Nuclear power

[chickensevil]

Right, which would be thermoelectric that would be what you are looking for. Which is what I mentioned above. Apparently the breakthrough in that field is happening right now with "nano" (yes I realize it is the current generation science buzz word and I hate it just as much as the term "cyber" for anything internet related) and some silicon based products. The concept of thermoelectric is not unlike solar power in that you have a p charged side with holes and an n charged side with electrons and the heat difference between the two plates causes electrons to move from one side to the other. That is why I was saying that the theoretical maximum (which is totally not obtainable in practice... Just the same as 50% isn't attainable from PV...) Is 80% and from what I can tell you only need a Z value of 3 before it becomes a competitive source compared to current power generation (because at that point it breaks that 20-30% efficiency barrier. This technology doesn't just help nuclear. It helps any and all forms of power generation from thermal which is pretty much all of our power sources in play today except for solar, wind and hydro. It also allows us to tap into waste heat (heat that was not useful anymore because it isn't hot enough but still not cooled down fully).

Anyway, creating our own fusion combined with thermoelectric I think will be the real future of power generation. But both things seem to still be many many years away from practical usage

 

[nwdiver]

Anyway, creating our own fusion combined with thermoelectric I think will be the real future of power generation. But both things seem to still be many many years away from practical usage

Agreed... at some point in the future a miracle might happen... until then... BUILD BABY BUILD!! :wink: Let's get RACK'IN America! At present rates of growth we should be able to produce >100% of our energy needs from solar PV in <20 years.

In <15 years Musk industries should be cranking out >150GWh/yr of batteries from 3 factories

Let's get economic incentives in place to use power when it's available... force coal and nat gas to go dark due to lack of demand.

If we get a fusion energy miracle... GREAT... but we shouldn't need it.

 

[William13]

My point about time of use cost is only negated by a hypothetical 0.02$ /kWh battery/storage cost at the margin. This is a marginal cost also. If we need to have 72 hours of storage with only 24 hours typically used to make that cost estimate we have more assets sitting unused ( the extra battery cost). The cost of solar/wind electricity needs to include the cost of smart meters, batteries for 72 hours, cross country DC high voltage infrastructure, and local grid maintenance.

I simply deny your cost estimate for storage. This is no better than my confidence in the future of Molton Salt Thorium Reactors. The time of use cost of electricity is simply not currently factored correctly and continues to skew both of our arguments.

I would like to know what storage actually costs currently. Please don't use stored hydroelectric numbers as they don't scale.

 

[nwdiver]

So... here's my logic for $0.02/kWh storage... Tesla SHOULD be able to drive the cost of batteries to ~$100/kWh by ~2020...

Lithium Ion Batteries are likely more limited by calendar life than cycle life. 1 cycle/day with a calendar life of ~10 years is a VERY conservative estimate. That yields ~$0.027/kWh... My $0.02/kWh was assuming a more realistic battery calendar life closer to ~20 years.

In terms of Solar vs Nuclear... Nuclear becomes cost prohibitive LONG before renewables carry the grid. There are no 72 hour periods April - October that you would need significant levels of storage. We have a NATIONAL grid; If you're looking for a power source to provide 'back-up' power during the winter nuclear power is the worst choice.

Phase 1 (Today - ~2020)
Where we are now is REALLY easy... you just slap some panels on your roof, no need to worry about storage or "self-consumption". To the grid your PV array just looks like reduced load.
Solar is cheaper per kWh than nuclear... even today.

Phase 2 (~2020 - ~2035)
Hawaii and Germany are either here now or getting close... When peak power is 80%+ of demand you're still <20% of total generation. Most grid-tie inverters CANNOT regulate voltage and frequency. They are on or off; they are inverting 100% of what's available from the panels or they produce nothing. This would need to change to expand past ~20%. Germany has "smart" inverters that can be active participants in grid stability. When frequency gets too high they can curtail power or preferably divert power into a battery bank. Demand Response and small amounts of storage become critical. SMA has already developed solutions. They are starting to bundle inverters with a 4kWh battery pack and they've got what's called the "Sunny home manager" http://www.sma.de/en/home-systems/so...tem-smart.html I wrote an anti-net-metering blog and this is why... we've got to dump "net-metering" LONG before "phase 2" Investments in "smart home" technology are worthless with "net-metering" in place. Solar "would" start to lose it's cost advantage with nuclear... but as the capacity factor of nuclear falls the capital costs increase on a per kWh basis.

Phase 3 (~2035 - ~2050)
IMO going from 80% => 100% wind/solar is probably going to be harder than 0% => 80%. My prediction is that we'll likely have sufficient solar PV installed to completely displace fossil fuels but be unable to due to a lack of storage and the disparity between summer/winter insolation... but... unlike nuclear, so long as it's cheaper to install solar than import power from the grid we will continue to build out solar PV FAR beyond what is 'needed'. The path to >80% solar/wind is probably the day when we've got so much excess energy during the summer months that there's nothing better to do with that extra energy than split water. The hydrogen can then be stored for later use.

Keep in mind that the cost of equipment will likely continue to fall... even though "smart" inverters will be more sophisticated than the grid-tie inverters we're using today I would expect the cost to be the same or lower. Similarly even though we'll need an overabundance of solar in "phase 3" with module prices expected to fall <$0.30/w in 2020 that won't be a problem.

While my premise has always been that solar is cheaper than nuclear the fact I'm 100% certain of is that there IS an economically viable path to 100% solar/wind while there IS NO path to any reasonable expansion of nuclear... let alone >50%. 100% nuclear could in fact be cheaper than 100% solar but with the cost point of solar where it is there's no way for nuclear to expand. The window for nuclear expansion was in the 70s, 80s and 90s... cheap solar has slammed that door HARD.

 

[3mp_kwh]

So... here's my logic for $0.02/kWh storage... Tesla SHOULD be able to drive the cost of batteries to ~$100/kWh by ~2020...

Lithium Ion Batteries are likely more limited by calendar life than cycle life. 1 cycle/day with a calendar life of ~10 years is a VERY conservative estimate. That yields ~$0.027/kWh... My $0.02/kWh was assuming a more realistic battery calendar life closer to ~20 years.

In terms of Solar vs Nuclear... Nuclear becomes cost prohibitive LONG before renewables carry the grid.

At what level of discharge are you cycling? I've seen two investment research papers (obviously not gospel). They each assumed 65%. When you pick however many kwh of discharge, for however many daily kwh of demand, you need to gross-up your required batteries. If you need 20kwh, @$100/kwh, than you're buying 30kwh of batteries.

Where storage selection gets to be a grey area, and the investment reports vary greatly on this aspect, is in whether you have access to a generator and if you can size your array to the typical demand. 1,000-2,000kwh per month consumers (detached house) typically need more roof space than would be ideal to minimize battery cost. IOW, if they are trying to get off-grid, their implied storage needs can creep well past 50kwh if they have off-season needs (winter), which need to be served by on-season storage.

nwdiver, What you repeat about nuclear does not make it true. Let me use a current example. Arizona's SRP is turning on its solar roof-top owners, citing a $.053/kwh, 21 year contract, from a solar farm (Sandstone). They want to cut their net-metering in half, but never mind that food fight. A $.053/kwh price for solar power is one of the commercially cheapest levels you, or I can find. It's great news. Make no mistake.

Against a 15 billion dollar nuke plant, that will run 2,200,000,000 watts continuously, 85% of the time throughout its 40 year life, lets look again at that solar cost. First, lets add back the investment tax credit discount, of 30%, that is built into its price (.053/.7). That means $.0757/kwh, as the current cost of a late 2014 executed, cheap desert land, lots of sun, solar contract. That is BEFORE transmission, and easily competitive with roof pricing. The nuclear per kwh cost, when those 2,200,000,000 watts are run 24/7, for 40 years, is $15 billion / 2.2GW(.85 refueling)(24)(365)(40) = 15 billion / 693TWH = $.021/kwh. Add another $.02 for per/kwh fuel costs, and you have nuclear at $.041/kwh. At these levels, versus the $.065 Prairie (coal, IL) needs to run to break even, or forbid Kemper's IGCC/carbon capture (coal) debacle, we should be aiming elsewhere. But you seem to have a special place for nuclear in your heart. It doesn't make sense, "LONG" before the theoretical possibility of "800 million parking spaces" having solar panels above them. I don't see the reality in that, and don't want to wait and see if it happens, or if 10,000 square miles of solar panels are going to "spring up". They're not, and this thread could use a little solar sanity.

The fact is nuclear is an extremely viable carbon-free resource. There are others who have had it in for it since the 70's and 80's. These people don't care to focus on worst offenders. The EPA accommodates natural gas, heavily. That is, of course in light of their treatment of nuclear in the "Clean" Power Plan. They are out of step with international talks, which aren't from industry, but are practical voices, dealing with a 25 annual gigaton CO2 problem. From Lima, to this year in Paris, nuclear remains among the planned global solutions. Our own policy makers should take note, from Inhofe to the NRDC.

Carbon dioxide isn't about your friends, or your pet energy source.

 

[nwdiver]

Against a 15 billion dollar nuke plant, that will run 2,200,000,000 watts continuously, 85% of the time throughout its 40 year life, lets look again at that solar cost.

This is the core difference between those that still believe nuclear has a future and those who have given it up for dead; If I thought it was possible for a new plant to have an average capacity factor of >70% even for the first 15 years of its life I would not be opposed to building new plants. There is no way that number won't be eroded as distributed generation, wind and storage take a larger and larger chunk of electric demand.

It doesn't make sense, "LONG" before the theoretical possibility of "800 million parking spaces" having solar panels above them. I don't see the reality in that, and don't want to wait and see if it happens, or if 10,000 square miles of solar panels are going to "spring up". They're not, and this thread could use a little solar sanity.

The reference to 800M parking spaces supporting ~1.6TW of solar was simply a visualization of how scalable solar is. I'm a little confused about what all this talk is about 'waiting'.... who's 'waiting'? Solar generation is already beginning to encroach on nuclear's coveted base-load... and it's only getting warmed up. Either we allow solar to keep doubling every two years or we build more nuclear power... we can not do both... pick.

Now ~200GW of installed solar...

 

[William13]

Re battery cost estimate. I think you are counting the time cost of money in the cost for nuclear but are disregarding it for batteries. Also as pointed out is that the whole rated storage cannot be used.

As I see it with about 8 hours of sun there would need to be 16 hours of storage in the desert. Where I live three days of storage. If solar panels cost $0.05 kW and batteries $0.05 kWh, then deserts would cost $0.15 kW and my home would cost (72 hours storage) would cost $0.50 kW. This of course does not include a drop in costs by sharing on a national grid. (We do not actually have a nationa grid.)

If all my electricity came from the desert without cloudy days and there was no cost for transmission and the cost for panels fell as you predict to $0.02 kW and batteries also fell to $0.02 kWh it would cost $0.06 per kW. I think that nuclear will still beat this with on going costs of $0.02 kW and no battery cost. The capital costs on old nuclear are sunk costs. I agree. Somewhat stranded costs.

The Chinese will build modular nuclear and show us the way. Just saying.

 

[Robert.Boston]

Why am I not surprised about this?

Southern Co. said the firms building its new nuclear power plant in Georgia estimate the project will be delayed 18 months, potentially costing the power company $720 million in new charges, company officials said Thursday.
...
By law, customers of Southern Co. subsidiary Georgia Power will pay for the firm's share of building costs unless regulators intervene.

Article here.

I have to believe that this project will be the last of the "big nukes" built in the U.S. Delays and cost increases drive up the price to levels that are easily matched by modern renewables; I expect that, by the time these units are finally commissioned, renewables+storage will have been a better buy.

 

[nwdiver]

I think you are counting the time cost of money in the cost for nuclear but are disregarding it for batteries. Also as pointed out is that the whole rated storage cannot be used.

The Chinese will build modular nuclear and show us the way. Just saying.

So....

- Storage (or demand response) is needed to get solar past ~20% of total generation; Solar + wind destroy nuclear economics via reduced CF long before storage is required... (~20% of total means it's >80% for significant periods during the day... displacing centralized generation)

- Nuclear can only be added on the utility side of the meter... Mr. Jones down the street is unlikely to be installing a modular reactor...

- Utilities control when, where and how much nuclear is built; they will not undercut viable existing plants with nuclear... this is not true of Distributed Generation.

- Distributed Solar will erode the base-load bedrock that nuclear depends on to stay profitable.

Modular reactors aren't a new idea. Nuscale has been working on them since ~2000... their target price is ~$5/w... ~100% more than would be competitive with the kind of CF future reactors are likely to see.

We can either allow the unfettered expansion of solar to continue or build more nuclear... what's your choice?

 

[3mp_kwh]

You didn't state your battery DOD, and storage per kwh of daily load, assumptions. I'll indulge, anyway.

This is the core difference between those that still believe nuclear has a future and those who have given it up for dead; If I thought it was possible for a new plant to have an average capacity factor of >70% even for the first 15 years of its life I would not be opposed to building new plants. There is no way that number won't be eroded as distributed generation, wind and storage take a larger and larger chunk of electric demand.

Back to the warp of Nuclear Vs. Solar&wind. Here we go again, when according to EPA 60% of U.S. electric will still be fossil, in 2030. That figure will be worse, globally. Would you prefer nuclear "erode", first? It really seems that way. Your 100GW solar graph doesn't control for a capacity factor, closer to 20%, than 70%. Every 100GW is really about 20GW, and there are no realistic assumptions that the labor to install panels is going to continue falling. Non-panel costs are already >50% of solar PV.

The reference to 800M parking spaces supporting ~1.6TW of solar was simply a visualization of how scalable solar is. I'm a little confused about what all this talk is about 'waiting'.... who's 'waiting'? Solar generation is already beginning to encroach on nuclear's coveted base-load... and it's only getting warmed up. Either we allow solar to keep doubling every two years or we build more nuclear power... we can not do both... pick.

You just made my point. Yes, we can. The enormity of what needs to be replaced makes plenty of room for both.

The day the NYC eventually retires the Indian Point's ~2,050MW is the day NYC should be able to point to a 36,900 acre solar field. That's a lot of "doubling". I don't doubt the success, and appropriateness of abandoning a plant that close to a major city, but I'm not about to guess that land costs anywhere in NYS will allow that many solar panels. So, they won't happen, neither will a nuclear relocation. The Marcellus Shale will be doing the backfill. Just watch. EPA rate-based carbon intensity does not go up when you take nuclear off line. With a lot of natural gas, and maybe some hydro replacing it, carbon dioxide emissions will actually go up, but the EPA will represent them as going down. It's all in the name, and rate-based methodology, of "Clean Power". You can aim for a narrow definition of "Clean Power", or address CO2...we can not do both... pick.

 

[nwdiver]

We appear to be talking past each other... I've never said nuclear isn't clean... it certainly is; I'm not opposed to nuclear power... I'm opposed so the inefficient allocation of limited capital. My point is simple; $1 spent on Solar/Wind will displace more CO2 over the next 20 years than $1 spent on nuclear. This difference is likely to be significant as ALL forms of centralized generation are curtailed as they are displaced by distributed generation.

according to EPA 60% of U.S. electric will still be fossil, in 2030.

These forward looking estimates have been WILDLY conservative; Largely since they wait until they have analyzed a full year... so projections released in 2015 use 2013 data. If you look at estimates for how much solar would be installed in 2014 from ~2005 most are off by at least ~10x.

Your 100GW solar graph doesn't control for a capacity factor, closer to 20%, than 70%. Every 100GW is really about 20GW, and there are no realistic assumptions that the labor to install panels is going to continue falling. Non-panel costs are already >50% of solar PV.

Solar is ~$2/w heading to <$1/w... it doesn't need a high CF to be cost competitive. Non-panel costs fall on a per watt basis with economies of scale AND the fact that panel efficiencies are improving. The labor required to install a 250w panel and a 300w panel are the same when they're the same size.

You just made my point. Yes, we can. The enormity of what needs to be replaced makes plenty of room for both.

HOW? Even if solar growth slows by 50% tomorrow (unlikely) We're <15 years away from solar/wind/storage being able to carry the grid for weeks at a time. Dispatch-able generation will only be used as a back-up. The capital cost of a $7/w generator running at ~70% becomes a $10/w generator... at a time that solar will be ~$1, even adjusting for the average CF of 16% that's $6.25/w. Then a 1GW nuc plant costs ~200M/yr wether it produces 1kWh or 8TWh. In ~20 years generators will be lucky to find a market for 50% of their output...

Solar is stepping up in a big way... >50% of new capacity last year was solar...

You can aim for a narrow definition of "Clean Power", or address CO2...we can not do both... pick.

Nuclear Power is 100% clean power... I pick 'address CO2'... in the most cost effective way possible... which means we either allow the unfettered expansion Solar PV OR we build more nuclear plants. Choose.

New Nuclear Power CANNOT survive in a market where distributed generation keeps stealing its lunch. Unless we curtail the expansion of Solar/Wind nuclear power will struggle to achieve ~70% CF in ~15 years and ~50% in ~20... This isn't like sharing capacity with coal and nat gas. ~27% Renewables means Renewables carry >70% of the grid for significant parts of the day. Thermal Generators are the least dynamic form of electric generation.

 

[chickensevil]

We appear to be talking past each other... I've never said nuclear isn't clean... it certainly is; I'm not opposed to nuclear power... I'm opposed so the inefficient allocation of limited capital. My point is simple; $1 spent on Solar/Wind will displace more CO2 over the next 20 years than $1 spent on nuclear. This difference is likely to be significant as ALL forms of centralized generation are curtailed as they are displaced by distributed generation.



These forward looking estimates have been WILDLY conservative; Largely since they wait until they have analyzed a full year... so projections released in 2015 use 2013 data. If you look at estimates for how much solar would be installed in 2014 from ~2005 most are off by at least ~10x.



Solar is ~$2/w heading to <$1/w... it doesn't need a high CF to be cost competitive. Non-panel costs fall on a per watt basis with economies of scale AND the fact that panel efficiencies are improving. The labor required to install a 250w panel and a 300w panel are the same when they're the same size.



HOW? Even if solar growth slows by 50% tomorrow (unlikely) We're <15 years away from solar/wind/storage being able to carry the grid for weeks at a time. Dispatch-able generation will only be used as a back-up. The capital cost of a $7/w generator running at ~70% becomes a $10/w generator... at a time that solar will be ~$1, even adjusting for the average CF of 16% that's $6.25/w. Then a 1GW nuc plant costs ~200M/yr wether it produces 1kWh or 8TWh. In ~20 years generators will be lucky to find a market for 50% of their output...

Solar is stepping up in a big way... >50% of new capacity last year was solar...

View attachment 71323



Nuclear Power is 100% clean power... I pick 'address CO2'... in the most cost effective way possible... which means we either allow the unfettered expansion Solar PV OR we build more nuclear plants. Choose.

New Nuclear Power CANNOT survive in a market where distributed generation keeps stealing its lunch. Unless we curtail the expansion of Solar/Wind nuclear power will struggle to achieve ~70% CF in ~15 years and ~50% in ~20... This isn't like sharing capacity with coal and nat gas. ~27% Renewables means Renewables carry >70% of the grid for significant parts of the day. Thermal Generators are the least dynamic form of electric generation.

Yes and renewables are the least reliable form of electric generation, which is actually the more important factor to a buyer of power. I got this great car for only 1k... What's so great about it? It is only 1k. However it has about a 50% chance that it won't actually turn on when you want to go somewhere and there is this strange issue where it will just randomly turn itself on when you aren't even around to make use of it. But don't worry! Its quite the bargain at only 1k!

 

[nwdiver]

Yes and renewables are the least reliable form of electric generation.

Absolutely correct... and also absolutely irrelevant unless you want to start limiting new solar installs... solar/wind doesn't need to be reliable to displace enough nuclear to destroy it's economic viability. A nuc plant running at 50% + Solar/Wind at 50% is just as reliable as nuclear at 100%... the cost per kWh for the nuc plant is just 2x higher at the reduced CF.

As I've stated numerous times that last ~20%... going from 80% => 100% renewables will likely be as difficult and costly as 0% => 80%. I even think that 100% nuclear might be cheaper than 100% solar/wind/storage. There's just no viable way to get there. That remaining 20% would be concentrated in a few weeks of the year... nuclear power don't work that way... ~$0.02/kWh for storage might be optimistic... even if you more that double that to ~$0.05/kWh that STILL beats retail rates. We currently don't have storage we WILL need because we currently..... don't need it. By the time storage IS required we should have ~2-3 gigafactories at full production with >100GWh of batteries/yr.

Solar and Storage will expand virally; Homeowners will bundle them into their mortgage. Nuclear Power CANNOT compete with a distributed generation source that only has to be less expensive than retail rates. Limit Solar installs or Stop Building New Nuclear. Economically Distributed generation and electric generation that costs >$2/w to build simply CANNOT co-exist. The numbers simply do... not... work.

As I posted on the previous page you really need to divide the renewables debate into 3 separate discussions... reliability isn't a factor at all until the second half of ACT 2... we're not even half-way though ACT 1... Guess what dies at the end of ACT 1 :crying:

 

[Robert.Boston]

Reproducing the dependability of nuclear with renewables will be a challenge.

On the one hand, renewables have the advantage that a mechanical/electrical failure doesn't suddenly drop 1,200 MW of generation off-line. In the three northeast RTOs (New England, New York, PJM), loss of a single nuclear facility is the largest contingency on the system and determines the amount of reserves that the system operator must keep available. Having acquired those reserves for nuclear plants, they are (more or less) free for renewable integration. It will be some time in these areas before the balancing capacity of these reserves is fully utilized by installed renewables. (Note: in California, the situation is different, although the alleged shortage of ramping capacity could be remedied easily if PG&E would allow the CAISO to use its hydro system to provide regulation.)

On the other hand, what's going to be needed is a portfolio of renewable energy sources. Solar alone isn't nearly as reliable as solar+wind, and adding marine hydrokinetics (tide, wave, currents) is better still. Not all renewable sources are non-dispatchable: conventional hydro (with pondage), geothermal, landfill gas, refuse, biofuels, and waste wood all are dispatchable.

Storage figures into the mix only when dispatchable sources can't provide enough backup and ramp. Some areas have a lot of pumped storage, using water. I've seen very clever ideas for non-battery storage, e.g. using electric locomotives on rails laid on a long slope to move weights to the top of the slope, then regen power at a later time as it rolls back downhill. We'll see how chemical batteries work at grid scale; I'm thinking that there are lower-cost solutions for stationary storage in the multi-hundred MWh scale.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

Storage figures into the mix only when dispatchable sources can't provide enough backup and ramp. Some areas have a lot of pumped storage, using water. I've seen very clever ideas for non-battery storage, e.g. using electric locomotives on rails laid on a long slope to move weights to the top of the slope, then regen power at a later time as it rolls back downhill. We'll see how chemical batteries work at grid scale; I'm thinking that there are lower-cost solutions for stationary storage in the multi-hundred MWh scale.

At large scale there'll probably be cheaper solutions, but I'd think that chemical batteries' divisibility and scalability would be a huge advantage. Not to mention flexibility of design and ability to combine use of the land. Oncor's plan for wide use of batteries includes the ability to rent out property on which they'd have batteries.

 

[Pollux]

Nuclear Power is 100% clean power...

Forgive my naiveté. I don't understand the claim that nuclear power is "100% clean power" when generated via fission in the ways we've been doing it so far and currently plan to do it in the near future.

I agree w.r.t. CO2 and other traditional atmospheric pollutants.

But there doesn't seem to be any clear, agreed-upon, working path for permanent waste handling and disposal. I rarely see discussions that take this issue into account; am I missing something that's obvious to everyone already? Certainly it seems that the *costs* thrown around in $/kwh for nuclear understate the true total cost of nuclear when also accounting for permanent waste handling and disposal. For that matter, it's not clear to me that these figures being thrown around even account for the cost of plant decommissioning.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the industry also relies on risk insurance ultimately underwritten by the government; and were it not for *that* particular subsidy, cost discussions would be moot because the companies involved wouldn't be willing to assume the full risks involved.

I'm not reflexively anti-nuke, like so many others have been ("eek! radiation!"), but neither can I be anything like an advocate for a path involving nuclear fission. It's what we have now; we certainly do need it today; but it's in no sense a traditional, healthy industry that could exist more or less independent of government support, and it comes with some pretty significant, unresolved long-term problems attached. IMHO, we should manage today's nuclear fleet to last us as long as possible; as safely as possible; and ultimately as a bridge to something better. (I dream of solar, wind and other renewables but also fusion.)

IMHO, the best argument that *might* be made in favor of nuclear is that we are so screwed on the CO2/oil/gas front that the risks posed by nuclear are less than the CO2 risk posed by oil & gas. But best to make this argument upfront, honestly and cleanly, so that people can think clearly about the alternatives.

Nuclear fission-derived power is so frickin' cool; such a testament to our deep understanding of physics and engineering; the dream of my youth. But my heart has been broken by the reality of nuclear.

So when I see discussions that (legitimately) point to the CF utilization problems of solar, or solar+wind+hydro, or some of the other reasons that nuclear is still needed, I don't think, "gee, exactly right, that's why we need to continue to invest in nuclear and even build up the fleet, perhaps with the much-discussed and yet never-realized magical fail-safe, replicable designs mooted in other fora". Instead, I think, "gee, exactly right, we still do need nuclear right now, and while we have this window of opportunity provided by our existing fleet, we need to solve these other problems that have been pointed out with the renewables path".

In sum: nuclear NOT 100% clean. Those costs not factored in. Other costs probably not factored in either. True cost of nuclear vastly understated.

I look forward to a flood of responses expressing admiration of my clear-headed thinking.

Alan

 

[nwdiver]

Forgive my naiveté. I don't understand the claim that nuclear power is "100% clean power" when generated via fission in the ways we've been doing it so far and currently plan to do it in the near future.

If you read the rest of this thread I think you'll come to the conclusion that statement is largely irrelevant regardless of how true or false it may be :smile:

 

[Robert.Boston]

"Clean" for this discussion = "not contributing to climate change". There's no doubt that nuclear waste is an important problem, but it's really a different scale. Climate change could radically alter, or eliminate, human society as we know it. Nuclear waste would, in all but nightmare terrorists-get-their-hands-on-it scenarios, merely has the potential to be catastrophic locally.

There's also the side fact that, in the U.S., most of the uranium enrichment is powered by coal-fired plants in the Ohio Valley.

 

[nwdiver]

There's also the side fact that, in the U.S., most of the uranium enrichment is powered by coal-fired plants in the Ohio Valley.

Not anymore... the only operating enrichment facility in the US now is in Eunice, NM.

Using a Gas Centrifuge Urenco can enrich uranium using ~98% LESS energy than was required at the gaseous diffusion plant in Ohio. The most legitimate argument against nuclear is its capital cost. There are other ancillary challenges nuclear faces but they pale in comparison to that.

 

[Pollux]

Oh. Sorry. I thought I *had* read the rest of the thread. :-( Guess reading still != comprehending. Sorry if I've wasted anyone's time.

Alan

P.S. I understand that for the purposes of this thread clean is defined as "not contributing to climate change". However, any comprehensive discussion shouldn't overlook these other big issues. For instance, I'm implicitly suggesting that nwdiver is using pricing for nuclear-provided power that is significantly too low, which further drives his argument about solar versus nuclear. In the same way that CO2 impact is not priced into the cost of oil and gas, nuclear's externalities aren't factored in either. And you could argue that solar doesn't have its environmental impacts priced in, either, whether from manufacturing or from recycling/disposal at the end of a system's lifetime, although I'm willing to bet that the unpriced externalities for solar are way lower than for oil, gas and nuclear.

If you read the rest of this thread I think you'll come to the conclusion that statement is largely irrelevant regardless of how true or false it may be :smile: