It's so frustrating seeing nuclear pitted against renewables, while fossil fuel powerplants are still operating/being built, whose baseline power could be replaced by nuclear.
But somehow the idea took hold that nuclear would be built instead of solar, and not instead of coal.
The problem is that hardly anybody does a clear cost calculation of a nuclear powerplant.
We know roughtly what it costs to build solar or wind. There is a bit of subsidies and commercial parties take care of the rest. In the short term we need natural gas as a backup for solar and wind. But even that is not hard to build.
And then we have nuclear. Projects that are late, projects cost way more than projected. Building a nuclear powerplant takes so much time that financing the project is almost impossible.
Today, nuclear is just not a practical option. We need to build as much non-fossil capacity as we can and as quick as we can.
In future, we have to solve the storage problem for wind and solar. If that becomes a problem, then nuclear may make a comeback. At least, if somebody can figure out how to accurately project the cost and construction time.
> But somehow the idea took hold that nuclear would be built instead of solar, and not instead of coal.
Nobody wants to admit they are still considering coal, but everyone wants to take credit for blocking nuclear and building renewables. So at a glance it seems like it's nuclear vs renewables, when it's always been nuclear vs coal.
With renewables baseline doesn’t make sense. Nuclear doesn’t combine well with renewables, not in a way that would complete the picture. Meaning: you can’t build something that works with only those two building blocks. Even more: baseline is not at all needed with renewables.
Renewables need to be combined with power sources that can be turned on and off quickly and on demand. Nuclear emphatically cannot provide that.
Talking about baseline power – as if that‘s needed – is highly misleading in that context.
Read between the lines. It's not about the best solution(s), it's about _their_ solution. Nuclear solves the problem they champion, which means, it negates the need for their efforts and existence (economic). Ironically, the rejection of nuclear as a viable option seems to be the result of a psychological existential threat to the supposed "elite" of our world.
The mask is off. Protecting the future of humanity isn't the goal; it's protecting their own egos.
I think you could make the same argument against nuclear advocates. Ego based focus on the "best" option and endless ad-hominem against proponents of good options. When actually the best option is one that is politically possible.
Also, the green zone is managed by the British Government rather than the UN who are fairly supportive of nuclear. Nuclear is politically viable in the UK so it gets built. Onshore turbines in South-East England are not politically viable so they don't get built and we go offshore instead. The objective should be to stop climate change rather than chase optimal technology.
The reason nuclear is unpopular is that it is expensive. It's more expensive than coal and gas typically. It's also very slow to deploy. A decade is nothing. We'll hit 2035 when several countries are planning to be 100% renewable powered in about 13 years. That's not a lot of time to build a meaningful amount of nuclear plants. Nuclear plants coming online recently are not great examples of speedily execution on a tight budget either. Despite this, there are still a quite a few under construction (around 50 world wide). It's their financial performance relative to renewables that determines if we end up with more of them.
The word baseload always comes up in these discussions but its meaning never really gets specified in a very satisfying way. For example in GW needed for how long (i.e. GWH). Having such a number would facilitate a discussion about alternate ways how we would get that power more cheaply. That's not a debate nuclear proponents like having because it focuses attention on poor financial performance of nuclear relative to just about anything else.
The simple reality driving a lot of the decision making is that you simply get more GWH per $ with solar and wind. And not just a little bit; the difference is massive. And you get it much quicker too. And it's far less risky from a political point of view.
So instead of getting say 8GW with a very big nuclear plant costing maybe 30-40 billion and taking two decades to get built and planned with lots of uncertainty around the process, you can have 30-40 GW online two years from now for about the same amount of money. That's based on a price of 5000$/kw for recent offshore wind installations. A couple of hundred GW of wind came online over the last few years. The investments in renewables are massive and for good reasons: it delivers results quickly and prices are trending down.
Offshore wind is actually relatively expensive compared to solar and onshore wind. But also relatively reliable. People put solar on their roofs for less (2-3k/kw) and solar plants are even cheaper but of course less stable sources of power. Add batteries to the mix and other forms of storage (ammonia, hydrogen, thermal mass, pumped hydro, etc.) and there is no lack of a "baseload" that can't be planned for and mitigated. It will have a price and a certain capacity and that's what needs to be debated in Glasgow. It's a conference about allocating massive amounts of money in the next decades. The stakes are high both in financial terms and in the outcomes.
Nuclear might be part of this if the price is right. But the whole nuclear or nothing attitude is just not a very productive argument. Many countries that have the option are still doing some nuclear of course. But far less than what they are allocating for wind and solar (in dollars and planned GWH capacity).
The original title "Message: Nuclear must be represented at COP26, says World Nuclear Association" reminds of meme "The cat is being starved, according to cat".
The most pragmatic solution is making high pollutant energy costly. Some small set of polluters are responsible for the majority of the emissions. (1) This is only possible because of being able to chalk the damage up to externalities.
We need to set up systems to adding cost to emissions.
A substantial PR rebrand modern Nuclear energy (maybe called something else) would be needed if you wanted to get traction on that.
Long gone are days where people / governments make decisions based on any objective facts and pragmatic cost/ benefit/ risk analysis.
I understand solar is competitive and full tilt on that would be good. It's got better PR right now.
Whatever we do .. install some some smoke scrubbers on dirty energy ASAP.
And probably do your 15 year R&D plan on carbon capture tech (if we had to choose one direction) as we have already done (otherwise) irreversible harm that switching to renewables / Nuclear now won't solve.
> Long gone are days where people / governments make decisions based on any objective facts and pragmatic cost/ benefit/ risk analysis.
There are governments choosing to build nuclear right now, despite its general unpopularity in many circles so I don't know that such days are "long gone".
And how could anyone sell another nuclear plant to France when the Flamanville 3rd reactor is 5X++ over budget and 8 years behind schedule? It is hard to win any rational cost/benefit/risk analysis when you have to fight a well-deserved reputation of being absurdly expensive and very high risk!
Rebranding might help, but there are some places where these bridges are simply burnt and the industry won't be getting back in, which is unfortunate but also kind of deserved in a way.
What you will then get is an unsustainable set of shortcuts that threaten your energy supplies at crucial times.
ie, what's happening in Europe now[1]
Germany went on a spree, dismantling their nuclear plants after being scared by Fukushima. Fossil fuel plants tool their place. Subsidies to unsustainable alternatives and penalties on polluters made it so it was not profitable to increase energy supply on sources such as natural gas and fossil fuels that could ramp quickly in response to demand.
And the price of natural gas in Europe went parabolic.
So a lot of the discussions here are around EU or US opinions about nuclear power. The problem is something entirely different.
India and China will move to emphatically reject coal restrictions during COP26. Remember India has probably some of the largest investments in renewable rightnow. But I dont think people outside of these countries have even an idea of the amount of hunger for power that is being generated as huge populations start clawing out of hunger and poverty.
3 years back, there were 240 million Indians who had NO electricity - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-01-24/living-in...
So talking about pollution in this context is only solvable through large sources of clean power. We dont have enough land in India to support renewables for 1.3 billion people. Neither does China. Europe ? Very easily so.
Coal ban is not an option. Unless nuclear power and technology transfer is on the table.
As long as nuclear energy is treated as PICK_ANY(obsolete, uneconomical, systemically dangerous) it leaves me with zero hope for humanity.
Nuclear is way more than technology, it's Prometheus' fire. It may burn the unprepared but it is incomparable to anything else we possess. That factor million more energy per gram than chemical reactions should be enough for us to treat it as literally unlocking the next level of human development.
This petty discussion on whether it is sustainable, dirty, expensive or dangerous is simply mind-boggling. Yes, it requires a much deeper "readiness" to utilise by our civilization than any other energy source, but the long-term benefit should be what it is held up against.
If it is Prometheus' fire, we are not ready to handle that fire yet. When one of the core concerns of using a technology is to prevent it being used to create weapons capable of obliterating entire cities, we are not as a species mature enough to use it on a wider scale. This is only one example of why we are not ready yet.
Nuclear (fission) technology is not the problem, we are the problem. Looking at the recent history of political leadership all over the world, and the baffling level of support even the most immature of policies have, it's clear we have a ways to go. Most people doesn't even seem to realize that as a species we've only just emerged, we're so young. Toddlers on any timescale but the most naïve and short sighted.
Earth gets hit by 170 000 TW of sunshine every hour. That's more than the yearly global consumption of energy.
If we could capture only 1% of that, we'd have 80 times more than we need, from just the sunshine reaching earth.
This makes the photovoltaic cell and related technologies more interesting than nuclear to me. A way more abundant energy source with none of the downsides of nuclear is clearly within our reach. It's not even unknown technology, we just haven't made the infrastructure to capture it yet.
Nuclear seems to me to be similar to Coal in that we may think it's a good idea now, only to discover later on that it actually killed us due to things we didn't think about. Or didn't want to think about.
They are also similar in that we who get the benefits today are leaving the problems with it to future generations.
While I agree with you regarding the political dimension, the technical, especially regarding safety may not be underestimated regarding cost implications. But the right political setting could imply cheap, mass produced plants, e.g. SMR's. The problem is that were too late, would take several decades to scale up to where we we should be already...
>the long-term benefit should be what it is held up against.
how about the long term risk? we havent even figured out how to deal with plastics in the ocean and in our bodies let alone responsibly harness the atom. we're talking about a waste product that does not cease to create a danger for hundreds of years at minimum. Reactor 4 at chernobyl is predicted to be "safe" in 20,000 years and before you say thats an exception id like to remind you that ALL high level nuclear waste has a cooldown of tens of thousands of years and it is routinely generated in the pursuit of the electron today.
The Roman empire only lasted 1500 years. these nuclear byproducts last so long that modern scholars cannot unilaterally agree on a simple means of warning the future inhabitants of whatever society exists, let alone passing on any tips or tricks for processing or salvaging these lethal artifacts.
we are talking about a waste product that outlives not only written but spoken language and dozens if not hundreds of civilizations and the stalwart of the atom --the United States-- still couldnt even manage to get Yucca mouuntain together as a disposal ground after two decades.
nuclear isotopes do not have a rate of return. they do not care about profit or equity or economies and will without remoerse kill you all if you forget them.
waste is currently stored in large pools at your local nuclear plant that require constant cooling. once these sites are inoperable they will require the care of generations for millennia before with a clear conscience you can say 'nuclear power was worth it'. that the atom will be taught as a religion is less far fetched a premise to a Fallout game when you realize in 12,000 years the only means of conveying the lethality of our hubris will be as such.
> treat it as literally unlocking the next level of human development
That was literally the way it was thought about a three quarters of a century ago. It... didn't work out.
It's just not there. It's fine. It's safe enough. But it's outrageously expensive relative to other equally advantageous sources, and all the magic technologies needed to "fix" that are always a decade away.
I don't think the applications for nuclear energy were rejected for the reasons being implied by the original article. This article[1] mentions that they weren't accepted because they missed the submission deadline.
> According to Kirsty Gogan, cofounder of TerraPraxis and a senior climate and energy advisor to the U.K. government, “All three Green Zone applications by nuclear groups were rejected.” However, it seems some of that may be due to miscommunication regarding application deadlines for the COP26 Green Zone.
I couldn't find the original source for the miscommunication on application deadlines, hopefully someone can find it.
That's how you know none of this is real. If mankind was actually on the brink of extinction all options would be on the table. Especially one that offers free unlimited energy. Mankind does not have an energy generation problem. It only has an energy storage problem.
Hate to conclude but climate change has evolved into a self-serving political agenda for our elites and this is yet more evidence of that.
Nuclear is obviously renewable and proven. Flourocarbons - CFCs - HCFCs - HFCs - and other related are extremely aggressive GHGs yet all of those are not phased out (or in case of CFCs there's plenty of evidence (see Nature) that emission continues in non Western nations) but making it part of the debate gets stonewalled too.
Another year and the same old talking heads, literally screaming protestors and policy makers still unable to come up with realistic solutions other than screaming at each other.
At least the technologists and engineers at several companies and startups are doing something about it with real world solutions, products and ideas.
I won’t be surprised that next year the same people are going to have the same discussion and it will be a forever blame game until they miss their own unrealistic timelines.
I have respect for those who ‘do’ rather than those who continue talking, mocking, screaming or blaming others and repeat themselves without giving anything substantiative to contribute themselves to the problem.
At some point, you have to wonder: why does the nuclear industry seem to just suck at lobbying?
The wind lobby has professionals who made the case to people who matter. That's not evil, that's your - the industries - job.
At a high level the nuclear industry, sorry to say, honestly doesn't care. It's the Boeing of the energy world, except even more so: wring every last drop out of dead tech, and never invest a cent.
Nuclear technology and radiation are not sexy. Formed its image during several long centuries starting its career with mass murder in Japan followed by several high profile accidents and the cold war's arm race, giving birth to the concept of the nuclear apocalypse pictured in popular culture (novels, movies, games). Combined with people being afraid of cancer caused by radiation to their core. It is planted deeply into the human consciousness now. Wind is harmless and clear compared to that.
Try to run a big old truck driver against a cute puppy in a popularity contest, you can be the world champion of PR still you will loose.
Of course. Think of it in terms of cui bono. You're on the precipice of convincing a bunch of folks they should shut down their economies and give you trillions of dollars to send to your donors as you please. Then a guy comes along and says that your shit won't work (which will be amply demonstrated in Europe this coming winter) and offers something that actually does work. It's like that meme - the guy will fly straight through the window for suggesting such foolishness. They never were interested in solving the problem, they're interested in trillions of dollars that they'll get control over because the problem exists.
> We are deeply concerned about the news that every application on nuclear energy for the Green Zone at the upcoming COP26 conference has been rejected
I don't understand what this means. What's an "application for the Green Zone at the upcoming COP26"? "Green zone"? What, is this a military occupation?
OK:
> The Green Zone is the ‘official’ fringe space (managed by the UK government), with around 200 events for the general public, civil society, youth groups and academia. Tickets are free.
> The Green Zone is managed by the UK Government, and is a platform for the general public, youth groups, civil society, academia, artists, business and others to have their voices heard through events, exhibitions, workshops and talks that promote dialogue, awareness, education
and commitments.
> …The Green Zone will be a stakeholder-led space and act as a key hub for engagement during the Summit. As such we are keen to see proposals that drive participation and interaction focused on the themes of climate change
>…In the Green Zone a number of exhibition spaces are available for organisations. As a public-facing venue, we are keen to receive proposals that engage audiences with the themes of climate change and climate action through interaction and participation. We see this two week showcase zone as a hub of tactile and immersive activity.
> …The Green Zone aims to facilitate discussion and engagement, and we’ve heard how important it is for organisations to have a focal point for convening attendees and having conversations. A number of stalls will be provided free of charge to use for one or two days, depending on demand, over the course of the Summit. These are spaces for dialogue and conversation, and might be of interest specifically for NGOs, trade bodies, and youth organisations.
Basically if you say to me that you care about climate change and then reject nuclear, I stop talking to you and taking you in any kind of seriously. Once you reject nuclear it’s just virtue signalling.
I am a fan of nuclear energy for various reasons, and it's obvious that the safety and waste problems can be solved with new technology like small modular reactors with inherently safe designs.
However, even I realize that nuclear energy is not viable to significantly combat climate change due to the following reasons:
* The technology is not there yet. There are a lot of promising companies that are trying to solve the safety problem, and there is a lot of research on how to better deal with the waste, but due to the inherent dangers it will take decades to prove these designs are safe, work as intended and can be produced at a significant scale at the promised cost. Sadly, we don't have decades, we need to start replacing coal right now.
* nuclear energy is way to expensive. Wind and solar are much cheaper. current numbers are roughly 50% cheaper for renewables, and while lots of companies promise cheaper nuclear design, these claims are unproven and the renewables are also still significantly improving in cost. The nuclear cost models I've seen also ignore most of the storage and security cost for handling the waste for millenia. There are cheaper alternatives with existing and proven technology. Power to gas for example has an efficiency of roughly 50%. which funny enough corresponds to its cost advantage over nuclear. simply building a lot more wind and solar capacity and using power to gas to fill existing gas storage systems with excess energy from renewables has roughly the same cost as nuclear, without the safety and proliferation headache, and the added advantage of long term storage.
* proliferation. even if we could solve the problem of safeguarding thousands of SMR in developed countries, you can't just export them to every country on earth. however, that's a requirement for replacing coal, as those countries need to reduce emissions, too.
So yeah, I'd love molten salt SMR to be a thing, and they probably will be in some applications in developed countries in 10-20 years, but the value of this to combat climate change is minimal and people who think otherwise are ignoring the previously mentioned facts.
What a dissappointment. Nuclear (of some kind, hoping for Fusion later) is a key component of any plan to stop global warming. Solar and Wind can get you to a greater than 50% green power production, but as you get closer to 100% you need exponentially more and more production and more and more transmission lines to handle dips and avoid blackouts from rare situations. You need a power generation source that is consistent.
At some point in the future we may have enough battery production for grid energy storage such that nuclear is not needed, but we are a long long way from that. Battery supply is growing rapidly, but not nearly rapidly enough.
Well based in the history, the United Nations Climate Change conference, or COP, started at Germany in 1995. There Merkel should play a central role. Looking back on her time in the Ministry of the Environment. Fast forward to 1998, the government of Gerhard Schroeder (SPD) reached what became known as the “nuclear consensus” with the big utilities. They agreed to limit the lifespan of nuclear power stations to 32 years. Add to it the (in)famous “German angst” caused after the Fukushima accident. With that narrative, built over the time, it will be very hard to change the actual scenario.
I think rejecting the nuclear fission power is the mistake of the these times and we are already paying for it. If the world goes that direction we've been in a better place in terms of global warming.
Nuclear is not a palatable political solution for a lot of people and it is easily simpler to reject the proliferation of such materials. The current 'theater' from a geopolitical standpoint for nuclear is China and it does not appear to be succeeding well. I don't expect France to succeed given all that has occurred.
Smaller nuclear devices will need constant care and monitoring that it is highly likely people will need to 'grow with' such devices. I dont think the will UN back something without a proof of concept which could delay adoption years.
It's not palatable because of poor education. We need to be including nuclear in the list of green technologies in basic school science textbooks. We don't.
[+] [-] chuckee|4 years ago|reply
But somehow the idea took hold that nuclear would be built instead of solar, and not instead of coal.
[+] [-] phicoh|4 years ago|reply
We know roughtly what it costs to build solar or wind. There is a bit of subsidies and commercial parties take care of the rest. In the short term we need natural gas as a backup for solar and wind. But even that is not hard to build.
And then we have nuclear. Projects that are late, projects cost way more than projected. Building a nuclear powerplant takes so much time that financing the project is almost impossible.
Today, nuclear is just not a practical option. We need to build as much non-fossil capacity as we can and as quick as we can.
In future, we have to solve the storage problem for wind and solar. If that becomes a problem, then nuclear may make a comeback. At least, if somebody can figure out how to accurately project the cost and construction time.
[+] [-] shawnz|4 years ago|reply
Nobody wants to admit they are still considering coal, but everyone wants to take credit for blocking nuclear and building renewables. So at a glance it seems like it's nuclear vs renewables, when it's always been nuclear vs coal.
[+] [-] ianai|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] arrrg|4 years ago|reply
Renewables need to be combined with power sources that can be turned on and off quickly and on demand. Nuclear emphatically cannot provide that.
Talking about baseline power – as if that‘s needed – is highly misleading in that context.
[+] [-] rglover|4 years ago|reply
The mask is off. Protecting the future of humanity isn't the goal; it's protecting their own egos.
[+] [-] 7952|4 years ago|reply
Also, the green zone is managed by the British Government rather than the UN who are fairly supportive of nuclear. Nuclear is politically viable in the UK so it gets built. Onshore turbines in South-East England are not politically viable so they don't get built and we go offshore instead. The objective should be to stop climate change rather than chase optimal technology.
[+] [-] passerby1|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jillesvangurp|4 years ago|reply
The word baseload always comes up in these discussions but its meaning never really gets specified in a very satisfying way. For example in GW needed for how long (i.e. GWH). Having such a number would facilitate a discussion about alternate ways how we would get that power more cheaply. That's not a debate nuclear proponents like having because it focuses attention on poor financial performance of nuclear relative to just about anything else.
The simple reality driving a lot of the decision making is that you simply get more GWH per $ with solar and wind. And not just a little bit; the difference is massive. And you get it much quicker too. And it's far less risky from a political point of view.
So instead of getting say 8GW with a very big nuclear plant costing maybe 30-40 billion and taking two decades to get built and planned with lots of uncertainty around the process, you can have 30-40 GW online two years from now for about the same amount of money. That's based on a price of 5000$/kw for recent offshore wind installations. A couple of hundred GW of wind came online over the last few years. The investments in renewables are massive and for good reasons: it delivers results quickly and prices are trending down.
Offshore wind is actually relatively expensive compared to solar and onshore wind. But also relatively reliable. People put solar on their roofs for less (2-3k/kw) and solar plants are even cheaper but of course less stable sources of power. Add batteries to the mix and other forms of storage (ammonia, hydrogen, thermal mass, pumped hydro, etc.) and there is no lack of a "baseload" that can't be planned for and mitigated. It will have a price and a certain capacity and that's what needs to be debated in Glasgow. It's a conference about allocating massive amounts of money in the next decades. The stakes are high both in financial terms and in the outcomes.
Nuclear might be part of this if the price is right. But the whole nuclear or nothing attitude is just not a very productive argument. Many countries that have the option are still doing some nuclear of course. But far less than what they are allocating for wind and solar (in dollars and planned GWH capacity).
[+] [-] viktorcode|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pumpkinman|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] mdale|4 years ago|reply
We need to set up systems to adding cost to emissions.
A substantial PR rebrand modern Nuclear energy (maybe called something else) would be needed if you wanted to get traction on that. Long gone are days where people / governments make decisions based on any objective facts and pragmatic cost/ benefit/ risk analysis.
I understand solar is competitive and full tilt on that would be good. It's got better PR right now.
Whatever we do .. install some some smoke scrubbers on dirty energy ASAP.
And probably do your 15 year R&D plan on carbon capture tech (if we had to choose one direction) as we have already done (otherwise) irreversible harm that switching to renewables / Nuclear now won't solve.
1) https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/five-percent-power...
[+] [-] JamisonM|4 years ago|reply
There are governments choosing to build nuclear right now, despite its general unpopularity in many circles so I don't know that such days are "long gone".
And how could anyone sell another nuclear plant to France when the Flamanville 3rd reactor is 5X++ over budget and 8 years behind schedule? It is hard to win any rational cost/benefit/risk analysis when you have to fight a well-deserved reputation of being absurdly expensive and very high risk!
Rebranding might help, but there are some places where these bridges are simply burnt and the industry won't be getting back in, which is unfortunate but also kind of deserved in a way.
[+] [-] DisjointedHunt|4 years ago|reply
ie, what's happening in Europe now[1]
Germany went on a spree, dismantling their nuclear plants after being scared by Fukushima. Fossil fuel plants tool their place. Subsidies to unsustainable alternatives and penalties on polluters made it so it was not profitable to increase energy supply on sources such as natural gas and fossil fuels that could ramp quickly in response to demand.
And the price of natural gas in Europe went parabolic.
[1] https://www.euronews.com/2021/10/28/why-europe-s-energy-pric...
[+] [-] sandGorgon|4 years ago|reply
India and China will move to emphatically reject coal restrictions during COP26. Remember India has probably some of the largest investments in renewable rightnow. But I dont think people outside of these countries have even an idea of the amount of hunger for power that is being generated as huge populations start clawing out of hunger and poverty.
3 years back, there were 240 million Indians who had NO electricity - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-01-24/living-in... So talking about pollution in this context is only solvable through large sources of clean power. We dont have enough land in India to support renewables for 1.3 billion people. Neither does China. Europe ? Very easily so.
Coal ban is not an option. Unless nuclear power and technology transfer is on the table.
India and China have both rejected targets - https://www.ft.com/content/eef90c01-4cbe-48b7-8b2c-2beb398a4...
COP26 basically seems to be a non starter now. with coal being pushed back in and nuclear pushed back out.
[+] [-] mytailorisrich|4 years ago|reply
But as you mention the demand for energy is vast and they can't 'just' get rid of coal.
[+] [-] glogla|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lokimedes|4 years ago|reply
Nuclear is way more than technology, it's Prometheus' fire. It may burn the unprepared but it is incomparable to anything else we possess. That factor million more energy per gram than chemical reactions should be enough for us to treat it as literally unlocking the next level of human development.
This petty discussion on whether it is sustainable, dirty, expensive or dangerous is simply mind-boggling. Yes, it requires a much deeper "readiness" to utilise by our civilization than any other energy source, but the long-term benefit should be what it is held up against.
[+] [-] lostmyoldone|4 years ago|reply
Nuclear (fission) technology is not the problem, we are the problem. Looking at the recent history of political leadership all over the world, and the baffling level of support even the most immature of policies have, it's clear we have a ways to go. Most people doesn't even seem to realize that as a species we've only just emerged, we're so young. Toddlers on any timescale but the most naïve and short sighted.
[+] [-] Kon5ole|4 years ago|reply
If we could capture only 1% of that, we'd have 80 times more than we need, from just the sunshine reaching earth.
This makes the photovoltaic cell and related technologies more interesting than nuclear to me. A way more abundant energy source with none of the downsides of nuclear is clearly within our reach. It's not even unknown technology, we just haven't made the infrastructure to capture it yet.
Nuclear seems to me to be similar to Coal in that we may think it's a good idea now, only to discover later on that it actually killed us due to things we didn't think about. Or didn't want to think about. They are also similar in that we who get the benefits today are leaving the problems with it to future generations.
[+] [-] go_elmo|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nimbius|4 years ago|reply
how about the long term risk? we havent even figured out how to deal with plastics in the ocean and in our bodies let alone responsibly harness the atom. we're talking about a waste product that does not cease to create a danger for hundreds of years at minimum. Reactor 4 at chernobyl is predicted to be "safe" in 20,000 years and before you say thats an exception id like to remind you that ALL high level nuclear waste has a cooldown of tens of thousands of years and it is routinely generated in the pursuit of the electron today.
The Roman empire only lasted 1500 years. these nuclear byproducts last so long that modern scholars cannot unilaterally agree on a simple means of warning the future inhabitants of whatever society exists, let alone passing on any tips or tricks for processing or salvaging these lethal artifacts.
we are talking about a waste product that outlives not only written but spoken language and dozens if not hundreds of civilizations and the stalwart of the atom --the United States-- still couldnt even manage to get Yucca mouuntain together as a disposal ground after two decades.
nuclear isotopes do not have a rate of return. they do not care about profit or equity or economies and will without remoerse kill you all if you forget them.
waste is currently stored in large pools at your local nuclear plant that require constant cooling. once these sites are inoperable they will require the care of generations for millennia before with a clear conscience you can say 'nuclear power was worth it'. that the atom will be taught as a religion is less far fetched a premise to a Fallout game when you realize in 12,000 years the only means of conveying the lethality of our hubris will be as such.
[+] [-] newacct583|4 years ago|reply
That was literally the way it was thought about a three quarters of a century ago. It... didn't work out.
It's just not there. It's fine. It's safe enough. But it's outrageously expensive relative to other equally advantageous sources, and all the magic technologies needed to "fix" that are always a decade away.
[+] [-] LatteLazy|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chhs|4 years ago|reply
> According to Kirsty Gogan, cofounder of TerraPraxis and a senior climate and energy advisor to the U.K. government, “All three Green Zone applications by nuclear groups were rejected.” However, it seems some of that may be due to miscommunication regarding application deadlines for the COP26 Green Zone.
I couldn't find the original source for the miscommunication on application deadlines, hopefully someone can find it.
[1] https://www.ans.org/news/article-3188/controversy-over-nucle...
[+] [-] malthuswaswrong|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] poorjohnmacafee|4 years ago|reply
Nuclear is obviously renewable and proven. Flourocarbons - CFCs - HCFCs - HFCs - and other related are extremely aggressive GHGs yet all of those are not phased out (or in case of CFCs there's plenty of evidence (see Nature) that emission continues in non Western nations) but making it part of the debate gets stonewalled too.
[+] [-] rvz|4 years ago|reply
At least the technologists and engineers at several companies and startups are doing something about it with real world solutions, products and ideas.
I won’t be surprised that next year the same people are going to have the same discussion and it will be a forever blame game until they miss their own unrealistic timelines.
I have respect for those who ‘do’ rather than those who continue talking, mocking, screaming or blaming others and repeat themselves without giving anything substantiative to contribute themselves to the problem.
[+] [-] yodelshady|4 years ago|reply
The wind lobby has professionals who made the case to people who matter. That's not evil, that's your - the industries - job.
At a high level the nuclear industry, sorry to say, honestly doesn't care. It's the Boeing of the energy world, except even more so: wring every last drop out of dead tech, and never invest a cent.
[+] [-] mihaaly|4 years ago|reply
Try to run a big old truck driver against a cute puppy in a popularity contest, you can be the world champion of PR still you will loose.
[+] [-] afarrell|4 years ago|reply
I’m perplexed where you get this idea. Certainly they are failing, but that does not mean they don’t care.
[+] [-] vmchale|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] m0zg|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] xvilka|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jrochkind1|4 years ago|reply
I don't understand what this means. What's an "application for the Green Zone at the upcoming COP26"? "Green zone"? What, is this a military occupation?
OK:
> The Green Zone is the ‘official’ fringe space (managed by the UK government), with around 200 events for the general public, civil society, youth groups and academia. Tickets are free.
--https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/an-architects-guide...
> The Green Zone is managed by the UK Government, and is a platform for the general public, youth groups, civil society, academia, artists, business and others to have their voices heard through events, exhibitions, workshops and talks that promote dialogue, awareness, education and commitments.
> …The Green Zone will be a stakeholder-led space and act as a key hub for engagement during the Summit. As such we are keen to see proposals that drive participation and interaction focused on the themes of climate change
>…In the Green Zone a number of exhibition spaces are available for organisations. As a public-facing venue, we are keen to receive proposals that engage audiences with the themes of climate change and climate action through interaction and participation. We see this two week showcase zone as a hub of tactile and immersive activity.
> …The Green Zone aims to facilitate discussion and engagement, and we’ve heard how important it is for organisations to have a focal point for convening attendees and having conversations. A number of stalls will be provided free of charge to use for one or two days, depending on demand, over the course of the Summit. These are spaces for dialogue and conversation, and might be of interest specifically for NGOs, trade bodies, and youth organisations.
—https://ukcop26.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Stakeholder-i...
"Green Zone", really? OK, anyways.
[+] [-] p2t2p|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] driest|4 years ago|reply
However, even I realize that nuclear energy is not viable to significantly combat climate change due to the following reasons:
* The technology is not there yet. There are a lot of promising companies that are trying to solve the safety problem, and there is a lot of research on how to better deal with the waste, but due to the inherent dangers it will take decades to prove these designs are safe, work as intended and can be produced at a significant scale at the promised cost. Sadly, we don't have decades, we need to start replacing coal right now.
* nuclear energy is way to expensive. Wind and solar are much cheaper. current numbers are roughly 50% cheaper for renewables, and while lots of companies promise cheaper nuclear design, these claims are unproven and the renewables are also still significantly improving in cost. The nuclear cost models I've seen also ignore most of the storage and security cost for handling the waste for millenia. There are cheaper alternatives with existing and proven technology. Power to gas for example has an efficiency of roughly 50%. which funny enough corresponds to its cost advantage over nuclear. simply building a lot more wind and solar capacity and using power to gas to fill existing gas storage systems with excess energy from renewables has roughly the same cost as nuclear, without the safety and proliferation headache, and the added advantage of long term storage.
* proliferation. even if we could solve the problem of safeguarding thousands of SMR in developed countries, you can't just export them to every country on earth. however, that's a requirement for replacing coal, as those countries need to reduce emissions, too.
So yeah, I'd love molten salt SMR to be a thing, and they probably will be in some applications in developed countries in 10-20 years, but the value of this to combat climate change is minimal and people who think otherwise are ignoring the previously mentioned facts.
[+] [-] mlindner|4 years ago|reply
At some point in the future we may have enough battery production for grid energy storage such that nuclear is not needed, but we are a long long way from that. Battery supply is growing rapidly, but not nearly rapidly enough.
[+] [-] pelasaco|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aquir|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Goety|4 years ago|reply
Smaller nuclear devices will need constant care and monitoring that it is highly likely people will need to 'grow with' such devices. I dont think the will UN back something without a proof of concept which could delay adoption years.
[+] [-] mlindner|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ep103|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]