Sweden's Incoming Cabinet Says New Reactors Will Be Built (bloomberg.com) 145
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Bloomberg: Sweden's incoming government will ask state-run utility Vattenfall AB to add nuclear power stations as the economy becomes increasingly electrified. "New reactors will be built in Sweden," Ebba Busch, whose Christian Democrat party belongs to an alliance that won the most seats in last month's general election, said at a news conference Friday. The right-wing bloc is slated to become the Nordic nation's government in a parliamentary vote next week. Swedes have debated nuclear energy for decades, but the source has garnered popular support recently amid the ongoing global crunch.
The Nordic nation currently has six reactors, operated mainly by Vattenfall. Atomic energy, hydro power and wind turbines meet virtually all of Sweden's electricity demand. New reactors could be built at the Ringhals facility on the west coast, said Jakob Magnussen, global head of credit research at Danske Bank A/S. But success is far from certain, given recent examples of new reactors in Finland, France and the UK running massively over budgets and construction schedules. For Vattenfall, "it will mean a considerable boost to capex with a very long payback time," Magnussen said. The Swedes' love-hate relationship with the technology began with the first commercial reactor in 1972. But mounting grassroots opposition in subsequent years culminated in a 1980 referendum that ordered lawmakers to dismantle reactors. Polls ahead of last month's election showed that 60% of the population wanted new reactors to complement the drive to expand clean energy. While there is plenty of power when the wind blows, the current crisis has exposed the shortage of stable power, particularly in the south.
Vattenfall decommissioned two units at its Ringhals plant in 2019 and 2020. There were fierce debates through the election campaign as the Moderates accused the government of intervening in the utility's decision. The government maintained it was a commercial decision by Vattenfall. The company has been preparing for a nuclear revival for some time. The first additions could be a new breed of small modular reactors, known as SMRs, which are about a quarter in size compared with the current units. In June, just after the government warned that Sweden was facing an acute power crisis, Vattenfall said it would start an 18-month study into the technology. The first could come online in the early 2030s, the firm said.
The Nordic nation currently has six reactors, operated mainly by Vattenfall. Atomic energy, hydro power and wind turbines meet virtually all of Sweden's electricity demand. New reactors could be built at the Ringhals facility on the west coast, said Jakob Magnussen, global head of credit research at Danske Bank A/S. But success is far from certain, given recent examples of new reactors in Finland, France and the UK running massively over budgets and construction schedules. For Vattenfall, "it will mean a considerable boost to capex with a very long payback time," Magnussen said. The Swedes' love-hate relationship with the technology began with the first commercial reactor in 1972. But mounting grassroots opposition in subsequent years culminated in a 1980 referendum that ordered lawmakers to dismantle reactors. Polls ahead of last month's election showed that 60% of the population wanted new reactors to complement the drive to expand clean energy. While there is plenty of power when the wind blows, the current crisis has exposed the shortage of stable power, particularly in the south.
Vattenfall decommissioned two units at its Ringhals plant in 2019 and 2020. There were fierce debates through the election campaign as the Moderates accused the government of intervening in the utility's decision. The government maintained it was a commercial decision by Vattenfall. The company has been preparing for a nuclear revival for some time. The first additions could be a new breed of small modular reactors, known as SMRs, which are about a quarter in size compared with the current units. In June, just after the government warned that Sweden was facing an acute power crisis, Vattenfall said it would start an 18-month study into the technology. The first could come online in the early 2030s, the firm said.
Nuclear reactors better than nuclear war for oil (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Nuclear reactors better than nuclear war for oi (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Based on current timescales we're looking at sometime between December 30th 2039 and December 31st 2039.
So maybe the compromise is not to shut down current reactors but maintain them well.
Careful. You can't maintain nuclear plants to new. They have a design life for a reason. Nuclear power has an excellent safety record, but one which we can quickly destroy by pushing already outdated equipment well beyond it's intended design life. The "bathtub curve" is a thing. https://www.weibull.com/hotwir... [weibull.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
EDF is currently saying early 2040s for new reactors.
They talk about modular reactors, but there aren't any that are commercially proven and in mass production.
2030s may be optimistic. If SMRs work out they could have an expensive solution by then, but we are still a long way from knowing if they are viable.
Seems like a waste of time and money, because by the time it happens it will be so hopelessly uncompetitive and the market will be so saturated with wind and solar... People aren't just going to stop int
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Until then, despite the myriad of problems with nuclear energy, it's either that or violent wars over fossil fuels. So
Nope, or at least not quite. Nuclear is great and all, but it will form part of a future base load supply for our green energy. There's two thins it won't do:
1. be built in any timeframe to have any affect on our climate targets.
2. be built in any timeframe to in any way mitigate our fossil fuel dependency.
Yeah build baby build, but don't pretend that greenlighting a couple of projects (or even many projects) doesn't mean we're not very exposed to fossil fuel supplies in the coming 20 years.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, as long as they pay for it... If SC3000 taught me anything, then that it's better to export power than to import it.
Re: Nuclear reactors better than nuclear war for o (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Storage of most nuclear waste is stupid, and only a thing because GE makes more money selling new fuel rods and doesn't want the competition that a reprocessor would represent. Reprocessing works very well, is a well understood process, and IIRC creates fewer environmental issues than mining and refining does. Kill two birds with one stone, get cheaper fuel and eliminate (most of) the storage issue.
Re: (Score:2)
and IIRC creates fewer environmental issues than mining and refining does.
Being as DoE Hanford in Washington State is the most toxic and polluted spot within the United States, no. There are hundreds of leaky tanks buried in the ground that they have no fucking idea what is in them, other than "massively radioactive and caustic chemical sludge" left over from - wait for it - 50 years of reactor fuel "reprocessing" to extract plutonium for weapons.
Waste reprocessing at any reasonable scale to be useful is a terribly messy process because you're dissolving heavy metals in nitric a
Re: (Score:2)
There's the right way to do things, and then there's the Pentagon way. Using Hanford as an example of anything but the worst possible way to fuck a project up is a bit dishonest.
a catastrophy for sure, or not? (Score:5, Interesting)
Then again, the aye sayers will grasp that point, saying the other side at least admits there will be future generations.
Meanwhile, the true pessimists will point out that the plants will be one more attack point for Putin.
Personally, I'm all in favour of the Swedes going this way, it's not my money, they probably have enough to also invest in other solutions in parallel without people starving, and IMHO the worst realistic outcome if they actually build and run these plants, is that the energy is quite expensive.
nuke waste is better then dirty coal! (Score:2)
nuke waste is better then dirty coal!
Re: (Score:2)
But more importantly, your (our) facts don't outweigh public opinion, everyone has a say nowadays. Strangely, Sweden got to the point of p
Re: (Score:3)
They will not actually go that way. This is just political posturing to cater to the morons that still have not understood how excessively expensive nukes are and how unusable in general. For example, France was always also a power-importer, because their nukes are too slow to react. So when electricity is expensive (peak load) they have to buy electricity and when it is very cheap they have to sell all the excess their nukes produce. Same when it got very hot or very cold: They could not cool their nukes a
Re: (Score:3)
This doesn't prove that all fission plants aren't flexible enough to adapt quickly to fluctuations, it just proves that the French design can't adjust fast enough.
Re: (Score:2)
For example, France was always also a power-importer, because their nukes are too slow to react.
This doesn't prove that all fission plants aren't flexible enough to adapt quickly to fluctuations, it just proves that the French design can't adjust fast enough.
Well, yes. It also does not prove the earth is not flat. Your point? The obvious thing is that the nation going 70% nuclear (and you cannot go over that, nuclear is just wayy to unreliable and inflexible) has screwed themselves over massively. Incidentally, the same problem is true for all large nuclear except for exotic designs like a THTR. Of which both existing prototypes damaged themselves beyond repair. The Chinese are making a new go on it though, maybe they can get it to work.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
US navy is unsuitable for comparison: They have a lot of budget and completely different requirements compared to electricity generation. They also have a different risk model.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, it's true. Nuclear submarines continue to operate just fine even with large transients in power demand.
And, since we know how to build reactors that can handle transients, there's no reason to make noise about "nuclear power is only for base
Re: (Score:2)
Sure. Apples and Oranges. If you do not mind your nukes being extremely expensive, low power and having an unacceptable high risk of blowing up (for a civilian installation), you can do that. The only thing your statement shows is that you have no clue about the engineering questions involved. And you have no clue that you are clueless, dues to high arrogance. I call that "idiot of the 2nd order". Generally this is called the "Dunning-Kruger Effect".
And to make your question even dumber, don't you think if
Re: (Score:2)
there are several hundred nuclear submarines in the world. They have no problems whatsoever with maintaining power levels, frequency, that sort of thing, even with the variable outputs that submarines deal with on a daily basis.
Nuclear power is already the most expensive kind of power per Wh generated, and using those kind of reactors is only possible with a trained crew of significant size despite the fact that they are much smaller than a commercial reactor. Nuclear is already the most expensive kind of power around, and you want to raise costs by an order of magnitude. Great plan!
Re: (Score:2)
Aside that, you can be smug about France buying expensive electricity and selling cheap electricity, in the mean time they have had the lowest carbon footprint for electricity in all of Western Europe (and perhaps the world?) since the 70s. If all of Europe had walked the same path, the bind we
Re: (Score:2)
They will not actually go that way. This is just political posturing to cater to the morons that still have not understood how excessively expensive nukes are and how unusable in general. For example, France was always also a power-importer, because their nukes are too slow to react. So when electricity is expensive (peak load) they have to buy electricity and when it is very cheap they have to sell all the excess their nukes produce. Same when it got very hot or very cold: They could not cool their nukes anymore and had to import at premium prices. See any problem with that economical model? It is no surprise EDF is bankrupt now despite massive subsidies all along.
I know right... France sucks. They are only Europe's single most net exporter of energy while having amongst lowest carbon emissions from electrical energy in Europe. All countries with similar or lower electrical carbon are dominated by hydro and nuclear.
Even with France's stupid decision to reprocess fuel it's kicking ass while the rest of Europe day dreams of windmills and PV farms.
Nuclear power in the US enjoys the highest availability of all energy sources with a capacity factor far above 90%.
Re: (Score:2)
They are only Europe's single most net exporter of energy
No. They are not. They used to be but only in off-hours. In peak-hours they had to import in the past. So they exported a lot of electricity at low prices and imported
electricity at high prices. Note something wrong here? There is a reason EDF is bankrupt, despite _massive_ subsidies in the past. The only purpose the French nuclear industry serves these days is as a good example of how to fail.
Re: (Score:2)
No. They are not.
Yes, when historic fleet wide maintenance issues are dealt with later in the year they will go back to being the worlds top electricity exporter.
They used to be but only in off-hours.
They typically export far more than they consume throughout the entire day and make billions yearly doing it. Detailed data is readily available to anyone who cares to check straight from the primary source.
https://www.rte-france.com/en/... [rte-france.com]
So they exported a lot of electricity at low prices and imported electricity at high prices. Note something wrong here?
I note your facts are wrong.
There is a reason EDF is bankrupt, despite _massive_ subsidies in the past. The only purpose the French nuclear industry serves these days is as a good example of how to fail.
France's nuclear industry is indeed fucked up due to dual use in nuclear weapons production and co
Re: (Score:2)
At the end of the day France is still kicking ass.
Talk about being really deep in delusion.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Meanwhile, the true pessimists will point out that the plants will be one more attack point for Putin. [...] IMHO the worst realistic outcome if they actually build and run these plants, is that the energy is quite expensive.
The worst realistic outcome is an attack or simply a failure causing radioactive material to be spread across significant portions of the continent.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't have to be the most realistic outcome to be a realistic outcome. The severity is sufficient to make it a significant concern.
Re: (Score:2)
population (Score:2)
Population of Sweden = 10 million.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually this will shrink to about 9 million as the anti immigration policies, pro-crime policies and welfare cuts gets implemented one by one.
Brain drain is coming to Sweden folks!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The point is that a country with a population of 10 million cannot easily be translated into a model for a country such as the US with a population of some 350 million, nor most of the large other countries in Europe, much less Asia.
Situation is a bit more complicated. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Good news! (Score:3)
The more nuclear power plants the better. Sure, I'd like some next-gen designs but we (the world) and Sweden can't wait for those to be tested and approved.
Re: (Score:2)
The more nuclear power plants the better. Sure, I'd like some next-gen designs but we (the world) and Sweden can't wait for those to be tested and approved.
Unfortunately it will take a bit longer for all the old hippies to die off. They have been holding us back for decades, but they won't last forever. Younger generations are much less afraid of technology.
Re: (Score:2)
Lol, there's plenty of young people who know reality, unlike old men on Slashdot fribbling nuke fantasies. Nukes are too slow to build, too expensive to build and run, unsolved waste issues, and lastly, the thing that really triggers you retards, nobody wants nukes. Nobody.
Lots of interest in nukes now that the anti-nuclear lobbyists are being shown for what they are - the primary reason the world has ~400 reactors and ~8000 coal plants. And now they want me to buy an electric car. LOL not happening.
Your scary stories are not going to cut it anymore. Renewables require large amounts of storage to be useful, and nuclear is totally cost competitive with renewables+storage. We are about to correct for decades of bad choices. Suck it up.
Re: (Score:2)
Terra Power has been waiting for permission to test the new designs for over a decade, my understanding is that they got tired of waiting and have gone to China.
This is what happens when you have regulatory agencies in thrall to entrenched industries.
Re: (Score:2)
Terra Power has been waiting for permission to test the new designs for over a decade, my understanding is that they got tired of waiting and have gone to China.
Good, that's a great place for them. Let them shit up China with their inevitable failures instead of some country where some of the residents care about the environment.
Hahahaha, no (Score:3)
That will not happen as soon as they have to admit how much they will cost and how little that money will buy. They are just posturing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
A problem is that it will take 10y before we know if Vattenfall will go through with it or not. Except for one party on the left (with only 5% of the votes so small party) the middle and left parties are not anti-nuclear so the plans will at least survive elections.
Well, Vattenfall hopes to transfer a lot of taxpayer money into their pockets for a product that is somewhere between "mediocre" and "bad". Of course, _they_ would want to do it.
Re: (Score:2)
24 x 7 power for 18 to 24 months between refueling outages. Sounds good, one possible good solution to energy needs.
What's France's uptime looking like this year?
Re: (Score:3)
Tell that to the French when they are freezing their asses off this winter.
As soon as you look at actual details with some level of actual understanding, nuclear is about as dumb as it gets.
What's that sound? (Score:2)
You might hate it, but you knew this would happen (Score:2)
Nuclear Nazis (Score:2)
It should be concerning to everyone when Nazi-Lite parties begin building nuclear facilities. For those who don't know, in Europe "Christian Democrat" parties were the rebranded Nazi parties established by former Nazi officials who weren't executed for one reason or another after WW2. That's not hyperbole; that's history.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Relevant (Score:5, Funny)
Ah yes listen to Trump. Words of wisdom to live by. Let's take a sample.
“Look, having nuclear—my uncle was a great professor
and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good
genes, very good genes, OK, very smart, the Wharton
School of Finance, very good, very smart —you know, if
you’re a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if,
like, OK, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I’m
one of the smartest people anywhere in the world—it’s
true!—but when you’re a conservative Republican they
try—oh, do they do a number—that’s why I always start
off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went there,
went there, did this, built a fortune—you know I have to
give my like credentials all the time, because we’re a little
disadvantaged—but you look at the nuclear deal, the
thing that really bothers me—it would have been so easy,
and it’s not as important as these lives are (nuclear is
powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many
years ago, the power and that was 35 years ago; he
would explain the power of what’s going to happen and
he was right—who would have thought?), but when you
look at what’s going on with the four prisoners—now it
used to be three, now it’s four—but when it was three and
even now, I would have said it’s all in the messenger;
fellas, and it is fellas because, you know, they don’t, they
haven’t figured that the women are smarter right now
than the men, so, you know, it’s gonna take them about
another 150 years—but the Persians are great negotiators,
the Iranians are great negotiators, so, and they, they just
killed, they just killed us.”
Everyone get that?
Re: (Score:2)
I would love to know what question precipitated bookending a narcissistic screed with a remark about his uncle and a racist remark about Persians.
Youtube link (Score:2)
Tech billionaire Chamath says Europe is in an energy crisis because they listened to Greta Thunberg instead of Donald Trump.
Might want to have a watch before downvoting. 2 minute watch.
And for those (like me) who don't watch twitter because they have their spyware blocked, here's a link to (apparently) the same clip on youtube [youtube.com].
Re:Relevant (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Even back then, many experts said it was a horribly misguided direction to go, but Germany insisted that trade and mutual dependance would cement Russian's fledgling democracy.
Don't be revisionist. a) the direction of moving towards gas was a position pushed by they overwhelming majority of experts. b) the direction of moving towards Russia was a policy pushed by the USA (not in isolation, it had a sound socio-economic underpinning so I don't fault them) in general towards the 3rd world. Germany did it with gas, the USA did it with pushing corporations into the Russian and Chinese markets. The theory being that economic activity and high levels of trade stabilises countries. Econ
Re: (Score:2)
The notion is not new either. When certain European countries started buying gas from Russia in the 70s, NATO (and the USA in particular) pressu
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, all you get from me is a "Great, do you export the power? Because I sure don't want that NIMBY tech around here".
But Sweden should have some space up North.
Re:Here comes the Bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
Thinking of exports, one of the few Russian exports not embargoed or limited by the US/EU is nuclear fuel rods, since they're the world's largest producer and the EU relies on nuclear power to a much greater extent than most people realize.
We have a moron problem. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if we could get the moron-population down, a lot of problems would solve themselves. "Safe nukes" would probably only have a place on the Moon or in the Arctic though. They would just be too excessively expensive. Remember that not-so-save nukes are already several times as expensive as other forms of energy generation and that does not include risk cost and waste storage.
Re: (Score:2)
First, the US cannot do it "right" (TMI),
Another attempt at spreading FUD. The US actually did it quite right. Three Mile Island is the most over blown incident in history. There was a malfunction in one of the systems at Three Mile Island. The safety systems worked exactly as intended. There was no significant radiation released into the environment. To date, there has been no major accident at any commercial nuclear reactor that has resulted in any dangerous amount of radiation being release.
Your FUD has been contained.
Re: (Score:3)
Nuclear as a "silver bullet" solution is outdated
Re: (Score:2)
Nuclear as a "silver bullet" solution is outdated
Indeed. The only thing nuclear power ever had going for it was a naive childish enthusiasm, created and cultivated by the scum that saw shiploads of money coming their way from this tech. To be fair, a lot of morons still cling to these childish fantasies, as evidenced right here in the nonsense some people post.
Re: (Score:2)
Nuclear as a "silver bullet" solution is outdated
You know, for a technical site Slashdot has so many stupid ass motherfuckers like this one that posted this bullshit. You would think that members on this site would be more progressive and interested in advancement and technical know-how. Somehow you would assume for a technical site people on this site would be upto date on current nuclear research, but no. We got idiots like this who spout the same nonsense that has been put out by the anti-nuclear people for the past 60 years.
Surely you can point to the nuclear power plants that have been completed on time and on budget, and don't require any government subsidies to generate power at a lower cost than other types of generation.
Re: (Score:3)
babbling and more lies deleted
Oh shut the fuck up. You are not Ph.D. anything. Anyone with a Ph.D. in physics and that follows the nuclear technology would know better than to spout the shit you are saying. What is that saying? "If you feel the need to try to impress us by bragging about your intelligence, then you are a moron." So just shut the fuck up.
You know what really annoys me about the anti-nuclear kooks like gweihir, drinkypoo, AmiMoJo. and others that infest this site? It's not the ignorance, the lies, the miss-inform
Re: (Score:2)
You just declared yourself a shameless liar. Because that is not what happened. At all. I bet you did not even read the accident report, you just selected the lie you liked best and then spewed it out. Repulsive.
Re: We have a moron problem. (Score:2)
Even more important, is that new SMRs are pretty impervious to failures, are cheap and fast to build, and easy to scale.
In addition, a number of the designs will finish the nuclear fuel cycle.
Re: (Score:2)
Why the fuck do you extremists continue to talk trash and lie about things? TMI was PERFECT.
Read the accident report. Then come back again. In the meantime stop pushing lies about things you clearly do not understand.
Incidentally, I am in no way an extremist. I am an engineer (look it up...) and I have read that accident report.
Re: We have a moron problem. (Score:2)
other than stupidity from the techs, everything was perfect. Heck, the partial meltdown was fully contained.
And with most new SMRs designs, meltdowns are not possible. Natrium, NuScale, moltex, and esp. any of the molten fluorinated salt reactors can not have meltdowns.
Re: (Score:2)
I am pretty far left, at least for an American and have voted mostly a party ticket for the past 40 years
I am also a proponent of nuclear power because is has proven itself to be the only sustainable energy source that aligns with the growth of the human population
I am also a futurist, and there is no other proven power source that will get humans where they need to be in order to survive a coming bottleneck as population borders on being unsustainable
That said, there is stunning evidence to the effect that
Re: (Score:2)
I am also a proponent of nuclear power because is has proven itself to be the only sustainable energy source that aligns with the growth of the human population
Ahem, what? Nuclear fuel is limited. At current (!) consumption it runs out in about 50 years. After that it gets much more dirty (CO2 from getting it out of the ground and Uranium is already pretty dirty) and much more expensive. Yes, _theoretically_ you could filter it out of Ocean water, but there is zero known tech that can do this in a way that even remotely makes sense.
Re: (Score:2)
At current (!) consumption it runs out in about 50 years.
LOL. Much like oil where we only have 50 years of reserves. The same as we had 50 years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Ahem, what? Nuclear fuel is limited. At current (!) consumption it runs out in about 50 years.
Current "proven" reserves are 90 years, not 50. Because of the high energy density of fission fuel, not a lot of uranium is being mined right now, and since the end of the Cold War there has been no pressure to explore for more. But consider that current once-through reactors only use 5% of the uranium in each fuel rod, which is why spent fuel would stay radioactive for thousands of years if we just dumped it. If we go to full-burnup reactor designs instead (or recycling of spent fuel), that 90 years of cur
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, and it is 50 years of reserves. The rest is in the ground, yes, but much more expensive to get out and much more CO2 producing to do so.
Re: (Score:2)
Hi gweihir not surprised to have a comment from you
It is a little disappointing that you have chosen a non-sequitur response instead of any of my central points
In regards to your point I can offer a couple of salient replies
First of, is my previously stated concern:
>>I am also a futurist, and there is no other proven power source that will get humans where they need to be in order to survive a coming bottleneck as population borders on being unsustainable
I will assume (dangerous eh) that you are famil
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, but you have nothing. You are just regurgitating lies you do not understand.
Also, "Futurist" = "Idiot", which you just nicely supplied another data-point to.
Re: (Score:2)
"gweihir" = "mindless troll"
Thanks for confirming
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, _theoretically_ you could filter it out of Ocean water, but there is zero known tech that can do this in a way that even remotely makes sense.
Scoffing is not an argument, or the presentation of facts. This is the same level of argumentation made here on Slashdot for years (and still from some reality challenged posters) about any new energy development of the last 25 years - commercial solar and wind power, high capacity lithium batteries, EVs, etc. - "there is no tech that remotely makes sense right now". Here is an article on recent research [ieee.org]. Still under development, but a long way from just "theoretical". Also you might want to consider the im
Re: (Score:2)
Since, as you admit, there is at least 50 years of uranium supply right now.
And there we are, lies, lies and more lies. It is 50 years _max_ at _current_ consumption. If AGW is to be addressed via nuclear power, this will not go nearly as long. Only about 10% of world power generation is nuclear. Iw we go all nuclear, these reserves last 5 years. Oh, wait, we cannot even get then out of the ground in that time.
But yes, continue to spew and believe your own lies right up to the moment they kill you. If I were not unfortunately on the same planet, I would not care one bit.
Re: (Score:2)
Ahem, what? Nuclear fuel is limited. At current (!) consumption it runs out in about 50 years. After that it gets much more dirty (CO2 from getting it out of the ground and Uranium is already pretty dirty) and much more expensive. Yes, _theoretically_ you could filter it out of Ocean water, but there is zero known tech that can do this in a way that even remotely makes sense.
Actually, reprocessing would greatly extend that timeline; as well as reduce the amount of nuclear material that needs long term storage.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, reprocessing would greatly extend that timeline; as well as reduce the amount of nuclear material that needs long term storage.
Nope. Reprocessing has been tried and it failed. Completely. It is not an option that is even on the table anymore among people with real expertise.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, reprocessing would greatly extend that timeline; as well as reduce the amount of nuclear material that needs long term storage.
Nope. Reprocessing has been tried and it failed. Completely. It is not an option that is even on the table anymore among people with real expertise.
Considering fuel is still being reprocessed and has been for years, I would not call it failed.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. Reprocessing has been tried and it failed. Completely. It is not an option that is even on the table anymore among people with real expertise.
Considering fuel is still being reprocessed and has been for years, I would not call it failed.
Oh, some reprocessing is done. But it is not a major source of fuel. That has failed.
Re: (Score:2)
Ahem, what? Nuclear fuel is limited. At current (!) consumption it runs out in about 50 years.
Not quite true. Here is a paper for you that puts the current reserves at well over a thousand years.
https://www.withouthotair.com/... [withouthotair.com]
This is also dependent on the reactor technology. Breeder reactors are more efficient and would extend current supplies many times over.
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit. Also, breeder reactors have failed as a concept.
Incidentally, that is not a "paper". That is something somebody wrote on a website. It is fitting that the picture used for illustration is from the disaster-reactor at Windscale, one of the worst examples of nuclear stupidity ever.
Re: (Score:2)
pumping reverse hydro is a huge storage of wind/solar .... Grid batteries are great for daily oscillations and rapid reaction. Molten salts is another.
All of which costs money, but lets ignore that and just talk about how much cheaper generating power with Renewables is vs Fission.
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed. Fission is _old_ tech that never worked well and never got cheap enough to compete. Without a lot of people living in LaLa-Land and politician wanting nukes or the potential for them, it would never have amounted to anything.
Re: (Score:2)
Pumped hydro storage is an environmental nightmare, and there are very limited locations where it would work anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, because that wouldn't slow the adoption at all, making things 50% more expensive.
Or, we could incentivize the addition of on-site storage, just like we currently are.
And we could let the grid operators worry about stabilization since they're the experts, they have the data, and they also have the ability to do something more than posting on Slashdot about it. If we are even remotely close to generating more power than we can use at peak times for renewables, I'm pretty sure that commercial energy sto
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That makes sense. Nuclear/coal will not run at peak efficiency when they need to follow the load. But the point is that vivian complained that they can't follow the demand curve. Which is ridiculous claim especially when compared to wind/solar without storage. We can much easier run nuclear/coal inefficiently than squeeze out energy from wind/solar when wind is not blowing at night. Better inefficient energy than no energy at all.
Wind and solar need to solve their backup problems if they ever want to provi
Re: (Score:2)