I don't buy that waste is a serious problem. The US treats all secondary waste as if it's red hot. And as I said above, all extant reactor designs are decades old.
If your only point of comparison is 60 year old computers using 10s of kilowatts, you might argue that computers will never be economical to use. Yet smartphone CPUs have a TDP of what, one watt?
> Until now the taxpayer covers it, but our impoverished nations just cannot cope anymore.
Our nations have plenty of money it's just all concentrated at the very top. We used to fund advanced reactor projects [1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten-Salt_Reactor_Experiment
Good, than nuclear is nothing we have to think about because it's construction times are ridiculously long while renewable energy is getting better and cheaper rapidly.
> Our nations have plenty of money it's just all concentrated at the very top. We used to fund advanced reactor projects [1]
We've been throwing ridiculous amounts of taxpayer money on that for decades. Show is over. Time to give the money to technologies of the future not ones of the past.
Even France sees this: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-nuclearpower-astri...
A law (2015-992, from 2015, the "loi relative à la transition énergétique pour la croissance verte") states that the part of nuke-produced electricity must fall to less than 50% in 2025, from 72% then, and that renewables must replace it.
2 years later the government (lacking funds and unable to cope) reported it to 2025, then 2 years later to 2035 ("programmation pluriannuelle de l'énergie").
However the political and strategical orientation is perfectly clear, just don't believe France is on the nuke camp.
Fukushima killed up to 1 person from radiation. Meanwhile fossil is killing 4.3 million people per year via air pollution. If fossil had to pay for that health externality (not to mention climate change), then nuclear economics would look exceedingly more fantastic. Though it's true that nuclear builds need to get their act together to maintain relevance.
Small reactors have less radioactive source in them and are proportionally less radiologically impactful than larger higher power reactors in the event of military/terrorist attack.
Wind and solar are doing amazing. There is some serious worry that the Energy Return on Investment (EROI) will go below the level needed to sustain industrialized civilization once variable renewables are deployed at significant enough scale to require massive energy investment in "non-productive" equipment like batteries. For example, see this Nov 2019 paper on the topic [1]. EROI on solar PV is like 3-8. With massive storage it can dip below 3. Nuclear is like 50.
I think a low-carbon future will have a whole lot of wind/solar and a whole lot of nuclear. Both industries can scale by 10x happily and we still will struggle with our climate issues.
[1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211467X1...
> France and most of Europe use Urenco.
I'm French, and can see the result: waste is piling up nearby the plants. Deep geological repositories are given as the ultimate solution since the 1970's at least, and there is _NO_ exploited site. Cigéo/Bure (in France) is only a project. Yucca Mountain never ran and is halted.
On a similar vein see the Superphenix financial and industrial disaster. It was a french project, aiming at (there were other objectives) reusing waste and enriched uranium, and the French know about nuclear power. Net result: 60 billion French Francs lost.
There is NO currently exploited solution for all the waste. No real breeder, no repository, nothing. This is Huge Establishment mismanagement at its best.
> The integral molten salt reactor has these advantages and > should be comercialy available wothin 10 years.
Molten-salt reactor R&D started in the 1960's, and stopped 30 years later. AFAIK with some complication and no industrial application(?)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten-Salt_Reactor_Experiment...
I'm sorry to repeat myself, but there is no present and current solution.
Promises are fun, and the nuke sector is prone to them, see the waste management farce resumed above. See also the nuclear fusion joke, periodically presented as the ultimate solution nearly every year... since 1940... and counting (mainly taxpayer's money for costly research).
> I don't buy that waste is a serious problem
Central administrations (in France, the US...) consider them to be a problem, even if most of them are pro-nuke. There must be something here.
A tiny amount of hot waste reaching a phreatic zone, for example, is a very, very serious concern.
> If your only point of comparison is 60 year old computers > you might argue that computers will never be economical to use.
The quest for perfectly sure nuke plant, and for a sure way to manage waste (especially hot) started at the very least 50 years ago.
> The waste disposal problem has been solved at the Onkalo Nuclear Waste Repository in Finland.
It is "the first such repository in the world for high level waste, and currently under construction". It may start in 2023. This means that it is the most advanced project (it began in 1983, building began in 2004), but not yet in operation, and already under scientific criticism (copper capsules corrosion).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repo...
Concise version: nuke plants are vomiting hot stuff for decades and a potential and very local solution (AFAIK it is not intended to store US, French or other waste) may start in 4 years.
Who thinks that this is adequately managed?
> Fukushima killed up to 1 person from radiation.
This is some official thesis, there huge scandals tied to many official theories about this disaster, and also much more stern counter-theories.
AFAIK nobody knows for sure because the amount of dead/sick persons or animals, and various cleanup costs, may only be known when the last contaminated particle which escaped will be inert. No expert judges that we can neglect those particles, therefore they probably aren't innocuous and huge efforts are made trying to clean up
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_disaster_cleanup
Many are now in the ocean. Some of it inducing solid cancers, which develops after 10+ years.
> Meanwhile fossil is killing 4.3 million people per year via air pollution.
Indeed, however tt doesn't imply nuke plants are a necessity, we have ways (solar, wind...), we may save energy, research to be able to obtain better ways to store it... Nuke distracts resources from those less dangerous and more realistic approaches which, moreover, are progressing impressively (efficiency up, total cost down, more and more effective deployments...)
> Small reactors have less radioactive source in them and are proportionally less radiologically impactful than larger higher power reactors in the event of military/terrorist attack.
Most of the existing ones use highly enriched uranium, and such material falling in the wrong hands will have effects quickly leading you to radically change your mind about this.
> Wind and solar are doing amazing. ((...)) require massive energy investment in"non-productive" equipment like batteries
Indeed, and this is a reason to invest into R&D on energy-saving, efficiency, energy storage... instead of pouring even more billions into already-explored dead-ends.
The number of people who have been injured or killed by stored commercial nuclear waste is very near zero, and we know how to store it safely in the long term. Again, meanwhile 84% of our energy generation kills 4.3 million people per year. The nuclear waste issue is no longer a good reason to oppose nuclear energy. Nuclear is unique in its ability to fully contain and store all of its waste in the long term. This is thanks to E=MC2 where the mass of the hazardous waste is extraordinarily small compared to other energy system waste.
There are counter-theories to death counts in Chernobyl and Fukushima. But there is a UN/WHO group of true experts who are the authorities on these items. Think of them like the IPCC for climate change, but for radiation. It's called UNSCEAR, and they are clear in their analysis. Up to 4000 dead at Chernobyl, up to 1 dead at Fukushima. There's always wild counter-theories in these big science questions: just like some people claim millions died at Chernobyl (looking at Greenpeace), some claim that climate change doesn't exist.
[1] http://www.posiva.fi/en/media/image_gallery?gfid_2061=94#gal...
I think you're replying to multiple people above as I only said half of that stuff.
When all waste will be inert we may evaluate the sanitary consequences. Meanwhile the dangerous hot waste may or may not harm.
Well-known scientists who worked in situ have a somewhat different opinion about the consequences: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl:_Consequences_of_the...
UN agencies aren't BS and lies-free.
> When all waste will be inert we may evaluate the sanitary consequences. Meanwhile the dangerous hot waste may or may not harm.
I don't understand how you can justify this statement. Again, commercial nuclear waste in dry casks has never hurt anyone and probably never will, yet nuclear power has produced ~5% of the world's energy over the past several decades, and it does so without emitting carbon dioxide, and it does so 24/7, and it does so with very little raw material and land impact. Meanwhile, fossil actually kills 4.3 million people every single year. How can you justify a nearly fantastical fear of nuclear waste future harm while 4.3 million people are dying every year from air pollution from the alternative? This is like Germany, who phased out nuclear plants while keeping brown coal plants on, thereby choosing literally to kill about 1000 extra people per year because of their fear of radiation. This feels wild to me, and borderline inhumane given the statistics.
You play the usual card of nuke proponent, which is to describe things just as if not emitting carbon during energy production implies nukes. This is not true. Many renewables, mainly wind and solar, are pertinent. This is absolutely not a "coal or nuke, there is no other option" challenge.
Nuke proponents also tend to imply that a 100% nuke-generated gridpower will solve the carbon problem. This is not realistic, as gridpower-related CO2 emission are at max 25%, and more realistically about 17%, of the total emissions.
France gridpower production is way more decarbonized than Germany's, Germany is a more heavy player on many fuel-consuming industries (chemical, mechanics, material...), Germany climate implies more heating and France is the leader when it comes to electric heating systems... therefore one may think that Germany's carbon dioxide emissions per capita are way, way superior to France's.
They aren't!
For 2018: France 5, Germany 9.6
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...
Wind is very low carbon, about 11 gCO2-eq/kWh. Solar PV is a bit higher, around 40. Hydro varies dramatically from excellent to terrible based on biogenic methane emissions (region dependent). Fracked natural gas is abhorrent with >400 gCO2/kWh, and even worse (in some cases worse than coal) when the short term warming effects of methane are factored in. Nuclear clocks in at 12, beat out only by wind. These are the IPCC full lifecycle numbers, of course.
Here's another good (and live) view of worldwide carbon emissions, in CO2-eq/kWh generated [1]. You'll note that a lot of very low carbon countries are very high in nuclear.
I am a pragmatist. I see a climate challenge and I want all low-carbon energy sources. Everyone cheers for wind and solar, including me. They're doing phenomenally. We need 10x or more of them. No one disagrees with this. Nuclear is far more controversial, and is the topic at hand in this subthread. Don't tell me I'm anti wind and solar just because I point out challenges with them. All energy sources have challenges. I just refuse to tie my hands and not support nuclear because of irrational and unscientific fear. I want all low-carbon hands on deck. It's much more interesting for me to explain the basis behind why nuclear is actually less dangerous and scary than the vast majority of people think than it is for me to say we need more wind and solar.
Regarding electricity's share of total emissions, the only non-combustion solution that I'm aware of for transportation (40% of emissions) is electrification. As buses, cars, trains, and even short-run airplanes electrify, we can decarbonize the transportation sector by using decarbonized electricity. Hydrogen is another option, and nuclear reactors are one of the most excellent ways to make hydrogen without lots of carbon emission. As for process heat, it's difficult for anything to reach fossil-fuel temperatures, but there are lots of interesting efforts with hydrogen blast furnaces and electric arc furnaces that may get us there. Electrification as a means to reduce total emissions is a need shared by all low-carbon energy sources that I'm aware of, including wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, and nuclear. Advanced nuclear and solar thermal are unique in their abilities to reach process heat temperatures.
My goal and value system is all about decarbonizing the world effectively and justly. I want to base my decisions on data and rationale. I'm looking for people to help in this goal, which I consider noble.
[1] https://www.electricitymap.org/?page=map&solar=false&remote=...
The total impact on health (and therefore the real costs) of the nuclear industry will only be known when the last site will be completely decommissioned and the last waste innocuous.
Low carbon countries are high in nuclear because none of them really invested into renewables. Concluding that nuclear must be part of the mix is at best weird. Especially given that there are very few new nuclear powerplants projects, many of them failures (very over-schedule and over-budget), and that the capital intensity induced by a fair proportion of the few new potential projects condemns them, given that the TCO of renewables is quickly getting lower and lower.
The political side is also grim for nuclear plants, probably mainly because of the NIMBY effect. Most ongoing nuclear powerplants building in progress were ordered by nondemocratic countries (France and Finland being among the rare exceptions, however many in France argue that the democratic process ("débat public") is not really applied upon nuclear matters). This may reflect an 'undue failure', i.e. public opinion may be wrong about this and maybe should forget about NIMBY, however this is at least a failure to communicate as in many countries the official lenient message isn't in favor, and many people just don't want any nuke powerplant. This is not absurd, as the "everything is under control, the risk is infinitesimal" message is seriously shattered by disasters.
As for transport electrification and fuel cells are indeed potential solutions, however even more remote in time than an infrastructure-oriented approach. Generalizing new types of powerplants nationwide cannot be done quickly, costs large amounts of money, and implies trade-offs (see Germany at work, and this nation was lucky because the decision to effectively switch wasn't totally out of the scheduled cycle of nuclear powerplants decomissions, reducing the losses). Modifying the energy architecture underlying a significant proportion of transport means is an even (much) more difficult target.
I hope that thermal solar can be sufficient to provide to fuel cell (no nuclear powerplants necessary), and see no sign of being wrong.
> The total impact on health (and therefore the real costs) of the nuclear industry will only be known when the last site will be completely decommissioned and the last waste innocuous.
Allow me to point out that this argument can be defeated easily with a relatively simple thought experiment. Your claim is that the impact of a health hazard cannot be assessed until the health hazard itself has spontaneously become innocuous. Radiological hazards are fairly unique in their characteristic of becoming innocuous with time. Compared to analogous hazardous materials, say for example, mercury. Mercury is a well-known neurotoxin. It was always a neurotoxin and it always will be. This was used in household thermometers for decades until too many kids broke them and became injured. So we banned them, moved the hazard out of ready access, and now fewer people get mercury poison. Clearly, we can make this assessment even though the mercury still exists somewhere, and is still a neurotoxin.
Et voila, this impossible goalpost you have set up crumbles by reductio ad absurdum.
Nuclear waste is a hazardous material. When it is moved out of reach, we can assess the health hazard. We have done this over the past 60 years of nuclear operation and the numbers are in. Here they are: https://ourworldindata.org/what-is-the-safest-form-of-energy (yes this doesn't list wind and solar. Yes wind and solar are extremely safe too. That's why we need more wind, solar, and nuclear).
It saddens me when people eschew considering the expansion of our natural nuclear resources of Earth in order to save human civilization from climate change. But that is a choice they are free to make.
You mention Germany again. Recall that Germany quite literally and unambiguously chose to kill about 1000 extra people per year with air pollution from brown coal rather than continue to operate their high-quality nuclear assets. This appears very difficult to defend. How can one defend this seemingly inhumane choice? Was it thought that continuing the nuclear plants would possibly kill more than 1000/year? In this case it very literally is a choice between brown coal and nuclear. Germany chose coal. I find this shameful.
After such a disaster some wandering radionucleides induce solid cancers developing in the 10 to 15 years afterwards. A silent and stealth killer, nothing fun.
Hot nuclear waste is the most hazardous material as it is dangerous by contact, if inhaled, and also kills at a distance, in most cases without any warning. Moreover some of it remain dangerous for 10s of thousand years.
Germany is in a transition, it is trying to quit what seems to them a bad habit (nuclear), and this is never easy nor free. On the political side of things maintaining nuclear plants in activity against citizens will is dangerous, especially if some boo-boo happens (which becomes more probable as those powerplants age up).
The WP article states it clearly: it "was a nuclear power station prototype", it means that there was hope to decline it, not that it was a lab. It was a "1,242 MWe" reactor, which sort of lab uses such a monster?
It was meant to be "an economical generator of power on its own."
As for its success: "Construction began in 1974 but suffered from a series of cost overruns, delays and enormous public protests.", and it "demonstrated very poor reliability and had a historical capacity factor of less than 7%." (after being connected to the grid for 20+ years).
The nuke industry claims that it was dumped for political reasons, completely ignoring its industrial and technical failures.
The integral molten salt reactor has these advantages and should be comercialy available wothin 10 years.
Many potential units are purely and simply cancelled because they are too financially risky (notwithstanding other risks) given the falling costs of solar and wind.
The hot nuclear waste disposal challenge is not solved, wherever you check (France and the US, experts both are "in the process of solving it"... for the last 50 years!). Check the Yucca Mountain waste repo, a non-solution since 1978.
Decommissioning costs are everywhere very probably largely underestimated because they explode as soon as a project begins. Check the UK case:
UK discounted provision for decommission costs: £100+ billion in 2013 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/jun/23/britain-...
Then £161 billion in 2017 https://web.archive.org/web/20170516093449/https://www.gov.u...
Then £234 billion in 2018. Costs were so quickly exploding there is a new way to forecast, which dissimulates... err... is more... well... https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nuclear-provision...
Until now the taxpayer covers it, but our impoverished nations just cannot cope anymore.
Moreover a small-scale reactor is difficult to protect (theft, terrorism, nuke (especially dirty weapons) proliferation...)
Fukushima politically put the last nail in this coffin.