kravietz 🦇 @kravietz@social.privacytools.io

@mithrandir @lain @cjd

> nuclear waste needs to be stored so long is that there is *a lot*

Quite the opposite. These containers on photo are the whole nuclear waste from Switzerland for the last ~50 years.

And whole UK's nuclear waste for the last 60 years is ~2200 m3 which is about the amount a coal plant outputs in a few days of operations.

So no, nuclear waste is absolutely tiny amounts.

@cjd @mithrandir @lain

Orano la Hague, France - they already recycle spent fuel into MOX fuel, I think Russia does that as well

https://scitech.video/videos/watch/53184e23-6490-4158-a616-68af6afc0925

And no, reactor waste is extremely tightly controlled by IAEA.

@epic @lain @cjd @mithrandir

But it's based on three fundamental misconceptions:

1) that only nuclear reactors produce radioactive waste

2) that it needs storing for 100'000 or 10'000 years

3) that radioactive waste is the *only* one that needs safe storage for a long time

@cjd @mithrandir @lain

Most importantly, we *already* deal with extremely toxic waste and store it in deep geologic repositories. And it's safe there, for millions of years.

Fun fact #1: chemical waste *never* loses toxicity, unlike nuclear that loses it pretty fast.

Fun fact #2: Anti-nuclear Germany has *two* of them, and they store arsenic, mercury and cyanide waste, which are for example byproduct from manufacturing modern insulation materials.

@cjd @mithrandir @lain

Not true. Reactor waste loses 93% of its activity in just 100 years, but even before that 96% of it can be recycled back into MOX fuel. Nobody except for France does that because uranium is just too cheap, and there's too little waste to even bother.

But even more importantly, nuclear waste is *not* only that from reactors - X-ray and industry also produce radioactive waste that needs to be stored.

@mithrandir @lain @cjd

They are required in small amounts but also mined in small amounts. The whole global output is like 150'000 tons. Per this paper for PV alone we would need to increase this by 3000%.

@lain @cjd @mithrandir

Because the cost that we are usually discussing is not actual cost ("how much I pay per kWh") but LCOE (levelized cost of energy), an indicator that models a cost from a very specific perspective - today investor's one, rather than from consumer or CO2 emissions. LCOE doesn't take into account that PV does *not* produce energy overnight, nor storage or smart grid. All the externalities are just left out here.

@mithrandir @lain @cjd

Not true. Rare earth metal mining is just as environmentally intensive as uranium. As a matter of fact, uranium and rare earth metals are sometimes mined together.

https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/rare-earth-mining-china-social-environmental-costs

But then, due to very low surface power density of PV and wind, you need whole lot of rare earth metals. Just scroll to the table...

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421518302726

@cjd @lain @mithrandir

We already had Jacobson discussed here 15 hours ago so I won't repeat myself:

https://social.privacytools.io/@kravietz/105915381645166080

@cjd @lain @mithrandir

I don't think anybody supports fossil fuels in this thread, so this argument is irrelevant.

The problem with PV is specifically what you described - it runs 10 years, and then you need a new one.

Per 1 W of energy mining requirements are much higher for PV than other sources.

Then you need a whole lot of them due to low surface power density.

Then you need even more due to low capacity factor.

And then you need storage.

@sapphire @lain @cjd @mithrandir @shmibs

In Germany, France, Norway etc you already got massive opposition to new wind farms which are novelty and fun when there's a few towers here or there, but suddenly become an annoyance when someone tries to put a hundred of them. And you need *a lot* because wind power has also very low surface power density - 1.84 W/m2, and a single tower requires at least 0.6 km2 empty around.

https://www.arctictoday.com/sami-mount-new-challenge-legality-norways-largest-wind-farm/

@sapphire @lain @cjd @mithrandir @shmibs

Living in Europe I don't see many neighbourhoods that would happily get flooded for another pumped storage plant even if promised free boat trips afterwards.

In some low population density countries like Sweden or Chile hydro certainly is a thing, but they've used whatever land was available already in 20th century.

@lain @cjd @mithrandir

Because PV is actually made mostly of mined resources, as this friendly ad from Australian Mining (!) demonstrates

@lain @cjd @mithrandir

Yes, now go and read about all the mined resources that we make them of:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421518302726

@sapphire @lain @cjd @mithrandir @shmibs

They are, but they have just one problem - they use *massive* amounts of land, require a very specific geology and nobody wants them anywhere close.

When I say "massive" I mean surface power density of 0.14 W/m2 of land used, as compared to 240 W/m2 for nuclear power for example.

So if a nuclear power plant occupies a hectare for some power output, you will need 1714 hectares for equivalent hydro plant.

@mithrandir @lain @cjd

One of the largest is in Morocco, and this is how this discussion started by the way - solar power makes a lot of sense, but it's not wonder technology:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouarzazate_Solar_Power_Station

Pay attention to 1) area, 2) nominal power output, 3) water usage.

@cjd @mithrandir

You may want to reevaluate your safety records:

https://www.electricityforum.com/news-archive/feb10/ExplosionatGermanbiomassplantkillsthree

https://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2017/dec/12/fireball-follows-explosion-at-gas-plant-in-austria-video

https://www.ourmidland.com/news/article/Midland-County-releases-flooding-update-15283917.php

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/mount-polley-mine-ex-engineers-warned-tailings-pond-getting-large-1.2732314

@newt @cjd @mithrandir

That was a hydro power plant in Banquiao by the way, considered green by today's standards :)

@mithrandir @cjd

No VVR reactor can "go Chernobyl" regardless of how hard you try.

@cjd @mithrandir

Interesting that the second graph you're referencing is not energy price - it's LCOE, or levelized cost of energy. It's an more of an estimation of profitability that very strongly depends on discount rate which is chosen more or less arbitrarily. Lazard for example chooses it at around 10% which basically means each year the energy from given facility is 10% worth less - which makes no sense for an power plant that can work for 50 years... but makes sense for investors.