Answer to Global and Environmental Energy Woes
#452Earlier quoted context omitted.
The cost of nuclear today has more to do with the fact that we aren’t building nuclear plants. There are minimum companies with small operations making nuclear reactor technologies for just maintenance of existing ones and military contracts. If we were building new nuclear plants with modern reactors, the costs wouldn’t be a big deal anymore because the production of them would have scaled better. But instead we’re…
The argument that costs will come down if we build more nuclear worked in the 1950s, but we know now where that goes now. Build More nuclear and costs come down. With more plants there are inevitably more nuclear incidents, the public realizes these things can make entire nations uninhabitable if they fail, and then they demand a halt to nuclear, pushing prices back up. Nuclear prices have baked in the public sentime…
Re: Nuclear Power Is the Answer to Global and Environmental Energy Woes
#453Earlier quoted context omitted.
> ”Nuclear has a load factor of 95%” That’s very optimistic. Perhaps an ideal nuclear plant with a perfect operating record might approach 95%, but real-world load factors are lower as most plants end up requiring extended outages for repairs as some point in their lifetime. France’s lifetime load factors for its nuclear plants are around 77%, but that declined sharply in recent years to 72% in 2020-21 and even lower…
I didn't realize it went as low as that. Some wind farms can hit 65% https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/worlds-first-fl...
Re: Nuclear Power Is the Answer to Global and Environmental Energy Woes
#454Except in the real world where wind + solar account for the vast majority of GW added. Nuclear just doesn't matter. It's 2023, there's an energy crisis on. Where are the new nuclear plants in Europe? Where are the GW of power saving us from rolling blackouts in Europe? Nuclear is a no show. It didn't happen. Not even a little bit. It didn't matter. Too little (well barely anything at all), too late. There's this pesk…
> It's 2023, there's an energy crisis on. Where are the new nuclear plants in Europe? Where are the GW of power saving us from rolling blackouts in Europe? Nuclear is a no show. It didn't happen. Not even a little bit. It didn't matter. I think this is a rather inaccurate characterization and we need to be a bit more nuanced here. I'm going to address this out of order, and first with the power shortage. Power shorta…
You also talk a lot without addressing the central point: the energy market in Europe is based on marginal price.
Please, frame nuclear as a profitable investment in a marginal price energy market. I dare you.
Re: Nuclear Power Is the Answer to Global and Environmental Energy Woes
#455Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Most places aren't subject to magnitude 9.1 earthquakes, so no such plans are needed. I've seen this argument repeated a lot lately, and it's annoying, because it focuses entirely on the wrong thing. What went wrong with Fukushima was not the earthquake itself, but the flooding caused by it. A lot more places in the world are vulnerable to flooding than they are to earthquakes (I myself live in one of these: zero n…
To be more specific, the tsunami caused by it. And without the massive 9.1 earthquake there would have been no tsunami. Flooding from rain or snowmelt is far more gradual.
A nuclear reactor in Sweden had a severe incident in 2006 when many of the "defense in depth" layers had been accidentally removed through freak occurrences and upgrades.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forsmark_Nuclear_Power_Plant#J...
Re: Nuclear Power Is the Answer to Global and Environmental Energy Woes
#456Earlier quoted context omitted.
I feel like most people I know who push Nuclear are already arguing for the use of both, and it’s the renewable side that argues that Nuclear is too dangerous to use or not necessary. Or have you come across a lot of Nuclear proponents arguing that we shouldn’t be using solar energy at all?
I was very pro nuclear a few years ago, at this point solar is so far up the learning curve and experiences so many economy of scale benefits, it's really hard imagining what kind of regulatory framework would be able to make it economically competitive. We collectively in the form of consumers and governments decide how expensive a thing is, and for 50 years, thanks in part to a lot of coal lobby money, decided nucl…
Nuclear is a super complicated coal plant regarding how the thermal engine works. Pure steam plants have simply been obsolete the last 30 years, and renewables are making it even worse by outcompeting gas plants.
Re: Nuclear Power Is the Answer to Global and Environmental Energy Woes
#457Earlier quoted context omitted.
There definitely are fundamental differences in our capabilities here, and you seem to believe the same too. Look, for example, at the challenges that are being experienced as we try to build chip fabs in the US. Instintutional knowledge and capability are real things. And I definitely think that construction capability is an important thing to build. But let's improve our construction capability on building real thi…
Reached the thread length limit. With regard to your last comment: > It's most definitely not the case that successive reactors are cheaper or faster, that's a myth that gets told but the data says otherwise both in the US and France and many other countries (but not all). Maybe, but Votgle is a massive outlier and successive plants of the same design are all but guaranteed to be faster and cheaper. You don't make th…
Look at all the Us construction projects from the 70's, before Three Mile Island.
2-4x the budget and 2-4x the timeline should be the expectation.
Just because something was done in a particular time and place doesn't mean that the same thing can be achieved again, or even that we would want it. We have different people in different positions of power, completely different technological capabilities, completely different regulations. I haven't heard anyone suggest that we should get rid of ALARA that works in the field. And I certainly don't know anybody who works in the field who would ever want to build the same designs from the past.
We have new and better tech, different costs of labor, everything is different. We need to operate on our best knowledge and tech today, not that from 50-60 years ago. You'll never convince me that's a sane way to make massive capital allocations.
Re: Nuclear Power Is the Answer to Global and Environmental Energy Woes
#458Earlier quoted context omitted.
> nuclear plants are very unreliable You mean, they are the most reliable base load and load-following power sources we know. > References are easy to find if you want confirmation It's just as easy to find confirmation that all the problems you listed are the result of neglect and politics of the past 20-30 years. > it has to be done properly and safely, which is certainly not the case around here. As in: France has…
Blaming things on neglect or politics just isn't useful. We need power sources that have some resilience to those things.
Politics can fuck up everything.
Re: Nuclear Power Is the Answer to Global and Environmental Energy Woes
#459Earlier quoted context omitted.
The story gets better here when you consider that most "waste" can actually be reused (93% of uranium fuel rods used in LWRs could be recycled). Also consider, more radioactive materials (the parts we can't currently recycle, outside of some exotic hypothetical reactor designs) have shorter half lives, and so aren't a problem for as long. The best containment proposal I've seen is deep geological disposal. Also consi…
In mythical breeder reactors that, which all the built ones have been even less economical than regular PWRs.
Japan and France reprocess the fuel, stripping out all the fission products but keeping the actinides (U235 and U238 and other fertile/fissile isotopes) then adding back in U235 and U238 to fill it out to ~5% fissile and 95% fertile material again. Then you put the rod back in a reactor.
This isn't as efficient a use of natural uranium as a breeder but it does make it the case that the only actual radioactive material you have to deal with waste-wise is the fission products. Everything else keeps going back into a reactor until it's burned up, or is U238 which is harmless (it's 99.3% of what we pull out of the ground and so could just get put back into the ground).
The fission products are nasty but that also means they decay very fast and become totally harmless (ie less radioactive than the original uranium ore) in ~300 years. We can embed them in a glass block, which renders them inert chemically and pretty impervious to leaching if exposed to water, etc. It's then easy to manage them until they're harmless (you can do whatever you want with them; the volume of material is not very high, and it's quite easy to shield against it).
France, for instance, can store the fission products from 1 tonne of spent fuel in 110L of glass, (see https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/...) which corresponds in modern reactors (45GWd/tonne of spent fuel) to ~10GWh of thermal energy produced per liter of vitrified glass. By comparison, gasoline has an energy density of ~8.5kWh/L, so ~1.2 million times higher for the glass waste than unburned gasoline (coal etc is similar).
If the US ran 100% on nuclear for all energy (needing maybe 3TWe, 10TWh-th) and reprocessed our spent fuel, we'd produce around 24m^3 of vitrified glass per day, and its maximal volume would be ~2.7e6 m^3, or roughly 1 square mile one meter deep, to run the entirety of the US forever with nuclear power (that's 300 years of production, by the end of which the fission products are less radioactive than the original ore, so we can just dump any 300-year-old glass in the ocean or something and it's totally fine, can't harm anything).
Is that a lot of waste? I guess. But we burn that much gasoline in the US every 2 days, and the products of that just get dumped straight into the air. This stuff is solid and just sits there not doing much of anything except make some heat, then becomes harmless glass we can dump wherever. Pretty good deal imo.
Re: Nuclear Power Is the Answer to Global and Environmental Energy Woes
#460Earlier quoted context omitted.
> So, Solar could provide 3/4 of its power when wholesale prices are below 1c/kWh […] Except at night.
Batteries fed cheap solar power can provide relatively cheap peaking power whenever you want. That’s going to effectively be the maximum daily wholesale price per kWh long term. Wind/Hydro and possibly some Nuclear might survive in that kind of an environment, but most industry insiders think Nuclear is basically doomed outside the far north without truly massive subsidies.