The number of people who still think nuclear is bad and solar / wind will make up for it is really depressing. We could have had an unrivaled nuclear power infrastructure but those NIMBY assholes stopped it 50 years ago and now we rely on extending existing plants past their lifetimes while running in fucking circles about how to save the planet. Has anyone who wants to “go green” without nuclear ever looked at the power output of these things?? It’s not even the same league! AaagggghHhHhhhhhhhh
The problems with nuclear power aren’t meltdowns, but the facts that it often takes decades just to construct a new plant, it creates an enormous carbon footprint before you get it running, it has an enormously resource-intensive fuel production process, it contributes to nuclear proliferation, it creates indefinitely harmful waste, and even if we get past all of that and do expand it, that’s just going to deplete remaining fuel sources faster, of which we only have so many decades left.
It’s not a good long term solution. I agree we should keep working plants running, but we can’t do that forever, and we still need renewable alternatives - wind, hydro and solar.
And it wasn’t some nebulous group of NIMBYs that worked against nuclear power, it was the fossil fuel lobby. I don’t know why people keep jumping to cultural explanations for what is clearly a structural issue. The problem isn’t some public perception issue, but political will, and that tends to be bought by the fossil fuel lobby.
If we built breeder reactors we could use the spent waste fuel to power the entire US for 1000 years. That runs into plutonium existence problems, but it’s a political problem, not a resource problem.
However, I still agree with what you’ve said. We should limit our nuclear footprint to key isotope production, but we really shouldn’t be doing that until we’ve gone full carbon neutral.
Edit: In case you can’t see the reply to this comment, my conversation partner has given me more information I didn’t have before. Breeder reactors are neat, but they have more issues than I originally knew. (Still a badass concept though :P) https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.2968/066003007
The problem here is the AM/FM distinction: Actual Machines vs Fucking Magic.
Fucking Magic is great if you’re writing scifi, or trying to sell snake oil to investors. The Hyperloop and FSD are examples of Fucking Magic. Sure, they could, in theory, exist, but they don’t, and we don’t know how long they would take or even if they make sense in the long term.
There’s nothing wrong with working on new technologies that may as well be Fucking Magic until they do become viable.
However, if you are making plans for how to proceed with your policy goals, you need Actual Machines. Actual Machines can’t do miracles and fix all of our problems overnight like Fucking Magic can, but they have the benefit of existing. We know their actual benefits and their actual drawbacks. We know that they won’t present some brand new problem that makes them impossible to work with, because they are mature. Trains and bicycles are Actual Machines. Wind, solar and hydro power are Actual Machines.
Cars are also Actual Machines, and thanks to over a century of maturity, we can confidently say that they are not sustainable at their current scale. Nuclear fission is similar.
We don’t know if Fucking Magic will make the transition to an Actual Machine, and if it does, whether it will turn out to be viable.
If breeder reactors are going to become a technology we can rely on to solve our nuclear fuel and waste issues, then they need to make the transition from Fucking Magic to Actual Machines to finally being viable, and that could take decades or more of further research, and yet more decades to actually build the things. Sure, that could come in time to extend our nuclear fuel reserves before they run out in around a century, but it might not. We just don’t know. It certainly won’t come in time to make a difference to climate change.
I don’t understand why individuals are so set on centralized generation. We suddenly have the capabilities to decentralize generation and greatly reduce the need for the grid. I think it is worth it for the aesthetic advantages alone.
My opinion is that to be truly decentralized we should do both. Not just physically decentralize by location, but decentralized in a sense of having multiple options. We should do solar, and wind, and nuclear power. The power output of solar and wind is just not where it needs to be to replace both nuclear and fossil fuels, so I do have to argue in favor of building more nuclear power, but that doesn’t mean I am against building any other renewables as well.
I’ll be a source. I worked at Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant in MD for over 10 years. Because of the trend of shutting down nuclear, I shifted over to operating a combined cycle power plant. Calvert with 2 units did about 1800MW combined, base loaded 24/7 except for outages, and those were staggered so that when one went down for maintenance and refueling, the other unit was still throwing 900MW to the grid. My current plant has 2 gas engine turbines and 1 STG, and on a good day when we’re fully up 2x1 with ducts in, we can hit about 800MW when it’s called for. Balls to the wall in perfect conditions on a plant that’s not even ten years old, we can’t do half of what Calvert was doing and they’ve been operating since the 70s.
Imagine what modern nuclear tech could do. We should’ve been a step ahead of everybody with this.
Thanks for this. I did ask OP for sources, in other words links to verifiable data to back up the assertion that:
“Has anyone who wants to “go green” without nuclear ever looked at the power output of these things?? It’s not even the same league! AaagggghHhHhhhhhhhh”
So this kind of got lost in the weeds, and I see the argument below. The real reason I wont provide sources is partly because it is very easy to look up, and the reality is I could write a thesis with a ton of fucking sources and never cover it all. Typically, in an actual scientific debate, the onus is on you to provide a source which debunks my claims. However, I can give a short summary with some general, but verifiable numbers. I did a quick search for all of this, and most of it is on wikipedia with sources listed.
The average American nuclear power plant provides about 800-1000MW of energy, and has a life time of about 35-40 years. The US has 88 of them, most of which have been running since the 70s. Their age means many should be considered for decommissioning soon, but since we haven’t been building new ones to replace them the old ones continue to be serviced while we seek alternatives.
America’s largest solar farm produces ~350MW, which is less than half of a nuclear plant. That’s actually pretty decent, but this is the high end of the scale for solar, and this output is only achievable in perfect conditions (weather, daytime, location). At night it produces nothing. So the major problem many solar / wind enthusiasts ignore when discussing this is what happens then? How do we store enough power to sustain a city, or something larger, through every night? Those mighty big batteries aren’t eco friendly either, since at the moment our best option is lithium. That may change soon but we can’t really move on maybe.
My point to start with was that we should have never stopped building nuclear - we could have pushed fossil fuel out ages ago, but lobbyists really fucked that. Solar is great, but we need like 200 more of those major solar farms and an absolute fuckload of massive batteries, and the logistics of that is a nightmare that is unlikely to see fruition in time. It will be a long time before we have enough solar / wind to do more than supplement our power grid. We should keep building it in the meantime, but it is also a slow process, much like building nearly any large scale power generation.
To be clear, I am in favor of both. Nuclear should have always been the back bone of our power grid. Solar should be coming online as supplementary power supply allowing us to decentralize and support the transition to greener tech. This is not an either/or situation - we really need both, or fossil fuels will royally fuck our planet first. Maybe someday we will be efficient enough to go all solar, but expecting it to replace fossil fuels AND nuclear in the near future is just unrealistic idealism. We will die before hitting such ideal goals - in the meantime we must compromise.
It’s the difference between spending 0 seconds looking it up and wanting “a source”, versus actually looking it up and not finding anything, then asking where the info comes from.
Asking for a source just to ask for a source is called sealioning.
Asking for a source just to ask for a source is called sealioning.
Good grief, no.
I read so much absolute bullshit around nuclear and renewables where people just write out their feelings on the subject. Asking for sources to back up their claims isn’t sealioning, it’s a polite way of asking someone to try and back up their claims with facts.
In this instance, OP said, “Has anyone who wants to “go green” without nuclear ever looked at the power output of these things?? It’s not even the same league! AaagggghHhHhhhhhhhh”
I want to know what they’re talking about. If they’re saying 1 solar panel or wind turbine has a smaller output than a nuclear plant then … well yeah, that’s obvious. If they’re saying renewables won’t work without nuclear then that’s a straight up lie and I’d like them to post sources to back up that assertion.
I haven’t the slightest idea what you’re talking about. Nuclear displaces fossil fuels at a better rate than renewables and is just as low carbon impact as them. We could replace the entire fossil grid with nuclear in 10 years if there was public support and demand for it, but fossil giants have been parroting the same antinuclear myths and fears dor the last 70 years and its so widely spread even pro renewable people have been deluded into thinking nuclear is bad for the planet when it might very well be our last best hope of fixing greenhouse emissions without the entire world reverting to pre industrial lifestyles.
Nuclear plants wouldn’t take so long to build if people stopped trying to sue and protest their construction and sabotage it with all the red tape. If permits were approved and certified tomorrow a new plant could be operational in 10 years. 5 if it was actually funded and supported. Building the plant is easy, its cuttinf through the red tape encouraged by the oil lobby that is takes decades
The number of people who still think nuclear is bad and solar / wind will make up for it is really depressing. We could have had an unrivaled nuclear power infrastructure but those NIMBY assholes stopped it 50 years ago and now we rely on extending existing plants past their lifetimes while running in fucking circles about how to save the planet. Has anyone who wants to “go green” without nuclear ever looked at the power output of these things?? It’s not even the same league! AaagggghHhHhhhhhhhh
The problems with nuclear power aren’t meltdowns, but the facts that it often takes decades just to construct a new plant, it creates an enormous carbon footprint before you get it running, it has an enormously resource-intensive fuel production process, it contributes to nuclear proliferation, it creates indefinitely harmful waste, and even if we get past all of that and do expand it, that’s just going to deplete remaining fuel sources faster, of which we only have so many decades left.
It’s not a good long term solution. I agree we should keep working plants running, but we can’t do that forever, and we still need renewable alternatives - wind, hydro and solar.
And it wasn’t some nebulous group of NIMBYs that worked against nuclear power, it was the fossil fuel lobby. I don’t know why people keep jumping to cultural explanations for what is clearly a structural issue. The problem isn’t some public perception issue, but political will, and that tends to be bought by the fossil fuel lobby.
Also there is good science on why we actually can switch to entirely renewables: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jan/23/no-miracles-needed-prof-mark-jacobson-on-how-wind-sun-and-water-can-power-the-world
Re: Remaining fuel.
If we built breeder reactors we could use the spent waste fuel to power the entire US for 1000 years. That runs into plutonium existence problems, but it’s a political problem, not a resource problem.
However, I still agree with what you’ve said. We should limit our nuclear footprint to key isotope production, but we really shouldn’t be doing that until we’ve gone full carbon neutral.
Edit: In case you can’t see the reply to this comment, my conversation partner has given me more information I didn’t have before. Breeder reactors are neat, but they have more issues than I originally knew. (Still a badass concept though :P) https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.2968/066003007
The important part here is “if we built”. If we built a net-gain fusion reactor our energy problems would be solved too, but we’re not doing that.
There are significant problems with breeder reactors and development has largely stopped on them.
The problem here is the AM/FM distinction: Actual Machines vs Fucking Magic.
Fucking Magic is great if you’re writing scifi, or trying to sell snake oil to investors. The Hyperloop and FSD are examples of Fucking Magic. Sure, they could, in theory, exist, but they don’t, and we don’t know how long they would take or even if they make sense in the long term.
There’s nothing wrong with working on new technologies that may as well be Fucking Magic until they do become viable.
However, if you are making plans for how to proceed with your policy goals, you need Actual Machines. Actual Machines can’t do miracles and fix all of our problems overnight like Fucking Magic can, but they have the benefit of existing. We know their actual benefits and their actual drawbacks. We know that they won’t present some brand new problem that makes them impossible to work with, because they are mature. Trains and bicycles are Actual Machines. Wind, solar and hydro power are Actual Machines.
Cars are also Actual Machines, and thanks to over a century of maturity, we can confidently say that they are not sustainable at their current scale. Nuclear fission is similar.
We don’t know if Fucking Magic will make the transition to an Actual Machine, and if it does, whether it will turn out to be viable.
If breeder reactors are going to become a technology we can rely on to solve our nuclear fuel and waste issues, then they need to make the transition from Fucking Magic to Actual Machines to finally being viable, and that could take decades or more of further research, and yet more decades to actually build the things. Sure, that could come in time to extend our nuclear fuel reserves before they run out in around a century, but it might not. We just don’t know. It certainly won’t come in time to make a difference to climate change.
That link you shared does a much better job of not implying the reader is an idiot.
Thank you for providing a bigger picture
I don’t understand why individuals are so set on centralized generation. We suddenly have the capabilities to decentralize generation and greatly reduce the need for the grid. I think it is worth it for the aesthetic advantages alone.
My opinion is that to be truly decentralized we should do both. Not just physically decentralize by location, but decentralized in a sense of having multiple options. We should do solar, and wind, and nuclear power. The power output of solar and wind is just not where it needs to be to replace both nuclear and fossil fuels, so I do have to argue in favor of building more nuclear power, but that doesn’t mean I am against building any other renewables as well.
Suspect a lot of those NIMBYs were led by fossil fuel producers in a NIMBY hat…
Please provide valid sources to back up your comment. Thanks.
I’ll be a source. I worked at Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant in MD for over 10 years. Because of the trend of shutting down nuclear, I shifted over to operating a combined cycle power plant. Calvert with 2 units did about 1800MW combined, base loaded 24/7 except for outages, and those were staggered so that when one went down for maintenance and refueling, the other unit was still throwing 900MW to the grid. My current plant has 2 gas engine turbines and 1 STG, and on a good day when we’re fully up 2x1 with ducts in, we can hit about 800MW when it’s called for. Balls to the wall in perfect conditions on a plant that’s not even ten years old, we can’t do half of what Calvert was doing and they’ve been operating since the 70s.
Imagine what modern nuclear tech could do. We should’ve been a step ahead of everybody with this.
Thanks for this. I did ask OP for sources, in other words links to verifiable data to back up the assertion that:
“Has anyone who wants to “go green” without nuclear ever looked at the power output of these things?? It’s not even the same league! AaagggghHhHhhhhhhhh”
So this kind of got lost in the weeds, and I see the argument below. The real reason I wont provide sources is partly because it is very easy to look up, and the reality is I could write a thesis with a ton of fucking sources and never cover it all. Typically, in an actual scientific debate, the onus is on you to provide a source which debunks my claims. However, I can give a short summary with some general, but verifiable numbers. I did a quick search for all of this, and most of it is on wikipedia with sources listed.
The average American nuclear power plant provides about 800-1000MW of energy, and has a life time of about 35-40 years. The US has 88 of them, most of which have been running since the 70s. Their age means many should be considered for decommissioning soon, but since we haven’t been building new ones to replace them the old ones continue to be serviced while we seek alternatives.
America’s largest solar farm produces ~350MW, which is less than half of a nuclear plant. That’s actually pretty decent, but this is the high end of the scale for solar, and this output is only achievable in perfect conditions (weather, daytime, location). At night it produces nothing. So the major problem many solar / wind enthusiasts ignore when discussing this is what happens then? How do we store enough power to sustain a city, or something larger, through every night? Those mighty big batteries aren’t eco friendly either, since at the moment our best option is lithium. That may change soon but we can’t really move on maybe.
My point to start with was that we should have never stopped building nuclear - we could have pushed fossil fuel out ages ago, but lobbyists really fucked that. Solar is great, but we need like 200 more of those major solar farms and an absolute fuckload of massive batteries, and the logistics of that is a nightmare that is unlikely to see fruition in time. It will be a long time before we have enough solar / wind to do more than supplement our power grid. We should keep building it in the meantime, but it is also a slow process, much like building nearly any large scale power generation.
To be clear, I am in favor of both. Nuclear should have always been the back bone of our power grid. Solar should be coming online as supplementary power supply allowing us to decentralize and support the transition to greener tech. This is not an either/or situation - we really need both, or fossil fuels will royally fuck our planet first. Maybe someday we will be efficient enough to go all solar, but expecting it to replace fossil fuels AND nuclear in the near future is just unrealistic idealism. We will die before hitting such ideal goals - in the meantime we must compromise.
The data is widely available and easy to find.
It’s the difference between spending 0 seconds looking it up and wanting “a source”, versus actually looking it up and not finding anything, then asking where the info comes from.
Asking for a source just to ask for a source is called sealioning.
Good grief, no.
I read so much absolute bullshit around nuclear and renewables where people just write out their feelings on the subject. Asking for sources to back up their claims isn’t sealioning, it’s a polite way of asking someone to try and back up their claims with facts.
In this instance, OP said, “Has anyone who wants to “go green” without nuclear ever looked at the power output of these things?? It’s not even the same league! AaagggghHhHhhhhhhhh”
I want to know what they’re talking about. If they’re saying 1 solar panel or wind turbine has a smaller output than a nuclear plant then … well yeah, that’s obvious. If they’re saying renewables won’t work without nuclear then that’s a straight up lie and I’d like them to post sources to back up that assertion.
The problem with nuclear is it gives fossil fuel giants a free pass to try speedrun killing the planet before it even arrives.
If we plan for nuclear, we plan to do nothing for 50 years.
I haven’t the slightest idea what you’re talking about. Nuclear displaces fossil fuels at a better rate than renewables and is just as low carbon impact as them. We could replace the entire fossil grid with nuclear in 10 years if there was public support and demand for it, but fossil giants have been parroting the same antinuclear myths and fears dor the last 70 years and its so widely spread even pro renewable people have been deluded into thinking nuclear is bad for the planet when it might very well be our last best hope of fixing greenhouse emissions without the entire world reverting to pre industrial lifestyles.
I wish i could send you a beer
Nope, we will be burning the fossil fuels the whole time the nuclear plant is being built.
That’s why fossil fuel giants and right wingers are banking on nuclear, because it’ll be a free pass to burn burn burn.
Nuclear plants wouldn’t take so long to build if people stopped trying to sue and protest their construction and sabotage it with all the red tape. If permits were approved and certified tomorrow a new plant could be operational in 10 years. 5 if it was actually funded and supported. Building the plant is easy, its cuttinf through the red tape encouraged by the oil lobby that is takes decades
Hey, those are the safety standards!