-
@tim always amazed that, despite 70 years in business, nuclear has never gotten cheaper or easier.
The supporters like to talk up political opposition, NIMBYs, and the harsh regulations that nuclear face over other types of generation, but they can't ever answer the simple question: why is a longstanding, well understood technology not following the same cost curve as almost every other technology in energy or otherwise.
Why don't we have Thorium reactors? Or at least some form of widespread deployment of a Gen IV with all the safety and high yield? They've been working on it for 20 years ffs...
-
@nta said in Climate Change:
@tim always amazed that, despite 70 years in business, nuclear has never gotten cheaper or easier.
The supporters like to talk up political opposition, NIMBYs, and the harsh regulations that nuclear face over other types of generation, but they can't ever answer the simple question: why is a longstanding, well understood technology not following the same cost curve as almost every other technology in energy or otherwise.
Why don't we have Thorium reactors? Or at least some form of widespread deployment of a Gen IV with all the safety and high yield? They've been working on it for 20 years ffs...
Not wanting to dis you Nick but I'm thinking because they don't work well enough to be be cost efficient? Coz if they were corporations would be in to them?
-
@nta I think it's because they stopped building nuclear reactors for a long time, and lost the expert knowledge and trained leadership and staff to build them. France had a great record of cheap and safe nuclear power, but stopped building reactors for decades.
Enormous obstacles have been put in the path of new reactors, and dismissing them is asinine, but the great pause in construction is a unique challenge for a mega scale industry.
A tragic indictment on western society.
-
@booboo said in Climate Change:
@nta said in Climate Change:
@tim always amazed that, despite 70 years in business, nuclear has never gotten cheaper or easier.
The supporters like to talk up political opposition, NIMBYs, and the harsh regulations that nuclear face over other types of generation, but they can't ever answer the simple question: why is a longstanding, well understood technology not following the same cost curve as almost every other technology in energy or otherwise.
Why don't we have Thorium reactors? Or at least some form of widespread deployment of a Gen IV with all the safety and high yield? They've been working on it for 20 years ffs...
Not wanting to dis you Nick but I'm thinking because they don't work well enough to be be cost efficient? Coz if they were corporations would be in to them?
Well it is mainly the capital cost, and the promise that they'll deliver cheap energy or 80 years (yet to be anywhere near proven). Getting finance for something that might not deliver a single kWh for a decade is a big ask.
Part of it is lack of standardisation - if everyone just agreed on a particular design and capacity it would make manufacturing a lot easier.
France sort of did that back when they built their fleet in the 70s in light of the oil threat, but that thinking seems to have fallen by the wayside.
Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) are supposed to be the future, but it'll be at least 2 decades before they're economic. I'd love to see them get a go, tho.
-
@tim said in Climate Change:
@nta I think it's because they stopped building nuclear reactors for a long time, and lost the expert knowledge and trained leadership and staff to build them. France had a great record of cheap and safe nuclear power, but stopped building reactors for decades.
Enormous obstacles have been put in the path of new reactors, and dismissing them is asinine, but the great pause in construction is a unique challenge for a mega scale industry.
A tragic indictment on western society.
I agree in the main, but ultimately it is just an engineering challlenge.
Like space travel, the industry generally operates on cost-plus so making it cheaper or more efficient isn't in the builder's interests when demand is low.
Nuclear needs a SpaceX style shakeup to transform the industry. Hopefully SMRs start getting regulatory approval at speed to be that kind of change.
-
@nta said in Climate Change:
@tim always amazed that, despite 70 years in business, nuclear has never gotten cheaper or easier.
The supporters like to talk up political opposition, NIMBYs, and the harsh regulations that nuclear face over other types of generation, but they can't ever answer the simple question: why is a longstanding, well understood technology not following the same cost curve as almost every other technology in energy or otherwise.
Why don't we have Thorium reactors? Or at least some form of widespread deployment of a Gen IV with all the safety and high yield? They've been working on it for 20 years ffs...
You list some of the reasons and then wonder why? Are you creating your own straw man or would you like to actually know?
Making reactors is relatively simple until you decide to make new designs. France's experience in the 1970s-80s showed the benefit of proven designs, economies of scale. For those reasons we'd see the same outcome if we invested in a fleet of them now. The first ones would be expensive, the resulting ones would be increasingly cheaper and the dependency, cleanliness, safety and cheapness of each MWh these reactors produced would be a god send.
Bob Carr, shit NSW premier and shitter foreign minister actually wrote that nuclear is so bad it doesn't attract any investors in Australia. No shit dickhead - it's specifically prevented in legislation. What moron would invest? Meanwhile other countries that care about dependable cheap electricity are rolling the fuckers out.
-
@nta The thing is that there is no tolerance for mistakes, little opportunity for pilot plants, and new regulations that have required new designs. So there is a massive loss of knowledge at the level of engineering practice, combined with requirement for new designs, and no tolerance for mistakes or experimental trials. Very difficult situation.
-
@tim https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/11/why-are-nuclear-plants-so-expensive-safetys-only-part-of-the-story/
Interesting article summarising a study of the US experience.
Standardisation is not necessarily cheaper (which surprised me), and many cost overruns seem to be due to poor project management. Safety isn't the whole story, either.
-
@tim said in Climate Change:
@nta Cost of finance between (then) governments and (now) companies is likely an important and overlooked factor.
Interest rates are at an all-time low BUT not for 50+ year loans. Capital cost makes the interest payments utterly shit house tho.
-
@dogmeat said in Climate Change:
You can't build a hydro plant in NZ because of compliance costs. What chance nuclear?
No new hydro in the South Island will likely mean NZ's emissions will increase. Are there many more sites suitable for geothermal?
Here's California's solution:
-
@antipodean Top Energy has the only plant that I am aware of outside of the Taupo / Kawerau field. It opened two years ago at Ngawha near Kaikohe. It's about 50MW with an expansion already underway that will take it to 80. There is about 350MW of capacity being built / planned for the Taupo area.
With hydro a dead duck there is again talk of a tidal bore either in the Kaipara or Cook Strait. I'd think the former would run into a lot of objections and the latter would have engineering issues.
Wind farms continue to crop up everywhere but are expensive and the government has talked a lot about a pumped hydro solution. We even have a couple of very low generation solar farms - in Taranaki of all places - with plans for a larger one in the Far North.
-
@dogmeat said in Climate Change:
@antipodean Top Energy has the only plant that I am aware of outside of the Taupo / Kawerau field. It opened two years ago at Ngawha near Kaikohe. It's about 50MW with an expansion already underway that will take it to 80. There is about 350MW of capacity being built / planned for the Taupo area.
Another of those should account for the draw the NI takes from the SI. Ending reliance on coal and gas is an order of magnitude more difficult.
Given the lack of success in Kiwibuild, I'd not have much hope in a government lead initiative to raise the energy efficiency of existing homes either.
Over the ditch we're doubling down on bad policy by providing interest free loans for those who can afford to get battery storage, an EV or solar. Although I'm opposed to it as a policy measure, I'm not completely stupid so as to look a gift horse in the mouth.
-
@nta said in Climate Change:
Why don't we have Thorium reactors?
The Americans had the choice in the 60s.
India was looking to develop them (I've not kept up to date on India) but China may have or may in future beat them to the starting line:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02459-wBut one answer to your question:
“Thorium is much more plentiful than uranium and so it would be a very useful technology to have in 50 or 100 years’ time,” when uranium reserves start to run low, says Lyndon Edwards, a nuclear engineer at the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation in Sydney. But the technology will take many decades to realize, so we need to start now, he adds.
-
@nostrildamus India and China have large reserves of Thorium don't they?
I thought Thorium was a cost issue plus the nuclear industry is obviously risk averse and so are slow adopters?
-
@dogmeat yes, my understanding is that Thorium is difficult to develop but the US had the chance in the 60s and decided it wasn't worth the extra time risk or cost to develop, and when I looked before yesterday, India was considered the leader (not China, but that either looks like it changed or they were just under the radar).
The three-stage nuclear power production program in India had been conceived with the ultimate objective of utilizing the country’s vast reserves of thorium-232. It is important to note that India has the world’s third largest reserves of thorium. Thorium, however, cannot be used as a fuel in its natural state. It needs to be converted into its usable “fissile” form after a series of reactions. To aid this and **to eventually produce** nuclear power from its thorium reserves, Indian scientist Dr. Homi J. Bhabha drew the road map of the three-stage nuclear program.
-
Nuclear technology (or at least the physics is behind it) is fascinating.
But to implement it fully in a place like Australia raises for me the following questions:- is it just a sop to avoid cutting emissions now?
- does it need to be near large populations (and bodies of water) and if so will locals know and accept it (before it is built)
- can we trust it to be developed on time and on price?
- can we trust whoever to build it and run it cleanly, efficiently, economically, and safely? (Australia even has trouble building subs).
- if nuclear waste is safe why is its current disposal issues so under the radar? (Terrorism might be the main answer but so could transport issues.. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-04-12/nuclear-waste-from-australias-only-reactor-needs-to-be-removed/9643428)
- will it, when built, be as or more efficient than rivals?
- for NZ more than for Australia: how can we guarantee it against natural disasters given the Japanese could not and their engineering, planning, and technical know-how is arguably superior...
Climate Change