this post was submitted on 05 Mar 2024
17 points (63.5% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
5105 readers
508 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The experts are right; there are real and serious risks with nuclear energy. However, there's one huge benefit: you can increase power generation on-demand. If it's calm and overcast, you make not be able to generate significant power from wind or solar, and nuclear can fill that gap. On days where you can generate a lot of power from solar or wind, you can decrease the amount of power that a nuke plant is generating.
I think that we're going to need more nuclear, even as we build more and more renewables.
Personally, I'm expecting solar and wind energy to become so cheap to produce, i.e. multiple times cheaper than nuclear, that storage can be paid from that difference.
Here's a fun graph illustrating the current trends:
Source: https://ourworldindata.org/cheap-renewables-growth
I hope that's true, but so far, there aren't great solutions for large-scale electricity storage. For individual users, you can get large lithium-ion batteries that can store enough power for 2-3 days for a typical American home, but last time I checked those were in the $5000+ range, exclusive of the costs of wiring your home so that you have an immediate back-up in case of power failure.
And, just so I'm clear, I'm 100% in favor of renewables like hydro, solar, wind, and even waves.
The only reason nuclear is not outpacing solar and wind right now is because nuclear phobia about accidents that happened before half their critics were even born and those flaws fixed a long time ago. If Nuclear benefitted from the same RnD and public support as other green energy sources we probably would have functional thorium reactors so cheap to run rural comminities could run co-ops operating minature versions to power towns under 1000 homes.
Despite nuclear being shunned and forced out using technology thats stagnated since the 80s its still competitive. With renewed funding and grants to develop further generations of reactors they could easily be the cheapest and safest per kwh bar none.
Competing for land space will surely not be a problem...
What are you talking about? Yes, you absolutely can. The control rods speed up or slow down the reaction, which in turn changes how much heat it's pumping out, which controls how much electricity is being generated. Nuclear output isn't a single constant, always giving exactly the same number of megawatts of power.
But the amount of cycles is not limitless, thermal and pressurefluctuations lead to material weakness over time. And a steeper gradient leads to faster deterioration
A response time of several minutes for grid balancing is on par with large scale hydropower, and often quicker than combined cycle plants. The whole reason why we put all our major power plants together into an electrical grid is to cause any change in demand or supply to take a lot of time to have an impact.
Nuclear can generate in the evening during peak demand and at night without needing enough batteries to last supply the entire grid for 12 to 18 hours and unlike wind isn’t heavily location dependent.
Flywheel storage is not a serious solution for anything but adding inertia to the grid, where it is sometimes brought up as an expensive solution to the fact that unlike hydro, geothermal, coal, oil, combined cycle, and yes nuclear, solar and wind have no intera because unlike all the previously mentioned modes of generation they have no flywheel built in.
If energy stoage is a problem for nuclear, than it is literally at least a hundred times larger one for solar. You might need to store a tiny inbalance for nuclear, you need to store the entire grid capacity for the entire night with solar. It also ignores that you can run an entire power grid on nuclear and hydro, we know because entire nations have been actually doing it since the seventies.
Wind absolutely cannot be built anywhere at grid scale. There are relatively few areas where it is consistent enough to generate a worthwhile output. Solar will output with indirect lighting or when cloudy, but only at a third to a quarter of its direct sunlight output, and it does require both massive tracks of land and along with wind has massive trouble with nimbys blocking new development and the necessary scale up in tranmision lines.
This is not to say that solar and wind are unworkable obviously, just that they are nither easy nor without major downsides. This is why a well designed grid has a diverse set of sources and doesn’t just rely on uncontrollable sources like solar and wind. Nuclear does a very good job of providing consistent green energy on calm nights and can be built just about anywhere without requiring the large open land of solar or the strong constant breeze of wind.
Waste really isn’t a serious concern. The vast majority is low level stuff like used clean suits and gloves that are only a problem for decades, and you can glassify or recycle the high level stuff. We just often don’t bother because compared to the massive open pits of toxic chemical waste that will be just as deadly in a trillion years as it is today, and which are created by producing everything from your phone and laptop to solar panels, there just really isn’t enough of it to cause the problems thouse other types of toxic waste do.
The flywheel design you linked was exactly what I was talking about. A system designed purely to add inertia to the grid, not ment for energy storage.
France was the nation alluded to that has run largely on nuclear for nearly half a century now.
I know what the newest generation of wind trubines are capable of, indeed I am going to local government meetings to try and keep Nimbys from blocking such a large scale development in my area. Thouse very consistent winds newer turbines are reliant on are only present in certain areas, which is why large projects have to be sited in thouse specific areas. You can’t just put a row of turbines wherever demand is and expect it to work.
Most toxic chemical waste by volume are things like heavy metals and such that will never, ever, break down. They are far more deadly to humans and animals than high level radioactive waste, which after a few centuries is more dangerous because of its toxicity than because of its radioactivity. Because of the danger and difficulty in safely storing such waste forever, production has also been largely outsourced to nations in Southeast Asia and Africa where environmental enforcement is corrupt and ineffectual if foreign lobbying can’t keep it from being written at all.
The waste produced is often stored in open unlined ponds which may at best and if the company went above and beyond have a clay or plastic liner to limit ingress into the local water table. This method has actually killed people, indeed it kills a lot of people every year, and will continue to pose a health hazard to the drinking water even if these nations take on the often billions of dollars per site in restoration and cleanup, which mostly involves moving this waste to a better designed enclosed pit like are used in richer nations because again, this waste will never be safe and can kill people in a million years just as easily as it does today.
Radioactive waste is well known among the public, but its far from the most dangerous kind of waste we make.
I hate the argument that nuclear is unsafe. Sure its unsafe, but how is killing the ocean with record temperatures caused by coal and other fossil fuels any safer?
Greenhouse gases are polluting the air we breathe. Seems pretty unsafe to me to be emitting literal metric tons into the atmosphere for all of us to choke on.
Because fuck logic.
While that's true, the counter arguments are Fukushima, Three Mile Island, and Chernobyl.
The risk with nuclear is that we trade one problem--climate change caused by CO2 emissions--for another significant problem down the road.
At the same time, climate change is here now, and we need to act or else there isn't going to be anything we need to worry about in a century.
Opportunities are higher for wind and solar than for nuclear IPCC AR6 page 28 https://report.ipcc.ch/ar6syr/pdf/IPCC_AR6_SYR_SPM.pdf