Good luck transmitting it to where you need it, though...
The waste heat is also a significant limiting factor for nuclear, currently. In the US, we only have a limited amount of water heat sinks that we can use to dissipate waste heat, and there's limited heating allowed before we destroy those ecosystems. The figure that I heard recently was about ~500GW across the nation. After that, we will need to find other solutions, which bar often more expensive that using natural water. There's a nuclear plant in Arizona that uses water water from Phoenix, for example. But after that we will need some innovation in water heat management to overcome the natural limitations of thermal generators like nuclear, at least while on planet earth.
>Good luck transmitting it to where you need it, though...
True, but the scale of the problem we're dealing with makes it worthwhile to consider locating certain industries near nuclear plants to take advantage of low cost/free energy. Locating industries there means they can close elsewhere, freeing space and lowering consumption of electricity.
>The waste heat is also a significant limiting factor for nuclear,
It is, but the above also helps with that, consuming the waste heat to some degree as it simultaneously makes industry cheaper to operate.
Another possibility is to use the waste heat from a reactor to heat indoor farms/greenhouses. A vertical farm uses a fraction of the water an outdoor farm does, it produces food in a very small area of land relative to an outdoor farm, it produces high quality food that usually needs no pesticides to produce good yields.
One final advantage of vertical farms is that they free up land to allow it to be reforested or at least planted with non food crops that will absorb more CO2 from the atmosphere.
So many people's thinking about how to adapt our power generation to climate change is limited by the assumption that whatever we do must be a drop in replacement for what we have now. That's not the case, and in fact it's likely we'll have to change far more than just how we generate power to survive.
Any reason not to use ocean water? The Diablo Canyon reactor in California has tech that limits ocean water temperature increase to 20°F, to avoid harm to sea life.
You can also spend excess energy on desalination, which is helpful for water-starved places like CA.
And yes, this is CA's only nuclear reactor, which politicians are actively pushing to shut down without a replacement.
It's funny that you mention Diablo Canyon's ocean intake, but then say it's politicians pushing for shutdown.
Diablo Canyon is being shutdown, not by politicians, but by the utility PG&E. The wikipedia page for DC now stays that PG&E is shutting it down because they don't want to operate it half time when there are cheaper renewable resources, but in the past I think a bigger impact was that water cooling system. DC uses once through cooling currently, and would need to convert away from that in order to meet modern environmental regulations.
So though I suppose you could blame "politicians" for pushing for the closure, that omits some really important facts about why PG&E is closing, and it all comes down to costs and environmental regulations that affect all plants, not just nuclear.
Maybe it's funny but yes, I blame politicians. Who do you think defines rules for PG&E? Is the energy density of nuclear not high enough? We can't afford it? There too many CO2 emissions?
California produces ~40% of our electricity with fossil fuels, and if we switch to electric vehicles, demand will dramatically grow. Plus we need to replace the 9% of power that Diablo Canyon provides until 2024. The situation is dire for CA, a state that is supposedly a leader on climate action, and who is blessed with good weather and economy. Good luck deploying solar+storage in places that have winter and worse economic constraints.
Look at France if you really think politics is not the problem. The vast majority of their power is nuclear. Zero carbon emissions from those reactors. France is the largest exporter of electricity in the world.
Do you think France has some secret nuclear technology, or do they have different physical constraints? I don't think so. I do applaud French politicians for mobilizing against climate change.
> France has some secret nuclear technology, or do they have different physical constraints
France's new nuclear is exactly as outrageously expensive as the US's. Flamanville unit 3. Expected to be built in 4.5 years, €3.1B. Now at 14 years of construction, €19.1B, could be more.
We have a vastly different and better set of technology in 2020 than we did in 1970. The tech for pouring concrete and welding miles upon miles of rebar and precision piping have not improved. Solar and wind and storage are in the process of leapfrogging all power generation by steam turbines.
Without any subsidies at all, nuclear can not compete with solar + storage in costs.
If we want nuclear to survive on the grid, we need to figure out how essential is actually is, and then work out market structures or subsidies that will keep nuclear around.
It's too late for Diablo Canyon, the decision to close was made five years ago, and the only reason to extend its life now is for an emergency but if extra generation capacity on the grid. If DC's life is extended 10 years or so that way, it may provide a bridge to a new generation of SMRs, but I am extremely skeptical that SMRs will be any cheaper than other large thermal generators of electricity, and those cants compete on costs now.
No, he's right, nuclear is held back by red tape. The energy density of nuclear is so high it beats literally everything. Sans pointless laws or subsidies there is no reason to believe nuclear is less useful than renewables.
>The energy density of nuclear is so high it beats literally everything.
Exactly. Look at the tonnage that needs to be moved around for X GW generated for Y yr. Unless you make X and Y really, really small nuclear wins handily.
The cost of dicking around with uranium ore is not apreciably different in cost than the resource extraction needed for solar panels. The amount of concrete you need to pour for a nuclear power plant isn't that different than you need for windmill footings.
The difference is that any idiot can weld up the anchoring structure for your wind turbine or wire up your solar panels whereas everyone loses their shit if the f-ing employee kitchen sink in a nuclear facility isn't assembled by someone with a special certification and checked by two more.
Nuclear contamination potential is no different than any other industrial activity humans engage in with poisonous materials at that scale and when we spill it it has the nice side effect of being and going away over time. You can't say that about heavy metal laced mine tailings leeching into a watershed or the various chemicals humanity has cooked up over the years and then dumped in the ocean. People just get their panties in a knot over nuclear contamination because "omg invisible" or something like that.
>Pray tell, how long do you expect to live, and many centuries is your definition of "going away over time"?
Anything that's "death soon or guaranteed cancer later" levels of energetic won't be lasting centuries because physics.
Centuries is infinitely faster than the myriad of substances that don't go anywhere unless we pick them up and move them. Browse the EPA's national priority list for examples.
Nuclear is no more of a environmental contamination hazard than any other similar scale human activity involving nasty stuff.
>Anything that's "death soon or guaranteed cancer later" levels of energetic won't be lasting centuries because physics.
I don't know which "physics" you're referring to, but here are the half-lives of just the most common isotopes (out of OVER 100) released in Chernobyl.
iodine-131:
8.04 days
caesium-137:
30 years
strontium-90:
29.12 years
plutonium-241 (decays into Americium-241):
14.4 years
Americium-241:
430 years
Remember, these are HALF-LIFE numbers, meaning half the isotopes will still be radioactive after these time intervals.
Having shit magically go away by itself is such a massive plus.
Imagine how contaminated that part of the world would be if Chernobyl released equally dangerous (like remediation workers dying in the same amount of time) levels of thallium.
Ocean water is indeed an excellent source of cooling water.
Many thermal power plants (nuclear and others) are situated along rivers not because people were stupid and didn't realize the ocean exists, but because those power plants are sited to serve nearby communities and industries.
Sure, long distance electricity transmission is one solution (HVDC or traditional AC). Using ambient air as the final heat sink is another. Both have costs in terms of energy loss and higher capital costs, but are doable.
Dry cooling is a possible solution (that is, using ambient air as the final heat sink rather than some body of water). It does slightly decrease the thermal efficiency of the plant, as well as increase capital cost, but is a workable solution.
The waste heat is also a significant limiting factor for nuclear, currently. In the US, we only have a limited amount of water heat sinks that we can use to dissipate waste heat, and there's limited heating allowed before we destroy those ecosystems. The figure that I heard recently was about ~500GW across the nation. After that, we will need to find other solutions, which bar often more expensive that using natural water. There's a nuclear plant in Arizona that uses water water from Phoenix, for example. But after that we will need some innovation in water heat management to overcome the natural limitations of thermal generators like nuclear, at least while on planet earth.