What matters more imo is reliability and energy security and in those respects nuclear makes me a lot more confident than renewables such as solar or wind.
With oil and gas, the hidden cost was climate change. Although global climate change was imagined as early as 1896 by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius [1], it was not publicly acknowledged by the "7 Sisters" [2] until April 2014 [3]. We think we know what oil and gas costs with what we pay at the pump, but those costs usually miss the $500 billion in direct subsidies [4], the military costs of protecting those interests and of course the costs of neutralizing climate change.
With nuclear, the hidden cost is both long-term storage of waste and the cost of nuclear accidents. The merchants of nuclear power plants do not list those costs on the sale price. Again we get the sticker shock once it is too big to fail. I still have not met anyone who is prepared to have nuclear waste stored in their "neighborhood" for the next thousands of years. So it accumulates on-site, where there was no real planned long-term storage accommodation.
I'm not arguing for or against one form of energy. Rather I am arguing for more transparency in our presentation of the costs.
[1] https://www.livescience.com/humans-first-warned-about-climat...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Sisters_(oil_companies)
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil_climate_change_cont...
Actually they do. The US has been collecting money from nuclear plants for disposal for literally 50 years.
In fact, they have an absurd amount of money since this money has been collecting interest. It it political deadlock and systematic incompetence that prevents the solving of this problem.
And in addition, long term storage is an incredibly dumb solution for most of this 'waste' and is a fundamentally flawed policy that again, is simply systematic incompetence.
> I still have not met anyone who is prepared to have nuclear waste stored in their "neighborhood"
Disagree, put it in my garden. I don't care. You can leave it there for the next 100 years. Seriously, its not hard to store, it just stands there and does nothing and is 100% harmless unless you come up with some plot of Armageddon style logic.
> So it accumulates on-site, where there was no real planned long-term storage accommodation.
Its accumulates on-site because of systematic incompetence in the federal government.
> and the cost of nuclear accidents
The likely hood of such accidents is incredibly small, even if you assume 100 years of nuclear power for 100% of the population the chance of really series accidents is very low. And even lower if we consider next generation nuclear.
With waste with a half-life of 10,000 years for example, each 2 atoms will on average emit one particle or photon in that time. Many generations of people could eat or drink those atoms safely. You could live your life next to a pile of it, and get very little radiation over your lifetime from long half-life radioactive atoms.
The long term storage of this waste is a concern, for sure. But it is a concern for the far future, and we can delay addressing it for decades with impunity (which we have been doing, actually). But we are facing a climate emergency that must be addressed right now. Nuclear waste is the least of our worries at the moment.
There's an extra Avogadro factor of around 23 orders of magnitude when going between atoms and grams, so those atoms really add up -- if they are highly pure and concentrated, at least.
Secondly, regarding waste, I share your view, and I think there’s an additional travesty that we’ve had breeder reactor technology for decades. That can significantly shorten the volume and half life of waste while also producing new nuclear fuel. Non proliferation concerns are cited for why it’s not used, but I don’t see why America can’t operate them within its own borders.
Yes, its insane to suggest the US in its own boarders can't handle it. They do a lot of things much more dangerous in every way to build nukes.
The US is, instead, handing back all the money that was collected to the remaining nuke operators.
Not, notably, to the ratepayers it was collected from.
This is fallout from a court case where nuke operators argued that disposal was flimflam, so the money was collected fraudulently. The court agreed, and ordered the money returned. Not to those it came from, but just to whoever was still operating.
https://flarecord.com/stories/511480139-appeals-court-rules-...
""" NextEra is still not entitled to a refund because federal law requires the DoE, not NextEra, to actually dispose of the spent nuclear fuel. """
Its truly sad that these resources were not used to actually develop the advanced reactors and technologies needed to solved the problem.
Solar and wind should also be transparent in the fact they require fossil fuels to fill in gaps in production. Thus, they do not represent a solution to climate change but merely delay it. Thus the cost of solar and wind includes the cost of climate disaster.
Synthetic methane requires hydrogen as an input, so all of the above applies to it, too. It also requires as source of carbon dioxide. Extracting carbon dioxide from the atmosphere is not viable, which leaves either scavenging CO2 byproducts from industrial processes and biofuels. Both of those are not in sufficient availability to produce synthetic methane at grid scale.
We already have excess renewable generation in several energy markets. And it's been the case for years, but the promised energy storage revolution has not come to pass.
We're also not going to run out of industrial processes that produce large amounts of carbon dioxide, at least as long as we still build things out of concrete, so if for some reason hydrogen is too hard to transport or store, we can pay the extra price of turning it into methane and use all the infrastructure that we already have for natural gas. We can even recapture most of the carbon when we burn the methane again.
Not to mention, this requires huge over-production, which is a problem in areas with already high land usage, such as Europe. It is probably much less of a problem in the USA, so maybe there the calculations are different.
I just love reactionary conservative nuclear logic.
"Let's just use fusion for all our energy needs. We don't need fission, nor do we need wind and solar. Just because it hasn't been done now, doesn't mean it'll never happen. If you don't support this you're just an anti-fusion conservative reactionary!"
The worst case for renewables would be that costs stop declining. Stack the deck just right and nuclear might end up a bit cheaper. But this is just a financial risk, not a risk of the planet. And if one is looking at financial risks, one must also look at the risk of cost overruns in nuclear. Unlike with renewables, which typically come in within 10% of the contracted cost, nuclear plants are famously subject to enormous cost overruns. Factors of 2, 3, or even more.
Pretending that the promises of nuclear will absolutely come true, but that renewables haven't absolutely demonstrated their cost declines will continue, is a blatant double standard and not how one does proper analysis. That's why utilities and financiers have walked away from new nuclear, especially in markets where they're not allowed to foist overruns off on the ratepayers.
We have lots of experience with hydroelectricity. So we can just build more dams, it's all just a question of cost right? With more money we can just build more dams until we reach 100% hydroelectric generation right? This is the kind of logic you're using.
Possibility and feasibility are two different things. Lithium ion batteries exist, but we'll never deploy a day's worth of battery storage. The scale just isn't there. No amount of money thrown at the problem is going to make it possible.
Sure things like hydroelectricity and electrolysis exist, but they have significant barriers to feasibility. The likely path for an attempt at solar and wind grid is to build a bunch of solar and wind, try to build storage, fail, and keep using fossil fuels. Nobody, and I mean nobody has ever built grid scale storage for more than an hour's worth of electricity use (let alone total energy use). Energy storage remains an unsolved problem, and it's not just a question of cost. There's no telling if it can be done even with unlimited financial resources.
By comparison we just need to build 4 nuclear plants for every existing one in the US. No massive 10,000x increase in storage capacity required. No reliance on technology that's never been deployed at scale.
So if 70% is insufficient to demonstrate feasibility, then solar and wind are even worse off.
Nuclear has got to have the worse scalability story of any hyped technology ever. Very monolithic system with tight integration between components. Hazardous materials. Complex science and engineering that needs lots of different highly trained people. Exotic materials. High temperatures. Enabling works with quantities in the millions of square metres. Processes that are difficult to model. Endless secrecy for national security. Very strong buildings. Harsh design margins. Sites in remote areas with absolutely no night life.
We should be optimistic about nuclear. But also apply optimism to other technologies and industries. If the petro-chemical industry want to make hydrogen work they will succeed. So will the battery industry and solar. If nuclear can scale than so can they.
But my wider point is that we need to be more consistent in how we apply scepticism and optimism to different technologies. In some dimensions that gives a benefit to nuclear and in others the benefit is with renewables or storage.
Would this cost money? Yes. But it would likely cost less than a grid based on nuclear power plants. The key insight is that hydrogen can feed combined cycle power plants, which cost a factor of 10 less than a nuclear power plant of the same power output. So, one could (if necessary) back up the entire grid with CC plants at a fraction of the cost of powering the same grid with nukes. If desired, one could use simple cycle power plants, which (while less efficient) are even cheaper by another factor of about 2, or 20x cheaper than the nukes.
Those gas plants may be cheaper build, but if the electrolyzed hydrogen is expensive the total operating cost is higher since the fuel is too expensive. If you're using single cycle gas plants you'll need even more of this hydrogen, and thus driving up costs. Are you really just comparing cost of construction and ignoring the cost of electrolyzed hydrogen fuel? And remember this is on top of the solar and wind that needs to power this electeolysis in the first place.
Also again, to convert hydrogen to methane you need a large source of carbon dioxide.
A summary of this comment is, "it's cheaper if we just ignore all the technical challenges of synthetic methane."
Nobody claimed electrolysis is cheaper than using natural gas. Nobody even claimed that electrolysis is cheaper than batteries at small scales. The claim is that electrolysis is proven technology that is a lot simpler to scale that lithium batteries.
> The claim is that electrolysis is proven technology that is a lot simpler to scale that lithium batteries.
And my point is that this is false. Electrolysis is not proven technology at scale, almost all hydrogen is produced through steam reformation. No, it does not scale better than lithium ion batteries. If we try to build it at scale it'll make solar and wind more expensive than nuclear power.
It's also worth noting that France is producing less than half the greenhouse gases of Germany, despite having significantly less renewables, because it has a serious nuclear infrastructure.
No source of energy is a silver bullet for climate change. Wind and solar aren't. And neither is the nuclear industry. There just isn't a serious plan for scaling up quickly enough. The supply chain and expertise just doesn't exist and will take years. And moaning about mistakes in the past is irrelevant to the present.
Long term storage is actually trivial, just requires actually storing it.
Counterintuitively, best way is glassing it and dumping it on the abyssal plane in the sea.
This controls the temperature and acts as a radiation shield and there's more a hundred times more life on the surface than in the abyss. Also, no humans who get prissy about 1 in 100 chances of cancer than animals don't fare about. The ocean's also big enough that a your case corroding and some material being dissolved and spreading in the water is irrelevant (unless all your nuclear waste you ever dump manages to escape and spread throughout the ocean rather than just sit in a sullen pile you'll be under EPA limits).
You say as if it's a done deal. Hanford is 14 years behind schedule on this, and now it looks as if it will off-gas toxic chemicals. Original budget was $4B and now is $17B.
The chemical they're using easily ignites and turns into hydrogen cyanide.
https://crosscut.com/environment/2022/04/hanford-report-reve...
That's how you make Godzilla!
Each dollar spent on a nuke is exactly that dollar not spent on renewables, instead. But it takes with it another dollar spent on coal while waiting for construction to complete.
The amount spent just on coal and coal plant operation during those ten long years is enough, by itself, to build enough renewables to displace the nuke. The cost of building the nuke itself is enough to build several times enough to displace the nuke, beyond.
And the renewables would come on immediately, displacing carbon immediately.
Without radically increasing build-out of renewables, we will fail to avert climate catastrophe. The exact mode of civilization collapse in that case is debatable, but global thermonuclear war punctuates many.
Batteries have been falling in price by 27%/year recently, and PV by nearly that much, so it's a bold position to assert this will suddenly stop.
Now, is it possible that a new type of battery will appear and take over the market by 2030? Yes. Will there be enough of them to compete with the stabilizing power of a nuclear power plant? Maybe. Will there be enough nuclear + storage so that the best use of that storage will be to shut down the nuclear plant? Absolutely not.
Basically, we need massive amounts of new electrical power (so we can transition transportation to electrical), and we need to shut down all fossil fuel power generation yesterday. Since we can't have enough storage yet for an exclusively green grid, nuclear shouldn't be competing with green energy in this discussion. Our choices are not "all green by 2030 VS green by 2030 + nuclear", they are "green + coal/gas by 2030 vs green + nuclear + less coal/gas". If we're instead talking about 2100, or 2200, then yeah, well probably be able to shut down nuclear as well.
The best use of a nuclear power plant is not to build it at all. Having not built it, the storage built instead at a tiny fraction of the cost will certainly be more than enough to replace it.
Building any nukes means, for each, building several times less new renewable generating capacity than could otherwise be.
There are many alternatives to batteries, for longer term storage. Tanked anhydrous liquified ammonia may be common, particularly for smaller and more isolated utility districts, in part because tankage can be topped up from imports if it runs low.
Underground or sea-floor compressed air are practical, as is buoyancy, in many places. Many more places can use pumped hydro than have an existing dam, or watershed; either up a hill or down to an underground cavity.
The method used will be whatever is cheapest in the place and time constructed. Cost for most methods is falling fast.
Building a nuke is by far the most expensive baseline alternative, provided it can even be approved and built on a useful schedule.
Nant de Drance has 900MW of storage, and took 14 years to build. Each of the last generation reactors in Hanul generate 950+MW of power, and took 5 years to build. The first newer generation reactor is 1340MW, and (assuming it keeps its schedule) has taken 10 years to build. They've done the first tests so they have some chance of connecting to the grid this year, but let's be pessimistic and say that it will take another 4 years - matching the construction time for Nant de Drance.
That's still ~50% more power, and it is actually generating it: for Nant de Drance to help, it also needs >900MW of actual renewable power generation plants to be built and operated.
There is little economy of scale, in pumped hydro. California stores a much larger amount of energy in numerous reservoirs all over the Sierra Nevada range.
(The "synthetic baseload" comparison is favorable to nuclear, as dealing with variable demand can only help renewables as it already requires storage, and that storage can serve double duty in the variable demand case. Similarly dispatchable demand and transmission between countries also only helps renewables.)
It's difficult to get nuclear to compete with wind+solar+batteries+hydrogen in the 2030 cost scenarios. Nuclear does least worse in places like Poland then.