Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

micktalian t1_j24d1w3 wrote

I mean, yeah, even the thorium process can create high levels of "weapons grade" fissile materials. One of the biggest reasons nuclear power plants aren't being build in "3rd world" nations has much more to do with nuclear weapons proliferation as opposed to energy and electricity controls.

18

AlphaMetroid t1_j24b8em wrote

Not sure why this limits the growth of nuclear. It was limited before due to the high startup cost relative to existing fossil fuel energy, the incentive was the military applications. Now our priorities are different, the incentive is climate change and the funding has expanded considerably. And the military applications are still present.

16

MagicPeacockSpider t1_j254wkz wrote

There is a massive incentive to prevent nuclear weapon proliferation.

It limits the ideal growth of nuclear to countries we don't mind having access to Armageddon.

Stable democracies without any colonial intention.

The world will be much better off pouring the still high start up costs for nuclear into R&D for renewables and storage.

5

smashrawr t1_j24hik6 wrote

It's still exceedingly high to start one up and more importantly is extremely time consuming to build a plant. In terms of start up costs, routinely a new nuclear plant is quoted at 1-2B, but in a state like say South Carolina several projects have run way over budget, and have taken significantly longer than projected. It takes months to hook up renewables, it takes decades to build nuclear plants.

4

nuke621 t1_j262su2 wrote

Things are changing in ways never before believed, so the old rules don’t apply. No one at all is saying is nuclear versus renewables. They can both be a part of the mix if it makes sense. I worked for a large electric utility and they are not innovative entities at all and the economic model is outdated and reinforces this behavior. Everyone cites cost of nukes, but that is really all tied up in insurance and risk. France has done just fine with their nuclear program because it’s nationalized. I’m not sure if renewables will be able to take the full load. I think nuclear will be required, but it will take a completely different economic model from the past.

3

EnergyTransitionNews OP t1_j24b64t wrote

This article analyses the history of nuclear power programs in every state that has them. The author found that historically only 12-15% of nuclear power programs were not part of a weapons program and makes the case that the innate ability of nuclear power to enable proliferation will slow its growth compared to renewable energy. The authors find that there are numerous examples of countries who slow down or cease power reactor programs after abandoning a weapons program. Civil power reactor programs have provided cover for weapons programs, for training personnel, and obtaining materials for weapons and there are some cases of weapons grade material being produced in civil power reactors.

The conclusion is reached that geopolitical concerns will inherently limit nuclear power compared to renewables.

4

Surur t1_j24d7d0 wrote

For those who disagree, and think nuclear should power the world, how happy are you with Iran's nuclear power program, and how many would be happy with other belligerent countries starting a nuclear power program?

e.g.


The history of nuclear power in North Korea is closely related to the country's development of nuclear weapons.

North Korea began researching nuclear technology in the 1950s, with the Soviet Union providing assistance. In the 1980s, North Korea began construction on a 5 megawatt experimental nuclear power plant at Yongbyon, with the intention of using it to generate electricity. However, the plant was not completed until 1986, and it was not connected to North Korea's power grid.

In the late 1980s, it was discovered that North Korea had been using its nuclear power program as a cover for a secret nuclear weapons development program. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) conducted inspections of North Korea's nuclear facilities in 1992 and 1993, and discovered evidence of a nuclear weapons program.

In 1994, North Korea signed an agreement with the United States known as the "Agreed Framework," in which it agreed to freeze its nuclear weapons program and to allow IAEA inspections in exchange for assistance in building two modern, proliferation-resistant nuclear power plants. However, North Korea later withdrew from the agreement and resumed its nuclear weapons program.

In 2006, North Korea conducted its first nuclear test, and it has conducted several more nuclear tests since then. North Korea has also continued to develop its nuclear power program, and it has constructed several additional nuclear power plants at Yongbyon. However, these plants are not believed to be connected to North Korea's power grid and are thought to be primarily used for research and development purposes.


Same for Pakistan:

Pakistan began researching nuclear technology in the 1950s, with the goal of developing a domestic nuclear power program. In 1972, Pakistan signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which commits signatory countries to not develop nuclear weapons.

However, in the late 1970s, Pakistan began secretly developing a nuclear weapons program, with the assistance of other countries such as China and North Korea. Pakistan conducted its first nuclear weapons test in 1998, in response to nuclear tests conducted by India.

−5

isleepinahammock t1_j24tqtr wrote

Also, any country in a potentially unstable region will be looking very closely at the current Ukraine war when considering fission plants. Look at how many close calls, near disasters, and potential outright blackmail Ukraine has had to deal with from its fission plants. Both sides have accused each other of planning to use them as dirty bombs. And, as a precaution, all the Ukrainian nuclear plants have been taken offline.

It's all well and good to design a fifth generation reactor with automatic safety features that rely on the laws of physics alone for safety. Your molten salt reactor still ends up as a puddle of radioactive ooze on the ground if someone blows it up, and your pebble bed reactor turns into radioactive grapeshot if someone lobs a bunker-busting bomb right through your containment dome.

These aren't things engineers typically consider, but they are things nations have to consider. Add to this that a distributed grid based on lots of solar, wind, and batteries is much more resilient to artillery and missile attacks. If a nation is entirely powered by rooftop turbines and solar, the only way to cut off their power is to destroy every one of their buildings. And at that point, even the most fortified nuclear plant is irrelevant, as they have no customers left to deliver power to.

3

Utxi4m t1_j25x4hx wrote

>Your molten salt reactor still ends up as a puddle of radioactive ooze on the ground if someone blows it up

It does solidify tho. But maybe an easily controlled solid doesn't sound as scary?

>and your pebble bed reactor turns into radioactive grapeshot if someone lobs a bunker-busting bomb right through your containment dome.

That's inventive if nothing else.

1

PhillipJGuy t1_j24tq6b wrote

Not very happy. In fact, it's frankly embarrassing that Iran can figure it out and we can't

2

FM_103 t1_j26os2i wrote

Nuclear is the greenest and most reliable of renewable energy sources.

3

FuturologyBot t1_j24uylu wrote

The following submission statement was provided by /u/EnergyTransitionNews:


This article analyses the history of nuclear power programs in every state that has them. The author found that historically only 12-15% of nuclear power programs were not part of a weapons program and makes the case that the innate ability of nuclear power to enable proliferation will slow its growth compared to renewable energy. The authors find that there are numerous examples of countries who slow down or cease power reactor programs after abandoning a weapons program. Civil power reactor programs have provided cover for weapons programs, for training personnel, and obtaining materials for weapons and there are some cases of weapons grade material being produced in civil power reactors.

The conclusion is reached that geopolitical concerns will inherently limit nuclear power compared to renewables.


Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/zy8f24/renewable_energy_will_dominate_the_future_energy/j24b64t/

1

LouSanous t1_j27qs1q wrote

Nuke Will suffer for many many more reasons than that.

Nobody wants to build them because they're too expensive, always overrun and are the most expensive type of energy to operate.

1

Salt-Artichoke5347 t1_j2822bv wrote

Why are you straight spreading misinformation

−1

LouSanous t1_j284025 wrote

I worked nuke in the midwest. I'm an electrical power engineer. It's not misinformation.

Want sources?

On overruns: let's look at the last two construction jobs in the US: watts bar 2 and Vogtle 3&4.

Watts bar 2 (from the Wiki):

>Unit 2 construction started in the 1970s.[3] Unit 2 was 80% complete when construction on both units was stopped in 1985 due in part to a projected decrease in power demand.[4] In 2007, the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) Board approved completion of Unit 2 on August 1, and construction resumed on October 15.[5] The project was expected to cost $2.5 billion, and employ around 2,300 contractor workers. Once finished, it was expected to employ 250 people in permanent jobs.[6] The final cost of the plant is estimated at $6.1 billion.[3]

So, it cost 244% of what it was supposed to cost and took 42 years to build.

Vogtle 3&4:

https://www.powermag.com/vogtle-expansion-cost-jumps-again-in-service-dates-set-for-2023/

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vogtle_Electric_Generating_Plant

Groundbreaking began in 2009, permit submitted in 2006. Original cost was expected to be 14 billion. The original ISDs (in-service dates) were 2016 and 2017. As of today, neither are online, though unit 3 has had fuel loaded and testing is in progress.

The most recent updates on cost show it now at $30.34 billion or 217% of the original specced cost.

https://www.gpb.org/news/2022/05/09/georgia-nuclear-plants-cost-now-forecast-top-30-billion

Or we could talk about FE divesting their nuclear into a separate company. They don't want it on their books.

https://www.technologyreview.com/2015/05/28/167951/why-dont-we-have-more-nuclear-power/

Here's MIT talking about how much more expensive it is than even unsubsidized wind and solar.

Why? Because of the personnel. In the watts bar wiki above, it talks about how reactor two alone would produce 250 permanent jobs. To run, defend, maintain, licence and provide engineering support. Most of those jobs are engineering jobs. Many of those are contracted. Those guys pull like $300 an hour.

In contrast, a solar farm creates about 12 permanent jobs in maintenance and operations. Most of those workers clean the panels. Some of them do electrical work. Maybe a person or two in operations is an engineer. The cost of labor isn't even close. Even though nuclear has a capacity factor of 90% and solar's is just 25%, the cost of the power coming out of the nuke plant is more than double after subsidies. It's easily 50% more without them.

Nuke is dying because the economics of it are terrible. Everyone in power understands this. Now go ahead and back up your claim that I'm spreading misinformation.

4

Salt-Artichoke5347 t1_j2853q2 wrote

−2

daveonhols t1_j29spmb wrote

Aircraft carrier nuclear power is a funny one because they have been built for many years but never once used as a commercial source of electricity, I wonder why that is?

Actually the whole SMR thing is kind of funny. In the last ten fifteen years France and Finland as well as the UK have been building much larger next generation plants, and suffering huge cost overruns and delays (thinks tens of billions and decades late in France and Finland). The nuclear industry wanted everyone to believe these huge complicated plants were the answer to making nuclear cost competitive in the future by getting economies of scale, stranglely that never worked out ... so now the nuclear industry wants us to think the exact opposite - much smaller and easier to build plants are the future of making nuclear competitive. Obviously this is a joke, the fact that after maybe 50 years of fission power, the industry has not figured out whether bigger or smaller plants offer better value for money just points to the industry basically just being a massive graft which will never be economically competitive. The simple answer is that if they offered value for money people would build them but it's wind, solar and batteries that are actually being built at scale.

5

LouSanous t1_j287lh8 wrote

Go ahead and look up CD Howe institute's funding. You might get a sense of why they come out pro-nuclear. But let pretend they don't have a financial incentive to publish bullshit.

How many SMRs are in service in Canada today?

https://www.power-technology.com/features/where-will-the-first-small-modular-nuclear-reactors-be/

Oh yeah, fucking ZERO. And in my last comment, we saw how well nuclear prices are forecasted. By that I mean, they aren't. At all. Ever. So your first link is a rosy little dream number made up by a for-profit think tank that's funded by just about every fossil fuel company in Canada.

Check your sources, brojob.

As long as we are talking sources, world nuclear association is a outlet comprised of the all the biggest nuclear companies from mining to refining to power to reprocessing to storage. Everything you read on that website should be cross checked against another source. Some of their info is good. A lot of it is half truths and outright lies.

BTW, I love how you just post a long ass article and then say nothing about the contents of it. Did you even read it? You also didn't even address anything I said.

You're actually throwing out an LCOE argument for nuclear? Lol.

Lazard is the industry standard analysis on LCOE.

https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-levelized-cost-of-storage-and-levelized-cost-of-hydrogen/

Utility scale solar: $28-41/kWh

Wind: $26-50/kWh

Nuke: $131-204/kWh

And that's the unsubsidized cost! Nuke is looking pretty shit for investors and consumers, guy. Subsidized wind is about $9/kWh. Fucking ouch.

And guess what else?! As a bonus, we'll throw in that nuclear is getting MORE expensive over time. Wind and solar are getting CHEAPER with every passing year.

Better build them nukes fast. Oh shit. You can't. It takes at least a DECADE to build one reactor in the US.

And then there's the water consumption. One cooling tower consumes more water than the entire residential population of Los Angeles annually. Guess that leaves out the entire American southwest. Oh, 💩!

Dude, I'm done here. I'm an engineer. I do this for a living. You're just an internet nuke fanatic that doesn't know the difference between then and than.

>How is 10 000 acres of solar panels cheaper then what is used on an aircraft carrier

And as for the answer to that question:

Why do you think a million pencils are cheaper than a Tesla? Because they're easier to make. Derp. Idk if you know this, but nuke plants take up a LOT of space.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://docs.wind-watch.org/US-footprints-Strata-2017.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjjov_RiaH8AhU1lWoFHQwbC-IQFnoECDEQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1NYQRj1l1hqWCQrTgOqeFt

Yeah, actually on a per megawatt basis, nuke is less than 4 times more efficient than solar, but the difference is that solar can exist in a multipurpose space. You can grow plants under them, you can let animals feed under them. You can park cars under them. Can't do that with nuke.

And as long as we are talking about land use, nuclear, in the overwhelming majority of cases, must be built on a body of water. Solar and wind can be built anywhere, even in the remotest parts of the world. Nuke can't do that either. So the land costs for nuclear are significantly higher than they are for a larger solar job, because solar can be sited where land is cheap and waterfront is never cheap.

3

Salt-Artichoke5347 t1_j2824jk wrote

Oh this is fantastic the world will be screwed over by idiocy.

0