The by now miniscule risk of meltdown is not the only downside to nuclear power compared to renewables.
There’s the fact that a nuclear power plant takes a decade or more to build and make operational and we need to replace fossil fuel energy production NOW. In comparison, gigantic solar arrays and wind turbine parks can be ready in a matter of months.
Then there’s the nuclear waste. There’s been discovered one truly forever safeplace to store it in the world, deep down into a mountain in Finland (afair, could be Norway). Even if we (unreasonably) assume that it can all fit there, transporting all the radioactive waste of a world reliant on nuclear energy to Finland would be an environmentally ruinous nightmare.
Lastly, nuclear reactors need cool water to function efficiently and safely. Global warming, the very thing proponents say they’re the best solution for, is making nuclear plants less effective and less safe.
In conclusion, renewables are by far the best solution, not nuclear energy.
a nuclear power plant takes a decade or more to build
That’s largely due to waste, not the actual process of safe construction. If there’s public will, nuclear projects could be fast-tracked without compromising safety, though the costs would probably go up:
But those were far from the only costs. They cite a worker survey that indicated that about a quarter of the unproductive labor time came because the workers were waiting for either tools or materials to become available. In a lot of other cases, construction procedures were changed in the middle of the build, leading to confusion and delays. Finally, there was the general decrease in performance noted above. All told, problems that reduced the construction efficiency contributed nearly 70 percent to the increased costs.
By contrast, R&D-related expenses, which included both regulatory changes and things like the identification of better materials or designs, accounted for the other third of the increases. Often, a single change met several R&D goals, so assigning the full third to regulatory changes is probably an over-estimate.
So, while safety regulations added to the costs, they were far from the primary factor. And deciding whether they were worthwhile costs would require a detailed analysis of every regulatory change in light of accidents like Three Mile Island and Fukushima.
As for the majority of the cost explosion, the obvious question is whether we can do any better. Here, the researchers’ answer is very much a “maybe.” They consider things like the possibility of using a central facility to produce high-performance concrete parts for the plant, as we have shifted to doing for projects like bridge construction. But this concrete is often more expensive than materials poured on site, meaning the higher efficiency of the off-site production would have to more than offset that difference. The material’s performance in the environment of a nuclear plant hasn’t been tested, so it’s not clear whether it’s even a solution.
The above focuses on costs, but there’s also some discussion about time as well (e.g. waiting for tools and materials).
Spent nuclear fuel from power plants still has 95% of its potential to produce electricity
I don’t know much about water use though, so that could absolutely be an issue in many parts of the world. I am interested in looking into efficient ways to desalinize water, which is important for a whole host of reasons.
In conclusion, renewables are by far the best solution, not nuclear energy.
The best solution is a mixture of both. We need an inexpensive baseline energy production. Solar, wind, etc are bursty by nature, so we’d need a large amount of energy storage in order to go full renewable. Until I see a practical, inexpensive way to store energy, I’m going to push for nuclear since it’s a clean, stable energy supply.
As far as the waste goes, China is building molten salt reactors that can use the waste to run. That waste has much shorter half lives, like days, and can be stored almost anywhere.
Renewables are a solution only in short term. The biggest issue with renewables is the relatively low power output. Our power demands will only grow in the future and eventually we’re going to hit a wall with renewables. Long term nuclear is the way to go. Ideally we should be creating solar and wind parks and focus on making thorium reactors viable so we could switch from renewables to thorium.
Nuclear is the future, just not the kind of nuclear we’re using right now.
That’s literally the opposite of true. What do you think the word “renewable” means? 🤦
The biggest issue with renewables is the relatively low power output
Which is not a problem when done on a larger scale by now.
Our power demands will only grow in the future and eventually we’re going to hit a wall with renewables
Only if we keep doing half measures like now rather than go all in. Wind, solar, thermal and wave energy combined can more than cover the world’s energy needs in perpetuity.
Long term nuclear is the way to go.
Nope. Which parts of “already made less effective and safe by climate change that will have become fat worse by the time we build just one nuclear plant, let alone replace all fossil fuel power” did you not understand?
By that time, nuclear power will be rendered all but useless by the necessary conditions no longer existing. Renewables aren’t so fragile.
Nuclear is the future
It really is not. By the time the thorium reactors that have been 10 years away for 30 years arrive, it’ll be too late. The very problem they were supposed to fix will have rendered them inoperable.
Yeah I think people don’t appreciate how much the cost of renewables has gone down. If we were making a big push on fixing climate change two decodes ago, then nuclear would’ve been a good route to go. But that didn’t happen, and looking at the cost of renewables now and the timelines needed for nuclear, it simply doesn’t make sense anymore.
Though what Germany did with shutting down their nuclear plants was stupid. Keep existing nuclear going until all carbon emitting power generation is replaced, then consider replacing existing nuclear with renewables.
I won’t comment on what’s true worldwide, but at least in Australia, a report from 2014, a decade ago, found that it would be more economical to invest fully in renewables rather than starting up a nuclear industry.
The notable difference between Australia and some other countries like America is that at the moment, we have no nuclear generators. So we have no capacity in terms of expertise in designing, building, operating, and maintaining nuclear generators whatsoever, and would be starting an industry from scratch, which obviously will be more expensive than merely scaling up an existing industry in places that have it.
Yeah, just getting nuclear waste disposal and whatnot started up would be very expensive, despite having a ton of space to put said waste, since there are likely all kinds of regulations around moving such waste between states and territories.
That said, Australia surely needs some electric backbone for overnight use, and the goto solution for renewables is batteries, which are quite expensive at scale.
So, what you’re talking about here is essentially the concept of “baseload power”, which is a very common talking point in anti-renewables conversation, including by well-meaning people who have simply come to accept it because of how often it gets mentioned in the media and in online conversations.
The other problem Australia has is we have too little need for power. We couldn’t build five nuclear plants to allow one at a time to be stopped for maintenance
We could probably use two, but then lose half our baseload supply for maintenance
That 2014 plan was for 100% renewable energy by 2020-something wasn’t it?
There are other things you don’t know obviously, among them the amount of time it takes to build a power plant, the insane amount of money it costs to build it, and the actual running costs!
spookex@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Didn’t know that capitalism made people blow the miniscule dangers of nuclear power out of proportion and create irrational fear
Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 5 months ago
The by now miniscule risk of meltdown is not the only downside to nuclear power compared to renewables.
There’s the fact that a nuclear power plant takes a decade or more to build and make operational and we need to replace fossil fuel energy production NOW. In comparison, gigantic solar arrays and wind turbine parks can be ready in a matter of months.
Then there’s the nuclear waste. There’s been discovered one truly forever safeplace to store it in the world, deep down into a mountain in Finland (afair, could be Norway). Even if we (unreasonably) assume that it can all fit there, transporting all the radioactive waste of a world reliant on nuclear energy to Finland would be an environmentally ruinous nightmare.
Lastly, nuclear reactors need cool water to function efficiently and safely. Global warming, the very thing proponents say they’re the best solution for, is making nuclear plants less effective and less safe.
In conclusion, renewables are by far the best solution, not nuclear energy.
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 5 months ago
That’s largely due to waste, not the actual process of safe construction. If there’s public will, nuclear projects could be fast-tracked without compromising safety, though the costs would probably go up:
The above focuses on costs, but there’s also some discussion about time as well (e.g. waiting for tools and materials).
At least in the US, we have plenty of space for that. Most of Nevada is barren, and isn’t likely to be used by people for anything important. There’s also research into recycling spent nuclear fuel into new fuel:
I don’t know much about water use though, so that could absolutely be an issue in many parts of the world. I am interested in looking into efficient ways to desalinize water, which is important for a whole host of reasons.
The best solution is a mixture of both. We need an inexpensive baseline energy production. Solar, wind, etc are bursty by nature, so we’d need a large amount of energy storage in order to go full renewable. Until I see a practical, inexpensive way to store energy, I’m going to push for nuclear since it’s a clean, stable energy supply.
AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 5 months ago
As far as the waste goes, China is building molten salt reactors that can use the waste to run. That waste has much shorter half lives, like days, and can be stored almost anywhere.
Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 5 months ago
And I’m building a perpetual motion machine that can run forever on a single scoop of dirty cat litter 🙄
GoodEye8@lemm.ee 5 months ago
Renewables are a solution only in short term. The biggest issue with renewables is the relatively low power output. Our power demands will only grow in the future and eventually we’re going to hit a wall with renewables. Long term nuclear is the way to go. Ideally we should be creating solar and wind parks and focus on making thorium reactors viable so we could switch from renewables to thorium.
Nuclear is the future, just not the kind of nuclear we’re using right now.
Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 5 months ago
That’s literally the opposite of true. What do you think the word “renewable” means? 🤦
Which is not a problem when done on a larger scale by now.
Only if we keep doing half measures like now rather than go all in. Wind, solar, thermal and wave energy combined can more than cover the world’s energy needs in perpetuity.
Nope. Which parts of “already made less effective and safe by climate change that will have become fat worse by the time we build just one nuclear plant, let alone replace all fossil fuel power” did you not understand?
By that time, nuclear power will be rendered all but useless by the necessary conditions no longer existing. Renewables aren’t so fragile.
It really is not. By the time the thorium reactors that have been 10 years away for 30 years arrive, it’ll be too late. The very problem they were supposed to fix will have rendered them inoperable.
SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca 5 months ago
Yeah I think people don’t appreciate how much the cost of renewables has gone down. If we were making a big push on fixing climate change two decodes ago, then nuclear would’ve been a good route to go. But that didn’t happen, and looking at the cost of renewables now and the timelines needed for nuclear, it simply doesn’t make sense anymore.
Though what Germany did with shutting down their nuclear plants was stupid. Keep existing nuclear going until all carbon emitting power generation is replaced, then consider replacing existing nuclear with renewables.
Zagorath@aussie.zone 5 months ago
I won’t comment on what’s true worldwide, but at least in Australia, a report from 2014, a decade ago, found that it would be more economical to invest fully in renewables rather than starting up a nuclear industry.
The notable difference between Australia and some other countries like America is that at the moment, we have no nuclear generators. So we have no capacity in terms of expertise in designing, building, operating, and maintaining nuclear generators whatsoever, and would be starting an industry from scratch, which obviously will be more expensive than merely scaling up an existing industry in places that have it.
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 5 months ago
Yeah, just getting nuclear waste disposal and whatnot started up would be very expensive, despite having a ton of space to put said waste, since there are likely all kinds of regulations around moving such waste between states and territories.
That said, Australia surely needs some electric backbone for overnight use, and the goto solution for renewables is batteries, which are quite expensive at scale.
Zagorath@aussie.zone 5 months ago
So, what you’re talking about here is essentially the concept of “baseload power”, which is a very common talking point in anti-renewables conversation, including by well-meaning people who have simply come to accept it because of how often it gets mentioned in the media and in online conversations.
But it turns out that we have known for over a decade that a mix of different renewable technologies do not need any base-load power stations to operate reliably.
psud@aussie.zone 5 months ago
The other problem Australia has is we have too little need for power. We couldn’t build five nuclear plants to allow one at a time to be stopped for maintenance
We could probably use two, but then lose half our baseload supply for maintenance
That 2014 plan was for 100% renewable energy by 2020-something wasn’t it?
SkippingRelax@lemmy.world 5 months ago
There are other things you don’t know obviously, among them the amount of time it takes to build a power plant, the insane amount of money it costs to build it, and the actual running costs!