351
U.S. Pledge To Triple Global Nuclear Energy By 2050
(www.huffpost.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 16 Nov 2023
351 points (93.3% liked)
World News
31456 readers
1064 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
I will have to strongly disagree here. The timelines are actually the main reason why I would disqualify Nuclear power as a solution to energy, even as a temporary one.
The time from inception to going online for a new Nuclear reactor is in the range of 15-25 years. Of course we could attempt to shorten that, but that would probably mean compromising on safety. So indeed, if we want to stop using fossil fuels asap, building solar, wind, and hydro, which come online in a matter of months (maybe years for hydro), is much faster.
Aggravating this are two further issues: Current Nuclear energy production is non-renewable, and supply problems are already known to occur at current energy production levels. Second, the global construction capacity is limited, probably to around current levels. Even if we do not push for faster construction times, the number of companies and indeed people who have the necessary expertise are already at full capacity, and again, expanding that would probably imply safety problems.
That is to say, currently running Nuclear power plants are save and clean, so by all means keep doing it until renewables take over. But expanding Nuclear power to solve the energy problem is a non-starter for me, due to the timeline and it being non-renewable. And that is before we start talking about the very real dangers of Nuclear power, which are not operational of course, but due to proliferation, war, and governmental or general societal instability (due to say, climate change).
In the US. In China, nuclear reactors go from first pour to operation in 5-6 years. Economies of scale apply.
That is a very interesting report, thanks!
Reading through the summary and overview, they address exactly the problem that I've highlighted: how can we build more reactors faster and more economically, without compromising safety? Of course that means that this issue remains unresolved for now, underscoring my point.
They avoid discussing the other risks I've mentioned (stability, war, proliferation) and admit as much, which is fair enough, but I cannot find any comment regarding the availability of fissile material in the supply chain, which I would think is a rather crucial point.
What I take away from this report is that Nuclear power has a place in solving the climate crisis, if we:
All in all, they conclude that sweeping changes are needed (which is always a risk) and disregard crucial present and known risks. Both these points are simply non-issues with solar, wind, and hydro-power.
I think it's less that it would mean compromising on safety and more that it would mean compromising on the appearance of safety because we'd have to stop letting the courts delay construction while they indulge everybody who tries to sue to stop it with meritless claims.
Also -- and I say this as a Georgia Power ratepayer on the hook for the vast cost overruns for Plant Vogtle 3 and 4 -- we would need to import foreign labor or something because here in the US we are demonstrably too incompetent and corrupt to do it properly ourselves.
Exactly. I'm 100% on board with both renewables and nuclear, but the time to build nuclear would seem to have passed. We're a few decades too late.
That's not too say we shouldn't be building any new nuclear plants - in particular modern designs like SMRs, but I think it would be wiser to focus our energy now on large, grid-scale storage to help smooth out intermittent generation from renewables.
If "we" meaning society could "focus our energy" on anything except profit generation, we could build hundreds of nuclear reactors in less then a decade. We could also eliminate cars and domestic flights, and all kinds of other utopian shit. While you want to live in the status quo but with magic batteries. I'd rather "focus our energy" and live in the Star Trek post-scarcity universe.
It doesn't take 25 years to get a nuclear plant off the ground because people are too busy sitting around counting their capitalism dollars to finish the construction. There are a tremendous number of things that need to happen in addition to planning, approving, building, and commissioning a nuclear facility. I'm fact, is those economic forces that make it happen as fast as possible, because investors want to see a return on their investment. Nuclear plants - and large power plants in general - are not a back deck. They are enormously complex, and given the sensitive nature of their fuel, there are additional things that need to happen on top of what you would expect from, say, a coal or oil generator.
But I'm not sure what you are saying about "magic batteries". How, exactly, do you plan to make intermittent renewable generation viable without some sort of grid-scale storage?
You don't just click your heels together there times and find yourself in a star trek utopia. That's not how things work.
Batteries exist yes. But batteries at the scale required to store the amount of energy that even a small country uses in one day do not exist, and would be by all accounts magic.
Nuclear reactors are not magic, they are real, and they can be built, and should be built both to increase our energy production and replace fossil fuels and of course supplement renewables. Because if nuclear reactors are not built, that supplemental energy won't come from magic storage, it will come from fossil fuels.
When did I say anything about batteries?
That is a battery. But the type of battery it is describing doesn't actually exist.
Grid-scale storage doesn't necessarily mean lithium batteries. It could mean redox flow batteries, it could mean pumped hydro, it could mean gravitational potential storage, it could mean pressurised air in abandoned mineshafts. It could even mean smart grids with dispatched domestic batteries and dispatched EVs reverse charging back to the grid.
Nuclear is a great energy source, but it's not renewable. If we start rolling out nuclear all over the world on a large scale, we would sooner or later run out of nuclear material. I've heard estimates as high as 200 years, and as low as 50 years. The long-term future has to be something renewable, and all the renewable energy sources we currently know of are intermittent. Therefore there needs to be some sort of storage to smooth out the short term discrepancy between generation and consumption.
I do believe nuclear has a role to play. It could have seriously helped us as a stepping stone to get us from fossil fuel-based generation to renewables. It's my personal opinion that it's a bit late for that, and wind and especially solar are very competitive now, from an economic perspective. Having said that, I still see value for nuclear in the future, I just think the bulk of our efforts should be elsewhere.
FYI I worked in the energy sector for over a decade, in market modelling, simulation, optimisation, and control theory, and I helped drive policy and governance, especially as it relates renewable generation.
If people like you, that seemingly don't have a good grasp of physics, are the people driving governance and policy of energy, then it's no wonder most of the world doesn't have a cohesive energy plan besides burn more fossil fuels. You lead with "market modeling" which operates on constraints that aren't useful for a society, only for arbitrage, so finding local maximums within that market would absolutely lead you to believe that subsidized renewables are the best ROI, since you aren't really examining the whole picture. After all you aren't paid to actually examine or understand the energy problem, only to extract value from the current market conditions.
To wit: The examples of energy storage you have given completely ignore the primary value of a battery, energy density. Energy density is the number one most important aspect of storage because if you don't optimize the energy density problem, you literally cannot scale your energy storage solution. For example, lithium batteries are pretty good for energy density, not as good as gasoline, but they were a huge breakthrough when they were invented, and they are the reason we have cell phones and electric vehicles. They are ~10x better then previous gen batteries.
This is something that needs to be understood before any examination about the feasibility of "storage" is ever discussed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density
The important points are these:
The meaning of those above points is that any other battery you bring up (pumped storage, compressed air, etc etc) requires at least an order of magnitude larger in size then the best technology we have today. You need 10x liters of Lithium Ion batteries to store the energy of 1 liter of gas. And remember lithium ion is the most economical we have so far. And it isn't actually viable for storing anything compared to the amount of output a single wind turbine can provide. Let alone a nuclear reactor.
It would take around 3trillion liters of lithium ion batteries to store a years worth of power from a single wind turbine or around 8million/L for a single days worth of energy. We cannot actually build that. We don't have enough lithium on earth to do that. So I stand by my initial claim. You want magic batteries, I want to build nuclear reactors that can actually exist.
There are very different constraints on something portable, like a phone, laptop, car, or even plane, compared with something like an electricity grid.
You need to have high energy density for cars, planes, and phones. You don't need high energy density for a grid. What's more important there is scalability and reliability.
It also takes 20years for a tree to grow, so I guess we should stop planting trees too. Good logic.
The rest of what you are saying is ignorant at best. "Global construction capacity" is constrained to current levels. How convenient that we can only build exactly the number of nuclear reactors we are currently building. But we can build an unlimited amount of solar panels, wind turbines and "hyrdo."
How long do you think it takes to "build hydro?" If you ignore any and all environmental costs of flooding valleys, then sure I guess you could do it pretty quickly, you'd probably have to relocate hundreds of thousands of people, but sure that sounds more feasible then building a nuclear reactor.
Current Nuclear energy production is non-renewably because of cold-war era treaties against enrichment and breeder reactors. The timeline for nuclear fuel to run out if you allow breeders, is after the sun burns out. So that's a non-issue. Not to mention other theoretical sources of nuclear fuel that we don't bother even looking at because it's cheaper to burn more coal.
If you read my comment, I specifically add a caveat for hydro.
In terms of solar and wind, of course we cannot just build unlimited amounts, but we can ramp up capacity a lot more easily and quickly than with nuclear, because it's a lot simpler and faster to build (especially solar). Imagine if we increase construction capacity by 10x tomorrow; we would still need to wait for 15 to 25 years to see any impact with nuclear, while solar and wind would go online next year.
Of course, ramping up production brings an increased risk of manufacturing faults and construction errors in all cases. But I would argue that any nuclear accident is a lot more undesirable than some solar or wind power going offline.
In terms of nuclear fuel, these alternative technologies may exist. But again, the time to market, and the fact that we are introducing a new technology into our vastly expanding production capacity just brings even more risk and uncertainty, which is completely unnecessary when extremely save and reliable, well tested alternatives exist (solar and wind).
So what I am arguing is that we focus our limited resources and money (the latter being the key factor in our economy, unfortunately) on the things that have the largest impact in the shortest amount of time, and that is solar and wind (and to an extent hydro).
And again, all that analysis is graciously disregarding the very real risks of nuclear power (instability, war, proliferation).
I disagree. I think that people make fewer mistakes in each repetition, the more times they repeat an action.
Right now nobody has mastered the building of nuclear plants. As a civilization, we’re on the equivalent of our third day on the new job. If we committed to tripling world supply, that would lead to us mastering it. We’d be at the equivalent of having been at the job for a couple years.
What does "mastering it" really mean? Usually a big part is learning from mistakes. Which I do not think is something you want to do with nuclear power.
But here is the thing. There is no resource constraint between building nuclear power and building solar or wind, or even hydro. They use difference resources, they require different sectors of the economy to realize, and they require different engineering. They don't compete with each other except in the minds of people who favor one over the other for some reason.
Nuclear competes with fossil fuels, that's it. So do renewables, but on a much more limited basis. They do not compete iwth each other. No individual or government is ever looking at a choice between Wind power and Nuclear power and choosing one over the other.
Except for funding, obviously.
And as I said, the main point is we need clean, renewable energy as soon as possible, which only solar and wind (and to some extent hydro) can provide.