
Nuclear energy is in fact better than renewables (for us and the environment) - fsflover
https://www.reddit.com/r/unpopularopinion/comments/f278uo/nuclear_energy_is_in_fact_better_than_renewables/
======
mikece
One of the largest problems with nuclear, even bigger than the scientific
illiteracy about it which facilitates the spread of anti-nuclear hysteria, is
the red tape the industry faces. Another problem is the lack of
standardization among nuclear facilities. Both could be solved by adopting SMR
(small modular reactor) base nuclear. The cores are small enough that in a
power-down scenario they can passively cool themselves so there's zero chance
of a Fukushima-type primary loop rupture due to the cooling loop power being
lost. Also, if facilities are standardized, the cost to install a cluster of
ten 150MWe SMRs would cost HALF of what it would cost to install a single
1.5GWe large reactor. Also with standardization we can achieve economies of
scale driving the prices down further. For folks who live off the grid or have
a fondness for solar cells and wind turbines they can still use those but
nuclear fission for the base load can provide more than enough cheap
electricity for today and tomorrow -- even a tomorrow where _everyone_ drives
an electric car.

~~~
FuckButtons
But by having multiple small reactors you loose thermal efficiency and
generate more waste/killowathour. Whatever the technical issues involved
nuclear waste is such a political hot potato that all reasonable attempts to
deal with it have been dead in the water for the past half century. Increasing
that problem substantially is going to make a politically toxic problem worse.

~~~
08-15
Can you please not make up bullshit arguments? The size of a reactor has
virtually no impact on thermal efficiency, especially not if we're comparing
large (100MW) to very large (1GW). Even if there was a direct connection, a
few percent difference (something like 33% vs. 36%) is not increasing the
waste problem (which is not a problem to begin with) "substantially".

~~~
dpoochieni
I think he meant waste as in Radioactive waste.

~~~
08-15
Of course he did. 10% more or less of it for the same amount of electricity
doesn't make the difference between a manageable problem and an insurmountable
one. (It's a manageable problem, obviously.)

~~~
dpoochieni
Don't know the details but consider even if it were 10% more of it, what if it
currently (directly and indirectly) is 80% of nuclear energy's cost. You would
be talking about an almost 50% hit to the profitability of such a proposal.

~~~
08-15
Yeah, what if thing were totally unlike what they are.

The cost of current nuclear power is almost entirely capital cost and
operations. Handling the tiny amount of radwaste is cheap (something like
0.1ct/kWh). It's much more expensive than it needs to be, because the
governments declared that they would take care of the waste and then acted the
way governments always do.

And then there are people like you, who talk about mysterious unquantifiable
"indirect" costs that are tacitly assumed to be approximately infinite. But
that's just FUD, a glass log on the sea floor doesn't cause any cost. (If it's
so easy, why aren't we doing it? See above.)

~~~
dpoochieni
>The cost of current nuclear power is almost entirely capital cost and
operations.

Missing the point: how do the capital and operational costs scale with plant
size in MW? It is ridiculous to assume they scale linearly throughout a big
range so certain plant sizes will be more economical. It's all good, few
people develop this kind of thought or are in a position requiring them to do
so

~~~
08-15
What? That isn't even remotely related to the point you tried (and failed) to
make!

At no reactor size is waste management a significant fraction of the cost. It
may become a larger fraction with future developments, but never a large
fraction.

------
crmrc114
I think the only concern is the US has no high-yield disposal plan like other
nations. Since yucca mountain got NIMBY'ed we had had reactors pumping out
waste only to be stockpiled on the surface in casks that were not designed for
long term exposure.

This is only something I know from watching docmentiries so if you know more
on the lifecycle of waste in the US please let me know how much of this is
true.

~~~
danpalmer
The mid term plan is that generation 5 reactors should be producing much less
waste that is less radioactive for less time. They do this by closing the
cycle and reusing waste again and again.

The end result is expected to be waste with a half life of around 100 years.
This means a feasible option is to just stick it in a warehouse for 300 years.
The danger isn’t proximity to the waste, a concrete container is plenty, the
danger is a 100,000 year half life meaning we need to solve for geological
time scales. With modern reactors that will no longer be the case.

We’re not quite there yet, but research was getting there until much
investment stopped in the last 10 years due to public dislike of nuclear
power. Renewables are doing really well in some countries now which is great,
but I do think this would be a good, feasible, safe backup plan.

~~~
blackrock
Give Elon a contract to launch the nuclear waste into space, and hurl it into
the heart of the sun.

~~~
fsflover
And what happens in the unlikely case of failure of the shuttle?

~~~
crmrc114
Nun Soup?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOUFdQmLVR8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOUFdQmLVR8)

------
elric
So what's going on with travelling wave reactors? There was a lof of hype
around them a few years ago, and then nothing?

------
ta17711771
Have yet to receive a solid response to this comment the last 5 times I've
posted it, but, I think Fukushima residents would disagree.

~~~
danpalmer
Yeah, and I’d rather not fly on a DC10.

Nuclear reactor technology has come a long way since the 60s. It’s much safer.
Fukushima had multiple reactors, it was only the oldest that had any problems,
the rest were fine.

~~~
renox
The thing is with the huge clean-up cost of Fukushima and Tchernobyl somehow I
doubt that nuclear energy cost can be economical..

Plus in France we're not able to build a nuclear central for the projected
cost, yet we price energy as if we are able to dismantle them for the
projected cost, mmmh.

