•

‘Without nuclear, it will be almost impossible to decarbonize by 2050’, UN atomic energy chief

https://news.un.org/en/interview/2024/06/1151006

Although nuclear energy is widely used for electricity production, it has often faced an image problem, particularly in the wake of accidents such as the 1985 Chernobyl disaster, the 2011 Fukushima accident or, more recently, the occupation by Russian forces of the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant in Ukraine.

‘Without nuclear, it will be almost impossible to decarbonize by 2050’, UN atomic energy chief

9 comments

givesomefucks

•

I feel like no rational person is saying to shutdown existing plants, and no one is saying we need to build new ones as fast as possible.

But online a lot people think anyone that disagrees with them holds one of those two views.

Semi_Hemi_Demigod

•

I oppose building new nuclear plants - because they're way too expensive in terms of time and carbon - but favor refurbishing existing plants. It's relatively low cost, and the carbon of construction and all that concrete is already a sunk cost.

givesomefucks

•

Not really...

I don't know what you mean by "refurbishing" but to switch out cores likely means making a hole in the containment unit, and those giant concrete stacks...

Both of which then need completely torn down and rebuilt to have the necessary structural integrity to go back into operation.

Like when the ones that now need it were built, the entire site was designed to have a lifecycle as long as the core.

Concrete is 100% why we can't build new ones willy nilly, you're just underestimating how hard it is to "refurbish" an existing plant.

Semi_Hemi_Demigod

•

They're restarting one in Michigan for $1.5 billion and expect to have it online in two years. At $1.5 billion for 800MW it's cheaper than renewables.

Meanwhile, the last new nuclear power plant built in the US was seven years and was $15 billion over its original budget of $14 billion. And they're going to have to raise electricity rates to cover these costs.

givesomefucks

•

The government is "loaning" them 1.52 billion...

The link doesn't even say that it is projected to cost that much. And there's definitely no guarantee it really will.

It doesn't go into specifics on what that entails, but I'd be very very surprised if it doesn't require a complete replacement of the stacks. Like as you seemed to be aware of, is where the carbon issue is.

I'm not saying it's impossible. I'm saying the carbon costs of refurbishing are going to be similar to the carbon costs of a new one.

Maybe I wasn't clear, I thought we were talking about environmental effects and not money.

bobburger

•

You have no idea what you're talking about, stop lying and spreading misinformation.

Commercial nuclear power plants are refueled all the time and have specific penetrations in the primary and secondary containment buildings specifically for replacing worn our parts. Do you think if something breaks inside the containment buildings they're like "oh well, time to go ahead and scrap this whole thing and head home"?

I'm not sure what you mean by "those giant concrete stacks" but I assume you mean cooling towers, which hints you've learned everything you know about nuclear power from the Simpsons. Most PWR nuclear power plants don't have cooling towers (only two have them that I know of, Catawba and Harris, probably a few more), and the cooling towers are for the non-nuclear secondary system so they're outside of the containment buildings anyway. There is absolutely no reason they would need to be torn down. BWR plants are too contaminated to try and refurbish after they've been decommissioned, but that has nothing to do with concrete or cooling towers.

Every single piece of equipment in a nuclear power plant can be replaced without having to do major structural removal and replacement, so that isn't a concern for refurbishment. Some may be repairs, but that is a far cry from what youre claiming.

I don't know if you are lying on purpose to muddy the water and spread misinformation or if you're just confidently incorrect all the time, but Lemmy would be a much better place if you took a minute to fact check your posts.

Edit to add: This article shows how common it is to extend the life of a nuclear power plant, which isn't too far from recommissioning and refurbishing a decommissioned plant.

givesomefucks

•

I’m not sure what you mean by “those giant concrete stacks” but I assume you mean cooling towers,

If you weren't sure....

It's hard to take your word on anything else relevant to the topic.

I thought pretty much anyone with any level of familiarity (even just seeing an episode of the Simpsons 20 years ago) would know.

If you weren't sure I meant the cooling stacks...

bobburger

•

Lol

homesweethomeMrL

•

Wow the atomic energy chief said that?