DrROBschiz
Member
its a shame because the ignorance now serves as a distraction when important discussions need to had about the future of Nuclear power
Reuters: Utilities ditch reactors that were to launch U.S. nuclear renaissance
- Thread starter Muffin1611
- Start date
its a shame because the ignorance now serves as a distraction when important discussions need to had about the future of Nuclear power
Muffin1611
Banned
We all must be imagining all those plants costing a shitton of money taking decades to build some of which are never finished. While you guys are being "But renewables are shit, this makes so much more power!!".
Fact is, the market is investing heavily in renewables because it makes economic sense. While you guys are talking about how these current reactors are shit and other models and fusion will solve all our problems. The thing is just that we need cleaner energy now, not in 20 years, so renewables are the obvious choice.
It is pretty incredible how many people here on GAF are intent on dying on that hill. Makes me wonder what the nuclear lobby promises you all in the US.
Big time business failure. Essentially, as I understand it, the construction company that was building the nuclear plants kept fucking things up. Part of the problem being that nobody in the USA has any experience actually building commercial nuclear power plants any more, so they made some dumb dumb decisions (one of which, I believe was deciding to build every system to the safety standards of the primary system, thinking that reducing the number of workflows would somehow make up for the fact that there is about 100x more scrutiny on primary systems than like, random drains that aren't exposed to radioactive material).
After they fucked up a bunch, Westinghouse had the idea that THEY would buy the construction company, and would build the plants themselves.
As it turns out, Westinghouse is not a construction company so they managed that very poorly and problems continued.
They probably didn't have a real choice though, since it may have been their only option to try to save the project.
I understand the AP1000 in China just started up though, so that's good.
hydrophilic attack
Member
Despite what ignorant people think, current nuclear energy technology is not economically feasible without heavy subsidies
There are so many examples of nuclear power plants coming in way above projected costs
There are so many examples of nuclear power plants coming in way above projected costs
DrROBschiz
Member
nice one
painting us with a broad brush
I havent been dumping on renewables. they make perfect sense and are advancing quickly
My only point is that i hate to see Nuclear's potential squandered away and dismissed
PdotMichael
Banned
Oh my, that's just desperate.
How did Westinghouse successfully build a plant in China and then completely screw up in the US?
Muffin1611
Banned
That's perfectly fine, I understand that standpoint. But the poster I was replying to was literally comparing people who aren't that keen on these projects for obvious reasons (projects like this) to anti-vaxxers. If that isn't painting with a broad brush, I don't know what is.
PdotMichael
Banned
Well, unlike nuclear reactors renewable energy improved in efficency and costs massively within a short time (read a few years).
The massive increase of global installed renewable energy isn't not just a result of political will to push renewable energy but there aren't other economical smart options.
DrROBschiz
Member
Yes we know
Nuclear is still alive and growing in other nations but it still feels... stagnant
We need something new to break the ice but everything im aware of is still in the cooker for at least another 5-10 years
Till then i guess im pro renewables but the real money is just being shifted to natural gas man. Renewable growth is very important but pushing the hyperbole doesnt help renewable advocacy any more than Nuclear hyperbole does
Still a lot of work to be done
I've never thought about this.
I don't work in nuclear power and have no connections to them, but I used to operate them in the military. Ran properly they are very safe, clean, and efficient. Not every where is windy and not everywhere is sunny. There needs to be some other options on the table.
Yes they are too expensive to build, and yes there are dumb reasons that we are essentially stuck with continuing to build LWR Uranium reactors instead of investing in more promising technology.
My big issue is people that say that nuclear waste is one of the biggest problems facing the world today or freak out because they might recieve half a microsievert of exposure, but will gladly receive 200x that exposure on a cross country flight. There's a lot of uninformed nonsense out there.
PdotMichael
Banned
The only nation with a remarkable nuclear program is China. Though China's investments in nuclear energy are are small compared to the massive renewable energy program. .
I believe a Chinese company actually built the Chinese plant(s) and not the American company that was building the one in GA. Westinghouse provided a lot of engineering support, and may have done a better job managing what the construction company was doing.
DrROBschiz
Member
This is why we need a shakeup
We are locked into the old setup for massive LWR facilities as our baseline for what to expect
I want these realities to be challenged with something than can be built in a short time, is cheap and is efficient
But its tiring talking about potential all the time. I hope the current experimental and prototype designs being built bear fruit
DrROBschiz
Member
We need a flagship prototype to deliver the goods
thats the bottom line and i sincerely hope it happens
I worked at the Shaw Group until 5 or so years ago, and while I was never on the nuclear side, it was interesting to talk to people who were. Even more so since those two AP1000 jobs fell apart. The stuff that surrounds all this (all public record) is fascinating. It's really a study of how not to project management, on pretty much every level.
For the record I'm currently working on industrial solar generation, which is also heavily subsidized and incentive-laden.
Not sure why the infighting here. We need to be done with fossil fuels, you can support both renewables and nuclear.
For the record I'm currently working on industrial solar generation, which is also heavily subsidized and incentive-laden.
Not sure why the infighting here. We need to be done with fossil fuels, you can support both renewables and nuclear.
hydrophilic attack
Member
I know a guy who got a master of science in physics engineering, who specialized in nuclear power because he thought that would be the future
Once he started looking for jobs after graduation, he transitioned into doing IT consulting right quick
Once he started looking for jobs after graduation, he transitioned into doing IT consulting right quick
DrROBschiz
Member
Nuclear pretty much has to start over
I dont see much hope for LWR after these final reactors reach end of life but who knows
PdotMichael
Banned
Could have always moved to biomedical engineering - there is always a need for specialists for the technical/physical aspects of nuclear medicine and radiotherapy.
Nuclear energy is indeed a dead end... though the US Navy is always looking for poor souls.
DrROBschiz
Member
You kind of have to be the new Nuclear yourself
Which is what a few private companies and government programs are attempting
Frankfurter
Member
DrROBschiz
Member
Do we have data for renewable vs Natural gas right now?
Nuclear power HAS to be part of the planet's future energy mix. Renewables alone cannot meet all the world's needs, especially given the highly variable nature of wind and solar. It's just a shame how the nuclear debate turns otherwise rational people into chronic liars, utilising similar tactics employed by climate denialists to peddle blatant falsehoods about nuclear power.
PdotMichael
Banned
Nice arguments. But I guess expecting more from your kind of people is my mistake.
Small nuclear reactors have been proposed many times since the advent of nuclear energy. I can't even think of one that has been economically feasible.
http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/nuclear/the-forgotten-history-of-small-nuclear-reactors
"Your kind of people". You're just making my case for me. Keep going.
PdotMichael
Banned
Hijacking terms like climate denialists, anti-vaxxers or anti-science as poor attempt to attack the credibility of the other side couldn't be more ad hominem.
Not that you are mostlikely capable of providing a single argument why nuclear energy HAS to be part of the planet's future energy mix.
StarCreator
Member
He already provided one. Wind and solar alone aren't going to supply all the power the people in the world use; it's not always windy, and battery technology isn't mature enough to solve the problem of storing energy to make up for the shortfall. Try powering New York City on purely wind and solar alone and see how far that gets you.
They declared bankruptcy and had a fixed price contract to build the plant, which wasn't going to cover the construction.
Buba Big Guns
Banned
We have clean energy now...nuclear being part of the energy mix along with renewables is a good thing. There are no down sides to having a baseload source that is extremely secure (something that's rarely mentioned...there's a reason why nuclear plants are so hard to break into, safety is built into every system). Nuclear can provide a shit ton of energy with an extremely low land and carbon footprint. There's a reason a place like Ontario is investing 25 billion into nuclear, while also building renewables.
Investing into molten salt and small modular reactors (China will probably get there before anyone else) will pay dividends for decarbonizing industrial processes and powering CCS systems.
Buba Big Guns
Banned
Which is why it's a good thing to have natural gas plants (hopefully coupled with CCS in the future) ready to go. We need sources that are ready to boot up at moments notice if we want any sort of energy security.
PdotMichael
Banned
This is plain wrong. Sorry.
You haven't made coherent, factual argument this whole thread, and have literally contributed nothing other than to dismiss other people's facts.
It's like a flat earther type of argument.
"The Earth is round because X,Y,Z"
PdotMichael: "Lol, that's just desperate."
Their tagline is "We demand to be taken seriously."
PdotMichael
Banned
That what people mean with alternate facts I guess.
Literally making my point for me.
PdotMichael
Banned
Your desperate attempt of reflection is ridiculous, everything you did is calling people who don't share your opinion anti-vaxxers equivalents.
It's nice to claim that renewable energy can't cover the completle energy needs in the USA, despite the fact that several studies show the incredible potential (the USA could be a renewable energy paradise) of renewable energy in the USA, which could several times covers the energy needs of the USA.
http://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/USStatesWWS.pdf
Yup. People ignore that Nuclear has the same cost/kwh as solar and is much easier to deploy without worrying about dealing with not having a baseload power source. The all around best option right now is heavy investment into both renewable and nuclear.
You have a source for that who isn't Mark Jacobs?
Muppet of a Man
Member
LWRs are a dead technology. They are inherently dangerous because they operate at high pressure, ultimately require active cooling systems, and have a positive coefficient of thermal reactivity.
Molten Salt Reactors will solve all the problems stated above and more. We will just have to be patient for the next 10+ years while the technology gets commercialized and made modular.
In the meantime, renewables and battery tech will mature even more. Ultimately, it will be a combination of all 3 (MSRs, Renewables, and Advanced Grid-Scale Battery technology) that makes power generation sustainable.
Hopefully, we'll even have fusion-based power generation one day.
Molten Salt Reactors will solve all the problems stated above and more. We will just have to be patient for the next 10+ years while the technology gets commercialized and made modular.
In the meantime, renewables and battery tech will mature even more. Ultimately, it will be a combination of all 3 (MSRs, Renewables, and Advanced Grid-Scale Battery technology) that makes power generation sustainable.
Hopefully, we'll even have fusion-based power generation one day.
PdotMichael
Banned
No, I quoted actual facts about radiation and pointed out that the average anti-nuclear advocate does not understand radiation, activity, exposure, the difference between them, the common units used to measure them, how much they receive from common every day sources, and how much is enough to worry about.
Without knowing some of this stuff, you are completely incapable of having an intelligent opinion about the relative safety and danger of a nuclear power plant. Yet people persist, in a way that is similar to the arguments that anti-vaxxers or flat earthers make, by making bold statements that are not supported by scientific facts.
I don't have anything against renewables, and in fact think they are great. Nor am I an expert on whether or not the US or the world can persist solely on Solar and Wind or not. I suspect the answer is no, but don't really know enough to say with any certainty and would be happy to be proven wrong.
There are many valid arguments against building new LWR plants, mostly that they are expensive to build; there are potentially more efficient, cheaper to build nuclear technologies on the horizon; and there is a stigma against them that makes public acceptance difficult.
There are no valid arguments against them that says "They are too unsafe compared to other power generation", "Nobody knows what to do with nuclear waste", "they could kill everybody on the planet", "we will all die at 25 from cancer", or "We will all have a second dick grow out of our foreheads at the onset of puberty".
Given that, I believe it is valid to explore more advanced designs and see what potential they have. Because if fast breeder reactors live up to their promise, they are potentially a near limitless source of cheap, safe power that generates very little radioactive waste.
They are probably the nearest possible thing to fusion without actually being fusion.
Why are nuclear opponents trying to make it out like renewables are competing against nuclear for cost?
The only thing making nuclear too expensive is fossil fuels. Remove the reliance on these and nuclear would suddenly make financial sense.
We need both here, not just one (until energy storage or fusion is solved)
The only thing making nuclear too expensive is fossil fuels. Remove the reliance on these and nuclear would suddenly make financial sense.
We need both here, not just one (until energy storage or fusion is solved)
Nikodemos
Member
All I can say is, LOL.
Having a nuclear 'renaissance' by building oversized versions of 50 year old technology is dumb as hell.
Then again, for smart people, nuclear industry folks are pretty dumb. They decided to build the largest possible design in a country whose industrial base has had over 30 years pass since the last large-scale nuclear build.
I swear, it's the same fucking mistake every time. Nuclear control authority is ultra-strict, so company decides to go with the largest possible design "to save money in the long run", despite a) not having any experience at large scale builds; b) not having any proof-of-concept on the chosen model. Olkiluoto and Flamanville all over again.
It's just as that neoconservative pro-nuclear think tank said. The nuclear industry suffers from Sovietisation, the desire to make everything as big as possible, without considering the complications which arise from it.
Also, if the NRC refuses to validate non-PWR designs in any meaningful time window, go to a country which does, FFS. Heck, go to China, even if it means losing control of your design. In the end, do you want that thing built, to prove that it works and is better than PWRs, or not?
Having a nuclear 'renaissance' by building oversized versions of 50 year old technology is dumb as hell.
Then again, for smart people, nuclear industry folks are pretty dumb. They decided to build the largest possible design in a country whose industrial base has had over 30 years pass since the last large-scale nuclear build.
I swear, it's the same fucking mistake every time. Nuclear control authority is ultra-strict, so company decides to go with the largest possible design "to save money in the long run", despite a) not having any experience at large scale builds; b) not having any proof-of-concept on the chosen model. Olkiluoto and Flamanville all over again.
It's just as that neoconservative pro-nuclear think tank said. The nuclear industry suffers from Sovietisation, the desire to make everything as big as possible, without considering the complications which arise from it.
Also, if the NRC refuses to validate non-PWR designs in any meaningful time window, go to a country which does, FFS. Heck, go to China, even if it means losing control of your design. In the end, do you want that thing built, to prove that it works and is better than PWRs, or not?
PdotMichael
Banned
The nuclear industry suffers from the plain fact that they are too expensive and compete with other energy sources which leads to stuff like Westinghouse which just operates with wrong numbers and cost projections just to get the job... and hoping for "too big/late to fall" political help.
Meanwhile the 8 billion lost (not even operating with the crazy projected costs) in that program, invested in renewable energy would have resulted in several GWh's of installed renewable energy capacities in a way shorter timeframe.
edit:
It were even even 9billion... how stupid of me.
There is a obvious solution for the energy problem but we shouldn't do it because plain lies (renewable energy can't cover national/global energy needs) for something which proved that has an incredible rat tail of cons like economical and safety risks, and being useful for baseload anyway - but somehow the future will fix it because reasons.
And somehow opposing nuclear energy makes one an anti-vaxxer.
One day I will truly understand the hate for nuclear fission, and the hilarious idea that it is renewable against everything else, when I would say it's pretty obvious to me that at best it will be renewables and nuclear, renewables alone will not meet the energy needs around the world, and that is what is required, full 0 emissions or as close to it as we can possibly get (depending on advances in CDR technology) is the goal the entire world needs to meet, and the key here is that we are talking about an entire planet.
Such energy goals require flexible power solutions, which renewables just simply aren't.
Any form of renewable only energy will require both a place where such energy harvesting is possible, but also vast storage of said energy for when gathering such energy isn't possible, which in turn ofc also requires extremely significant over building of energy gathering that can actually charge those storage in what ever time frame the worst case scenario for them are in that region.
Which brings us to the point that a lot of what makes renewable energies cost effective and green, is the fact that we aren't taking into consideration energy storage, because most countries are using so little renewable, that we haven't reached the point where that has become truly needed.
If we take energy storage as it stands now into account in that magical world of renewable only, then renewable become straight up prohibitively expensive, and also not very clean because pillaging the earth for those resources with variable levels of recyclability isn't all that massively green.
Now yes we have varying solutions to the energy storage problem, some countries will be able to just pump it into dams to use it for later, others will be able to use old tunnels to compress air in them, and so on and so forth, but we need a truly global solution, one that will work in every country and for every city, and renewable is just simply not it.
The world needs Nuclear energy, and it needs it in the next couple of decades, now if we will have viable fusion in time to the point we can stop bothering with fission is anyone guess (I believe we will), but as things stand today, nuclear fission just simply needs to be a part of tomorrow 0 emission world, because there is nothing that exists now that can viably replace it around the world, both in terms of cost and in terms of environmental impact.
Don't take this the wrong way, this isn't anti renewable at all, at this point in time countries should be investing an absurd amount into renewable, because there is "easy" gains to be had, it is just simply that as the more we convert to renewable the more the issue of not having reliable 24/7 energy will come up, and as such the less effective the investment into renewable become both at a cost and environmental level.
Such energy goals require flexible power solutions, which renewables just simply aren't.
Any form of renewable only energy will require both a place where such energy harvesting is possible, but also vast storage of said energy for when gathering such energy isn't possible, which in turn ofc also requires extremely significant over building of energy gathering that can actually charge those storage in what ever time frame the worst case scenario for them are in that region.
Which brings us to the point that a lot of what makes renewable energies cost effective and green, is the fact that we aren't taking into consideration energy storage, because most countries are using so little renewable, that we haven't reached the point where that has become truly needed.
If we take energy storage as it stands now into account in that magical world of renewable only, then renewable become straight up prohibitively expensive, and also not very clean because pillaging the earth for those resources with variable levels of recyclability isn't all that massively green.
Now yes we have varying solutions to the energy storage problem, some countries will be able to just pump it into dams to use it for later, others will be able to use old tunnels to compress air in them, and so on and so forth, but we need a truly global solution, one that will work in every country and for every city, and renewable is just simply not it.
The world needs Nuclear energy, and it needs it in the next couple of decades, now if we will have viable fusion in time to the point we can stop bothering with fission is anyone guess (I believe we will), but as things stand today, nuclear fission just simply needs to be a part of tomorrow 0 emission world, because there is nothing that exists now that can viably replace it around the world, both in terms of cost and in terms of environmental impact.
Don't take this the wrong way, this isn't anti renewable at all, at this point in time countries should be investing an absurd amount into renewable, because there is "easy" gains to be had, it is just simply that as the more we convert to renewable the more the issue of not having reliable 24/7 energy will come up, and as such the less effective the investment into renewable become both at a cost and environmental level.
Frankfurter
Member
Not vs. gas, but vs. all fossil (including nuclear and large hydro):
http://fs-unep-centre.org/publications/global-trends-renewable-energy-investment-2017
"Investment in renewables capacity was roughly double that in fossil fuel generation; the corresponding new capacity from renewables was equivalent to 55 per cent of all new power, the highest to date."
Similar threads
- Locked