The problem isn’t function or safety, it’s cost. It isn’t cost effective to build or renovate a nuclear plant compared to wind or solar. If you have one in good condition, it makes sense to let it run its lifetime, but it makes little sense to build new.
The problem is cost and time. Its all fine and dandy to say we just need to make it modular, but the required R&D for that will take many years and the you need to build up production capacity and actually install them.
If this were the 1990ties, I would agree, but it isn’t, so let’s please be realistic and focus on what can be done now, which isn’t modular nuclear reactors.
All you achieve by focussing on nuclear is letting the coal plants run at least a decade longer, while we do have better and cheaper alternatives right now that just need to be installed.
As long we don’t have a way to deal with the nuclear waste, nuclear is not safe.
And even if we had a way to deal with this, Mining, preprocessing, building the reactor, running the reactor and treating the waste has to be cheaper than renewabls, which I doubt.
Last, but not least, building such powerplants takes years, if not decades, to build, which we do have. At the current rate of emission, we have less than 6 years left before we miss the 1.5°C target[1], which is way to short for any nuclear facility.
Dig a deep hole, put the nuclear waste in the hole, backfill with clay.
Solved.
Now I understand that different places on earth have less suitable bedrock for this storage, so I voulenteer my home municipality in Sweden as a global storage site, we have stable bedrock, the technical skill and a stable government.
As for the “we don’t have time” bullshit, I have heard that for more than ten years, it is pure bullshit, the best time to build nuclear power was ten years ago, the second best time is today.
You can yell about solar/wind as much as you ever want, but they can’t deal with the baseload as well as nuclear or coal can, coal is buring the entire planet, nuclear MIGHT at worst create a temporary inconvenience where a relatively small area has to be closed to humans. Continued use of coal will cause far, far worse harm.
Your language is rude. Please adress your point in a more formal way, without claiming that I would be yelling or bullshitting.
I still don’t see the deposition of nuclear waste as straight forward as you claim.
We have accumulated waste for many decades and, so far, have establiahed only a single site. If this was new technology I would give it the benefit of the doubt, but we have decaying castors, wich will become more and more difficult to handle, as the fule rods become brittle. Just building new Reactors and think we will handle the waste eventually, is not enough to convince me.
If we had the resources to build nuclear powerplants and renewables, we should do both, but we have not. Thus, every Cent spent on nuclear is not spent on renewables which give more power per invested money.[1]
Baseload:
The grids might not yet handle a widespread dunkelflaute, but they can be, and currently are, extended to shift energy from production places to the regions where they are needed. Furthermore the cost of energy storage is falling every every year[2], while the the cost of nuclear remains more or less stagnant.[3]
I agree that coal does more harm than nuclear, but as states above, we should put our effort in renewables.
If we had to decide between nuclear and coal, the clear winner is nuclear. As I stated in the other comment that renewables are more cost effective than nuclear, and thus, we can convert more coal to emission free energy than with nuclear.
Clearly we can all agree there should not be fossil fuel power plants being built.
We need all the clean energy solutions and we need to build them much faster. I’m not optimistic about nuclear because it is by far the most expensive and time consuming to build out: we need to make a difference sooner than possible fr nuclear to help. But by all means, let’s give it a try: if we can get past this crisis, there will always be increasing energy needs
stoy@lemmy.zip 1 month ago
Ok, then let’s boil the planet despite having safe and working alternatives.
Vash63@lemmy.world 1 month ago
The problem isn’t function or safety, it’s cost. It isn’t cost effective to build or renovate a nuclear plant compared to wind or solar. If you have one in good condition, it makes sense to let it run its lifetime, but it makes little sense to build new.
Miaou@jlai.lu 1 month ago
Well it’s probably cheaper to keep coal plants running, if money is the metric we care about.
stoy@lemmy.zip 1 month ago
Standardization and modularity.
Yes, the first plant would be expensive, but the cost would drasticly go down once production gets under way.
Make the plant design modular as well, so if the plant it built next to water, it can use the water to discharge heat, and not need cooling towers.
This isn’t a huge problem.
poVoq@slrpnk.net 1 month ago
The problem is cost and time. Its all fine and dandy to say we just need to make it modular, but the required R&D for that will take many years and the you need to build up production capacity and actually install them.
If this were the 1990ties, I would agree, but it isn’t, so let’s please be realistic and focus on what can be done now, which isn’t modular nuclear reactors.
All you achieve by focussing on nuclear is letting the coal plants run at least a decade longer, while we do have better and cheaper alternatives right now that just need to be installed.
bobtimus_prime@feddit.org 1 month ago
This study says otherwise: www.sciencedirect.com/…/S0360544223015980
bobtimus_prime@feddit.org 1 month ago
As long we don’t have a way to deal with the nuclear waste, nuclear is not safe.
And even if we had a way to deal with this, Mining, preprocessing, building the reactor, running the reactor and treating the waste has to be cheaper than renewabls, which I doubt.
Last, but not least, building such powerplants takes years, if not decades, to build, which we do have. At the current rate of emission, we have less than 6 years left before we miss the 1.5°C target[1], which is way to short for any nuclear facility.
[1] www.mcc-berlin.net/en/research/co2-budget.html
stoy@lemmy.zip 1 month ago
Nuclear waste is a solved problem.
Dig a deep hole, put the nuclear waste in the hole, backfill with clay.
Solved.
Now I understand that different places on earth have less suitable bedrock for this storage, so I voulenteer my home municipality in Sweden as a global storage site, we have stable bedrock, the technical skill and a stable government.
As for the “we don’t have time” bullshit, I have heard that for more than ten years, it is pure bullshit, the best time to build nuclear power was ten years ago, the second best time is today.
You can yell about solar/wind as much as you ever want, but they can’t deal with the baseload as well as nuclear or coal can, coal is buring the entire planet, nuclear MIGHT at worst create a temporary inconvenience where a relatively small area has to be closed to humans. Continued use of coal will cause far, far worse harm.
bobtimus_prime@feddit.org 1 month ago
Your language is rude. Please adress your point in a more formal way, without claiming that I would be yelling or bullshitting.
I still don’t see the deposition of nuclear waste as straight forward as you claim. We have accumulated waste for many decades and, so far, have establiahed only a single site. If this was new technology I would give it the benefit of the doubt, but we have decaying castors, wich will become more and more difficult to handle, as the fule rods become brittle. Just building new Reactors and think we will handle the waste eventually, is not enough to convince me.
If we had the resources to build nuclear powerplants and renewables, we should do both, but we have not. Thus, every Cent spent on nuclear is not spent on renewables which give more power per invested money.[1]
Baseload: The grids might not yet handle a widespread dunkelflaute, but they can be, and currently are, extended to shift energy from production places to the regions where they are needed. Furthermore the cost of energy storage is falling every every year[2], while the the cost of nuclear remains more or less stagnant.[3]
I agree that coal does more harm than nuclear, but as states above, we should put our effort in renewables.
[1] theguardian.com/…/nuclear-power-australia-liberal… [2] ourworldindata.org/battery-price-decline [3] statista.com/…/cost-of-nuclear-electricity-produc…
d4f0@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Sure, for nuclear to help not reach the 1.5°C threshold it should have been built decades ago.
For nuclear to help not reach the 2°C threshold it can be built now. But surely in a few decades it will also take too long to build.
Right now there are new fossil fuel plants being built, I think nuclear is a better alternative than that.
bobtimus_prime@feddit.org 1 month ago
If we had to decide between nuclear and coal, the clear winner is nuclear. As I stated in the other comment that renewables are more cost effective than nuclear, and thus, we can convert more coal to emission free energy than with nuclear.
AA5B@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Clearly we can all agree there should not be fossil fuel power plants being built.
We need all the clean energy solutions and we need to build them much faster. I’m not optimistic about nuclear because it is by far the most expensive and time consuming to build out: we need to make a difference sooner than possible fr nuclear to help. But by all means, let’s give it a try: if we can get past this crisis, there will always be increasing energy needs
kamenlady@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Should i nuclear or should i coal now?
If i coal there will be trouble. And if i nuclear it will be double.
stoy@lemmy.zip 1 month ago
What?
Coal is far, far, far worse than nuclear, even in terms in radiation.
If we replaced all coal plabts with nuclear power we would hugely reduce the ammount of Co2 and radiation released.
kamenlady@lemmy.world 1 month ago
I meant in terms of if an accident happens.