They really should do it. The most expensive part of the facility, the facility itself, is already constructed. Even if they need new reactor vessels, it'll be more affordable than building a whole new plant.

Unfortunately about half of the article is behind a hard paywall

J. Trittin: "It was clear to us that we couldn't just prevent nuclear power by protesting on the street. As a result, we in the governments in Lower Saxony and later in Hesse tried to make nuclear power plants unprofitable by increasing the safety requirements."

The lie:

Nuclear fuel is so dense and we need to move on to the next level of density in the energy ladder because being dense is great.

Just pick up a yellow rock and you get 80,620,000,000,000J like magic. Come be dense with me. Renewables aren't dense.

Background

-- There are some very high yield mines in Canada where you can find 20% ore. If you burnt the yellow rock in a breeder reactor it would do this.

-- The only active large scale breeder reactor is the BN-800. It is configured to destroy plutonium, not create it.

-- Most ore is not like this. Consider Inkai mine in Kazakhstan and Rossing in Namibia. They have Ore that is 0.04% and 0.03% concentrated.

-- In Rossing, to get 1kg of Uranium (0.7% U235), 3 tonnes of ore is dug up, crushed, washed in several tonnes of water, soaked in about 50kg of sulfuric acid and further processed. In Inkai they just pour 100kg of Sulfuric acid down a hole into the ground (don't worry about heavy metal leaching, guys).

-- Then 86-90% of that Uranium is discarded to bring the concentration of U235 up to 3.5%-5%. Then that is put into a nuclear reactor to get hot until that 3.5% of U235 is mostly gone. Some neutrons will hit some U238 on the way and turn it into Pu239 which produces a little extra energy.

-- Reprocessing doesn't create any new fissile material. It is purely to retrieve the left over traces of Pu and U235 which adds another 15%.

This produces 62GWd/MtU in a state of the art reactor. Don't worry about the weird units, it's about 5.3PJ/t or 5.3TJ/kg(already down to about 7% of the initial figure).

But this has to go through a steam engine so you only get 1.7TJ/kg.

But wait, you threw away 860g, so it's 230GJ/kg.

But wait, you had to dig up 3t of ore. This was your fuel, so it's 77MJ/kg.

A substantial increase in PWR production would require moving on to 0.01% ore which is about 23MJ/kg. Roughly on par with gas.

Come be dense and build a PWR. SMRs are even less efficient so we can do that too!

For reference:

Black coal is about 36MJ/kg or 12MJ/kg of electricity after burning.

A 400W bifacial solar panel weighs about 5 to 25kg, is almost entirely (high grade) sand and produces around 100GJ in its life. Depending on design it has 1-2kg of silicon in it (also sand, slightly higher grade). You can recycle it afterwards if you wish and make a slightly worse solar panel at a very small profit (and then again after that, making basically the same panel).

source

cross-posted from: https://feddit.de/post/261020

> >Cao et al. also correctly state that renewable sources of energy in Germany have been heavily subsidized. However, Germany has devoted subsidies to the nuclear industry that more than double those allotted to all renewables put together (3).** The United States has provided the nuclear industry with at least 10 times the subsidies devoted to renewables (4)**. Despite these investments, renewables costs are falling fairly quickly, whereas nuclear costs continue to rise (5–7). In India and China, despite late starts on development, electricity production from wind has overtaken nuclear (8). In restructured markets that allow consumers to choose from a variety of energy options, renewables have been shown to be cheaper than nuclear power (9).

>With the slow pace and high cost of power reactors undermining the stated climate policy rationale, it is clear that UK civil nuclear commitments are actually driven to a large extent by military nuclear interests that are almost entirely concealed in energy policy.

YT: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1TV1Y5f7Mg

>The main reasons? Both supply and demand. Less than half (30GW) of France’s 64GW of nuclear capacity was available, thanks to planned and unplanned outages, and extended repairs due to corrosion issues in their ageing plants.

1. The community now has a topic
2. The community now has rules totally not stolen from the other one I moderate
3. Though the discussion has currently been mostly about nuclear fission, please feel free to post about nuclear fusion as well. It is all nuclear power

I mentioned in the announcement post that I want to make a wiki. Still stands. Lemmy of course does not have a wiki function like Reddit, so I just gotta figure out how I will do it. Suggestions are welcome.

note: currently the electricity price in the UK has risen massively, which makes this project a little less absurd in cost, but I guess the high prices should be somewhat temporary, until the gas situation is figured out.

Still, renewables are still built at half this strike price.

https://lemmy.ml/post/178853

https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy

This is all very interesting. But the truth is, the world is building nuclear because it's cheap. Soon renewables will be cheaper, and states will abandon nuclear.

since there are no rules yet 🤷‍♀️