Nuclear power could more than triple by 2060, UN agency says
The head of the U.N. nuclear agency said Friday that he expects the use of nuclear power could more than triple by 2060.
Rafael Grossi said in the International Atomic Energy Agency’s annual report to the U.N. General Assembly that this will be driven by electrification, data centers powered by artificial intelligence and “technology companies’ appetite for reliable, carbon-free power.”
Nuclear energy is seen by a growing number of countries as key to improving their energy security, he said, stressing that it is on par with solar energy and “safer than every other option.”
https://apnews.com/article/un-nuclear-iran-north-korea-ukraine-d7de64508476ceedc721a89cb42c9cfbOpen linkView original on lemmy.world
16 replies
Solar and wind are still more sustainable than nuclear.
Get off your high horse and replace coal and gas with nuclear if that's what gets us off fossil fuels
For people that promote one over the other, my answer is always "why not both"?
Areas that are good for nuclear are likely not as good for solar or wind. The latter two are generally more sustainable, but also more temperamental towards environmental conditions for output.
So my thought is, built all three in the locations best suited to whatever, and also build to storage capacity where possible to manage peak/off-peak loads.
"Don't let perfect be the enemy of good"
It's specifically this argument (straight fr the fossil lobby) that disallows progress. Nuclear is not going to happen anywhere close to time of demand where the neighbors can chime in, so not in democracies, but the staunch opposition against possible and sustainable alternatives will continue to burn fossil fuels.
With how cheap solar has become, there's no reason for major fossil fuel using countries with plentiful land like China or the U.S. to choose nuclear over it. Wind is a greater investment than solar, but still far cheaper than building a nuclear power plant and without the need to store waste in a long-term manner afterwards.
After the 1980s, nuke plants changed from this narrative.
But nobody is replacing coal and gas with nuclear because it's total economic insanity. What they do instead is talking about replacing it with nuclear soon™, so they can ignore renewables and burn some more of those tasty fossil fuels.
I'm not anti-nuclear by a longshot
But I think the time to be building new nuclear plants was probably 20 years ago and that window has kind of passed.
The unfortunate truth is nuclear plants take a long time to get approval, build, and start generating electricity for the grid, and there's only so much you can or should do to try to speed that process up, because if you cut too many corners the potential for things to go wrong is enormous.
Solar and wind can be deployed a lot faster and we need that grid capacity now and at this point I think we'd probably be better served by building out as much solar and wind as we possibly can
The one thing that's hard to understand is that we need a baseline power supply that has real "cranking power" to bring the grid online from an outage. This is because of the immense resistance in the transformers, inverters, etc.
Solar, wind, and batteries do not have much cranking power at all. We'd need a non-negligible part of an eco-friendly grid to be nuclear, hydro, biomass, and/or huge flywheels. Basically a power source that has significant resistance (literally rotational inertia in most cases) to getting drawn down from high amps to lower amps, on demand. All of those are feasible, though from an ecology perspective there are good reasons to avoid hydro.
The benefit from nuclear is that it can provide a significant chunk of stable baseline power AND that cranking power to come back from outages.
There's a great YouTube video on this from Practical Engineering.
By that time CERN will have finished building the 100km long big brother of the LHC currently called the FCC. That is a very long timeline. I would hope that at that point battery and other storage technology will be so much better that nuclear just looks like even more of a complete joke in terms of both efficiency and practicability.
Whatever gets us to net-zero fastest. I do find it hard to believe that safe nuclear is the fastest way to get there, rather than scaling up solar and wind deployment.
But, yeah, per MWh from fuel extraction to the grid nuclear has been safer than coal, methane, or petroleum (products). As long as it can be that safe, I'm fine not just broadening deployment but also reducing the time needed for a single deployment.
After we get climate change primarily driven by CO2 "under control", we can decommission nuclear in favor of "zero-waste" generation, but nuclear waste is no where near the problem climate change is (and will be for a long time after we reach net-zero).
An 82 year long life's electricity needs provided entirely by nuclear takes an amount of fuel the size of a soda can.
Weird that the UN makes such a statement, in most cases they try to remain neutral. The magic is in the word “could” more than triple. So it isn’t a prediction, it’s a wish/scenario or whatever. “Safer than any other option” - now that’s a tricky statement! As more countries start building nuclear reactors, one or two may get the bright idea to use the enriched uranium to create The Bomb, and the risk of a nuclear war is higher than ever, so no, nuclear reactors won’t make the world safer. Intriguingly, the majority of text in the AP article is about highlighting the countries where nuclear has led to tremendous conflict. And the uranium needs to be sourced from other countries, Russia comes to mind, so we create dependencies on countries we actually don’t want to do business with. I’m not convinced, sorry.
Nuclear! It's got what plants crave!