[Sporktacular]

It is not sustainable. But it can be more so, under some optimistic, unrealistic scenarios.

This info is based on some projects for tech that hasn't yet proven to be economical at scale. In theory we could replace all reactors with breeders, develop a zero-carbon thorium fuel supply chain etc. but we haven't because it's expensive like hell, slow to commission and still not environmentally sustainable.

What's easier and cheaper to fix, all that or battery/storage technology?

[erentz]

Batteries and storage haven’t proven to be economical at scale. And also aren’t infinitely sustainable either (renewables and their storage don’t grow on trees, they use more resources and valuable minerals than nuclear). So by your measure we shouldn’t do that either.

[Sporktacular]

Oh, so you concede that nuclear power actually isn't sustainable then? Okay.

So if you want to pivot to batteries... look at how much secondary batteries have evolved in the last 70 years. Genuinely novel nuclear power plant designs have barely left the drawing board over the same time. It's pretty hard to conclude batteries have proven uneconomical at scale when the term 'battery' is such a fast moving target.

No one claims infinite sustainability is a requirement, or even a possibility, but I see you dropped that in anyway. First, the paper in a paper battery, literally grows on trees. Unlike Uranium, which is relatively scarce and the cost of which, in $ and kg of carbon, after mining and enriching to 5% LEU is considerable. Enrichment techniques are unchanged after 70 years. About 100 times more common, and much much less valuable, is Lithium, the efficient sourcing of which (and its alternatives) is an area of active development. Lithium extraction is also damaging, but it is more deserving of research funding than a process for a fuel source that didn't advance for decades.

In 20 years this won't be a discussion because renewables research will have solved these simpler problems.

[erentz]

No, I was reflecting your argument back to you but it goes straight over your head apparently.

> Unlike Uranium, which is relatively scarce and the cost of which, in $ and kg of carbon, after mining and enriching to 5% LEU is considerable.

Simply not true. Nuclear power when considering all lifecycle emissions is lower than wind and solar: https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy

[Sporktacular]

You earlier in the thread: "Nuclear power is sustainable."

You a few posts later: "[Battery and storage] also aren’t infinitely sustainable either" (also meaning in addition to nuclear).

Me: "Oh, so you concede that nuclear power actually isn't sustainable then? Okay."

Just read back. Is it sustainable or also not sustainable? You contradicted yourself and I think my comment went over your head.

The carbon cost of the construction and decommissioning a nuclear plant as well as producing and disposing of nuclear fuel is significant, and unlikely to become less so. Wind turbines and solar panels have a carbon footprint almost purely at the construction phase. It's significant too but manufacturing techniques are improving yearly while nuclear has been stagnant.

But according to to your source the difference between renewable and nuclear is marginal anyway and it only considers CO2 and air pollution as it affects human lives. It ignores water pollution from uranium mine tailings, radon or leaks of spent fuel are considered and so is a poor source for considering environmental damage in general.

Finally, your link doesn't mention batteries or storage, so is not an especially relevant source to the discussion either.

[erentz]

No because no one defines sustainability on the infinite terms you do. If people did then your batteries, wind, and solar would not qualify either.

You then proceed to ignore the facts on CO2 emissions because you don’t like them. Adding batteries and storage isn’t going to lower your embedded emissions or minerals use is it. And you go on to invent more claims about uranium mining while ignoring the mining for materials that go into renewables and batteries, which is much larger. Your reasoning here is motivated by the outcome you want to believe and you aren’t willing to do research or accept anything else.

[Sporktacular]

You said infinitely! I never used sustainability that way. Nuclear is not sustainable because there isn't enough uranium available to extract, certainly not in an environmentally friendly way, in order to meet an expanded demand for more than a few decades https://youtu.be/0kahih8RT1k?t=365

There is, however, more than enough minerals available to make machines that, once built, will continue to produce and store emission free power for their lifetimes. They are being increasingly made out of recyclable materials and there is other research into lowering their footprint further. In other words, actually sustainable - as in for thousands of years. Renewables aren't there yet, but they will be sooner if a fraction of the cost of new nuclear plants is diverted to the very promising R&D that already exists.

Nuclear doesn't have nearly the same interest or rate of advancement into mitigating the serious environmental problems associated with producing and disposing of fuel, something your sources don't consider at all.

You write like you've just discovered the life cycle 'true cost' of renewables while holding the unrevealed wisdom that nuclear isn't that dangerous. These things are obvious to anyone who follows this, people who would never make the mistake of calling nuclear sustainable.

And I used to be a proponent of nuclear until around 6 months ago when I learned that there aren't enough resources available, and that nuclear won't be able to ramp up in time to lower the atmospheric carbon level increased by fossil fuelled power plants. It's the opposite of dogmatism to be able to follow where the data takes you.