this post was submitted on 15 Oct 2024
199 points (95.0% liked)
Technology
59589 readers
2891 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
A nuclear fission power plant generates about as much CO2 as wind turbines if you have a look at it's whole lifecycle. That's because just operation doesn't generate CO2. But nonetheless that power plant is made from materials like lots of concrete. It needs to be built, decommissioned, etc. You need to mine the uranium ore, ... All of that generates quite some CO2. So it's far off from being carbon neutral. And we already have alternatives that are in the same ballpark as a nuclear power plant with that. Just that the fission also generates this additional nuclear waste that is a nightmare to deal with. And SMRs are less efficient than big nuclear power plants. So they'll be considerably less "clean" than for example regenerative energy. I'd say they're definitely not amongst the cleanest energy sources we have today. That'd be something like a hydroelectric power. However, it's way better than oil or natural gas or coal. At least if comparing CO2 emissions.
It definitely is amongst the cleanest energy sources we have today, especially when the choice for most is either oil, coal or nuclear, the choice is easy. Hydro, solar or wind are often not viable because of climate or location reasons. Not to mention that all of these need to be built using concrete, that is not unique to nuclear. Also important is that hydro electricity also dramatically alters the area, killing many animals and moving many species out of their home.
You don't need much concrete for wind, and only a single slab for the solar transformer.
The problem is the assumption that the datacenter must be running at 100% power 24/7
Btw, wind turbines aren't made of concrete, the towers are metal tubes. But the blades are problematic, since they're made from fiberglass. And solar panels aren't concrete either. While - if I drive past a nuclear power plant, those are really huge concrete structures. And the problematic things about hydro plants are the reservoirs. It's flooding a vast area to build a new reservoir and changing the flow in the river that destroys ecosystems. The plant itself isn't that bad. So ideally you build it into an existing flow of water or use tidal energy instead of building a new dam. And that concern wouldn't apply. I'm not an expert on north american geography, but I bet there are some opportunities left for power plants with a lesser impact on the ecosystem.
For over a century, the standard way we’ve been disposing of hazardous materials that can’t be easily recycled is to permanently bury it. We’re doing it with thousands of tonnes of hazardous materials daily.
A nuclear power plant only generates about 3 cubic meters of hazardous nuclear waste per year.
At the typical sizes we’re currently building them, you need 50-100 solar or wind farms to match the electricity output of a single nuclear reactor.
When we eventually dispose of the solar panels from those farms we literally end up with more toxic waste in heavy metals like cadmium than the nuclear power plant produced.
No solution is perfect.
But contrary to the propaganda, nuclear is one of our cleanest options.
The question is, why do we look at recycling solar panels, but compare that to nuclear and ignore that these have to be decomissioned and dismantled, too? And the whole process of mining uranium etc. While it may be true that the depleted uranium is low in volume, that's far from being the actual amount of waste in the end. You'd have to compare the entire lifecycle of the plant to the entire lifecycle of a solar panel. (And solar isn't the best option anyways.) Also who's paying for 40.000 years of storage of those 3 cubic meters? The power companies certainly aren't.
Until 1994, one standard way of disposing of radioactive waste was throwing it into the ocean. There are at least 90.000 containers that got dumped along the shores of the USA alone. (Source: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altlasten_in_den_Meeren#Atomm%C3%BCllverklappung )
I'd agree that "No solution is perfect" qualifies for the history of nuclear energy.
Yes that’s correct.
To be more clear, nuclear waste is only a small percentage of the hazardous waste we’ve been disposing of by permanently burying it.
Are we though?
About 400,000 tonnes of used fuel has been discharged from reactors worldwide, but only about one-third has been reprocessed.
Yes. Nuclear waste is tiny. That’s the point.
Nuclear isn’t the only hazardous waste we dispose of burying it.
We’re disposing of tonnes of hazardous waste daily. Only a tiny percentage of that is nuclear waste.
Yet for some reason everyone loses their mind about the comparatively tiny amount of hazardous waste from nuclear and no one cares about the significantly larger about of hazardous waste from the eventual disposal of solar panels and 100s of other sources of hazardous waste.
The half life of solar panels is insignificant.
The half life of high grade nuclear waste is significant.