It’s much more reliable and consistent at generating power. It’s not dependent on the sun shining or wind blowing, so you can get the full capacity of generation at all times, making it a better investment for a government trying to support large populations. It also takes up way less land to set up and run.
Though of course, it doesn’t have to be one or the other. Solar and wind can supplement nuclear really well.
I thought about it when typing it, but I carried the habit from reddit over to lemmy to consider someone beginning a chain of comments as OP.
It’s definitely not the original meaning, but I saw it fairly common to use OP to refer to the author of an initial comment when responding to one of its child comment.
It was sold as being modular, with lots of fabrication happening off site. That didn’t come to fruition. It was also not too far removed from nukegate in South Carolina.
@Claidheamh@ndsvw
It depends on the renewables. Wind and photovoltaics have stability issues. Hydro and geothermal are more stable. Nuclear is compact and high power but has huge waste disposal issues.
The waste disposal is a solvable issue, that is still less nefarious than fossil fuel emissions. If you set the goal to replace ALL fossil fuel power generation, then nuclear is a necessary component of a renewable energy based grid. Geothermal and hydro are great and necessary, but can’t provide a reliable base load for the entire grid. Nuclear plants are complemental to renewables, not competition.
You don’t need to plan “1000’s of years into the future.” Why does Nuclear require a multi-generational plan on a scale that no civilization has ever attained, but burning fossil fuels which will kill most of us within a few generations doesn’t? It’s a distraction, the solution to nuclear waste was solved in the 50’s and the reality is that dangerous nuclear waste is useful and should be recycled, and the low-order nuclear waste isn’t dangerous for anymore then a century at most, and even then it’s only if you consume it.
I think that depends on the definition of “solved”.
In Finland, the Onkalo repository is being steadily built out (honestly, there might already be waste stored there, I haven’t checked in on that story in a while. I know there was some delay due to COVID).
In the United States, there’s been a lot of the usual politicking about where to build something that doesn’t exactly sound appealing to have in one’s backyard. Nobody wants to be the senator who allowed the government to build a nuclear waste site in their state, no matter how safe the site actually is.
This has led to the unfortunate situation where by law, the EPA is only allowed to consider a site in Nevada (because the other sites were in states represented by the Speaker of the House and President pro Tempore of the Senate), but because Nevada became an important state for Obama to become president, the site couldn’t/wouldn’t actually be built there and has been on hold pretty much ever since. My armchair understanding is that the Nevada site is probably one of the better places in the United States that you could store nuclear waste, but politics has ensured it will not be put there for a long, long time.
What do you mean hasn’t been solved? Nuclear waste is being processed and stored constantly and with high safety. Not to mention reprocessing which could be done if not for being outlawed.
The only permanent storage for high level waste is currently being built in Finland, if I’m not mistaken. Germany thought they had found one, but they have to retrieve all waste because of leaks. Back to square one.
All we have up to now is temporary surface storage.
What do you prefer? A power plant where all the hazardous material it generates you throw out into the atmosphere, or one where you can capture all of it into a container and prevent it from going out into the environment?
> Renewables plus storage are very well capable of reliable supply.
Don’t get me wrong, they are capable of a much larger percentage of supply than they currently provide, but to handle the predictable periods of peak demand on the grid, it would be incredibly inefficient to rely only on renewables plus storage. It’s not the most environmentally friendly solution for that.
Do you have an english translation for the link in the edit btw?
>an institution as unsuspicious of being “too green” as it gets
Being too green is not the problem. The problem is not being green enough…
@Claidheamh
Nuclear is also very expensive. Bioenergy is the one I missed. That is far cheaper than nuclear and could be scaled up easily. I’m sure there will be a need for both the existing nuclear and indeed some fossil fuels for a while yet. But I think we should focus on getting our renewable energy resources in place in advance of building any new nuclear plants.
@Claidheamh straw too. Biofuels are in fact carbon neutral. But yes release CO2. Nuclear also produces CO2 mainly due to the mining, processing and transportation of the fuel. But far less than say coal or gas. The reality is that some new reactors are going to be built. But I believe the money would have been better invested in onshore wind.
That’s what their marketing would like you to believe. But they’re only carbon neutral if you take into account the carbon being sequestered by the growth of plants before they’re burned. By that measure they’re just as carbon neutral as coal.
> Nuclear also produces CO2 mainly due to the mining, processing and transportation of the fuel.
That’s not nuclear that produces CO2, that’s mining, processing, and transportation. It’s transversal to anything you build, be it nuclear, bioenergy, wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, anything. In the ideal conditions of your power being entirely carbon-free, then so is all of that.
By that measure they’re just as carbon neutral as coal.
Well no, because coal is deep deposits of carbon which have essentially left the carbon cycle. By digging it up and burning it we are adding carbon back which otherwise wasn’t already an issue. Biofuels by definition rely on the carbon currently in the carbon cycle so they do not have this issue.
In that case you should be in favor of nuclear, as it’s the only real replacement we have for fossil fuels, no matter what Shell and BP will try to tell us.
but you could still replace that with reneawables as long as you have enough electricity left at night when there is no wind.
That would require storing all that energy, which isn’t feasible right now and realistically not anytime soon unless we get some kind of battery breakthrough (Still waiting on those solid-state and graphene batteries)
I wonder why we haven’t been looking into mechanical flywheels more ofr the energy storage. They’re far less energy dense sure but their service life blow batteries out of the water long term and when you’re building static grid scale storage space isn’t really a concern.
We have those, that’s pretty much how big energy plants work (Coal, gas and fusion all use that I think), it’s not exactly a flywheel, but a large turbine which can keep spinning for some time. I think a full on flywheel would have to be absolutely massive to produce enough energy to be meaningful, which is probably just not worth it
Renewables should complement nuclear. “And” not “or”
The thing is we’ve gotten so good at burning coal that the base load cannot realistically be carried by renewables and transmitted to where the load is. Nuclear, with it’s challenges, is the only technology that can fill the power vacuum left by base load coal and gas generation stations.
Complaining about down votes is some small dick reddit energy, don’t do that in the future. We are on Lemmy now.
Now to answer your question. “Renewables*” are supplementary. Wind/Solar cannot provide baseline power, and will never be able to provide baseline power for the grid. Any kind of magical energy storage you can come up with that would allow renewables to replace a power plant also requires exotic/expensive tech that would be more expensive then Nuclear power and still doesn’t address baseline power consumption. This kind of question is also used as a distraction by the fossil fuel industry so that you have countries like Germany replacing nuclear power with coal and strip mining.
Why are they building coal in the first place? Because “renewables” do not produce enough base-line power. If Germany could use magically renewable energy to meet all of their energy demands, they would probably do it, but that isn’t the reality. In the future try to avoid framing solar/wind as competitors to nuclear power. Both are needed, and unlike nuclear power which hasn’t been built on any scale since the 70’s, solar/wind are absolutely used everywhere they can be and if they aren’t sufficient in cases like Georgia, Nuclear should 100% be the answer because if it’s not used you will have coal or gas instead. “Just asking questions” like that shows you don’t understand power-generation and you have fallen for the fossil fuel industries propaganda.
Excellent rundown. The baseline power supplier for when there’s no wind or sun can either be natural gas or nuclear, and nuclear produces far less harmful byproducts.
I think it’s more likely that you come of as disingenuous given that you come here to parrot some very well known talking points that are plain fallacies aimed at painting nuclear in a negative way.
Meanwhile, we are getting slow cooked and a lot of people here probably feel the impact of the heat and the urgency of the situation.
deleted by creator
It’s much more reliable and consistent at generating power. It’s not dependent on the sun shining or wind blowing, so you can get the full capacity of generation at all times, making it a better investment for a government trying to support large populations. It also takes up way less land to set up and run.
Though of course, it doesn’t have to be one or the other. Solar and wind can supplement nuclear really well.
You can read more about it here: https://changeoracle.com/2022/07/20/nuclear-power-versus-renewable-energy/amp/
Your last point is the most important one in my opinion. OP implied we have to chose between nuclear and solar/wind but it’s plain false.
And anyone who tells you otherwise probably has a profit incentive rather than an environmentalist one.
Careful who you’re calling OP ;)
I thought about it when typing it, but I carried the habit from reddit over to lemmy to consider someone beginning a chain of comments as OP.
It’s definitely not the original meaning, but I saw it fairly common to use OP to refer to the author of an initial comment when responding to one of its child comment.
You need a baseline for a stable power grid, which renewables alone can’t provide.
It ran billions over budget and took 15 years to come online though
It is also the first Gen III+ reactor in North America. Usually new technology has some growing pains.
That’s definitely suboptimal. Why was that?
I think most NPPs run billions and at least a decade over budget at this point.
I suppose it’s easier to sell the population on a smaller cost to the taxpayer, and then pay more anyway.
It was sold as being modular, with lots of fabrication happening off site. That didn’t come to fruition. It was also not too far removed from nukegate in South Carolina.
@Claidheamh @ndsvw
It depends on the renewables. Wind and photovoltaics have stability issues. Hydro and geothermal are more stable. Nuclear is compact and high power but has huge waste disposal issues.
The waste disposal is a solvable issue, that is still less nefarious than fossil fuel emissions. If you set the goal to replace ALL fossil fuel power generation, then nuclear is a necessary component of a renewable energy based grid. Geothermal and hydro are great and necessary, but can’t provide a reliable base load for the entire grid. Nuclear plants are complemental to renewables, not competition.
deleted by creator
What’s the problem with how the waste is managed right now?
deleted by creator
You don’t need to plan “1000’s of years into the future.” Why does Nuclear require a multi-generational plan on a scale that no civilization has ever attained, but burning fossil fuels which will kill most of us within a few generations doesn’t? It’s a distraction, the solution to nuclear waste was solved in the 50’s and the reality is that dangerous nuclear waste is useful and should be recycled, and the low-order nuclear waste isn’t dangerous for anymore then a century at most, and even then it’s only if you consume it.
deleted by creator
Strangely enough it hasn’t been solved in the almost 70 years of nuclear energy. And I doubt it will be solved in the next 70 years either.
I think that depends on the definition of “solved”.
In Finland, the Onkalo repository is being steadily built out (honestly, there might already be waste stored there, I haven’t checked in on that story in a while. I know there was some delay due to COVID).
In the United States, there’s been a lot of the usual politicking about where to build something that doesn’t exactly sound appealing to have in one’s backyard. Nobody wants to be the senator who allowed the government to build a nuclear waste site in their state, no matter how safe the site actually is.
This has led to the unfortunate situation where by law, the EPA is only allowed to consider a site in Nevada (because the other sites were in states represented by the Speaker of the House and President pro Tempore of the Senate), but because Nevada became an important state for Obama to become president, the site couldn’t/wouldn’t actually be built there and has been on hold pretty much ever since. My armchair understanding is that the Nevada site is probably one of the better places in the United States that you could store nuclear waste, but politics has ensured it will not be put there for a long, long time.
What do you mean hasn’t been solved? Nuclear waste is being processed and stored constantly and with high safety. Not to mention reprocessing which could be done if not for being outlawed.
The only permanent storage for high level waste is currently being built in Finland, if I’m not mistaken. Germany thought they had found one, but they have to retrieve all waste because of leaks. Back to square one.
All we have up to now is temporary surface storage.
There is deep salt vein storage here in the us actively being used as we speak.
deleted by creator
The pyramids weren’t buried 1km under the surface in flowing salt which will further engulf the waste for geologic time scales.
Also we didn’t forget about the pyramids. What does that even mean? People have lived right next to them since they were built.
deleted by creator
What do you prefer? A power plant where all the hazardous material it generates you throw out into the atmosphere, or one where you can capture all of it into a container and prevent it from going out into the environment?
Neither. I don’t buy the assumption that they are necessary. Renewables plus storage are very well capable of reliable supply.
Edit: https://www.diw.de/de/diw_01.c.821878.de/publikationen/wochenberichte/2021_29_1/100_prozent_erneuerbare_energien_fuer_deutschland__koordinierte_ausbauplanung_notwendig.html (in German, published by the German Institute for Economic Research, an institution as unsuspicious of being “too green” as it gets)
> Renewables plus storage are very well capable of reliable supply.
Don’t get me wrong, they are capable of a much larger percentage of supply than they currently provide, but to handle the predictable periods of peak demand on the grid, it would be incredibly inefficient to rely only on renewables plus storage. It’s not the most environmentally friendly solution for that.
Do you have an english translation for the link in the edit btw?
>an institution as unsuspicious of being “too green” as it gets
Being too green is not the problem. The problem is not being green enough…
Unfortunately, no. Most of the site lets you choose English, but for this specific article you’d need Google translate, or deepl, or whatever else.
It has, it’s just illegal to do in the US. France has been doing it since the 60s.
It was solved less then 10 years after nuclear power was discovered.
@Claidheamh
Nuclear is also very expensive. Bioenergy is the one I missed. That is far cheaper than nuclear and could be scaled up easily. I’m sure there will be a need for both the existing nuclear and indeed some fossil fuels for a while yet. But I think we should focus on getting our renewable energy resources in place in advance of building any new nuclear plants.
It may be expensive to build, but it’s much cheaper to run. Just compare France’s and Germany’s energy prices.
Bioenergy is just more emissions we really can’t afford to put into the atmosphere. It’s basically just a fancy name for “burning wood”.
@Claidheamh straw too. Biofuels are in fact carbon neutral. But yes release CO2. Nuclear also produces CO2 mainly due to the mining, processing and transportation of the fuel. But far less than say coal or gas. The reality is that some new reactors are going to be built. But I believe the money would have been better invested in onshore wind.
>Biofuels are in fact carbon neutral.
That’s what their marketing would like you to believe. But they’re only carbon neutral if you take into account the carbon being sequestered by the growth of plants before they’re burned. By that measure they’re just as carbon neutral as coal.
> Nuclear also produces CO2 mainly due to the mining, processing and transportation of the fuel.
That’s not nuclear that produces CO2, that’s mining, processing, and transportation. It’s transversal to anything you build, be it nuclear, bioenergy, wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, anything. In the ideal conditions of your power being entirely carbon-free, then so is all of that.
Well no, because coal is deep deposits of carbon which have essentially left the carbon cycle. By digging it up and burning it we are adding carbon back which otherwise wasn’t already an issue. Biofuels by definition rely on the carbon currently in the carbon cycle so they do not have this issue.
Wind, solar, geothermal etc. need constant mining of fuel?
They need one-time mining of construction material to build those things, and that’s it, for the next few decades.
I don’t support any continued burning it fossil fuels. That’s what every previous generation said and look at the thermometer.
@lntl nor do I
In that case you should be in favor of nuclear, as it’s the only real replacement we have for fossil fuels, no matter what Shell and BP will try to tell us.
deleted by creator
I’m from Portugal, but a web search found this https://www.georgiapower.com/company/about-us/facts-and-financials.html which shows 63% of the grid there is fossil fuels.
deleted by creator
That would require storing all that energy, which isn’t feasible right now and realistically not anytime soon unless we get some kind of battery breakthrough (Still waiting on those solid-state and graphene batteries)
I wonder why we haven’t been looking into mechanical flywheels more ofr the energy storage. They’re far less energy dense sure but their service life blow batteries out of the water long term and when you’re building static grid scale storage space isn’t really a concern.
We have those, that’s pretty much how big energy plants work (Coal, gas and fusion all use that I think), it’s not exactly a flywheel, but a large turbine which can keep spinning for some time. I think a full on flywheel would have to be absolutely massive to produce enough energy to be meaningful, which is probably just not worth it
I think way too few people realize this.
Renewables should complement nuclear. “And” not “or”
The thing is we’ve gotten so good at burning coal that the base load cannot realistically be carried by renewables and transmitted to where the load is. Nuclear, with it’s challenges, is the only technology that can fill the power vacuum left by base load coal and gas generation stations.
Complaining about down votes is some small dick reddit energy, don’t do that in the future. We are on Lemmy now.
Now to answer your question. “Renewables*” are supplementary. Wind/Solar cannot provide baseline power, and will never be able to provide baseline power for the grid. Any kind of magical energy storage you can come up with that would allow renewables to replace a power plant also requires exotic/expensive tech that would be more expensive then Nuclear power and still doesn’t address baseline power consumption. This kind of question is also used as a distraction by the fossil fuel industry so that you have countries like Germany replacing nuclear power with coal and strip mining.
Why are they building coal in the first place? Because “renewables” do not produce enough base-line power. If Germany could use magically renewable energy to meet all of their energy demands, they would probably do it, but that isn’t the reality. In the future try to avoid framing solar/wind as competitors to nuclear power. Both are needed, and unlike nuclear power which hasn’t been built on any scale since the 70’s, solar/wind are absolutely used everywhere they can be and if they aren’t sufficient in cases like Georgia, Nuclear should 100% be the answer because if it’s not used you will have coal or gas instead. “Just asking questions” like that shows you don’t understand power-generation and you have fallen for the fossil fuel industries propaganda.
Excellent rundown. The baseline power supplier for when there’s no wind or sun can either be natural gas or nuclear, and nuclear produces far less harmful byproducts.
deleted by creator
I think it’s more likely that you come of as disingenuous given that you come here to parrot some very well known talking points that are plain fallacies aimed at painting nuclear in a negative way.
Meanwhile, we are getting slow cooked and a lot of people here probably feel the impact of the heat and the urgency of the situation.
deleted by creator