Oddbean new post about login | logout @322442e3 Yes I have a number of friends who work in the #nuclear industry who are often frustrated by the negative publicity... my main objection(s) are related to the generation of waste & its future impact on society (which seems to me to be something, if you'll excuse th pun, being swept under the carpet), and the expense of development - money which could have been spent on other forms of #energu development. But I accept the wider scare srtroeis about Nuclear are just that, scare stories
@43d7c4ea I'd say the »nuclear waste« problem is another scare story, because: - It is not much at all. The total amount of spent nuclear fuel ever generated by humans fits a cube of 35 m sides. Or »tens of thousands of metric tons« if you want to scare people. This is much less than the amount of coal replaced by the contents of a single spent fuel cask. - It is dangerous, but not exceptionally so. - Deep underground final repositories, such as in Finland, are known to work. https://6-28.mastodon.xyz/media_attachments/files/111/079/834/929/007/739/original/d2e0f86809ce2cdd.jpeg https://6-28.mastodon.xyz/media_attachments/files/111/079/840/889/616/037/original/8e765ce73f23ed6f.jpg
Not to mention one truck could provide its fule for a year unlike the millions of train cars and trucks for coal.
@322442e3 @43d7c4ea Also remember that: A) Coal is radioactive. This means that coal dust, coal ash and coal smoke are radioactive. They are not *very* radioactive, not on Chernobyl levels, but they are slightly more radioactive than processed nuclear waste because the latter is subject to intense radiation-protection and the former is not. B) Coal mining kills a lot of people. That's not even counting deaths due to climate change. Coal is found in soft rock that frequently collapses, and is often mined in unsafe ways such as "retreat" mining. Uranium is found in far harder rocks which experience fewer collapses. Yes, Chernobyl killed a lot of people, but many more have died since then from coal mine collapses.
@322442e3 @43d7c4ea but renewables are far faster to build and far cheaper. With the money saved, build storage until the cows come home and it's still cheaper than nuclear. Without the thousands of years of legacy. Sure, keep existing plants running as most of the damage has already been done. I just don't see the point of building new plants.
@4c04d469 @43d7c4ea What storage? As a simplified instance, try to design a system of solar panels, wind turbines, and battery storage, which gives a constant 1 GW output over the last two years at a middle european location of your choice. Be sure to model conversion losses from/to storage. You may omit further conversion losses downstream towards the consumer. You may assume perfect foresight for now. How much of each do you need? What are the area and resource requirements?
@322442e3 @43d7c4ea Its not quite in operation yet, took 20 years to build so far, & only Finland has actually built one so far. Even though nuclear waste has been around since the 1950s. With nuclear everything is unique, and takes much longer, and is much more expensive than expected (Prediction: SMRs will be the same). Effective renewables are faster, already much cheaper, with much more drops to come) & with far more people researching them. Nuclear will be a niche player.
