While tech bros will not shut up about how theoretical nuclear energy™ is the future, actual nuclear energy is so much worse than renewables it's almost comical.
this post was submitted on 26 Feb 2024
36 points (95.0% liked)
Europe
8484 readers
3 users here now
News/Interesting Stories/Beautiful Pictures from Europe 🇪🇺
(Current banner: Thunder mountain, Germany, 🇩🇪 ) Feel free to post submissions for banner pictures
Rules
(This list is obviously incomplete, but it will get expanded when necessary)
- Be nice to each other (e.g. No direct insults against each other);
- No racism, antisemitism, dehumanisation of minorities or glorification of National Socialism allowed;
- No posts linking to mis-information funded by foreign states or billionaires.
Also check out !yurop@lemm.ee
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
It's not that it's worse than renewables, it's different, and long term we do kind of need nuclear as part of the overall energy portfolio.
However right now we need to get off fossil fuels, and the fastest way to do that is to go hard on renewable technology available right now. We can build an excess of energy now - enough to account for when the sun isn't shining or the winding isn't blowing as much - and it will come on gradually over time rather than all at the end like with nuclear. Coupled with BESS (which is launching like a skyrocket right now) it will be possible to cut fossil fuel emissions quite quickly - but if we divert funds to the hole that is nuclear we will detract from our ability to install renewables.
I worked at Hinkley C, so I know what it's like there. People see working there as a long term career, rather than a contract job. They don't really want to push the job along as is normal in the industry, they just kind of sit back in general - but in the worst case the relish in the delays. They also had a fatality where a guy was crushed under a roller - supposedly they were all stood next to it with the engine running, and the driver turned and nudged the controls, althoug the official conclusion has yet to be released. I would have guessed they'd have a fatality from all the cranes lifting overhead everywhere, but they've got away with that so far.
Also, wave to Big Carl, the huge yellow crane in the photos. He's the biggest in the world (or was, might not be anymore).
It's much more expensive when considering lifetime costs, uranium will run out eventually, and because it can't react quickly to changing demand it meshes horribly with renewables. If we can build an excess of renewables and pair them with storage solutions, what do we need nuclear for?
what do we need nuclear for?
Renewables by and large are inverter driven, which is always chasing a desired output. When there are fluctuations on the network, they don't react quickly enough to the voltage and frequency changes, and this can lead to the system tripping out causing extensive issues (see: the UK blackout in 2019). There are ways of dealing with this, but they're far less ideal than simply having big spinning turbines with large mass and inertia - even if the voltage or frequency of the system changes, the turbine still spins.
There's also the simple fact that having diversity of supply covers all sorts of potential issues. When one type of generation is suffering for whatever reason, the other types can pick up the slack. And our demand in general is only going up, so we pretty much need as much of everything as we can get.
However, there are plenty of Future Energy Scenarios reports that basically say "we should avoid nuclear for the time being and focus on installing as much renewables as possible, to get to Net Zero as quickly as possible".
There are ways of dealing with this, but they’re far less ideal than simply having big spinning turbines with large mass and inertia - even if the voltage or frequency of the system changes, the turbine still spins.
Spending more than 40 billion pounds over one and a half decades to build two energy storage flywheels that also produces radioactive waste is probably the most absurd undertaking conceivable to man.
When one type of generation is suffering for whatever reason, the other types can pick up the slack.
But nuclear can't pick up the slack quickly enough, that's the problem.
Yes I was referring to rotating stabilisers, however they have their own risks. Different manufacturers have different solutions, but basically the concern is that if they fall off their bearings you could have a massive and fast spinning disk rolling across the countryside demolishing everything in its path. This isn't a concern on large cruise ships or aircraft carriers, where the technology was initially developed.
Also, you have more than one turbine per reactor.
But nuclear can’t pick up the slack quickly enough, that’s the problem.
Yes, that's exactly what I said. Why are you being argumentative?
How does the design of the reactor account for the delays and overruns?
From what I understand all the EHR reactors are behind schedule outside of a few running ones.
I know China and India build lots of Canadian reactors, although China has moved to use of their homegrown adaptation of the Westinghouse AP-1000. They have traditionally operated a lot of CANDU plants as well.
Do you think the EHR is an effective design compared to other international variants or is the problem pretty much just the attitude of the workers?
I don't know much of the details on the reactor design, but yeah EHR's like Hinkley Point C seem to be notorious for being late. I would say that's more of a problem with the design - or rather, that the design is new and complex - than issues with the work force.
The workers are generally very competent, don't get me wrong, but there is little incentive to get things done in a timely manner. Some of this is an intentional attitude towards safety, but on some level this becomes an excuse to stretch the job out and charge more.
The biggest problem with HPC is money. They basically robbed the piggy bank from reactor 2 to help push reactor 1 along, and now they need a ton more money. They did tighten their belts a bit in some regards, and various contracts were renegotiated and shuffled around, but the cost is still growing.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The owner of Hinkley Point C has blamed inflation, Covid and Brexit as it announced the nuclear power plant project could be delayed by a further four years, and cost £2.3bn more.
In 2007, the then EDF chief executive Vincent de Rivaz said that by Christmas in 2017, turkeys would be cooked using electricity generated from atomic power at Hinkley.
It is important to say that British consumers or taxpayers won’t pay a penny, with the increased costs met entirely by shareholders.”
In December it emerged EDF’s partner in the project, China General Nuclear, had halted funding for Hinkley.
The move came after the government took over CGN’s stake in Hinkley’s proposed sister site, Sizewell C in Suffolk, stripping the Chinese state-owned company of its role in the project.
The latest financial estimates are based on accounting in 2015 figures, meaning the total cost of the project could be far higher when inflation over the last decade is factored in.
The original article contains 623 words, the summary contains 160 words. Saved 74%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
I misread edf as idf and got very confused for a moment.
Also why are the french building it ?!
Pretty much the only ones left in Europe with some expertise and somewhat recent construction experience.
I think the UK funded some efforts to build small modular reactors based on their submarine experience, but that will take years before it will result in anything useful.