Merged How Close is power from Nuclear Fusion

[rjh01]

problem I have with the Anti Nukes is even if a safe fusion reactor is discovered, they would sitll oppose it just because it is nuclear. The whole "anything Nuclear is evil" idea is just too much a part of their belief system.

So far they are 100% correct. Nuclear power is expensive and takes a long time to build. And the long-term waste disposal system has not been implemented in many countries that use nuclear power. It is the only type of power plant that if everyone suddenly disappeared in a puff of smoke would cause significant environmental problems.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Nuclear Power made a huge chunk of our Space Exploration up to this point possible, and will be used in the future, too.
It is a very useful technology - but at this point, it is NOT a sustainable one.
Not because of fundamental problems, but because of governments and companies not willing to address the entire chain of production, building all the way to decommissioning seriously, deciding to leave those problems for the future generations and future taxpayers.

There is just a fundamental dishonesty in commercial nuclear power, a Corporate Socialism that puts all the risks and long-term effects on the public and all the profits on the shareholders.

 

[wobs]

So far they are 100% correct. Nuclear power is expensive and takes a long time to build. And the long-term waste disposal system has not been implemented in many countries that use nuclear power. It is the only type of power plant that if everyone suddenly disappeared in a puff of smoke would cause significant environmental problems.

I disagree with everything you wrote here.
Expensive?: Compared to a full wind/solar grid with storage it is far cheaper.

Long time to build?: If you look at outliers, sure, but we should look at the average, which is 6-8 years. Agree on a design, and build many of them, which would greatly speed up the process.

Compare this with building wind farms in the UK, where many are delayed by over 10years owing to problems building the extra infrastructure.

Long term disposal continues to be a non-issue, no matter how many times it is brought up.

It is the only type of power plant that if everyone suddenly disappeared in a puff of smoke would cause significant environmental problems.

This is so wrong I hardly know where to begin. Modern designs use passive shutdown, so again, a non-issue.

The opposition to nuclear power is based upon fear, and nothing else.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

I disagree with everything you wrote here.
Expensive?: Compared to a full wind/solar grid with storage it is far cheaper.

Long time to build?: If you look at outliers, sure, but we should look at the average, which is 6-8 years. Agree on a design, and build many of them, which would greatly speed up the process.

Compare this with building wind farms in the UK, where many are delayed by over 10years owing to problems building the extra infrastructure.

Long term disposal continues to be a non-issue, no matter how many times it is brought up.


This is so wrong I hardly know where to begin. Modern designs use passive shutdown, so again, a non-issue.

The opposition to nuclear power is based upon fear, and nothing else.

It's amazing how all CEOs and Investors refuse to make tons of money because they are scared.

 

[Steve]

So far they are 100% correct. Nuclear power is expensive and takes a long time to build. And the long-term waste disposal system has not been implemented in many countries that use nuclear power. It is the only type of power plant that if everyone suddenly disappeared in a puff of smoke would cause significant environmental problems.

Now compare the storage issues of nuclear waste to the storage issues of the waste products of fossil fuels. How many people have died from exposure to nuclear waste? How many people have died due to exposure to air and water pollution from fossil fuels?

 

[rjh01]

I disagree with everything you wrote here.
Expensive?: Compared to a full wind/solar grid with storage it is far cheaper.

Long time to build?: If you look at outliers, sure, but we should look at the average, which is 6-8 years. Agree on a design, and build many of them, which would greatly speed up the process.

Compare this with building wind farms in the UK, where many are delayed by over 10years owing to problems building the extra infrastructure.

Long term disposal continues to be a non-issue, no matter how many times it is brought up.


This is so wrong I hardly know where to begin. Modern designs use passive shutdown, so again, a non-issue.

The opposition to nuclear power is based upon fear, and nothing else.

Your post is unsourced. Here is a reference for you https://www.oneearth.org/the-7-reasons-why-nuclear-energy-is-not-the-answer-to-solve-climate-change/

The problems it lists are
1. Long Time Lag Between Planning and Operation
2. Cost
3. Weapons Proliferation Risk
4. Meltdown Risk
5. Mining Lung Cancer Risk
6. Carbon-Equivalent Emissions and Air Pollution
7. Waste Risk

 

[rjh01]

I have been doing some more reading. Nuclear power plants can be built quickly. To do this you need to build several of them all with the same design. Then you learn how to build them without making mistakes. The USA have not built many recently, so the few they are constructing are taking a long time.

 

[wobs]

Your post is unsourced. Here is a reference for you https://www.oneearth.org/the-7-reasons-why-nuclear-energy-is-not-the-answer-to-solve-climate-change/

The problems it lists are
1. Long Time Lag Between Planning and Operation
2. Cost
3. Weapons Proliferation Risk
4. Meltdown Risk
5. Mining Lung Cancer Risk
6. Carbon-Equivalent Emissions and Air Pollution
7. Waste Risk

This has all been addressed in the actual thread on nuclear power, rather than this fusion thread.

But anyway...
Time to build:
https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/nuclear-construction-time

Cost - That would involve reading a book, but a ref is here:

To evaluate the costs of different strategies for deep decarbonization of electricity generation, the team looked at nearly 1,000 different scenarios involving different assumptions about the availability and cost of low-carbon technologies, geographical variations in the availability of renewable resources, and different policies on their use.

Regarding the policies, the team compared two different approaches. The “restrictive” approach permitted only the use of solar and wind generation plus battery storage, augmented by measures to reduce and shift the timing of demand for electricity, as well as long-distance transmission lines to help smooth out local and regional variations. The “inclusive” approach used all of those technologies but also permitted the option of using continual carbon-free sources, such as nuclear power, bioenergy, and natural gas with a system for capturing and storing carbon emissions. Under every case the team studied, the broader mix of sources was found to be more affordable.

The cost savings of the more inclusive approach relative to the more restricted case were substantial. Including continual, or “firm,” low-carbon resources in a zero-carbon resource mix lowered costs anywhere from 10 percent to as much as 62 percent, across the many scenarios analyzed. That’s important to know, the authors stress, because in many cases existing and proposed regulations and economic incentives favor, or even mandate, a more restricted range of energy resources.

https://news.mit.edu/2018/adding-power-choices-reduces-cost-risk-carbon-free-electricity-0906

Going 100% wind/solar is not economic, owing to the huge amount of storage & excess wind/solar capacity that would have to have installed. Although these are currently cheap, it would get far more expensive the more excess capacity you install, as they would spend much of the time idle.

Weapons proliferation: Really? You're trying that one.. A commercial plant is not a risk to this.

Meltdown risk: Perhaps you could show how this could occur in a modern design? And while you're at it, compare the risks with wind & solar in terms of risk to life.

Mining: see any mining activity.

Waste: already addressed.

Nuclear power is the safest energy source we have.

Again, this is about fission, in a fusion thread.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

I have been doing some more reading. Nuclear power plants can be built quickly. To do this you need to build several of them all with the same design. Then you learn how to build them without making mistakes. The USA have not built many recently, so the few they are constructing are taking a long time.

Every . Single . Time someone tried to do this, it failed: no two locations are alike enough to use an "off the shelf" design.
The attempts have cost overruns in time and money when components had to be modified.

The only way to save on money&time is to build monster-size complexes with many reactors running in parallel.

It is just baffling that people think companies and investors wouldn't have already done already this if the ROI was there.

"Doing your own research" should be preceded by a Qui Bono analysis of the problem.

 

[wobs]

Every . Single . Time someone tried to do this, it failed: no two locations are alike enough to use an "off the shelf" design.
The attempts have cost overruns in time and money when components had to be modified.

The only way to save on money&time is to build monster-size complexes with many reactors running in parallel.

It is just baffling that people think companies and investors wouldn't have already done already this if the ROJ was there.

"Doing your own research" should be preceded by a Qui Bono analysis of the problem.

So build the same design and at the same time. Learn from countries who have actually succeeded in this:
https://www.vox.com/2016/2/29/11132930/nuclear-power-costs-us-france-korea

S.Korea actually brought the cost down. Although that may be limited in the US.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Instead, Gates and others are going the opposite way, trying to build smaller, single reactors instead of 8 regular ones to a site.
Small reactors come with pretty much all the problems and then some, but to compensate they cost more per output and have a shorter lifespan.

It is really, really not the all-powerful environment lobby, with its millions in campaign contributions and army of Washington lobbyists that is standing in the way of nuclear reactor construction.

 

[Ziggurat]

Every . Single . Time someone tried to do this, it failed: no two locations are alike enough to use an "off the shelf" design.

Why would location change the design that much?

Because of cooling. The cooling infrastructure required on a large nuclear reactor is the ONLY thing that significantly varies from location to location. The location has nothing to do with the design of the pressure vessel, for example.

But cooling needs are much less, and thus much simpler, with a small reactor. Which means small reactors can have common designs.

 

[arthwollipot]

...
Compare this with building wind farms in the UK, where many are delayed by over 10years owing to problems building the extra infrastructure.

These problems are regulatory, not technological.

 

[Roboramma]

These problems are regulatory, not technological.

True.

But the same is true, and to a larger extent, of the build times and cost of nuclear power.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

The key difference between Wind/Solar and Nuclear when it comes to Regulation and Planning is that the former can be build and dismantled within a decade and still return a profit.

A Reactor has to run for 50 years.

Because of this longevity, nuclear power needs orders of magnitude more regulation and planning.
And with Climate Change "drying up" many of the former sources of Cooling, now or in a few decades, finding a place for a reactor that is going to be a good place in 50 years is hard.

If a solar or wind farm needs to be moved, no problem.

 

[wobs]

The key difference between Wind/Solar and Nuclear when it comes to Regulation and Planning is that the former can be build and dismantled within a decade and still return a profit.

A Reactor has to run for 50 years.

Because of this longevity, nuclear power needs orders of magnitude more regulation and planning.
And with Climate Change "drying up" many of the former sources of Cooling, now or in a few decades, finding a place for a reactor that is going to be a good place in 50 years is hard.

If a solar or wind farm needs to be moved, no problem.

That's not a disadvantage. A nuclear plant can last over 50years, so will be producing energy for most of the time.

Compare this with wind turbines, where they can last up to about 20 years.... although many have been lasting for far less than this, owing to unforeseen gear box issues, caused by their operating pattern.

You could get around this by direct drive systems, but that would involve far more rare earth materials (for the magnets). And weight & cost.

Water:
Siting nuclear power plants is not that difficult. I think all of our UK sites are on the coast, but even if they aren't we also have estuaries, and rivers where drying up is unlikely. But its just like other plants that need water.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

It's a huge problem all across Continental Europe - France can't use half its reactors in summer because the rivers run too hot and low

 

[wobs]

It's a huge problem all across Continental Europe - France can't use half its reactors in summer because the rivers run too hot and low

Perhaps you could point to nuclear sites in European countries other than France that have had this problem.

And in 2022, when the problem was there, it was down to temperature rather than drought. They reduced output rather than shut them down. And it wasn't just nuclear plants that had to reduce its water intakes, but other thermal plants as well.

High river temperatures and curtailment

As for the output curtailments due to river conditions, such weather-related incidents are an increasing reality for all energy industries amidst the changing climate. But they are a manageable issue. Importantly, they did not represent a binary “available/unavailable” reliability issue either — the plants were able to keep running safely but were forced as a matter of regulation to reduce output for the sake of river ecosystems downstream (French law requires such reductions when water temperatures reach certain thresholds, or when river levels and flow rates are low). River-sited fossil fuel and hydroelectric plants sometimes reduce output for similar environmental reasons.

No generation source, including renewable energy, is immune from seasonal weather variations. Wind power in the EU, for example, generated less than half its yearly high over the summer of 2022, and there are sometimes multiple days and weeks where wind output is negligible throughout the region. Dramatic variations in seasonal availability also exist for solar energy. While energy storage can address daily fluctuations for wind and solar, multi-week and seasonal wind and solar droughts are not practically addressable with current storage technology.

https://www.catf.us/2023/07/2022-french-nuclear-outages-lessons-nuclear-energy-europe/

And renewables have also been impacted, as wind was down. for the same period, but more greatly impacted.
See above

Speaking of climate change... solar PVs suffer from higher temperatures, as they lose efficiency. Which is why you often find solar thermal plants in hotter climates.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

and temperature is getting worse all across Europe.

Again, if this was such a no-brainer, why do you think companies don't want to invest in it?

How are you able to see it and they are not?

 

[Ziggurat]

Again, if this was such a no-brainer, why do you think companies don't want to invest in it?

How are you able to see it and they are not?

Who said we see anything that they don't? The hurdles aren't technical, they are political. But companies need to consider political hurdles, because they can destroy a company. Nobody in favor of nuclear energy denies that. In fact, that's largely what we seek: removal of the political hurdles that are preventing nuclear energy adoption.