I never understood the argument nuclear power is so "dangerous". The US navy has fielded nuclear reactors in warzones since 1954 and no Chernobyl. Almost the entire fleet is nuclear-powered, including all aircraft carriers, subs, and battleships.
Imagine a world where economies of scale bring nuclear power down to the cost of fuel and maintenance. EVs would be a no brainer Natural gas would be obsolete. Nuclear desalination would completely solve the water crisis in the US West. I’m confident that with advances in material science we would figure out how to build safe nuclear aircraft and nuclear rockets, ushering in a new space age. Really the possibilities are incredible. It would be the equivalent of humanity going from horse and buggy to using fossil fuels, but another order of magnitude.
Truly glad we prevented a few assholes corporations from making a mess of things. I get grossed out just thinking about the clean air and normal climate.
it doesn't matter they were USSR. might as well have been PG&E. soviet people and usa people were both just people and still are.
Economies of scale were applied from the inception of commercial nuclear power, yet the promise of electricity too cheap to meter has never materialized. Quite the opposite. In fact, nuclear has always been the most expensive method of generating electricity, and the anti-nukes don't enter into it. Even if every individual on the planet was pro-nuke, it would still be too expensive. If it was otherwise, nothing whatsoever could prevent investors from coming out of the woodwork to fulfill your dream of nuclear power plants everywhere. Make nuclear energy economical and you can have all the nuclear power plants you want, as well as being absurdly wealthy. But when you fail, try to avoid blaming anything other than nuclear energy itself.
The short version is, you need to have enough generations of reactor building to allow later projects to benefit from previous learnings. Because of various outside effects (this is a euphemism for the anti-nuke lobby) that type of iterative improvement and workforce skilling didn’t happen in other countries.
The same will be true of fusion. Set a target level of service and make electric generation a government service. The government is better at capital projects anyway and if energy were a taxpayer funded service it would transform society in many ways.
It doesn't work because nuclear is the only power where all the externalities are accounted for. The average coal plant kills more people with radiation released from burning coal every year than all nuclear accidents combined.
But because it's nicely diffuse no one cares.
Amazing.
When people said we'd be using renewables I somehow didn't think dinosaur farts would be the largest slice of the pie.
https://www.epa.gov/radtown/radioactive-wastes-coal-fired-po...
The link you provided indicates the level of radiation is negligible, so I'm not sure what your point is.
Comparative costs to other OECD countries for similar infrastructure - there really isn't one, as the US is way out of line in terms of cost and quality.
My family member communicated with counterparts in other countries, impressed with what they were doing. When asked what the research was that they based their projects on, they all said it was the US funded research (which the US doesn't take advantage of).
I’m sure the interstate highway system is the best the 1950s has to offer.
- Alaskan Way Viaduct
- Tappan Zee bridge replacement
- Billions in highway projects.
https://www.timesunion.com/news/article/mario-cuomo-bridge-s...
I mean, these people basically gain popularity when government is shown to be inefficient, but at the same time, they're the ones tasked with running the government.
Why don't you leave the thinking for the ones better at it.
The accident, that single accident on its own, probably doubled the cost of nuclear power to Japan. It is hard to tell because the costs have not all been paid and are mounting still.
This is the Achilles heal of nuclear power, that the boosters want us to ignore: The risk of catastrophic failure. One reactor can be looked after carefully (not economically - others have pointed out here the eye watering costs) and safely. But lots of reactors? No. We will keep have catastrophic failures until we stop.
The military have fielded many reactors for a considerable amount of time. We've got a bit over fifty years of fielding nuclear reactors in submarines. Where are all the inevitable disasters, if that is the case?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sunken_nuclear_submari...
Three from the USA navy. It is a lie that the nuclear reactors on submarines have been safe. Two have been lost at sea (one was sunk in harbour)
Nuclear reactors on ships generally, submarines in particular, are a terrible idea. As evidenced by the fact that the US Navy has sunk three, two catestrophically. If the US Navy cannot do it, who can?
We've had over 120 shipping disasters in that same timeframe, resulting in many thousands greater loss of life, and greater environmental disasters.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_maritime_disasters_i...
Should global shipping be abolished?
If you care at all for the future.
But the present trumps the future...
Compare that, to the Exxon Valdez, and the Deepwater Horizon.
1 of 9 (Soviet K-37) was scuttled with no loss of life due to reactor issues spanning years. 1 had an undetermined cause of sinking with theories having to do with the usual submarine issues (fire, torpedo accent, ballast/pressure issues), not its reactor. All others were lost for reasons having nothing to do with nuclear reactors.
All the other incidents listed had nothing to do with their nuclear reactors; they would have all sunk just the same had they been powered by diesel fuel.
I'm not sure what you mean by the US Navy sinking two "catastrophically": none of the deaths listed on the page you link have anything to do with the fact that nuclear power was used.
However, you probably should have linked this section of the overall article on nuclear submarines:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_submarine#Reactor_acci...
It's weird that the section starts off with "Some of the most serious nuclear and radiation accidents by death toll in the world have involved nuclear submarine mishaps", as the following list doesn't seem to support that, only cataloguing 28 deaths and 162 cases that probably included lifelong health problems. (These numbers are not great, but still not as bad as for land-based reactor incidents, and tiny compared to deaths and health problems caused by burning fossil fuels.) They do claim "substantial radioactivity released" in several of the incidents, but don't quantify the effects, or what the effects would have been if it had been a land-based reactor (so maybe very bad!).
I hesitate to mention this (as I don't want to sound dismissive), but it might be notable to consider that all of these incidents occurred on Soviet subs, and that there hasn't been an incident since 1989. The navies of the US, UK, France, China, India, and post-Soviet Russia have never (at least as far as we know) had a reactor incident with their nuclear-powered subs.
I tend to think the bottom of the ocean is a reasonably good place for the nuclear reactors in those subs.
You would probably agree with me—and most other people—that a nuclear power plant, the was caught throwing their waste into the ocean, would be an environmental disaster. The US navy doing the same thing is also an environmental disaster.
So the reactor is a high corrosion resistant stainless vessel in non-critical state at the bottom of many tens (hundreds?) of metres of ocean.
All told, that doesn't seem an entirely unreasonable place for it. Even if it was critical, in the active state before the sub sank, it'd probably just heat water for a decade or too before it eventually cools down.
Even if it suffered a meltdown, that's not ideal, but I'm not gonna lose any sleep over it.
We are dealing now with barrels of DDT dropped in deep water off the Californian coast
According to the wiki article, several issues from the inception of the plant through the failure were ignored, all of which either made the failure worse or would have arguably prevented it. My understanding is that the plant itself was already supposed to have been shut down, but duty was extended; I'm not sure if this was to move towards break-even on cost, or just to prevent a power generation gap, or make more money. Note that the plant in question is one that had been shut down previously because TEPCO had been caught falsifying inspection and repair records.
IMO (as a total non-expert) nuclear is probably safe, it's the people running it that screw it up for everyone. Maybe that's not a meaningful distinction? I'd sure like to have a discussion about nuclear that doesn't conflate failures of leadership with failures of technology, though.
Just wonder if we're pricing in those externalities from coal, like hundreds of thousands of deaths per year due to air pollution and the fact that it is completely fucking up the atmosphere, leading to a global catastrophe. Because...we're not.
Some of the costs/risks with nuclear are a bit black swannish though which complicates matters.
Energy efficiency, pollution controls and carbon taxes are the real magical tech we've not exploited.
Because cheaper in the long run means more expensive right now, which is a vulnerable political soft spot that psycopaths can easily exploit.
Even in France, which has a very supportive population, and is usually heralded as a nuclear success story, saw increasing costs rather than decreasing costs as they build more of the same reactor model.
Construction productivity doesn't increase like manufacturing productivity does. Nuclear's failures are, as far as I can tell, entirely the responsibility of those tasked with building it. And it's quite possible that nuclear only makes sense at a certain level of economic development, with the right level of technology, but not too much technological development such that manufacturing has completely eclipsed construction.
Go to any investor that would build nuclear, and they won't cite public opposition as the reason not to build, they will cite the construction risk.
And that's why this SMR design is being tried rather than large reactors.
I'd be curious to learn where you got your data for this, because I have never been able to find such data. Best I could get was average cost of a plant in a "pallier".
What I can provide is building duration, which definitely goes down as more of the same model are built, but there's no guarantee that building duration and cost are equal here.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03014...
There's another paper somewhere in my bookmarks that shows this for reactors of the same model built in the US, and maybe also France, but I'm having trouble locating it right now...
As with any single publication, it can't be taken as the revealed truth, but it's the best I have at hand.
Edit: how could I have forgotten about the infamous Loveringe, Yip, Nordgard paper! This is impressive because it does the analysis across many countries, and finds a few with cost decreases, but a dominant trend towards more expensive construction:
https://reader.elsevier.com/reader/sd/pii/S0301421516300106?...
My personal, untested, hypothesis is that these variations have mostly to do with the general cost of labor in a country, and in particular their level of economic advancement, which establishes a floor on the value of an hour of a person's labor. Specifically, my guess is that construction is only feasible for nuclear when a country is in a magic sweet spot where labor is cheap, and technological advancement is moderate, like 1950s-70s US level. But not so advanced that labor has gotten so expensive that skilled labor like welders have more productive uses of their time.
If my theory is correct, future costs for South Korea should rise from where they were before stopping their program (in a flurry of corruption scandals, I would note. Nobody brings up South Korea as an example of successful construction anymore, instead having to resort to suggesting Rosatom should embark on a massive building spree across the globe.)
https://energypost.eu/how-profitable-is-an-investment-in-nuc...
And France, with many Nuclear plants, has recently had issues keeping the plants up. Many of the most problematic plants are newer ones.
https://www.ans.org/news/article-3939/frances-energy-woes-wo...
The reality is economies of scale have kicked in for solar and wind energy in a way they never can for nuclear. We are at the point where it makes sense, at times, to overprovision renewals to ensure enough supply.
The issue with renewables is storage, of course. But that problem looks to be more solvable than cost effective nuclear, a problem which we have not solved in over 50 years. One can say if we were only smarter we could make nuclear more cost effective, which is probably true. But we built a nuclear power plant where a tsunami occurred in the past, only to find it occurred again, so we aren't that smart. The issue with nuclear is everything has to be right for it to be cost effective and safe, and nuclear is too complex for humans to consistently do this.
Safe nuclear power that is also cost effective is not a problem we have solved.
That said, I am not super bullish on nuclear, and agree with your position. Solar and wind are just getting too cheap for nuclear to get the investment needed to catch-up. If we see someone crack the code on cheap storage of electiciy, solar and wind will runaway with the prize. Not coincidentally, storage is has vastly more investment of money and brains on looking for ways to scale vs nuclear.
*Safety concerns with nuclear will make iterative design difficult to pull off!
So do oil and coal [0]:
> Globally, fossil fuel subsidies were $5.9 trillion in 2020 or about 6.8 percent of GDP, and are expected to rise to 7.4 percent of GDP in 2025
[0]: https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2021/09/23/Sti...
My vote is to rapidly install renewables while we have the natural gas backstop, and give the storage startups a few years to make it happen. Energy Dome, Hydrostor, and Form Energy all look promising.
And if new nuclear turns out to be less expensive than expected, great.
Many more than that.
It’s really hard to invest billions of capital dollars that won’t produce any return for a decade while you can realize immediate return on solar with costs that drop every year.
Accountants are the worst enemy of nuclear, not activists.
Do you have any actual numbers at hand?
"...is cheaper..." is a bit vague.
This uses real weather data for various countries and optimize solar + wind + batteries + hydrogen to provide a constant output at minimum cost. The results are interesting. You can tweak the cost assumptions.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-nuclearpower-waste-id...
'Former President Jimmy Carter halted reprocessing in 1977, citing proliferation concerns.'
1 https://www.perkinelmer.com/au/product/cesium-137-calibratio...
I'm absolutely certain of it. In regards to nuclear rocketry, it wasn't even the anti-nuclear crowd that killed one of the most promising technologies but they certainly guaranteed it would die in the dustbins of JPL's archive.
NASA and the United Aircraft Corporation came up with a reactor design called the nuclear lightbulb [1] that used tens of kilograms of uranium instead of thousands by heating uranium hexaflouride [^1] to a plasma and using an irrotational vortex [^2] of neon gas to compress it until it became a self sustaining [^3] black body radiator [^4]. They were just about to test the reactor with real fuel when it was canceled (during Nixon's administration as part of the Mars program) but they managed to experimentally identify the remaining production challenges like the computational power needed to keep the core stable and the material science necessary to separate the vortex from the fluid economically. There has been so much progress in fields that address those challenges that many of the problems are considered solved and the remainder are surmountable engineering problems.
I really hope with this renewed interest in nuclear someone eventually revives the design and tries to bring it to its conclusion. Just based off of the declassified publications from the 60s and early 70s [2][3][4][5] it is obvious how much potential this design had: it's safe [^5], useful for rocketry and terrestrial power generation, and self breeding by nature of its design [^6]. Who knows where we could be in space exploration and the battle against climate change had the design been fully explored.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_lightbulb
[2] https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19730018850
[3] https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19730018851
[4] https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19710010820
[5] and many more in the JPL archives! Search for "gas core reactor"
[^1] UF6 is the most common intermediate in the enrichment process and depleted UF6 is how most of our nuclear waste is stored... and this reactor is a perfect breeding reactor for the waste (see [^5]). All of the infrastructure for dealing with the materials have existed since the Manhattan project.
[^2] the opposite of a rotational vortex like a tornado, which have calm centers. In an irrotational vortex the particles in the center have the highest velocity and in the reactor it acts like a centrifuge, forcing the uraninum to the center and compressing it to tens or hundreds of atmospheres. This part was tested experimentally.
[^3] the energy of the plasma and compression from the vortex increase the neutron cross section to the point where the nuclear reaction becomes self heating with only 20kg of fuel. They stopped just short of testing the full cycle but this is the same concept behind nuclear weapons, which use precise explosives to compress nuclear fuel until it reaches criticality, except the vortex can't generate the kind of pressures necessary for a nuclear explosion.
[^4] the NASA/UAC design heats the UF6 till it radiates most of its energy away as UV. Classical steam turbines or hydrogen gas seeded with tungsten nanoparticles (in the case of a rocket engine) allow the system to extract power.
[^5] since it's an active design, tons of power is required to pump the vortex and keep the core in a fissile regime. If any part of the system fails, the core loses pressure and becomes a really expensive gas canister until the chamber is cleaned up and the core restarted. With a plasma window separating the core from a vacuum, the entire system can be designed to depressurize safetly.
[^6] anything injected into the core gets bombarded by neutrons and the vortex system constantly wicks away small amounts of the core. The system forms a closed loop that recycles unused fuel via centrifuge and it can also separate out transmuted waste [*]. The NASA/UAC team tested this with a neutron gun to simulate fission in the core.
[*] we could have had honest-to-god alchemy!
In fact if we take Germany as a counter-example, when they stopped building nuclear power plants due to popular demand, they significantly increased renewable energy to a point where they are currently replacing coal power at a greater rate then France, despite Germany actively shutting down nuclear plants that still had years of life left.
This shows that Nuclear power might actually be a hindrance towards an electrified future, as governments have historically put to much faith in it, which was ultimately unwarranted, instead of investing in renewables.
EDIT: I feel like people are focusing on the wrong point here. I was apparently—and unintentionally—disingenuous by touting Germany’s success in replacing coal power with renewables, as compared to France. However, my main point still stands, that investing in nuclear well into the 1990s did not bring costs and delays of new plants down.
> In fact if we take Germany as a counter-example, when they stopped building nuclear power plants due to popular demand, they significantly increased renewable energy to a point where they are currently replacing coal power at a greater rate then France, despite Germany actively shutting down nuclear plants that still had years of life left.
Rarely have I seen reality mistreated so blatantly.
France has barely used coal in the last 4 decades, and so it seems to be enough to claim that, by slowly reducing their coal use, Germany does much better.
That reminds me of the popular definition of chutzpah: the person that asks for mercy after murdering his parents, since, afterall, he's now an orphan.
> However, my main point still stands, that investing in nuclear well into the 1990s did not bring costs and delays of new plants down.
Your main point is wrong. [1] shows that each model has experienced faster build time as new units were built. What is true is that new, more advanced designs can take more time to build than older, less advanced designs.
[1]: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_des_r%C3%A9acteurs_nucl%...
CP0: first reactor 6.5y, last reactor 5y
CP1: first reactor 6y, last reactor 5y
CP2: first reactor 5y, last reactor 6y
P4 : first reactor 7y, last reactor 6y
P'4: first reactor 7y, last reactor 6.5y
N4 : first reactor 12y, last reactor 7.5y
> it conveniently excludes
Honestly, I suspect you're just namedroping here. But let's adress the point: Olkiluoto and Flamanville are the first 2 reactors of their generation, I'm not sure what you want to compare them to in terms of build time. My guess is that Hinkley point will get built much faster, and that we may see further improvements if more are built.
That sounds a less impressive when you rephrase it as saying they went from 15x more coal use than france to 9x as much. Percentage wise the decrease seems similar in the last few years.
source: https://www.iea.org/countries/france https://www.iea.org/countries/germany
If we (US) hadn't stopped building nuclear in the 80s and had instead merely key up the pace, our grid wouldn't be 20% nuclear like it is today, it would be 100% nuclear.
Instead, we made the choice to pump 20 gigatons of carbon into the atmosphere while we waited for solar and wind to become viable. I'm glad they finally are -- they just broke into double digits, in a few years they will pass the nuclear buildout we stopped in the 80s -- but that was one helluva waiting cost.
It's not as though Germany could have 'decided' in the 1970s to have 2022 technology. Sure, increased investment at the time may have sped up the development of renewables, but it still wouldn't be fast. Science doesn't quite work that way.
But here we are, instead. Thank Reagan. And Bush. And Bush, again.
US spent $5T trashing Iraq and Afghanistan. That would have paid for completely switching over to renewables, several time over.
This seems to be implying that basically all the research was done between the 2000's and now, and that scientists had been twiddling their thumbs between 1970 and 2000. Actually, scientific advances between 1970 and 2000 were critical to enable the renewables boom that we experienced since 2000.
Could it have gone faster if more funds had been made available? Maybe. But claiming that we "lost" 30 years in research on that topic simply shows ignorance about the way research works.
> US spent $5T trashing Iraq and Afghanistan. That would have paid for completely switching over to renewables, several time over.
Yeah, and if the Romans hadn't spent so much time fighting with their neighbours, we would all be eating free lunches now.
There's reports around about what actually drove the price drops in renewable, and while research plays it's part, market support and scale are big factors, we definately squandered multiple opportunities to nip climate change in the bud.
Reagan took the solar panels off the White House for a reason, so his buddy James Watt could kill off any alternatives to fossil energy. That regime lasted until the 90s and by then any memory of the oil crises in the 70s was long gone.
The panels installed on the White House were not photovoltaic solar panels - they were solar water heater panels. (After they damaged the roof, they weren't replaced after the repairs were done.) It wouldn't have been possible to run the economy on solar water heater panels.
I’m not the biggest fan of arguing about alternate history, but this thread originally spun out after an ancestor poster claimed we would have a rosy present if only we had invested more in nuclear energy. I claim I find way more wishful then claiming the same about renewables.
On the other we have a technology that still doesn't exist in the 2020s and would also need to be build out.
Cockroach archeologists will be puzzled why we chose to go extinct.
You keep saying this, but I'm not sure where it's coming from. Reading upthread, my interpretation is that we are specifically talking about the technology that exists today, in 2022.
I think it's entirely reasonable that, if investments into renewables were made in the 70s and 80s at a level comparable to investments in fossil fuels or nuclear, we would have seen, in the 90s, renewables technology comparable to what we have today. No, it wouldn't be the same technology, but I could see efficiency numbers being similar, though perhaps at a bit higher cost.
I shudder to think what failure looks like to you.
Operating the wind farms is much cheaper than operating the nukes and mining the extra coal would have been. That opex savings goes to more capex wind generation capacity, further reducing costs by each GW displaced.
So, yes, success. Not being off coal already is not failure. Replacing an entire country's energy infrastructure takes time, no matter what.
Looks at France
Sure.
Despite that, the public opinion soured so bad, that it is the detractors that had to bring disaster to nuclear reactors. Protestors fired rocket-propelled grenades at a plant[0]. It did not cause any nuclear danger.
On the other hand, the costs grew because the standards for risk grew to tremendous levels that are way, way above those applied for the coal and gas industries, or wind and solar for that matter.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superph%C3%A9nix#Rocket_attack
The wiki article you linked says the plant was unfinished. This would indicate the attack was a protest against the construction of the plant, not an attempt to induce a nuclear meltdown. You are perhaps unintentionally twisting the facts.
Absolutely true. It proved expensive even at large scale and with full support of the state. I don't trust promises or hypotheticals of cheap nuclear power, at all.
But here's the thing: France succeeded with decarbonizing their electricity production. It's a pretty notable success. Yes, it was (and remains) expensive and yes those plants are now failing often, remaining expensive ober their whole lifetime. But it worked and France could afford it.
I'd argue many other countries could afford it as well. The German electricity mix is a lot dirtier by comparison.
failing plants due to their age and maintenance resulting in less nuclear power in the long run say otherwise
France uses 20x less coal than Germany to begin with (https://www.worldometers.info/coal/coal-consumption-by-count...) so I'm not sure about the comparison of reducing consumption
Also, during the recent conflict with Russia, Germany is turning coal plants back online and France is not.
Domestic coal consumption figures are meaningless.
That's wrong. France is a net exporter of power, by over 50%. So even on aggregate it is a net benefit to the world since 90% of the power generated is CO2 free.
Germany is like 40% coal, and France is maybe 5%. It's easier to reduce at a faster rate when your use is still massive.
Historically the countries that invested in nuclear and hydro have been most successful in lowering the carbon intensity of their energy sector. Looking at the data, Germany does not appear to be nearly as successful as France. In 2021 France's electricity averaged 68 gCO2/kWh, and Germany averaged 364 gCO2/kWh.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/low-carbon-share-energy?t...
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/carbon-intensity-electric...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_mining_by_country#Germ...
One of the things making this possible is 90+ percent enrichment of U235 in the fuel. That's weapons grade and won't fly in a civilian reactor. I haven't read NuScale's application in great detail but I'd be surprised if they used anything above 5 percent.
Oil companies paid to form that opinion in the public.
>no Chernobyl
Chernobyl was the result of a HIGHLY unauthorized, and stupid experiment... phenomenally stupid. So many red flags were driven past at high speed.
The reality is to cause the issue, the operators had to drive the reactor well into a dangerous and hard to control regime which it would not get into under any normal operation circumstance.
So while yes, it shouldn't have been physically possible to do it, even with that design it took substantial, deliberate malfeasance to get that result (you can also only get that result with that design - a meltdown is not normally an explosion).
Every nuke, ever, has been massively subsidized.
NuScale has been and is still being massively subsidized by the USDoE. It would be wholly uncompetitive with renewables if not so propped up.
Given the longstanding cozy relationship between the NRC, the DOE and industry it's hard to feel confident in this approval being sufficiently stringent, e.g. on worst-case scenarios, waste disposal and the like.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/19/us-depleted-ur...
material specific energy w*h/kg
----------- ----------------------
uranium 22,394,000,000
...
diesel fuel 12,666The Bikini Atoll in the Marshall islands is one of the most polluted places in the pacific ocean. The US military conducted nuclear testing around there and simply swept the pollution in one place. There are dozens of reports of cancer from both former military personnel an nearby local population. And concerns are rising with elevated sea level that pollution will be leaking at greater pace then currently.
These are just two examples of the US military neglecting safety concerns with their nuclear technology. There is no single spectacular event like the Chernobyl disaster. But rather decades of neglect and disregard to public safety which polluted many areas leaving potentially an overall damage on par—and potentially greater—then the Chernobyl disaster.
Your supposition that reactor accidents smaller than Chernobyl might be hidden from the public doesn't seem well grounded either; we know the US Army fucked up the operation of the SL-1 reactor, resulting in 3 deaths. Here's a big list of nuclear fuckups: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_nuclear_accid... Some of those severe, some minor. I don't see much reason to believe that substantial naval reactor incidents have been omitted from that list. Such accidents are hard to hide from long, particularly if it means a bunch of sailors got irradiated or a ship had to be taken out of service for decontamination / repair. The incidents on that list bracket the sort of mystery accident you're supposing; it lists accidents much less severe and much more severe.
I supposed no such thing. You don’t need an accident to leave a mess (as evidenced by our current climate crisis). You just need to be negligent of the environment and surrounding population center. The US military (including the Navy) has a terrible track record when it comes to environmental issues around its military bases around the world. My supposition is that they are simply equally inconsiderate with their nuclear logistics as they are with their other operations. And Bikini Atoll is my ground for thinking so.
But that is despite the point. Their safety record with nuclear is horrendous. Full of examples of neglect and pollution. I’m not an expert in the nuclear history of the US military, but I wouldn’t be surprised that many of their smaller reactors have similar stories as Hanford. It is just not as spectacular—and therefor not as much in the public consciousness—as Chernobyl.
And yet we're still cleaning it up :)
> In 2007, the Hanford site represented 60% of high-level radioactive waste by volume managed by the US Department of Energy and 7–9% of all nuclear waste in the United States (the DOE manages 15% of nuclear waste in the US, with the remaining 85% being commercial spent nuclear fuel). Hanford is currently the most contaminated nuclear site in the United States and is the focus of the nation's largest environmental cleanup.
Incidentally, VLS allows for much faster deployment of missiles, and doesn't require deck space for different launchers for different missiles, and a ship with a modern VLS have a huge rate-of-fire advantage on older rail launcher equipped ships.
* Cost of procurement.
* Role of the ship: why have an expensive ship that turns into a radioactive reef in a role when one of its missions is to "take a bullet" for a carrier?
* No competition. The Soviets were gone.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear-powered_cruisers_of_th...
Really? I wouldn't be surprised to hear someone call a frigate a cruiser or a littoral combat ship a destroyer or an amphibious assault ship a carrier but everyone knows battleships are the biggest big-gun ships out there.
I try not to judge, I'm probably equally wrong without knowing it about things as far outside my area of interest.
I would also not be surprised if there were many people who'd never heard the terms "destroyer" or "cruiser".
I thought they were obsolete.
Whether this is true, it shows that the obsolescence of battleships (since aircraft carriers came on line) was recognized well before WWII.
We did get five of the eight battleships back (although some were basically cored out like a rotten tooth and rebuilt almost from scratch.) Two ships were left there (Utah and Arizona). Oklahoma was raised mostly to free up its slot in the harbor, but sank in 1947 while being towed to San Francisco Bay to be scrapped.
The BB's role in the Pacific War was as AA platforms and for shore bombardment.
But if you include "amphibious assault ships" like the Wasp class, which can carry a lot of helicopters and STOVL airplanes like the F-35B and Harrier, then US Navy still has a lot of conventional powered carriers.
https://www.google.com/search?q=air+force+lost+hydrogen+bomb...
I collected a list of publicly known ones in response to someone claiming the same previously here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28376137
> The DOE later found water intruding into at least 14 single-shell tanks and that one of them had been leaking about 640 US gallons (2,400 l; 530 imp gal) per year into the ground since about 2010. In 2012, the DOE also discovered a leak from a double-shell tank caused by construction flaws and corrosion in the tank's bottom, and that 12 other double-shell tanks had similar construction flaws. ... Intermittent discoveries of undocumented contamination have slowed the pace and raised the cost of cleanup.
> In 2007, the Hanford site represented 60% of high-level radioactive waste by volume managed by the US Department of Energy[7] and 7–9% of all nuclear waste in the United States (the DOE manages 15% of nuclear waste in the US, with the remaining 85% being commercial spent nuclear fuel). Hanford is currently the most contaminated nuclear site in the United States and is the focus of the nation's largest environmental cleanup.
despite lower standards, they've had no incidents
The Chernobyl absolute exclusion zone is quite literally 1000 square miles. Nuclear advocates try to treat Chernobyl (and Fukushima and [insert nuclear disaster here]) as an irrelevant outlier rather than what it is: tangible evidence of the impact of inevitable human failure.
A plant has to be well-maintained and competently run. Waste products have to be safely stored and transported. As soon as you add corporations to the mix, you've now created a profit motive to neglect safety and maintenance because the risk of disaster is low but the failure modes are incredibly large. Humans have shown themselves to consistently be incredibly bad at managing low-probability high-impact failures.
> The US navy has fielded nuclear reactors in warzones since 1954 and no Chernobyl.
Military use of nuclear reactors is quite limited, being largely limited to a handful of submarines and aircraft carriers using highly enriched fuel. It's not done out of economic merit either. Having a nuclear missile submarine that can stay deployed for months can literally be done no other way.
All that has very little to do with commercial power generation.
Coal power kills 1000x as many people per unit as nuclear. Natural gas kills 40x as many. Solar kills 4x as many. Humans have shown themselves to consistently be incredibly bad at comparing chronic and acute risks at scale. 1: https://www.engineering.com/DesignSoftware/DesignSoftwareArt...
I dispute this number. Are you considering roof mounted residential solar? Most solar in a solar-powered world will be on the ground.
>Most solar in a solar-powered world will be on the ground.
It is probably more accurate to say that most solar in a solar-powered world should be on the ground. The reality is that roof-top solar is the most expensive form of power in the world and yet it continues to be heavily subsidized. These subsidies are in the form of direct tax breaks and usually higher electricity prices paid by those who can't install it. A dollar wasted on roof-top solar would be MUCH better spent on solar panels installed on the ground by the utility.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/494425/death-rate-worldw...
This is a poor metric to use. The official death count from Chernobyl was 31. It may be as high as 50. There are probably more deaths attributable through long-term effects, etc but you start getting into subjective modeling to figure out a number for that.
It's almost 40 years later and the absolute exclusion zone is still 1,000 square miles. Treating this as only 31 (or 50) deaths grossly under-represents the magnitude of the disaster.
1: https://ourworldindata.org/what-was-the-death-toll-from-cher...
The comment I was replying to was arguing nuclear power caused the least deaths and I was explaining how that's a bad metric because it doesn't capture the impact and damage of the absolute exclusion zone.
So if the actual death count is 27,000 instead of 31 or 50 that's actually much worse, which further undermines that commenter's argument.
I would add:There are none so blind as those who will not see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_nuclear_disasters_and...
Very long list. Impossible to clean many up in any sort of human scale.
When are we outlawing hydroelectric dams? Accidents with those have killed far far more people.
1. Using deaths as a metric;
2. Focusing on operational cost of a nuclear power plant rather than total cost (ie including capital cost). The total cost is borne out in the relatively high cost of nuclear power to users. If that point is even acknowledged, let alone conceded, it's just dismissed as the fault of government regulation or that scale will somehow magically solve the problem; and
3. Writing off disasters as irrelevant outliers because they're inconvenient to the argument. Less than 700 nuclear power plants have been built and we've had multiple huge disasters.
So are deaths a bad metric? And by "deaths" here I mean any form of the metric (eg absolute, per-kWh generated, etc). Because deaths doesn't capture the negative externalities and consequences of nuclear power. Chernobyl killed less than 100 directly. Who knows how many contracted various cancers in a wide area. But 1,000 suqare miles of land remains uninhabitable nearly four decades later with no real end in sight.
Deaths as a metric doesn't capture that, which is precisely why pro-nuclear advocates focus on it. Nuclear power has its own propaganda just like the oil and gas industry does.
The way to account for the cost of deaths is by the "statical value of a human life", a finite quantity that is considered what would be reasonable to spend to avoid one death. The NRC uses a figure of $9 million when evaluating reactor safety systems.
Using that figure, deaths in normal operation contribute negligibly to the cost of energy from nuclear or renewables (but not for coal; there deaths contribute greatly to the real cost.) Because of this, if nuclear stans are focusing on deaths, what they're doing is implying that the $9 M figure is much too low. And that would imply that the NRC is not imposing enough safety systems on nuclear plants. I doubt this last point is one they'd be happy with.
So if you’re that worried about it, find the least populated place in western Kansas or Nevada or Maine and build the biggest plant you can. Worst case scenario it turns into Chernobyl and you fence it off and call it a day.
Alternatively, we can keep using slave labor in China to build solar panels fabricated with toxic compounds obtained via strip mining that require natural gas and coal power plants to actually function on hot days.
Either you care about climate change or you just hate nuclear power. Discussions like these are great at revealing where folks stand on the issue when push comes to shove.
A serious question I don't have an answer to: is Chernobyl the worst-case scenario? Is there a way for there to be an even worse disaster? I do not know.
Though really we can walk and chew bubble gum. Build reactors and more renewables. I can't put a nuclear reactor on the roof of my home after all! I just really feel like this trope that anti-nuclear sentiment is why we don't have nuclear reactors everywhere has always felt weird when we're talking about market-based economies. Maybe it's just that unworkable in general! Why else would we not build these supposed money printers?
A counter question to yours: How many Chinese slave laborers would you tolerate before you'd accept another Chernobyl style disaster as a tradeoff? When you talk about substituting solar power for nuclear power, that's exactly the tradeoff you're making.
According to a google search:
> American-made solar panels generally cost from $0.50 to $0.80 per watt (W) – about $0.10 to $0.30 more per watt than imported panels. The highest quality, ‘premium’ American panels may even come in around $1.00/W.
I would be more than happy to pay that premium (though really I would like to see working conditions improve across the globe). I do not live in the US so my calculus is perhaps different from yours.
I have heard statements about labor being huge factors of solar panel installation, but google is saying 15%.
And I would like to restate that I think we can walk and chew bubble gum here. The problems with nuclear being more expensive are real, maybe resolvable, but cannot simply be handwaved away in our current economic models. But hey, if we can get a good mix going on I'm all for it. It's not an either/or!
And hey, if we had a full planned economy, there would be a lot of things that we could do differently that would also have great effects.
I'm rooting for NuScale, but so far every attempt at realizing the SMR dream has failed, so I'd caution people about thinking this is a pure slam dunk and it's just some sort of mass stupidity keeping the technology back.
Why does it matter that the US has more nuclear reactors that could potentially become weapons if they already a massive arsenal of nuclear weapons?
"Standard LWR fuel in 17 x 17 configuration, each assembly 2 meters (~ 6 ft.) in length; up to 24-month refueling cycle with fuel enriched at less than 5 percent"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_modular_reactor#List_of_...
If Nuscale can hit their LCOE goal of $65/mWh by 2030, they will still be 2-3x the LCOE of Solar+storage today [1] (which will only get cheaper).
In the long term both technologies will play an important role, but the zero carbon technology we can deploy at scale today is the technology we need today.
1. https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-...
However, I am optimistic about storage, particularly since zinc-bromine seems poised to break into the market, with excellent resource availability. Zinc production is about 13 Mt/yr [1], and the battery offers about 67 Wh/kg, with ~1/3 the weight in zinc, so 200 Wh/(kg Zn), so potential production is over 1 TWh/year before running into availability problems. There are also about half a billion tonnes of bromine in the Dead Sea alone [2]. (Since this is my third Zn-Br post, I'll add that I don't currently have investments in them, but I'm considering it.)
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zinc#Production
2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bromine#Occurrence_and_product...
The overwhelming bulk of utility scale storage will not be in batteries. They cost too much per kWh stored. Bulk storage will be in media where incremental kWh are cheapest. Think tankage.
One side of this comparison has cost estimates, the other one is vaporware. You need a certain generation capacity for hydrogen (or whatever) measured in watts, not watt-hours; these plants require maintenance and operation costs likely much higher than batteries. With battery costs approaching $100/kWh, many TWh of storage are attainable.
I'm assuming that nuclear will be a significant part of the energy supply, so I would not expect it to be necessary to, for example, store six months' worth of energy for the winter.
Cheap storage will displace them.
Furthermore, it is not feasible to power individual personal vehicles or homes with nuclear reactors, so using nuclear for the grid frees up those resources that can be used for other stuff, for that stuff.
Case in point, the currently ongoing global supply shortage.
When an NFT sells for more than a small power plant and a celebrity dog walker can be paid more than a nuclear engineer I don’t have a lot of faith in that premise.
Solar and wind coexist synergetically with existing uses, so renewables do not need any dedicated land at all. There is enough existing reservoir area to float solar on, alone, for many times the world's conceivable power needs.
Solar farms are built in deserts only because idiot investors want them there. They are fantastically less efficient there, and degrade in the heat.
Concern trolling about land demand is the low road.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-82042-5
Notes that at 80% penetration, solar will occupy roughly 5% of total land. The paper goes on to study methods of ensuring that this land use change does not drive net carbon increases from vegetation loss etc.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
I posted a response on some of the challenges with marginal economics in renewables and responded to your comment with a peer reviewed and cited journal article on these issues and the relevant data point from this study.
Your response contains an ad-hominem personal attack, and does not contribute to the discussion.
Placing panels everywhere we can is a great idea, however pretending that there is a silver bullet is putting our heads in the sand.
And, constructed reservoirs are not the only still water. California has estimated it can gather 12 GW just from its canals.
Solar may also usefully be sited on active pastureland, which is not in short supply. There, it reduces water demand and offers shelter for livestock. Livestock keeps down weeds.
There is a fair amount of industrial roofing in use, where solar extends its life. Some people have already installed there.
Then why not nuclear too? The world sorely needs options where we can spend some CapEx and solve global warming. I see nothing wrong with a mix of hydro, solar, geothermal, wind, and nuclear. There is no reason not to expect capital efficiencies in larger nuclear build-outs compared to the sporadic reactors we've built for the last ~50 years.
Right now we are seeing coal and natural gas plants getting built because there aren't enough renewable options. As has been the case for the last 50 years while renewables catch up.
This may mean Europe ends up deindustrializing vs. sun-soaked places closer to the equator. I suppose King Leopold wouldn't have liked that.
There surely will be a new equilibrium including newer power generation means, however many sunny places are far from water and other industrial inputs - moving steel mills to New Mexico is not quite a slam dunk in terms of transportation.
I’ve noticed that many solar+storage installations these days are 4-hour storage, so not sufficient for baseload. I think the number would be higher if we were shooting for baseload from our storage.
Yes, but compared to California (and all the other very sunny parts of the US and the world where huge populations live), from an energy consumption perspective, tiny Finland doesn't really matter much. Or put another way, it matters far more to the future of the climate to decarbonize energy production in California than Finland.
That said, companies in Finland have been developing some neat grid scale heat storage batteries lately, so there is an opportunity for them to have a big technological impact that way.
I didn't expect that.
Similar bottlenecks occur with pumped hydroelectricity. To build it economically you not only need an alpine lake handy, it also needs to be close to transportation infrastructure. As those sites are developed, we'd turn to more and more remote sites.
The key principle of bulk energy storage is E = Fx, applied liberally worldwide for centuries. It is taught to every freshman engineering student. Nothing blocks further application of the principle, at any scale.
And as has been pointed out numerous times, no existing alpine lake is needed for hydro storage. And, the site does not need substantial "transportation infrastructure". Dozens of hydro dams, still in use, were built in California's Sierra Nevada mountains in the 1920s via roads a car cannot use.
Hi there, I graduated engineering and am currently applying for professional licensure. I took only one course focused on energy, but I've never heard of E=Fx. Googling it brought up no relevant results. Could you expand on what it is?
This all sounds well and good, however it’s highly unclear that utility scale pumped hydro is viable. To make it work you need to have plentiful water, limited evaporative loss/other losses, and two large basins to store both the charge, and discharge of water.
In the event of drought, these facilities could become impractical. Hydro facilities have their own environmental concerns. Combined with shifting climates and rainfall patterns there are many challenges to be solved. (some of which go away if the hydro storage is in underground ceiled chambers… which also has a cost associated)
Pumped hydro is practical in many, many more places than have hydro generation today, because unlike those, it does not need a watershed. It can use a deep underground cavity where a hill is not forthcoming. Where water is scarce, other methods will be used.
Other applications of Fx include (but are not limited to) compressed air, and buoyancy.
Places that run low on storage resource can import and burn fuel, as they do now, or schedule power from a transmission line, where they have one. Soon, liquified anhydrous ammonia will be cheapest and most practical, but liquified hydrogen may be cheaper and sufficiently practical for bigger utilities. Ammonia has the advantage that it does not need cryogenic treatment. These will be available from numerous tropical sources.
If you get a professional engineering license without recalling basic Newtonian physics, that just tells us the licensing process has utterly failed us.
I may, but I live in a country that doesn't use the word freshman, so I don't know which year physics text that would be.
I assume from context you were meaning to refer to gravitational potential energy, which is generally represented as ∆U=mg∆h (change in gravitational potential energy equals mass times gravity times change in height). The variables you used (E=Fx) would mean energy equals force times (variable). From dimensional analysis the variable would have to be units of length (m), however it clearly only applies in the vertical dimension so it's better to use a specific variable like ∆h
Regardless, energy storage via gravitational potential energy (i.e. pumped storage) has been in use for about a century, and still makes up a rsmall proportion of grid operations. It has very specific requirements that aren't available everywhere. It's not an end-all solution for energy storage.
However a more general formula would be the integral of net force over distance.
Even without local "freshman" classes, you may look it up in any dictionary. Or, just stop pretending.
F may be water pressure, as in pumped hydro (which is growing) using elevated or underground reservoirs, or air pressure, as in CAES underground or underwater compressed air, or buoyancy using sea-floor pulleys and floats. No doubt as a soon-to-be Licensed Professional Engineer you will soon be able to think of other persistent forces.
Springs and flywheels will not be used for bulk utility-scale storage.
Generally, utilities will use what is cheap and reliable at the time they build it. Building storage before you have enough spare renewable capacity to charge it would be a bad misallocation of capital
Anhydrous ammonia will not be the cheapest medium, but has advantages of transportability and fantastic usefulness. Any unused overbuilt capacity will be put to work synthesizing for sale.
1. https://google.gprivate.com/search.php?search?q=E%20=%20Fx%2...
> And as has been pointed out numerous times, no existing alpine lake is needed for hydro storage. And, the site does not need substantial "transportation infrastructure". Dozens of hydro dams, still in use, were built in California's Sierra Nevada mountains in the 1920s via roads a car cannot use.
Such as? How did they get heavy machinery to these dams to build them? All of the dams I can find like the Shasta dam, Orville dam, etc are in fact close to major transportation infrastructure.
Source? I'm only aware of pilot programs in Japan and Germany, not commercial operators.
Who do you imagine you are fooling?
They are not generally made of concrete, not being deep enough to need it. Their high pressure is confined in the penstock well downslope.
No such inaccessible dams exist, and if they do they hold an inconsequential amount of hydroelectric energy. Just exercise a modest amount of reasoning: no transportation infrastructure means all work is done by hand and all material transported manually as well.
Pre industrial dams did exist, but they were very shallow and used for irrigation rather than power. Moving enough earth and concrete to make a usable gradient is not possible without heavy machinery.
Can we apply the same reasoning and conclude that because existing nuclear reactors are inadequate, no possible future nuclear reactors can be adequate?
Why does pumped hydro have to be close to transportation infrastructure, btw? Can one not build roads or rail lines?
> Why does pumped hydro have to be close to transportation infrastructure, btw? Can one not build roads or rail lines?
You can, but the more remote the build site the more expensive it becomes.
Nuclear seawater extraction is already conducted, at a price of about $200 per pound [1]. Raw fuel extraction is a small portion of nuclear's cost (enrichment is a much bigger portion) so this is not a significant cost increase.
1. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2016/07/01/uranium-s...
To power the world with nuclear would require many more reactors. Current world average primary energy consumption is 18 TW, which is 6000 3 GWth reactors. That's an order of magnitude more than currently are in operation. Add in demand growth from industrializing countries and the uranium would last maybe a decade.
Uranium availability is not an immediate problem if you assume nuclear remains a sideshow on the global energy stage. That's to assume nuclear is neither needed nor particularly useful for addressing global warming. Is that what you're assuming?
> However, seawater concentrations of uranium are controlled by steady-state, or pseudo-equilibrium, chemical reactions between waters and rocks on the Earth, both in the ocean and on land. And those rocks contain 100 trillion tons of uranium. So whenever uranium is extracted from seawater, more is leached from rocks to replace it, to the same concentration. It is impossible for humans to extract enough uranium over the next billion years to lower the overall seawater concentrations of uranium, even if nuclear provided 100% of our energy and our species lasted a billion years
"Current nuclear technology isn't sufficient either. A world powered by nuclear burner reactors runs out of uranium very quickly. Breeder reactors or seawater uranium extraction would be needed, and neither of these are "existing" in the sense you're using for storage" (emphasis added)
So, your comment about seawater there doesn't contradict what I wrote at all.
> And these advances by PNNL and ORNL have reduced the cost by a factor of four in just five years. But it’s still over $200/lb of U3O8, twice as much as it needs to be to replace mining uranium ore.
> Fortunately, the cost of uranium is a small percentage of the cost of nuclear fuel, which is itself a small percentage of the cost of nuclear power. Over the last twenty years, uranium spot prices have varied between $10 and $120/lb of U3O8, mainly from changes in the availability of weapons-grade uranium to blend down to make reactor fuel.
> So as the cost of extracting U from seawater falls to below $100/lb, it will become a commercially viable alternative to mining new uranium ore. But even at $200/lb of U3O8, it doesn’t add more than a small fraction of a cent per kWh to the cost of nuclear power.
This is technology that actually has a demonstrated cost. Moreover it doesn't need to get cheaper at scale since raw extraction is such a small portion of nuclear power's cost. It's not like synthetic methane or hydrogen storage where it's all white papers promising cheap cost, but not actually delivering any storage systems at that cost.
Extracting uranium from seawater on the scale needed to fuel burner reactors requires massive engineering. The estimate I've seen is that fueling one 1 GWe burner reactor takes a seafloor uranium absorption field (suspended in a strong ocean current; if you have to pump the seawater yourself it's already too expensive) of 170 square kilometers. The power/area is already much lower than the time-averaged output from PV.
Extrapolating from the lab bench to 170 sq. kilometers (x 6000 for the number of reactors needed to power a nuclear world) is a far larger stretch than extrapolating renewables and storage to what they would need. Your selective doubt is not being driven by any honest impulse.
All I demand is that people deliver at the specified cost. Not, for example, a prototype with unspecified cost or a pilot program with much higher cost to and promises that it'll get cheaper at scale.
> Extrapolating from the lab bench to 170 sq. kilometers (x 6000 for the number of reactors needed to power a nuclear world) is a far larger stretch than extrapolating renewables and storage to what they would need. Your selective doubt is not being driven by any honest impulse.
I could say the same about you. Nobody is seriously considering pumping seawater to filter uranium. This is a totally bad faith argument.
And you give this estimate of 170 without actually giving a source for it nor specifying details like how far apart the buoys are spaced, or if reprocessing is used (which cuts down fuel use by more than an order of magnitude).
That’s nowhere near enough to sensibly compare with a nuclear plant.
- Assumes solar installation in a sunny climate. It’s an order of magnitude difference in potential solar output between San Diego and NYC.
- Underestimates battery requirements by multiple orders of magnitude. Again, because it has comically inept assumptions.
- We literally cannot deploy solar at scale today. We do not have anywhere near the battery production necessary for utility scale deployment. We would need to double our worldwide battery manufacturing ability, double it again, double it again, and then double it one more time.
- Massive demand for solar and battery, combined with finite production capacity, would lead to dramatic increase in prices.
TLDR the other energy technologies can actually be deployed at estimated prices. Solar cannot be deployed at scale globally. At all. Period.
Because they use enriched uranium, 30% compared to ~7% in LEU which is used in civilian power plants. It's seen as a proliferation risk. And big reactors are more efficient. The problem is they cost a lot and have always had cost overruns. The reactor vessel has to be comissioned for building and rach one is esentially a prototype build to specs. There were even cases were the reactor vessel was defective and had to be scrapped. Building a larger fleet of smaller reactors in production facility with QA could bring these costs down and enhance safety.
The NuScale design will use >5% LEU with a 24 month refuelling cycle. At least we won't have to shut down an 1000 MWe reactor for refuelling every 2-3 years.
We shall see.
The US now has an equilavent to China's Belt and Road initiative, caled PGII, that it will use to finance infrastructure projects in developing contries. There are plans to build a 6 reactor NuScale plant in Eastern Europe with studies financed through this project.
https://www.state.gov/united-states-takes-next-step-in-suppo...
Is there a single small nuclear reactor of this kind that has ever been successfully dismantled? As far as I know, all small nuclear reactors that have ever been used by any navy are still in storage somewhere [1] until someone figures out how to get rid of them properly. Maybe that's one of the reasons why they aren't common in civilian use.
[1] Well, except for those still in use or on the ground of the ocean somewhere.
I'm abstractly aware that nuclear technology is reliable, but your anecdote somehow makes it more relatable. You've piqued my curiosity :)
https://www.twi-global.com/technical-knowledge/job-knowledge...
That sounds absolutely terrifying. How did you guys end up fixing it?
>In the shipyard we had an incident where the neutron detector pegged high but it was determined to be caused by TIG welding.
Neat! :)
Management failings are part of the risk profile of any hazardous technology, from nukes to feedlot pig farming. Leaving them out produces dishonest numbers.
It's not bigotry (an intolerance of others) nor is it even prejudice (judging before you have the relevant facts.) It's a widely acknowledged historic fact that Chernobyl had a terrible workplace culture.
If you want to criticize somebody for ignoring Chernobyl's workplace culture, then you should have responded to sitkack, who seems to think that people shouldn't talk about this aspect of the disaster.
You are putting words in my mouth.
The failings of the team running a poorly designed uncontrolled experiment are widely known. Attributing it to a "poor working culture" needs to address specifics and just sounds like Ukrainians are bad at their jobs because ???
IMO the future of energy is decentralisation not centralisation.
One of the reasons I do not think nuclear fits. It is impossible to handle nuclear in anything other than huge establishments (I feel this proposal for mas produced nuclear plants is going to end in tears).
The future is local.
So each module is a little smaller than the reactor of the 1960's era submarine I served on and is based on the same pressurized water technology. I was a "nuke" so had to go in the reactor compartment several times. As far as I can remember, the reactor was about 10 feet in diameter. We went in the shipyard for refueling after the lifetime of the rods, which was 15 years. I could never understand why we didn't build these for civilian use (cost I figured) but now we will. Cool.
https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/news/2022/22-...