The nuclear plant consists of two units each with 1200MW production capacity. Let's be pessimistic and assume that we need 24 hours of storage or roughly 57600MWh. A modern redox flow or lithium ion battery can cost as little as $100 per kWh but Tesla's grid battery with 129MWh cost 66 million which is around $500 per kWh so we will use that.
Well it turns out 57600MWh * 500$/kWH is exactly 28.8 billion USD. No power grid on earth needs a 24 hour battery but even with this crazy assumption grid storage isn't significantly more expensive than nuclear power.
Solar and wind, unsubsidized, with storage, are already cheaper than nuclear. Those costs will continue to plummet, especially as EV battery demand ramps (rapidly expanding battery manufacturing capacity).
Nuclear lost because it’s too expensive, and has its own externalities to ignore (decommissioning, waste disposal, liability insurance).
To refill the battery you need to generate 57600MWh each day. Assuming that we get 12 hours of sunlight per day at 50% efficiency, you that comes down to 2 (efficiency factor) * 57600MWh / (12 hours / day) = 9600 MWh solar installation.
At $1 / Watt, 9600 MWh solar installation comes down to $9.6 billion.
Assuming my math is correct, this seems pretty competitive. In particular, I am assuming that $1 / Watt means $1 per Watt of electricity at max luminosity. If $1 / Watt means $1 per 1 Watt of absorbed solar energy, the efficiency should be 10% - 15%.
Large scale installation cost per watt: https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/doe-officially-...
I think the flow battery can get even cheaper than this for 24hr storage. Recent price claims[1] were $150/kWh at 4hr, and $100/kWh at 8hr - this puts the cost of charge/discharge rate at $400/kW and the cost of the energy storage at $50/kWh.
1kW @ 4hrs = (400+ 50* 4) /4 = 150$ (50+400/4)
1kW @ 8hrs = (400+ 50* 8) /8 = 100$ (50+400/8)
1kW @24hrs = (400+ 50* 24) /24 = 66$ (50+400/24)
So it really was a bit crazy to estimate 500$/kWh for that storage, 200$kWh would be absolute maximum present price for flow battery, and under $75kWh seems likely.
There's ~12 hour batteries on the grid (pumped storage), but they mostly recharge from coal and nuclear at night.
And think of all the CA plants sitting idle on a day like today, where peak load was 28,000 MW.
Fukushima has been a lesson here. Strategically, Japan has to import it's energy, except for solar energy. With a float of trains electricity is already at the core of their transportation system.
Here, at least, nuclear doesn't look like it's the future.
My readthrough of the article failed to reveal supporting evidence that there is widespread change in opinion about nuclear in younger generations, much less that a pro-nuclear movement is growing.
Dams used as batteries charged by pumping water.
Fantasy fiction isn't going to solve our dilemma. Advanced, less toxic technology will. Nuclear has had its chance.
Far less people have because of nuclear power in all its time than gets killed by nature in a year.
The environmentalist not rationality kille nuclear.
Hmmm, let's see: how many years before the residents of the San Onofre region finish paying for its recent failed upgrade ? Then how much more will they pay for decommissioning it?
That 'clean, safe, too cheap to meter' line is from the 1950s. Before longer we'll have a decentralized, more secure power source that actually lives up to those lies. And best of all? The fuel supply will never be exhausted ... never need to be decommmissioned ... and lives a nice safe 90M miles away.
That doesn't change the article we have here.
I imagine a future where the technology improves to the point where people who live in cloudy areas can still generate plenty of power. Is that unrealistic?
Otherwise you risk being almost as inactive in the required efforts than an average climat change denier.
The most pragmatic thing to do is to improve solar generation and all kinds of storage. Those can actually solve the problem. Nuclear can't be here on time (nor on budget), and everything else just won't happen.
We could have avoided a lot of problems on the last few decades if the nuclear countries decided to push for safer reactors with no proliferation problems. They didn't. They all kept going for more weapons. Now we have to live with those problems, and the nuclear economical window passed away, it does not make sense anymore.
“We are as gods, and have to get good at it.”
Could be coincidence, but it seems awfully convenient.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_floating_nuclear_power...
[1] https://www.hcn.org/issues/50.21/nuclear-energy-theres-no-ea...
But now I know that Chernobyl was a ridiculously poor design that lacked a containment dome. If you want to build another Chernobyl I'll fight you, but if you want to build a modern plant or research MSRs I'm all for it, because climate change is set to do way worse than anything nuclear has ever done, Chernobyl included.
That's assuming we're happy to think we have a power problem, not an an energy problem. Anti-solar types (who similarly conflate PVC with solar thermal) like to mix or muddle those. Fission apologists who think that because Lithium is mined, then mining Uranium should be just fine, also seem keen to blunt some semantic nuances.
Nuclear fission's time has been and gone - it's great for bombs, and was an interesting experiment, but the costs are way higher than anyone should reasonably expect to pass onto future generations.
(Plus they snuck in that nasty 'metric ton' construct. 1000kg is a tonne.)
First, the demand for energy is only a small fraction of numerous ways the planet is being compromised - irrevocably. Satisfying all energy demands worldwide cleanly will not "save the planet".
Second, carbon-free is completely different than being clean energy. The byproducts (generally leaking radioactive waste) are significant, highly toxic, and long-lasting. While the emissions of fossil fuels is considered, other cleaner alternatives are not.
Third, the demand for energy is, for the most part, contrived. We are sold on the ideas of the need for one car for each person, the need for cars to travel in the first place, whole house heating and cooling, electrical solutions to simple manual tasks, etc ad infinitum. We could massively reduce energy needs by using low-power and no-power solutions.
* If nuclear is that safe, why don't we eliminate or at least, significantly raise the nuclear liability cap? The nuclear industry keeps trying to sell us (this article included) on the idea that disasters are now close to impossible. It'd be an easier sell if they voluntarily increased their liability, to, say $150-400 billion and found private insurers willing to take a risk on their safety, no?
* Did you personally consider Japan's nuclear plants unsafe before Fukushima? (as far as I can tell it took most of us by surprise)
* If the strike price for Hinkley point electricity is 1.5x-2x renewable strike price today (never mind in 10 years when renewable prices have plunged again), what exactly was so great about building a "next gen" nuclear plant?
B) Transparency is not great when it come to power plants. It is impossible for citizens to make a informed decisions about which countries has safe power plants and which are unsafe.
C) The environmentalist argument is not that renewable electricity is worse than nuclear, but that we still burn material and put co2 into the air for power and heat. Even in a place like Sweden, we still sometimes burn coal. If we could ban all such usage without building more nuclear than great, but we don't look like we are any nearer a ban on burning gas, oil and coal today than when renewable prices was prohibitive expensive. Nuclear power plants directly replace other power plants, while wind and solar seems mostly just supplement the market with cheaper electricity during good conditions while coal keep burning when the wind is calm and the sun is set.
Fukushima was before I was into the topic. I really can't say anything either way, except to parrot what others say: it was tech from the 60s and they built it on a major fault line.
I haven't read up on insurance for nuclear reactors, so I can't say much about that either. Again, though, even if it's dangerous, I don't see a way out that does not include dependency by all countries on solar power from the Saharah and similar places, or nuclear power. Assuming it's somewhere in the middle between the current safety levels and the claimed ones for newer designs, we should not exclude nuclear. It's also not as if we would build 1000 reactors worldwide simultaneously. Some will be built earlier than others and we'll learn more about their safety, allowing us to steer whether we want to appropriate more land for renewables or continue building more reactors.
After Fukushima Daiichi disaster Japan shut down all it's reactors and switched to fossil fuels, not renewables, and this is the most tragic outcome of the disaster.
Neither nuclear nor renewables could entirely replace fossil fuels, we desperately need both. Hopefully Japan is restarting it's nuclear reactors (5 reactors were restarted in 2018) and investing in renewables, but I'm afraid it's still not enough.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Japan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Japan
I don't think the sentiment on nuclear power, even after Fukushima, is as clear cut as you're presenting.
And your claim that Japan is planning on growing might mislead some readers to think that they are expanding the nuclear capacity in Japan. Which is not the case at all. They signed the Paris agreement and unlike the US they try to keep their promise. But they are not expanding any capacity to do this. They simply restart their reactors (which by the way if they might be able to do so is to be seen).
What actually happened is that they started to decommission the Genkai 1, Mihama 1 and 2, Shimane 1 and Tsuruga 1 reactors while they completely abandoned the plan to build Fukushima Daiichi Unit 7 & 8 for obvious reasons among others.
So if anything than the exact opposite can be said that you implied: Japan is slowly but surely phasing nuclear energy out.
I'm about as pro-nuclear as they get, but the Wikipedia articles seem to support a story of the Japanese government shutting down nuclear and being very tentative restarting the existing reactors [0].
It is difficult to guess what is going on in a country that doesn't report in English, but the info in Wikipedia (mostly a little dated) seems to support a rollback of nuclear. Reduced generation, limited new developments. Either they are using less energy or something else is filling the void left by nuclear plant shutdowns.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Japan#Nuclear...
The reality is that solar is a tiny part of global energy and even in countries like Japan it did not even come close to replacing nuclear.
Japan will have nuclear future because they simply have to much capacity already. However the poplar nature of nuclear politics makes it a problem, they will continue to be import depended and fossil fuel for many years to come.
> A second key to deep decarbonization brings up an inconvenient truth for the traditional Green movement: nuclear power is the world’s most abundant and scalable carbon-free energy source. Although renewable energy sources, particularly solar and wind, have become drastically cheaper, and their share of the world’s energy has more than tripled in the past five years, that share is still a paltry 1.5 percent, and there are limits on how high it can go. The wind is often becalmed, and the sun sets every night and may be clouded over. But people need energy around the clock, rain or shine. Batteries that could store and release large amounts of energy from renewables will help, but ones that could work on the scale of cities are years away. Also, wind and solar sprawl over vast acreage, defying the densification process that is friendliest to the environment.
From what I've been reading, seems CO2 tops that list. One can bury nuclear waste in the Nevada desert, keep everyone a few hundred miles away, and it'll be fine. From what I learned in high school chemistry class, a gas wants to expand to fill its container, so the CO2 produced by Chinese coal-fired plants eventually makes its way to me.
The process of extracting uranium from the earth uses tremendous amounts of heavy equipment
How much compared to, say, coal mining? Mining rare earth metals for solar panels and wind turbines?
Yeah, nuclear power has some downsides. But I'm not hearing the "versus" part in your argument.
I am fond of the phrase "final generation nuclear". We need 30 years of nuclear fission before we can sustain fusion.
I think we're already past the point where some nuclear risk is acceptable. It's not a zero sum game - fossel fuels are already being used with risk.
We need to take some (calculated) risks again.
> the CO2 produced by Chinese coal-fired plants eventually makes its way to me
Not. It doesn't work like that. CO2 is not even waste in the strict sense of the term; is basic for our survival. If you wipe all CO2 from the air, humankind will go extinct in a hurry because all plants would die really fast. All what we eat started as a CO2 molecule being captured by a plant somewhere.
The problem to recycle or clean it from the air has been solved for us by plants millions of years ago. Plants love CO2 and clean it for free.
Therefore, in the real life, many CO2 produced by Chinese coal-fired plants will be soon captured by a weed or a tree. The rest will go to the atmosphere where will hang on, maybe for a long time, but far away from you.
If you touch or inhale radiactive waste you could die in literally seconds. If you encounter CO2, as long that there is also enough oxygen around, nothing will happen. You will inhale it, will readily enter in your bloodstream, do a couple of roller coaster trips and will be discarded. All of we do it, many times a day for our entire life, without noticeable damage in our body.
And we could say that CO2 is a signifiant danger for the climate, but again, there are much worse molecules in this sense. Methane for example.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste
> One can bury nuclear waste in the Nevada desert, keep everyone a few hundred miles away, and it'll be fine.
Yeah, for a million years. The ideas people have come up with to prevent future generations just blowing it up without knowing what they're doing, and irradiating the whole planet, are quite interesting. If you have a good idea, people will be all ears, because we don't have a plan.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-level_radioactive_waste_m...
> Because some radioactive species have half-lives longer than one million years, even very low container leakage and radionuclide migration rates must be taken into account.[21] Moreover, it may require more than one half-life until some nuclear materials lose enough radioactivity to no longer be lethal to living organisms. A 1983 review of the Swedish radioactive waste disposal program by the National Academy of Sciences found that country’s estimate of several hundred thousand years—perhaps up to one million years—being necessary for waste isolation "fully justified."
Look through all that. It's ideas and proposals and things we're trying. We don't even have one thing you could call "a solution", and haven't found one in decades.
> From what I learned in high school chemistry class, a gas wants to expand to fill its container
Just plant trees, then store the wood. Okay, it's probably more complex than that, or there's much better ways. But this is no anywhere near the "a bunch of proposals, and good luck to future generations" level that nuclear waste is.
You're basically saying "CO2 is a gas so it will move to me, and nuclear waste can be buried and you just have to stay a few hundred miles away". There is more to it than that. (apart than CO2 moving to you probably being a good thing, because then you can trap it)
You can't have this both ways. Either CO2 is the most dangerous waste and must be dealt with severely, or it is not.
>When you add the costs of closing and "cleaning up" a plant site, which run into the billions of dollars for each plant, nuclear just doesn't make sense.
Solar and wind are going to require billions of dollars for the same output as well, plus additional lithium mines for batteries since the sun doesn't shine every day (and reprocessing when the cells run out), plus those who are going to get killed in construction/maintenance (roof work is dangerous). We've just externalized the consequences for some of that since we don't bother to tax products based on how badly the source country destroys the environment through the manufacture of the product.
Life creates waste, and it's time to accept that reality; you won't get a perfect solution so maybe it's time to start accepting merely good ones instead. Saving the environment is too important to wait.
Numbers. Show numbers. Without numbers you have said NOTHING.
The idea that uranium mining requires tremendous amounts of anything compared to the alternatives is ludicrous simply by the physical fact that there are 938 MW*days of energy in every kilogram of natural uranium. That's 2 million times more energy per mass than any chemical fuel, and that results in a very small mining requirement compared to anything else to power humanity at world-scale.
Sure we do: reprocess it, like every country except the US that uses nuclear power does. The only reason the US doesn't is stupid politics.
The US decision to not get the government pushing reprocessing was the correct one. You will notice that after Reagan lifted Carter's ban on reprocessing, no commercial firms here jumped into the market. That's because it's not economically justified.
I don't think burying waste anytime soon at Yucca Mountain is economically justified either, by the way.
Another super-reasonable thing to do with nuclear waste is burying it in large salt deposits or deep crystalline bedrock. Both are actually totally reasonable and practical solutions. People just go nuts though when you talk about it.
> No. Nuclear power creates the most dangerous waste known to mankind and we have no way of mitigating or eliminating it.
Nuclear waste is incredibly well controlled, unlike waste from solar, wind or fossil. Most Western countries didn't have contamination from civil nuclear waste at all and specially not in the last 30 years. Civilian Nuclear waste has basically killed nobody.
Calling it the 'most dangerous' is nonsense.
> Nuclear isn't cost effective on an ongoing operating basis (compared with natural gas).
Nothing is as cheap as natural gas in the US. Specially don't just look at creation but also the grid, the end to end price.
Nuclear on mass scale is very competitive and has been proven to be able to replace fossil fuels on large scales. South Korea and China can produce very competitive nuclear reactors and we could do the same in the West. France did it in the 70/80 with 1960s tech.
Nuclear has the massive advantage of being able to replace coal plants directly without redesigning the countries or even continents grid. These cost (and others) are always ignored when solar advocates claim of low dispatch cost.
> When you add the costs of closing and "cleaning up" a plant site, which run into the billions of dollars for each plant, nuclear just doesn't make sense.
Cleanup for any modern plants in the West are already part of the dispatch price. It takes a while to clean up, but the overall land use of nuclear is still 100/1000x smaller then anything else.
> Nuclear is far from "carbon neutral." The process of extracting uranium from the earth uses tremendous amounts of heavy equipment, but the carbon outputs from mining (and cleanup) are never mentioned anywhere in order to sustain the "clean power" myth.
This is another failure in understanding scale. Uranium mining is not very heavy in terms of equipment compared other mining. Furthermore Uranium has a far higher energy density then anything else we could mine for energy. Solar, Wind and literally everything else involves far more mining and far more 'gray CO2' in the production.
Nothing is zero carbon but nuclear is easily the closest thing we have. No other form of energy has a lower land use, lower resource use and produces less CO2. These are well established facts, however much anti-nuclear advocates want to ignore it.
One hand full of uranium is enough for a whole human live inclusive transportation heating and so on. Now compare this to the literal mountain of solar panels that would have to be produced (and the resource mined).
1.1 billion hectares of land are farmed to feed the 7.5 billion people. That works out to 2000 square meters per person.
World energy consumption (all sources) runs about 18 terawatts, or 2400 watts per person. That is 58kWhr per day. Using an insolation factor of 3.0 (that is a 1W solar panel averages 3Whrs per day) each person will require 20kW of solar panels to replace ALL sources of energy. That is about 100 square meters of panels per person.
That's a lot, but not unthinkable. You could buy 8 pallets of panels today for $13k and cover a person, and it only takes 5% as much land as the land used to feed that person.
The idea that nuclear waste 'leaks' anything is absurd and defiantly not generally true.
While of course the output is toxic, its also highly controlled and does not come into contact with anything.
Its long lasting but it also contains lots of useful stuff that, if we continue to use nuclear power and other nuclear byproducts will turn very valuable.
> Third, the demand for energy is, for the most part, contrived. We are sold on the ideas of the need for one car for each person, the need for cars to travel in the first place, whole house heating and cooling, electrical solutions to simple manual tasks, etc ad infinitum. We could massively reduce energy needs by using low-power and no-power solutions.
Sure if you forced everybody how you would like to live then we could do a lot. The idea that we should artificially restrict peoples energy needs as a way to save the plant just so we can avoid the very minor issue of nuclear waste is absurd.
While I view nuclear power relatively favorably, this is an extremely rose-tinted view of the situation. Nuclear waste can and does leak.
The vast majority of problems facing the planet can be solved given extremely cheap energy:
- Need clean drinking water? Simply desalinate ocean water if you have enough energy.
- Need clean air? Various catalytic converters can remove most and in many cases all harmful molecules, they just cost energy.
- Need to sequester carbon? Sure we know how to do it, provided you have enough energy.
- Need to feed the world? We already grow enough food, the main problem is transportation of that food. Again, easy with enough energy and electric vehicles.
Say’s who?
Because laws of physics say it’s the more efficient solution yet (not the cleanest thought) to tackle climat change problem. You have to put serious study out to counter that, not hearsay’s by coal lobby or anti-nuclear activists.
Its not really sensible to price 24hrs of li-on storage considering li-ons charge/discharge rate capability is fixed. There is no use for the capability to charge and discharge 24hours of power within a couple of hours, but you cant avoid buying it with li-on. With flow batteries you price the discharge rate and the capacity separately. This is why flow batteries should work out a fraction of the cost even at todays price.
And when it's press from a battery maker, rather than a battery researcher's university press department, the battery press release is far far more reliable. I'd say their cost overruns will be at most 20%-30%, compared to nuclear's usual 200%-300%.
We already have a plan. Publish the information on the internet. It will still be here in 1 million years. YouTube will outlast the Sun.
That's the point of the comment. "Nuclear had it's chance" is what you latched onto, concluding with "The environmentalist not rationality kille nuclear". So I guess you agree, the title is BS.
Again solar has 1% of the worlds energy covered that's it. This is with all the bells and whistle and political support and economic investments.
Nuclear will EVEN without that deliver way more energy, much more stable, in abundance form and scaleable plus it's safe and greener than even solar.
Claiming it had it's time is ideologically blind in a way only people who listen too much to politicians like to think.
Call me when sun is used for most of the tranportation industry and for large constructions etc. Call me when the poor countries can solve the problems nature provides via solar.
The problem of global warming from CO2 emission is much harder than nuclear waste, even if we increased nuclear generate 100-fold.
Uhh, that’s exactly what I was saying. Maybe too subtle? I wasn’t suggesting that we’d choke on it.
there are much worse molecules in this sense.
And therefore CO2 shouldn’t be a concern? Where are you going with this?
And therefore CO2 is not topping the list of worse waste created by man over radioactive waste, as you claimed previously...
Is not logical to keep denying that radioactivity is a very, very dangerous stuff at this point. After the Hiroshima, Chernobyl and Fukushima experiences we should expect to start talking seriously about it, instead to deny the problem again and again.
No, that was you making up quotes I never actually typed. Right now, concentrations of CO2 affect my life more than nuclear waste ever has and likely ever will. Since you’re content to make up quotes and then argue against them, I’m gonna chalk you up for a loss on this one and go about my day.
The vastly greater dangers of environmental collapse from global warning are so relatively long term that people can't make sensible risk analyses about them, hence the terror around nuclear and the nonchalance around reducing carbon emissions which are far more threatening.
Not sure where that comes from. I don't think we'll have competitive fusion in the next 50 years. Sure, people who talk about ITER draw (quite optimistic) plans for when we'll be able to get more from the fusion reaction than what energy we pump in, but they forget to mention that's not the end of the story. Fusion may be clean, but it's terribly inefficient. In the Sun, fusion generates about the same amount of energy per liter as a liter of warm chicken soup releases to the ambient environment [1]. The Sun is huge, so overall the amount of generated energy is huge, but on Earth a power plant that has the same power density as the Sun would need to have a volume of 4 billion m3 to be similar to a typical fission power plant (1GW). That's 4 cubes of 1 square kilometers each. And don't bet on us getting to that efficiency in the next 20-30 years. So, sorry for the bad news, but no, we won't have viable fusion power plants in the foreseeable future.
[1] https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/370899/suns-powe...
I'm not sure when or if a sustained reaction can be done economically.
High Temperature Superconductors change what you can do for Tokomaks.
In the US Commonwealth Fusion Systems are exploring these paths:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_Fusion_Systems
In the UK Tokomak energy are exploring ideas as well:
https://www.tokamakenergy.co.uk/
This video explains why high temperature super conductors can enhance fusion's prospects:
The density, in terms of fusion events per m^3 per second, is orders of magnitude higher for a tokamak than in the Sun. Stars are very inefficient at fusion, as you point out, because the cross section oh H-H fusion is so low. Deuterium-Tritium fusion has a higher cross section, and the conditions we can reach realize a much higher rate of fusion.
None of these numbers includes the carbon used to bulldoze the East side of Japan, or Belarus. And again, as the first attempt was clumsy, and a minimum.
The IPCC has min, median, and max estimates on these kinds of things. See Table A.III.2 in [1], 12 being the median.
So worst case by any estimate is that nuclear emits 110 gCO2-eq/kg. Solar PV (utility) max is 180. Hydro is an astounding 2200 (twice as bad as coal, due to biogenic methane associated with large reservoirs). By any estimate, nuclear is a very low-carbon energy source, in a whole different class than fossil fuel and biofuels. In other words, it's one of the few low-carbon options we have.
The minimum for nuclear is not 11 but rather 3.7.
[1] https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5...
It's very expensive but also free insurance, basically.
Nuclear quite simply needs to be given its fair share of blood to be competitive - to get wind power down to the same level of safety we'd have to build robots to climb the turbines to maintain them.
I suggest instead pushing for designs that can achieve acceptable levels of safety at lower cost. In particular, molten salt designs, such as the one from Moltex, that allow the size of the containment building to be shrunk by a factor of five from that of an LWR (for a given power output). Moltex's design does not dissolve the fuel in the primary coolant and has other attractive features vs. other MSR designs.
Such designs are not on the market today, and will take time and money to bring to market. I think R&D on them is a good idea, and supporting that is a proper role for governments, just as it was for renewables, but they are still something of a longshot, given where the competition is likely to be in 20 years.
Thorium molten salt reactors have been bandied around for a while, especially in India due to necessity, but I fully expect governments to still make unrealistic demands of them, and therefore drive them up to unrealistic prices.
Stuff like this depresses me - I don't see how politics can handle grown-up conversations about trade-offs like this when people will just vote in the cake-and-eat-it parties.
The reason why it totals 1.5% is because it costs money to replace existing power sources and the lobby power of the coal industry is still huge. It has nothing to do with solar energy itself.
You may call it "the lobby power" but there seems to be no choice for the heavy industry than to use coal, thanks to nuclear phase-out.
It's actually become something of a political issue (because of the lost jobs).
In 2010-2013 renewables apparently couldn't keep up. Since 2014 they appear capable of replacing all other end of lifed power plants.
The renewable parts of that is bound to go down: As part of the push to renewables, when spinning up capacity, you get prices guaranteed for 20 years. The different to market rates is spread across the whole market ("EEG Umlage", "renewable energy law contribution").
But: that law is approaching 20 years now and so in 2021 the first installations will drop out of that subsidy scheme. Prices and guaranteed rates were dropping ever since, and so will the subsidies - with a delay of 20 years.
> there seems to be no choice for the heavy industry than to use coal
Comparing the numbers in 2000 and 2017 (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stromerzeugung#Bruttostromerze...), coal used to account for more than 50% of power generation in 2000, down to 36.6% in 2017. Even in absolute numbers to account for the rise in total power production, coal is less in 2017 than in 2000. Petrochemicals are up from 9.5% to 14.1% though.
Non-regenerative power was 436.5 TWh in 2017, down from 538.7 TWh in 2000.
And no realistic fuelcell technology or disrributed grids.
That's true now, yes. But anyone who realizes this also realizes (as you do) that nuclear waste disposal is not an issue: you just store the spent fuel now, and at some point (in the not too distant future if we were actually using nuclear energy for a large portion of base load power), mining and enriching new fuel will be more expensive than reprocessing, at which point all of that so-called "waste" will be useful. The idea that it needs to be stored safely for tens or hundreds of thousands of years is just ludicrous.
Also, reprocessing makes disposal of what's left over much easier, because the stuff you actually have to dispose of afterwards (i.e,. the stuff that isn't now reprocessed fuel) has much shorter half-lives and so only needs to be safely sequestered for a much shorter time.
I'm not totally convinced that uranium mining will ever be more expensive than reprocessing. For one thing, (and especially when you go to deep-burn non-reprocessing breeder reactors) the required uranium is so minuscule that extracting the (near infinite and truly renewable) uranium from seawater is practical using tech that's 3-6x more expensive today than traditional mining.
On the other hand advances in industrial controls and robotics could conceivably reduce reprocessing costs.
Either option would be fine for a much expanded nuclear fleet providing 24/7 low-footprint carbon-free energy.
Commercial nuclear waste is solid ceramic Uranium/fission product-oxide. It does not leak.
If we look at civilian power production in the last 40 years its basically a non issue.
The few accidents that have happened are far smaller in scale then the 'horror' stories that people believe in and pretty much all of those are overhanging issue from the early nuclear age.
Not in context, because the context was that that decision was part of a general policy on the government's part to kill nuclear energy. If the government had wanted to help nuclear energy, it would have said, sure, reprocess if you want to, as long as you're willing to deal with whatever the economics of it turn out to be. (In the 1970's, when the Carter administration made the decision, uranium mining was considerably more expensive than it is now, so reprocessing might well have made economic sense then, even if it doesn't now.)
In that environment where nuclear growth did not match the central plans, reprocessing made no sense.
https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2019/01/03/as-utilities-fight-di...
https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2018/08/20/enphase-going-einstei...
It's important for MSR proponents to focus on the actual benefits, rather than fake benefits, so they don't make bad engineering tradeoffs.
If France were forced to disconnect from its neighbors, its electricity would be more expensive and/or more emissions-intensive. It would need more fossil combustion to deal with seasonal demand swings and/or it would get less utilization out of its nuclear reactor fleet. The same goes for Germany, of course: electrically isolating itself would also increase costs/emissions. Germany and France both rely on international electrical connections to improve utilization of their non-combustion electricity sources. Both use imports to meet part of their electricity demands. Both are net electricity exporters over the course of a full year.
However, how is that better? Uranium mining is tiny and a non issue. Thorium is even more plentiful, literally a waste product. We have enough of that stuff for 1000s of years. We have the technology to use it on mass scale and it has PROVEN track record of replacing fossil fuels at mass scales.
Solar panel waste is further duplicated by the live cycle and the lack of life cycle planning in the global supply.
Uranium would most likely be picked for an industrial scale nuclear weapons program for a couple reasons but thorium does not eliminate these problems.
Furthermore many of the benefits people talk about when talking about Thorium is really about the reactor. Many of the same benefits could also be achieved with Uranium.
Thorium really shines for some specific reactor types.
Whats holding reactors back in general is regulation in all parts of the supply chain, from research to operational licenses, and a wide popular anti-nuclear feeling.
https://www.nrel.gov/gis/images/eere_pv/national_photovoltai...
Here is a map of the world…
https://globalsolaratlas.info/downloads/world
Northern Europeans are going to want to have some power lines to the south. Chile might be the new aluminum refining capital of the world. Africa would be energy rich.
See http://www.climatecentral.org/news/first-commercial-co2-capt... .
With radioactive waste, we _must_ bury it today.
Just the RP-1 & LH2 fuel cost would be around $600,000 per launch[1], so about 222 billion USD per year (The fuel is the cheapest part of the launch). Each launch releases around 440,000 kg of CO2[2] into the atmosphere. That's 163Mt, an increase of 44% of the UK's current CO2 pollution from the launches alone.
Just for fun, if we wanted to send all nuclear waste all the way to pluto using only Falcon Heavies we'd have to launch around 1.8 per second. Going off the 80 million USD price tag for these launches, that's 4.5 quadrillion USD. That's about 60 times the Gross World Product to cover the UK alone.
[0] https://nda.blog.gov.uk/2017/04/03/how-much-radioactive-wast... [1] https://www.quora.com/How-much-fuel-does-it-take-to-travel-t... [2] https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/13082/calculate-fa...
Because of the extremely high energy density of nuclear fuel, the amount of waste produced per Gigawatt-year of electricity generated is very small.
A Saturn V has a payload of 140 Mt to low earth orbit. Total high-level waste is 22,000 cubic meters, possibly 220,000 Mt, assuming a density 10 times as great as water. 1,572 Saturn V launches would carry away all of that. All the high-level waste ever produced that has not been recycled. Most of it can be recycled in breeder reactors, so there is no need to carry it away!
What I remember of his explanation was the point that if you launch a payload of material into space, you have essentially placed that payload in an elliptical orbital path, one that intersects earth's elliptical path. And since orbits are periodic, that payload is going to be intersecting earth's orbit regularly, meaning that in this instance, the chance of the material coming right back into the atmosphere is quite high.
So to me the "let's get it off the planet" idea is an overreaction. Radioactive material just need to be handled with common sense.
You get a little radioactive steam surely...but eventually turns into radioactive dust...
As an aside, ignorant physics question, does the half-life of something decrease with heat? Like does more beta-decay mean it gets to safe levels faster?
Maybe a few years in between tectonic plates would do a planet good eh?
For comparison, lead has a density of 11.34 g/cm^3.
It's heavy.
But if instead you just launched it into space on a rocket... well what happens when a launch fails and the rocket blows up on the launch pad? If you’re lucky, you mark a few square miles as no-go zones and then move on to the next launch pad? Doesn’t strike me as a sustainable solution.
One of my favorite ideas is to encase the waste into giant glass blocks, and build pyramids in the desert... but I doubt that’s very practical either.
Its not too expensive its very cheap, its the regulation around that makes it expensive which can be solved too.
No it can’t. Any given atom stops being uranium after it fissions. Some of the waste can be reprocessed because not all is fissioned, but even then there is a lot of literally untouchable waste left over — well, literally untouchable if you want to live: https://what-if.xkcd.com/29/
I don’t think waste is a legitimate concern of nuclear energy, as long as they are stored and protected responsively. The risk of an uncontained explosion of a reactor is a more legitimate concern. But I understand many modern designs like molten salt reactors reduce this risk to pretty much zero.
Furthermore, the price of uranium is so cheap that it's financially feasible right now. It will be over time but that should also show you just how abundant and available it is as a resource.
If we actually got politicians to sit down and go through the requirements with engineers and scientists they would realize how cheap and still safe it can be.
It’s already cheaper to build new solar plants and wind farms than continue to run an existing coal plant (which itself is cheaper to run than nuclear).
We have succesfully used a "Slingshoot" approach to put heavy things up to 100t in the space many times. Hubble telescope (12t) or the orbiter from the space shuttle (100t) fall in this category.
We could split our waste in chunks of 500Kg, pack it really well and just put it in an orbiter; the problem is that we can't go really far with this system (around 500 Km or so). We just will put the waste in a low orbit where things can fall again into the earth sonner or later. We had the Thiangong-1 case in 2018.
Thus this "solution" after a few years would be the same as dumping the waste into the sea, but in a very expensive and creative way.
Short answer: No. Definitely not in a Volcano.
Long Answer:
Decay rates are ultimately determined by the subatomic structure of the nucleus. This is why different chemicals, and different isotopes of said chemicals, will decay differently. A lone neutron will decay after about 15 minutes (which is a long time in subatomic scales), however, the two neutrons in (4/2)He will happily stick around forever.
So melting a material won't have any impact on the structure of the nucleus, you're just disassociating the intramolecular bonds; same goes for turning said material into a gas.
If you were to raise the temperature high enough, and we're talking sun-like (not the measly 5000k that you get on the surface, I mean like 27-million degrees you find in the core), then you'll actually start stripping and fusing nuclei, which will at that point change (but not necessarily decrease) the radioactive rates of whatever material you started with.
A "subduction zone" is where two tectonic plates collide and fold into the depth of the planet. So anything you bury there would naturally travel deeper into the planet over the eons.
I haven't heard any serious arguments against this, but I suspect it's impossible because people think it would "contaminate the oceans".
I’m only “somewhat” in agreement because humans are terrible at reading warning signs, especially from long-dead people. “Oh,” they say, “that was ages ago. It’s just a primitive superstition. Anyway, we’re special.”
Absent scenarios which Isaac Arthur has already made YouTube videos about, I’m more worried about atomic analogs of antivaxxers or homeopaths. Or “Traditional Chinese Medicine”. Or… well, you get the idea.
How much time do you have? This article isn't just long, it has many, many interesting links.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-level_radioactive_waste_m...
> There is a debate over what should constitute an acceptable scientific and engineering foundation for proceeding with radioactive waste disposal strategies. There are those who have argued, on the basis of complex geochemical simulation models, that relinquishing control over radioactive materials to geohydrologic processes at repository closure is an acceptable risk. They maintain that so-called "natural analogues" inhibit subterranean movement of radionuclides, making disposal of radioactive wastes in stable geologic formations unnecessary. However, existing models of these processes are empirically underdetermined: due to the subterranean nature of such processes in solid geologic formations, the accuracy of computer simulation models has not been verified by empirical observation, certainly not over periods of time equivalent to the lethal half-lives of high-level radioactive waste. On the other hand, some insist deep geologic repositories in stable geologic formations are necessary. National management plans of various countries display a variety of approaches to resolving this debate.
So, various countries display a variety of approaches to resolving this debate.
That's all we have for now.
> I don’t think waste is a legitimate concern of nuclear energy, as long as they are stored and protected responsively.
Yeah, but so far we have no way of doing that, so it's a legitimate concern. I might as well say "we can just turn off all nuclear reactors now, we just need other means oto generate the energy and do the shutdown responsibly". Leave it allll up to the reader, or in this case, future generations, why not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste
https://grist.org/article/stang/
> At Hanford, a rough rule of thumb for planners is to look ahead 1,000 years. That’s like a Viking trying to conceive of an astronaut, then trying to pass a note to him.
> Experts inside and outside of DOE have pondered this communication conundrum. The agency has assembled panels of scientists, historians, artists, and others to tackle from all angles the question of how a 21st century sign should look to a 31st century person. From symbols to colors to materials to size, everything’s up for grabs — and nothing’s been decided.
We don't have solutions. Pretending we have solutions will not help us get solutions, either.
Well, if that "counts", then solar power will become totally free and have a net positive environmental impact, we'll just plant some nanobots that grow and repair solar panels inside a marked area, and can be scooped up should we need them elsewhere, hence "100% free once we perfected them". They'll smell like vanilla, and change color according to the moods of people using the energy.
Latter on we make nanobots and send them to the sun to hang out there for a few thousand years and grow a scaffolding from, uhh, space dust or something, and then we shoot nanobots at it that grow solar panels on it, and we have our Dyson sphere. Add some nanostuff that creates material from energy and flings that at Earth, then convert material back to energy.
This didn't even take me 5 minutes, so I really don't get what the problem is :P
Fuel cells are a high capital cost solution to the problem of turning hydrogen into electricity, at higher efficiency. That's not what solar or wind need -- they need low capital cost, mediocre efficiency backup sources.
Otherwise here's a good discussion on the viability of space guns: https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/2370/what-technolo....
90-95% of all new generation coming online each year are renewables in the US. Renewables cost continues to decline year over year, speeding its uptake. I cannot fathom how one would think nuclear can compete at all in such an environment.
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=31192
“Nearly all nuclear plants now in use began operation between 1970 and 1990. These plants would require a subsequent license renewal before 2050 to operate beyond the 60-year period covered by their original 40-year operating license and the 20-year license extension that nearly 90% of plants currently operating have either already received or have applied for. The AEO2017 Reference case projections do not envision a large amount of new nuclear capacity additions. By 2050, only four reactors currently under construction and some uprates at existing plants are projected to come online.”
Super-expensive safety regulations are often based on the linear no-threshold model of biological dose response. There is more and more data showing that this is illogical at very low doses. Changing that is highly political.
The large 3-shift security staff at nuclear power plants is based on political concerns.
The contractor and financing models in play in the US to build nukes causes lots of misalignment, and contracts end up suing each other over trivialities rather than building the plant like the Koreans do or French did (in the 1970s). That's nearly political.
Anti-nuclear intervenors watch over plant plans and try to delay at all costs. Totally political.
Whether the race is rigged is irrelevant; the race is over.
There is no reason why a grid needs any baseload sources whatsoever.
Again it doesent matter how much come online it matters if it replaces fossile or nuclear in any significant way, it doesent, its unreliable.
This is pretty much entirely because PV keep getting cheaper faster than everyone expected — even as recently as five years ago, pessimism like yours wouldn’t have been unreasonable, and yet the problem is now essentially solved and all we need to do is build the stuff at the prices we can already afford.
{1} https://web.archive.org/web/20120322204531/http://www.grid-s...
{2} https://cleantechnica.com/2018/06/14/new-us-solar-record-2-1...
Solar is less then 1% and that's with 300% increase it's not even close to being able to deliver baseline anything regardless of how cheap it gets. It's a dream that's not even close to be realistic and frankly highly naive.
Again 47w per m2 vs. 1000w per m2 and with solar panels needing continous repeairs and no grid or fuel cells in sight plus reliance on coal, nuclear and oil for when the sun doesn't shine.
Good luck.
This is why you're not seeing new nuclear plants much in the west. The decision makers know they face huge risk from future cost declines of renewables which, combined with gas, would leave those reactors unable to amortize their construction, financing, and fixed operating costs.
There are other solutions for long term storage of renewable energy to make it dispatchable. For example, making hydrogen, then burn it in turbines. The efficiency of this is lousy, but the capital cost can be quite low.
Just to put things in perspective. Solar can do roughly 50W per m2 at best and I am being generous.
Nuclear does 1000W per m2.
Solar is not even close to being able to deliver stable energy so you would have to factor either coal, nuclear or oil into the mix too to provide stable delivery.
Renewable can't deliver the needed energy not even close. Less than 1% right now and not even close with anything like fuel cell technologies or distributed grid systems which would be very very very expensive.
Nuclear whether you like it or not is cleaner, more stable, cheaper and more scaleable.
You will realize this soon enough.
Apples and oranges. We have plenty of desert land and /or roof space for solar. Granted solar is not with its enviro issues but nuclear stands apart. Also costs. A Nuclear power plants costs $20+billion to be built. But then solar by definition is only during the day
The end goal is a lowest cost deep decarbonized grid. We should design policies to give us that ASAP. In many cases, nuclear has a robust role to play in such grids.
The nature of a nuclear plant is that it is incredibly capital intensive, and needs to operate at capacity to work financially.
Solar is interesting because it’s peak output aligns with peak demand. Your solar farm isn’t going to do much for you st night, but that’s ok because you don’t need the power!
I have no idea what you’re referring to with “47w per m2”, can you elaborate?
Ditto “needing continuous replairs“. There’s a rover on Mars that’s been running for about 15 years continuously on solar with no human maintenance.
From an engineering point of view (though not political), you don’t even need to worry about night time, because the earth is round and even planet sized grids don’t lose enough power to raise my example of 2.155¢/kWh to even as high as coal. And that’s if you refuse to use the fuel cell tech that already exists.
This is nothing new. As the Forbes cover story on Feb. 11, 1985 said: “The failure of the U.S. nuclear power program ranks as the largest managerial disaster in business history, a disaster on a monumental scale… only the blind or the biased can now think that the money has been well spent.”
In recent years, they gave nuclear another chance. And it failed again. You are unlikely to get a third chance anytime soon.
You can't both have your cake and eat it.
The difference is that we KNOW that nuclear can deliver way more energy per m2 than wind and solar can. We know how to get it to work and we know that the primary cost of nuclear is political NOT technical completely opposite wind and solar which have technical issues to provide as much as nuclear or coal or oil can.
Yes, nuclear can deliver more energy per m2. But this is irrelevant, since we have no shortage of m2. What we have limits on is $$$. On the metric of energy/$, nuclear fails. And no, we do not know that the problem with nuclear is political. You can keep repeating that, but it doesn't make you any less wrong.
The reason nuclear is expensive is because of the regulations around it NOT because of the technical issues of building a nuclear power plant.
Solar and wind have shown impressive and sustained improvement along so-called "experience curves". The cost of each has declined as a power law in cumulative installed capacity. This decline has been sustained while they've declined in cost by orders of magnitude (PV has improved in cost by more than a factor of 200 since the 1970s.)
Nuclear, in contrast, has been largely free of such sustained improvement. If anything, costs have increased with experience -- negative learning. The complexity and scale of nuclear appears to be such that learning effects are cancelled out.
And no, regulations are NOT the reason. That's the increasingly lame excuse nuclear fans confabulate to deal with the cognitive dissonance of their precious technology not actually living up to their fantasies about it. And as I've said elsewhere, if your complaint is that government doesn't let reactors meltdown enough, you might as well hang it up and go home. You are not going to win that one.
This year PV alone is forecast to reach half a terrawatt. I’m not sure if that’s peak or average but at 30% per year growth, it doesn’t really matter. World electric use is only 2.7 TW, after that point we want to start electrolysing hydrogen out of water even if only to replace jet fuel.
