It’s not even the waste, that we still need to learn how to recycle. Or the apparent incapacity of any operator to reliably follow the theoretical safety guidelines…
If we put all our effort into a nuclear boom today, the plants will only arrive a decade or two after the planet has been cooked, it won’t be enough to replace anything, and we will have to learn entire new ways to mine the fuel in a few decades before the stuff we can get easily is gone.
Meanwhile we are about half-way done with renewables, and the nuclear fans keep denying that…
The anti-nuclear crowd still doesn’t have an answer for base load power when there is no wind or solar. What are you going to do, have massive back up batteries? For an entire electric grid? Of an entire country? And do that worldwide?
We can’t even mine lithium fast enough to make enough batteries for all the cars to switch to EV’s in the next decade.
I’m open to alternatives, but I haven’t heard any yet.
There’s pumped hydro, geothermal energy, and biofuel, in the future we’ll likely see some wave power as well. The point isn’t to have one technology for the entire grid but to have a diverse and distributed energy system.
For storage there are also many more options than just lithium ion batteries. We have sodium ion if you just want to swap battery for battery, but then there are also for example iron-air batteries that are projected to be dirt cheap, redox flow batteries, pressurized air, cryogenic energy, sand batteries for storing heat, hydrogen electrolysis, etc.
Not only will this make this a power grid that is less dependent on supply chains that are impacted by geopolitical conflicts, but it will also make it more resilient as the weather continues becoming more extreme.
I’m not saying we need one technology for the entire grid. Of course you diversify. That is out of the question.
But the solutions you mentioned aren’t ready yet.
Pumped hydro isn’t feasible everywhere, nor is geothermal and is wildly expensive. Biofuel burning emits greenhouse gases.
Sodium ion batteries are a new technology and we don’t know how well it scales and we don’t have the production capacity. And the others aren’t proven technologies, so they may not be around for decades.
No, the point is that the anti-nuclear crowd is trying to make it seem like there is no role for nuclear energy in the future alongside renewable energy. They haven’t thought about baseload power and they think putting giant battery parks everywhere will be fast and easy, as well as —somehow— great for the environment.
Pumped hydro isn’t feasible everywhere, nor is geothermal
That’s the whole point of diversifying, use the sources that are available in the places where they are available.
Biofuel burning emits greenhouse gases
The point is that the greenhouse gases that they emit have already been captured from the atmosphere, which makes them carbon neutral.
Sodium ion batteries are a new technology and we don’t know how well it scales
It uses a lot of the same type of production as lithium ion, it is already being produced by some of the largest battery manufacturers on the planet, and being sold on the market, and we have years of research to give us a good idea of how it will evolve.
And the others aren’t proven technologies, so they may not be around for decades
Neither will fission plants. Even if we decided to start building out today, there are years before we actually see construction start, not to mention commissioning and eventually power production. We’re probably talking about the 2040s at that point.
No, the point is that the anti-nuclear crowd is trying to make it seem like there is no role for nuclear energy in the future alongside renewable energy
Some people, sure. But the person above wasn’t talking about completely removing all fission, just that we should have started building nuclear plants twenty years ago because it’s slow and comes with a massive up-front cost, and at this point we have other alternatives that are cheaper and faster to install. Nuclear fission plants are also a very centralized source of energy, so if there are issues in the future as a result of climate change (similar to what they’ve been experiencing in France) then you lose a lot of grid capacity all at once while trying to resolve it.
I think nuclear is a reliable source of power, I’ve been an advocate for it, but I don’t believe it’s the right solution at this point in time.
That’s the whole point of diversifying, use the sources that are available in the places where they are available.
Yes, but they are more niche solutions rather than widely available or feasible ones.
which makes them carbon neutral.
Only in theory, and only with some crop types. And as with all agriculture, it takes up a lot of space. If we simply used that space to plant trees we wouldn’t have to release those GHGs into the atmosphere at all. And then there is the labour intensive process of sowing, watering, harvesting, processing and transportation that emits GHGs of its own.
give us a good idea of how it will evolve.
Yes, but small scale projects do not tell you how it scales to grids worldwide. Nor how it holds up after years, or what happens when these batteries reach the end of their lifecycle. And it may be decades until we can make it on the scale that is necessary for worldwide deployment.
We already know all of this stuff for NPPs due to decades of experience with them.
We’re probably talking about the 2040s at that point.
Possibly, although SMR’s may be built quicker. The point is it’s not the same for a technology that still needs to be developed. All these ideas still need to be developed and then be produced and implemented. So that’s more like 2050s-2060s.
and at this point we have other alternatives that are cheaper and faster to install.
Yeah but the person above didn’t realize that these are not competing technologies. The NPP provides base load power, e.g. at night when the solar panels produce none. And solar panels provide peak load power during the day. They meet different demands, but the NPP is more stable and can also be turned up or down during the day depending on the weather.
NPPs are way more reliable than solar, so the current shutdown is big news just because it happens so rarely. And when there are extreme droughts there will probably be lots of sun around for solar to fill the gap.
There are some good ones and diverse ideas for many locations. The reason they are not yet implemented is because they are not prioritised.
Base load is not the concern. Adaptive load is what needs to be there to supplement the grid. Nuclear can not provide that.
Of course there are a lot of good ideas and I don’t think we should not explore them. But we need more than ideas. We need available solutions. We need scalable solutions.
Base load is definitely a concern. We still need base load power for when there is no sun, i.e. every night and when there is little to no wind. And especially when there is neither of those (no wind at night).
NPP’s can provide that base load power. During winter, but also during the night. On top of that, it is already adaptable:
Nuclear can not provide that.
This is simply not true.
Modern nuclear plans with light water reactors have strong manoeuvring capabilities. Nuclear power plants in France and in Germany operate in load-following mode, i.e. participate in the primary and secondary frequency control, and some units follow a variable load programme with one or two large power changes per day.
So, we can bet it all on unproven technologies that we don’t know the scalability of, or we can use a technology that has proven itself over decades, works on a large scale and is adaptable for baseload power and adaptable for when renewables aren’t available.
I’m a fan of both, but fully accept that fission is now too late to be useful. We also have fusion right on the tipping point of viability. That could likely fill the use cases of fusion quite well, with far less issues.
FYI, nuclear produces 3 sorts of nuclear waste. High activity is nasty, but short lived. Put it in a pool for a few years and it decays away. Low grade is the stuff like lab waste and contaminated pipes. You don’t really want it going in normal landfill, but it’s not going to kill anyone with radiation (heavy metal toxicity is another matter). It’s only the last type, medium activity that is problematic. It lasts a long time, while still putting out enough radiation to cause potential problems. Unfortunately, older “power” plants, were actually bomb factories. They were intended to make plutonium, and so produce a lot more of the medium activity waste than they could.
It’s not even the waste, that we still need to learn how to recycle. Or the apparent incapacity of any operator to reliably follow the theoretical safety guidelines…
If we put all our effort into a nuclear boom today, the plants will only arrive a decade or two after the planet has been cooked, it won’t be enough to replace anything, and we will have to learn entire new ways to mine the fuel in a few decades before the stuff we can get easily is gone.
Meanwhile we are about half-way done with renewables, and the nuclear fans keep denying that…
The anti-nuclear crowd still doesn’t have an answer for base load power when there is no wind or solar. What are you going to do, have massive back up batteries? For an entire electric grid? Of an entire country? And do that worldwide?
We can’t even mine lithium fast enough to make enough batteries for all the cars to switch to EV’s in the next decade.
I’m open to alternatives, but I haven’t heard any yet.
Nice example of denial. Thanks.
How so?
There’s pumped hydro, geothermal energy, and biofuel, in the future we’ll likely see some wave power as well. The point isn’t to have one technology for the entire grid but to have a diverse and distributed energy system.
For storage there are also many more options than just lithium ion batteries. We have sodium ion if you just want to swap battery for battery, but then there are also for example iron-air batteries that are projected to be dirt cheap, redox flow batteries, pressurized air, cryogenic energy, sand batteries for storing heat, hydrogen electrolysis, etc.
Not only will this make this a power grid that is less dependent on supply chains that are impacted by geopolitical conflicts, but it will also make it more resilient as the weather continues becoming more extreme.
I’m not saying we need one technology for the entire grid. Of course you diversify. That is out of the question.
But the solutions you mentioned aren’t ready yet.
Pumped hydro isn’t feasible everywhere, nor is geothermal and is wildly expensive. Biofuel burning emits greenhouse gases. Sodium ion batteries are a new technology and we don’t know how well it scales and we don’t have the production capacity. And the others aren’t proven technologies, so they may not be around for decades.
No, the point is that the anti-nuclear crowd is trying to make it seem like there is no role for nuclear energy in the future alongside renewable energy. They haven’t thought about baseload power and they think putting giant battery parks everywhere will be fast and easy, as well as —somehow— great for the environment.
That’s the whole point of diversifying, use the sources that are available in the places where they are available.
The point is that the greenhouse gases that they emit have already been captured from the atmosphere, which makes them carbon neutral.
It uses a lot of the same type of production as lithium ion, it is already being produced by some of the largest battery manufacturers on the planet, and being sold on the market, and we have years of research to give us a good idea of how it will evolve.
Neither will fission plants. Even if we decided to start building out today, there are years before we actually see construction start, not to mention commissioning and eventually power production. We’re probably talking about the 2040s at that point.
Some people, sure. But the person above wasn’t talking about completely removing all fission, just that we should have started building nuclear plants twenty years ago because it’s slow and comes with a massive up-front cost, and at this point we have other alternatives that are cheaper and faster to install. Nuclear fission plants are also a very centralized source of energy, so if there are issues in the future as a result of climate change (similar to what they’ve been experiencing in France) then you lose a lot of grid capacity all at once while trying to resolve it.
I think nuclear is a reliable source of power, I’ve been an advocate for it, but I don’t believe it’s the right solution at this point in time.
Yes, but they are more niche solutions rather than widely available or feasible ones.
Only in theory, and only with some crop types. And as with all agriculture, it takes up a lot of space. If we simply used that space to plant trees we wouldn’t have to release those GHGs into the atmosphere at all. And then there is the labour intensive process of sowing, watering, harvesting, processing and transportation that emits GHGs of its own.
Yes, but small scale projects do not tell you how it scales to grids worldwide. Nor how it holds up after years, or what happens when these batteries reach the end of their lifecycle. And it may be decades until we can make it on the scale that is necessary for worldwide deployment.
We already know all of this stuff for NPPs due to decades of experience with them.
Possibly, although SMR’s may be built quicker. The point is it’s not the same for a technology that still needs to be developed. All these ideas still need to be developed and then be produced and implemented. So that’s more like 2050s-2060s.
Yeah but the person above didn’t realize that these are not competing technologies. The NPP provides base load power, e.g. at night when the solar panels produce none. And solar panels provide peak load power during the day. They meet different demands, but the NPP is more stable and can also be turned up or down during the day depending on the weather.
NPPs are way more reliable than solar, so the current shutdown is big news just because it happens so rarely. And when there are extreme droughts there will probably be lots of sun around for solar to fill the gap.
There are some good ones and diverse ideas for many locations. The reason they are not yet implemented is because they are not prioritised. Base load is not the concern. Adaptive load is what needs to be there to supplement the grid. Nuclear can not provide that.
Of course there are a lot of good ideas and I don’t think we should not explore them. But we need more than ideas. We need available solutions. We need scalable solutions.
Base load is definitely a concern. We still need base load power for when there is no sun, i.e. every night and when there is little to no wind. And especially when there is neither of those (no wind at night).
NPP’s can provide that base load power. During winter, but also during the night. On top of that, it is already adaptable:
This is simply not true.
Source
So, we can bet it all on unproven technologies that we don’t know the scalability of, or we can use a technology that has proven itself over decades, works on a large scale and is adaptable for baseload power and adaptable for when renewables aren’t available.
I’m a fan of both, but fully accept that fission is now too late to be useful. We also have fusion right on the tipping point of viability. That could likely fill the use cases of fusion quite well, with far less issues.
FYI, nuclear produces 3 sorts of nuclear waste. High activity is nasty, but short lived. Put it in a pool for a few years and it decays away. Low grade is the stuff like lab waste and contaminated pipes. You don’t really want it going in normal landfill, but it’s not going to kill anyone with radiation (heavy metal toxicity is another matter). It’s only the last type, medium activity that is problematic. It lasts a long time, while still putting out enough radiation to cause potential problems. Unfortunately, older “power” plants, were actually bomb factories. They were intended to make plutonium, and so produce a lot more of the medium activity waste than they could.