The next nuclear plants .The answer to our climate goals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DiscoMick

I think some more research would reveal that nuclear has the highest construction costs, higher even than coal and gas, and much higher than renewables.
Nuclear can rarely get insurance and requires massive taxpayer underwriting.
The world has moved towards privatised electricity generation so that means nuclear can't get insurance so can't be built without government subsidy.
Operating costs for renewables are lower than for nuclear, coal and gas because sunlight and wind are free.

---

Let’s get more factual shall we.

Nuclear can and does have insurance - it’s is however underinsured. If they took the total liability cover out they would be more expensive by about €0.06/kWh

Construction cost is high, lifespan is significant.

Renewables are low although have high R&M and short lifespan by comparison.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DiscoMick

Not as dangerous as radioactive waste though.

---

Never having an X-ray? Never having trace dye procedures? That’s just an isotope doing its job.

Radioactive waste (a misnomer), is primarily produced as a result of production for other industries than Power. It is stored everywhere at the moment. You’ve probably been very close to it and not even realised.

Modern reprocessing of waste into fuel is quite effective and improving. Don’t discount the advance of all types of technology or the reinvention of old into newer methods.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by prelude

Still,

Nuclear must have improved since the designs of the 60's went wrong. I have a hard time believing that we can't make heaps better nuclear plants these days. Then again operating costs are just one aspect. I know nuclear waste is a "hot" topic, pun intended... but perhaps we should look at how utterly polluting "renewables" are. The cadmium, lead and what not in solar panels (not to mention the bloody lithium batteries in all those e-vehicles and what not) are not very environmentally save nor are those items very recyclable. Sure, the aluminium frame and the glass plate on your solar will be, the doped silicon wafers afaik are not.

---

Actually technology is improving and solar panel are recyclable Solar Panel Recycling in 2019: How it Works | EnergySage as are batteries, and at least that don't have to be encased in thick concrete and stored for thousands of years like nuclear waste.

I believe nuclear energy is a paradigm shift we need but not as it is typically thought of. Large centalised plants are old school and outdated. The future is new generation isotope reactions that can be packaged down to say suitcase size so they can power our homes or cars. Probably not in my lifetime though unfortunately...

Talk about leaving a legacy for future generations. 200 generations in fact. The radioactive material is "safe" after 5000 to 10000 years.
As a result, the nuclear facilities in the UK have their details on platinum plates to ensure that the information isn't lost as time marches on. And on microfilm. And on archival quality paper. They want to ensure that in 100 years time, let alone 2,000 to 10,000 years time, the information is still available regarding the plant and its materials.
Humans forget so quickly. 3 Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima. Or look up the Oak Ridge Reservation regarding USA nuclear contamination. Most people know of it as the site of the Manhattan project. At least 35,000 acres need to be decontaminated due to nuclear waste. So yeah, that's one way to go.

Fyi: Small brief case size nuclear devices have been available since the 1960s.
- NASA toyed with using them to propel rockets in to space. The risk if the ricket exploded stopped that idea.
- USA airforce for airplane propulsion - the weight of the lead shield to stop those pesky pilots from dying stopped that idea.
- The USA government wanted to use them to duplicate the Panama canal and actually experimented the technology in Alaska by cutting a small canal with nuclear bombs. The isotope contamination of Alaska and Canada stopped this, as too many constituents wrote to senators and quoted the extact name of the isotope in their correspondence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tombie

Never having an X-ray? Never having trace dye procedures? That’s just an isotope doing its job.

Radioactive waste (a misnomer), is primarily produced as a result of production for other industries than Power. It is stored everywhere at the moment. You’ve probably been very close to it and not even realised.

Modern reprocessing of waste into fuel is quite effective and improving. Don’t discount the advance of all types of technology or the reinvention of old into newer methods.

---

I've toured Lucas Heights and seen inside the reactor. The compound was filled with stacks of stored radioactive material. Not impressed.

It's good to see that the renewables corner is actually getting more renewable. Mind you, I do have problems with nuclear waste myself but when put into perspective I think it should not be written of so easily. Did you know that on a flight from the UK to Japan you are exposed to more radiation then when you are on the ground at fukushima?

YouTube

"because sunlight and wind are free. " Absolute rubbish. What's free about the energy intensive towers for wind? What's free about the ongoing maintenance of windmills?
What's free about the manufacture of the huge arrays of solar panels? What's free about the distribution of the power they produce?
And what's free about the power that has to be provided when these wonderful "free" things can't produce power because of a lack of wind or sunlight?
Absolute greenie crap.
AlanH.

bit like earlier today. wind power make up about 5% of the power generation in SA
currently solar making up 0%