undefined | Better HN

0 pointsdathinab5y ago0 comments

> geologically stable

Isn't really a think when we thing about the time scale of nuclear wast...

Additionally Politicians mess in seriously bad ways with anything related to nuclear.

Like pushing for nuclear power but if it's found that the objective best place to store the wast underground is around where they live they will try all kind of things to exclude the best suited place from the list of potential candidates.

Or adding a unsuited place close to the border of the neighbor country they don't like "because of reasons".

Or pushing for nuclear power with arguments like it's electricity being very cheap while it's actually the most expensive electricity source in their country and that is even through it's highly subsidized (which the much cheaper alternatives are not).

Etc. Etc.

I would love I people would start to have a purely objective discussion about this.

0 comments

corty5y ago

The IPCC report on climate change mitigation puts nuclear median cost on par with wind power (cheaper than offshore, slightly more expensive than onshore), cheaper than solar, more expensive than hydro. In total, squarely on par with the usual suspects for green energy. And they include fuel and decommissioning in that cost. See page 71 of https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5... (caution, huge pdf).

An objective discussion would be nice, but it can only be objective if it is based on available facts.

philipkglass5y ago

That report is a reasonable snapshot of knowledge at the time, but it was published in 2014 and some of the underlying data dates back to 2000. You can see the data sources that went into the technology-specific metrics in Annex II:

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5...

"The data on nuclear power was taken from Lenzen (2008) and Warner and Heath (2012)."

"Photovoltaic power: Ranges are based largely on the reviews of Hsu et al. (2012) and Kim et al. (2012)."

"Wind power: The data is based on the review of Arvesen and Hert-wich (2012) and has been cross-checked with Dolan and Heath (2012) and Hertwich et al. (2013)"

Let's go back to the Hsu review cited for photovoltaic generation.

"Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Electricity Generation: Systematic Review and Harmonization"

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1530-9290....

If you look at tables 1 and 2, it's aggregating studies from the years 2000-2009. Most are from 2006 or earlier. Solar manufacturing has improved a lot and costs have fallen dramatically since 2006. At the same time, nuclear projects under development since 2006 in Europe or the USA have cost much more than originally planned.

China continues to build new reactors; it's an existence proof that new reactors can be built. But China also builds wind and solar farms cheaper than Europe or the USA. You can't get a Chinese energy project at Chinese domestic prices in either the USA or Europe.

pas5y ago

There was a post/thread about this a few weeks/months ago. The conclusion is always the same. There is not enough plants built to get economies of scale. (Plus modular nuclear is the way to go anyway.)

The EU or the US should announce that it's going to order 100+ plants. Completely different game. There's no point in competing with solar or wind otherwise.

Sure, this is politically untenable. :|

dathinabOP5y ago

hm interesting the numbers are somewhat different then what I have seen in other places.

I mean don't get me wrong offshore wind power is always expensive but enough sources list solar, on-shore wind power as cheaper. Hydro power as comparable and Geothermal power as much cheaper.

corty5y ago

Problem with most sources is, there are always assumptions and caveats: Such as cost-based calculations (maybe or maybe not) including teardown and recycling, storage cost, capital cost, land cost, etc. Others do market-price-based calculations (preferably in those markets that prove their point), so you get renewable prices from Germany (where renewables are hugely subsidized and have to be consumed preferentially) that are sometimes even negative, or you get nuclear prices from France, where the owner of all nuclear power plants is a state owned corp (EDF) that is "rescued" from bancruptcy every few years to keep prices down.

I did pick the IPCC reports because those are usually regarded as being careful amalgamations of the available scientific data. Since there are lots of eyes on those reports, larger mistakes should have been pointed out already.

But you are right that there is contradictory information out there, and I don't really have the perfect authoritative source either.

1 more reply

Youden4y ago

> Isn't really a think when we thing about the time scale of nuclear wast...

The people involved in these plans aren't idiots, they know what the time scale of nuclear waste is and they look for sites with that in mind [0]. They appear to be considering obvious problems like earthquakes and less obvious problems like ice ages.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_geological_repository

rrss5y ago

> Isn't really a think when we thing about the time scale of nuclear waste...

it is.

drill a few miles down into the miles-thick crystalline salt in the permian basin. it will not go anywhere for millions of years.

dathinabOP5y ago

There is no Permian Basin in Germany ...

rrss5y ago

There are similar basins in Europe, probably similarly suitable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian_Basin_(Europe)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_German_basin

yellowapple5y ago

God forbid Germany exports its nuclear waste.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

corty5y ago

An objective discussion would be nice, but it can only be objective if it is based on available facts.

philipkglass5y ago

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5...

"The data on nuclear power was taken from Lenzen (2008) and Warner and Heath (2012)."

"Photovoltaic power: Ranges are based largely on the reviews of Hsu et al. (2012) and Kim et al. (2012)."

"Wind power: The data is based on the review of Arvesen and Hert-wich (2012) and has been cross-checked with Dolan and Heath (2012) and Hertwich et al. (2013)"

Let's go back to the Hsu review cited for photovoltaic generation.

"Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Electricity Generation: Systematic Review and Harmonization"

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1530-9290....

pas5y ago

The EU or the US should announce that it's going to order 100+ plants. Completely different game. There's no point in competing with solar or wind otherwise.

Sure, this is politically untenable. :|

dathinabOP5y ago

hm interesting the numbers are somewhat different then what I have seen in other places.

I mean don't get me wrong offshore wind power is always expensive but enough sources list solar, on-shore wind power as cheaper. Hydro power as comparable and Geothermal power as much cheaper.

corty5y ago

But you are right that there is contradictory information out there, and I don't really have the perfect authoritative source either.

1 more reply

Youden4y ago

> Isn't really a think when we thing about the time scale of nuclear wast...

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_geological_repository

rrss5y ago

> Isn't really a think when we thing about the time scale of nuclear waste...

it is.

drill a few miles down into the miles-thick crystalline salt in the permian basin. it will not go anywhere for millions of years.

dathinabOP5y ago

There is no Permian Basin in Germany ...