• Uranium3006
    link
    fedilink
    151 year ago

    Are we talking just nameplate capacity or including the energy storage needs in the price? It’s not really apples to apples unless you compare the costs of running each 24/7

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      161 year ago

      And are we taking into account safe storage of nuclear waste for thousands of years (which we as civilization still don’t even have) or not?

      Today’s journalists are really superficial.

      • @Touching_Grass
        link
        12
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        That’s what blew me away. People keep saying a lot of hand wavy stuff about storage but when you really dig into there isn’t a great solution other than keeping an eye on it for a few hundred years. Making private company’s responsible for stuff that generates no profits and requires repeated Inspection’s and maintenance doesn’t sound good to me.

        We absolutely need nuclear. But we should approach it cautiously. I don’t think discussion about nuclear is as cautious as it should be. But that’s par for the course with humanities track record

        • @schroedingershatOP
          link
          6
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          There’s no need to consider nuclear. The power storage requirements for a 100% - epsilon renewable grid are vastly smaller than the amount of battery that will be deployed to EVs in the next few years.

          https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-26355-z

          Those batteries can be used either after they degrade to the point where the EV needs a new one, or while still in the EV if a small fraction of owners participate in V2G.

          Additionally the accessible uranium reserves cannot make a significant impact on the world’s energy requirements.

          In 8 million tonnes of accessible natural uranium there are about 56,000 tonnes of U235. Fissioning all of this yields around 5000EJ of thermal energy Exhausting all techniques of reprocessing and breeding that have actually ever worked, there’s about 10,000EJ.

          The world used 620EJ of primary energy last year so the absolute most generous interpretation is there are 16 years of accessible fission energy, In any realistic scenario it’s much, much less.

          The amount of energy that can be provided via fission with current technology isn’t a meaningful contribution and can’t be deployed in a meaningful timeframe.

          There may be niches where GW scale LWRs are a much better choice than other options. On the off chance they do crop up, what little uranium 235 there is should be reserved for those.

          • suoko
            link
            fedilink
            11 year ago

            It still sounds crazy to most people : it’s a long way to go that should be paved for speeding up modern consciousness.

      • chaogomu
        link
        fedilink
        71 year ago

        Fun fact, That “thousands of years” of storage is entirely a man made limitation.

        95% of nuclear waste is unspent fuel. That’s the source of the “thousands of years” waiting for the more energetic parts of the unspent fuel to decay.

        There are a couple of nasty decay side products that last a long time in there, but those can also be fed into a reactor to be burned away. That’s about 1% of waste. (mostly plutonium)

        Pretty much everything else, the remaining ~4% or so of waste, is only really super dangerous for about 60-90 years, and only radioactive for about 300.

        Another fun fact, a lot of that 4% is actually valuable in various industry, including nuclear medicine.

        I always point to this video on the subject.

        Sadly, Jimmy Carter signed a ban on refining waste, and then got it incorporated into some international agreements. He thought we would just bury the waste again, it came out of the Earth, it could go back in until we were ready to refine it and move on. Sadly, Nymbyism killed that plan.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          31 year ago

          Are we talking about present or future?

          Nuclear has a chance in thorium and malten salt reactors, uranium is made for nuclear booms, not for safe energy generation.

          Sadly, no one is investing enough in thorium and malten salt to make it available in next 10-20 years, we have better chance in fusion than thorium.

          Until than, sorry, but while you are right, that technology is not yet available.

          • chaogomu
            link
            fedilink
            11 year ago

            Okay, some basic physics here, to make thorium useful, you have to convert it to uranium (specifically uranium-234)

            That’s how a molten salt reactor functions, they use a seed of fissile material to breed the thorium into protactinium, which then decays into uranium.

            Once you have the u-234, you can use it to breed the thorium, but you do need that seed of either u-235 or plutonium.

            As for u-235 and u-238, well, those are full of harvestable energy as well. U-235 is what we burn in reactors because u-238 is fertile, not fissile. U-238 breeds up to p-239, which can explode if you know what you’re doing, but can also be burned in a reactor for massive amounts of power.

            We have the technology to do all of this right now. It’s not 10-20 years out, it’s today. What we don’t have is an easy way to overcome decades of oil company anti-nuclear propaganda.

            • @schroedingershatOP
              link
              1
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              No breeder program has ever worked. The best was a couple of low burnup proofs of concept of breeding. They all failed trying to do proof of concept for the reprocessing step – usually after many billions in subsidies.

              Running a full fuel load of the steady-state isotope mix hasn’t even been attempted.

                • @schroedingershatOP
                  link
                  11 year ago

                  Like every other program, if it never made more fissile material than was loaded with, and then ran on that material, it’s just a U235 reactor that caught fire more often

                  • @[email protected]
                    link
                    fedilink
                    1
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    Correct me if I’m wrong but I don’t think superphenix used any U235. The fuel is Pu239 and U238.

                    So I don’t understand your claim since no U235 was used in this reactor.

                    Edit: The reactor in talking about never caught fire. Your whole message is false information

              • chaogomu
                link
                fedilink
                11 year ago

                So it is… That’s what I get for typing that completely by memory.

                U-234 is the side product… It’s another fertile form of uranium that can form when you don’t get the protactinium out fast enough…

                • @schroedingershatOP
                  link
                  0
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  You also get U232 and a bunch of other actinides. Then you have to turn your reactor off because the void coefficient and delayed neutron fraction keep changing and you don’t want it to go prompt critical.

                  Then you have a bunch of gamma emitting salt there’s no clean or affordable chemical process for separating, and you leave it lying around for 50 years before finally burying it at huge expense.

                  You did get the benefit of pointing to your failed experiment every time someone points out that LWRs are unsustainable though, so that’s nice.

                  Maybe BN-800 will finally be run in breeding mode but not as an obvious shell game to make weapons grade plutonium now that it’s more than a year old and catching fire as often as every other sodium cooled reactor?

        • @schroedingershatOP
          link
          01 year ago

          This is a myth. Fissile isn’t fertile. No breeding program has ever worked and none even aspire to burn all the actinides.

          You’re also pretending the only waste product is spent fuel.

          • chaogomu
            link
            fedilink
            21 year ago

            95% of waste is un-burnt uranium. That’s the full truth.

            The 1% of waste that’s plutonium is the full reason we don’t allow reprocessing or breeding programs. Even though there’s no evidence of any country using their civilian nuclear power program to create weapons.

            No, they use their military nuclear programs to do that.

            If you watch the video, it covers all of it. Every side product, every decay product, and it walks it through several thousand years of decay.

            • @schroedingershatOP
              link
              0
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              You’re still trying to conflate U238 which isn’t a fissile element with nuclear fuel. This is a lie. It’s like saying plastic waste is un-fusioned carbon and hydrogen and is actually nuclear fuel. By the most tortured definition it is true, but you have not communicated anything. Instead you are intentionally misleading.

              You’re also trying to pretend U238 and Pu239 are where the danger is. Pu240, Am and fission products are the radioactive part. Extracting the Pu239 doesn’t change the dangerous radioactivity meaningfully.

              You’ve also doubled down on pretending spent fuel is the only waste product. 95% of the waste by volume is not high level waste and most of the high level waste is not spent fuel.

              This propaganda technique and method of lying is called paltering.

              • chaogomu
                link
                fedilink
                11 year ago

                U-238 is fuel, you just need to run a reactor type that was mostly banned in the 70s. Otherwise u-238 is not a big deal to handle. If you don’t want to burn it, just bury it where you found it, or convert it to the oxide and mix it with a few thousand gallons of water before dumping it out at sea. (which is where 99% of uranium can be found)

                And yeah, plutonium is the dangerous stuff, but it’s also the best fuel you can get. Sure, Pu-240 is an issue, but it’s also solvable. And by solvable, I mean that it’s one more neutron away from being fuel again. This does slow the reaction, after all, it takes multiple neutrons to become fissile again. Pu-241 is back to being fuel. Pu-242 is not fuel, but also has a low cross-section.

                That video I linked talks about all of this. It runs through a typical burn of a light water reactor, and breaks down what percentage of everything is in the waste, from day one out to several hundred thousand years. It also gives a dollar amount for each part on the open market.

                Even so, if you really don’t want the transuranics, just use the thorium cycle. There are a dozen reactor designs that can handle thorium. We just need to let people build them.

                • @schroedingershatOP
                  link
                  1
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Working breeder programs are a myth and condescendingly telling me to watch a video taking a narrow myopic view of things I already know (which ignores all the important points) isn’t helping your point.

                  Show me where I can find documentation of a reactor running on U238 or Th which actually worked for a complete fuel cycle and wasn’t just the same breeding ratio as a U235 but with extra steps.

                  You’ve also not addressed the hard bit either, which happens outside the reactor.

                  Also nobody banned breeders, breeder programs are still eating huge amounts of public money and failing to do anything useful in india and china to this day. Superphenix and Monju also weren’t banned in the 70s. Nor were the BN reactors.

                  The only reason they exist is for plausible deniability on filthy loss-making Pu separation equipment for weapons, and for people like you to palter with.

                  • chaogomu
                    link
                    fedilink
                    11 year ago

                    Reprocessing fuel for breeder reactors was the thing that was banned. Now there have to be all sorts of workarounds that don’t work well.

                • @schroedingershatOP
                  link
                  01 year ago

                  Oh you’re a lftr bro.

                  Do you realise how hilarious it is that your proposed solution to mineral scarcity and toxicity of the product lifecycle is 2kg of beryllium per capita?

                  • chaogomu
                    link
                    fedilink
                    11 year ago

                    I said,

                    There are a dozen reactor designs that can handle thorium. We just need to let people build them.

                    But every reply I’ve gotten from you has been you not actually addressing what I’ve said, but you, instead, seem to be replying to what you wish I’d said. There’s some disconnect.

      • @schroedingershatOP
        link
        4
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        This is just the marginal cost of the front end of the cycle ignoring the back end and all other fixed or marginal costs.

        Ie. If you already have bought an SMR in a high-solar-resource region, is it cheaper to buy fuel to run it during the day or to buy solar panels instead and turn it off. The answer being it’s a wash right now, but uranium is going up for the moment and solar is going down for now.

      • @Wooki
        link
        01 year ago

        Safe storage of nuclear waste hasn’t been an issue for decades. You see it comes from this place called the ground, and goes back into this place called the ground. I know, it’s like science fiction.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      71 year ago

      It is comparing the cost of nuclear fuel to generate a kWh of electricity vs the cost of a solar to generate a kWh of electricity in what is a great location.

      So it excludes the entire construction cost of the nuclear plant as well as operating the nuclear plant. It also excludes any sort of storage costs for running the grid with solar. However we are talking about the UAE for solar, so cloudy days without sunshine are basicly not a thing. So you really only need a nights worth of batterie storage. Most consumption happens during the day, so we are talking maybe a third of total generation would need to be stored. So for a MWh of daily use and $333/kWh. Given that you need 333.3kWh of storage, which costs $111,000 total.

      Since this is only fuel costs thou and the nuclear plant has to be built as well, which is not included in fuel costs. So lets look at what 1MWh a day would cost in terms of nuclear power plant. Olkiluoto3 was just finished for $12billion for 1,600MW or $312,500 for a MWh per day.

      So in this case you are basicly betting that a nuclear power plant lasts three times longer then the battery storage and battery storage costs are not falling, which is propably not going to be the case. Also a bunch of technologies do not care too much about when they get power. If you for example have super cheap electrolysis to produce hydrogen during the day, that is an intressting use case. Also grids propably have more then just one power source, so stuff like wind power, hydro and so forth might also be options in some grids and solar prices are falling over time.

    • @schroedingershatOP
      link
      3
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      This particular pearl clutch is even stupider than usual when it was already explicitly not apples to apples. For a time-dependent load you have the other 90% of the budget for the nuclear reactor to figure out storage (or to meet daytime loads or flexible loads).

      This comparison is fuelling an SMR you already have vs. turning it off but continuing to staff it and pay for the back end of the fuel cycle as if it were running when it’s sunny and running solar instead.

      If the marginal cost of the SMR is higher than the all-in cost of solar, then it is always optimal to build the PV array (so long as the grid is not saturated with solar) even if you already have surplus nuclear. So the much bigger portion of the SMR cost (the reactor and fixed O&M) has to justify itself just on the loads that solar cannot feed.

      Of course this is not true everywhere yet (and this does not apply to more efficient large reactors), but the niche for SMRs is smaller than traditional reactors and shrinking.