> We do people focus so much on the danger aspect of nuclear energy only?
Because nuclear is the only one with multigenerational risks that can make entire regions inhabitable. A damn break is deadly, a nuclear meltdown is potentially significantly way worse.
> Such a way to waste my Sunday.
Hiding waste is not a viable solution to dealing with it, regardless of the risk of finding it. We used to be quite content with dumping regular trash into holes, until we realized that didn’t scale either.
> Ah yes, remind me how many windmills we would need to produce as much energey as a NPP?
Windmill vs nuclear powerplant space is not a 1:1 comparison. Windmill fields are very sparse, and you came safely use the land underneath for farming or other uses. Not to mention the ecological devastation related to ruining a square mile of land permanently for centuries. You cans just change an entire miles worth of drainage and soil without damaging the area around it.
Additionally, I said nothing about windmills. I said solar. We have millions of rooftops across the nation that have no solar yet would benefit. That land is free as far as space is concerned; it’s unused.
I'm glad to know climate change will be a solved problem for my children.
> Hiding waste is not a viable solution to dealing with it
Why? Is just dropping it in the atmosphere better?
> and you came safely use the land underneath for farming or other uses.
Not really. There are safety margins, noise regulations, concrete platforms, electrical connections, ...
> Not to mention the ecological devastation related to ruining a square mile of land permanently for centuries
They don't remove the foundations either when windmills are done.
> I said solar.
So the energy for which you would require dozens of millions of square mils of surface, a cleaning system to prevent them to lose 30% of their efficiency in a year, whose construction process is incredibly polluant, and that doesn't work for half a year in half of the world? That sounds like a great large-scale solution.
You don't even need to jump to climate change when you have coal seam fires and ash ponds.
As opposed to continuing to emit carbon? this mischaracterisation of the threat is dangerous. The climate is changing right now. We literally cannot afford to bicker and wait for an indeterminate point in the future when entire grids will run on wind, solar and batteries.
We have a solution now. That solution is nuclear power and will buy us time to transition to a fully renewable grid.
Thousands a year die in coal mines
And that's only counting direct casualties. If we were to count long-term illnesses/deaths or consequences on the population like the people reaching gazillions of deads at Tchernobyl do, it would be up to one death out of 10 (https://ourworldindata.org/air-pollution).
Because nuclear = bad word / bombs / chernobyl
They don't mind living in cities and breathing cars exhaust all day long even though it shaves years of their lives though. Real world boiling frog situation
When nuclear-magnetic resonance is used in a scientific or industrial setting for analyzing the chemical content of a sample, it is properly called NMR.
[Source: organic chemistry prof pointed this out, almost 30 years ago.]
CT (computer tomography), on the other hand, is slightly deceptive term; it actually gives you a dose of X-rays. It should be called X-ray Computer Tomography (XRCT).
When those dumps leak into your groundwater it does indeed ruin your day.
1. https://www.kqed.org/stateofhealth/120396/uranium-contaminat...
The takeaway from Flint is not “we can’t remove uranium from ground water”, but rather “don’t build your water distribution network out of toxic heavy metals like lead”.
Here's an infographic on that very subject :)
https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/infographic-how-much-powe...
No wind or solar generator can do this and before you say batteries, no battery in existence can power a medium-sized city for more than a few minutes.
These comparisons are usually presented as an aggregated amount of energy over a year and completely ignore the fact that at some points in time, the power output of entire fleets of wind and solar generators is zero.
> No wind or solar generator can do this and before you say batteries, no battery in existence can power a medium-sized city for more than a few minutes.
This is a silly argument. The only real limiting factor on the capacity of a battery, at this point, is manufacturing capacity. That is changing very quickly as more than a few companies are looking at expanding their battery production capabilities.
Beyond that, grid batteries are good for any grid configuration. Batteries have rapid response to demand surplus and deficits. They are a grid stabilizing technology. Even if we had a 100% coal grid, you'd still want batteries for when the coal plants max out or to smooth out the cooldown time for the coal plants.
As for battery capacity, you seem to underestimate how much electrical energy even small cities use. The limiting factor is capacity. FYI, the US consumes around 3,800 terawatt hours of electrical energy annually. Good luck powering even a fraction of that for more than a few seconds with a battery.
I'm not sure where you get that impression.
We are manufacturing around 500 GWh of new batteries yearly right now [1].
To put that in perspective, that's enough capacity for 1 hour of US annual energy consumption per year. 1 hour is a lot of time to bring up new power generation plants in the event of an outage.
That production rate has been accelerating with the new demand for EVs. That is likely to double or triple within the next few years.
The current largest battery plant weighs in at 1.6GWh, which is more than enough to power a city of 100k for several hours (it isn't currently used for that, it is stabilizing regional power).
Like all things, battery power will first be able to handle seconds, then minutes, then hours, and finally days worth of power requirements. For grid stabilization, that's more than enough capacity requirements.
And, as I said earlier, batteries are good for any grid, regardless of energy source. It allows a nuclear operator to run the plant harder and it allows plants to ditch fast ramping plants for more economical slow ramp plants.
"Ah yes, remind me how many windmills we would need to produce as much energey as a NPP?
About 1500.
Nope. Average charge load for a windmill is ~35%, vs. over 90% for NPPs. Thus, you would need roughly thrice as many, and that in places with alternating winds – otherwise you would just get blackouts.
I can't find my original reference, but here's once that doesn't factor in the difference: https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/infographic-how-much-powe...
I highly doubt that. The Tricastin NPP for instance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tricastin_Nuclear_Power_Plant) is a rather average one, producing up to 3660MW. An average windmill output stand around 2.5MW, hence equivalent 1464 windmills simultaneously running before accounting for the load factor.
> but here's once
This one is about a nuclear reactor, not an NPP. Typical NPPs features 2 to 6 reactors.
* https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/nuclear/nuclear-power-pl... (2019)
56 NPPs, 809,410,000 MWh (actually generated)
* https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/how-many-turbines-are-contained-us...
~60,000 wind turbines (I've seen numbers between 57,000 and 67,000.)
* https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/wind/electricity-generat... (2020)
338,000,000 MWh (actually generated)
1NPP -> 14,453,750 MWh/yr
1WT -> 5633 MWh/yr
1NPP == 2600 WT
You are absolutely correct.
But indeed the waste storage is by far the greatest problem. Not for us luckily, we get some cheap electricity and coming generations can deal with the waste we shoved in some hole. Expecting that the way we store the waste is safe for thousands of years is naive. Germany hasn't found a final destination and is just shipping that stuff around. Someone thought it was a good idea to store it near east Germany, until east Germany was no more and suddenly it was in the middle of the country in an unsuited location. Someone thought it was a good idea to store it in a salt mine, until the containers started corroding from salt water. But that was back when humans were still stupid and didn't know salt water corrodes things. Luckily we reached end of history now and do everything right. I'm positive the next location will not be picked by political motives.
And yes, Asse is a symptom of turbocapitalism. A regulatory failure. Just look at superfund sites to get a perspective.
We do people focus so much on the danger aspect of nuclear energy only? Why not the thousands of people who died of dam break, the millions who die of lung failure due to exposure to polluants, or, the elephant in the room, the dozens of millions whoe die and will die of climate change?
Sure, it's very sad that a handful of Soviet and Japanese technician perished in accidents, don't get me wrong, but why such an irrational focus on nuclear accidents when a single dam break (and still, hydroelectric energy is among the safest of the safests) caused more casualties than nuclear energy in its whole life?
> that are not present in other forms of modern energy generation
That's just plain wrong.
> and hoping no one accidentally stumbles onto it.
I, too, often randomly stumble on nuclear waste depots 400m deep under the surface. Such a way to waste my Sunday.
> They also require massive amounts of concrete (bad for the environment, locally and globally)
While otherenergy sources are maid of fairy tears?
> and absurd amounts of space.
Ah yes, remind me how many windmills we would need to produce as much energey as a NPP?