European Energy Independence

[AmazonQueen]

this is true for other energy solutions as well, however. is nuclear actually worse than alternatives, if you can manage to iron out the stigma against it?

realistically, it should have been our near term solution for some time now IMO, likely better than burning more coal/oil

I'm not sure you can iron out the stigma. Everybody remembers Fukushima and Chernobyl, much more than Ixtoc I or Deepwater Horizon even though those oil spills caused a lot of environmental damage

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I'm not sure you can iron out the stigma. Everybody remembers Fukushima and Chernobyl, much more than Ixtoc I or Deepwater Horizon even though those oil spills caused a lot of environmental damage

more commonly accepted energy also has a higher casualty-to-energy ratio, even factoring nuclear's worst disasters

the occasional occurrence like fukushima has nothing on the sustained deaths related to coal for example

Which tech? Single pass gives us about 5 years of uranium, breeder reactors gives everyone nukes.

quite a few nations are already sitting on more nukes than would be required to crush the world in widespread famine (for those that survive their use), so for these nations at least breeder reactors leading to the potential for more nukes doesn't move the needle much

and among nations that aren't already sitting on stupid quantities of nukes like china, they're getting more anyway

i don't think this is a practical rejection, especially because countries with nukes are pretty hypocritical when it comes to denying them to others. i wonder what the ukraine situation looks like now if they still had theirs? good chance russia doesn't attack them in such a scenario

 

[João III]

With regards nuclear power, if you really think it is a practical answer there are some serious questions one needs to answer. The general economics look awful, I wrote this post about where the money is coming from in the UK, it really does not look like anyone is investing because they think it is a good bet despite being guaranteed prices of nearly 3 times the going rate. Summary in graph below.

If the cost of preventing, or slowing, a global crisis is of greater concern than the crisis itself, then it must not be much of a crisis

Another thing is the availability of the uranium. I am sure Ferocitus posted a good document about all the things we would need that we have not got, but the uranium is only enough for about 5 years of global energy use?

So unless we can provide everyone, everywhere with nuclear power in perpetuity, then it's not worth pursuing? At the very least until renewable energy or fusion become more viable? And what of the global supply of cobalt, which is critical for rechargeable batteries? Fossil fuels are on the way out and renewables simply aren't ready to replace them. We don't need to permanently transition to nuclear fission, but it can help until renewables are viable long-term

 

[Samson]

If the cost of preventing, or slowing, a global crisis is of greater concern than the crisis itself, then it must not be much of a crisis

So unless we can provide everyone, everywhere with nuclear power in perpetuity, then it's not worth pursuing? At the very least until renewable energy or fusion become more viable? And what of the global supply of cobalt, which is critical for rechargeable batteries? Fossil fuels are on the way out and renewables simply aren't ready to replace them. We don't need to permanently transition to nuclear fission, but it can help until renewables are viable long-term

If it was really a good stopgap then this would be a good argument. It is more expensive than renewable, requires more scarce resources, takes longer to build, and uses up non-renewable fuel. If the case can be made that it is better to build a nuclear plant than a renewable installation then then great, but I have not seen that case.

 

[João III]

If it was really a good stopgap then this would be a good argument. It is more expensive than renewable, requires more scarce resources, takes longer to build, and uses up non-renewable fuel. If the case can be made that it is better to build a nuclear plant than a renewable installation then then great, but I have not seen that case.

At present, nuclear is significantly more reliable:

"In the United States in 2016, nuclear power plants, which generated almost 20 percent of U.S. electricity, had an average capacity factor of 92.3 percent, meaning they operated at full power on 336 out of 365 days per year. (The other 29 days they were taken off the grid for maintenance.) In contrast, U.S. hydroelectric systems delivered power 38.2 percent of the time (138 days per year), wind turbines 34.5 percent of the time (127 days per year) and solar electricity arrays only 25.1 percent of the time (92 days per year)."

Source

 

[TheMeInTeam]

If the case can be made that it is better to build a nuclear plant than a renewable installation then then great, but I have not seen that case.

a non-trivial part of this is undue (as in, beyond what is required for safety comparable to other energy) regulation and negative public attention have been significant barriers to developing nuclear energy and making it more efficient.

the world still consumes a ton of non-renewables in its mix of energy sources, and that will continue to be the case. i find it hard to believe that nuclear still couldn't outcompete coal/oil, if its restrictions and public perception were different

 

[Samson]

a non-trivial part of this is undue (as in, beyond what is required for safety comparable to other energy) regulation and negative public attention have been significant barriers to developing nuclear energy and making it more efficient.

Nuclear energy has had more taxpayer subsidy than renewable for generations, and is still not economically competitive. I do not see there is any way you can blame regulation and public attention for its failings.

 

[João III]

i find it hard to believe that nuclear still couldn't outcompete coal/oil, if its restrictions and public perception were different

I wouldn't be surprised if once fossil fuels become financially unprofitable (or sufficiently less profitable), then suddenly restrictions on nuclear would start to lessen

 

[Lexicus]

At present, nuclear is significantly more reliable:

"In the United States in 2016, nuclear power plants, which generated almost 20 percent of U.S. electricity, had an average capacity factor of 92.3 percent, meaning they operated at full power on 336 out of 365 days per year. (The other 29 days they were taken off the grid for maintenance.) In contrast, U.S. hydroelectric systems delivered power 38.2 percent of the time (138 days per year), wind turbines 34.5 percent of the time (127 days per year) and solar electricity arrays only 25.1 percent of the time (92 days per year)."

Source

The problem with nuclear is that for a given amount of money you can get a lot more energy out of renewables, because nuclear plants take a long time to build during which time the renewable source is giving you energy. That creates a big lead for the renewable source that nuclear can then never catch up with.

I agree that closing existing nuclear plants before it's necessary to do so is madness but building more nuclear plants isn't going to get us out of fossil fuels anytime soon.

 

[Narz]

Beats me how they're so dependent on gas for heating.

Use a heat pump or buy some warm clothes.

Who needs internet access just goto the library

 

[Hygro]

I'm jumping in here to say I am pro nuclear.

For only the reason I am pro nuclear science and we need to give those guys something to work on.

 

[Hygro]

Who needs internet access just goto the library

Narz I'm not trying to live, I'm trying to live well.

2 girls at the same time, man!

 

[Lexicus]

Narz I'm not trying to live, I'm trying to live well.

2 girls at the same time, man!

"I ain't tryna survive, I'm tryna live it to the limit and love it alive"

-Jay-Z

 

[AmtrakQuebec]

If the cost of preventing, or slowing, a global crisis is of greater concern than the crisis itself, then it must not be much of a crisis

So unless we can provide everyone, everywhere with nuclear power in perpetuity, then it's not worth pursuing? At the very least until renewable energy or fusion become more viable? And what of the global supply of cobalt, which is critical for rechargeable batteries? Fossil fuels are on the way out and renewables simply aren't ready to replace them. We don't need to permanently transition to nuclear fission, but it can help until renewables are viable long-term

Nuclear fusion is closer than we think...

Fusion Power is Coming (quillette.com)

 

[João III]

The problem with nuclear is that for a given amount of money you can get a lot more energy out of renewables, because nuclear plants take a long time to build during which time the renewable source is giving you energy. That creates a big lead for the renewable source that nuclear can then never catch up with.

And how much land and materials are required to match a nuclear power plant on a comparable budget? Not doubting your point, just curious.

I'd also say that the lagging behind of nuclear is another result of anti-nuclear fear mongering. If nuclear hadn't been demonized for decades, we could've already built plants that could've been functioning today

 

[Samson]

I'd also say that the lagging behind of nuclear is another result of anti-nuclear fear mongering. If nuclear hadn't been demonized for decades, we could've already built plants that could've been functioning today

However much demonisation nuclear has had, it has had many times the support of renewables. If in the nineties when we figured out global warming was a problem we had heavily invested in thermal solar over the sahara we would be a lot better off than if we had a load of nineties nuclear plants.

The nuclear industry had decades where it was lionised , and has had decades more of heavy funding. The solar power industry has had a bit over a decade, and we can see what they have done with the cost, the graph from the last page repeated in the spoiler.

Spoiler Graph from last page :

 

[Lexicus]

I'd also say that the lagging behind of nuclear is another result of anti-nuclear fear mongering. If nuclear hadn't been demonized for decades, we could've already built plants that could've been functioning today

The fact is that making a safe nuclear plant, training competent people to run it, costs a lot of money. It has little to do with demonization.

 

[Zardnaar]

The fact is that making a safe nuclear plant, training competent people to run it, costs a lot of money. It has little to do with demonization.

As I understand it nuclear power has been priced out.

 

[João III]

If in the nineties when we figured out global warming was a problem we had heavily invested in thermal solar over the sahara we would be a lot better off than if we had a load of nineties nuclear plants.

I agree that we'd be better off if we invested in renewables earlier but renewables still haven't reached a point where we can rely on them as consistently in the same capacity as nuclear

Otherwise, with regard to nuclear, the only thing I've been convinced of so far is that climate change isn't the crisis I've been led to believe it is if we're too worried about the cost of the most efficient energy source we have available. Perhaps the true crisis isn't the damage to the climate and its effects, but the cost of preventing it?

As I understand it nuclear power has been priced out.

As long as fossil fuel barons stand to make a profit, I imagine they'll lobby to keep it that way

 

[AmazonQueen]

I agree that we'd be better off if we invested in renewables earlier but renewables still haven't reached a point where we can rely on them as consistently in the same capacity as nuclear

Otherwise, with regard to nuclear, the only thing I've been convinced of so far is that climate change isn't the crisis I've been led to believe it is if we're too worried about the cost of the most efficient energy source we have available. Perhaps the true crisis isn't the damage to the climate and its effects, but the cost of preventing it?

As long as fossil fuel barons stand to make a profit, I imagine they'll lobby to keep it that way

Not cost efficient compared to renewables which are getting cheaper all the time,
Not as easy to scale up because nuclear power plants aren't cheap and quick to build.
Still haven't solved the problems of long term waste storage in most countries.
The most use I can imagine for nuclear is for backup when weather means wind etc isn't producing enough energy, but that still requires convincing people its safe.
Do you want a nuclear power plant or waste repository in your area?