Skeptics and nuclear power

[Segnosaur]

Most importantly, solar farms have comparatively tiny investment costs

The "tiny investment" I might agree with to a degree. the problem is, a Solar farm produces a relatively small amount of energy (when compared to a nuclear plant).

...and can easily take advantage of future innovations.

That I'm not so sure about.

How exactly would you "take advantage of innovations"? Wouldn't that involve replacing the panels themselves (which would basically negate your initial investment)?

 

[lomiller]

The point is that it's not a sustained chain reaction. It's very important to distinguish these, especially given the hysteria relating to nuclear technologies.

It’s not a bomb AKA critical chain reaction. It is still a chain reaction because each nucleus that splits still emits particles that collide with other atoms causing them to split. The details of what that looks like in Chernoybl is still irrelevant to this topic since the point is the length of time the facility will require containment.

 

[Belz...]

It’s not a bomb AKA critical chain reaction. It is still a chain reaction because each nucleus that splits still emits particles that collide with other atoms causing them to split.

I'm not so sure. Uranium is spontaneously radioactive on its own. It needs a reactor to sustain the chain reaction. The reactor exploded.

 

[crescent]

It is still a chain reaction because each nucleus that splits still emits particles that collide with other atoms causing them to split.

Incorrect - what you describe is nuclear fission. That's not happening anymore at Chernobyl.

All that is happening how is radioactive decay, which is different.

All nuclear reactors are "critical" in nuclear terminology. "Critical" reactions can be controlled an manipulated. Bombs are "Super Critical", one that reaction starts, there is no control or manipulation other than passive measures built into the bomb such as what is needed for a fission bomb to trigger fusion in a hydrogen bomb.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Battery technology is increasing even faster than solar technology.
And you can always use dams for power storage.

 

[Belz...]

Battery technology is increasing even faster than solar technology.

Can you realistically store enough power in batteries during the day while all the consumption is going on to power half of the planet during the other half of the rotation?

And you can always use dams for power storage.

Dams for power storage? What do you mean?

 

[Segnosaur]

Dams for power storage? What do you mean?

I think he means creating an artificial reservoir... during the day (when your solar is working) use excess energy to pump water into the reservoir. At night (when solar isn't working) use water flow out of the reservoir to power a turbine/generate electricity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity

 

[Belz...]

I think he means creating an artificial reservoir... during the day (when your solar is working) use excess energy to pump water into the reservoir. At night (when solar isn't working) use water flow out of the reservoir to power a turbine/generate electricity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity

Not many places can reasonable use hydro power though. We have plenty of it up here but aside from China not many countries use it extensively.

 

[lomiller]

Incorrect - what you describe is nuclear fission. That's not happening anymore at Chernobyl.

I disagree. The process will still occur, just at rate to low to be self sustaining. Either way it’s an irrelevant diversion to the discussion.

Since it was on the previous page, I’ll restate what’s being discussed. Unless a way can be found to dissembled and move the Chernobyl core it will require a containment facility for up to 10 000 years. The original containment lasted 30, the new one that was just finished is expected to have a max life span of about 150. In terms of radiation release and area impacted, 30 years after the meltdown we have no idea what the final toll will be.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

If there's not enough water, you can't cool most power plants, either: in summer,many plants have to shut down because the streams they are build next to run too low/hot.

 

[Belz...]

I disagree. The process will still occur, just at rate to low to be self sustaining. Either way it’s an irrelevant diversion to the discussion.

Since it was on the previous page, I’ll restate what’s being discussed. Unless a way can be found to dissembled and move the Chernobyl core it will require a containment facility for up to 10 000 years. The original containment lasted 30, the new one that was just finished is expected to have a max life span of about 150. In terms of radiation release and area impacted, 30 years after the meltdown we have no idea what the final toll will be.

What do you mean by "toll"? Expenditure?

 

[Segnosaur]

If there's not enough water, you can't cool most power plants, either: in summer,many plants have to shut down because the streams they are build next to run too low/hot.

The difference is that using a reservoir for power storage requires an area with the right height differential between the reservoir and where the water is drained too. (That would discount, for example, large sections of the mid-west.)

While nuclear power also requires water as a coolant, the geographic requirements are less stringent. (i.e. you can put one up in areas that are relatively flat, rather than requiring a large hill to build a reservoir on.)

By the way, I'm still waiting to hear how you expect solar power to be easily upgradeable once they are built/functioning.

 

[Segnosaur]

Not many places can reasonable use hydro power though. We have plenty of it up here but aside from China not many countries use it extensively.

I guess it depends on how you define 'extensively'...

I didn't know this before I looked it up, but 2 of the top 5 largest pumped-storage hydro projects are in the U.S.

The U.S. has about 10 such projects. China has roughly twice as many. Japan is also a major user of the technology. (South Africa and Italy also have a few dams.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pumped-storage_hydroelectric_power_stations

 

[Oystein]

Too much of continent? How much damage do you think the incidents so far have done?

That's difficult to assess, isn't it?
a) Chernobyl sprayed radioactive traces far and wide - with surprising levels in Scandinavia, Schottland... You can't really put in numbers the damage done, as it is a statistical function. Few deaths can be attributed directly outside the region, due to lack of measurable evidence, but they are surely non-zero.
b) Think also of how much future accidents might spread: It obviously depends on location and current wind patterns. I recently saw simulations of what might happen if the Belgian reactor at Tihange blows up, given a variety of actual, historical weather patterns. Damage could remain within a small region (but be extremely severe there), it could spread out to one or more of four neighbouring countries, it could lay waste to population centers and economic power regions with millions of inhabitants - and in some cases, it could affect a narrow but extremely long strip stretching all the way across Poland into Russia and the Baltic states.

I really dislike this sort of thinking. Generating energy on a large scale is inherently dangerous. Hydro and coal and nuclear are not exceptions. They all carry risks and we have to accept them if we want to have electrical power for millions. Nuclear isn't an evil, nor is it temporary. It's part of a long line of electricity technologies and will possibly stick around for centuries or more.

I'd agree that nuclear is not worse and perhaps better than coal, on balance, but it has far greater, and more far-reaching, impact than the others.

One aspect not yet looked into is the problem of military use. Proliferation of nuclear arms is so much easier to control and enforce if there simply are no civilian-use facilities - no mines, no enrichment, no reactors - that fuzzy the true intents of wannabe-Blofelds.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Battery technology is currently in a kind of Cambrian explosion: there are molten salts, different kinds of pressured gases, various types of charge separation based on different materials, conversion to hydrogen which is then transformed into ammonium for easier storage/transport etc. etc.
Unlike other forms of energy, fuel for solar will always exceed any possible demand, so loss through conversion is far less a problem.

But back to the OP: Nuclear will certainly continue to play a role, but it might become more specialized.

 

[CORed]

Fusion is energy of the future .. and will always be ..
No srsly, we are at least 20 years away, but more likely more. Do not bet on fusion just yet. Even after we manage to hold plasma, the problems of energy harvesting, durability, operation costs, safety, it's all unsolved .. mainly because it all depends on the system for managing the reaction in the first place.
Pressurized water reactors are kinda matured technology .. but we need more .. it's time to experiment with other systems .. especially molten salt. That could bring costs down drastically and improve safety.
But even with old technology .. nukes are the only way how to go carbon neutral. Sun and wind are just not enough to replace coal and gas.

Given the amount of effort that has been put into developing fusion and the continuing lack of usable results, I have to wonder if it isn't an intractable problem, i.e. the reason we haven't found a way to effectively use fusion for power generation is that there just isn't any way to do it.

OTOH, I am reluctant to say we should abandon the effort entirely, as the potential rewards are great.

Another aspect of fusion power that is often not mentioned is that the easiest reaction to harvest if deuterium-tritium, and making tritium requires lithium, which is not terribly abundant and which is already in demand for batteries. Deuterium-deuterium is the holy grail. Though deuterium constitutes a very small percentage of hydrogen, there's a hell of a lot of hydrogen around. The problem is that this reaction is harder to initiate.

 

[Oystein]

Is it? Nuclear waste is dangerous for a number of millennia. That's pebbles for the planet. On the other hand, coal waste, which is also radioactive, incidently, is toxic forever, and in much greater quantities for the same MWh.

Can you back this up with evidence - that coal waste prodices more radioactivity in the waste per MWh than nuclear reactors?

Wait a minute. That the remains of the reactor are radioactive doesn't mean the nuclear reaction is still ongoing. There's nothing to sustain it.

Bloody nonsense.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

It isn't easy to assess the full impact of disasters such as Chernobyl and Fukushima, due to the many delayed effects.
Bio-accumulation, for example, takes decades to travel up the food chain where it can become a problem for humans.

 

[Segnosaur]

Battery technology is currently in a kind of Cambrian explosion: there are molten salts, different kinds of pressured gases, various types of charge separation based on different materials, conversion to hydrogen which is then transformed into ammonium for easier storage/transport etc. etc.

I am not saying that those technologies might not have a purpose, but I don't think its what most people would consider as a 'battery'.

Unlike other forms of energy, fuel for solar will always exceed any possible demand, so loss through conversion is far less a problem.

The sun (i.e. fuel) may be free, but the raw materials (whether it be for photovoltaic panels or other technology) is not.... You have the materials used in manufacture, labor, land use, etc. You still want a technology which is efficient enough to minimize those costs.

 

[Belz...]

That's difficult to assess, isn't it?
a) Chernobyl sprayed radioactive traces far and wide - with surprising levels in Scandinavia, Schottland... You can't really put in numbers the damage done, as it is a statistical function. Few deaths can be attributed directly outside the region, due to lack of measurable evidence, but they are surely non-zero.

I don't think you can "surely" say this. Low-level radiation of this sort has no known negative impact, especially at that range. We only know for sure of about 50 deaths related to that incident. ETA: and before you trot out the 10,000 projections, those are based on extrapolations not supported by any sort of data.

I'd agree that nuclear is not worse and perhaps better than coal, on balance, but it has far greater, and more far-reaching, impact than the others.

I think that's based on media hype. I don't think nuclear is particularily more dangerous than any other type of energy-related incident, except perhaps in a local fashion.

One aspect not yet looked into is the problem of military use. Proliferation of nuclear arms is so much easier to control and enforce if there simply are no civilian-use facilities - no mines, no enrichment, no reactors - that fuzzy the true intents of wannabe-Blofelds.

Again, that sounds like a movie script. You can't easily use a reactor to generate weapons-grade material except if the facility is designed for that.