Why isn’t nuclear considered green? In my country the invested cost and upkeep of wind and solar (they produce about 10-15% of demand last time I checked) has far outweighed that of nuclear power plants when they’ve been around much longer and growing up I was thought nuclear has a lot of issues with sourcing the materials and the horrible waste it produces but those are old reactors from like the 80s. None have been built since. There’s been advancements in waste management since and there’s also thorium reactors from what I gather are safer and the materials are much easier to source but were always dismissed. A lot of it goes over my head because my brain is empty and my expertise is mostly minecraft modpacks so I dunno… is it really just because it’s technically a fossil fuel?
If green means “renews within civilisations existence”, then it is not.
The arguments against nuclear are:
-
In case of a containment breach, you potentially have a “beyond human mind”-time frame issue on your hands
-
High-Tech (= super expensive to build, operate and dispose off)
-
Weaponizable (yes, anything nuclear, including Th-based reactors, can be made into weapons of sorts)
-
Mining process is more difficult than regular heavy-metal mining
-
Priority-Target in case of war or terrorism
Pro Nuclear:
-
The electricity/heat production process does not produce any emissions (except for waste heat)
-
constant (except for refueling, lack of cooling water) power generation
-
Small reactors can in theory be air-cooled (= deployed anywhere)
Keep in mind, these points have very different weights to them.
Also keep in mind most of the “the final nuclear solution magical doohickey” systems have not even reached large scale prototype stage.
The waste problem remains a difficult one. France is experimenting with Pu-based fuel rods, results are not public as far as I know. Germany has an underground medium-hot storage site with a water ingress issue. Finnland has an operational storage for highly radioactive waste in Granite.
My personal take:
The latest reactor in the west to go online has cost 30 billion USD.
At 1.1 GW, to cover the needs of my country, you would have to build 1500 billion (= 1.5 trillion) dollars worth of that type reactors here.
The fact the rivers and cost lines here can not support 50 reactors aside, every other electricity source is cheaper than that.
Until a colorful mixture of electricity sources is found to be satisfying (because there is no magical one-does-everything solution), how about some laws to reduce idiotic energy waste like slapping wireless and a screen into every paper clip?!
You must live on Mars with Elon. Earth is a lot different.
To better answer, I would distinguish two categories in energy: green and renewable.
Green energy is an energy that do not emit any GES to produce energy. So nuclear would be green along hydro, solar and wind.
While renewable energy is, as the the names implies, renewable, so there is no finite amount. In that case, nuclear is not renewable.
I think that people often equates renewable to green, hence why nuclear is often not consider green. And because of that misequation, some people thinks also bioenergy by burning wood pellets is green, which is completely ridiculous because it emits GES, the very thing we need to emit less. But often, I think people consider green as like true green, so an energy that is green AND renewable, which nuclear is not. So ya that would explain why nuclear is not consider as green.
I’m not against nuclear, but I always find it intriguing when people say we need to go all in into nuclear. We do need nuclear to put all the chances on our side to reduce as quickly as possible GES, so we must not close any nuclear plants (unless there is a serious safety issue), but to go in a nuclear building craze is not a great option.
The cost of a Kwh produced by nuclear is crazy expensive. Plus, as shown last summer, nuclear power energy generation is affected by climate change. They had to reduce the power of some plants in France because the river water they were using to cool down the plants was getting too warm with the scorching summer. Any new nuclear power plants should be built next to the ocean if we don’t want there power generation to be affected by climate change.
ok this is just the reason I spawned this off into it’s own thread. @cityle I have no idea where you’re getting your info, but you’re dead wrong. There are considerably more radioactive fuels available than uranium oxide that the 1980s LWRs use. And yes, I agree that at the scale they were most currently built in, it’s not cost efficient. That’s financially undeniable, there are start ups here in the USA currently experimenting with very small air cooled much more advanced reactors that are modular, and much cheaper. In so far as danger, our own nuclear industry is guilty of attempting to demonize nukes to get that sweet federal money for it in perpetuity.
Are we including molten salt reactors within nuclear? Because in theory molten salt can address these downsides
Fair enough, the fukushima meltdowns were caused by poor maintenance and adherence to schedules. In the worst case for a coal/natural gas or wind/solar, things catch on fire and no one has electricity
Molten salt can recycle waste products
There’s a thread for this if you all want another rabbit hole
you can recycle uranium oxide via mechanical and chemical means. We could recycle the fuel we use ALREADY. We don’t because “oooh nuclear waste SCARYYYWHOOO”
Ford did some tests in one of their vehicles to determine E85’s usefulness and tried to see if they could make it better than regular gasoline. I cant remember what vehicle they used, but they did modify the engine specifically for E85 in the test. Since E85 is basically much higher octane, Ford found they could significantly increase the compression ratio of the standard engine when used with E85. By doing this Ford actually got better MPG with the E85 fuel than the regular gasoline model of the vehicle as well as more horsepower.
Nuclear waste was solved decades ago, we just haven’t pursued it because of various reasons that are mostly political.
Nuclear is expensive compared to other forms of power plants, but that is mostly due to how few there actually are as well as how much regulations now surround them. If nuclear became more common then the price would drop.
Yeah it’s the same branding issue as radiation. People are afraid of radiation but don’t realize their phones and microwaves emit radiation
Precisely. Instead of living in fear of something, learn something. My dad worked in the industry for 40+ years, from his telling, it’s more difficult to keep the plants RUNNING than worrying about safety because a single sensor malfunction can SCRAM the plant.
The point I made in green vs renewable is even if there is several radioactive fuels available, they are still all finite resources, hence why we cannot consider nuclear as renewable, only as green as in it doesn’t emits GES.
And with new technologies surely nuclear is becoming cheaper, but I think it’s still somewhat more expensive than hydro, solar and wind.
Honestly what turns me off the most about the discussion of evs is the amount of blatant ignorant fanboyism. In most comment sections people will not acknowledge the benefits/drawbacks + use cases for both ev/ice.
It’s like the people who believe amd and nvidia would never screw the gpu consumer.
One of the massive turn offs I have about EVs is how automanufacturers want to use the paridigm shift to force anti consumer practices drm features, serialized parts, and etc. I am also aware of the aptera PLL has posted about it repeatedly.
I could see a EV being practical for a dense urban/suburban environment, but the range losses in winter especially in northern states and downtime charging for roadtrips. Honestly if we can pack the energy density of a current ev battery to the size of a car battery, it’d be much more convincing. Imagine a world where instead of charging our battery, we would stop at a recharge station and replace our battery.
The more practical solution is a hybrid such as a scotch yoke or a rotary engine that only comes on to recharge a battery
The other thing that kills ICE efficiency is weight and emissions standards.
Look at this old 98hp EH honda it gets 48 mpg city 55 mpg highway all with a manual. It gets away with it because it’s light, has no AC nor power steering
The issue with safety is that it’s a prisoner’s dilema. People feel safer with a heavier car, so when one person gets a heavier car, it’s less suddenly safe to have a ligher car. Everyone gets a heavier car in respnse and suddenly everyone’s cars are heavy with poor gas mileage.
well said SIR! Speaketh the truth.
regarding yard tools
I wish there was a single battery standard. It sucks that you have to buy into a ecosystem just be able to use your drill battery on your grass trimmer. The replacement batterys are expensive and lose their charge pretty quickly.
I was talking to my dad and he told me the electronic trimmer is lighter and cheaper than gas, but the limited charge makes it such he needs to split his mowing to 2 sessions instead of getting yard work done at once. I think once yard tools can hold a longer charge it’ll be easier for homeowners to switch
regarding roof solar
From my limited reseach it seems that there’s a optimal angle for max eletricity generation also since the panels cannot move, it’s only operating max efficiency. If there are only a limited set of resources, solar farms in deserts or uninhabited places seem to make the most sense. Though I do like the idea of converting a roof to some useful work rather than absorb heat, I think some materials science research needs to find a cheaper more practical solar panel
I learned about it from EEVBlog’s videos on the solar roads
I get about 20% worse fuel economy, but more power, and E85 is about 30% cheaper than regular gas. So it’s still cheaper to run E85 even with the worse fuel economy.
But there are also E85 tunes which might help fuel economy while keeping the power bonus. Then you’d really be saving a lot compared to regular gas. But I live in Commiefornia so I’m really weary about doing anything aftermarket like that.
Has it though?
Because like I said, Germanys solution from decades ago has a water ingress issue.
And like I said, no clue how well the French system works.
There may be some other process aside from Pu-extraction and throwing it in a hole that I have not heard off. Links to papers are appreciated (“trust me bro”-youtube videos are a bit iffy to me).
Ok, so let us discuss the downsides of the coming storm for a moment.
First, the cold, hard facts. BEVs are going to outcompete all other forms of car drivetrains, this is about as inevitable as the move from horse and carriage to the T-Ford, or the transition from single core chips to multi core chips. BEVs are simply a better technology overall. Of course it is not a perfect tech, all tech has downsides, but it is still better than all the other drivetrains when looking at the two metrics that matter (costs and convenience). Fuel cells and ICE are just too expensive to fuel and maintain, and when BEVs reach price parity and you can get an electric Toyota Corolla clone for the same price, why would any sane person choose the car that costs significantly more to fuel and maintain? BEVs can do it just as well if not better in everything that matters, with a few reasonable tradeoffs.
Now, can anyone drive one today, no, still need some infrastructure. At the countryside, infrastructure is solved since everyone has a driveway and can install a charger for a fraction extra of what the car costs. Apartment dwellers can’t do that though, so charging becomes limited to whatever parking space has a plug. This will be resolved as more and more people get EVs, but we are merely heading that way; we are not there yet.
ICE cars are on the way out. But they are not gone yet and will not be gone for another 15 years, at the very least. Owning and operating an ICE vehicle will become more and more expensive from this point out though. And they will be more inconvenient to own, by 2030 they will be a bit more inconvenient and cost a bit more compared to BEVs, and by 2035 they will be a lot more invonvenient. This is what will trigger people to switch.
What does this mean though? Well, for one thing, GM and Stellantis will go bankrupt by 2025 or so, right after the Japanese brands. Imagine a chip maker saying “Nah we are sticking to single core even though it’s cheaper to go multi core” - that is most of legacy auto today.
This is one of the darkest sides of the transition and will lead to millions of job losses. A lot of new ones created as well, of course, and by 2040 everyone will be better off - but that doesn’t change the fact that a lot of people will be unemployed in the rust belt the coming years, and there is nothing that can be done to prevent this. Worse, a large fraction of them will possess skills no longer relevant for the new age of manufacturing. Who will need expertise in combustion engines, transmissions and gearboxes when those are no longer required?
This does not mean GM and Stellantis will completely kick the bucket - GM in particular could be bailed out - but the ICE parts are about as done as Clinton. And it will be ugly for a while. I see GM and Stellantis falling as inevitable, but Ford might still make it by the skin of their teeth.
Europe does not fare any better of course. As ICE goes down, BEVs will go in more and more demand. EU is already at 40% BEV/PHEV and will hit something like 70% before 2024, and 80% BEV by 2026. German and French auto is largely screwed here, but some brands will be bought up, consolidated and salvaged.
As for China, they are right now doing a race to the bottom steel bath to kill off any weak competition, which is one of the reasons for Tesla lowering prices right now. Of course Tesla has the highest margins in the business, I think the model 3 cost something like $25k to make and they sell it for $35k. So Tesla can still lower their margins. The same cannot be said for other competitors like Nio and XPeng, both in dire straits and facing the very real threat of bankruptcy.
How long will this last, I think we will have the worst behind us in 2026-2027 sometime. But the next few years… Not pretty, and if you live in the Rust belt you should prepare for the coming storm. It is not the end of the world, just a butt ugly shitstorm that will blow over eventually. Brace yourselves.
Can this be avoided? No, the Chinese and Europeans will make sure of it.
Making a lot of assumptions and absolutes here
Sure, but econo and used cars are still cheaper atm. I don’t doubt that there will be new innovations but I think 8-10 years is a bit optimistic
Countryside? As in rural america where they are reliant on star link for a stable internet connection and will suffer from rolling blackouts?
You’ll still need a mechanic to replace your brakes, tires, and battery. Also assuming mechanics will still be able to perform repairs given the antirepair trend
The EU is not exactly like the US.
Side note, how does your future account for the dwindling supplies of lithium/cobalt as well as rare earth metals such as Neodymium?
Also are we assuming governments will ban ice and that energy generation will all be renewables?
yeah I live in the rural USA, and my main transportation, is an electric bicycle, which is in the shop at the moment, because I had to drive it in the rain, and it got wet, and shorted out. (an ICE vehicle doesn’t do that.) And I cannot drive to the grocery store on pedal assist 3 and back to my house, a distance of approximately 6 miles, due to hilly terrain, and my own fat ass. Once again, an ICE vehicle doesn’t do any of that. And third, it would cost me roughly $1000 dollars in batteries to get to the next town, where there is work. And then I’d have to charge all day, and swap out multiple batteries in order to have enough charge to get back to my house at the end of a work day. Oh and I forgot to mention at said grocery store my main concern is with weight, as I have to be careful not to overload the bike. Also, this doesn’t touch at all on safety, and that namely, it isn’t safe, not in the least, to ride on roads that are poorly maintained, and have to share the road with logging trucks, and 18 wheelers of all kinds, busses, idiots that drive giant trucks and cars that don’t know how to not go 90 mph in a 55 mile an hour backroad. Most of which have no shoulder, welcome to the USA. Electric might “be the future” in urbanized Germany, or wherever you live in Europe, but not everywhere has the density needed for EV infrastructure.