Why no nuclear?

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

This is something I often don't see in discussions on climate change and renewable energy, and while everyone touts solar energy (something which is still not perfect) and electric cars (which are heavily flawed and also require mass mining operations of lithium in Africa, which is a heinous institution in itself), not a single person brings up nuclear energy as a perfectly viable, workable and safe energy source.

Why?

Out of all the 'burnable' fuel sources (yes, uranium fuel does not 'burn' but super-heats the water to produce steam), it is the most cost effective in energy output to tonnage, with 44 MILLION kilowatt-hours of energy being produce for a single tonne of uranium, compared to coal which would require the burning of 20,000 tonnes, or natural gas, which need 8.5 million cubic metres, to reach the same output.

France has been using nuclear power since the 80's, so much so that it is now the main source of energy in the power grid, and enough is produced that they can export excess energy.

And yes, while the elephant in the room for nuclear energy is the horrible nature of the disasters of things that can go wrong with them, we can again look to France for how safe it can be done when it is treated with the respect such a dangerous fuel source is needed. France's worst nuclear incidents have all been down to freak accidents involving equipment suddenly failing, as technology is not perfect and will happen, to environmental problems such as freak floods and ice causing pipes to break.

So... why is nuclear energy never brought up in discussions on alternatives to fossil fuels? Why is it dominated, especially on here, with solar and wind?

 

[Belk]

This is something I often don't see in discussions on climate change and renewable energy, and while everyone touts solar energy (something which is still not perfect) and electric cars (which are heavily flawed and also require mass mining operations of lithium in Africa, which is a heinous institution in itself), not a single person brings up nuclear energy as a perfectly viable, workable and safe energy source.

Why?

Out of all the 'burnable' fuel sources (yes, uranium fuel does not 'burn' but super-heats the water to produce steam), it is the most cost effective in energy output to tonnage, with 44 MILLION kilowatt-hours of energy being produce for a single tonne of uranium, compared to coal which would require the burning of 20,000 tonnes, or natural gas, which need 8.5 million cubic metres, to reach the same output.

France has been using nuclear power since the 80's, so much so that it is now the main source of energy in the power grid, and enough is produced that they can export excess energy.

And yes, while the elephant in the room for nuclear energy is the horrible nature of the disasters of things that can go wrong with them, we can again look to France for how safe it can be done when it is treated with the respect such a dangerous fuel source is needed. France's worst nuclear incidents have all been down to freak accidents involving equipment suddenly failing, as technology is not perfect and will happen, to environmental problems such as freak floods and ice causing pipes to break.

So... why is nuclear energy never brought up in discussions on alternatives to fossil fuels? Why is it dominated, especially on here, with solar and wind?

I see it brought up fairly frequently. My guess for why you don't see it a lot is the discussion tends to center around renewable resources, which nuclear is not.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I see it brought up fairly frequently. My guess for why you don't see it a lot is the discussion tends to center around renewable resources, which nuclear is not.

Now that is a fair one.

 

[Arcangl86]

I think there is still some fear of disaster, especially since Fukashima was not that long ago. The other concern is nuclear waste, which we still haven't found a good way to dispose of.

 

[essentialsaltes]

There are problems of danger and waste, but I absolutely agree it should be part of the mix. There seems to be bipartisan support for it in the US Congress as well.

The waste situation really is significant. We just don't have a solution. The Yucca Mountain site is our most developed option, but Nevada doesn't want it in its backyard. And neither Trump nor Biden seem to support it. Biden has asked for areas or states willing to host a waste facility, and has earmarked money to help these sites investigate their suitability, but as far as I know, nobody has raised their hand.

IIRC nuclear waste in the US is largely stored on site at the nuclear plants. Obviously that can't just go on forever.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I think there is still some fear of disaster, especially since Fukashima was not that long ago. The other concern is nuclear waste, which we still haven't found a good way to dispose of.

There are problems of danger and waste, but I absolutely agree it should be part of the mix. There seems to be bipartisan support for it in the US Congress as well.

The waste situation really is significant. We just don't have a solution. The Yucca Mountain site is our most developed option, but Nevada doesn't want it in its backyard. And neither Trump nor Biden seem to support it. Biden has asked for areas or states willing to host a waste facility, and has earmarked money to help these sites investigate their suitability, but as far as I know, nobody has raised their hand.

IIRC nuclear waste in the US is largely stored on site at the nuclear plants. Obviously that can't just go on forever.

Except we do have a way to dispose of it: just keep using it.

There are types of reactors, shown here, that are designed specifically to use spent fuel rods.

And yes, while the fear of disasters is something to be genuinely concerned about, as it should be, the fact that the worst disasters, Chernobyl and Fukushima, were only disasters because of a government overreach on cutting costs and a unprecedented natural disaster, in that order.

 

[Merrill]

I highly recommend the documentary "Pandoras Promise"

it was done by former anti-nuclear environmentalists, scientists, and activists, who now believe nuclear is the energy of the future, and the best way to combat climate change. It dispels many of the myths regarding nuclear

Solar and wind cannot supply us with anywhere near the energy we will need in the coming decades. To make matters worse, it isn't "green", nor is it "renewable"

but say this to the typical left-leaning person, and they will deny it, lie, create false narratives, point to bad data, etc. Climate activism is like a religion (in the bad sense). Even Michael Moore destroys the solar/wind/biomass narrative with his "Planet of the Humans" documentary

Our test-case study was Germany, which decommissioned its nuclear plants (and most of its coal and oil) and went "full-green". The result?

1. Germany has one of the the worst CO2 emissions per capita in Europe, and almost double that of France
2. After suffering from brown-outs and outages, Germany was forced to recommission some of its coal plants in order to keep the lights on
3. Energy costs for consumers in Germany doubled, and are some of the most expensive in Europe
4. The country has repeatedly missed emissions targets
5. Its reliance on natural gas to keep the solar plants running allowed Putin to blackmail Europe and go on a rampage in Ukraine

so this was an economic, environmental, and geopolitical disaster

and many people want to repeat this mistakes on a larger scale in the US. Why? Because it is about corporate welfare, handouts, and fraud --not about "saving the planet"

 

[Larniavc]

I’ll be honest I thought this whole issue had been lane to rest years ago by former President Trump.

"Look, having nuclear — my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, OK, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart — you know, if you’re a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, OK, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I'm one of the smartest people anywhere in the world — it’s true! — but when you're a conservative Republican they try — oh, do they do a number — that’s why I always start off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, built a fortune — you know I have to give my like credentials all the time, because we’re a little disadvantaged — but you look at the nuclear deal, the thing that really bothers me — it would have been so easy, and it’s not as important as these lives are — nuclear is so powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many years ago, the power and that was 35 years ago; he would explain the power of what's going to happen and he was right, who would have thought? — but when you look at what's going on with the four prisoners — now it used to be three, now it’s four — but when it was three and even now, I would have said it's all in the messenger; fellas, and it is fellas because, you know, they don't, they haven’t figured that the women are smarter right now than the men, so, you know, it’s gonna take them about another 150 years — but the Persians are great negotiators, the Iranians are great negotiators, so, and they, they just killed, they just killed us, this is horrible."

But I suppose some people have to keep flogging this dead horse.

Edited for clarity

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I’ll be honest I thought this whole issue had been lane to rest years ago by former President Trump.

"Look, having nuclear — my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, OK, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart — you know, if you’re a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, OK, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I'm one of the smartest people anywhere in the world — it’s true! — but when you're a conservative Republican they try — oh, do they do a number — that’s why I always start off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, built a fortune — you know I have to give my like credentials all the time, because we’re a little disadvantaged — but you look at the nuclear deal, the thing that really bothers me — it would have been so easy, and it’s not as important as these lives are — nuclear is so powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many years ago, the power and that was 35 years ago; he would explain the power of what's going to happen and he was right, who would have thought? — but when you look at what's going on with the four prisoners — now it used to be three, now it’s four — but when it was three and even now, I would have said it's all in the messenger; fellas, and it is fellas because, you know, they don't, they haven’t figured that the women are smarter right now than the men, so, you know, it’s gonna take them about another 150 years — but the Persians are great negotiators, the Iranians are great negotiators, so, and they, they just killed, they just killed us, this is horrible."

But I some people have to keep flogging this dead horse.

Nope, that makes no damn sense at all.

Or was that on purpose?

 

[Merrill]

I’ll be honest I thought this whole issue had been lane to rest years ago by former President Trump.

"Look, having nuclear — my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, OK, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart — you know, if you’re a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, OK, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I'm one of the smartest people anywhere in the world — it’s true! — but when you're a conservative Republican they try — oh, do they do a number — that’s why I always start off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, built a fortune — you know I have to give my like credentials all the time, because we’re a little disadvantaged — but you look at the nuclear deal, the thing that really bothers me — it would have been so easy, and it’s not as important as these lives are — nuclear is so powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many years ago, the power and that was 35 years ago; he would explain the power of what's going to happen and he was right, who would have thought? — but when you look at what's going on with the four prisoners — now it used to be three, now it’s four — but when it was three and even now, I would have said it's all in the messenger; fellas, and it is fellas because, you know, they don't, they haven’t figured that the women are smarter right now than the men, so, you know, it’s gonna take them about another 150 years — but the Persians are great negotiators, the Iranians are great negotiators, so, and they, they just killed, they just killed us, this is horrible."

But I some people have to keep flogging this dead horse.

not sure what your point is --or even what Trump's point is here

Does it amount to "Trump thinks nuclear works well, so we should turn off all our nuclear plants, because anything Trump likes we have to reject"?

serously?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Nope, that makes no damn sense at all.

Or was that on purpose?

Posting the incoherent post, that was on purpose, but as for the quote... Trump just does incoherent rambling <accordian hands> the best.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Posting the incoherent post, that was on purpose, but as for the quote... Trump just does incoherent rambling <accordian hands> the best.

Oh, I do know he was a bumbling rambler (both of the latest presidents are), but I really do not see what it has to do with the thread topic.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Oh, I do know he was a bumbling rambler (both of the latest presidents are), but I really do not see what it has to do with the thread topic.

OK, back on to topic...

Nuclear (fission, not that fusion fantasy stuff) has a similar baseline profile to coal, but it is less flexible. It has similar infrastructure requirements, but higher security needs (much higher). It takes longer to maintain (refueling down times) and thought the environmental catastrophes of coal plants are large (coal ash spills) an actual nuclear disaster is much worse. (The upside is that the safety culture tends to be much better.)

We should not just decommission functional plants in reasonable locations, but we also likely shouldn't be building new ones except as replacements. Maintaining the rough baseline supply is a good target, especially since the weakest element of the fully renewable electricity scheme is storage.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

OK, back on to topic...

Nuclear (fission, not that fusion fantasy stuff) has a similar baseline profile to coal, but it is less flexible. It has similar infrastructure requirements, but higher security needs (much higher). It takes longer to maintain (refueling down times) and thought the environmental catastrophes of coal plants are large (coal ash spills) an actual nuclear disaster is much worse. (The upside is that the safety culture tends to be much better.)

We should not just decommission functional plants in reasonable locations, but we also likely shouldn't be building new ones except as replacements. Maintaining the rough baseline supply is a good target, especially since the weakest element of the fully renewable electricity scheme is storage.

One thing I have wondered and haven't seen much info on is converting old coal fired plants to nuclear power plants, but I do imagine that would be something that would be difficult to do. And thus costly too.

 

[Hans Blaster]

One thing I have wondered and haven't seen much info on is converting old coal fired plants to nuclear power plants, but I do imagine that would be something that would be difficult to do. And thus costly too.

Converting the plant, not really. Perhaps a generator and certainly the transmission equipment could be reused. The site is more interesting. There are many fairly large, fairly isolated, and fairly dirty sites from decommissioned coal plants that could serve as sites for new nuclear plants (about the only "new sites" that make sense). There is a recently (or to be) decommissioned coal plant near my house that would be fine except that the site is fairly narrow (on the river side) so I think it might not be suitable for the security needs of a fission plant. If it could be secured, I'd be perfectly fine with it "going nuclear".

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Converting the plant, not really. Perhaps a generator and certainly the transmission equipment could be reused. The site is more interesting. There are many fairly large, fairly isolated, and fairly dirty sites from decommissioned coal plants that could serve as sites for new nuclear plants (about the only "new sites" that make sense). There is a recently (or to be) decommissioned coal plant near my house that would be fine except that the site is fairly narrow (on the river side) so I think it might not be suitable for the security needs of a fission plant. If it could be secured, I'd be perfectly fine with it "going nuclear".

Oh, so it can be done.

Cool to know. And I think that's something that fundamentally p-s me off knowing it now. Because that change can men such the difference now. Although in your example, having a narrow river does limit things a lot, not going to lie.

 

[Merrill]

OK, back on to topic...

Nuclear (fission, not that fusion fantasy stuff) has a similar baseline profile to coal, but it is less flexible. It has similar infrastructure requirements, but higher security needs (much higher). It takes longer to maintain (refueling down times) and thought the environmental catastrophes of coal plants are large (coal ash spills) an actual nuclear disaster is much worse. (The upside is that the safety culture tends to be much better.)

We should not just decommission functional plants in reasonable locations, but we also likely shouldn't be building new ones except as replacements. Maintaining the rough baseline supply is a good target, especially since the weakest element of the fully renewable electricity scheme is storage.

Coal does not have a safety baseline anywhere close to that of nuclear

Coal power kills millions of people every year through air pollution, groundwater pollution, and accidents.

Nuclear has 90 deaths per 1000Twh, while coal has 100,000. Solar has 145

Nuclear is by far the safest form of energy generation and produces the least amount of emissions.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Coal does not have a safety baseline anywhere close to that of nuclear

Coal power kills millions of people every year through air pollution, groundwater pollution, and accidents.

Nuclear has 90 deaths per 1000Twh, while coal has 100,000. Solar has 145

Nuclear is by far the safest form of energy generation and produces the least amount of emissions.

I think he was referring more to the fact that, when nuclear energy goes wrong, it can go wrong horribly worse than any coal plant failing can. Such as Chernobyl if it wasn't dealt with.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Coal does not have a safety baseline anywhere close to that of nuclear

I was speaking of the power delivery baseline. Coal plants take time to spin up or down, nuclear even more.

Coal power kills millions of people every year through air pollution, groundwater pollution, and accidents.

Nuclear has 90 deaths per 1000Twh, while coal has 100,000. Solar has 145

Nuclear is by far the safest form of energy generation and produces the least amount of emissions.

I am aware of these things. I would like to see all coal plants eliminated, that's why I think a continued nuclear baseload is necessary.

 

[Halbhh]

This is something I often don't see in discussions on climate change and renewable energy, and while everyone touts solar energy (something which is still not perfect) and electric cars (which are heavily flawed and also require mass mining operations of lithium in Africa, which is a heinous institution in itself), not a single person brings up nuclear energy as a perfectly viable, workable and safe energy source.

Why?

Out of all the 'burnable' fuel sources (yes, uranium fuel does not 'burn' but super-heats the water to produce steam), it is the most cost effective in energy output to tonnage, with 44 MILLION kilowatt-hours of energy being produce for a single tonne of uranium, compared to coal which would require the burning of 20,000 tonnes, or natural gas, which need 8.5 million cubic metres, to reach the same output.

France has been using nuclear power since the 80's, so much so that it is now the main source of energy in the power grid, and enough is produced that they can export excess energy.

And yes, while the elephant in the room for nuclear energy is the horrible nature of the disasters of things that can go wrong with them, we can again look to France for how safe it can be done when it is treated with the respect such a dangerous fuel source is needed. France's worst nuclear incidents have all been down to freak accidents involving equipment suddenly failing, as technology is not perfect and will happen, to environmental problems such as freak floods and ice causing pipes to break.

So... why is nuclear energy never brought up in discussions on alternatives to fossil fuels? Why is it dominated, especially on here, with solar and wind?

I think (my opinion of course) that it's because of the great majority of people that don't have the science background to understand much about nuclear energy, many will easily fear what they don't understand and instead of looking to careful expert analysis from neutral sources that do have a good science background, they listen to politicians who don't know much....

Too many 'green' minded politicians just imagine (or worse, lie) to suggest something akin to a Chernobyl like disaster could very easily happen again in more modern (and safer) nuclear power plants which are not of the former Soviet Union reactor design of the 1970s (and have far better safety design than those old Soviet designs).

I do wonder how many green politicians may cynically (with intentional lying in effect) use fear mongering, similar to how some far right politicians in the U.S. try to re-use Trump's "stolen election" fiction, Trump's invented fiction of Democrats engaging in a great conspiracy to steal elections.

Amazingly, green politicians in Germany have pushed to shut down the last German nuclear plants, and thus the increase in coal-burning electric power, increasing greenhouse gas output, just so they could (I think) pretend to be doing something important (while in reality they are just doing harm to the environment).