You're underplaying the danger and overplaying the value. Who exactly is investing in this "green gold"? If it's so valuable why does no one actually want it, and why is the DoE stuck with half a trillion liability?
> If it's so valuable why does no one actually want it,
I mean France does... we actually gave them the tech. The reason we stopped is more political. But more people do this than just France, but they are the biggest example since 17% of their entire grid is powered from recycled nuclear. The other reason we don't do it is that it is just cheaper to buy more Uranium than setup reprocessing plants. France doesn't have as easy of a supply chain so it makes sense for them to recycle. Obviously the US's supply chain could change, so access to that waste is a potential benefit.
> The other reason we don't do it is that it is just cheaper to buy more Uranium than setup reprocessing plants
Is it cheaper to buy more Uranium and deal with the so-far-and-growing half-trillion dollar cleanup liability than to set up and operate reprocessing plants? Of course I wouldn't be surprised if that liability is considered "tomorrow's problem", so no one in power cares about it.
> I wouldn't be surprised if that liability is considered "tomorrow's problem", so no one in power cares about it.
I was talking to an environmental scientist that other day who was lamenting that the liability for solar panel waste was being treated as "tomorrow's problem", and no one in power cares about it.
If we factor in the tomorrow problem nuclear looks even better, because we have a chance of being able to deal with it. Nobody attempts to solve the decommissioning problems of most waste, there is too much of it so we just dump it in landfill and hope there isn't anything too nasty in it. There is no plan at all to deal with it beyond 100 years or so, and it doesn't get less toxic over time.
You should inform that environmental scientist that Veolia in France has a pilot facility that can recycle 95% of the materials recovered from retired solar panels. The other 5% can be used as feedstock for asphalt aggregate.
Keep in mind, panel longevity is upwards of 25-30 years, at which point they'll still be producing 80-90% of their rated output. Inverters (single or micro) can be recycled in traditional electronics recycling processes.
Solar does not have the special handling and proliferation issues that nuclear waste does. Disposing of or recycling broken solar panels is significantly less complicated than spent nuclear fuel and waste byproducts.
Recycling and disposal does need consideration for renewables, as well as nuclear. You cannot just say "Well no one is looking into it for solar, so nuclear should get a free pass too!", especially when nuclear waste is so much more hazardous. Also when considering the infrastructure costs associated with setting up proper reprocessing facilities, no it does not obviously come out ahead. It's incredibly expensive upfront.
> Solar does not have the special handling and proliferation issues that nuclear waste does.
That is also what I'd expect to see if people aren't taking the issues seriously, so it isn't really evidence of anything.
> You cannot just say "Well no one is looking into it for solar, so nuclear should get a free pass too!"
Sure I can. The evidence to me suggests that, for equivalent amounts of effort and adjusting for the energy produced, nuclear waste dumps will do far less damage than solar waste dumps after adjusting for the energy produced. The amounts of waste are tiny to the point where it is unclear to me why anyone cares. If proliferation is a problem, bury it 2km underground in a desert and don't tell anyone where it is. Good luck recovering that on the sly.
Are you suggesting I am not taking it seriously, while also saying "Sure I can" when it comes to ignoring nuclear waste storage issues? Waste amounts are "tiny", and "bury it in a hole somewhere", ignoring time and cost components. Hard to take you seriously.
> Are you suggesting I am not taking it seriously[?] .... [it is h]ard to take you seriously.
I was sorely tempted towards sarcasm by that combination.
But I'm suggesting exactly that, and that we should standardise to not taking the waste of either solar panels or nuclear particularly seriously, given they are both very minor problems that can be handled by the people involved.
Given how we've so far failed to deal with our nuclear waste in a reasonable way, after decades of opportunity to figure it out, I think it's a mistake to call that a "minor problem".
I don't know much about solar waste handling, though someone upthread suggests there's a French company that can recycle 95% of the components of retired solar panels with the remaining 5% going to other uses. Of course, no idea how much that process costs, but I'd bet it's nowhere near as hazardous to deal with as nuclear, and doesn't have any of the nuclear security requirements since I don't expect people can make nuclear bombs out of retired solar panels.
In France this 'success story' led to a state law (2015-992, from 2015, the "loi relative à la transition énergétique pour la croissance verte") stating that the part of nuke-produced electricity must fall to less than 50% in 2025, from 72% then, and that renewables must replace it.
In France nuke-power is backed by gas (which produced 10,3% of gridpower in 2017).
The sole reactor currently planned (Flamanville-3) is a complete disaster, more than 10 years behind schedule and 4x overbudget.
I'm unsure what you are suggesting here, so I want to be extra clear about the French policy and current state of affairs. As in stands, France has one of the lowest CO2 emissions per capita[0][1].
No one is saying that we should _only_ use nuclear. Not diversifying your energy portfolio is a terrible idea. France is trying to reduce its dependence upon nuclear (which is a good idea) and replace its fossil fuel infrastructure first. This is because renewables are becoming cheaper. The plan is to have a diversification of nuclear + renewables (which is what pro-nuclear advocates are fighting for). Nuclear serves as a baseload and backbone and is supported by renewables to fill the gap.
You will not find pro-nuclear supporters upset with France's decision to reduce their dependence on nuclear. In fact you will often find support. As battery technology gets better and cheaper and as price of renewables continue to fall you will also find that pro-nuclear advocates will cheer this on.
There is a big misconception that many believe people are arguing nuclear vs renewables or arguing that the grid should be _only_ nuclear. What we are arguing for is nuclear + renewables vs renewables + coal + oil + gas. The reason being that _today_ we have the technology to dramatically reduce our carbon emissions with _current_ technologies. We are looking at countries that already have successful models for emissions and saying "hey, we should do something similar to that, since it clearly works." It would be insane to not look at what models are already successful and try to say that the technologies they use are counter productive. The proof is sitting right there, all you have to do is look. We are arguing for models closer to Sweden (since we, the US, have lots of access to hydro) than were are for France's current system (though their goals would also be a good model to consider).
Not in France, the nuclear plants here can do some load following (to some extent).
>You will not find pro-nuclear supporters upset with France's decision to reduce their dependence on nuclear. In fact you will often find support.
I cannot agree here, there is a growing movement mainly lead by Jean-Marc Jancovici deploring the shutdown of safe and profitable nuclear power plant.
The main argument being when you already have a low carbon energy production, the money invested in the construction of new renewables power plant will better used in home insulation subsidies or subsidies for a heat pump.
> Not in France, the nuclear plants here can do some load following (to some extent).
They can in do but the economics makes more sense to run high for long periods. The nuclear output of France doesn't typically vary much throughout the day, but yes they do have the capacity to.
But yeah, all we are fighting for is that nuclear is __part__ of the solution (not __the__ solution. Big difference).
> all we are fighting for is that nuclear is __part__ of the solution (not __the__ solution. Big difference).
It seems to me that all this is about the balance between the relative importance of nuclear in the solution and its costs, along with the risks it induces.
Having nuclear as part of the solution implies mass-production of plants parts (building a few plants is much more expensive and projects are nearly always way behind schedule), risk and waste, decommission costs... If nuclear power could solve the challenge (that is to say let us live as we do now while reaching the GIEC's objectives) it could be justified, but it fails far from it.
Well it isn't like there is any other technology that can d it. The idea that renewables can do 100% is still theoretical. Likely, but theoretical. I'd rather not put all my eggs in one basket. Rather I'd look at Sweden and France which have some of the lowest CO2eq/capita (for energy). We should look to the future, but we should also follow what is already working. We can figure out how to burry a few dozen six packs worth of radioactive material after we solve the much larger problem. Besides, if you've been paying attention to this thread, that's a solved problem (just costly and needs will).
I would rather reduce the energy I consume than tolerate all burden induced by nuclear power (risk, waste for our descendants, overcentralization...).
I repeat: after 70+ years of nuclear power exploitation there is no active and sufficient long-term waste repository. This doesn't seem to be a trivial problem. It is "solved in this thread", but not IRL.
I'm not "suggesting" anything, I just let us remember that France plans to considerably reduce its nuclear power capacity. If my assertions aren't clear or if a proof is missing please feel free to ask.
FYI I'm French.
> France has one of the lowest CO2 emissions per capita
Apples and oranges...
France has wayyyy less factories than Germany, however it imports goods produced elsewhere. CO2 emitted in order to produce those goods is to be accounted for!
Real CO2 emission:
France: 6.92t/year/capita in 2017
Germany: 10.83t/year/capita in 2017
Moreover Germany is richer than France (=> more equipment => more CO2 emitted).
GDP per capita (PPP): 52.4k€/capita versus 47.6
At this point from your data 9.13/5.2 (1.75) ratio we are back to 9.74/6.92 (1.4)
Germany's climate is much colder (=> more heating => more CO2 emitted). Heaters in Germany are massively oil-based systems because there was an historic low taxation on heating oil. Sadly I can't find solid data.
Food for thought.
> Not diversifying your energy portfolio is a terrible idea.
Yes, indeed. However it doesn't imply that we must use each and every energy source, without any consideration for all its characteristics. Nuclear plants and their waste are dangerous, and contrary to a common belief they cannot solve the climate challenge while letting us avoid changing our habits.
> You will not find pro-nuclear supporters upset with France's decision to reduce their dependence on nuclear
That is to say in order to only 'decarbonate' the energy sector (there are other sectors to decarbonate!) thanks to nuclear power the US should deploy ~11 times more nuclear power capacity than it already has, and adapt or retrofit all energy-consuming equipment in order to have it use gridpower (or to embark some nano-reactor). This seems completely unrealistic, from many perspectives. Even a mix (nuclear + renewables) with 3 to 5 times more nuclear seems unrealistic.
'CO2-clean' energy production as a whole isn't possible.
Electricity production accounts for 27% of CO2 emissions, and 63% (of the electricity) is produced by fossil fuel, and 20% by nukeplants). Source: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis...
=> quickly reducing CO2 emission by 27% by producing all gridpower does not imply any adaption/retrofit of any existing stuff, however it implies a 5-fold increase of nuclear capacity or a balance with renewables (taking into account the baseload) and would not be a decisive progress as the GIEC invites us to "fall by about 45 percent from 2010 levels by 2030, reaching 'net zero' around 2050".
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Report_on_Global_Warmi...
Therefore, indeed, "the proof is sitting right there, all you have to do is look": in order to reduce emissions we have to consume wayyyyy less energy and stuff.
> What we are arguing for
IMHO the sole realistic option is "let's drastically reduce our energy & stuff needs", or even "degrowth". Even an "all-nuclear gripower" plan, which is completely out-of-reach, cannot fix the climate problem: gridpower offers only about 25% of the consumed energy in advanced countries, and beyond energy-production many human activities emit huge amounts of CO2 in ways we cannot modify, or at best cannot modify quickly (agriculture comes to mind, as in the US it produces ~10% of the emitted CO2, and feeding cows with gridpower may prove to be difficult).
> _today_ we have the technology
We don't know, _today_, how to make a fool-proof nuclear plant nor how to effectively dispose of its waste. We don't know how to solve the NIMBY challenge. Financing a nuclear plant becomes more and more difficult. Even building it is a major ordeal (see the EPR projects). And even if we fix all this there is no all-nuclear approach able to tackle the challenge (dividing CO2 emissions by 3).
I can change that to CO2eq/capita/kWhr and it is still true ([1] above shows that).
> Nuclear plants and their waste are dangerous,
I'm not trying to dismiss that. But you also shouldn't dismiss the impacts of other resources. There is no free lunch here. For example, heavy metal contaminants are stable and stay toxic forever. We likely have to deal with these contaminants similarly to nuclear (put them in giant sealed holes in the ground that won't ever have access to the groundwater).
> Some, in France, think that we should go full nuclear, and they fight for it.
I am happy to explicitly call them dumb (as opposed to my previous implicitness). They are clearly uninformed on the matter.
> Other think that we may have to chose a "100% renewables" option.
This relies on two things happening (one of, or a combination). 1) The grid is massively overbuilt, 2) battery storage massively improves. These things are possible. The argument for nuclear is, again, based on what we have right now and saying that we shouldn't bet too much on future technologies. It is too risky of a bet. This isn't a big problem for France because you are starting at a very good emission rate, but in other countries it is important because every day we continue to argue we use more coal and oil. Unlike France, we are a much larger nation that is much less population dense and that massively eats into our efficiency of our grid. As for France, I hope you can get to 100% renewable. Like I said in the previous comment, we will be cheering you on. France is what many of us envy. Where we wish we could have started from. Following that path 50 years ago the situation today would be much different. I hope we can get to 100% renewable. I do. I'm just not willing to put all my eggs in one basket.
> That is to say in order to only 'decarbonate' the energy sector (there are other sectors to decarbonate!) thanks to nuclear power the US should deploy ~11 times more nuclear power capacity than it already has
I'm really frustrated at how many times I've said "nuclear __+__ renewables" and you ignore the "+" and assume a "-". I'm sure there are those out there that believe it. I have implicitly and explicitly called them dumb. But if you believe that I am one of those people I would ask you to read my comments again or stop responding if you will not discuss in good faith. I have been extremely clear on the issue. The issue was the thesis of my previous comment.
> Electricity production accounts for 27% of CO2 emissions,
Even though this isn't where you were going with it, this is a topic I'm __majorly__ concerned about. In the public discourse we only discuss electricity and transportation. As per your source, that accounts for a little under 60% of the total problem. Worse, the US is only 15% of the problem (I remember a presidential candidate this year getting booed for saying that we need to do more because of this). 25% of this is land use and agriculture. Another 25% is electricity and heat. And 21% is industry. We can do a lot in many of these sectors, but we still need new technologies. Gates wrote a good article about the subject matter[0] (actually if you dig there are a few). I actually also heavily advocate for CC and sequestration, again because I don't want to bet too much on things going just perfect. And in fact we need negative emissions, not 0. If you listen to many of the climate scientists, you will hear this from them when they feel like they can speak freely. This is why they often talk gloom and doom, because what they can say without pissing a ton of people off is far from where we need to be.
> in order to reduce emissions we have to consume wayyyyy less energy and stuff.
The genie is out of the bottle. You can't put the toothpaste back in the tube. So maybe CC&S. Costly, but it can work.
Indeed, however the risk induced at run-time and by its waste seems higher with nuclear than with renewables.
>> Other think that we may have to chose a "100% renewables" option.
>This relies on two things happening (one of, or a combination). 1) The grid is massively overbuilt, 2) battery storage massively improves.
A third quest is local production (solar roof panels and the like).
A 4th quest is energy and matter savings (less production => less nefarious emissions).
Also let's not neglect that "renewables" is a mix (solar, wind, hydro...).
As for the 1) (grid) we also have many subpathes, continental-level interconnections and smartgrid being the most prominent, all useful for all "sources" (even nuclear) and all already actively explored.
> The argument for nuclear is, again, based on what we have right now
What we have now is ageing nuclear powerplants (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_reactors#Franc... , this is also true in the US ) needing huge maintenance-and-security-related retrofits, and running projects of plant-building which fail or run massively over-schedule and over-budget (see Flamanville and Olkiluoto). Fukushima bumped up the NIMBY effect. Massive and expensive R&D done for 10's of years delivered no quantum leap (breeders, for example, albeit benefiting for huge R&D budgets, are in the mud since the 1950's... but some nuclear advocates consider them today as a promising path!).
Financing a nuclear powerplant becomes more and more difficult because it is very capital intensive and only realistic along with the aforementioned mass-production challenge, and the fact that the cost of renewable energy production falls sharply.
In other words one nuclear powerplant costs way too much, we lost the capacity to build it on budget and schedule, there are less and less sites willing to host a plant... and we need to build many (10x the existing capacity, for an all-nuke gridpower, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_generation#Methods... , given that it is vastly insufficient when it comes to our climate-related goal ) in a short timeframe.
Moreover, after 70 years of nuclear plant activity, we don't have waste long-term repositories, hence we will offer dubtious gifts to our children, and their children, and so on...
Is it really a realistic path or a dead-end?
Are we willing to bet on this or (XOR) on deploying on the 3 major leads summarized above? Each egg in the nuclear basket isn't used for the main 4 quests, and therefore isn't IMHO wisely used.
In France the nuclear sector maintains approximately 220000 jobs, and this is a huge factor for politicians (in order to be elected you better avoid to condemn those jobs).
> In the public discourse we only discuss electricity and transportation
Sadly this is true and I'm also concerned. We do "still need new technologies", however "I'm just not willing to put all my eggs in one basket" nor do we "want to bet too much on things going just perfect", and giving the urgency (we indeed need to quickly reach a "negative emissions" status) I'm convinced that the quest 4 cannot be avoided: we need to reduce the amount of energy and stuff we "use". This is the only sure method readily available. Most politicians and citizen hate it because this is a dark promise.
> Germany spearheaded the decline in emissions in the European Union.
I'm not sure why this is relevant. France has constantly been one of the best in Europe and Germany has been one of the worst (revisiting my link[0]). I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here. That everyone can improve? Of course. That Germany cares more than France? Well probably. It is a much larger problem then them for France. France left their hose and all their faucets on over night. Germany busted a water main and their house is sinking. Makes sense that they are more concerned. Or maybe you're suggesting that German had a larger reduction in emissions? Congrats, they are almost at the peak of France's output. Either way, I don't get what you are suggesting here.
More importantly, why are you still thinking I'm anti-renewables? Have I not been clear on this matter? I'm also not convinced you're reading what I write anyways because we've addressed several of your concerns already and you're pushing claims on me that I don't hold and have already reiterated that I do not hold. I might as well quote the Jabberwocky.
The Germany/France ratio of emissions is relevant because the real difference of emissions if much lower than your graph shows (at worse 1.4 instead of 1.7), and I described (above) why: France has less industry (<=> emissions for stuff is done elsewhere), is less rich (less stuff) and its climate is less cold. It is pertinent because it shows that nuclear power isn't a major factor there. But we both already agree on this (nuclear cannot solve the climate challenge) because you wrote other CO2-emitting sectors "land use and agriculture, heat, industry".
I don't think you are anti-renewables, please quote any sentence of mine letting you believe it. I don't think that nuclear is part of a solution, that's my point here, and my arguments are in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24381421
Your sentence was "France has one of the lowest CO2 emissions per capita" (see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24371196 ), and in our context I understood that you presented it at a result mostly due to the use of nuclear power, however it absolutely isn't (nuclear power only offers a tiny fraction of this achievement, at the price of many new difficult problems).
> "Germany spearheaded the decline in emissions in the European Union."
Yes, but this is possible because Germany's emissions are amongst the highest in the EU to begin with.
Although Germany is making progress and can be commended for it's investment in renewables, more than 30% of it's electricity is still produced from coal (hard coal and worse, lignite), which results in one of the highest grid carbon intensities amongst it's European peers.
Building new nuclear is one thing (there are valid economic and environmental arguments against this), but Germany's decision to close existing nuclear plants, some with many years of life remaining, was a political and emotional one rather than rational and scientific.
Keeping existing nuclear plants operating would have allowed more time to develop and expand renewables, enabling coal plants to be closed earlier and reducing CO2 emissions faster.
> to close existing nuclear plants, some with many years of life remaining, was a political and emotional one rather than rational and scientific.
Seems debatable because it seems that, in Germany, most/many (?) citizens are not willing to see nuclear plants running nearby.
It may not be rational. I think it is. There are counter-arguments, and counter-counter-arguments, and so on... up to the point of the debate confining to ethics/metaphysics: do we have the right to create long-lived dangerous waste? Or even the simple "do those who accept have the right to expose those who don't, given that nobody can behave in order to escape the effects of a disaster?" All this leads to much more generic debates (politically dangerous), moreover no politician wants to remain in history as the one who maintained some nuclear plant which, afterwards, caused a disaster.
> Keeping existing nuclear plants operating would have
... induced risks. Even field experts warn us about it.
France's program is effectively government run, and heavily in debt. I cannot find indication that reprocessing is profitable in the short term, but obviously it has advantages in the long term by reducing waste. That said it does not eliminate the waste issue, nor is France buying up spent waste from neighbors to cash in, nor are they dumping it in the ocean or children's playgrounds (it is still extremely harmful).
I think it would take the deep pockets and standardization of a government-run program to truly see nuclear be done properly, but I doubt there is appetite for a similarly run program in the USA.
A nuclear waste reprocessing program should be 100% government run, or at least government controlled, because part of the process involves refining the plutonium that could then be used to make nuclear weapons. This is why most countries don't reprocess their spent fuel, it's considered a nuclear weapon proliferation risk to reprocess, and the downside of accumulating spent fuel waste is considered minor in comparison to the risk. Buying spent waste from neighbors would be unexpected, because (a) waste reprocessing is more than self-sufficient, and (b) there's not much in the way of transportation infrastructure because countries are extremely cautious not to lose track of spent reactor fuel due to proliferation concerns.
The reason for not dumping it in the ocean is exactly as stated above. It's extremely valuable, in large part because of the plutonium content, and it's senseless to throw away something so valuable that the nation may eventually have a need for.
They are stuck with the liability, because President Carter Banned reprocessing of Uranium in 1977, and nobody has changed it. If we reprocessed Uranium, we would end up with much less low level waste, and some very, very small amounts of more radioactive materials (that can be burned in some other types of reactors)
> President Carter Banned reprocessing of Uranium in 1977, and nobody has changed it
Are you sure? Wiki says:
"On 7 April 1977, President Jimmy Carter banned the reprocessing of commercial reactor spent nuclear fuel. The key issue driving this policy was the risk of nuclear weapons proliferation [...] President Reagan lifted the ban in 1981, but did not provide the substantial subsidy that would have been necessary to start up commercial reprocessing." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing#History
