The first person to build a safe, economic, waste free reactor will be a billionaire. But so far that hasn't happened.
Oh, it's safer than all other reactors ever designed? Yeah, but it isn't PERFECT, is it? What if I <impossible scenario>? Then it might be dangerous!
Oh, it has 1/10th the nuclear waste of all other reactors ever? But it STILL MAKES NUCLEAR WASTE.
Oh, it can be built at half the cost of previous reactors for twice the energy? THAT'S STILL WAY TOO MUCH.
And to be clear, I think renewables are major important part of the solution. But waiting for them to meet the demand that nuclear can hit immediately means decades of dirty energy generation. We need to do both renewables and nuclear right now.
* be cheaper than other reliable sources (never met)
* no waste that takes >100y to decay (never met)
* don't disturb the neighbours (not met reliably)
This is a false dichotomy that’s always bugged me. I’d sure find living near a nuclear plant a lot less disturbing than living near a coal plant. And with nuclear plants, far fewer people would have to live near any power plant.
>> Excessive concern about low levels of radiation led to a regulatory standard known as ALARA: As Low As Reasonably Achievable. What defines “reasonable”? It is an ever-tightening standard. As long as the costs of nuclear plant construction and operation are in the ballpark of other modes of power, then they are reasonable.
>> This might seem like a sensible approach, until you realize that it eliminates, by definition, any chance for nuclear power to be cheaper than its competition. Nuclear can‘t even innovate its way out of this predicament: under ALARA, any technology, any operational improvement, anything that reduces costs, simply gives the regulator more room and more excuse to push for more stringent safety requirements, until the cost once again rises to make nuclear just a bit more expensive than everything else. Actually, it‘s worse than that: it essentially says that if nuclear becomes cheap, then the regulators have not done their job.
Basically the safety regulations (some of which are nonsensical -- the whole article is worth a read) preclude cost-effective nuclear. I won't address your point on waste, I think it's covered elsewhere on this page well enough.
I don't see this as a requirement. The cheaper options that provide the large base load needed are all fossil fuel based. They are "cheap", but only if you don't charge for the CO2 cost to the environment.
Ontario has a 60% base energy load provided by nuclear. Smog is rare, except when it blows up from the south. The CO2 production is very low.
> no waste that takes >100y to decay
The waste from alternatives are huge amounts of CO2, which is causing far more harm to the world than the small amount of nuclear waste that would be produced.
> don't disturb the neighbours
NIMBYism is not a valid argument.
Humanity doesn't get better at doing something by doing it less. We need more power plants so that we build experience and costs go down. The market has to be there so that power plant design is invested in to drive down costs, improve efficiencies and reduce risks further.
I wish Musk would take a shot at it. He's the only engineer/financier/crazy-person who I think could make an impact. Government's clearly aren't interested and no one else can get the cash together.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a34396787/elon-musk... (Elon Musk Says the Sun Can Power All of Civilization. Of Course He's Right.)
“That free fusion reactor in the sky conveniently converts ~4 million tons of mass into energy every second. We just need to catch an extremely tiny amount of it to power all of civilization.”
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 16, 2020
Here where the sky is cloudy as much as it is sunny, and clear even less, and where it snows, solar works but isn't reasonable to replace all power needs at an individual, county or state level. The logistics involved are much more complex than, say, having a few nuclear reactors in the state. Which work regardless of the weather.
If nuclear was easy, it’d be done, but it isn’t because it is the more complex, more expensive technology. The sun is free and requires no human management.
I cannot stress enough (as an armchair energy analyst who tracks renewables and energy storage manufacturing and deployment rates) how fast solar PV, wind, and batteries are being deployed.
Keep track at https://www.electricitymap.org
It is done? It is easy? My power needs are completely served right now by hydroelectric and nuclear.
Just because you don't have nuclear reactors in your neighborhood doesn't mean they're more out of reach than solar. HVDC is already widely available. Grid interconnects are mostly political.
We looked at installing PV on a semi-remote home and it was not feasible. The roof was only large enough for a few panels and significant tree removal would've been necessary. The cost was prohibitive.
That particular home design-- its siting, dimensions, energy usage, etc-- were just not viable in a particular energy environment. That doesn't mean that grid detached PV isn't viable-- many parties use it today-- it means it wasn't viable for that design.
A mostly insulated home wouldn't be a viable design in the arctic but they're acceptable designs in places with mild climates.
As the energy landscape changes some designs and locations that were viable in the past won't be viable anymore. There is no natural law entitlement for a given set of choices to work out. :)
He’s already got his hands full running two companies. Its hard to be sufficiently attentive when you are doing multiple things at the same time.