While nuclear power produces bountiful clean energy,
Well no, it doesn’t, not at the moment. It may be low carbon, but it certainly isn’t clean, as the £120 billion ( and rapidly rising) costs of cleaning up the Sellafield site demonstrates. A cost so large that the “low-cost electricity” argument used to justify it’s build are proven to be false- the electricity wasn’t cheap, it was very expensive, the bill was just deferred until end-of-life.
Though it’s also worth pointing out that Sellafield is Europe’s largest nuclear site and has operated since the 40’s and suffered the disaster in 1957 when reactor design, nuclear safety and safe handling were in their infancy, and the world was just starting to explore harnessing nuclear power generation.
And also to be more relevant to the subject of the article; this is one of the reasons why fusion should be being researched, much lower chance of problems arising from waste/risk of meltdown etc.
Fusion isn’t fission, it could provide relatively cheap and clean nuclear power.
Right now, nuclear power plants use fission, which creates energy by splitting atoms — the science at the center of the blockbuster “Oppenheimer.” While nuclear power produces bountiful clean energy,
Read the article. It claims that right now, nuclear fission produces bountiful clean energy, which it clearly doesn’t. And right now, neither does fusion.
I find it hard to imagine a future where fusion power would be cheap. The reactors will most likely be highly complex, with very expensive materials and lots of custom parts. Fission reactors are much simpler and even they have become too expensive to run without subsidies. ITER is supposed to cost 22 billion, but the US DOE estimates it will be closer to 65 billion. And ITER is a tiny test reactor that will still draw energy from the grid while running. If we ever get a fusion reactor that can actually produce energy, it’s going to be so much bigger and more complex than ITER. And it will have a maximum output and operating life, so a finite amount of energy it can produce during its lifetime. Divide the cost for R&D and construction by the amount of energy produced, and it will most likely come out as much more than solar/wind + storarge.
I’m personally quite interested in Helions design of fusion reactor, whilst I don’t necessarily think they’ll be the first to achieve a design viable of continuous operation, I think the insights gained from the much more complex and expensive “tradition” fusion reactors will hopefully help inform their design and make something viable for smaller scale cheaper operation that could be rolled out on a grander scale.
One thing that is apparent with energy tech is that it always starts out expensive and typically goes down in price due to wide adoption and large scale production.
Re the issues with operating life, etc; there are similar issues with almost every option whether solar/wind etc
Obviously either way we’re going to run into issues with large scale energy storage. Here’s hoping Sodium batteries provide some effective respite for that in the near future.
As a counter point, fission power did not really get cheaper once the initial difficulties were worked out. They are still highly complex machines that require a lot of engineering, custom parts and precision manufacturing. The same is true for fusion reactors, we still don’t have the technology to build one that actually produces power.
By comparison, solar and wind are pretty low-tech, so it’s easier to reduce cost by scaling up production and using automation.
Here’s hoping Sodium batteries provide some effective respite for that in the near future.
Yes, I have my hopes up for that one as well. Lithium-Ion was never meant to be cheap, it only got more affordable due to the massive scale of production, but it still uses expensive chemistry. If we could apply the same scale of production to a battery technology that uses cheaper materials and maybe less complicated processes, it would be a huge win.
Right now, nuclear power plants use fission, which creates energy by splitting atoms — the science at the center of the blockbuster “Oppenheimer.” While nuclear power produces bountiful clean energy,
Read the article. It claims that right now, nuclear fission produces bountiful clean energy, which it clearly doesn’t. And "right now*” neither does fusion.
It’s your reading comprehension that’s in doubt, not my knowledge of fission vs fusion.
I agree that the article is wrong on that point. It was still objectively dishonest to make a comment about how nuclear power is unclean without mentioning either fission or fusion specifically. Your comment was begging for a caveat or some sort of “but.”
There is no indication at all that nuclear fusion is going to create harmful byproducts in the same way that fission does, and so make a comment that criticizes “nuclear power” as a whole is a very stupid thing to do overall.
I’ll also point out that the whole basis for your above comment was to cherry-pick one of the very worst examples of fission energy out there. Look up any modern plant, it’s cost per kilowatt hour, and it’s waste disposal procedure. A single poorly-designed nuclear power plant that predates the Kennedy admin doesn’t move the needle on fission power’s overall efficacy.
Clean and expensive are different things. Sure, it produces waste that has been expensive to contain (though it shouldn’t be), but it is contained. Meanwhile most other alternatives produce waste that is not contained and they don’t pay for that. Nuclear fission is still clean, regardless of if it’s the cheapest option.
I’m worried about nuclear because I have worked in enough large organisations with managers that will do everything to cover this ass, so as long as humans are in the mix disasters will happen.
However I reckon nuclear fission also hasn’t had a fair shake. Not nearly enough research has gone into making quality reactors that minimise the after effects and make them safer to run.
The worst part is, no matter how safe and clean they are run now, we have no way to make sure that the people running them in 20 years will be as careful. Also, the safer they are, the less people will pay attention to minor shit that adds up.
Well no, it doesn’t, not at the moment. It may be low carbon, but it certainly isn’t clean, as the £120 billion ( and rapidly rising) costs of cleaning up the Sellafield site demonstrates. A cost so large that the “low-cost electricity” argument used to justify it’s build are proven to be false- the electricity wasn’t cheap, it was very expensive, the bill was just deferred until end-of-life.
Though it’s also worth pointing out that Sellafield is Europe’s largest nuclear site and has operated since the 40’s and suffered the disaster in 1957 when reactor design, nuclear safety and safe handling were in their infancy, and the world was just starting to explore harnessing nuclear power generation.
And also to be more relevant to the subject of the article; this is one of the reasons why fusion should be being researched, much lower chance of problems arising from waste/risk of meltdown etc.
Fusion isn’t fission, it could provide relatively cheap and clean nuclear power.
Read the article. It claims that right now, nuclear fission produces bountiful clean energy, which it clearly doesn’t. And right now, neither does fusion.
I find it hard to imagine a future where fusion power would be cheap. The reactors will most likely be highly complex, with very expensive materials and lots of custom parts. Fission reactors are much simpler and even they have become too expensive to run without subsidies. ITER is supposed to cost 22 billion, but the US DOE estimates it will be closer to 65 billion. And ITER is a tiny test reactor that will still draw energy from the grid while running. If we ever get a fusion reactor that can actually produce energy, it’s going to be so much bigger and more complex than ITER. And it will have a maximum output and operating life, so a finite amount of energy it can produce during its lifetime. Divide the cost for R&D and construction by the amount of energy produced, and it will most likely come out as much more than solar/wind + storarge.
I’m personally quite interested in Helions design of fusion reactor, whilst I don’t necessarily think they’ll be the first to achieve a design viable of continuous operation, I think the insights gained from the much more complex and expensive “tradition” fusion reactors will hopefully help inform their design and make something viable for smaller scale cheaper operation that could be rolled out on a grander scale.
One thing that is apparent with energy tech is that it always starts out expensive and typically goes down in price due to wide adoption and large scale production.
Re the issues with operating life, etc; there are similar issues with almost every option whether solar/wind etc
Obviously either way we’re going to run into issues with large scale energy storage. Here’s hoping Sodium batteries provide some effective respite for that in the near future.
As a counter point, fission power did not really get cheaper once the initial difficulties were worked out. They are still highly complex machines that require a lot of engineering, custom parts and precision manufacturing. The same is true for fusion reactors, we still don’t have the technology to build one that actually produces power.
By comparison, solar and wind are pretty low-tech, so it’s easier to reduce cost by scaling up production and using automation.
Yes, I have my hopes up for that one as well. Lithium-Ion was never meant to be cheap, it only got more affordable due to the massive scale of production, but it still uses expensive chemistry. If we could apply the same scale of production to a battery technology that uses cheaper materials and maybe less complicated processes, it would be a huge win.
This mfer doesn’t know the difference between fusion power and fission power smfh
Read the article. It claims that right now, nuclear fission produces bountiful clean energy, which it clearly doesn’t. And "right now*” neither does fusion.
It’s your reading comprehension that’s in doubt, not my knowledge of fission vs fusion.
I agree that the article is wrong on that point. It was still objectively dishonest to make a comment about how nuclear power is unclean without mentioning either fission or fusion specifically. Your comment was begging for a caveat or some sort of “but.”
There is no indication at all that nuclear fusion is going to create harmful byproducts in the same way that fission does, and so make a comment that criticizes “nuclear power” as a whole is a very stupid thing to do overall.
I’ll also point out that the whole basis for your above comment was to cherry-pick one of the very worst examples of fission energy out there. Look up any modern plant, it’s cost per kilowatt hour, and it’s waste disposal procedure. A single poorly-designed nuclear power plant that predates the Kennedy admin doesn’t move the needle on fission power’s overall efficacy.
Clean and expensive are different things. Sure, it produces waste that has been expensive to contain (though it shouldn’t be), but it is contained. Meanwhile most other alternatives produce waste that is not contained and they don’t pay for that. Nuclear fission is still clean, regardless of if it’s the cheapest option.
I’m worried about nuclear because I have worked in enough large organisations with managers that will do everything to cover this ass, so as long as humans are in the mix disasters will happen.
However I reckon nuclear fission also hasn’t had a fair shake. Not nearly enough research has gone into making quality reactors that minimise the after effects and make them safer to run.
The worst part is, no matter how safe and clean they are run now, we have no way to make sure that the people running them in 20 years will be as careful. Also, the safer they are, the less people will pay attention to minor shit that adds up.
If nuclear accidents are an incredibly small chance, over a long enough timeline every single reactor is a disaster