Best time to build a nuclear reactor was 20 years ago.
Second best time is now.
this post was submitted on 02 Mar 2024
83 points (92.8% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
5288 readers
946 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Isn't nuclear one, if not the most, expensive form of energy production once you factor in stuff like maintenance and disposal?
Not trying to do the whole hot take thing here, I genuinely don't get why investing in nuclear is still pursued versus investing in renewable sources when mobility and land isn't an issue.
EDIT:
“Tackling the climate crisis means we must modernize our approach to all clean energy sources, including nuclear,” said Representative Diana DeGette, Democrat of Colorado. “Nuclear energy is not a silver bullet, but if we’re going to get to net zero carbon emissions by 2050, it must be part of the mix.”
kind of provides at least a partial answer: Time. Though this quote gave me graphite control rod vibes:
Some Democrats and Republicans in Congress have criticized the N.R.C. for being too slow in approving new designs. Many of the regulations that the commission uses, they say, were designed for an older era of reactors and are no longer appropriate for advanced reactors that may be inherently safer.
There's a lot to unpack in nuclear being the most expensive form of energy production, like:
-
While nuclear absolutely must be held to extremely rigorous safety standards, I seem to remember that the fossil industry leveraged the nuclear panic in the 80s to lobby all manner of bullshit red tape on top of good regulations, and that has dramatically increased time and financial cost to building new reactors.
-
Does that also factor in all externalities, like radiological waste from coal fire plants, and the damage from carbon emissions contributing to climate change? Or are we only counting the externalities of nuclear?
-
Are we also including new generations of reactors, which are supposedly safer, produce less waste, and less able to be used for nuclear weapons production? Or are we just looking at the reactor designs from 70 years ago that represent all of what's in operation in the US today? Can you imagine trying to argue for solar or wind with designs from 70 years ago? It'd be a pretty hard sell.
Thank you for taking the time.
I'm pretty sure that nuclear power is vastly more expensive to produce and maintain. Especially when comparing to solar/wind, since fossil power isn't desirable at all due to emissions.
Solar and wind generation is so much more efficient than even two decades ago, newer designs of nuclear plants aren't really any more efficient, but safer and more expensive. So I'm still not getting the push for more nuclear.
I think for me, the best argument is having an energy backbone. I, admittedly, have little evidence on this front, but I'm skeptical about the long term cost effectiveness of grid scale batteries. Batteries don't last forever, and these are fuck off big batteries, and we're going to need a lot of them by yesterday, and they have to work, and they have to not burn down the entire grid capacity if one of the batteries cooks off (something lithium is terrible at, but I don't think they use lithium at grid scale, usually). And on top of that, from what I recall, grid scale batteries are really, really, really expensive, though I'm not 100% sure if I'm remembering that rught. It just seems like it would make more sense, both in terms of logistics and economics, to have an energy backbone comprised of safer, modern fission reactors.
Yeah, I mostly agree on that. Nuclear may be more expensive and risky, but it's also very predictable. That kind of enables it to act as a sort of safety net to smooth over the variable nature of renewables, though changing the output of a nuclear power plant is a very slow process, AFAIK.
I'm not against nuclear power per se, I'm viewing it as more of a band-aid until more mature and universal grid buffers can fill the gap smoothing out the renewable input. Nuclear may very well be a necessary step for some nations to reach their climate targets, I'm not informed enough to judge that. But I fear that the money invested, lobbying and public opinion influenced by that seemingly easy alternative directly hinder the development and deployment of technologies that lead to a renewable, cheap and reliable grid.
I think we could go back another decade or two and still be correct.
Best time to build a reactor is never. Better to use the fuckton of money for cheaper and better renewables...
But then you would need another excuse in ~2 decades but having build not enough expensive nuclear power, still struggling to get the ones in production finished and still burning fossil fuels...
And we all know that destroying the planet for profits is the actual goal here.
The exact same people spending huge sums on deying climate change for decades are now paying for "it's all too late and we are doomed anyway, so why try to do anything" and "nuclear power, especially future designs far from actually being production ready, will safe us" messaging.
Hydro and wind kill more people per terawatt hour. That leaves solar (and possibly tidal as that development ramps up). Putting all your eggs in just one form of renewables (solar) would be an insane risk. Base loads need to be addressed in order to phase out the fossil fuels.
There are more options with modern reactor designs. Small modular reactors can be built and brought online cheaper and faster than previous designs. That would allow a faster ROI (reducing fossil fuel usage faster).
Solar, wind, tidal and nuclear should be scaled simultaneously to reach our goals and not think it's just one or the other.
Wind kills 0.04 per TWH, nuclear 0.03 and solar 0.02. Why is nuclear acceptable for you and wind not?
Wind IS acceptable. Read the last paragraph. The first part of the comment is merely addressing the people that suggest solar only as it's the only source with less attributed deaths per terawatt hour. I'm also partial to the Norwegian hydro model.
France just brought an older reactor back online using recycled fuel https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/French-reactor-using-full-core-of-recycled-uranium
The only thing nuclear has going for it at the moment is jobs for the boys. Have a look at Hinkley C in the UK. It's certainly not for cheap or clean energy.
It's not carbon. That's the biggest thing right now; first and foremost, we need to stop carbon emissions. Nuclear is one pathway there, and there's no reason it can't be complimentary to renewables.
I agree with you about carbon but nuclear has ended up being one of the most expensive alternatives.
You're right, it's yet another stop-gap measure keeping us from making ideal, long-term solutions. If we were an intelligent species, we'd have been hellbent on implementing renewable energy solutions and putting massive, massive amounts of research into fusion. Instead, we're where we are now. What a time to be alive.
Nuclear is one pathway there, and there's no reason it can't be complimentary to renewables.
The reason is limited resources. Whatever we invest into nuclear can't be invested in renewables.
Nuclear is bad. We need to invest in renewables. (Sidenote, phasing out nuclear for fossil energy like what Germany did is worse than nuclear.)
If you say “well we need more energy to grow,” then I say we should degrow until renewables are sufficient for our needs.
Nuclear is bad. We need to invest in renewables.
It's better to explain your reasoning a bit more. If you want expensive electricity prices, choose nuclear. If you want something which will only be built if the government takes all the risk, choose nuclear.
It's a bit strange to go for nuclear while ignoring that any energy company will not build it on their own. Only if all the risk and possible cost overruns are on the government.
Renewables are way cheaper. And there are cheaper solutions to solve volatility of renewables.
For my own country, which seems intent on investing in nuclear energy like with small modular reactors, the plan makes no sense. We don't have proven uranium or plutonium reserves, much less the capability to mine and refine it. Then there's how to store nuclear waste indefinitely, even if nuclear disaster is not a problem. Nuclear is just a bad problem all around and it should be left in the past.
If nuclear fusion energy is solved, I might support it, but only under conditions of communism, otherwise the harvesting the power of the atom would only mean more labor exploitation and valorization under a capitalist mode of production.
Nuclear is bad.
Well there we have it boys, the authority has spoken.
Please do not search the deaths per kWh energy produced for each form of energy, or the amount of radioactivity produced.
Nuclear is bad tho, so the death-rate and lower efficiency of other forms of energy must be accepted. /s
Obviously fossil fuels are worse asshole. It's literally in the comment when I mentioned Germany.
Nuclear is safer per terawatt hour than hydro and wind. https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy
That's not the point. Only states can deploy nuclear energy. A city or province can't do it. Only fossil fuels or renewables can guarantee local energy sovereignty. And since fossil fuels are bad, that leaves only renewables.
Only states can deploy nuclear energy.
So what? Your point is an extremely narrow view. You should have been more clear in your initial comment. It's not renewables OR nuclear only. Investment can be made in both.
Some other snippets from a couple of your other comments:
Nuclear is bad.
For my own country,
A city or province can't do it. Only fossil fuels or renewables can guarantee local energy sovereignty.
So let me get this straight. You ignorantly declare "Nuclear is bad" in response to an article about the United States expanding its nuclear production capacity. In another comment further down, a user suggested you explain more of your reasoning. There you mention "For your own country", which I can only conclude is not the US, and you appear confused/upset as to why others are arguing with you?
Pro-nuke energy is getting more and more indefensible after each disaster. May I remind you that literally nobody knows how to deal with long term storage of nuclear waste. No, dumping them in bunkers is not a long-term solution and never was sustainable.
New developments in nuclear technology like with small modular reactors would produce more nuclear waste than conventional reactors. Not to mention that there isn't enough uranium in the entire Earth for the whole world to shift to nuclear. It's dangerous, expensive, and its waste is also dangerous and expensive.
Soley relying on renewables to get us off fossil fuels is taking, and will continue to take far too long. I'm sure you're aware based on how much climate scientists have been sounding the alarm (even more so recently).
It's dangerous, expensive, and its waste is also dangerous and expensive. That fear only works in the favor of the fossil fuels industry. They love pushing this notion. https://texmex.mit.edu/pub/emanuel/PAPERS/Nuclear_Fear_2021.pdf
For example, the leaks at the Hanford site are from military weapons research and production, not from the power plant.
https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-21-73.pdf
But things like this get conflated with power production.
nobody knows how to deal with long term storage of nuclear waste Another ignorant statement. You keep using absolutes.
Not to mention that there isn't enough uranium in the entire Earth for the whole world to shift to nuclear. Again, stating things as factually inaccurate absolutes. It's more than capable of supplementing base loads while renewables continue to scale. This has never been an "only nuclear" vs "only renewables" argument.
Breeder reactors would massively reduce waste.
https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/fast-reactors-provide-sustainable-nuclear-power-thousands-years
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-01986-w
There's way more going on that you're obviously completely unaware of and are sticking to your preexisting conclusions no matter what is presented to you.
I used to hold very similar opinions in my 20s. It's amazing what education can do. I do hope your views soften a bit in the near future as we're gonna need everything we've got to get off of fossil fuels.
My opposition to nuclear isn't merely because it is dirty, deadly, and costly but also because it relies on a specific technology of power to implement, a specific technology of power that has always been highly authoritarian. As part of the green movement of my country, we also push for denuclearization precisely because the 300mW nuclear power plant was built without democratic oversight. (Imagine risking non-zero chance of meltdown for a measly 300 mW!) Democratic movements are more likely to oppose nuclear energy, so it's no wonder countries who are poor in democracy like China, USA, Russia, and France build and maintain nuclear power plants despite the public opposition.
Not only that, but nuclear power fuels the valorization process under the capitalist mode of production. Even if the whole world shifts to nuclear energy, the same technology of power that constructed the nuclear power plants would also go about oppressing people.
Nuclear energy can only operate under a specifically authoritarian technology of power. A free society—whether that be anarchist, communist, or radically democratic—simply cannot use the violence needed to construct a nuclear power plant.
But you probably don't care about that. For you, this technology of power is probably a desideratum as long as you get your damn iPhones and airconditioning.
if you say “well we need more energy to grow,” then I say we should degrow until renewables are sufficient for our needs.
Well, that’s their cruel little trick they play. Because, while capitalism is the driving force behind everything, “degrowing” means endless financial suffering for millions, if not billions, because anything but constant growth triggers a cascading effect of shittiness, where big business gets bailed out, people lose money, inflation grows, and “reinvestment”has to begin or people keep starving.
Capitalism is a death cult, but it’s also like one of those traps you can only go further into, as backing out causes severe damage. You know, like the protectors someone created to insert into a vagina, that have the spikes only facing inward so during a sexual attack, it’s like hotel California?
No idea what the heck you are trying to say, but it seems you're trying to say it in bad faith. Seems like you're making stuff up about degrowth or repeating stuff that others made up. Please read this to actually learn what degrowth means: Degrowth can work — here’s how science can help
I was agreeing with you. I was saying capitalism makes that as hard as they possibly can because their vampiric system relies on constant growth, and anything but constant growth triggers suffering that the owner class escapes with their golden parachutes and bailouts while heaving the fallout onto us. Their system is flawed, shortsighted, and the further we get, writing history with a capitalist system in place, the deeper we dig ourselves.
Ok
Degrowth means suffering for millions, but a better life for billions. The richest 10% of the world are resposible for half the worlds emissions. The world primary energy consumption is 18.2% low carbon. As energy consumption and emissions are linked that means by cutting smartly we can half our global emissions that way. Btw a lot of people in rich countries are not in the global 10% either. Really only the USA and richest European countries have even roughly half their population in the global 10%.
Really can't get behind the "ends justify the means" approach. The ethical amount of intentional human suffering is 0. If a plan to improve the human experience involves involuntary human sacrifice, it's time to go back to the drawing board.
Suffering in this case means the material life quality of 1960 Switzerland for everybody on earth with significantly fewer hours worked. I am not talking human sacrifice. As for intentional suffering, the fact that the behavior of the rich is unethical.