So looking at the article it seems to be against small scale traditional (fission/boiler) systems. Which are fair game. They were pretty much outdated over 50 years ago. I would be more interested in studies on dispersed Thorium Reactors which held far more potential as little as a decade ago.
this post was submitted on 01 Jun 2024
0 points (NaN% liked)
Technology
57465 readers
3638 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Nuclear technologies missed their window. The use cases where they are the best technical solution now are extremely limited, and that means you can get the investment going to improve them.
It’s a curiosity now.
There’s an alternative timeline where Chernobyl doesn’t happen and we decarbonize by leaning on nuclear in the nineties, then transition to renewables about now. But that’s not our timeline. And if it were, it would be in the past now.
I disagree, a bit.
Base load is still hard to get with renewables, unless you can get a somewhat consistent level of power from them. That's basically just hydro/tidal and geothermal at this point, and all of those have very limited areas where they can be used.
Nuclear, on the other hand, can be built anywhere except my backyard.
We have four choices:
- Discover/build another form of consistent renewable energy (what's left? Dyson sphere?)
- Up our storage game, big time (hydrostatic batteries, flywheel farms, lithium, hydrogen, whatever, just somewhere to put all this extra green energy)
- Embrace nuclear
- Clutch on to fossil fuels until we all boil/choke.
We can do all of them concurrently, provided there's money for it, but we only give money to the last one.
"Base load" is not that much. Off shore wind is almost always blowing, and all the other renewables can be stored via batteries or hydrogen (or tanks, in case of biogas). Yes, that's a whole lot of stuff, but the technology exists, can be produced on large scale and (most importantly) doesn't cause any path dependencies.
Nuclear is extremely expensive, as the article highlighted. And to be cost effective, power has to be produced more or less constantly. Having a nuclear power plant just for the few hours at night when wind and sun don't work is insane - and insanely expensive.
Nuclear is mostly expensive because of regulations and red tape that are mostly built upon FUD.
That needs to be re-addressed from the ground up. There needs to be a big PSA push on the safety of nuclear and on the true costs and hidden dangers of coal and oil plants to build massive public support, and then we got to fix the outdated regulations.
Also, coal plants aren't cheap. And coal has costs that are heavily subsidized by society. If you could calculate all of the external costs and level out subsidies, nuclear is cheaper and, more importantly, far far safer, than any GHG plant.
The alternative to nuclear isn't coal....
And if you seriously think regulations are the problem, you're denser than the lead shielding you want to get rid of.
From where I stand you couldn't be further from the reality of the situation.
Nuclear has a number of advantages from low carbon output per kilowatt over lifetime as well as being extremely cheap per kilowatt.
But the real advantage being overlooked is the small foot print and land use compared to other forms power generation. A nuclear reactor is ideal for high density population areas, adding no pollution like fossil fuels and using a fraction of the land that renewables require. And there is room for overlap between renewables and nuclear as well, meaning days where wind or solar would produce more power than usual, its easy to scale back solar production to take advantage of cheaper power, and vice versa for times when renewables aren't going to generate enough to meet demand nuclear can increase their output relatively quickly and effectively.
The future of nuclear is however one of the most important. We are eventually going to be spending humans to other planets, and having mature, efficient and compact forms of power generation with long lifetimes and minimal start up power from idle states is going to be important, solar gets less effective the further from the sun we get, you can't stick a wind turbine on a space craft and expect good results, and you're out of your mind if you want to burn fossil fuels in an oxygen limited environment.
Treating nuclear as more than a curiosity but rather as the genuine lifeline and corner stone of our futures and future generations is significantly more important than fossil fuel profits today and all their propaganda.
as well as being extremely cheap per kilowatt.
What? How? Far as i know it's the most expensive, with a lot of hidden costs.
They are still going for big building size reactors that have site specific details even if the core is built in a "factory". This still doesn't scale well.
I wonder if it can be economical to go smaller still and ship a reactor and power generation (TRG maybe or a small turbine) that then doesn't require much other than connecting wiring and plumbing and its encased in at least one security layer covered in sensors if something goes wrong its all contained. Then its just a single lorry with a box you wire in. That has a chance of being scalable and easy to deploy and I can't help but think there is a market for ~0.5-10 KW reactors if they can get the lowest end down to about $20,000, it would compete OK with solar and wind price wise.
I suspect no one has bothered because the regulatory overhead means it has to be big enough to be worth it and like Wind power scales enormously with the size of the plant. But what I want is a tiny reactor in my basement, add a few batteries for dealing with the duck curve and you have something that will sit there producing power for 25 years and a contract for it be repaired and ultimately collected at end of life.
You can sort of do this today using the Tritium glow sticks and solar cells but it doesn't last long enough and the price is not competitive. Going more directly to the band gap in a silicon or something else semi-conductive and a long lived nuclear material could maybe get a little closer price wise.
You want people to have their own private nuclear reactor in their basement?
Nukeheads are insane
I sympathized with your statement immediately, but then after thinking about it for a bit, most people basically have controlled pressure bombs (gas-water boilers) and buildings filled with gas pipes that can (and have) wiped out whole city blocks.
It's still not a good idea, obviously, but localized fossil fuels are also ridiculous when you think about it.
Nuclear waste and fuel is dangerous for years and is an invisible hazard. Propane and gas at least only explode once
Thoughts on CO from malfunctioning boilers?
The two aren’t even part of the same conversation.
It builds up for days even months and is an invisible hazard?
Does anyone know about the technology that nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers use? Why are they able to operate but we can't use the same technology on land?
Because if the military wants something, budgets are big. And they do not need to make money.
Nuclear fanboys are strange! The won't let it go.
Because it’s really cool tech and unlike burning coal, oil and gas it’s CO2 neutral. And alternatives like fusion reactors are still decades away, at least, and we can’t build renewables fast enough either.
In my opinion shutting down all nuclear powerplants was the stupidest thing the government here in Germany has ever done, especially since coal is still being subsidized and our planet isn’t getting any cooler.
None of what you say is false.
None of what you say is enough to make it the right path for the future.
It‘s a better path than fossil fuels and a worse one than renewables.
Agreed! So let's stop wasting time and energy (get it?) by fantasizing about a nuclear future and push renewables. There is no alternative anymore, let it go.
Why can't we switch to thorium and molten salt instead? Much cleaner, much safer, same idea.
And even more expensive, no?
Edit: Changed introductory wording to be less belligerent. I am sorry if I have caused a significant level of offense.
~~Just wait for the nuclear shills to flood in and claim that nuclear fission is a sustainable and necessary form of power generation.~~ Some people claim that nuclear fission is a sustainable and necessary form of power generation. It is not. Uranium extraction devastates entire landscapes, the construction of nuclear power plants is too expensive (even for SMRs, as the article explains), ergo electricity prices will climb, it is a hugely wasteful use of so many tonnes of concrete (concrete manufacturing is heavy on the environment too), it creates waste that will still haunt us for hundreds of thousands of years (finding geological structures that are guaranteed to be stable that long is difficult), and relative to the initial construction and set-up effort, they don't provide that much energy. We already have methods that can provide us plenty enough electricity that are entirely sustainable by leveraging large-scale atmospheric aerodynamics as well as the largest nuclear fusion reactor at our disposal (the sun). There's simply no need to go nuclear.
I hate that the conversation is happening on these terms. I hate that we have a bunch of opinionated online "teams" on this issue.
Hey, you know what we need? All of it. Any sort of energy generation that lowers atmospheric emissions in any way we do need. The concept of "nuclear shills" shouldn't exist, the concept of "solar shills" or "hydrogen shills" or "fossil fuel shills" shouldn't exist. The entire conversation is a PR battle by energy corps to get people to buy into marketing so they can get governments to back popular choices so they can get expensive contracts for large infrastructure work.
I hate that we have online keyboard warriors overrepresenting the challenges of one of the contributors to lowering emissions while underrepresenting the challenges of others. Hey, do you think nighttime generation and storage is an issue? Maybe installation costs for domestic solar generation, the state of the grid or the uneven distribution of solar power yields on different territories? Because I do.
And I do think cost and build times for nuclear generators are a problem (which makes it confusing that some countries are dismantling plants that seem to be working safely and are within their expected lifespan, but I digress).
And I do think the impact of hydroelectric power in nearby areas is a problem.
And I do think the open questions for geothermal are a problem.
And I do think the issues with cost, storage and dirty generation of hydrogen are a problem.
And I do think we should be working on all of that. At once. This isn't kids arguing about which game console is better on the backyard, this is a massive existential issue, and would be even if we weren't dealing with a climate change ticking bomb. This report? It's bad news. Any report that tells us any of the ideas we have for weaning off fossil fuels is not working as well as we expected is bad news. Can we all get with that program?
The problem is that "both" isn't a valid option unless a country has unlimited finances.
Otherwise you have to decide on what's the most feasible option and then renewables win big time
I sometimes feel as if the current push for atomic is from the fossil-lobby as they are aware that it either works and they get 10-20 more years to sell oil until the reactors are built - and even if it doesn't work out it still will slow down rollout of renewables
If you have 100 billion to spend on energy producing you have to choose if you want to go all-in with one source or split it up which would move the end of fossil fuels Back further
Not to mention having to buy the radioactive materials from dictatorships and having problems to cool down the reactors with rising temperatures and rivers running dry
I just don't see how atomic isn't a huge gamble that can backfire hard (and I'm not even talking about catastrophic events like Fukushima)
Most countries have unlimited finances. They only have limited real resources like labor, concrete, copper, glass, etc. The fact that we still don't understand this and behave as if the metadata of the economy accurately describes reality puts artificial brakes on the solutions of many problems, climate being one of them.
The problem is that if a country treats money as unlimited and without a cost then inflation will mirror that and people in that country will lose their savings, their job will not pay for their bills anymore and so on
It's not as simple as "just spend more"...