23 votes

Hurricane Florence, worries grow over half dozen nuclear power plants in storm's path

53 comments

  1. [11]
    Amarok
    Link
    Ars' article has a more intelligent presentation of the facts without the 'omg nuclear' alarmism. They are shutting the plants down ahead of the storm, properly, so they have time to go completely...

    Ars' article has a more intelligent presentation of the facts without the 'omg nuclear' alarmism.

    They are shutting the plants down ahead of the storm, properly, so they have time to go completely cold. That means no waste heat needing electrical power to move out like what happened in Fukushima. Once the reactors are cold the staff can fuck off for months if they like until it's time to warm it up again. These plants have been hit by Cat-5s multiple times in their history.

    Essentially, this entire story is 'nuclear' clickbait, about the same as the 'swine flu' craze the press whips up every other year.

    37 votes
    1. Jared
      Link Parent
      Yeah and in addition to that there are ways to remove decay heat without electrical power in emergency situations and after a day the need for decay heat removal is greatly reduced anyway. there...

      Yeah and in addition to that there are ways to remove decay heat without electrical power in emergency situations and after a day the need for decay heat removal is greatly reduced anyway. there is no need to worry about these plants. Nuclear hysteria is alive and well as usual.

      4 votes
    2. annadane
      Link Parent
      I'm surprised this is from commondreams. I assumed they were reputable.

      I'm surprised this is from commondreams. I assumed they were reputable.

      2 votes
    3. [8]
      BuckeyeSundae
      Link Parent
      But how will I leverage current events to support my pet political issues if people like you keep popping up to explain why the link shouldn’t even bother to be clicked! The missed opportunities!

      But how will I leverage current events to support my pet political issues if people like you keep popping up to explain why the link shouldn’t even bother to be clicked! The missed opportunities!

      1 vote
      1. [7]
        Diet_Coke
        Link Parent
        Booooooooo. I'm sharing this to have a discussion. I've found that when I post a link and only a link, it's more rare for there to be any kind of conversation around it. So I do share my views,...

        Booooooooo.

        I'm sharing this to have a discussion. I've found that when I post a link and only a link, it's more rare for there to be any kind of conversation around it. So I do share my views, but notice I'm not here arguing with anyone. Environmental issues are a pet political issue, but I am not some anti-nuclear crusader. I just feel like proponents of nuclear power put a lot of faith in theoretical solutions without considering issues like who wants trucks full of nuclear waste driving through their neighborhood. I'm always open to learning more.

        4 votes
        1. [4]
          BuckeyeSundae
          Link Parent
          It's common social media behavior not just to lefties. Everyone falls for it too, including me, which is why I maybe come across as a bit saltier at moments than I intend; it leaves a sour taste...

          It's common social media behavior not just to lefties. Everyone falls for it too, including me, which is why I maybe come across as a bit saltier at moments than I intend; it leaves a sour taste in my mouth when I realize I've been bamboozled by the media I digest.

          I think opponents of nuclear power are shooting themselves in the foot if they are also concerned about climate change. They're the same type of people who want revolution without revolution, or radical social change without concern for any of the pain that'll cause vulnerable classes in the process. They hate GMOs but care deeply about world hunger. They hate vaccinations but hate disease, etc.

          If you're serious about being open to learning more about nuclear power, we had an old but excellent discussion on this topic a few months ago.

          7 votes
          1. [3]
            Diet_Coke
            Link Parent
            Sorry but there's a lot more nuance than this, and you're ascribing a whole host of views to a pretty diverse group of people ('people who are iffy on nuclear power'). Would it be fair for me to...

            I think opponents of nuclear power are shooting themselves in the foot if they are also concerned about climate change. They're the same type of people who want revolution without revolution, or radical social change without concern for any of the pain that'll cause vulnerable classes in the process. They hate GMOs but care deeply about world hunger. They hate vaccinations but hate disease, etc.

            Sorry but there's a lot more nuance than this, and you're ascribing a whole host of views to a pretty diverse group of people ('people who are iffy on nuclear power'). Would it be fair for me to say that you want to maintain energy monopolies and ensure that big utilities maintain their social and political power into the future? Wind and solar can be produced on a small scale, nuclear will always be a game of massive capital investments. Someone can see the promise of GMOs and not like the business practices of e.g. Monsanto. No defense of anti-vaxxers, but I can understand being suspicious of authorities in times like these where truth and lies are given equal footing in a lot of media.

            I'm not hard against nuclear power, but I do think there are many downsides that are given short shrift by proponents. Wind and solar are much safer alternatives, and as they develop they're just getting better and better. There's a joke I like: what do you call a meltdown at a solar plant? A nice day.

            2 votes
            1. [2]
              BuckeyeSundae
              Link Parent
              Solar plants are wildly inefficient uses of land at scale. Wind turbines would be an ecological disaster at the scale they would be needed to meaningfully cover for the demand of US energy...

              Solar plants are wildly inefficient uses of land at scale. Wind turbines would be an ecological disaster at the scale they would be needed to meaningfully cover for the demand of US energy consumption. The biggest inefficiency in all of this is the distance from the power source to the power consumer. You can't just make a solar plant or a wind field anywhere and expect it to perform well.

              Like them or hate them, nuclear power plants are one of the very few reliable and almost entirely clean ways to fill the gaps created by increased reliance on intermittent and currently rather inefficient sources of renewable energy. Unless you're looking to continue relying on carbon heavy sources of energy to fill those gaps, you must look to some form of nuclear energy. You have no choice if you take the research seriously saying that we have to leave carbon in the ground, starting almost tomorrow.

              10 votes
              1. arghdos
                Link Parent
                A couple points: Nailed it here, it's so bad in China, where the majority of their vast solar arrays are in the western part of the country that an entire year's supply of energy for Bejing was...

                A couple points:

                The biggest inefficiency in all of this is the distance from the power source to the power consumer

                Nailed it here, it's so bad in China, where the majority of their vast solar arrays are in the western part of the country that an entire year's supply of energy for Bejing was wasted in transmission losses (or simply because they had to turn off the plants due to lack of transmission capacity & therefore demand). It is of note that they are putting a lot of research into Ultra-High Voltage Current lines to reduce losses (see also).

                Unless you're looking to continue relying on carbon heavy sources of energy to fill those gaps, you must look to some form of nuclear energy. You have no choice if you take the research seriously saying that we have to leave carbon in the ground, starting almost tomorrow.

                One caveat here, if we could actually come up with a reasonably sustainable bio-alcohol fuel production process, e.g., California's standard of 90% drop in emissions as compared to the conventional fuel while meeting other sustainability criteria (e.g., not mowing down the rainforest for sugarcane), it would be ok to rely on these (carbon-based) bio-fuels in the interim transition to green / nuclear energy. It would be a lot easier (read: remotely feasible) to convert existing transportation / power generation engines / turbines to run on bio-fuel than electricity.

                6 votes
        2. moronicuniform
          Link Parent
          Speaking as someone who spent a few years working nuclear outages to get by, I'd just like to inform that the vast majority of "nuclear waste" is disposable protective clothing like latex gloves...

          Speaking as someone who spent a few years working nuclear outages to get by, I'd just like to inform that the vast majority of "nuclear waste" is disposable protective clothing like latex gloves and paper booties, etc. Most of which isn't even contaminated.

          The heavy duty stuff like spent fuel rods is transported inside about a metric ton of lead boxes, and even then in the Carolinas the spent fuel is only changed out once a year per reactor.

          7 votes
        3. starchturrets
          Link Parent
          Relevant ~tech post.

          I just feel like proponents of nuclear power put a lot of faith in theoretical solutions without considering issues like who wants trucks full of nuclear waste driving through their neighborhood.

          Relevant ~tech post.

          3 votes
  2. [42]
    Diet_Coke
    Link
    I often see nuclear touted as a green energy solution, but it seems to me that sometimes ine blindspot proponents have is the giant 'as long as things go as planned' caveat. As natural disasters...

    I often see nuclear touted as a green energy solution, but it seems to me that sometimes ine blindspot proponents have is the giant 'as long as things go as planned' caveat. As natural disasters like hurricanes grow in severity and frequency, how will this sector of the energy market respond? In Virginia, electric power is supplied by the state-mandated monopoly, Dominion power. They're also the largest donor to both political parties in the state, although sixteen Democratic candidates did not accept their donations in the last election. There is not a lot of incentive for these power plants to be updated.

    5 votes
    1. [23]
      hotcouch
      Link Parent
      I think if there was enough money and attention behind it, nuclear is the green energy solution. Obviously letting the infrastructure crumble, and building them in areas where hurricanes or...

      I think if there was enough money and attention behind it, nuclear is the green energy solution. Obviously letting the infrastructure crumble, and building them in areas where hurricanes or earthquakes isn't ideal though. I do think that if modern facilities were built, however, they could probably survive events like this without too much worry.

      You're right at mentioning the growing frequency of storms like this, though. It is somewhat worrisome to think about the climate's future. Things can change real quick and put areas that weren't at risk... at risk.

      Anyways, I really hope nothing too tragic happens to the plants because it will severely taint nuclear's name, especially with the huge pro-coal agenda going on right now in the states.

      12 votes
      1. [17]
        Algernon_Asimov
        Link Parent
        One of the big problems with energy is pollution. With fossil fuel power plants, that pollution comes in the form of carbon dioxide. With nuclear power plants, that pollution comes in the form of...

        nuclear is the green energy solution

        One of the big problems with energy is pollution. With fossil fuel power plants, that pollution comes in the form of carbon dioxide. With nuclear power plants, that pollution comes in the form of radioactive waste. While carbon dioxide might be changing the weather, it is at least biodegradable and relatively short-lived. Radioactive waste, on the other hand, is not biodegradable and extremely long-lived. I don't see how swapping from carbon dioxide as a waste product to radioactive materials is an improvement!

        3 votes
        1. [12]
          hotcouch
          Link Parent
          I guess it's an improvement in my eyes because it produces so much more power for less waste. I'm honestly not sure on the statistics, so maybe I'm talking out of my ass but at least until we can...

          I guess it's an improvement in my eyes because it produces so much more power for less waste. I'm honestly not sure on the statistics, so maybe I'm talking out of my ass but at least until we can find a better solution to nuclear waste... it isn't actively contributing to climate change at a vast scale. From what I know.

          I just think "changing the weather" is a little bit of an understatement for the damage the massive energy industry is causing through emissions, ya know?

          10 votes
          1. [10]
            Algernon_Asimov
            (edited )
            Link Parent
            Nuclear waste doesn't contribute to climate change. The problem is that it needs to be stored for tens of thousands of years in a safe secure location. If it leaks, it will poison living things:...

            until we can find a better solution to nuclear waste... it isn't actively contributing to climate change at a vast scale.

            Nuclear waste doesn't contribute to climate change. The problem is that it needs to be stored for tens of thousands of years in a safe secure location. If it leaks, it will poison living things: plants and animals, including us humans. Even if it poisons small animals, they're part of the food chain that ends up on our plates and in our stomachs.

            So we need to be able to store this material safely and securely for a period longer than the whole of human civilisation to date. We're promising that all our descendants for the next 20,000 years will keep this material safe and secure. But we can't make that promise on behalf of people who don't even exist yet - on behalf of governments and societies that don't even exist yet. It's the same as making the modern Iraq government keep a promise made by the ancient Babylonians 3,000 years ago. That's just not realistic.

            6 votes
            1. [9]
              Comment deleted by author
              Link Parent
              1. [7]
                nsz
                Link Parent
                I just read through the post and looked some stuff up online. I can't really find the reason molten salt reactors where never adopted, do you have any idea? It seems silly for such a good...

                I just read through the post and looked some stuff up online. I can't really find the reason molten salt reactors where never adopted, do you have any idea? It seems silly for such a good opportunity to go unused.

                3 votes
                1. [4]
                  Comment deleted by author
                  Link Parent
                  1. [3]
                    nsz
                    Link Parent
                    Thanks for the reply, it's interesting stuff. I'm just using Wikipedia to read up on it, do you have any recommendations for where to get more information?

                    Thanks for the reply, it's interesting stuff. I'm just using Wikipedia to read up on it, do you have any recommendations for where to get more information?

                    1 vote
                    1. [2]
                      Amarok
                      Link Parent
                      Watch this lecture with Kirk Sorensen. It's about two and a half hours. It's the single most dense nexus of information on this topic. Kirk's a decent presenter and one of the world's very few...

                      Watch this lecture with Kirk Sorensen. It's about two and a half hours. It's the single most dense nexus of information on this topic. Kirk's a decent presenter and one of the world's very few experts on liquid fuel reactors (and nuclear power systems in general).

                      4 votes
                      1. nsz
                        Link Parent
                        Alight awesome, thanks.

                        Alight awesome, thanks.

                2. [2]
                  cain
                  Link Parent
                  A disadvantage of sodium is its chemical reactivity, which requires special precautions to prevent and suppress fires. If sodium comes into contact with water it explodes, and it burns when in...

                  A disadvantage of sodium is its chemical reactivity, which requires special precautions to prevent and suppress fires. If sodium comes into contact with water it explodes, and it burns when in contact with air.

                  My area of expertise is nuclear powered ships and that's the reason they abandoned liquid sodium in the US Navy. There was one submarine that used liquid sodium

                  5 votes
                  1. Amarok
                    Link Parent
                    Exactly. These reactors are dangerous and do carry many safety hazards. They are trading the deadly environmental risks of nuclear meltdowns for the more localized (inside the building) risks of...

                    Exactly. These reactors are dangerous and do carry many safety hazards. They are trading the deadly environmental risks of nuclear meltdowns for the more localized (inside the building) risks of working with volatile molten salts that are pushing past 800'C. Plenty of things can go wrong - but none of those bad things can make it outside of the reactor chamber.

                    4 votes
                3. CALICO
                  Link Parent
                  Thorium Molten Salt Reactors are really bad at making weapons-grade uranium. Consider that TMSR's were conceptualized in the 50's during the Cold War, when the top priority of World Powers was to...

                  Thorium Molten Salt Reactors are really bad at making weapons-grade uranium. Consider that TMSR's were conceptualized in the 50's during the Cold War, when the top priority of World Powers was to develop as many nuclear warheads as possible.

                  5 votes
              2. Algernon_Asimov
                Link Parent
                I did some research (via Google, of course!) about borosilicate glass bricks. Everything I saw talked about the durability of this glass, with repeated mentions of the requirement for the glass to...

                We have it in our power to store the waste as borosilicate glass bricks that go non-dangerous after a 300 year half-life.

                I did some research (via Google, of course!) about borosilicate glass bricks. Everything I saw talked about the durability of this glass, with repeated mentions of the requirement for the glass to contain the nuclear waste for thousands of years. I didn't see anything about it reducing the danger. I especially didn't see any mention of 300 years. Could you please provide some sources for this?

                1 vote
            2. hotcouch
              Link Parent
              I agree, I just think that a much more pressing matter is runaway climate change. We could just not try to deal with that and literally all die, or we can make compromises for now.

              I agree, I just think that a much more pressing matter is runaway climate change. We could just not try to deal with that and literally all die, or we can make compromises for now.

              1 vote
          2. unknown user
            Link Parent
            Isn't nuclear dead—not from a pollution or risk standpoint, but more from an economic one? It's just insanely expensive to build. The industry hasn't and wasn't maintained properly, plants have 50...

            Isn't nuclear dead—not from a pollution or risk standpoint, but more from an economic one? It's just insanely expensive to build. The industry hasn't and wasn't maintained properly, plants have 50 year plus lifespans, all while the solar and wind industries build several nuclear-plant's worth of electricity generation annually in the United States.

            1 vote
        2. [2]
          Pilgrim
          Link Parent
          Then you haven't read enough about it. Much of that waste can be recycled but we just haven't invested in that. Some more reading for you and others:...

          I don't see how swapping from carbon dioxide as a waste product to radioactive materials is an improvement!

          Then you haven't read enough about it. Much of that waste can be recycled but we just haven't invested in that.

          Some more reading for you and others:

          http://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/fuel-recycling/processing-of-used-nuclear-fuel.aspx

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing

          While long, long term I agree clean green energy from wind/solar are the most ideal, if we're ever going to have a chance against global warming we need to get behind nuclear. This is a opinion shared by many if not most in the scientific community.

          https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coming-clean-about-nuclear-power/

          And of course some more general info from our favorite author:
          https://www.amazon.com/Worlds-Within-Story-Nuclear-Energy-ebook/dp/B014RQ9NZU

          6 votes
          1. Algernon_Asimov
            Link Parent
            From one of those articles you linked: "A secondary reason is to reduce the volume of material to be disposed of as high-level waste to about one-fifth." I'm not sure that reducing the future...

            Much of that waste can be recycled

            From one of those articles you linked: "A secondary reason is to reduce the volume of material to be disposed of as high-level waste to about one-fifth."

            I'm not sure that reducing the future production of high-level waste to only 20% of the rate we currently produce it is a big enough improvement. That high-level waste still needs to be stored for thousands of years, whether it's 100 tonnes or 20 tonnes. Either way, we're still making promises on behalf of societies and governments which don't exist now, with all the lack of reliability and security that implies.

            This is a opinion shared by many if not most in the scientific community.

            https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coming-clean-about-nuclear-power/

            That article barely mentions climate change. It's all about convincing people that nuclear power isn't as dangerous as we think it is. Even so, it concedes that "Reactors across the country have accumulated 72,000 tons of spent fuel. [...] The waste continues to pile up. At some point, officials will have to face down the citizen refrain of 'not in my backyard'." In other words, scientists have to convince us laypeople - and our descendants for the next 400 generations - to accept having nuclear waste store in our figurative backyards.

        3. [2]
          hellux
          Link Parent
          How is carbon dioxide pollution short-lived and biodegradable? When CO2 is released by burning fossile fuels there will be a surplus of CO2 in the atmosphere until new fossile fuels are created,...

          How is carbon dioxide pollution short-lived and biodegradable? When CO2 is released by burning fossile fuels there will be a surplus of CO2 in the atmosphere until new fossile fuels are created, which is not a short process.

          Radioactive waste could also be reduced with reactors like breeder reactors if it werent for the political barrier.

          2 votes
          1. Algernon_Asimov
            Link Parent
            Carbon dioxide is literally a food for plants. They "inhale" it (remember that whole thing about plants breathing in carbon dioxide and breathing out oxygen, and animals breathing in oxygen and...

            How is carbon dioxide pollution short-lived and biodegradable?

            Carbon dioxide is literally a food for plants. They "inhale" it (remember that whole thing about plants breathing in carbon dioxide and breathing out oxygen, and animals breathing in oxygen and breathing out carbon dioixide). If we grow more trees, they will absorb more CO2. This can happen as fast as we can plant them.

            1 vote
      2. [5]
        BuckeyeSundae
        Link Parent
        Given the sheer demand for energy and the nature of scarcity, there can be no ONE energy solution. That’s nonsense to me, and I’m a big fan of nuclear for its pollution mitigation potential. There...

        Given the sheer demand for energy and the nature of scarcity, there can be no ONE energy solution. That’s nonsense to me, and I’m a big fan of nuclear for its pollution mitigation potential.

        There will never be enough energy in the grid that people won’t also demand for the use of polluting options too, especially the financially stressed and specific sectors built to exploit those energy sources. There’s a political fight around this no matter what way we cut it. Addimg nuclear to the portfolio at least keeps us from alienating more people, making the political fight easier to win.

        2 votes
        1. [4]
          hotcouch
          Link Parent
          I mean, you can't really say that IMO. Fusion, while far off, could definitely fill the "single solution" role. Of course it will probably always be more convenient for certain areas to rely on...

          I mean, you can't really say that IMO. Fusion, while far off, could definitely fill the "single solution" role.

          Of course it will probably always be more convenient for certain areas to rely on geothermal or something more localized. Until batteries are perfected, I guess.

          For the foreseeable future though, you're definitely correct.

          3 votes
          1. [3]
            BuckeyeSundae
            Link Parent
            I tend not to buy wishful thinking until there is evidence that shows it's no longer wishful. Fusion might one day be able to fill the gaps, but we need solutions now and so we really can't wait.

            I tend not to buy wishful thinking until there is evidence that shows it's no longer wishful. Fusion might one day be able to fill the gaps, but we need solutions now and so we really can't wait.

            3 votes
            1. hotcouch
              Link Parent
              That's fair. It functionally doesn't matter, though. We need to be doing the same things right now regardless of whether or not fusion or a goddamned Dyson sphere or some alternative solves the...

              That's fair. It functionally doesn't matter, though. We need to be doing the same things right now regardless of whether or not fusion or a goddamned Dyson sphere or some alternative solves the problem eventually. Just due to how incredibly far off we are from that--and due to the massive climate damage we're causing on our current path.

              2 votes
            2. cfabbro
              (edited )
              Link Parent
              Well, it's not entirely definitive evidence Fusion is not just wishful thinking, but Lockheed's Skunk Works division (the development group behind the SR-71, F-117, F-22 and F-35, so they have...

              I tend not to buy wishful thinking until there is evidence that shows it's no longer wishful.

              Well, it's not entirely definitive evidence Fusion is not just wishful thinking, but Lockheed's Skunk Works division (the development group behind the SR-71, F-117, F-22 and F-35, so they have pretty insane pedigree) was granted a patent related to their compact fusion reactor (CFR) project earlier this year:

              https://patents.google.com/patent/US20180047462A1/

              And have three other applications pending as well:

              https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?CC=US&NR=2014301517
              https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?CC=US&NR=2014301518
              https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?CC=US&NR=2014301519

              2 votes
    2. [18]
      nsz
      Link Parent
      I can't find the link now, but their was a post on here about solar power in china. They show the size of the fields and it's just ridiculous, they are making panda shapes you can only see from...

      I can't find the link now, but their was a post on here about solar power in china. They show the size of the fields and it's just ridiculous, they are making panda shapes you can only see from above. Not to mention the absurd locations they pick for these fields, leading to substantial losses transporting the electricity.

      Anyway they mention of hand that these panels cannot easily be recycled, it's all laminated materials. So in 20-30 years you have literally thousands of square kilometres of useless solar panels. To me that is really starting to look like an unsustainable energy source.

      1 vote
      1. [5]
        arghdos
        Link Parent
        I'm pretty sure you're referring to this article I linked in my comment above (I too went looking for it!) The locations they pick aren't absurd; in the same way that you wouldn't place a...

        I'm pretty sure you're referring to this article I linked in my comment above (I too went looking for it!)

        Not to mention the absurd locations they pick for these fields

        The locations they pick aren't absurd; in the same way that you wouldn't place a large-scale solar plant in downtown Manhattan (because, you'd literally have to be insane to spend that much money) you wouldn't place one in Bejing. The majority of China's solar capacity is placed in the East specifically because it's sparsely populated, and this is why they are heavily researching UHV tranmission (to avoid transmission losses).

        2 votes
        1. [4]
          nsz
          Link Parent
          Yeah I guess. I always assumed that part of the benefit of solar has been the in place installation removing transmission and infrastructure costs. Also in the article they mentioned how after...

          Yeah I guess. I always assumed that part of the benefit of solar has been the in place installation removing transmission and infrastructure costs. Also in the article they mentioned how after subsidies dried up they are starting to think about placing panels in cities. Lead me to think something was wonky with the incentive scheme leading to it being profitable to just generate raw power rather then delivered power.

          1 vote
          1. [3]
            arghdos
            Link Parent
            In-place installations (e.g., on a home or business) aren't bad (particularly for personal, or business use), but they won't be nearly as efficient or powerful as large-scale facilities, for much...

            I always assumed that part of the benefit of solar has been the in place installation removing transmission and infrastructure costs

            In-place installations (e.g., on a home or business) aren't bad (particularly for personal, or business use), but they won't be nearly as efficient or powerful as large-scale facilities, for much the same reason your car's engine isn't nearly as efficient as a large-scale steam turbine: it's a lot easier to justify spending more on a large-scale system as you are already planning for your ROI to be measured in years, if not decades. The real trick is to find places where large-scale installations make sense to build, and are relatively close (at least, not the equivalent of all the way across the US) to where demand is. Places like the Mojave desert in the US and southern-Spain are good examples of this

            2 votes
            1. [2]
              nsz
              Link Parent
              But having one solar panel next to another doesn't make is more efficient, the infrastructure surrounding it and location sure, but that is no where near a car engine vs a massive oil burning...

              But having one solar panel next to another doesn't make is more efficient, the infrastructure surrounding it and location sure, but that is no where near a car engine vs a massive oil burning powerplant.

              1. arghdos
                Link Parent
                No, but you can buy higher efficiency solar panels, doubling the energy produced per area, you can build CSP, you can add latent heat thermal energy storage to power the plant through the night.

                But having one solar panel next to another doesn't make is more efficient

                No, but you can buy higher efficiency solar panels, doubling the energy produced per area, you can build CSP, you can add latent heat thermal energy storage to power the plant through the night.

      2. [12]
        Diet_Coke
        Link Parent
        These just seem like issues with any energy source. Nuclear plants have a big footprint. They're far away from the cities they service. They create waste that will be radioactive for a longer...

        These just seem like issues with any energy source. Nuclear plants have a big footprint. They're far away from the cities they service. They create waste that will be radioactive for a longer timespan than humans have recorded history. And that is sustainable?

        1 vote
        1. [11]
          BuckeyeSundae
          Link Parent
          Compared to solar and wind farms, you can position most nuclear plants to be MUCH closer to the end users of the power. This isn't the issue you think it is, unless you're comparing to coal and...

          Compared to solar and wind farms, you can position most nuclear plants to be MUCH closer to the end users of the power. This isn't the issue you think it is, unless you're comparing to coal and oil (heavy polluters that we are vastly more comfortable putting near populations).

          4 votes
          1. [10]
            Diet_Coke
            Link Parent
            Ask the people of Fukushima how that worked out. I know, I know, as long as everything is done right all of the time nuclear is totally safe. However, people cut corners - especially in...

            Ask the people of Fukushima how that worked out. I know, I know, as long as everything is done right all of the time nuclear is totally safe. However, people cut corners - especially in monopolistic utilities that can afford massive capital investments. Things happen that weren't planned for, even though the planning process was meticulous. The result is an area that can't be safely inhabited by humans for generations. Nobody wants that in their back yard.

            1 vote
            1. [9]
              BuckeyeSundae
              Link Parent
              How much of the US coast is vulnerable to a tsunami? The "But Fukushima" defense for American nuclear energy doesn't fly when the US has different (tougher) standards (see also: NRC and regular...

              How much of the US coast is vulnerable to a tsunami? The "But Fukushima" defense for American nuclear energy doesn't fly when the US has different (tougher) standards (see also: NRC and regular inspection) for what to do in emergency situations like sudden power loss (even Fukushima had backup generators, but they were in the basement and were flooded, which was the whole problem unique to a tsunami).

              As long as we're not building one of these old, 1970s style reactors on Oahu, we should be fine.

              4 votes
              1. [8]
                Diet_Coke
                Link Parent
                Probably more than you would think. https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/6/16980834/tsunami-warning-false-alarm-east-coast-nws-noaa-science https://phys.org/news/2013-04-tsunami-east-coast.html...

                How much of the US coast is vulnerable to a tsunami?

                Probably more than you would think.

                https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/6/16980834/tsunami-warning-false-alarm-east-coast-nws-noaa-science

                https://phys.org/news/2013-04-tsunami-east-coast.html

                Focusing on the East Coast because that's where most of the population is.

                It's this kind of thinking that is to me the hallmark of nuclear proponents. You don't know what you don't know and have a hard time admitting that unkown unknowns exist.

                1 vote
                1. [7]
                  BuckeyeSundae
                  Link Parent
                  You should also focus on the east coast because there's where the overwhelming number of current reactors are. The failure of backup diesel generators in MSR style reactors would not be nearly as...

                  You should also focus on the east coast because there's where the overwhelming number of current reactors are.

                  The failure of backup diesel generators in MSR style reactors would not be nearly as catastrophic as it would be in even a coal-fire plant (yes, there are catastrophic failures possible in coal fire units too that are power and cooling related, and that'll be especially important to watch with the US' aging energy coal infrastructure). In fact, catastrophic failure of most any kind in MSR-style reactors is dramatically lower than the currently operating nuclear reactors. I don't think any nuclear proponents are seriously advocating building more of the 1970s style reactor.

                  Also, no one has ever said nuclear is totally safe. No one has ever said it doesn't have the potential for catastrophic failure. Literally every power source on the planet has the potential for catastrophic failure. The meaning of "catastrophic" shifts with the power source. At a coal fire plant, catastrophic failure usually means an explosion and fire at the plant that releases tons of carbon emissions and makes the plant unusable at minimum, and likely kills many of the plant operators at the maximum. The long term impacts of a catastrophic failure like that probably go without saying, but you normally aren't going to have too much local contamination outside of the destruction (but also: emissions). You'll have a bit of local water contamination, but that should be it. Catastrophic failure in a gas plant has a bit more umph behind the explosion, and probably comes with a more polluted water supply than the coal fire plant.

                  Catastrophic failure at a nuclear plant? That means a few brave engineers are going to submit themselves to potentially deadly radiation. You will have local water contamination in a different sense (radiation rather than chemical contamination). You'll have local soil contamination too. But in no scenario would anywhere in the US see something similar to Chernobyl. Why dig in your heels so much when it comes to this sort of catastrophic failure, but the coal fire or gas-related catastrophic failure is permitted basically without comment?

                  And we're focused exclusively on catastrophic failure here. We're not even talking about how clean the energy is when everything is working, or creation of rare isotopes that helps with other science studies and experiments. Nuclear opponents tend to NIMBY the whole way until they've eliminated any potential to move the needle meaningfully on climate change, as though the two issues are wholly unrelated. You cannot have your cake and eat it too on this one. Either you think climate change is a huge fucking deal and we're super late to get started in addressing it (and therefore need to begin investing in current technologies to help address current emissions), or you don't think it's a big deal and we can do without using literally every tool available to address it. It's that simple.

                  6 votes
                  1. [6]
                    Diet_Coke
                    Link Parent
                    I think it's a given that coal and gas are bad and should go too. But a catastrophic failure at a coal or gas plant doesn't make the area uninhabitable for thousands of years. Ask yourself this,...

                    Why dig in your heels so much when it comes to this sort of catastrophic failure, but the coal fire or gas-related catastrophic failure is permitted basically without comment?

                    I think it's a given that coal and gas are bad and should go too. But a catastrophic failure at a coal or gas plant doesn't make the area uninhabitable for thousands of years.

                    You cannot have your cake and eat it too on this one. Either you think climate change is a huge fucking deal and we're super late to get started in addressing it (and therefore need to begin investing in current technologies to help address current emissions)

                    Ask yourself this, why are we saving the Earth? Is it just for you and those alive right now? If that's the answer you're no better than the ones who got us to this point. Is it for all of the life, human and otherwise, that will follow us? If that is the answer, then how do we weigh the risk of creating areas that are deadly with no warning to their danger? How do we deal with the waste? Yes, reducing emissions is critically important, but it is not the only factor in creating a better, more verdant world that remains hospitable to life.

                    1. [5]
                      BuckeyeSundae
                      Link Parent
                      It's worth reminding you: Amarok commented with the specifics I wasn't comfortable going into (I don't have the most formal technical knowledge of the systems in place), but the point of all of...

                      It's worth reminding you:

                      I don't think any nuclear proponents are seriously advocating building more of the 1970s style reactor.

                      Amarok commented with the specifics I wasn't comfortable going into (I don't have the most formal technical knowledge of the systems in place), but the point of all of what I was saying is that MSR style plants would not be the sort of system that makes the entire place "uninhabitable for thousands of years" under any circumstances. Your point is grounded in a reaction to the 1970s style reactor that currently dominates the industry, not in the style of reactor we'd be building to replace them (and they need to be replaced. They're aging out).

                      With a Molton Salt Reactor, the biggest risk is actually in the plant making the salt, not the reactor itself. That risk is comparable to any other chemical plant.

                      Ask yourself this, why are we saving the Earth? Is it just for you and those alive right now?

                      What the hell kind of question is this? And what does it even impact? Do you seriously see yourself as saving all of future humanity by arguing that we don't use every tool available that can reasonably help us reduce carbon emissions?

                      Obviously I'm not saying that we should use every tool available uncritically or unaware of their weaknesses. I straight up told you that solar was a waste of space at scale and wind mills were an ecological disaster. The technology isn't currently there in either case to operate at the scale we need, or in the places we need, to meaningfully reduce emissions. Maybe biofuel-alcohol can help California (though it hasn't helped anywhere else to my knowledge), but you know another word for biofuel in the UK? Wood. And wood is creating carbon emissions that they're having to wrestle with, as wood burning stoves are quite comment in residential settings. What I'm saying is that the weaknesses in nuclear energy aren't nearly what you're saying they are. You're focused on a technology that is intentionally being aged out (and you're way overselling the worst case scenario there).

                      2 votes
                      1. [4]
                        Diet_Coke
                        Link Parent
                        How about fracked gas? How about clean coal? No. You're the one who wants to have their cake and eat it too. Reducing emissions is important but living sustainably is critical too, and rolling the...

                        o you seriously see yourself as saving all of future humanity by arguing that we don't use every tool available that can reasonably help us reduce carbon emissions?

                        How about fracked gas? How about clean coal? No. You're the one who wants to have their cake and eat it too. Reducing emissions is important but living sustainably is critical too, and rolling the dice every day to see if we're going to make an area larger than a city uninhabitable for thousands of years.

                        I straight up told you that solar was a waste of space at scale and wind mills were an ecological disaster. The technology isn't currently there in either case to operate at the scale we need, or in the places we need, to meaningfully reduce emissions.

                        Sorry but I just don't think your facts are straight. Some days solar and wind produce more energy for Germany than they need. With investment, equivalent subsidies that are provided to fossil fuel companies, the solar and wind tech is there. I just don't find you 'straight up telling me' something outweighs the actual evidence that it works. And don't forget, solar panels are not the only way solar can be distributed. You want to have your cake by preventing climate change and eat it too by preserving monopolistic utilities. With solar shingles, solar roads, and solar shades over parking lots we can produce all the energy we need within micro-grid free from control by huge unaccountable corporations.

                        1. [3]
                          arghdos
                          (edited )
                          Link Parent
                          Clean coal isn't a thing. It's a marketing campaign that brands extremely expensive additional technology (carbon sequestering) as making coal 'cleaner' along with some more reasonable techniques...

                          How about fracked gas? How about clean coal?

                          1. Clean coal isn't a thing. It's a marketing campaign that brands extremely expensive additional technology (carbon sequestering) as making coal 'cleaner' along with some more reasonable techniques to reduce (non-CO2 emissions).

                          2. Fracking, if it were actually done in a heavily regulated manner (which clearly isn't what's happening), is a hell of a lot of a better power source than oil or coal. CO2 emissions from natural gas are significantly lower than coal and oil, significantly reduces soot, NOx and other human health hazards and would be relatively easy to incorporate into LTC transportation engines (which is essentially a hybrid between the efficiency of a diesel and the low emissions of a SI).

                          Natural gas is far from a perfect energy source, but it's definitely a step in the right direction while we work on ramping up green energy sources.

                          Sorry but I just don't think your facts are straight. Some days solar and wind produce more energy for Germany than they need.

                          And other days it doesn't (it averaged about 36% last year, which is great! much better than the US' 12.2% in 2016). The energy grid has to be designed for peak-demand, i.e., for about 2pm on hottest day of the year, when everyone's AC is on. We need both large base-load providers along with peak load providers for a long time to come, though as you note installations of residential / commerical solar is a great way to reduce both peak and baseload demand! We need focus a lot of work on energy storage technologies, in particular LHTES, such that green energy sources can provide both (they're more suited to peak demand at the moment)

                          1 vote
                          1. [2]
                            Diet_Coke
                            Link Parent
                            That's kind of my point, they're marginally better than coal and oil but in no way a good energy source for the future. Just saying that we should throw everything at the wall, regardless of long...

                            Clean coal
                            Fracking

                            That's kind of my point, they're marginally better than coal and oil but in no way a good energy source for the future. Just saying that we should throw everything at the wall, regardless of long term consequences, isn't a good solution. Fracking suffers from the same issues any capital-intensive development will - the natural capitalist tendency to cut corners in search of greater profits. We don't have a soviet-style directed economy either, so when we say fracked gas is a good way to transition to greener energy sources, we should be aware that institutions that rely on fracked gas are going to fight that transition every step of the way.

                            1. arghdos
                              (edited )
                              Link Parent
                              Yeah, I get that... but if you gave me the option between continuing to burn coal/oil and magically converting all coal/oil-powered energy in the US to natural gas tomorrow (along with proper...

                              so when we say fracked gas is a good way to transition to greener energy sources, we should be aware that institutions that rely on fracked gas are going to fight that transition every step of the way.

                              Yeah, I get that... but if you gave me the option between continuing to burn coal/oil and magically converting all coal/oil-powered energy in the US to natural gas tomorrow (along with proper federal regulation of fracking, I said we were wishfully thinking here right? :P) I would make that trade.