May 25, 2020 11:51 PM
Raandy
1613630
3629
284
Potatomanbynight
Love
XeononSolomon
Time to get those Thorium reactors
PataPataPat
Don't know why this was downvoted. Thorium reactors, among a host of other techniques, do hold a good bit of promise.
Metalsmith21
Yeah no. Nuke power is not the solution to climate change.
ColdestOne
What's this from?
MahuAurelius
https://youtu.be/Lg2dqFCU67Q
Ekibwurm
stopping a dragon turning a city to ash in skyrim....but the guards saw you kill a chicken during the massive fight...
ReplyingToTopCommentsIsHowIGetPeopleToReadMyComments
Fuck Skyrim and fuck Bethesda.
bobstallone
that chicken had a family
Markamanic
Or you accidentally shock one of the guards so naturally you are now the biggest threat.
BobTheTalkingSkull
itsahorse
Now pay with your blood
LuminoZero
It's far worse when you're locked in dialogue with an NPC when the Dragon decides to show up and the Tab key decides "Nah, not this time."
jackpkmn
The guards didn't even see you, the other chickens did.
Mimsey
The worst part of playing a Mage in Skyrim is when the idiot guards sprint into your AoE spells to try to melee the dragons with hatchets.
fatherted
Nope, just some classic nuclear anti-renewables lobbying. Been going on for decades.
SeanBeanDiesAlot
I'm very pro-nuclear...but if someone could lower the prices of building a plant that would go a long way to justifying new ones
ColoniseTheGalaxy
Forgetting about Sellafield and a few others but ok.
U235FTW
Hell yeah. Split, don't emit!
Camelspotting
Nice username.
jedionslaught
What about fusion? Use the decades of nuclear waste that we've built up as the fuel for the future
arhalts
Fusion wohld not use nuclear waste and doesn't work as a feaabke enegy source yet. There are severla reacgors that do work with waste 1/2
They are all fision type. Fusion even when we get it working does not priduce a net gain in energy after elements heavier than iron.
You're probably thinking about "fast reactors". They can eat nuclear waste for breakfast and shit out more fuel. Search EBR-II or Prism
https://youtu.be/Zd8O5YE8Uak?t=933 while those are options, the radiation being put out by waste could be used as available H+ in fusion
QuiteADapperAsshole
This is a weird use of the format.
BlckGoose
My dad works at a nuke plant. Says the amount of waste from around 40 years would fit in the back of his truck. Also safety procedures AF
DoublevBomb
The obsession with nuclear weapons and total annihilation of planet Earth didn't help either.
AtsaMattaForMe
v
MagiicHat
That's... really good.
dommen
No. Uranium as a resource is limited (and self-decomposing) and the fight for it much more dirty than for lithium or lanthanides...
ilhares
It's kinda crap, honestly. This is a cut-down clip. That giant started the avalanche that was going to destroy the castle to begin with.
Well good thing they removed the part that didn't fit the meme,
SecondSince
Don't be a pedantic ass.
Oh, it's far too late for that.
and if nukes have any claim to fame, it isn't for *causing* global warming.
JustTheCats
Not really. There's more incidents than just Chernobyl that shows the problems of nuclear, and the danger that something goes wrong...
How many total dead? Compared to other sources? Even 'renewable' (aka rare earth) sources?
... Is never "zero" with nuclear. I'd something goes wrong with renewables, oh no it's annoying. I'd something goes wrong with nuclear...
... You've just made a large area uninhabitable for many years and research dangerous radiation that will have major damages to environment.
... Modern nuclear tech is much better than old text but the costs too get it going after really high. I agree we need to look at it more...
... But we also need to improve our renewables text at the same time. This is overly simplistic in examining the issue.
jasgstock
You should look into how bad other energy sources - including renewables - are for the environment. They are *all* quite bad.
Ryang256
Solar. It's the only energy source that is practically unlimited.
SpiderProof
Solar panels are not unlimited though. They have to be massed produced, and it has to be done right to avoid toxic waste. /1
That isn't to say solar is a BAD idea, but it has problems, as does nuclear, which is why we should be using both. /2
TA2019
Except solar doesn't have potential catastrophic effects the way nuclear could
Toxic heavy metals could kill more people than Chernobyl, if disposed of improperly, it would just be much slower and more spread out.
NightPainPoe
That little accident caused more damage to the entire planet. So no thank you
PorkBarrelTrollitics
the issue is about cost of building them and the lack of responsibility for disposal of waste, not the technology itself
whyexactly
Is the waste from other energy sources being disposed of properly?
sputniknoodle
It is not. But it is also not poisonous fot millions of years to come.
I would think pollution from coal burning is poisonous forever
Beside the fact that this is a black-or-white fallacy (there are of course other options than coal, which is one of the bigger polluters)~
Brodisseus
Nuclear energy is literally the most responsible industry in regards to waste.
tiredandtrusted
My understanding (warning, noob here) is that current reactors would be able to use old waste as a source of fuel.
Hence, a net reduction in waste? At least short term.
olivertheoctopus
That’s my understanding too, and they do that in Europe, but it’s illegal in America for whatever stupid political reason. Shocker
The cost of building and testing the newer design reactors is indeed pretty hefty. ...but still much cheaper per watt/hr.
*once they get up and running.
BannedbyastupidMod
There's a massive risk involved, example, Japan. That was recent
Japan was relatively old technology and built on a relatively risky zone. Put them away from coasts and faultlines and they are super safe.
That was risk of continueing to operate a plant that started construction in 1967. Don't know how many renovations it had, but think its 1)
Three Mile Island, Kyshtym, Tokaimura, Windscale, Zaragoza, San Juan, Nyonoksa, Blayais, Chuetsu, Andreev Bay. It's probably fine now
1) somewhat safe to assume it was using last century teck like most power plants are. I think (from my own armchair research) that the 3)
TheLastSpaceman
Pardon my ignorance, how would nuclear power stop rising ocean levels?
Limiting CO2 emissions, which would slow global warming, limit sea ice melt + water expansion
0masuk0
Unlike fossils It doesn't release co2 to the atmosphere thus not contributing to greenhouse effect...
And unlike renewable doesn't produce power when it is in the mood to do it.
ddfitzy
nuclear has massive amounts of energy for no ongoing greenhouse gasses (-ve in some cases w/fuel synthesis)
GiantSquanchy
it's not great for the environment, but it is leagues better than coal
Least mining per unit of energy, small land footprint, and same CO2 as wind. Pretty damn good for the environment /a/r7isI3B
The main issue with nuclear is waste is filling up the "temporary" storage sites. No one wants to build the necessary permanent storage site
And gCO2/kwh estimates vary wildly, anywhere from 3 - 220 gCO2/kwh depending on level of enrichment of the ore.
That said, thorium does has a lot of potential.
The 220 numbers are from antiquated gaseous diffusion enrichment method. Hasn't been used for quite a while.
That's because most of economy is still run on fossil fuels, including mining/enrichment. If we run those off nuclear too, then CO2 is zero.
PontiacDude
Liquid thorium reactors should be what we’re moving to. At least to test. But nope
ChristianSalge
no need to test it, they've already been proven to work at ORNL.
akambe
There is now a test thorium reactor at the National Engineering Laboratory in SE Idaho.
That's awesome news
TheBricking
Thorium reactors have been 5 years out for 20 years. It's not possible.
SomeonesDog
Seaborg technologies - dude they are gonna serial produce thorium reactors. Check them out!
seedye
https://inldigitallibrary.inl.gov/sites/sti/sti/4480296.pdf
delybee
But so many oil and wood tycoons would go broke. What would happen to the 1%? Shouldn’t we try to protect them....?
JadedAFi
I get it but less magic rocks more solar panels wind farms and giant storage capacitors.
Hippb
I'm super down with this. Also, I follow a thorium Facebook group and all they do is shit on other renewable sources it's hilarious
Any MSR at this point preferably
thecomfycat
If you're interested in thorium, you should look into molten salt reactors. It's much more feasible tech that will be around within 10 years
cheesehole
Thorium is not usable without uranium to ignite the fission process. Even though Thorium has promises it's still 30-40 years into the future
There's research into accelerator driven reactors https://youtu.be/fgQzkCEteAI
SMRs and fast reactors (can actually use the used fuel from other reactors) are the way forward. Imagine container ships with zero emission
Redway93
I can, and I don't trust commercial shipping behave themselves. Imagine a cargo vessel catastrophically failing via a mid hull cleave 1/
The environmental impact would be catastrophic. Particularly as major shipping accidents occur during rough seas, preventing isolation 2/
Of radioactive emissions from the environment and potential extraction of fuel. Hence nuclear ships are usually limited to military and 3/
ye, and the TWR being looked into by TerraPower.
It looks like you saved my comment. Checked once and it was -1. Figured people just don’t like nuclear power
BahamutBBob
And the Thorium Brotherhood had some good early gear in vanilla WoW.
lordofthedice
Arcanite Reaper! Hoooo!
megagreg
Because they're advocating that we continue to shun a technology with decades of refinement for one that doesn't exist yet.
asm80dfa8sdfj
Might as well just jump to fusion if we're betting on the future.
EveryTimeIfartaFairyDies
Along with molten salt reactors. Older tech but alot less waste.
Djchoragos
Hell the molten salt solar systems out in the desert are super cool
KoRplussomeletters
I had to re-read that sentence a couple of times.
Arkkeri
Cool? Aren't they hot? :)
Big oof. +1
Cartoones
Never heard of it. Can you explain or create a post about them?
MCNewYorkLives
You can find YouTube videos about it. The main reason we don't is bc the waste (which is less radioactiv) isn't useable for nuclear weapons
Thorium breeds u233 in reactor which is perfectly good for the bomb. It is one of problem with liquid core thorium reactors.
If y'all want a post I can put one/a few together if you'd like comparing some of the pros and cons of reactor fuel/coolant choices
Got an MSc in Nuclear and some other credentials I don't want to bandy about but would lend to "I can make a good post if it's desired"
Right then, will get one up sometime later this week. Will link here when I'm done. We'll start with MSR/Th types and go from there
IIRC, it's better all around, cheaper, smaller, less radioactive waste, no possibility of meltdown, easy to convert existing to thorium
Thorium is cheaper than uranium but the reactors will be very expensive for a long time.
all true except for the part about it being easy to convert. the only thing that you could probably re-use some of is the steam generators.
Lot of bad info in these replies. Here's an accurate take! https://youtu.be/c7baTdyHv8g other vids by Gord McDowell are great too.
It's okay but does gloss over the Proctactinium issue when transmuting Th to U233. Let alone the corrosion and salt purification loops 1/
That have yet to be scaled for even an SMR sized application. That being said, he appears to be working in Th reactor design and will be 2/
A tad biased in delivery as ultimately that's how you get grants/funding. Always been a more molten NA kinda guy tbf 3/3
kummelo
Username checks out
T0go
At this point any single program is not enough to avoid 2 degrees by 2100. It will take on the order of $9 trillion a year. Check out 1/2
TapToRetry
Once we can transfer consciousness to a Bot and live forever people will start caring. Until then it's "not my problem "
https://en-roads.climateinteractive.org/scenario.html?v=2.7.19 climate policy simulator from MIT's business school.
Of course that is global investment, no single country could make an investment like that.
Give me 10 trillion and I'll have the US 100% carbon free (transportation and industry too) in about 15 years. ?
murlokotam
No need. Just tax carbon emission by estimated clean up cost. Market will fix itself.
Multipew
Tax? That'll never happen. Don't you know taxes are bad actually?
I'd love to see a carbon fee and dividend as well.
jonathantoast
Why are there so many pro-nuclear power posts on here all of a sudden?
tiikki
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecomodernism
Because people are finally doing some basic maths and taking climate change seriously.
MooyahCop
I'm sorry. Is rational thinking not permitted here?
EvilDeadTed
Astroturfing.
Because it one of the most reasonable energy solutions moving forward...
It's been this way for years...
poplasia
Man, you've gotten a lot of sarcastic replies in here.
burretploof
Ah yes, an incident causing a large area to be uninhabitable for hundreds of years is like one building collapsing.
moralcompassion
*tens of thousands of years... www.express.co.uk/news/science/1143775/chernobyl-explosion-when-chernobyl-safe-again-visit-chernobyl-tourism
Please ignore all the wildlife and people inhabiting the exclusion zone...
DukePaulAtreides
Sadly we're way behind on nuclear power tech here because we haven't sorted out the 40+ yr old problem "what do we do with waste", because>
Waste is only waste with current reactor designs nuclear waste is mostly unused fuel https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAVCaUonrbE
>the level of "NOT IN MY FUCKING BACKYARD"-ism for the planned long term project reached insane levels and never happened, so waste is>
>frequently piling up in storage on-site at plants, which are not equipped or properly set up for long term use. So it's a massive losing>
>battle from the jump to surmount, even though longer term it'd pay off.
f1223214
I'm not sure you know what "long term" means. And why aren't they making their own waste storage ?
Long term means 'literally 10,000s-100,000s of years', which answers the 2nd question: because it's really fucking hard and costly
There are 2 options with the waste: glass and fuel. For glass, the nuclear waste can be turned into a useful component.
valen00
Reprocessing
As for fuel: the release of protons from the nuclear waste (the radiation) can provide free flowing protons that can be joined in a process
called nuclear "fusion", whereas previously used methods of nuclear power relied on nuclear "fission".
Well yes, but that's the problem: we still have all the highly no-bueno leftovers from all the fission reactors we had and nowhere to put it
So it's kind of like "well we're like to upgrade but we also have to...take out last decade's garbage before we can even consider it"
hrix
Some countries have solved it, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repository
It's true! Though note it took 19 years from beginning of construction to projected operational date, and it's first in the world. Because>
>although the Yucca Mountain project (the US equivalent of that) is scientifically sound, the entire state of NV loses its SHIT at the idea.
Jogeri
Yeah, building of Onkalo was actually well received by the people in Eurajoki municipality.
It took 19 years because there's no rush. Better safe than sorry.
Absolutely agreed! You're right! It's just that it's that much more of a LONG term prospect, which US politicos and voters...aren't good at
Yawn, this anti-renewable propaganda bs again. As nice as future fission/fusion may be, it is not an effective method right now. Please read
Smayds
I HEAR YOU'RE INTO RENEWABLE ENERGY NOW, FATHER!
Crockpotseal
Please come to Ontario Canada, where nuclear supplies more than 50% of our electricity, before you say nuclear is ineffective.
Well when it's not windy or sunny, nuclear still generates power. With a tiny fraction of the land usage. Renewables have their place,
but it's not as a baseload green energy source. Nuclear is a much better option for that
poultice
Fission and fusion are not comparable. Fission has been a significant part of many grids for > half a century. What are you talking about?
Redmoon33
It's not "anti-renewables" it's just anti-anti-nuclear. The argument isn't renewables don't have a place, just nuclear is better right now
mike13815
It's literally the most effective method right now. The only serious contender for fossil fuels. It could end climate change and give us
thousands of years to figure out renewables. Not to mention renewables are good for low population density areas.
Thousands of years with humans causing an accident in nuclear usage? Hella doubt.
alcaray
What do you want me to read?
TurgidMember
https://youtu.be/N-yALPEpV4w
timmy26
Neither is renewables
mbos14
This, no matter how good the generation becomes if we dont get better storage methods its all useless.
All useless? Do you really believe that?
Of course it is. I guess this guy was right about the propaganda.
Propoganda? Bitch please /a/J9vxBz2
1) Irrelevant for a long time 2) not particularly, and the capacity factor is included anyway 3) false 4) very false. Hopefully governments
1. Electricity storage is irrelevant? Interesting. 2. And capacity factor is determined by location and cost of construction. 3. Solar does
are smart enough not to see it as a zero sum game, with the added benefit of renewables being politically and financially easier.
PTNLemay
Nuclear is a hell of a lot more feasible than solar and hydro.
Not than solar. Solar will be much cheaper and more easily built for decades.
One day, yes. Currently most solar panels are still too expensive and need rare earth metals to be fabricated that are quite toxic.
Which rare earth metals?
With the expense of space. Coz it takes so many solar panels just to get a decent power output
Fortunately not a big issue.
Based on what?
JustAnotherLinkInTheChain
Nuclear power is out clean energy alternative. I've been saying the same shit since highschool
What's really important here is that we make it all about you.
Thank you
CatsIsTheAnswer
Fuck off, this was supposed to be about cats!
TobiFuenke
What are your plans to store the nuclear waste safely for a couple of thousand years?
Easy. Safely store it under a mountain in a geologically stable region. DONE! Better than pumping shit into the atmosphere like coal.
TacticalChungus
As a North Carolinian, I'd much rather have some buried nuclear waste in my state than another coal ash pond...
JayEnfield
It's already been built. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_repository
It's called Yucca Mountain. Even worst-case scenario situations (apocalyptic meteor striking it directly) would release less radiation than
coal does currently. Breeder reactors solve fuel waste problems, all it needs to store is contaminated equipment/material.
freeforallstuff
Huh, coal is radioactive?
Yes. Not only is it directly radioactive, but the radioactive dust that spreads hundreds of miles is inhaled into your lungs.
Crowlands
Reactors can recycle nuclear waste to create More energy. And you really wouldn't need that much space if you couldn't.
So 100% no waste? Awesome!
And this is existing tech. First reactor to produce electricity 1950's was a breeder.
AFriskyJacket
I was gonna say something about Fukushima but went to google to see if there were any other incidents. Amazingly, there are very, VERY few!
The safest form of energy by a long way
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_and_incidents
But, they are extremely severe. When you measure risk, you can't just measure occurance. You need to measure the potential severity
https://2oqz471sa19h3vbwa53m33yj-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/safest-energy-sources.png
I'm not denying that in the slightest. I'm just saying that this isn't necessarily a good indicator of the potential risks, because
1) the sheer amount of energy produced skews the calculation heavily, and 2) the sheer amount of panels required to match the
power output of a nuclear facility also skews the calculation heavily.
That fact that it produces a lot of power w/ fewer deaths is the exact point. Your ok with having more real deaths so that you can feel
kamosey
This again. We would need 100's of reactors. There hugely expensive and take years to build. Fuel is limited. Better alternatives exist.
Any solution is going to be hugely expensive and take decades. Might as well start developing nuke now while we max renewables.
fuel is only 'limited' by today's reactor relying on U235. Th232 and U238 are much more abundant
Modular and gen IV reactors are right around the corner. They do not have these same limitations, plus they are inherently safe
Better alternatives do not exist for energy demand baselines.
100's? For just North America?
You think climate change only affects North America?
ah good, 100's for the world sounds pretty good actually.
Barely more than 1/2 a reactor per country.
Youtube university.
Good? Bad? Video just shows what Mr. Shellenberger found in his research, and his conclusion from it.
Let's hear a factual rebuttal then
Not to mention the waste which we still can't deal with.
We can deal with it. Breeder reactors use waste as fuel and they have been existing tech since 1950's.
It's not that bad (https://whatisnuclear.com/recycling.html) and the alternative is a bunch of CO2, which we also can't deal with.
BrovoFoxtrot
Rare earth metals are required en mass for solar or wind. China is by far the only source. Uranium however is very prominent in Texas.
shitheadtookmyname
The US has more rate earth minerals than China BY FAR. we just choose to let China exhaust their supplies first. Look it up it's true!
Nuclear power is not quick or cheap to build, that is very true, but is very long lasting and safe when properly taken care of.
But how quick, how cheap? How feasible is this idea really.
PRIS database: 4-5 years/avg if removing outliers https://pris.iaea.org/PRIS/home.aspx
IPCC: cheaper than solar or offshore wind, same as onshore wind https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/07_figure_7.7-813x1024.png
I literally said it’s not quick or cheap. It’s entirely feasible however, it could be done
barnwolf
To be fair, solar has come a long ways. It is currently significantly cheaper than nuclear and the price keeps drooping like a rock.
http://www.oecd.org/publications/the-costs-of-decarbonisation-9789264312180-en.htm here is an interesting raport too
Page 217, figure 74 for 50gCO2/kWh with different options to achieve it
MoskauHOHOHO
but there is also the not so green production and mining of the resources for solar too consider. same with batteries. plus the waste it cre
And I'm sure nuclear would have absolutely none of those problems, most certainly.
And to be clear, I'm not against nuclear.
Gotta consider energy density and intermittency when comparing energy sources. Renewables just can't compare to nuclear
Energy density doesn't really matter. Both are more than dense enough to be practical at a large scale.
Not really. The land usage necessary for the same amount of energy generated from wind and solar would be comedically large vs. nuclear
Yes, but that doesn't matter because it's still comically small compared to residential land.
They have their place, but they aren't an efficient baseload energy source
Thermodynamic efficiency is useless without context.
IPCC: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/07_figure_7.7-813x1024.png solar is more expensive than nuclear
I was looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source Historical summary of EIA's LCOE projections
Not sure why the two sources differ, but the cost of solar has been dropping very significantly.
Oh, it's because that graph is for 2010 energy prices. As I said, it has changed a lot since then.
I need to find newer source. Thank you.
That graph is showing the costs in 2010, and is significantly out of date.
Bit out of date, but it doesn't have system costs for higher variable production included so just minor price drop for actual panels
doesn't change the picture much.
Here's the full report. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg3/ About page 541.
Phant0m5
Solar can be bought and assembled by anybody, anywhere. Prices will continue to drop as consumers get in on it. Nuclear is large only.
2/3 of solar panels installed are made by 10 companies in 2019 and 7 of those companies are Chinese. Not a large difference compared to nuke
Panel costs are decreasing slightly as more are utilized, but system costs rises as more backup is needed.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/brianmurray1/2019/06/17/the-paradox-of-declining-renewable-costs-and-rising-electricity-prices/#795a9ddf61d5
Arcanum3000
Nuclear power has some serious practical issues. Not least that it's hideously expensive and it takes a decade or more to build one plant.
ulmflb
EOL cost of the plants tend to be forgotten. And as waste management is on a geological scale, any fuck-up will be paid for very, very long.
OdinYggd
It would be a lot faster and cheaper if it wasn't plagued with nonstop lawsuits from the NIMBYs
Adderkleet
There is no permanent waster storage site for nuclear materials ON EARTH currently. People seem to forget that.
Cheaper than solar or off-shore wind: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/07_figure_7.7-813x1024.png
It's hideously expensive *because* of the fearmongers portrayed in the village. That's kind of the point.
If you discard outliers then it is 4-5 years/reactor https://pris.iaea.org/PRIS/home.aspx
How long does it take to decommission? How much does it cost? How many have been decommissioned within budget?
188 civilian reactors are in permament shutdown status. Some over budget of course. But the prices are known and can be calculated.
And in most of the countries the industry has to collect and save the money for the decommission.
Price depends on how fast you want to do the decommission and how decommission is defined.
If you want to build new reactor next to the old one you just let the reactor cool down and remove old fuel.
Then wait for decade or two before dismantling the building and you have a place for next reactor when it is time to build new one.
If you want a totally clean place within few years then you need a huge pile of money.
SubtleOrc
Fission is no green solution . You’re condemning a thousand generations to steward our poison ..
Promethianfire
Keep drinking that kool aid. The fossil fuel industry thanks you.
zrevenge
You..have no idea what you are talking about. Lmao
A poison that's literally killed zero people (spent nuclear fuel)? You may be thinking of the nasty chem processes for nuke weapons.Not same
No shit. Way easier to shepherd a big hole in the ground than the entire atmosphere.
human civilization is .. 4K years old? Good luck building something that's going to kill anyone that gets near it for the next 20K years.
No one went deep into that mountain since it was formed millions of years ago.
qwaszx8888
Hardly, many new designs can reuse the waste. Solar and wind farms require rare earth metals and have to be replaced causing large amounts/
Of pollution of manufacturing. Look at how much waste is made from producing neodymium magnets for turbines. Nuclear is cleaner in the end
There's also that claim from one of the nuclear reactor designs done by Terra Power I think. It's efficient enough to just cycle isotopes 1
1 from the ocean. It's effectively a renewable teck.
You a source for those statements?
gimme a minute. Been about a year since I looked all this up.
Recycling fuel #5 https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-nuclear-fuel
China produces 70+% REM https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/our-natural-resources/minerals-mining/minerals-metals-facts/rare-earth-elements-facts/20522
No I’m not a source. What I linked should be reliable, non corporate funded sources however in my opinion
Yo @fatherted. Finally found the article that quotes Bill Gates saying we can filter our uranium from the sea to power the 4th gen reactors
https://www.businessinsider.com/bill-gates-terrapower-molten-salt-nuclear-reactor-2018-10
I mean, have you seen some of the planned newer reactors? They use our current poison and output it with a much shorter lifespan.
How much do they cost? How long to build them? Why condemn greener alternatives, which is what this post does?
450 worldwide, all of them combined has less polution than solarfarm worldwide. SOLAR. FARMS. So ya, its the BEST solution handsdown
Cost and build time? Feasibility? ...
Completely feasible considering the tech is already developed and would take less time and cost than going solar or wind to match output.
I mean, I thought you needed ~2.5 earth surfaces to power the world with solar farms. No idea where I heard that.
Solar energy is developing rapidly.
Eh you are right, i guess its not fair to compair one to another when it requires more than just solar. Maybe solar is bad "green" solution
dasoffendor
there is no energy that is 100% clean. sure, people say "solar"... but you still need something to store it at night. battery production 1/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flywheel#Applications
PickleMeElmoooo
And all the rare earth metals that have to be mined to produce the panels....
IHateToTurnUpTheVolumeOfMyTvBecauseMyCatIsSnoring
There are types of solar which don't use classic panels. Example: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivanpah_Solar_Power_Facility
battery production and battery waste is actually a problem.
Muschifurz
nuclear waste is also actually a problem.....
Plaguestorm172
Solar is more so supposed to cover the large amount of power that is used during the day, while the others count for the night which is low.
WayOfTheScience
oddly enough making our own fossil fuels may be the real answer
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2018/06/carbon-engineering-liquid-fuel-carbon-capture-neutral-science/
CaptainNemo10
Agreed. You still need to mine uranium with vehicles that run on fossil fuels and the there is the nuclear waste that needs to be stored for
Ogre6
Not to mention current solar energy panels are only 30-40% efficient at most because you'll loose some to poor ion connections
Not much of an issue.
NaughtButOne
Oh honey. Consumer panels sit about low-mid 20s. Even that is more than enough if we outfit every home; real problem is storage.
No one cares about residential solar.
Uh. Okay. I mean, hundreds of thousands of rooftop installations will disagree, but sure.
We're talking power generation, not personal investments with a green flair.
OverlyOpinionated
Counterintuitively, solar actually causes slightly more global warming than it avoids
sambaah05
Isn't the goal to cause less harm than using fossil fuels? I think it solidly does that.
Yes, if we had no power generation, the planet would be cooler.
moustic
Source?
I mean, technically yes? But only in the sense that in a vacuum, doing something will always contribute more than doing nothing.
No, solar energy comes from outside the system. This is saying current generation is better in the long run.
I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make here. Solar energy comes from outside, but the materials are very terrestrial.
The point is the second sentence. I had to guess what you were confused about.
and disposal is a nasty, nasty business with a lot of byproducts. its just trading one con for another.
LVFlanders
Use it during the day to produce H2
HippoLover85
I don't blame people for not liking light water reactors. But against so many new reactor technologies many of the cons go away completely
Except for the con that all reactors have consistently under budgeted the cost for their decommissioning.
Even that one. Due to efficiency and safety improvements footprint (and hence decommissioning costs) can be MUCH much lower.
"CAN BE" is the despairing cry used when the actual results do not back that up whatsoever.
theflawedone
Whatever came of the sodium battery? Seems like lithium just had a better PR team.
Haha no, it is not just trading one con for another.
beezzarro
Well hydro is pretty good. It's clean but you usually need to flood a valley for the reservoir
Pumping water uphill. Not the most efficient, but able to store A LOT and hydro is pretty quick to turn on/off.
DickPicEnthusiast
You can use extra electricity during daylight to pump water up a reservoir and use the accumulated potential energy to generate electricity>
> when it's dark. Pumped storage is entirely viable as of now, and there are myriad other alternatives to batteries, like supercapacitors >
> and shit. Unfortunately our current technology for solar generation wouldn't be viable as a sole energy source, accumulation isn't >
> the issue. Regardless, it's stupid to put all of humanity's eggs in one basket, different clean energy sources are suitable for different>
JohnMike64
Yeah problem is there is a ton of development in safe bettter cleaner and recyclable batteries because the market dwarfs anything nuclear.
TheBasementNerd
Mechanical batteries?
or gas batteries? :P https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2018/06/carbon-engineering-liquid-fuel-carbon-capture-neutral-science/
SiangSpaceTraveler
Watch Planet of the Humans by Michael Moore. It’s free on YouTube
Meh, batteries kinda suck for large-scale power storage anyway. I'm thinking we'll see mechanical potential energy storage instead.
or possibly making gas? https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2018/06/carbon-engineering-liquid-fuel-carbon-capture-neutral-science/
They do with water. Its not that efficient tough.
montyman185
Someone just used a big concrete block, Denmark maybe? Can't remember for sure
IIRC there's been some work with train cars full of rock/concrete on hills, but I'm not sure how efficient or how far along it is.
Heres a video about it for those interested https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66YRCjkxIcg
More efficient than a peaker plant.
There are a lot of nuclear technologies that produce 10% of the waste, and the waste is active for 10% of the normal duration. (roughly)
Like? I'm actually interested in knowing
Molten salt reactors are probably my favorite. Incredibly versatile and have many inherent safety features.
I've heard in passing about the wonders of Thorium. Why isn't that being developed? Or the salt ones?
Any that are used today or deployable today?
No. Most of them are stuck in the R&D stage. The US (and world) went through a huge lul in nuclear energy R&D after the 60-70s.
That is roughly the state of nuclear today. still stuck with 1960s technology in a modern world . . . LOTS of room to improve.
You're talking about thorium then yeah?
the advancement of nuclear technology was effectively brought to a stand still. imagine driving a car from the 1960s. 2/
I think solar is a major opportunity in the future. It is very cheap (now, not ten years ago) and demand is mostly during the day anyways.
I don't think it's the only solution, substantial amounts of nuclear should be used as well to meet the static demand.
... that does give nuclear the short end of the stick though. hard to turn a profit if your reactor is only selling power half the time.
But ideally you can manage the demand slightly so nuclear is still able to run at full capacity.
BlastFX
Not ideally, you need to. Varying the output of a nuclear reactor is a very slow process (hours for just a couple percent). 1/2
Nuclear is cheaper than solar according to IPCC: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/07_figure_7.7-813x1024.png
Wind kicked it's ass in the UK our new nuclear power plant would be unprofitable without price per KW garuntee from gov
Course it's and old design that's already over construction budget. Oh and it's a Chinese company. Major failure already.
ive followed the articles about that plant. that one's a real cluster.
The Chinese are rapidly overtaking us in nuclear technology.
So is coal. I'm not sure you're interpreting this correctly
Emissions are on the right side, costs on the left side. Median values for nuclear emissions (CO2) are less or equal to the wind and solar
as are costs.
Are they really on those sides?
Left and right, same difference :D
Nuclear is cheaper by sheer amount of energy produced, so the comparison isn't that fair in my opinion. But the risks are significantly wors
Solar is very labour intensive to install vs output, especially rooftop solar. That leads to a lot of deaths per mwh generated.
When you compare nuclear with anything on the basis of energy generated, nuclear will always win. I'm not fighting this fact in the slightes
so youre saying because nuclear both provides more power and is cheaper it doesnt make sense? also deaths per 100000 nuclear kills the least
Nuclear is cheaper, because of the sheer amount of energy it produces. Also, deaths/100000 what? 100000 what?
The risks are minimal. Chernobyl ~100 deaths + ~4000 cancer cases. Fukushima 0 deaths, minimal environmental effects.
To be fair, chernobyl was evacuated and remains largely evacuated to this day. Literally decades later.
It should be noted that the Japanese have consistently understated the environmental effects of leaks from both the affected cooling ponds 1
dogmatix
Green/clean power > nuclear power > coal/fossil fuel power.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/renewable-energys-hidden-costs/
most on the "nuclear waste" is fuel for breeder reactors, compared to electronic waste from solar or composite waste from wind
Composite waste is mainly dealt by burning and releasing the CO2 in to the air.
Solar cells are replaced at 80% effectiveness. Bad for consistency but you could just retire them to residential or business. We just don't.
Still they have limited lifespan and they are waste at the end. And I'm not talking about just panels.
Everything has a limited lifespan. Gas plants last about 22 years, nuclear 30-40. Coal can go for up to about 50.
Given that, I'd say a 60 year service - about the time it takes to reach 50% of its original power output - is pretty solid.
For nuclear it is more like 60-100 years.
Nuclear is the cleanest power. IPCC on CO2 https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/07_figure_7.7-813x1024.png
Umm, look again?
Look what? Same emissions as with wind onshore, less than with solar.
Not "the cleanest power" though.
When you factor everything else in then it is clear winner, same on the most important factor CO2
Nuclear is also a comparatively old technology, in terms of how long it's been seriously developed. Solar and wind are are still growing.
I want to be clear: I'm not against nuclear power. But I want you to know that renewable tech is still advancing.
What we have now for renewables is not the end-all-be-all. Think on how far nuclear has come since those first reactors!
Actually nuclear is the newest kid on the block. First solar cells are from 19th century and windmills are ancient tech.
downvote and no comment on my source, how mature
because you're a bad wrongthinker
angrytaco
Just saying it takes a decade to build a nuclear plant, plus super expensive and rare fuel. As opposed to cheap quick solar and wind
plus decomissioning a nuclear plant is a Massive and dirty job, super expensive and should be factored into the lifetime cost of the plant.
IPCC figure shows that nuclear is cheaper than solar or offshore wind and as cheap as onshore wind.
https://pris.iaea.org/PRIS/home.aspx from here you can calculate avg build time for a reactor which is 4-5 years when removing outliers.
Build time is only part of it.
Yes, same goes for wind and solar. Nuclear has the largest political limitations, while others have more physical limitations.
Like construction halted for decades as country went bankcrupt like Argentina or USSR. Or revolution in Iran.
The mess with EPR reactors is another story still. Areva thought that they still can build reactors on rapid pace while the knowhow was lost
ThatSonOfaBitch
Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, Fukushima Daiichi, Kyshtym, Tokaimura, Windscale, Zaragoza, San Juan, Nyonoksa, Blayais, Chuetsu, Andreev Bay
bigdukesix
I've been everywhere man
dohcohv
Three mile island which maybe killed one or two people decades later, or maybe not, the dose was so small we can't tell.
armagetz
Given that the meltdown didn’t break building containment...lets go ahead and set the number to zero.
EasterHareHairCollector
5 million deads a year by pollution vs how many by all time nuclear? A couple.
And, what...two if them actually had radiation release?
causality
People who whine about nuclear can't do math.
WhereIsWillByers
The fact that this has 100 upvotes shows how ignorant people are.
Zero emissions...
gaijinsmash
Nuclear power is not 100% eco friendly. Yes, it's better than oil but zero emissions is not true at all
chiefs813
Worst part about it is uranium/thorium mining and waste storage. Far *far* better for the environment than any other energy solution.
(1) storing waste for hundreds of thousands of years is not a solution. (2) There aren't enough viable locations for power plants. They (1/?
Take up a massive amount of space (20 km squared) and need water and not be near dense populations or natural disaster areas. (3) they (2/?)
JFC dude, at least 4 of those are military arms related, 4 had no actual ecological impact, 2 i cant even find w/ google search, and 1 whose
Design doesnt exist elsewhere
How many total deaths?
chimera388
10/13 had 0 fatalities. 2/13 probably had 0 fatalities.
People are bad at seeing long term problems. A meltdown is quick and scary. Constant pollution does far more damage to an individual.
SaltyEsq
Forgot Los angeles. Santa Susanna fields laboratory.
and yet still the safest by far
RocketPoweredBoogers
Worst haiku ever
Andthingswereneverthesame
Thank you! All nuclear reactors are ticking time bombs. Waste left for the next gen to figure out. No structure will keep in tact forever.
cousteau
Wait, what happened in Zaragoza?
Only two of those are significant enough to be considered "disasters", and they are not even a blip on the radar of problems caused by other
forms of energy production.
AncientSeraph
This is like saying flying is less safe than driving because you see crashes in the news more. Look up numbers instead of headlines.
TheUnstoppableWampas
All of them light water reactors. We need LFT Reactors if we want them to be safe.
soju053
After the first three, you’re just making up names now.
lordbucket
Found the American.
Nah he was just listing BS from an anti nuke site. Literally half the list doesn’t have an accident attached to it.
Even some of the “top” accidents on his list were so minor no deaths were attributed to it.
kruug
3MI was mainly due to slow technology and a controller trained for submarines: https://youtu.be/1xQeXOz0Ncs
uncas5128
There are new much safer designs. Smaller reactors. But people have closed their minds about it now.
cien2004
Now start listing the numbers killed by oil companies in 3rd world countries. See which one is bigger
Killed how exactly?
Kats8652
Look at what Shell is doing in Nigeria for instance.
swattyKnotts
That is not the point. The comparison was between renewables and nuclear. We agree fossil fuels are crap.
Still a bad comparison given that 3 of those military related, 2 medical radiotherapy, 3 had caused no large impact. He's disingenuous at
Best purposefully deceitful at worst.
RottedOnion
Do casualties from the Iraq War count?
Granted a lot of these were old, risky, poorly run Soviet facilities. But risk is still high with modern plants as Fukushima proves.
namAehT
These are all old reactor designs. 21st century designs haven't been built en mass.
zizzy
Doubt. Navy has over 70 years hundreds of reactor on submarines and carriers. We've never lost one and submarine mission is far more complex
JustTakeTheDarnThing
Fukashima simply taught us to put our backup generators for cooling the reactor above sea level. You know, in the country prone to tsunamis.
Fukushima was 50+ years old. Modern uranium reactors are built quite differently and are more stable.
We can achieve 100% energy independence from fossil fuels without nuclear.
Not my understanding, not all power is equal. Baseline power, power on demand. Renewables are only part of the solution.
UrielDArcAngel
How...? If you say solar I'm gonna smack you until you look up how solar panels are constructed...
Yes, but people seem to forget the cost of constructing solar or wind farms. Those use huge amounts of rare earth metals, and have very...
Short lifetimes compared to nuclear power plants, some of which have been running since the 50s & 60s. Nuclear is a better long term invest.
Let's build some of those cheap and quick n' clean nuclear power plants.
SirSmurfalot
It sure would have been a lot faster, less fossil fuels burned... less damage to the environment.
How exactly?
Seriously? Say Chernobyl never happened, nuclear power continued to dominate the energy sector, how much less coal/oil would've been burned?
CoronalThoughtEjection
/a/TbzxKKy
InsanityMelon
Fukushima construction started in 1967. Sixty seven! Modern reactors are exceedingly safe. Death per unit energy is lowest for nuclear.
iAppdata
Generation IV hype!
NozomuDM
Not to mention the plant was scheduled for decommissioning in 2011, and a month before the accident it was approved for 10 more years
Theycallmemoist9
I was hoping I wouldn't have to go find all the names, thank you for your sacrifice internet person.
And they are all ancient reactors, many of which caused no dangerous amount of radiation leakage.
Find the name of every nuclear submarine the us navy has that's never melted down. Its operated by 20 year olds. Reactor safety is easy
How about the 2 U.S. and unknown number of Russian nuclear subs that are sitting at the bottom of the ocean...
There are problems with everything because humans didnt and still mostly dont give a shit about the planet, period.
With no fission product release. Its contained that's literally an underwater museum, annually the navy contributes 20mCi which is 1/2
...the U.S.S. Scorpion had an undercover OP to analyze the radiation impact on the marine life. So, it is dumping radioactive material.
Equivalent to a banana plantation
And i shit you not, every single one of those has: 3 coal mine disasters that have killed 10x as many..each.
Not the point.
Iamyourcaptainnow
Short term or long term? Cause nuclear shit leaves some skid marks that are hard to get rid of for a loooooong time.
Ah actually i was wrong! Its 5 times as many deaths. And 470x due to polution. AND more than 1000x serious illness. Lmfao 9 years ago
OttoNormalo
You're comparing Pest to Cholera
lilyellowturd
I lost 2 of my relatives to coal mine disasters. One trapped for days :( Back in the time when immigrants were disposable labor...oh wait...
Akaihasu
That's why we shouldn't use coal, for obvious reasons and nuclear cause of the waste. But we missed the time in the past were it was 1/2
Cheaper to invest and research cleaner energies. Now we need more resources and money to bring up new and clean technology.
GeneralGinger531
Is it though? A quick google search shows a typical nuclear plant produces a gigawatt, and a solar panel produces 250-270 watts
We know how to deal with nuclear waste. You put it in a breeder reactor that refines it even further and then use the re-enriched fuel.
It's just that nobody wants anyone else to start doing that because that's how you get nuclear weapons grade uranium/plutonium.
Yes, when corners are cut nuclear power is extremely dangerous. However, when it is properly built and maintained it’s imo the best option
And it creates a target for potential rival countries?
amolotovshot
Sure. But we have to remember that they will always be built by the lowest bidder. Because that's how public percuriment works
doobiedoobop
The technology isn't the problem, the human element is. Chernobyl only had a meltdown because they pushed the system too far experimentally.
Swomuchfun
It’s design was also insanely bad. Positive coefficient of reactivity and the control rods had the lowest melting point of anything in it.
There are many other factors that come into play. Doesn't matter how well Fukushima plant was built, earthquakes can break shit
nabagaca
As much as I agree with the sentiment, Fukushima is a bad example as it was poor planning that caused the disaster, its backup 1/2
generators were in a basement and its flood walls too short, there were reactors closer to the epicentre that had little issue. 2/2
tiramigiu
plus it's all good and well, but if a country goes into economic meltdown..USSR style, i'm surprised there haven't been more chernobyls tbh.
Mikaru86
Not until we solve the issue of radioactive waste requiring tens of thousands of years of save storage. Human civilization hasn't even >
existed for as long as that stuff needs to remain buried somewhere. There is no way we will keep our idiot grand-grand-children from >
digging that shit back up.
I think saying someone in the future will fuck it up is a good enough reason to neglect changing the current situation
I'm on your side here, but it's not fair to ascribe all of this to cutting corners. Many of these had complex failures.
TheAsterite
and only chernobyl was designed with a positive coefficient reaction
Yeah, like Fukushima was hit by an earthquake and then a tsunami.
That is very fair, even the best plants could fail catastrophically, I won’t deny that. However, look into each of those, negligence is a...
Major part. Three miles: operator fucked up, Chernobyl: design flaw/ operator fucked up, Fuku was worst case scenario-every back up failed
Kyshtym: coolant tank failure and neglect, Tokaimura: operator error, Zaragoza: repair fuck up (this isn’t even a reactor incident tho so?)
Well, even then you can't say "don't worry because all of the past problems were negligence/human error" because those will still exist.
Naturally you can get better automated systems to help...
70 years the us navy has operated hundreds of submarines and carriers on nuke power with no incident. It's pretty easy no not meltdown
Potatomanbynight
Love
XeononSolomon
Time to get those Thorium reactors
PataPataPat
Don't know why this was downvoted. Thorium reactors, among a host of other techniques, do hold a good bit of promise.
Metalsmith21
Yeah no. Nuke power is not the solution to climate change.
ColdestOne
What's this from?
MahuAurelius
https://youtu.be/Lg2dqFCU67Q
Ekibwurm
stopping a dragon turning a city to ash in skyrim....but the guards saw you kill a chicken during the massive fight...
ReplyingToTopCommentsIsHowIGetPeopleToReadMyComments
Fuck Skyrim and fuck Bethesda.
bobstallone
that chicken had a family
Markamanic
Or you accidentally shock one of the guards so naturally you are now the biggest threat.
BobTheTalkingSkull
itsahorse
Now pay with your blood
LuminoZero
It's far worse when you're locked in dialogue with an NPC when the Dragon decides to show up and the Tab key decides "Nah, not this time."
jackpkmn
The guards didn't even see you, the other chickens did.
Mimsey
The worst part of playing a Mage in Skyrim is when the idiot guards sprint into your AoE spells to try to melee the dragons with hatchets.
fatherted
Nope, just some classic nuclear anti-renewables lobbying. Been going on for decades.
SeanBeanDiesAlot
I'm very pro-nuclear...but if someone could lower the prices of building a plant that would go a long way to justifying new ones
ColoniseTheGalaxy
Forgetting about Sellafield and a few others but ok.
U235FTW
Hell yeah. Split, don't emit!
Camelspotting
Nice username.
jedionslaught
What about fusion? Use the decades of nuclear waste that we've built up as the fuel for the future
arhalts
Fusion wohld not use nuclear waste and doesn't work as a feaabke enegy source yet. There are severla reacgors that do work with waste 1/2
arhalts
They are all fision type. Fusion even when we get it working does not priduce a net gain in energy after elements heavier than iron.
U235FTW
You're probably thinking about "fast reactors". They can eat nuclear waste for breakfast and shit out more fuel. Search EBR-II or Prism
jedionslaught
https://youtu.be/Zd8O5YE8Uak?t=933 while those are options, the radiation being put out by waste could be used as available H+ in fusion
QuiteADapperAsshole
This is a weird use of the format.
BlckGoose
My dad works at a nuke plant. Says the amount of waste from around 40 years would fit in the back of his truck. Also safety procedures AF
DoublevBomb
The obsession with nuclear weapons and total annihilation of planet Earth didn't help either.
AtsaMattaForMe
MagiicHat
That's... really good.
dommen
No. Uranium as a resource is limited (and self-decomposing) and the fight for it much more dirty than for lithium or lanthanides...
ilhares
It's kinda crap, honestly. This is a cut-down clip. That giant started the avalanche that was going to destroy the castle to begin with.
MagiicHat
Well good thing they removed the part that didn't fit the meme,
SecondSince
Don't be a pedantic ass.
ilhares
Oh, it's far too late for that.
ilhares
and if nukes have any claim to fame, it isn't for *causing* global warming.
JustTheCats
Not really. There's more incidents than just Chernobyl that shows the problems of nuclear, and the danger that something goes wrong...
MagiicHat
How many total dead? Compared to other sources? Even 'renewable' (aka rare earth) sources?
JustTheCats
... Is never "zero" with nuclear. I'd something goes wrong with renewables, oh no it's annoying. I'd something goes wrong with nuclear...
JustTheCats
... You've just made a large area uninhabitable for many years and research dangerous radiation that will have major damages to environment.
JustTheCats
... Modern nuclear tech is much better than old text but the costs too get it going after really high. I agree we need to look at it more...
JustTheCats
... But we also need to improve our renewables text at the same time. This is overly simplistic in examining the issue.
jasgstock
You should look into how bad other energy sources - including renewables - are for the environment. They are *all* quite bad.
Ryang256
Solar. It's the only energy source that is practically unlimited.
SpiderProof
Solar panels are not unlimited though. They have to be massed produced, and it has to be done right to avoid toxic waste. /1
SpiderProof
That isn't to say solar is a BAD idea, but it has problems, as does nuclear, which is why we should be using both. /2
TA2019
Except solar doesn't have potential catastrophic effects the way nuclear could
SpiderProof
Toxic heavy metals could kill more people than Chernobyl, if disposed of improperly, it would just be much slower and more spread out.
BobTheTalkingSkull
NightPainPoe
That little accident caused more damage to the entire planet. So no thank you
PorkBarrelTrollitics
the issue is about cost of building them and the lack of responsibility for disposal of waste, not the technology itself
whyexactly
Is the waste from other energy sources being disposed of properly?
sputniknoodle
It is not. But it is also not poisonous fot millions of years to come.
whyexactly
I would think pollution from coal burning is poisonous forever
sputniknoodle
Beside the fact that this is a black-or-white fallacy (there are of course other options than coal, which is one of the bigger polluters)~
Brodisseus
Nuclear energy is literally the most responsible industry in regards to waste.
tiredandtrusted
My understanding (warning, noob here) is that current reactors would be able to use old waste as a source of fuel.
tiredandtrusted
Hence, a net reduction in waste? At least short term.
olivertheoctopus
That’s my understanding too, and they do that in Europe, but it’s illegal in America for whatever stupid political reason. Shocker
PataPataPat
The cost of building and testing the newer design reactors is indeed pretty hefty. ...but still much cheaper per watt/hr.
PataPataPat
*once they get up and running.
BannedbyastupidMod
There's a massive risk involved, example, Japan. That was recent
SecondSince
Japan was relatively old technology and built on a relatively risky zone. Put them away from coasts and faultlines and they are super safe.
PataPataPat
That was risk of continueing to operate a plant that started construction in 1967. Don't know how many renovations it had, but think its 1)
BannedbyastupidMod
Three Mile Island, Kyshtym, Tokaimura, Windscale, Zaragoza, San Juan, Nyonoksa, Blayais, Chuetsu, Andreev Bay. It's probably fine now
PataPataPat
1) somewhat safe to assume it was using last century teck like most power plants are. I think (from my own armchair research) that the 3)
TheLastSpaceman
Pardon my ignorance, how would nuclear power stop rising ocean levels?
U235FTW
Limiting CO2 emissions, which would slow global warming, limit sea ice melt + water expansion
0masuk0
Unlike fossils It doesn't release co2 to the atmosphere thus not contributing to greenhouse effect...
0masuk0
And unlike renewable doesn't produce power when it is in the mood to do it.
ddfitzy
GiantSquanchy
it's not great for the environment, but it is leagues better than coal
U235FTW
Least mining per unit of energy, small land footprint, and same CO2 as wind. Pretty damn good for the environment /a/r7isI3B
GiantSquanchy
The main issue with nuclear is waste is filling up the "temporary" storage sites. No one wants to build the necessary permanent storage site
GiantSquanchy
And gCO2/kwh estimates vary wildly, anywhere from 3 - 220 gCO2/kwh depending on level of enrichment of the ore.
GiantSquanchy
That said, thorium does has a lot of potential.
U235FTW
The 220 numbers are from antiquated gaseous diffusion enrichment method. Hasn't been used for quite a while.
SpiderProof
That's because most of economy is still run on fossil fuels, including mining/enrichment. If we run those off nuclear too, then CO2 is zero.
PontiacDude
Liquid thorium reactors should be what we’re moving to. At least to test. But nope
ChristianSalge
no need to test it, they've already been proven to work at ORNL.
akambe
There is now a test thorium reactor at the National Engineering Laboratory in SE Idaho.
ddfitzy
That's awesome news
TheBricking
Thorium reactors have been 5 years out for 20 years. It's not possible.
SomeonesDog
Seaborg technologies - dude they are gonna serial produce thorium reactors. Check them out!
seedye
seedye
https://inldigitallibrary.inl.gov/sites/sti/sti/4480296.pdf
delybee
But so many oil and wood tycoons would go broke. What would happen to the 1%? Shouldn’t we try to protect them....?
JadedAFi
I get it but less magic rocks more solar panels wind farms and giant storage capacitors.
Hippb
I'm super down with this. Also, I follow a thorium Facebook group and all they do is shit on other renewable sources it's hilarious
Brodisseus
Any MSR at this point preferably
thecomfycat
If you're interested in thorium, you should look into molten salt reactors. It's much more feasible tech that will be around within 10 years
cheesehole
Thorium is not usable without uranium to ignite the fission process. Even though Thorium has promises it's still 30-40 years into the future
ddfitzy
There's research into accelerator driven reactors https://youtu.be/fgQzkCEteAI
cheesehole
SMRs and fast reactors (can actually use the used fuel from other reactors) are the way forward. Imagine container ships with zero emission
Redway93
I can, and I don't trust commercial shipping behave themselves. Imagine a cargo vessel catastrophically failing via a mid hull cleave 1/
Redway93
The environmental impact would be catastrophic. Particularly as major shipping accidents occur during rough seas, preventing isolation 2/
Redway93
Of radioactive emissions from the environment and potential extraction of fuel. Hence nuclear ships are usually limited to military and 3/
PataPataPat
ye, and the TWR being looked into by TerraPower.
PataPataPat
Don't know why this was downvoted. Thorium reactors, among a host of other techniques, do hold a good bit of promise.
PontiacDude
It looks like you saved my comment. Checked once and it was -1. Figured people just don’t like nuclear power
BahamutBBob
And the Thorium Brotherhood had some good early gear in vanilla WoW.
lordofthedice
Arcanite Reaper! Hoooo!
megagreg
Because they're advocating that we continue to shun a technology with decades of refinement for one that doesn't exist yet.
asm80dfa8sdfj
Might as well just jump to fusion if we're betting on the future.
EveryTimeIfartaFairyDies
Along with molten salt reactors. Older tech but alot less waste.
Djchoragos
Hell the molten salt solar systems out in the desert are super cool
KoRplussomeletters
I had to re-read that sentence a couple of times.
Arkkeri
Cool? Aren't they hot? :)
Djchoragos
Big oof. +1
Cartoones
Never heard of it. Can you explain or create a post about them?
MCNewYorkLives
You can find YouTube videos about it. The main reason we don't is bc the waste (which is less radioactiv) isn't useable for nuclear weapons
0masuk0
Thorium breeds u233 in reactor which is perfectly good for the bomb. It is one of problem with liquid core thorium reactors.
Redway93
If y'all want a post I can put one/a few together if you'd like comparing some of the pros and cons of reactor fuel/coolant choices
Redway93
Got an MSc in Nuclear and some other credentials I don't want to bandy about but would lend to "I can make a good post if it's desired"
Redway93
Right then, will get one up sometime later this week. Will link here when I'm done. We'll start with MSR/Th types and go from there
MCNewYorkLives
IIRC, it's better all around, cheaper, smaller, less radioactive waste, no possibility of meltdown, easy to convert existing to thorium
Camelspotting
Thorium is cheaper than uranium but the reactors will be very expensive for a long time.
ChristianSalge
all true except for the part about it being easy to convert. the only thing that you could probably re-use some of is the steam generators.
U235FTW
Lot of bad info in these replies. Here's an accurate take! https://youtu.be/c7baTdyHv8g other vids by Gord McDowell are great too.
Redway93
It's okay but does gloss over the Proctactinium issue when transmuting Th to U233. Let alone the corrosion and salt purification loops 1/
Redway93
That have yet to be scaled for even an SMR sized application. That being said, he appears to be working in Th reactor design and will be 2/
Redway93
A tad biased in delivery as ultimately that's how you get grants/funding. Always been a more molten NA kinda guy tbf 3/3
kummelo
Username checks out
T0go
At this point any single program is not enough to avoid 2 degrees by 2100. It will take on the order of $9 trillion a year. Check out 1/2
TapToRetry
Once we can transfer consciousness to a Bot and live forever people will start caring. Until then it's "not my problem "
T0go
https://en-roads.climateinteractive.org/scenario.html?v=2.7.19 climate policy simulator from MIT's business school.
T0go
Of course that is global investment, no single country could make an investment like that.
U235FTW
Give me 10 trillion and I'll have the US 100% carbon free (transportation and industry too) in about 15 years. ?
murlokotam
No need. Just tax carbon emission by estimated clean up cost. Market will fix itself.
Multipew
Tax? That'll never happen. Don't you know taxes are bad actually?
U235FTW
I'd love to see a carbon fee and dividend as well.
jonathantoast
Why are there so many pro-nuclear power posts on here all of a sudden?
tiikki
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecomodernism
tiikki
Because people are finally doing some basic maths and taking climate change seriously.
MooyahCop
I'm sorry. Is rational thinking not permitted here?
EvilDeadTed
Astroturfing.
Brodisseus
Because it one of the most reasonable energy solutions moving forward...
Camelspotting
It's been this way for years...
poplasia
Man, you've gotten a lot of sarcastic replies in here.
burretploof
Ah yes, an incident causing a large area to be uninhabitable for hundreds of years is like one building collapsing.
moralcompassion
*tens of thousands of years... www.express.co.uk/news/science/1143775/chernobyl-explosion-when-chernobyl-safe-again-visit-chernobyl-tourism
ddfitzy
Please ignore all the wildlife and people inhabiting the exclusion zone...
DukePaulAtreides
Sadly we're way behind on nuclear power tech here because we haven't sorted out the 40+ yr old problem "what do we do with waste", because>
ddfitzy
Waste is only waste with current reactor designs nuclear waste is mostly unused fuel https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAVCaUonrbE
DukePaulAtreides
>the level of "NOT IN MY FUCKING BACKYARD"-ism for the planned long term project reached insane levels and never happened, so waste is>
DukePaulAtreides
>frequently piling up in storage on-site at plants, which are not equipped or properly set up for long term use. So it's a massive losing>
DukePaulAtreides
>battle from the jump to surmount, even though longer term it'd pay off.
f1223214
I'm not sure you know what "long term" means. And why aren't they making their own waste storage ?
DukePaulAtreides
Long term means 'literally 10,000s-100,000s of years', which answers the 2nd question: because it's really fucking hard and costly
jedionslaught
There are 2 options with the waste: glass and fuel. For glass, the nuclear waste can be turned into a useful component.
valen00
Reprocessing
jedionslaught
As for fuel: the release of protons from the nuclear waste (the radiation) can provide free flowing protons that can be joined in a process
jedionslaught
called nuclear "fusion", whereas previously used methods of nuclear power relied on nuclear "fission".
DukePaulAtreides
Well yes, but that's the problem: we still have all the highly no-bueno leftovers from all the fission reactors we had and nowhere to put it
DukePaulAtreides
So it's kind of like "well we're like to upgrade but we also have to...take out last decade's garbage before we can even consider it"
hrix
Some countries have solved it, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repository
DukePaulAtreides
It's true! Though note it took 19 years from beginning of construction to projected operational date, and it's first in the world. Because>
DukePaulAtreides
>although the Yucca Mountain project (the US equivalent of that) is scientifically sound, the entire state of NV loses its SHIT at the idea.
Jogeri
Yeah, building of Onkalo was actually well received by the people in Eurajoki municipality.
hrix
It took 19 years because there's no rush. Better safe than sorry.
DukePaulAtreides
Absolutely agreed! You're right! It's just that it's that much more of a LONG term prospect, which US politicos and voters...aren't good at
fatherted
Yawn, this anti-renewable propaganda bs again. As nice as future fission/fusion may be, it is not an effective method right now. Please read
Smayds
I HEAR YOU'RE INTO RENEWABLE ENERGY NOW, FATHER!
Crockpotseal
Please come to Ontario Canada, where nuclear supplies more than 50% of our electricity, before you say nuclear is ineffective.
thecomfycat
Well when it's not windy or sunny, nuclear still generates power. With a tiny fraction of the land usage. Renewables have their place,
thecomfycat
but it's not as a baseload green energy source. Nuclear is a much better option for that
poultice
Fission and fusion are not comparable. Fission has been a significant part of many grids for > half a century. What are you talking about?
Redmoon33
It's not "anti-renewables" it's just anti-anti-nuclear. The argument isn't renewables don't have a place, just nuclear is better right now
mike13815
It's literally the most effective method right now. The only serious contender for fossil fuels. It could end climate change and give us
mike13815
thousands of years to figure out renewables. Not to mention renewables are good for low population density areas.
TA2019
Thousands of years with humans causing an accident in nuclear usage? Hella doubt.
alcaray
What do you want me to read?
TurgidMember
https://youtu.be/N-yALPEpV4w
timmy26
Neither is renewables
mbos14
This, no matter how good the generation becomes if we dont get better storage methods its all useless.
Camelspotting
All useless? Do you really believe that?
Camelspotting
Of course it is. I guess this guy was right about the propaganda.
timmy26
Propoganda? Bitch please /a/J9vxBz2
Camelspotting
1) Irrelevant for a long time 2) not particularly, and the capacity factor is included anyway 3) false 4) very false. Hopefully governments
timmy26
1. Electricity storage is irrelevant? Interesting. 2. And capacity factor is determined by location and cost of construction. 3. Solar does
Camelspotting
are smart enough not to see it as a zero sum game, with the added benefit of renewables being politically and financially easier.
PTNLemay
Nuclear is a hell of a lot more feasible than solar and hydro.
Camelspotting
Not than solar. Solar will be much cheaper and more easily built for decades.
PTNLemay
One day, yes. Currently most solar panels are still too expensive and need rare earth metals to be fabricated that are quite toxic.
Camelspotting
Which rare earth metals?
timmy26
With the expense of space. Coz it takes so many solar panels just to get a decent power output
Camelspotting
Fortunately not a big issue.
timmy26
Based on what?
JustAnotherLinkInTheChain
Nuclear power is out clean energy alternative. I've been saying the same shit since highschool
mike13815
What's really important here is that we make it all about you.
JustAnotherLinkInTheChain
Thank you
CatsIsTheAnswer
Fuck off, this was supposed to be about cats!
TobiFuenke
What are your plans to store the nuclear waste safely for a couple of thousand years?
SecondSince
Easy. Safely store it under a mountain in a geologically stable region. DONE! Better than pumping shit into the atmosphere like coal.
TacticalChungus
As a North Carolinian, I'd much rather have some buried nuclear waste in my state than another coal ash pond...
JayEnfield
It's already been built. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_repository
mike13815
It's called Yucca Mountain. Even worst-case scenario situations (apocalyptic meteor striking it directly) would release less radiation than
mike13815
coal does currently. Breeder reactors solve fuel waste problems, all it needs to store is contaminated equipment/material.
freeforallstuff
Huh, coal is radioactive?
mike13815
Yes. Not only is it directly radioactive, but the radioactive dust that spreads hundreds of miles is inhaled into your lungs.
Crowlands
Reactors can recycle nuclear waste to create More energy. And you really wouldn't need that much space if you couldn't.
TobiFuenke
So 100% no waste? Awesome!
tiikki
And this is existing tech. First reactor to produce electricity 1950's was a breeder.
AFriskyJacket
I was gonna say something about Fukushima but went to google to see if there were any other incidents. Amazingly, there are very, VERY few!
ddfitzy
The safest form of energy by a long way
AFriskyJacket
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_and_incidents
TA2019
But, they are extremely severe. When you measure risk, you can't just measure occurance. You need to measure the potential severity
Brodisseus
https://2oqz471sa19h3vbwa53m33yj-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/safest-energy-sources.png
TA2019
I'm not denying that in the slightest. I'm just saying that this isn't necessarily a good indicator of the potential risks, because
TA2019
1) the sheer amount of energy produced skews the calculation heavily, and 2) the sheer amount of panels required to match the
TA2019
power output of a nuclear facility also skews the calculation heavily.
Brodisseus
That fact that it produces a lot of power w/ fewer deaths is the exact point. Your ok with having more real deaths so that you can feel
kamosey
This again. We would need 100's of reactors. There hugely expensive and take years to build. Fuel is limited. Better alternatives exist.
Camelspotting
Any solution is going to be hugely expensive and take decades. Might as well start developing nuke now while we max renewables.
ddfitzy
fuel is only 'limited' by today's reactor relying on U235. Th232 and U238 are much more abundant
thecomfycat
Modular and gen IV reactors are right around the corner. They do not have these same limitations, plus they are inherently safe
poultice
Better alternatives do not exist for energy demand baselines.
PataPataPat
100's? For just North America?
kamosey
You think climate change only affects North America?
PataPataPat
ah good, 100's for the world sounds pretty good actually.
Crowlands
Barely more than 1/2 a reactor per country.
TurgidMember
https://youtu.be/N-yALPEpV4w
kamosey
Youtube university.
PataPataPat
Good? Bad? Video just shows what Mr. Shellenberger found in his research, and his conclusion from it.
TurgidMember
Let's hear a factual rebuttal then
fatherted
Not to mention the waste which we still can't deal with.
tiikki
We can deal with it. Breeder reactors use waste as fuel and they have been existing tech since 1950's.
poultice
It's not that bad (https://whatisnuclear.com/recycling.html) and the alternative is a bunch of CO2, which we also can't deal with.
BrovoFoxtrot
Rare earth metals are required en mass for solar or wind. China is by far the only source. Uranium however is very prominent in Texas.
shitheadtookmyname
The US has more rate earth minerals than China BY FAR. we just choose to let China exhaust their supplies first. Look it up it's true!
BrovoFoxtrot
Nuclear power is not quick or cheap to build, that is very true, but is very long lasting and safe when properly taken care of.
fatherted
But how quick, how cheap? How feasible is this idea really.
tiikki
PRIS database: 4-5 years/avg if removing outliers https://pris.iaea.org/PRIS/home.aspx
tiikki
IPCC: cheaper than solar or offshore wind, same as onshore wind https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/07_figure_7.7-813x1024.png
BrovoFoxtrot
I literally said it’s not quick or cheap. It’s entirely feasible however, it could be done
barnwolf
To be fair, solar has come a long ways. It is currently significantly cheaper than nuclear and the price keeps drooping like a rock.
tiikki
http://www.oecd.org/publications/the-costs-of-decarbonisation-9789264312180-en.htm here is an interesting raport too
tiikki
Page 217, figure 74 for 50gCO2/kWh with different options to achieve it
MoskauHOHOHO
but there is also the not so green production and mining of the resources for solar too consider. same with batteries. plus the waste it cre
poplasia
And I'm sure nuclear would have absolutely none of those problems, most certainly.
poplasia
And to be clear, I'm not against nuclear.
thecomfycat
Gotta consider energy density and intermittency when comparing energy sources. Renewables just can't compare to nuclear
barnwolf
Energy density doesn't really matter. Both are more than dense enough to be practical at a large scale.
thecomfycat
Not really. The land usage necessary for the same amount of energy generated from wind and solar would be comedically large vs. nuclear
barnwolf
Yes, but that doesn't matter because it's still comically small compared to residential land.
thecomfycat
They have their place, but they aren't an efficient baseload energy source
Camelspotting
Thermodynamic efficiency is useless without context.
tiikki
IPCC: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/07_figure_7.7-813x1024.png solar is more expensive than nuclear
barnwolf
I was looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source Historical summary of EIA's LCOE projections
barnwolf
Not sure why the two sources differ, but the cost of solar has been dropping very significantly.
barnwolf
Oh, it's because that graph is for 2010 energy prices. As I said, it has changed a lot since then.
tiikki
I need to find newer source. Thank you.
barnwolf
That graph is showing the costs in 2010, and is significantly out of date.
tiikki
Bit out of date, but it doesn't have system costs for higher variable production included so just minor price drop for actual panels
tiikki
doesn't change the picture much.
barnwolf
Here's the full report. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg3/ About page 541.
Phant0m5
Solar can be bought and assembled by anybody, anywhere. Prices will continue to drop as consumers get in on it. Nuclear is large only.
tiikki
2/3 of solar panels installed are made by 10 companies in 2019 and 7 of those companies are Chinese. Not a large difference compared to nuke
tiikki
Panel costs are decreasing slightly as more are utilized, but system costs rises as more backup is needed.
tiikki
https://www.forbes.com/sites/brianmurray1/2019/06/17/the-paradox-of-declining-renewable-costs-and-rising-electricity-prices/#795a9ddf61d5
Arcanum3000
Nuclear power has some serious practical issues. Not least that it's hideously expensive and it takes a decade or more to build one plant.
ulmflb
EOL cost of the plants tend to be forgotten. And as waste management is on a geological scale, any fuck-up will be paid for very, very long.
OdinYggd
It would be a lot faster and cheaper if it wasn't plagued with nonstop lawsuits from the NIMBYs
Adderkleet
There is no permanent waster storage site for nuclear materials ON EARTH currently. People seem to forget that.
OdinYggd
It would be a lot faster and cheaper if it wasn't plagued with nonstop lawsuits from the NIMBYs
tiikki
Cheaper than solar or off-shore wind: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/07_figure_7.7-813x1024.png
jasgstock
It's hideously expensive *because* of the fearmongers portrayed in the village. That's kind of the point.
tiikki
If you discard outliers then it is 4-5 years/reactor https://pris.iaea.org/PRIS/home.aspx
Metalsmith21
How long does it take to decommission? How much does it cost? How many have been decommissioned within budget?
tiikki
188 civilian reactors are in permament shutdown status. Some over budget of course. But the prices are known and can be calculated.
tiikki
And in most of the countries the industry has to collect and save the money for the decommission.
tiikki
Price depends on how fast you want to do the decommission and how decommission is defined.
tiikki
If you want to build new reactor next to the old one you just let the reactor cool down and remove old fuel.
tiikki
Then wait for decade or two before dismantling the building and you have a place for next reactor when it is time to build new one.
tiikki
If you want a totally clean place within few years then you need a huge pile of money.
SubtleOrc
Fission is no green solution . You’re condemning a thousand generations to steward our poison ..
Promethianfire
Keep drinking that kool aid. The fossil fuel industry thanks you.
zrevenge
You..have no idea what you are talking about. Lmao
U235FTW
A poison that's literally killed zero people (spent nuclear fuel)? You may be thinking of the nasty chem processes for nuke weapons.Not same
Camelspotting
No shit. Way easier to shepherd a big hole in the ground than the entire atmosphere.
SubtleOrc
human civilization is .. 4K years old? Good luck building something that's going to kill anyone that gets near it for the next 20K years.
Camelspotting
No one went deep into that mountain since it was formed millions of years ago.
qwaszx8888
BrovoFoxtrot
Hardly, many new designs can reuse the waste. Solar and wind farms require rare earth metals and have to be replaced causing large amounts/
BrovoFoxtrot
Of pollution of manufacturing. Look at how much waste is made from producing neodymium magnets for turbines. Nuclear is cleaner in the end
PataPataPat
There's also that claim from one of the nuclear reactor designs done by Terra Power I think. It's efficient enough to just cycle isotopes 1
PataPataPat
1 from the ocean. It's effectively a renewable teck.
fatherted
You a source for those statements?
PataPataPat
gimme a minute. Been about a year since I looked all this up.
BrovoFoxtrot
Recycling fuel #5 https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-nuclear-fuel
BrovoFoxtrot
China produces 70+% REM https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/our-natural-resources/minerals-mining/minerals-metals-facts/rare-earth-elements-facts/20522
BrovoFoxtrot
No I’m not a source. What I linked should be reliable, non corporate funded sources however in my opinion
PataPataPat
Yo @fatherted. Finally found the article that quotes Bill Gates saying we can filter our uranium from the sea to power the 4th gen reactors
PataPataPat
https://www.businessinsider.com/bill-gates-terrapower-molten-salt-nuclear-reactor-2018-10
PataPataPat
I mean, have you seen some of the planned newer reactors? They use our current poison and output it with a much shorter lifespan.
fatherted
How much do they cost? How long to build them? Why condemn greener alternatives, which is what this post does?
fatherted
How much do they cost? How long to build them? Why condemn greener alternatives, which is what this post does?
zrevenge
450 worldwide, all of them combined has less polution than solarfarm worldwide. SOLAR. FARMS. So ya, its the BEST solution handsdown
fatherted
Cost and build time? Feasibility? ...
Redmoon33
Completely feasible considering the tech is already developed and would take less time and cost than going solar or wind to match output.
PataPataPat
I mean, I thought you needed ~2.5 earth surfaces to power the world with solar farms. No idea where I heard that.
fatherted
Solar energy is developing rapidly.
zrevenge
Eh you are right, i guess its not fair to compair one to another when it requires more than just solar. Maybe solar is bad "green" solution
dasoffendor
there is no energy that is 100% clean. sure, people say "solar"... but you still need something to store it at night. battery production 1/
murlokotam
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flywheel#Applications
PickleMeElmoooo
And all the rare earth metals that have to be mined to produce the panels....
IHateToTurnUpTheVolumeOfMyTvBecauseMyCatIsSnoring
There are types of solar which don't use classic panels. Example: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivanpah_Solar_Power_Facility
MoskauHOHOHO
battery production and battery waste is actually a problem.
Muschifurz
nuclear waste is also actually a problem.....
Plaguestorm172
Solar is more so supposed to cover the large amount of power that is used during the day, while the others count for the night which is low.
WayOfTheScience
oddly enough making our own fossil fuels may be the real answer
WayOfTheScience
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2018/06/carbon-engineering-liquid-fuel-carbon-capture-neutral-science/
CaptainNemo10
Agreed. You still need to mine uranium with vehicles that run on fossil fuels and the there is the nuclear waste that needs to be stored for
Ogre6
Not to mention current solar energy panels are only 30-40% efficient at most because you'll loose some to poor ion connections
Camelspotting
Not much of an issue.
NaughtButOne
Oh honey. Consumer panels sit about low-mid 20s. Even that is more than enough if we outfit every home; real problem is storage.
Camelspotting
No one cares about residential solar.
NaughtButOne
Uh. Okay. I mean, hundreds of thousands of rooftop installations will disagree, but sure.
Camelspotting
We're talking power generation, not personal investments with a green flair.
OverlyOpinionated
Counterintuitively, solar actually causes slightly more global warming than it avoids
sambaah05
Isn't the goal to cause less harm than using fossil fuels? I think it solidly does that.
asm80dfa8sdfj
Yes, if we had no power generation, the planet would be cooler.
moustic
Source?
NaughtButOne
I mean, technically yes? But only in the sense that in a vacuum, doing something will always contribute more than doing nothing.
Camelspotting
No, solar energy comes from outside the system. This is saying current generation is better in the long run.
NaughtButOne
I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make here. Solar energy comes from outside, but the materials are very terrestrial.
Camelspotting
The point is the second sentence. I had to guess what you were confused about.
dasoffendor
and disposal is a nasty, nasty business with a lot of byproducts. its just trading one con for another.
LVFlanders
Use it during the day to produce H2
HippoLover85
I don't blame people for not liking light water reactors. But against so many new reactor technologies many of the cons go away completely
Metalsmith21
Except for the con that all reactors have consistently under budgeted the cost for their decommissioning.
HippoLover85
Even that one. Due to efficiency and safety improvements footprint (and hence decommissioning costs) can be MUCH much lower.
Metalsmith21
"CAN BE" is the despairing cry used when the actual results do not back that up whatsoever.
theflawedone
Whatever came of the sodium battery? Seems like lithium just had a better PR team.
Camelspotting
Haha no, it is not just trading one con for another.
beezzarro
Well hydro is pretty good. It's clean but you usually need to flood a valley for the reservoir
Adderkleet
Pumping water uphill. Not the most efficient, but able to store A LOT and hydro is pretty quick to turn on/off.
DickPicEnthusiast
You can use extra electricity during daylight to pump water up a reservoir and use the accumulated potential energy to generate electricity>
DickPicEnthusiast
> when it's dark. Pumped storage is entirely viable as of now, and there are myriad other alternatives to batteries, like supercapacitors >
DickPicEnthusiast
> and shit. Unfortunately our current technology for solar generation wouldn't be viable as a sole energy source, accumulation isn't >
DickPicEnthusiast
> the issue. Regardless, it's stupid to put all of humanity's eggs in one basket, different clean energy sources are suitable for different>
JohnMike64
Yeah problem is there is a ton of development in safe bettter cleaner and recyclable batteries because the market dwarfs anything nuclear.
TheBasementNerd
Mechanical batteries?
WayOfTheScience
or gas batteries? :P https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2018/06/carbon-engineering-liquid-fuel-carbon-capture-neutral-science/
SiangSpaceTraveler
Watch Planet of the Humans by Michael Moore. It’s free on YouTube
Arcanum3000
Meh, batteries kinda suck for large-scale power storage anyway. I'm thinking we'll see mechanical potential energy storage instead.
WayOfTheScience
or possibly making gas? https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2018/06/carbon-engineering-liquid-fuel-carbon-capture-neutral-science/
mbos14
They do with water. Its not that efficient tough.
montyman185
Someone just used a big concrete block, Denmark maybe? Can't remember for sure
Arcanum3000
IIRC there's been some work with train cars full of rock/concrete on hills, but I'm not sure how efficient or how far along it is.
mbos14
Heres a video about it for those interested https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66YRCjkxIcg
Camelspotting
More efficient than a peaker plant.
HippoLover85
There are a lot of nuclear technologies that produce 10% of the waste, and the waste is active for 10% of the normal duration. (roughly)
beezzarro
Like? I'm actually interested in knowing
HippoLover85
Molten salt reactors are probably my favorite. Incredibly versatile and have many inherent safety features.
beezzarro
I've heard in passing about the wonders of Thorium. Why isn't that being developed? Or the salt ones?
asm80dfa8sdfj
Any that are used today or deployable today?
HippoLover85
No. Most of them are stuck in the R&D stage. The US (and world) went through a huge lul in nuclear energy R&D after the 60-70s.
HippoLover85
That is roughly the state of nuclear today. still stuck with 1960s technology in a modern world . . . LOTS of room to improve.
asm80dfa8sdfj
You're talking about thorium then yeah?
HippoLover85
the advancement of nuclear technology was effectively brought to a stand still. imagine driving a car from the 1960s. 2/
barnwolf
I think solar is a major opportunity in the future. It is very cheap (now, not ten years ago) and demand is mostly during the day anyways.
barnwolf
I don't think it's the only solution, substantial amounts of nuclear should be used as well to meet the static demand.
barnwolf
... that does give nuclear the short end of the stick though. hard to turn a profit if your reactor is only selling power half the time.
barnwolf
But ideally you can manage the demand slightly so nuclear is still able to run at full capacity.
BlastFX
Not ideally, you need to. Varying the output of a nuclear reactor is a very slow process (hours for just a couple percent). 1/2
tiikki
Nuclear is cheaper than solar according to IPCC: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/07_figure_7.7-813x1024.png
JohnMike64
Wind kicked it's ass in the UK our new nuclear power plant would be unprofitable without price per KW garuntee from gov
JohnMike64
Course it's and old design that's already over construction budget. Oh and it's a Chinese company. Major failure already.
dasoffendor
ive followed the articles about that plant. that one's a real cluster.
Camelspotting
The Chinese are rapidly overtaking us in nuclear technology.
Camelspotting
So is coal. I'm not sure you're interpreting this correctly
tiikki
Emissions are on the right side, costs on the left side. Median values for nuclear emissions (CO2) are less or equal to the wind and solar
tiikki
as are costs.
Camelspotting
Are they really on those sides?
tiikki
Left and right, same difference :D
TA2019
Nuclear is cheaper by sheer amount of energy produced, so the comparison isn't that fair in my opinion. But the risks are significantly wors
valen00
Solar is very labour intensive to install vs output, especially rooftop solar. That leads to a lot of deaths per mwh generated.
TA2019
When you compare nuclear with anything on the basis of energy generated, nuclear will always win. I'm not fighting this fact in the slightes
ChristianSalge
so youre saying because nuclear both provides more power and is cheaper it doesnt make sense? also deaths per 100000 nuclear kills the least
TA2019
Nuclear is cheaper, because of the sheer amount of energy it produces. Also, deaths/100000 what? 100000 what?
tiikki
The risks are minimal. Chernobyl ~100 deaths + ~4000 cancer cases. Fukushima 0 deaths, minimal environmental effects.
TA2019
To be fair, chernobyl was evacuated and remains largely evacuated to this day. Literally decades later.
Redway93
It should be noted that the Japanese have consistently understated the environmental effects of leaks from both the affected cooling ponds 1
dogmatix
Green/clean power > nuclear power > coal/fossil fuel power.
tiikki
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/renewable-energys-hidden-costs/
tiikki
most on the "nuclear waste" is fuel for breeder reactors, compared to electronic waste from solar or composite waste from wind
tiikki
Composite waste is mainly dealt by burning and releasing the CO2 in to the air.
Phant0m5
Solar cells are replaced at 80% effectiveness. Bad for consistency but you could just retire them to residential or business. We just don't.
tiikki
Still they have limited lifespan and they are waste at the end. And I'm not talking about just panels.
Phant0m5
Everything has a limited lifespan. Gas plants last about 22 years, nuclear 30-40. Coal can go for up to about 50.
Phant0m5
Given that, I'd say a 60 year service - about the time it takes to reach 50% of its original power output - is pretty solid.
tiikki
For nuclear it is more like 60-100 years.
tiikki
Nuclear is the cleanest power. IPCC on CO2 https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/07_figure_7.7-813x1024.png
Camelspotting
Umm, look again?
tiikki
Look what? Same emissions as with wind onshore, less than with solar.
Camelspotting
Not "the cleanest power" though.
tiikki
When you factor everything else in then it is clear winner, same on the most important factor CO2
poplasia
Nuclear is also a comparatively old technology, in terms of how long it's been seriously developed. Solar and wind are are still growing.
poplasia
I want to be clear: I'm not against nuclear power. But I want you to know that renewable tech is still advancing.
poplasia
What we have now for renewables is not the end-all-be-all. Think on how far nuclear has come since those first reactors!
tiikki
Actually nuclear is the newest kid on the block. First solar cells are from 19th century and windmills are ancient tech.
tiikki
downvote and no comment on my source, how mature
ddfitzy
because you're a bad wrongthinker
angrytaco
Just saying it takes a decade to build a nuclear plant, plus super expensive and rare fuel. As opposed to cheap quick solar and wind
dogmatix
plus decomissioning a nuclear plant is a Massive and dirty job, super expensive and should be factored into the lifetime cost of the plant.
tiikki
IPCC figure shows that nuclear is cheaper than solar or offshore wind and as cheap as onshore wind.
tiikki
https://pris.iaea.org/PRIS/home.aspx from here you can calculate avg build time for a reactor which is 4-5 years when removing outliers.
Camelspotting
Build time is only part of it.
tiikki
Yes, same goes for wind and solar. Nuclear has the largest political limitations, while others have more physical limitations.
tiikki
Like construction halted for decades as country went bankcrupt like Argentina or USSR. Or revolution in Iran.
tiikki
The mess with EPR reactors is another story still. Areva thought that they still can build reactors on rapid pace while the knowhow was lost
ThatSonOfaBitch
Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, Fukushima Daiichi, Kyshtym, Tokaimura, Windscale, Zaragoza, San Juan, Nyonoksa, Blayais, Chuetsu, Andreev Bay
bigdukesix
I've been everywhere man
dohcohv
Three mile island which maybe killed one or two people decades later, or maybe not, the dose was so small we can't tell.
armagetz
Given that the meltdown didn’t break building containment...lets go ahead and set the number to zero.
EasterHareHairCollector
5 million deads a year by pollution vs how many by all time nuclear? A couple.
armagetz
And, what...two if them actually had radiation release?
causality
People who whine about nuclear can't do math.
WhereIsWillByers
The fact that this has 100 upvotes shows how ignorant people are.
Crockpotseal
Zero emissions...
gaijinsmash
Nuclear power is not 100% eco friendly. Yes, it's better than oil but zero emissions is not true at all
chiefs813
Worst part about it is uranium/thorium mining and waste storage. Far *far* better for the environment than any other energy solution.
gaijinsmash
(1) storing waste for hundreds of thousands of years is not a solution. (2) There aren't enough viable locations for power plants. They (1/?
gaijinsmash
Take up a massive amount of space (20 km squared) and need water and not be near dense populations or natural disaster areas. (3) they (2/?)
Brodisseus
JFC dude, at least 4 of those are military arms related, 4 had no actual ecological impact, 2 i cant even find w/ google search, and 1 whose
Brodisseus
Design doesnt exist elsewhere
whyexactly
How many total deaths?
chimera388
10/13 had 0 fatalities. 2/13 probably had 0 fatalities.
asm80dfa8sdfj
People are bad at seeing long term problems. A meltdown is quick and scary. Constant pollution does far more damage to an individual.
SaltyEsq
Forgot Los angeles. Santa Susanna fields laboratory.
ddfitzy
and yet still the safest by far
RocketPoweredBoogers
Worst haiku ever
Andthingswereneverthesame
Thank you! All nuclear reactors are ticking time bombs. Waste left for the next gen to figure out. No structure will keep in tact forever.
cousteau
Wait, what happened in Zaragoza?
jasgstock
Only two of those are significant enough to be considered "disasters", and they are not even a blip on the radar of problems caused by other
jasgstock
forms of energy production.
AncientSeraph
This is like saying flying is less safe than driving because you see crashes in the news more. Look up numbers instead of headlines.
TheUnstoppableWampas
All of them light water reactors. We need LFT Reactors if we want them to be safe.
soju053
After the first three, you’re just making up names now.
lordbucket
Found the American.
armagetz
Nah he was just listing BS from an anti nuke site. Literally half the list doesn’t have an accident attached to it.
armagetz
Even some of the “top” accidents on his list were so minor no deaths were attributed to it.
kruug
3MI was mainly due to slow technology and a controller trained for submarines: https://youtu.be/1xQeXOz0Ncs
uncas5128
There are new much safer designs. Smaller reactors. But people have closed their minds about it now.
cien2004
Now start listing the numbers killed by oil companies in 3rd world countries. See which one is bigger
WhereIsWillByers
Killed how exactly?
Kats8652
Look at what Shell is doing in Nigeria for instance.
swattyKnotts
That is not the point. The comparison was between renewables and nuclear. We agree fossil fuels are crap.
Brodisseus
Still a bad comparison given that 3 of those military related, 2 medical radiotherapy, 3 had caused no large impact. He's disingenuous at
Brodisseus
Best purposefully deceitful at worst.
RottedOnion
Do casualties from the Iraq War count?
ThatSonOfaBitch
Granted a lot of these were old, risky, poorly run Soviet facilities. But risk is still high with modern plants as Fukushima proves.
namAehT
These are all old reactor designs. 21st century designs haven't been built en mass.
zizzy
Doubt. Navy has over 70 years hundreds of reactor on submarines and carriers. We've never lost one and submarine mission is far more complex
JustTakeTheDarnThing
Fukashima simply taught us to put our backup generators for cooling the reactor above sea level. You know, in the country prone to tsunamis.
Promethianfire
Fukushima was 50+ years old. Modern uranium reactors are built quite differently and are more stable.
ThatSonOfaBitch
We can achieve 100% energy independence from fossil fuels without nuclear.
tiredandtrusted
Not my understanding, not all power is equal. Baseline power, power on demand. Renewables are only part of the solution.
UrielDArcAngel
How...? If you say solar I'm gonna smack you until you look up how solar panels are constructed...
BrovoFoxtrot
Yes, but people seem to forget the cost of constructing solar or wind farms. Those use huge amounts of rare earth metals, and have very...
BrovoFoxtrot
Short lifetimes compared to nuclear power plants, some of which have been running since the 50s & 60s. Nuclear is a better long term invest.
kamosey
Let's build some of those cheap and quick n' clean nuclear power plants.
SirSmurfalot
It sure would have been a lot faster, less fossil fuels burned... less damage to the environment.
WhereIsWillByers
How exactly?
SirSmurfalot
Seriously? Say Chernobyl never happened, nuclear power continued to dominate the energy sector, how much less coal/oil would've been burned?
CoronalThoughtEjection
/a/TbzxKKy
InsanityMelon
Fukushima construction started in 1967. Sixty seven! Modern reactors are exceedingly safe. Death per unit energy is lowest for nuclear.
iAppdata
Generation IV hype!
InsanityMelon
NozomuDM
Not to mention the plant was scheduled for decommissioning in 2011, and a month before the accident it was approved for 10 more years
Theycallmemoist9
I was hoping I wouldn't have to go find all the names, thank you for your sacrifice internet person.
Promethianfire
And they are all ancient reactors, many of which caused no dangerous amount of radiation leakage.
zizzy
Find the name of every nuclear submarine the us navy has that's never melted down. Its operated by 20 year olds. Reactor safety is easy
Theycallmemoist9
How about the 2 U.S. and unknown number of Russian nuclear subs that are sitting at the bottom of the ocean...
Theycallmemoist9
There are problems with everything because humans didnt and still mostly dont give a shit about the planet, period.
zizzy
With no fission product release. Its contained that's literally an underwater museum, annually the navy contributes 20mCi which is 1/2
Theycallmemoist9
...the U.S.S. Scorpion had an undercover OP to analyze the radiation impact on the marine life. So, it is dumping radioactive material.
zizzy
Equivalent to a banana plantation
zrevenge
And i shit you not, every single one of those has: 3 coal mine disasters that have killed 10x as many..each.
swattyKnotts
Not the point.
Iamyourcaptainnow
Short term or long term? Cause nuclear shit leaves some skid marks that are hard to get rid of for a loooooong time.
zrevenge
Ah actually i was wrong! Its 5 times as many deaths. And 470x due to polution. AND more than 1000x serious illness. Lmfao 9 years ago
OttoNormalo
You're comparing Pest to Cholera
BobTheTalkingSkull
lilyellowturd
I lost 2 of my relatives to coal mine disasters. One trapped for days :( Back in the time when immigrants were disposable labor...oh wait...
Akaihasu
That's why we shouldn't use coal, for obvious reasons and nuclear cause of the waste. But we missed the time in the past were it was 1/2
Akaihasu
Cheaper to invest and research cleaner energies. Now we need more resources and money to bring up new and clean technology.
GeneralGinger531
Is it though? A quick google search shows a typical nuclear plant produces a gigawatt, and a solar panel produces 250-270 watts
Phant0m5
We know how to deal with nuclear waste. You put it in a breeder reactor that refines it even further and then use the re-enriched fuel.
Phant0m5
It's just that nobody wants anyone else to start doing that because that's how you get nuclear weapons grade uranium/plutonium.
BrovoFoxtrot
Yes, when corners are cut nuclear power is extremely dangerous. However, when it is properly built and maintained it’s imo the best option
TA2019
And it creates a target for potential rival countries?
amolotovshot
Sure. But we have to remember that they will always be built by the lowest bidder. Because that's how public percuriment works
doobiedoobop
The technology isn't the problem, the human element is. Chernobyl only had a meltdown because they pushed the system too far experimentally.
Swomuchfun
It’s design was also insanely bad. Positive coefficient of reactivity and the control rods had the lowest melting point of anything in it.
gaijinsmash
There are many other factors that come into play. Doesn't matter how well Fukushima plant was built, earthquakes can break shit
nabagaca
As much as I agree with the sentiment, Fukushima is a bad example as it was poor planning that caused the disaster, its backup 1/2
nabagaca
generators were in a basement and its flood walls too short, there were reactors closer to the epicentre that had little issue. 2/2
tiramigiu
plus it's all good and well, but if a country goes into economic meltdown..USSR style, i'm surprised there haven't been more chernobyls tbh.
Mikaru86
Not until we solve the issue of radioactive waste requiring tens of thousands of years of save storage. Human civilization hasn't even >
Mikaru86
existed for as long as that stuff needs to remain buried somewhere. There is no way we will keep our idiot grand-grand-children from >
Mikaru86
digging that shit back up.
BrovoFoxtrot
I think saying someone in the future will fuck it up is a good enough reason to neglect changing the current situation
poultice
I'm on your side here, but it's not fair to ascribe all of this to cutting corners. Many of these had complex failures.
TheAsterite
and only chernobyl was designed with a positive coefficient reaction
jedionslaught
Yeah, like Fukushima was hit by an earthquake and then a tsunami.
BrovoFoxtrot
That is very fair, even the best plants could fail catastrophically, I won’t deny that. However, look into each of those, negligence is a...
BrovoFoxtrot
Major part. Three miles: operator fucked up, Chernobyl: design flaw/ operator fucked up, Fuku was worst case scenario-every back up failed
BrovoFoxtrot
Kyshtym: coolant tank failure and neglect, Tokaimura: operator error, Zaragoza: repair fuck up (this isn’t even a reactor incident tho so?)
poultice
Well, even then you can't say "don't worry because all of the past problems were negligence/human error" because those will still exist.
poultice
Naturally you can get better automated systems to help...
zizzy
70 years the us navy has operated hundreds of submarines and carriers on nuke power with no incident. It's pretty easy no not meltdown