I think we need to consider more nuclear energy

[phoenix2020]

I’m not so hot on nuclear power generation these days since transmission costs (not generation) are the predominent cost driver going forward. I don’t see a way to tackle that other than decentralized generation, and nuclear is by definition the poster child for centralized grid generation. Solar, wind and natural gas, in contrast, scale up and down with some ease.

As a technology I have no issues with it and believe that safety concerns can be solved. Rather, nuclear’s big Achilles heel (to me) is its inability to scale down.

 

[Razoo]

Radioactive waste is hot for thousands of years. What other waste material can match that?

And taxpayers will be the insurance policy for nuke reactors......... not by choice.

 

[Visbek]

Should build them on federal land/military bases, bypass the states.

Using state land isn't the problem.

Efficiency on PVs is going to be hitting more and more barriers as the tech progresses. Do you realistically think we are going to hit 40, 50, or 60%?

No. However, PVs can get a lot cheaper, longer lasting, and more widely installed.

Conservation is a myth...

sigh... No, it isn't. Westerners are very wasteful with energy, because it's cheap. When it gets expensive -- as we saw in California during the fake crisis engineered by Enron, or when gasoline prices rise -- usage drops.

Almost every greenie lives in an 8k house, usually has 2-3 houses, a boat, a dozen cars etc.

Back in the real world, lots of "greenies" live in small apartments in dense cities, don't own any vehicles, and use public transportation extensively.

Hanford was a nuclear weapons material site, no?

Basically, yes. But the point is that nuclear waste is not a "non-issue."

I am not just talking about government subsidies at the installation point, I am talking about the subsidies throughout the manufacturing process etc.

So is Lazard.

China is massively subsidized their solar industry and the material production is also unsustainable as the materials are becoming more problematic to acquire.

Manufacturing costs for solar are falling all around the world.

The other issue, especially as you scale, is that renewables require huge backup and storage....

Solar produces its energy during the day -- which is also peak usage time.

Storage is a challenge, but almost certainly an easier and cleaner one than figuring out how to build safer nuclear reactors.

The problem with the analysis like you linked is that it assumes the power is 100% used and used with 100% efficiency, which isn't the case.

sigh... No, it doesn't. Plus, nuclear has less flexibility in other ways. E.g. reducing output can be tricky; it always needs to be sited near water; building new plants is much, much more difficult than slapping some panels on a commercial roof.

Right now it is super easy for a renewable to exist because it has all the fossil/nuclear backup when it produces such a small percentage of overall power. Take that power contribution to 50% and look at the problems that arise.

You sure about that?

Iowa gets 60% of its power from wind. They're doing just fine.

Despite massive oil and gas reserves, Denmark gets almost 60% of its power from wind. Doin' fine.

Almost all of Iceland's generation is from geothermal and hydro. They use almost no fossil fuels. Again, doin' fine.

I know that the right wing loves to blame Texas' recent power problems on sustainable energy, but that's just a lie. The main issue was that natural gas pipelines and facilities were knocked offline by the cold, while demand rose. To make matters worse, Texas' power grid is mostly isolated, meaning they couldn't get power from nearby states.

Have you seen the issues with windmill and solar NIMBY? It's a huge problem already.

lol... Yes, I'm sure most people would prefer a nuclear reactor next to their homes than a wind farm.

 

[Razoo]

All of these are about nuclear weapons, not nuclear power. There is a difference.

Nuke power provides the ingredient for nuke weapons .......

Spending $2 trillion on new nuclear weapons is a risk to more ...​

https://www.businessinsider.com › nuclear-modernizati...
Jul 7, 2021 — The world is witnessing a new, dangerous nuclear arms race. ... another $9 billion through the late 2020s according to the Congressional ...

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Yeah, talking to some people about nuclear power is like talking to Trump Cultists about Covid vaccination.

lol

It's unfortunate so many people think their uneducated opinion is researched fact.

I don't even claim a handle on all the facts, other than a nuclear physicist for a father.
He was in favor of thorium for power, and felt that there should have been TWO nuclear industries, one for the military and one for people.
Up until the time he died in 1986 he was hoping to see that happen..."maybe".

 

[roguenuke]

I’m not so hot on nuclear power generation these days since transmission costs (not generation) are the predominent cost driver going forward. I don’t see a way to tackle that other than decentralized generation, and nuclear is by definition the poster child for centralized grid generation. Solar, wind and natural gas, in contrast, scale up and down with some ease.

As a technology I have no issues with it and believe that safety concerns can be solved. Rather, nuclear’s big Achilles heel (to me) is its inability to scale down.

Backbone systems should be large in their nature, not exactly meant to scale down.

The main costs problems with nuclear seem to be startup costs, as it takes a lot of money to setup as there is a lot of protection that is needed.

Nuclear Power Economic Costs

But these can provide at least some level of scalability when it comes to nuclear power that could also help with costs, particularly when it comes to refuel and use.

Advanced Small Modular Reactors (SMRs)

Information on advanced small modular reactors and the Department of Energy's Small Modular Reactor Licensing Technical Support (SMR-LTS) Program.

www.energy.gov

 

[roguenuke]

Nuke power provides the ingredient for nuke weapons .......

Spending $2 trillion on new nuclear weapons is a risk to more ...​

https://www.businessinsider.com › nuclear-modernizati...
Jul 7, 2021 — The world is witnessing a new, dangerous nuclear arms race. ... another $9 billion through the late 2020s according to the Congressional ...

That requires intent to do so. There is no reason to do this though since we, Americans, do not need more nuclear weapons. We need a reliable, safe, and clean electrical grid. Nuclear power can provide that.

 

[Razoo]

Nuke power provides the ingredient for nuke weapons .......

Spending $2 trillion on new nuclear weapons is a risk to more ...​

https://www.businessinsider.com › nuclear-modernizati...
Jul 7, 2021 — The world is witnessing a new, dangerous nuclear arms race. ... another $9 billion through the late 2020s according to the Congressional ...

Is nuclear energy cheaper than solar?

When it comes to the cost of energy from new power plants, onshore wind and solar are now the cheapest sources—costing less than gas, geothermal, coal, or nuclear. ... The cost of building coal plants stayed relatively stable over the decade.Jan 28, 2021

 

[phoenix2020]

Backbone systems should be large in their nature, not exactly meant to scale down.

The main costs problems with nuclear seem to be startup costs, as it takes a lot of money to setup as there is a lot of protection that is needed.

Nuclear Power Economic Costs

But these can provide at least some level of scalability when it comes to nuclear power that could also help with costs, particularly when it comes to refuel and use.

Advanced Small Modular Reactors (SMRs)

Information on advanced small modular reactors and the Department of Energy's Small Modular Reactor Licensing Technical Support (SMR-LTS) Program.

www.energy.gov

Again, generation cost isn’t the issue. Who cares - generation is dirt cheap these days. 70% of the bill is in transmission. As more and more rooftop solar and local storage pops up on the grid, that transmission infrastructure is going to become increasingly unsustainable. Nuclear is at best a last-gasp effort to rationalize continental-scale transmission before most grid utilities declare bankrupcy.

We are headed for toward a fundamentally different kind of power grid that has less room for the large gigawatt-class plants of yesteryear. That isn’t to say that we won’t see some nuclear plants pop up here and there, or that there aren’t places where they’ll make sense for a period, so I won’t advocate against building them. However, I think the current wave of nuclear plants are likely to be the final wave at which point decentralized generation and transactional energy will take over.

 

[Razoo]

Uranium Investors Have Become Overly Reactive - WSJ​

https://www.wsj.com › Markets › Heard on the Street
Jun 15, 2021 — A group of uranium mining companies saw their stock prices plunge after a performance issue was flagged at a Chinese nuclear power plant.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Sorry, I want no nuclear waste, period.

Yeah we get it, and I remember all those "ATOMKRAFT NEIN DANKE!" stickers on the back of VW bugs everywhere.

This isn't your grandfather's nuclear power.
Give a look to what's been happening in the field lately, you may surprise yourself.

 

[roguenuke]

Again, generation cost isn’t the issue. Who cares - generation is dirt cheap these days. 70% of the bill is in transmission. As more and more rooftop solar and local storage pops up on the grid, that transmission infrastructure is going to become increasingly unsustainable. Nuclear is at best a last-gasp effort to rationalize continental-scale transmission before most grid utilities declare bankrupcy.

We are headed for toward a fundamentally different kind of power grid that has less room for the large gigawatt-class plants of yesteryear. That isn’t to say that we won’t see some nuclear plants pop up here and there, or that there are places where they’ll make sense for a period, so I won’t advocate against building them. However, I think the current wave of nuclear plants are likely to be the final wave at which point decentralized generation and transactional energy will take over.

Individual power system setups have huge gaps in the system. It simply isn't sustainable because reliable, stable backup is needed for low times. Until we find a way to store power and meet gaps in the systems where solar or other such things are used, there will be a need for a backbone system, and nuclear is the best option for that system. We are not looking at there being a reliable storage system available for quite some time, at least decades from now.

 

[Deuce]

The postings in this thread do ring of a fanaticism that is unhealthy.

Peace

Claim that all you want, it's still disrespectful.

 

[phoenix2020]

Individual power system setups have huge gaps in the system. It simply isn't sustainable because reliable, stable backup is needed for low times. Until we find a way to store power and meet gaps in the systems where solar or other such things are used, there will be a need for a backbone system, and nuclear is the best option for that system. We are not looking at there being a reliable storage system available for quite some time, at least decades from now.

I agree, however to keep transmission costs down those backbone systems can’t be located 600 miles away. Therefore, natural gas peakers will be that backbone until renewables and storage are where they need to be.

Gigawatt-class generation plants will go extinct in this century, and that extinction will be driven by transmission infrastructure cost. Generation that cannot scale down will be uncompetitive.

 

[phoenix2020]

As an aside, I’d love to have three or four of NASA’s RTGs encased in concrete in my basement. It would be great to have a ~kilowatt of continuous power for a few decades…

 

[Ikari]

I agree, however to keep transmission costs down those backbone systems can’t be located 600 miles away. Therefore, natural gas peakers will be that backbone until renewables and storage are where they need to be.

Gigawatt-class generation plants will go extinct in this century, and that extinction will be driven by transmission infrastructure cost. Generation that cannot scale down will be uncompetitive.

It may go that way, and nuclear reactors can scale down. There's already research into mini/micro nuclear generators.

 

[bave]

No, it isn't. Westerners are very wasteful with energy, because it's cheap. When it gets expensive -- as we saw in California during the fake crisis engineered by Enron, or when gasoline prices rise -- usage drops.

You are talking about a wholesale change of lifestyle. Good luck with that. Americans aren't moving into high density urban areas waiting for electric buses to save the planet. Just not in the cards.

Back in the real world, lots of "greenies" live in small apartments in dense cities, don't own any vehicles, and use public transportation extensively.

Those are the poor ones, with no choice. The ones with choices, take private jets to Cabo and helicopters to the Hamptons. Look at all the celebrities promoting environmental causes from 300' yachts.

So is Lazard.

Lazard is ignoring two key, and expensive points. First, renewables of any real scale would need a massive and expensive storage solution. That needs to be brought into the equation. Second, regardless of storage you need some degree of backup generation capacity for peak demand outstripping capacity, that has to be paid for even when not being used.

Manufacturing costs for solar are falling all around the world.

~75% of production is in China with almost 90% being Chinese controlled. The Chinese government is massively subsidizing the industry, I am not talking about tax credits on the US side, but actual manufacturing costs being artificially depressed.

Solar produces its energy during the day -- which is also peak usage time.

Until the clouds come, or winter comes, or it is upstate NY.

Storage is a challenge, but almost certainly an easier and cleaner one than figuring out how to build safer nuclear reactors.

I would argue we already figured it out first. Second I would argue if you are truly trying to decarbon the economy, you need the concentration nuclear brings as well as the base load capacity.

sigh... No, it doesn't. Plus, nuclear has less flexibility in other ways. E.g. reducing output can be tricky; it always needs to be sited near water; building new plants is much, much more difficult than slapping some panels on a commercial roof.

And look at the economics of your solar panels of roofs, terrible. The only time PV becomes competitive is at utility levels. That means 1000 acre sites in the desert.

You sure about that?

Despite massive oil and gas reserves, Denmark gets almost 60% of its power from wind. Doin' fine.

Two places with ideal wind and low populations. Wind can work in isolated areas (ie: Texas corridor) but what do you do with the ~80mm people in the northeast?

Almost all of Iceland's generation is from geothermal and hydro. They use almost no fossil fuels. Again, doin' fine.

All twelve people on top of a volcano....

 

[phoenix2020]

It may go that way, and nuclear reactors can scale down. There's already research into mini/micro nuclear generators.

It’s a fascinating concept and would be a heck of a bridge to the future.

 

[Ikari]

It’s a fascinating concept and would be a heck of a bridge to the future.

There's also these little guys which seem to be rather close to consumer products.

How a Nuclear Diamond Battery Could Power Your Smartwatch for 28,000 Years

The concept is still in its infancy, but it could revolutionize the way we think about power. That is, if it’s not a hoax.

www.popularmechanics.com

 

[Craig234]

I’m not so hot on nuclear power generation these days since transmission costs (not generation) are the predominent cost driver going forward. I don’t see a way to tackle that other than decentralized generation, and nuclear is by definition the poster child for centralized grid generation. Solar, wind and natural gas, in contrast, scale up and down with some ease.

As a technology I have no issues with it and believe that safety concerns can be solved. Rather, nuclear’s big Achilles heel (to me) is its inability to scale down.

That's an issue that should be looked at. As I said, renewable is the first choice, if it can meet the need.

But if not, if nuclear is the next best option even with transmission, then transmission doesn't mean not to do it.

 

[Deuce]

Radioactive waste is hot for thousands of years. What other waste material can match that?

And taxpayers will be the insurance policy for nuke reactors......... not by choice.

Heavy metal toxins are toxic forever.

 

[Craig234]

It may go that way, and nuclear reactors can scale down. There's already research into mini/micro nuclear generators.

A nuclear powered airplane was made in the early 50's...

 

[venice_ca]

I would strongly object to new nuclear power plants in California given that the state is criss-crossed with fault lines. Plus the disastrous 1994 Northridge quake was from a previously undiscovered fault.

 

[roguenuke]

I agree, however to keep transmission costs down those backbone systems can’t be located 600 miles away. Therefore, natural gas peakers will be that backbone until renewables and storage are where they need to be.

Gigawatt-class generation plants will go extinct in this century, and that extinction will be driven by transmission infrastructure cost. Generation that cannot scale down will be uncompetitive.

The main things keeping nuclear power where it is, at that scale are cost (SMRs are available but like all new technology, it will require investment) and NIMBY feelings, which require changing attitudes towards nuclear power, which is harder than the cost aspect itself.

That doesn't change that it still needs to be done.

 

[iguanaman]

One of the few issues I think Democrats have made mistakes on is pretty broad opposition for a long time to nuclear energy. Planning to make this post I checked and found that in 2020, Democrats endorsed nuclear energy in the platform for the first time since 1972.

Humanity is currently heading to a destroyed planet. That's one option.

What are the options?

- Slash the human population - not planned.

- Slash the energy used, return to a low-energy use society. Essentially impossible to happen.

- Meet the energy needs just by increasing 'nice' renewable energy, water, solar, water, apparently not possible.

- Invent amazing new technology that mitigates the harm from harmful energy sources. There are some efforts here, but no reason to think it will be a solution.

No, there seem compelling reasons to consider more nuclear power, including the new Thorium reactors, and no compelling reasons not to. Unless they find a reason otherwise, I think progressives should lead the way on it.

Unless you want your electric bill tripled I would be careful what you wish for. Nuclear generated electricity is the most expensive by a mile. Do I need to say anything more?

The levelized cost of energy (LCOE) from nuclear power rose from around $117/MWh in 2015 to $155 at the end of last year, according to the latest edition of the World Nuclear Industry Status Report, published annually by French nuclear consultant Mycle Schneider.

By contrast, the LCOE from solar power decreased from $65/MWh to approximately $49 and that of wind from $55 to $41.

“What is remarkable about these trends, is that the costs of renewables continue to fall due to incremental manufacturing and installation improvements while nuclear, despite over half a century of industrial experience, continues to see costs rising,” stated the report, citing a recent study from financial advisory and asset management firm Lazard. “Nuclear power is now the most expensive form of generation, except for gas peaking plants,” added the study, which did not provide an LCOE for gas peaker generation.

https://www.pv-magazine.com/2020/09/24/nuclear-power-is-now-the-most-expensive-form-of-generation-except-for-gas-peaking-plants/#:~:text=pv%20magazine%20International-,'Nuclear%20power%20is%20now%20the%20most%20expensive%20form%20of%20generation,to%2098%20GW%20of%20solar.