With the ever-ongoing ‘progress’ of the proposed UK nuclear power plants, I wonder if this is the best course of action (not just in the UK, but across other nations also)?
when you say “long-run” is it human life expectancy long or heat-death of the universe long?
I mean long run as in however long we are going to need/have/use it, basically. So, until humanity ceases to exist, ig?
wind/solar then. nuclear power requires long-term storage up to 250 years for waste to be safely disposed of. during those 250 years leakage and accidents can lead to environmental impacts.
though wind and solar has industrial waste and environmental impacts through their manufacturing, the long-term effects are manageable when compared to the scale of a nuclear superfund site for the entire longevity of humanity.
this is all assuming there is no further technological developments that would change the nuclear waste to nuclear fuel, as I know there are currently some developing fusion technologies that are using nuclear waste as a fuel to run 100% clean. should those technologies develop further and paired with nuclear power the risks are mitigated and nuclear+fusion become a clean leader of power.
It seems like battery+solar is the cheapest worldwide as of recently.
I am not familiar with UK conditions. Scandinavian winters remain a problem for solar.
Nuclear was probably the best choice in the 1970’s; France made the best choice. But we’ve seen over and over again the problems are getting worse rather than better. Paperwork and process ever more unwieldy. Construction taking longer and longer. Radioactive waste building up with no permanent disposal. By far the highest cost power generation, and the difference is getting wider.
Much of the posts about how great it will be this time is just astroturfing by those trying to profit. No, “small modular reactors”, didn’t solve the cost, construction, or process issues, but only raised the cost of generation. No, thorium isn’t the silver bullet and really doesn’t exist yet.
If the area has good and reliable access to the sun or strong winds, solar and wind will be cheaper.
If it doesn’t, nuclear is there to have your back.
Also, you can put a nuclear power plant on a ship (like Russia and China do) and deliver nuclear power to coastal areas while the proper infrastructure is (re-)built.
There is no universal best way to produce power, you need to mix and match to make a good grid.
Wind, solar, and big batteries is the least costly by far
Even cheaper is if you can convince the general population to buy batteries and be in virtual power plants
Thats just false.
Per MWh a windmill (on land) costa about 30℅ more concrete and rare earth metals than a nuclear power plant. It’s almost double for windmills at sea (although it is mostly a whole lot more concrete)
For windmills you need to build out 3 times the required capacity for any baseload usage, due to how wind power works.
The Netherlands spend 12± billion euro a year for the past 15 years in to wind and solar energy.
And we’re only just now matching the Windmill energy production of 1 nuclear power plant.
The Netherlands couldve build at least 10 nuclear power plants for the same money and then we would have most of our base load covered by non greenhouse gas producing methods.
But the Netherlands is now reliant on Norway and the US for its power production.
Solar energy is fucking amazing btw, but without storage best used as a load reducer.
Greenpeace did more harm to our planet than they did good.
It takes days to erect a wind turbine. It takes more than a decade for anyone outside China to get power out of a reactor.
Wind turbine waste is a problem, the blades are fibreglass. They take up a fair bit of space and they’re hard to use for order stuff
Nuclear plants produce radioactive waste throughout their lives and then are themselves radioactive waste when they go out of service
Wind turbines are not a terrorism target unlike nuclear plants
And every analysis I have read says nuclear is far more expensive than renewables
(I didn’t down vote you)
By not building nuclear power plants since the 80s, barring France and China. And continue to rather build fossile fuel power than nuclear.
We polluted this planet with so much radioactive waste we couldve powered our civilization with dirty nuclear power for a 1000 years.
And we humans solved the nuclear power waste. The majority of that waste loses its radiation within decades and that last bit we can store under the earth, rather than putting it our atmosphere.
Wind power has its benefits of course, but like solar, it cant power our civilization without storage and when you throw storage in the mix, it favours nuclear power in every measurement.
Both are needed for a healthy power structure.
Wind, solar even with batteries have low innertia (actually no innertia at all by themselves). If you want to resist turbulences on the power network without free innertia resistance by turbines (nuclear, gas, hydro), you need expensive equipment to generate that innertia other ways, and it can get quite expensive.
Hydro would be great but it’s highly seasonal.
Hydro would be great but it’s highly seasonal.
how is hydro seasonal? Even coldest Quebec uses hydro year around.
The amount of flow you get in a river is dependent on rain/snowpack?
It depends on your definition of “long term”. If we’re talking centuries, millenia, then wind and solar seems the clear winner with current and predicted available technology for the simple fact that they produce no waste.
Nuclear energy produces nuclear waste. Currently, our best/only plan to dispose of that waste is to bury it in a hole and hope nobody ever finds it or a natural disaster ever disturbs it.
Wind and solar… don’t. So, barring some unforeseen technological breakthrough that allows us to reuse or recycle nuclear waste, probably wind and solar.
It s practically unlikely that you can make renewable work without being depending on china and in the end it will pollute a lot. While in some place they can make sens having them as “the” solution for everything is dumb.
Germany that did the bet of renewable end up being the biggest polluters of the eu cause they are intermittent and they end up being using coal when needed which is all time
IMO, GB needs to lean into its nuclear strategy. A decade out of Brexit, they have the speed of sovereignty but will come crawling back to the EU and get terrible terms for readmission if they don’t do something productive. The endless debate of “which is best” will ruin the country.
GB signed a contract will Rolls Royce to build SMRs, they need to deliver on time and on budget. Once those factories and workers are turning, GB would be in a great position to buy more SMRs and plug em into the grid and export power to the EU, export SMRs to the EU (esp France, they love nukes), and export energy intensive commodities to the EU (like steel or cement)
Wind and solar are great, no question there. However, the endless debate of this burns oil, gas, coal, and public sentiment.
Hey, I’m in the biz. “Either or” isn’t a thing. We need a completely diversified grid. Mostly nuclear would be ideal with a big chunk coming from solar/wind/hydro. Even fossil fuels have a place in certain applications.
May I ask what you do if you don’t mind me asking?
Mechanical engineer on the operations side of a large Co-Generation power plant. Partially qualified to operate in a nuke plant too, they just don’t exist in my area.
Interesting. What kind of energy sources does your co-generation use? Part renewables, part fossil fuels I presume?
No, all natural gas with number 2 oil (diesel) as a backup. The co part comes from the fact the Brayton and Rankine cycles are working together. The former being how a gas turbine works and the latter being how a steam system works. I can go into more depth but it’s boring to most. I like renewables, just not as a blanket one size fits all solution. People tend to form an oppinion about this kind of thing based on vibes not reality, experience or math. I’ve worked at hydro plants before and like I said am mostly qualified legally to work in nuclear.
Ah, fair enough.
Being legally qualified to operate a nuclear reactor is mind-boggling! Unfortunately it’s not as magnificent as being a certified forklift operator (not me).
I would say that the good answer is “mox” (not sure of its english name, but it is likely similar. Used uranium is extremly dangerous for a very long time (millions of years). Yet it could be recycled and used again, and the result would be extremly dangerous for about 500 years (which is still far too much, but less crazily impossible to manage).
We already have enough used uranium to cover the next 200 years of needs, at least… And so it would be a lesser harm for future generation if we use mox than new uranium…
(But the true answer is we need new bombs, so new uranium…)
Nuclear is fewer each year globally, so there’s that.
Nuclear has a problem. Right now, there is an estimated 90 years of potential uranium supply, which will be cut in half when Chinese reactors get on line. Uranium is not abundant.
And don’t flame me with thorium bullshit or uranium from seawater bullshit. Science fiction.
What do you mean science fiction? Commercial thorium reactors exist since 1962. They just require more investment per watt of power, and don’t produce much of useful byproducts (it’s not all just waste with uranium cycle), which is why most places opted for uranium as long as there’s plenty enough to go for now.
It is not science fiction, you can get uranium from seawater today. It costs 2 to 4 times more than land mining today. The fact is that uranium is a small part of the cost of energy for nuclear so that translates in 5% to 10% more cost on the price of energy.
This without fast breeder reactor that reuse uranium from other reactors. And those exists today (Russia bn-600 and bn-800 for example)
We have 90 years to solve a problem we solved already today. This is not an issue at all.
Also nuclear waste
Not an issue
I agree we will just keep it at your house
Yum
My understanding is the best answer is ‘all of the above.’ Nuclear is big and expensive, and just as expensive to expand, and has ongoing input costs like skilled staff, water, fuel, etc. but produces very steady, controllable power, and can do so for decades in a well designed and maintained system. Solar and wind, on the other hand, are very easily scaled down to smaller budgets, but generate intermittent power. It can be very useful to have the nuclear as a backup for moments of high demand and low solar/wind output, but very efficient to mostly use renewables because they don’t have much of an ongoing input cost.
This is a good answer.
Nuclear for the base load that can be ramped up/down as needed, and using renewables like wind/solar/hydro as much as possible.
In my country it’s mostly hydro, which is fantastic, but would be even better if we had nuclear as a base load solution and hydro to catch the peaks and for export.
Sadly most people fear nuclear here, so it won’t happen soon.Well, don’t forget that wind and solar also use battery systems, not that I am arguing with you at all. I work for a solar power company, and it is really rare that we aren’t contributing to the grid.
When we aren’t, it is because a deer decided to chew up a cable, honest to god. We put up fences: not to keep humans out, but deer.
Seriously, we have a site where the gate is “locked” with a 5’ ethernet cable that has a burnt end. Recycle reuse!
But yes, nuclear is needed as the failsafe.
cable that has a burnt end.
That’s a bad use for good barbeque
I know, I need more copper and plastics in my diet.
wind and solar. hydro is environmentally unfriendly but renewable. nuclear is not pratical long term, or in the short term, since it needs to build out an expensive nuclear plant, plus all the regulatory approval you need to get through, can easily take 10 years at the minimum and also there significant resistance to nuclear power plants being built in many states, plus all the need to hire expensive technicins, scientists to maintain a plant. solar, wind is much cheaper and faster to set up. Most govt is are totally resisting to fast track it. because Oil money is in politicians pockets.
our tech is not even close for things like fusion or even geothermal that is in alot of fantasy scifi genre right now.
