don't have energy for this
July 2, 2024 6:06 AM Subscribe
Amazon Web Services is reportedly making a deal for electricity from a nuclear power plant [quartz]
[wsj: exclusive! yesterday] [fortune] [wapo, 1 wk ago] [npr, 2 wks ago] [forbes, 3 wks ago] previously [bulletin of atomic scientists: ”Arguably the most problematic aspect of Oklo’s microreactor concept is the proliferation implications of its fuel cycle. Simply put, Oklo’s concept could increase the availability of fissile materials needed for nuclear weapons"]
[wsj: exclusive! yesterday] [fortune] [wapo, 1 wk ago] [npr, 2 wks ago] [forbes, 3 wks ago] previously [bulletin of atomic scientists: ”Arguably the most problematic aspect of Oklo’s microreactor concept is the proliferation implications of its fuel cycle. Simply put, Oklo’s concept could increase the availability of fissile materials needed for nuclear weapons"]
Minor quibble- the datacenters still need a lot of cooling, so they’re still going to be diverting water sources locally, above whatever water consumption is being done for cooling at the nuclear plant.
posted by notoriety public at 6:32 AM on July 2 [3 favorites]
posted by notoriety public at 6:32 AM on July 2 [3 favorites]
"Yes, we'll need to protect the raw materials and effluence from seizure by bad actors, but that isn't an unsolvable problem"
Yet so far it seems to have remained unsolved. Nukes are only as safe as those who run them; any instability in the society in which they are housed, or any lack of commitment to procedures, policy, or basic safety can result in Chernobyl. Given what I have seen out of society in general, especially of late, I do not think we have the common sense or maturity to handle that kind of responsibility. We have not even figured out what to do with the waste we have now in a safe manner, let alone the monstrous quantities that would be generated by a great number of nuke plants.
I live about 40 miles from the Columbia River, in a place littered with data centers, run by people who have never given Amazon anything but the answer "yes" in response to anything it ever wanted. If these folks get the idea that nukes are the way to go there won't be a salmon left, because they will line the upper Columbia with nuke plants for their precious AI and the river will be so hot it will not support life.
But we will be able to watch videos of what the fish used to look like, streaming on demand
posted by cybrcamper at 6:34 AM on July 2 [16 favorites]
Yet so far it seems to have remained unsolved. Nukes are only as safe as those who run them; any instability in the society in which they are housed, or any lack of commitment to procedures, policy, or basic safety can result in Chernobyl. Given what I have seen out of society in general, especially of late, I do not think we have the common sense or maturity to handle that kind of responsibility. We have not even figured out what to do with the waste we have now in a safe manner, let alone the monstrous quantities that would be generated by a great number of nuke plants.
I live about 40 miles from the Columbia River, in a place littered with data centers, run by people who have never given Amazon anything but the answer "yes" in response to anything it ever wanted. If these folks get the idea that nukes are the way to go there won't be a salmon left, because they will line the upper Columbia with nuke plants for their precious AI and the river will be so hot it will not support life.
But we will be able to watch videos of what the fish used to look like, streaming on demand
posted by cybrcamper at 6:34 AM on July 2 [16 favorites]
Good! We need more electricity. Nuclear power produces energy without CO2 emissions. Datacenter deals that result in building new nuclear power production is a good thing. Keeping giant consumers off-grid is probably a good thing too, the US grid has some serious capacity problems. Mostly you want the grid for balancing demand but a constant-supply source like a nuclear reactor is a good match to a constant-demand predictable load like a data center.
Note these links are about several different nuclear power companies. The WSJ article (paywall bypass) is about the large nuclear operator Constellation Energy repurposing an existing reactor for Amazon. That's not so exciting since it's not adding new capacity but maybe it creates more long term demand for nuclear investment. The NPR article is about TerraPower, Bezos' nuclear reactor startup. The "previously" is about Oklo, another reactor startup.
Datacenters have also been investing in hydroelectric and solar production for over 20 years now. Google's datacenters in The Dalles to use local hydropower were an early high profile example. And similar to cybercampr's concern, there is controversy over whether the water use hurts the Columbia. Also for cooling, although in this case it's to cool the datacenter itself and not the power source.
posted by Nelson at 6:47 AM on July 2 [2 favorites]
Note these links are about several different nuclear power companies. The WSJ article (paywall bypass) is about the large nuclear operator Constellation Energy repurposing an existing reactor for Amazon. That's not so exciting since it's not adding new capacity but maybe it creates more long term demand for nuclear investment. The NPR article is about TerraPower, Bezos' nuclear reactor startup. The "previously" is about Oklo, another reactor startup.
Datacenters have also been investing in hydroelectric and solar production for over 20 years now. Google's datacenters in The Dalles to use local hydropower were an early high profile example. And similar to cybercampr's concern, there is controversy over whether the water use hurts the Columbia. Also for cooling, although in this case it's to cool the datacenter itself and not the power source.
posted by Nelson at 6:47 AM on July 2 [2 favorites]
I also think this makes a lot of sense. Nuclear power plants have a consistent ability to generate, datacenters have a consistent ability to consume. It'd be better yet if they were physically adjacent to each other so we could avoid transmission costs.
I imagine there is probably a reason why this is a terrible idea, but I've been thinking that naval sized reactors paired with datacenters might make sense. We could even have the navy run them as a service, possibly. It's a pipe dream, but it'd be better than the giant pile of coal a few miles down from me getting burned to the same effect.
posted by Kikujiro's Summer at 6:55 AM on July 2 [6 favorites]
I imagine there is probably a reason why this is a terrible idea, but I've been thinking that naval sized reactors paired with datacenters might make sense. We could even have the navy run them as a service, possibly. It's a pipe dream, but it'd be better than the giant pile of coal a few miles down from me getting burned to the same effect.
posted by Kikujiro's Summer at 6:55 AM on July 2 [6 favorites]
It's a terrible idea because the fuel and waste is ultra-toxic ultra-hazardous war materiel, the operation of a nuke plant is extremely fraught perched as it is on the knife edge of disaster, and the billions spent in building or rehabbing "acceptably safe" reactors could better be spent on literal square miles of solar panels and football arenas full of sodium batteries that have essentially zero hazard.
posted by seanmpuckett at 6:58 AM on July 2 [9 favorites]
posted by seanmpuckett at 6:58 AM on July 2 [9 favorites]
There is no doubt that nuclear power is scary, mostly due to its association with nuclear arms as well as incidents like Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima. But the fact is that there have been only three INES level 5 or above incidents (out of 20 total incidents, 10 of which were in the US) in the last 45 years, with a grand total of ~50 deaths (excluding Chernobyl, which is Meltdowns Georg, and padding the Fukushima numbers to include stress-related deaths among the elderly) across all incidents regardless of level. We have 94 reactors in the US alone! There have been zero incidents of rogue actors stealing fissile material and creating dirty bombs which detonated anywhere. Things have been humming along smoothly. Nuclear power is, by and large, extremely safe. Solar and wind power are also awesome but can't even begin to compare to the power density of a nuclear reactor.
Of course, this is just data, and data doesn't convince people.
posted by grumpybear69 at 7:13 AM on July 2 [5 favorites]
Of course, this is just data, and data doesn't convince people.
posted by grumpybear69 at 7:13 AM on July 2 [5 favorites]
the operation of a nuke plant is extremely fraught
That’s interesting. There are currently 91 active nuclear reactors providing power in the U.S., and the first commercial power generation from one started in 1957.
In that time there has been one accident that rose to the level of having any effect on the public.
Explain to me how running a reactor is “fraught”?
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 7:20 AM on July 2 [2 favorites]
That’s interesting. There are currently 91 active nuclear reactors providing power in the U.S., and the first commercial power generation from one started in 1957.
In that time there has been one accident that rose to the level of having any effect on the public.
Explain to me how running a reactor is “fraught”?
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 7:20 AM on July 2 [2 favorites]
Fraught compared to solar power. C'mon, people. You don't need to argue on the side of nuclear or carbon-based power any more. There's no earthly reason. It's not even economically viable compared to solar. It's like that meme where the scientists are saying "we could have clean air and water and fewer health hazards and it would cost less too" and the politicians and oligarchs are saying "naaahhhh."
posted by seanmpuckett at 7:32 AM on July 2 [6 favorites]
posted by seanmpuckett at 7:32 AM on July 2 [6 favorites]
Explain to me how running a reactor is “fraught”?
Does it really need to be spelled out? The waste. I can't help notice a consistent theme here from the generally sharp folks who are excited at this prospect: none of them even *mention* the deeply difficult problem of where to store nuclear waste.
It seems intellectually dishonest to me to consistently fail to address the single biggest still-unsolved problem with nuclear power plants in your "Good! We need this!" discussion of their benefits. What's your plan? Yucca Mountain? Temporary on-site storage that you let slide into permanent on-site storage? What?
And to be clear, I do see a place for some limited nuclear power in our move away from fossil fuels. Completely ignoring the issue of where to put all of the radioactive waste it generates won't help us get there.
posted by mediareport at 7:34 AM on July 2 [6 favorites]
Does it really need to be spelled out? The waste. I can't help notice a consistent theme here from the generally sharp folks who are excited at this prospect: none of them even *mention* the deeply difficult problem of where to store nuclear waste.
It seems intellectually dishonest to me to consistently fail to address the single biggest still-unsolved problem with nuclear power plants in your "Good! We need this!" discussion of their benefits. What's your plan? Yucca Mountain? Temporary on-site storage that you let slide into permanent on-site storage? What?
And to be clear, I do see a place for some limited nuclear power in our move away from fossil fuels. Completely ignoring the issue of where to put all of the radioactive waste it generates won't help us get there.
posted by mediareport at 7:34 AM on July 2 [6 favorites]
Does it really need to be spelled out? The waste. I can't help notice a consistent theme here from the generally sharp folks who are excited at this prospect: none of them even *mention* the deeply difficult problem of where to store nuclear waste
There’s no question that it is a problem. On the other hand, it has been a problem since 1957 and there have been zero incidents involving danger to the public.
Once again, not so much “fraught” as a serious problem requiring ongoing investigation.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 7:41 AM on July 2 [3 favorites]
There’s no question that it is a problem. On the other hand, it has been a problem since 1957 and there have been zero incidents involving danger to the public.
Once again, not so much “fraught” as a serious problem requiring ongoing investigation.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 7:41 AM on July 2 [3 favorites]
So you're saying that kicking the can of nuclear waste down the road for "ongoing investigation" since 1957 isn't fraught? The intellectual whiplash here is so disgusting I'm stepping out.
posted by seanmpuckett at 7:43 AM on July 2 [4 favorites]
posted by seanmpuckett at 7:43 AM on July 2 [4 favorites]
it has been a problem since 1957
So what's your take on our best options for handling all of the radioactive waste a renewed push for nuclear power will generate? I'm not asking for you to have the solution, just wondering where you think we are with the various available options. Surely a supporter of nuclear power will have thought a lot about that?
posted by mediareport at 7:43 AM on July 2 [1 favorite]
So what's your take on our best options for handling all of the radioactive waste a renewed push for nuclear power will generate? I'm not asking for you to have the solution, just wondering where you think we are with the various available options. Surely a supporter of nuclear power will have thought a lot about that?
posted by mediareport at 7:43 AM on July 2 [1 favorite]
This is green wash bullshit so Amazon can claim to be low carbon. The remaining US nuclear fleet runs as baseline power. It runs all the time and would lower the price it offers if necessary to avoid shutting down. So all this low carbon power is used whenever available. Selling it to a particular buyer will just mean others are using an average of higher carbon per kWh used. No net effect on carbon but Amazon get some headlines and, I would guess, some risk management against future price volatility.
posted by biffa at 7:44 AM on July 2 [5 favorites]
posted by biffa at 7:44 AM on July 2 [5 favorites]
Selling it to a particular buyer will just mean others are using an average of higher carbon per kWh used. No net effect on carbonWouldn't adding low / no carbon power to the grid lower the percentage of all power that's high carbon, regardless of where it's used?
posted by condour75 at 7:51 AM on July 2 [1 favorite]
Diversity. Diversify. We need to be as green as possible but there are edge cases. Every form of power has a place, some a very small place. I've suggested that coal as an extreme backup has a place due to perfect storage. Jets will always need high density fuel. There are very safe small nuclear systems in use in locations that have no sunlight ever (under oceans) and nuclear will be needed past Mars.
posted by sammyo at 7:55 AM on July 2
posted by sammyo at 7:55 AM on July 2
there have been zero incidents involving danger to the public.
That's a joke, right?
Records reveal 75 years of government downplaying, ignoring risks of St. Louis radioactive waste
You don't have to look particularly hard to find journalism about harms from nuclear waste, and the official cover-ups of those harms and/or minimizing that has been going on for decades.
Have you spent much time reading about nuclear waste as a problem? Honestly curious.
posted by mediareport at 7:56 AM on July 2 [2 favorites]
That's a joke, right?
Records reveal 75 years of government downplaying, ignoring risks of St. Louis radioactive waste
You don't have to look particularly hard to find journalism about harms from nuclear waste, and the official cover-ups of those harms and/or minimizing that has been going on for decades.
Have you spent much time reading about nuclear waste as a problem? Honestly curious.
posted by mediareport at 7:56 AM on July 2 [2 favorites]
Condour75: Adding would, the main article here is about existing nuclear selling to AWS.
posted by biffa at 7:57 AM on July 2 [2 favorites]
posted by biffa at 7:57 AM on July 2 [2 favorites]
Given the longevity of nuclear waste, saying that it’s been mostly safe since 1957 is a little like saying that, since you got to the bottom of your stairs without breaking your neck, your miles-long race will be perfectly safe.
And I’m not even anti-nuclear power.
I’ve read some stuff over the last few years that suggest energy production and use generates waste heat, which is still a problem, even if CO2 emissions get dealt with. Assuming we can’t get off the planet (which, argument for a different thread), we still will have to moderate our energy consumption, and that flies in the face of all the big money-making schemes lately. The solution to all the problems seems to be “more power,” but when does “more power” become the problem?
posted by GenjiandProust at 8:33 AM on July 2 [2 favorites]
And I’m not even anti-nuclear power.
I’ve read some stuff over the last few years that suggest energy production and use generates waste heat, which is still a problem, even if CO2 emissions get dealt with. Assuming we can’t get off the planet (which, argument for a different thread), we still will have to moderate our energy consumption, and that flies in the face of all the big money-making schemes lately. The solution to all the problems seems to be “more power,” but when does “more power” become the problem?
posted by GenjiandProust at 8:33 AM on July 2 [2 favorites]
I have no doubt that in 100 years, presuming the world hasn't burned up, that we will look back at this phase of energy production and nuclear fear and think "how primitive we were."
posted by grumpybear69 at 8:50 AM on July 2
posted by grumpybear69 at 8:50 AM on July 2
Simple risk estimation is frequency times consequences of a failure. We can reduce the frequency with good engineering and practices and security, but in nuclear power, and with nuclear waste, failure consequence is very hard to limit.
Hey, did you see that, after a $7bn cleanup, plutonium levels at Rocky Flats have exceeded state safety limits last month? Hanford is still leaking waste. And Chernobyl continues to claim lives.
It's literally a "for the rest of human history" problem. Why would we volunteer for more of that?
posted by SunSnork at 8:50 AM on July 2 [1 favorite]
Hey, did you see that, after a $7bn cleanup, plutonium levels at Rocky Flats have exceeded state safety limits last month? Hanford is still leaking waste. And Chernobyl continues to claim lives.
It's literally a "for the rest of human history" problem. Why would we volunteer for more of that?
posted by SunSnork at 8:50 AM on July 2 [1 favorite]
I am a big fan of nuclear power, its one of the best ways to ensure that when the crops fail and the lights go out and that neither humans nor most other life gets a second bite at the apple. A few hundred thousand years of ore dumps and refineries and spent fuel leaking into the air should give microorganism the clean slate they deserve.
If we are to achieve our deathwish, its going to take more than climate chaos and microplastics and pfas, we need the unpredictable daughter isotopes of decay.
Its worth paying double or tripple price for that peace of mind.
posted by No Climate - No Food, No Food - No Future. at 8:59 AM on July 2
If we are to achieve our deathwish, its going to take more than climate chaos and microplastics and pfas, we need the unpredictable daughter isotopes of decay.
Its worth paying double or tripple price for that peace of mind.
posted by No Climate - No Food, No Food - No Future. at 8:59 AM on July 2
Somewhere, a dumbass copper thief is all: do the what now?
posted by JustSayNoDawg at 9:02 AM on July 2
posted by JustSayNoDawg at 9:02 AM on July 2
It is a good thing that very smart people with more objective views of how to solve our global energy problem than the general public are working on neutralizing nuclear waste so that it has a much shorter half-life.
The fact of the matter is that untold advances in the science of energy (and healthcare, and pretty much everything else) lie ahead of us which will make moot many of the concerns we have now. Thankfully it looks like "how to prevent spent nuclear fuel from contaminating the Earth forever" is already on track to be one of them. That will also, no doubt, pay dividends when it comes to interstellar habitation and travel, for those of us who think leaving Earth is the only or best option. Because interstellar travel will require an extremely stable, long-lived energy source, and space, well, it ain't that bright.
posted by grumpybear69 at 9:14 AM on July 2
The fact of the matter is that untold advances in the science of energy (and healthcare, and pretty much everything else) lie ahead of us which will make moot many of the concerns we have now. Thankfully it looks like "how to prevent spent nuclear fuel from contaminating the Earth forever" is already on track to be one of them. That will also, no doubt, pay dividends when it comes to interstellar habitation and travel, for those of us who think leaving Earth is the only or best option. Because interstellar travel will require an extremely stable, long-lived energy source, and space, well, it ain't that bright.
posted by grumpybear69 at 9:14 AM on July 2
The whole "nuclear power for AI datacenters" thing is an overblown distraction.
Datacenter power consumption in general has been rapidly growing but it's only a low single-digit percentage of energy use. Much of the projected growth would have happened in the absence of AI anyway and it's not a dramatic unexpected change to global energy use overall - the world is just doing a whole lot more with computers over time.
Meanwhile, renewables + storage are so cheap and nuclear so expensive that the idea that big tech companies are suddenly going to build a bunch of net new nuke plants from scratch is laughable - the lead time on new construction is very long. These articles are mostly about deals with existing or planned nuclear generation, other than Sam Altman continuing his crusade to find new and exciting grift opportunities by funding a small nuclear startup - and that's what is really driving this press cycle.
posted by allegedly at 9:14 AM on July 2 [1 favorite]
Datacenter power consumption in general has been rapidly growing but it's only a low single-digit percentage of energy use. Much of the projected growth would have happened in the absence of AI anyway and it's not a dramatic unexpected change to global energy use overall - the world is just doing a whole lot more with computers over time.
Meanwhile, renewables + storage are so cheap and nuclear so expensive that the idea that big tech companies are suddenly going to build a bunch of net new nuke plants from scratch is laughable - the lead time on new construction is very long. These articles are mostly about deals with existing or planned nuclear generation, other than Sam Altman continuing his crusade to find new and exciting grift opportunities by funding a small nuclear startup - and that's what is really driving this press cycle.
posted by allegedly at 9:14 AM on July 2 [1 favorite]
Of course, this is just data
Here's some more data.
Levelised cost of electricity, 2023, US. Lazard's.
Solar - utility scale: $29-92/MWh
Wind - onshore: $27-73/MWh
Nuclear: $142-222/MWh
posted by biffa at 9:15 AM on July 2 [1 favorite]
Here's some more data.
Levelised cost of electricity, 2023, US. Lazard's.
Solar - utility scale: $29-92/MWh
Wind - onshore: $27-73/MWh
Nuclear: $142-222/MWh
posted by biffa at 9:15 AM on July 2 [1 favorite]
No one has mentioned that we don’t need AI. It’s just another way to claim economic “growth” and keep the markets going a few more years. It’s not going to solve us electing Trump or dealing with a shit ton of kids having social anxiety because they are on screens all day.
posted by caviar2d2 at 9:16 AM on July 2 [1 favorite]
posted by caviar2d2 at 9:16 AM on July 2 [1 favorite]
Contracting for nuclear power to make AI green is the latest hotness in Silicon Valley. I recently worked with a Google team exploring long term nuclear power purchases, futures, etc.
Watching “move fast and break things” run headlong into 20year lead times and utilities permitting was interesting
One major issue is that companies that construct civilian nuclear power have learned that it is lucrative to never actually finish construction.
posted by pdoege at 9:21 AM on July 2 [1 favorite]
Watching “move fast and break things” run headlong into 20year lead times and utilities permitting was interesting
One major issue is that companies that construct civilian nuclear power have learned that it is lucrative to never actually finish construction.
posted by pdoege at 9:21 AM on July 2 [1 favorite]
In other private energy news, Genshin Impact is trying to fund nuclear fusion.
posted by one for the books at 9:25 AM on July 2
posted by one for the books at 9:25 AM on July 2
The fact of the matter is that untold advances in the science of energy (and healthcare, and pretty much everything else) lie ahead of us which will make moot many of the concerns we have now.
Well we're pretty much at the stage that if an advance isn't 'told' by now then it's not going to be much use in limiting climate change up to 2050.
The more likely thing that will end up moot is the global ecology. Wishing for (or depending on) some amazing techno-solution ignores the realities of what it takes to come up with solutions, test them to work out what works (and what doesn't), and then implement the good options at scale.
posted by biffa at 9:26 AM on July 2
Well we're pretty much at the stage that if an advance isn't 'told' by now then it's not going to be much use in limiting climate change up to 2050.
The more likely thing that will end up moot is the global ecology. Wishing for (or depending on) some amazing techno-solution ignores the realities of what it takes to come up with solutions, test them to work out what works (and what doesn't), and then implement the good options at scale.
posted by biffa at 9:26 AM on July 2
Nuclear waste has a radiotoxic lifetime of approximately 5,000 years, so after 67 years we are just 1.3% of the way along in the "finding out" part of this adventure.
posted by Lanark at 9:32 AM on July 2 [1 favorite]
posted by Lanark at 9:32 AM on July 2 [1 favorite]
I’ve read some stuff over the last few years that suggest energy production and use generates waste heat, which is still a problem, even if CO2 emissions get dealt with
This is a fascinating problem for imagining the constraints on far future civilizations but the most credible* assessment I have seen is that waste heat accounts for no more than 1% of global warming so far. If we managed to get CO2 all the way back down (currently on track for....never) and the world's population stays high (despite declining birth rates) and per capita energy consumption keeps growing (okay this one is likely) and we don't get off the planet, distant future humans will need a tiny little bit of geoengineering to kick that can down the road.
* Note that there are climate change deniers who argue that CO2 and other greenhouse gases are not actually doing anything and it's all waste heat.
posted by allegedly at 9:33 AM on July 2 [2 favorites]
This is a fascinating problem for imagining the constraints on far future civilizations but the most credible* assessment I have seen is that waste heat accounts for no more than 1% of global warming so far. If we managed to get CO2 all the way back down (currently on track for....never) and the world's population stays high (despite declining birth rates) and per capita energy consumption keeps growing (okay this one is likely) and we don't get off the planet, distant future humans will need a tiny little bit of geoengineering to kick that can down the road.
* Note that there are climate change deniers who argue that CO2 and other greenhouse gases are not actually doing anything and it's all waste heat.
posted by allegedly at 9:33 AM on July 2 [2 favorites]
I feel bad for people that have spent half their lives doing micro-optimizations for compilers to save tiny bits of energy here and there, and now "haha fuck you guys we're just multiplying huge matrices now"
posted by credulous at 9:40 AM on July 2
posted by credulous at 9:40 AM on July 2
The truth is that we don't have a "solution" for any of our trash. If you cannot compost it, it is an unsolved problem. Municipal waste will remain dangerous for thousands of years and is dumped in liners that will last decades. Greenhouse gas emissions are an existential threat to our planet. Who knows how long microplastics are going to stick around? At least with spent nuclear fuel, we have a smaller amount of stuff we can make into a glass brick and hopefully keep an eye on so it doesn't get into anything.
Nuclear power is a tradeoff - trading larger quantities of less dangerous waste for much smaller quantities of highly dangerous waste. Fission produces frightening amounts of energy. The danger of it is all very concentrated, and that makes it scary. But that also means it's replacing a lot of more conventional waste in terms of carbon emissions or the vast amounts of mining and industrial production it takes to make solar panels and wind turbines.
In terms of replacing fossil fuels, it's probably a no brainer. This American Chemical Society article puts the total total amount of high level radioactive waste (which is what spent nuclear fuel is) at 90,000 metric tons. Now, that may seem like a lot, but that's about the same mass as the lifetime CO2 emissions of only a couple thousand cars. Compared to all spent nuclear fuel waste the US has produced ever. How many internal combustion engine cars have we made in that time? Sure the nuclear fuel is more dangerous, pound for pound, but there is so much less of it and it's not just being thrown into the atmosphere.
Whether it's a good tradeoff for renewables, honestly I'd side with people here that renewables are probably better for most places where wind and sun are abundant enough. But it's not really dangerous and dirty vs. clean and pure. All industrial problems are going to leave you with waste to deal with. And some fraction of that, heavy metal contamination especially, is just never going away.
Also, a large part of the US's nuclear waste that is actually causing problems, is less the result of civilian nuclear power and more the nuclear weapon program in the middle of the last century and the military being unaccountable and just tossing who knows what into big barrels of sludge that are way, way harder to deal with than a planned industrial process involving radioactive materials.
posted by Zalzidrax at 9:41 AM on July 2 [1 favorite]
Nuclear power is a tradeoff - trading larger quantities of less dangerous waste for much smaller quantities of highly dangerous waste. Fission produces frightening amounts of energy. The danger of it is all very concentrated, and that makes it scary. But that also means it's replacing a lot of more conventional waste in terms of carbon emissions or the vast amounts of mining and industrial production it takes to make solar panels and wind turbines.
In terms of replacing fossil fuels, it's probably a no brainer. This American Chemical Society article puts the total total amount of high level radioactive waste (which is what spent nuclear fuel is) at 90,000 metric tons. Now, that may seem like a lot, but that's about the same mass as the lifetime CO2 emissions of only a couple thousand cars. Compared to all spent nuclear fuel waste the US has produced ever. How many internal combustion engine cars have we made in that time? Sure the nuclear fuel is more dangerous, pound for pound, but there is so much less of it and it's not just being thrown into the atmosphere.
Whether it's a good tradeoff for renewables, honestly I'd side with people here that renewables are probably better for most places where wind and sun are abundant enough. But it's not really dangerous and dirty vs. clean and pure. All industrial problems are going to leave you with waste to deal with. And some fraction of that, heavy metal contamination especially, is just never going away.
Also, a large part of the US's nuclear waste that is actually causing problems, is less the result of civilian nuclear power and more the nuclear weapon program in the middle of the last century and the military being unaccountable and just tossing who knows what into big barrels of sludge that are way, way harder to deal with than a planned industrial process involving radioactive materials.
posted by Zalzidrax at 9:41 AM on July 2 [1 favorite]
The problem with nuclear waste is that nobody wants to be the politician that allows nuclear waste to be stored in their state, so the can gets kicked down the road for another generation.
Instead, we get shitty "temporary" solutions in terrible places that weren't designed to store nuclesr waste long-term, damaging the environment and hurting people. And even worse, all these "temporary" solutions will have to be dug up and removed in the future once a permanent site is actually established. The worst ones being the shitty barrels the US government used back before it knew/cared how dangerous radiation was.
Nuclear waste is not a problem without a solution. Other countries had better luck designating a safe permanent waste storage facility that a community will accept. Finland, for example. We've literally spent billions trying to build our own. Yucca Mountain was finally killed by Harry Reid and Obama after $7 billion was spent studying the site and much controversy. Now we're back to square one.
But again, the lack of a permanent nuclear waste storage site in the US is political and cultural, not technical. The US has plenty of sites to choose from, but everyone wants the benefits of cheap fossil fuel-free energy but no one wants to bite the bullet when it comes to dealing with the waste. Until the federal government gets its shit together, we're stuck with ticking time bombs all over the nation.
posted by lock robster at 9:41 AM on July 2 [2 favorites]
Instead, we get shitty "temporary" solutions in terrible places that weren't designed to store nuclesr waste long-term, damaging the environment and hurting people. And even worse, all these "temporary" solutions will have to be dug up and removed in the future once a permanent site is actually established. The worst ones being the shitty barrels the US government used back before it knew/cared how dangerous radiation was.
Nuclear waste is not a problem without a solution. Other countries had better luck designating a safe permanent waste storage facility that a community will accept. Finland, for example. We've literally spent billions trying to build our own. Yucca Mountain was finally killed by Harry Reid and Obama after $7 billion was spent studying the site and much controversy. Now we're back to square one.
But again, the lack of a permanent nuclear waste storage site in the US is political and cultural, not technical. The US has plenty of sites to choose from, but everyone wants the benefits of cheap fossil fuel-free energy but no one wants to bite the bullet when it comes to dealing with the waste. Until the federal government gets its shit together, we're stuck with ticking time bombs all over the nation.
posted by lock robster at 9:41 AM on July 2 [2 favorites]
Let’s store the nuclear waste on the moon. What could happen?
posted by wittgenstein at 9:45 AM on July 2
posted by wittgenstein at 9:45 AM on July 2
I've also seen estimates in the 1-2% range for waste heat compared to heat trapped by CO2.
Its also worth mentioning not all energy use puts out the same waste heat. Burning a ton of coal in a power station will typically put 60% of the energy up the chimney. Gas about 40% of the heat up the chimney. So to get 1 TWH of electricity from coal you produce 2.5 TWh of heat and convert 1TWh of it into electricity, then bung the other 1.5TWh into the air or the sea, or if you are sensible into a district heating network (but there are lots that don't). The stuff that does convert will mostly end up as heat too once used, after you get some work from it. If you generate 1 TWh from wind then you are effectively drawing on solar power, which builds up in the atmosphere and causes air mass to move as wind. So that solar energy naturally converts to kinetic, the kinetic drives the wind turbine and converts into electrical energy, and that is used in meeting whatever demand and ends up back in the atmosphere? So minimal addition of heat to the atmosphere.
The same point of comparison also explains why renewables show up badly in charts of total primary energy use. There is much less wasted energy conversion from wind and solar.
posted by biffa at 9:50 AM on July 2
Its also worth mentioning not all energy use puts out the same waste heat. Burning a ton of coal in a power station will typically put 60% of the energy up the chimney. Gas about 40% of the heat up the chimney. So to get 1 TWH of electricity from coal you produce 2.5 TWh of heat and convert 1TWh of it into electricity, then bung the other 1.5TWh into the air or the sea, or if you are sensible into a district heating network (but there are lots that don't). The stuff that does convert will mostly end up as heat too once used, after you get some work from it. If you generate 1 TWh from wind then you are effectively drawing on solar power, which builds up in the atmosphere and causes air mass to move as wind. So that solar energy naturally converts to kinetic, the kinetic drives the wind turbine and converts into electrical energy, and that is used in meeting whatever demand and ends up back in the atmosphere? So minimal addition of heat to the atmosphere.
The same point of comparison also explains why renewables show up badly in charts of total primary energy use. There is much less wasted energy conversion from wind and solar.
posted by biffa at 9:50 AM on July 2
North Korea managed to source lithium-6 deuteride just fine for their September 2017 test (you don’t get yields much in excess of 20kT without it), which means someone fucking handed them the fissile material we need to worry about and the list of feasible suspects for that looks like:
Russia,
Pakistan
Everyone else with capability - China very much included - has damned good strategic reasons not to.
Point being: proliferation in general is an empty barn and distant horse chasing the horizon. US energy policy will not alter it one iota in any direction when there are active bad faith participants. The problem here is legitimately somebody else’s behavior and we should not be holding back any plans over it.
Waste on the other hand is actually a much more serious concern than it was a week ago, back before a pack of dogfuckers calling themselves the Supreme Court’s conservative members declared themselves the final arbiters of all environmental policy. And back then I would’ve said who cares? Find the deepest mine in the middle of the most tectonically stable portion of the North American continental plate, throw it in there followed by at least a hundred meters worth of concrete. Even if that were reasonably near my backyard (and I have close family in a couple of the more likely areas) once you’re at a multiple of the deepest point in any local aquifer who gives a a shit?
Today, this week, is a different country. We are on the fast track to recapitulating Nazi Germany and until I see some strong indications that has ceased to be the case I am not a fan of any buildouts that presuppose responsible or even just not-fully-insane / deliberately-harmful environmental policy. Bad faith comes assumed for the time being and until that changes the US should not be trusted with the nuclear infrastructure and waste management we already have, nevermind tackling anything new.
posted by Ryvar at 10:04 AM on July 2
Russia,
Pakistan
Everyone else with capability - China very much included - has damned good strategic reasons not to.
Point being: proliferation in general is an empty barn and distant horse chasing the horizon. US energy policy will not alter it one iota in any direction when there are active bad faith participants. The problem here is legitimately somebody else’s behavior and we should not be holding back any plans over it.
Waste on the other hand is actually a much more serious concern than it was a week ago, back before a pack of dogfuckers calling themselves the Supreme Court’s conservative members declared themselves the final arbiters of all environmental policy. And back then I would’ve said who cares? Find the deepest mine in the middle of the most tectonically stable portion of the North American continental plate, throw it in there followed by at least a hundred meters worth of concrete. Even if that were reasonably near my backyard (and I have close family in a couple of the more likely areas) once you’re at a multiple of the deepest point in any local aquifer who gives a a shit?
Today, this week, is a different country. We are on the fast track to recapitulating Nazi Germany and until I see some strong indications that has ceased to be the case I am not a fan of any buildouts that presuppose responsible or even just not-fully-insane / deliberately-harmful environmental policy. Bad faith comes assumed for the time being and until that changes the US should not be trusted with the nuclear infrastructure and waste management we already have, nevermind tackling anything new.
posted by Ryvar at 10:04 AM on July 2
Let’s store the nuclear waste on the moon. What could happen?
We party like it’s Space: 1999?
posted by GenjiandProust at 10:12 AM on July 2
We party like it’s Space: 1999?
posted by GenjiandProust at 10:12 AM on July 2
« Older Mutual aid: Resources and examples | Flushed with nuisance and trespass Newer »
posted by grumpybear69 at 6:21 AM on July 2 [12 favorites]