Experts on the Challenges for Small Nuclear Reactors

[greenman3610]

Nothing like nuclear to start a food fight at a climate science conference.

The thing is, there is a somewhat nuanced conversation to be had about nuclear. Most important thing to understand is that, no matter your position, the obstacles to new nuclear development are real and substantial.

Importantly, if the first small nukes come on line in the late 2020s, and then take a few years to prove themselves – with the price drops and accelerating buildout of wind, solar, and batteries – will there still be a place for them in the mix?

Biggest issue that no one brought up – proliferation of nuclear weapons.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

1. Nuclear waste lasts much much longer than carbon does in the atmosphere. . . . nt

[hunter]

4. So what?

The waste from a nuclear plant is easily contained. The volume is small. It goes nowhere, it does nothing.

wikipedia

The same can't be said for fossil fuel waste. Some of this toxic waste, mercury for example, has a half life of FOREVER.

Here's a coal ash spill:



A 25-foot (7.6 m) wall of ash approximately 1 mile (1.6 km) from the retention pond. On January 1, 2009 the first independent test results, conducted at the Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry laboratories at Appalachian State University, showed significantly elevated levels of toxic metals, including arsenic, copper, barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, nickel, and thallium in samples of slurry and river water.

In any case there's already so much fossil fuel waste in the atmosphere that it's doing very considerable damage to the natural environment. Adding more doesn't seem wise.

[Tikki]

5. Oh, They leak.They all leak down there...and it cost a god awful amount of your taxes to

maintain them.

Hanford’s B Tank Farm, in April 2021. (Courtesy U.S. Department of Energy)
HANFORD –
The U.S. Department of Energy announced Thursday an underground radioactive and dangerous chemical waste storage tank at the Hanford Site in Southeast Washington is leaking.

The Washington state Department of Ecology’s Nuclear Waste Program, along with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, oversees Energy’s cleanup of Hanford.

https://ecology.wa.gov/About-us/Who-we-are/News/2021/Ecology-tracking-Hanford-waste-tank-leak

From May 2021 Tri-City Herald...The home newspaper
https://www.tri-cityherald.com/news/local/hanford/article251017489.html

An underground Hanford tank holding 123,000 gallons of radioactive waste appears to be leaking contaminated liquid into the ground, according to the Department of Energy.

Tikki

[Bernardo de La Paz]

6. Read my post. Nothing I wrote suggests it is better to add more carbon to the atmosphere

Don't try to insinuate I suggested it.

I was pointing out that the nuke "solution" is trading a short term problem for a very long term problem.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

7. Nuke waste ultra-expensive to guard against leaks & terrorist appropriation

"Goes nowhere" ? Only if it has expensive 24/7/365 guarding. Otherwise terrorists grab it and spread dust and liquid around urban centers of NYC, LA and Chicago.

"Goes nowhere" ? Only if the integrity of the containers is checked frequently and updated for years and years and years and years and ....

Then there is the transportation of nuke waste through YOUR backyard. Oh, Not In My Backyard? NIMBY?

Either it is transported to places where you can concentrate the security and maintenance or you have hundreds of thousands of waste sites, a significant number of which will be poorly maintained and/or poorly guarded.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

8. Nuke waste is not just fuel into silos. Includes decommissioned concrete & steel. Lots of it. . nt

[Bernardo de La Paz]

2. Thank you for providing some summary; unfortunately rare. . . nt

[hunter]

3. Renewables are NEVER going to displace fossil fuels.

In fact, they will increase our dependence on them, especially natural gas.

There's enough natural gas in the ground to utterly destroy whatever is left of the natural environment as we know it. It's best to leave this gas in the ground, not use it as "backup" power for renewable energy schemes.

Batteries will never make up for solar and wind outages that can last weeks.

Currently the capacity of the largest battery systems is measured in minutes. Mostly these are used to fill the gaps between wind or solar sources suddenly dropping out, which they frequently do, and gas power plants picking up the load.

As humans we've worked ourselves into a corner. As the human population approaches 8 billion we require high density energy sources to grow and distribute enough food for everyone, and to provide safe comfortable housing for all.

Ultimately hybrid gas / wind / solar power systems will not save the world. That experiment has already failed in places like California, Denmark, and Germany. The situation is so bad in Germany they've had to continue mining coal, and even worse, build a new pipeline to Russia so they can increase their imports of Russian natural gas. The political consequences of this could be dire.

Nuclear France closed its last coal mine twenty years ago.

Without dangerous natural gas backup power renewable energy schemes are simply not viable.

Nuclear power is not a new technology. It's been around for seventy years. The very worst accidents, in nuclear power plants designed in the 'fifties and 'sixties, have done less damage to the natural environment than any fossil fuel plant of a similar size does in normal operation.

We're really good at ignoring the environmental damage caused by fossil fuels, especially the greenhouse gasses and the non-radioactive toxins like mercury that have a half life of forever. And yes, fossil fuels also release radioactive wastes.

We ignore the fact that ordinary gasoline is a carcinogen. So is used motor oil. Many of us live within a hundred feet of these toxins twenty four hours a day, seven days a week. Carcinogenic particles from vehicle exhaust, tire dust, and brake dust contaminate our lungs.

The most loathsome renewable energy schemes are those built on previously undeveloped land. We won't save the natural environment by destroying it. Desert solar schemes are especially despicable.

It's utterly ridiculous to claim that nuclear power won't work when many nuclear power plants have been humming along for thirty years and more without any major problems. The average automobile doesn't last that long, and car culture itself kills and maims more people and does far more damage to the natural environment than nuclear power ever has.

I've changed my mind about nuclear power. I was an anti-nuclear activist from the time I met Helen Caldicott as a teen. I was nearby when Jerry Brown announced "No new nukes!" at a Diablo Canyon protest.

These days I think anti-nuclear activism is just another flavor of climate change denial. Renewable energy advocates almost universally ignore the damage done by the natural gas power plants that support their impossible dreams.

[EarnestPutz]

9. "NNadir", are you listening? I'm always interested in your take on this subject.