Climate policy: why not "just" sequester all the emitted carbon?

[Plina]

Solving big scale stuff like big bridges and the interstate highway system has been done by government.  Global warming is big scale.  I really don't think the "market" is going to solve this one unless it is severely pushed.  I think the ultimate solutions to how to handle the Carbon Dioxide need to be pioneered by the government.  People will need to be dragged kicking and screaming to a solution to this mess.

The government clearly plays a large role, specifically in pricing into carbon pollution the social costs in the form of taxes. And I'm not saying government shouldn't play a role beyond accurate market pricing (such as, for example, funding experiments like this one). But I disagree that it should happen with people kicking and screaming (at least a majority of them), since in the U.S. the government is the people (and kicking and screaming people generally don't elect people they're kicking and screaming at). And when the proposed cost (for this particular solution) is on the order of the entire U.S. federal budget, people will sure as hell be kicking and screaming (throw me into that group, as I'm certain the cost would be much lower through a market approach, and I'm certain doubling taxes (not tax rates) would put us into a severe recession).

I am sure there is cheaper ways to deal with global warming than betting on a technique that is still pretty much experimental. I find it a bit interesting that US seems so reluctant to take action because if they scientist are correct the country and your major coastal cities will get big problems and if you count in more extreme weather you will have even bigger problems.

From a Scandinavian point of view we will get warmer and more unstable weather but we will be pretty ok. Maybe you should not by a property near the beach in the southern parts but you don’t need to showel snow either.

[Boofinator]

I am sure there is cheaper ways to deal with global warming than betting on a technique that is still pretty much experimental. I find it a bit interesting that US seems so reluctant to take action because if they scientist are correct the country and your major coastal cities will get big problems and if you count in more extreme weather you will have even bigger problems.

From a Scandinavian point of view we will get warmer and more unstable weather but we will be pretty ok. Maybe you should not by a property near the beach in the southern parts but you don’t need to showel snow either.

The U.S. hasn't internalized step 1 of rehab: Admit you have a problem.

[pecunia]

- KER SNIP -

People want to catch all of the Carbon Dioxide.  Will we be allowed to breathe?

I’m not following.  We can breathe without any CO2.  Plants are another story but ....
?

We breathe out CO2.
[/quote]

The CO2 we breathe out is equivalent to the CO2 consumed by the plants we eat. There is no net gain in CO2.

The difference with CO2 released from fossil fuel is that we're pulling trapped carbon out of the earth and releasing it into the atmosphere.
[/quote]

Good argument for bio fuels or fuels manufactured from air.  There should be a balance in all things.

[Telecaster]

I'm familiar with Solar's duck curve, but I'd be hard-pressed to believe that removing carbon dioxide from the air is the best solution to the problem. Let's say solar generation peaks around 11-3 (daylight savings time), whereas energy demand peaks 3-7pm. So if we scale up PV to meet max demand, then we have extra energy, but only from, say, 9am-1pm. So the CO2 scrubbers would be running, what, 4 hours a day? Maybe this is realistic, but it seems that both the PV and the CO2 sequestration process would have to come down in price significantly for this to be a viable solution to the duck curve (as compared to, say, an energy storage solution).

I wasn't suggesting it as the "best" solution for the duck curve problem.  There is larger problem, namely virtually all pathways to Paris agreement's goal of limiting climate change to 1.5°C  include some amount of "negative emissions."   But negatives emissions are sort of a black box.  It doesn't really exist yet in any scaleble form.   Hence my comment about handwaving in my previous post. 

But it is interesting to ponder that excess electricity from solar, wind or even hydro could be used for CC, which would also help with grid balancing issues. 

[pecunia]

I'm familiar with Solar's duck curve, but I'd be hard-pressed to believe that removing carbon dioxide from the air is the best solution to the problem. Let's say solar generation peaks around 11-3 (daylight savings time), whereas energy demand peaks 3-7pm. So if we scale up PV to meet max demand, then we have extra energy, but only from, say, 9am-1pm. So the CO2 scrubbers would be running, what, 4 hours a day? Maybe this is realistic, but it seems that both the PV and the CO2 sequestration process would have to come down in price significantly for this to be a viable solution to the duck curve (as compared to, say, an energy storage solution).

I wasn't suggesting it as the "best" solution for the duck curve problem.  There is larger problem, namely virtually all pathways to Paris agreement's goal of limiting climate change to 1.5°C  include some amount of "negative emissions."   But negatives emissions are sort of a black box.  It doesn't really exist yet in any scaleble form.   Hence my comment about handwaving in my previous post. 

But it is interesting to ponder that excess electricity from solar, wind or even hydro could be used for CC, which would also help with grid balancing issues.

Might be a poor use of whatever machinery is doing the carbon capture as it will be intermittent usage.  Maybe the excess electricity could be used to irrigate plants in an otherwise barren area.  Plants are a "natural" way to suck up the Carbon Dioxide.  This could serve multiple purposes such as a park, producing products from the plants and possibly runoff control.

[LennStar]

I don't know why this old idea suddenly pops up as new. So in short the basics:

It is not half as easy as it seems. This is the reason why there are still only a few pilot projects existing, more or less standing still.
It is expensive and will ever be. You need a lot of energy, so you are putting 1/3 or so additional costs on everything.
You have to deposit the CO2 somewhere. A LOT of it. For a long time.
The only currently large scale working solution is to pump it somewhere into the earth. The results of that have been... not that good. Earthquakes are even the minor problems here. CO2 is heavier than air. It also kills you in higher than usual doses.
What happens if the CO2 that was pressed into the earth somehow finds a way underground for a few miles to the next city and comes out there? (answer: something like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Nyos)
Other possible solutions exist - you can even make rocks. But that again needs energy or anyway costs.

In short: because it is currently not feasable, and when it is (if ever) it will be costly and too late.

It may be an additional method to fight climate change, but more to get down the CO2 levels in 30 years by getting CO2 out of the air, not by taking it from burning coal in a power plant.

[pecunia]

Good practical points.

[Kyle Schuant]

taxes on carbon pollution (and equivalent negative taxes for sequestration) would guide the market toward the most efficient solution.

It's remarkable how much renewables have been built even in places without that kind of support or incentive, though. Renewables were growing so fast in Victoria for a while that the state government, under pressure from the owners of coal-fired stations, actually decided to impose limits on wind turbines - if a single person within 3km of a wind turbine objected to it, it couldn't be built; the same barrier did not exist for a coal-fired station. They also couldn't be built along the coast (where it's windiest), because scenic.


If the government is actively impeding renewables and people are still building them, that suggests large market demand for them, or that the companies anticipate larger demand in future.

I find it a bit interesting that US seems so reluctant to take action because if they scientist are correct the country and your major coastal cities will get big problems and if you count in more extreme weather you will have even bigger problems.

Well, you get people with tracheotomy tubes having a smoke through one, so... it's inertia. In ordinary language, "inertia" is generally taken to mean "sitting still no matter what." The physics definition though is the tendency of an object to continue at the same speed in the same direction unless acted on by an outside force. Of course this includes standing still (speed = 0), but it also includes going at full speed in some direction.

I do think we're seeing the results of outside forces acting on the economy. But the forces aren't large enough yet, so the deviation in the path of the economy is less like a car going through an intersection and being T-boned, and more like the wind on a bullet over a few hundred yards.

[ministashy]

I didn't look at the course, but from other comments,it appears you are pulling Carbon Dioxide out of the air.  That stuff takes a lot more volume than the original coal.  Now - I don't know f you guys have ever worked at a coal plant, but some of them can burn a long trainload of coal a day.  It's a lot of volume.  There have been some cases where the Carbon Dioxide can be pumped underground, but big underground holes are not readily available.

On the other hand, maybe there is some new technology that I'm not aware of.

One of these days folks are gong to realize that they need the new more efficient nukes on the drawing board and maybe use Thorium fuel.

Agree, the thorium fuel cycle deserves a lot more attention than it has received over the last 50 years. It holds some large potential benefits for mankind.

I'm not a nuclear expert, but according to my reading, thorium/molten salt reactors are still highly experimental, can be almost as dangerous as conventional reactors (albeit in different ways), have a ton of regulatory/storage issues, and even if the tech was ready, it would take at least 30 years to bring new reactors into operation.  They are simply not a good solution to climate change.   I am also highly skeptical of adding more conventional nuclear plants, given humans' demonstrated propensity to skimp on maintenance/risk mitigation requirements in order to make some extra $$, usually to the detriment of future generations.  A decent discussion on it:  https://www.npr.org/2012/05/04/152026805/is-thorium-a-magic-bullet-for-our-energy-problems

[Milkshake]

I think GMO plants that are modified to specifically absorb excess CO2 and store the carbon is probably the easiest way to succeed.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/apr/16/super-plants-climate-change-joanne-chory-carbon-dioxide

The other potential solution is fusion reactors, which so far haven't been able to produce more energy than they consume. True success probably comes from implementing both ideas, if we can develop fusion technology soon enough and cheap enough.

[nereo]

I didn't look at the course, but from other comments,it appears you are pulling Carbon Dioxide out of the air.  That stuff takes a lot more volume than the original coal.  Now - I don't know f you guys have ever worked at a coal plant, but some of them can burn a long trainload of coal a day.  It's a lot of volume.  There have been some cases where the Carbon Dioxide can be pumped underground, but big underground holes are not readily available.

On the other hand, maybe there is some new technology that I'm not aware of.

One of these days folks are gong to realize that they need the new more efficient nukes on the drawing board and maybe use Thorium fuel.

Agree, the thorium fuel cycle deserves a lot more attention than it has received over the last 50 years. It holds some large potential benefits for mankind.

I'm not a nuclear expert, but according to my reading, thorium/molten salt reactors are still highly experimental, can be almost as dangerous as conventional reactors (albeit in different ways), have a ton of regulatory/storage issues, and even if the tech was ready, it would take at least 30 years to bring new reactors into operation.  They are simply not a good solution to climate change.   I am also highly skeptical of adding more conventional nuclear plants, given humans' demonstrated propensity to skimp on maintenance/risk mitigation requirements in order to make some extra $$, usually to the detriment of future generations.  A decent discussion on it:  https://www.npr.org/2012/05/04/152026805/is-thorium-a-magic-bullet-for-our-energy-problems

Every time a CC thread comes up on this forum there’s at least one poster who pushes nuclear as the potential solution, but without regard to real-world factors.  Yes, having more nuclear energy powering our grid would mean less greenhouse emissions, and yes Thorium and other 3rd gen nuclear are promising, but the cold truth is our nuclear portfolio is shrinking (rapidly) and new reactors take decades to come online.  The only two large-scale plants to break down since the 1990s have both been mothballed before completion, and there is nothing at the groundbreaking stage right now.   EVen if, as a society, we decided to fully get behind more nuclear it’s decades (plural) out from providing low-carbon power.  ...and in the meantime we can’t get even the most optimal reactors built, and we still have no long-term storage solution, and NIMBY swamps any attempts at new projects.

[LennStar]

I think GMO plants that are modified to specifically absorb excess CO2 and store the carbon is probably the easiest way to succeed.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/apr/16/super-plants-climate-change-joanne-chory-carbon-dioxide

There are mainly two types of such super plants, and you don't even need to GM them.
1) trees. We are currently still cutting down them e.g. in the Amazonas at record speed. We also lost a lot of them in Autralia just now. If just someone had wrned us that higher temperatures mean higher risk of fire...
2) algea. We are currently killing them by putting more acid into the seas. (CO2 + water = acid, remember?) Oh, and by making the seas warmer.
btw. zooplankton and phytoplankton having a hard time is bad for us too. Thats what the fish feed on. We feed on fish.

[pecunia]

In the 1960s, it only took 3-4 years to build nuclear plants.  Some of those plants built in the late sixties / early seventies are still operating today.  They have operated for over 40 years producing pollution free energy.  Now I ask you if they could do it back in the days when we went to the moon, why will it take 30 years to build them today?  What has changed other than the price of natural gas to cause this enormous delay?  Could it be possible that unnecessary roadblocks are preventing the design and execution of this possible solution to the global warming situation?  A massive amount of energy that will help maintain our standard of living can be produced.  Just doesn't seem right when I think about those old vacuum tubes and the integrated circuits that we have today that a technology can actually go backwards.

" have a ton of regulatory/storage issues, and even if the tech was ready, it would take at least 30 years to bring new reactors into operation.  They are simply not a good solution to climate change."  Seems more like human problems than the problems with the physics / engineering.  Maybe we ought to try actually building a prototype (pilot) plant or three.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

[nereo]

In the 1960s, it only took 3-4 years to build nuclear plants.

No, they did not take 3-4 years to build.  They have never been built that fast (6 to ten years was more than norm back then, if we are talking about from ground-breaking to the reactor going online), and modern reactors are far more complex than what was built in the 1960s, and far more efficient.  Problem is we don’t even have any reactors in development besides two that have been shut down completely.

Building a new plant is like constructing a small city, and can take up a square mile (or more). What some derail as “unnecessary roadblocks” most would consider prudent review and safety procedures. 
FWIW I’ve been involved in the decommissioning of two different plants.  I’d be happy to have more nuclear in our portfolio to provide energy, but anytime I hear someone suggest we can just cut some red tape and get a few new plant online in a couple of years I can’t help but conclude that they don’t understand the complexity or challenges in building such a plant.  We haven’t had a single new plant come online in three decades.

[LennStar]

In the 1960s, it only took 3-4 years to build nuclear plants.

In the 1940s it only took a few month to build an aircraft carrier. Now it takes decades!

btw. I have never seen a pollution free power plant. No, I don't count "you can put it in an atomic bomb!" as pollution free. Which was always the reason btw. to have them, not the price, that was always bigger than other sources. That is also why they stopped Thorium research back in hte early 60s. It did not produce bomb material.

Just doesn't seem right when I think about those old vacuum tubes and the integrated circuits that we have today that a technology can actually go backwards.

Funnily enough, in case of a nuclear power plant, that is actually the case. The smaller the stuff, the easier it gets unwanted behavior just from everyday radiation and Quantum. Leakage currents are the biggest bane of today's CPUs.

Anyway, yes, you can build a reactor today in a year. But it would be a lot more expensive (just compare the number of workers today and 1960) and it would of course not do the things that were not done in the past but we have come around to see as necessary - have a look at people and nature near the plant, for example.

[GuitarStv]

They have operated for over 40 years producing pollution free energy.

80,000 metric tonnes of nuclear waste is pollution free?

https://www.gao.gov/key_issues/disposal_of_highlevel_nuclear_waste/issue_summary

[Telecaster]

The main challenge for nuclear power is financial.  They cost an enormous amount of money and take a long time before they come online.  Hence, they are difficult to finance. 

Personal opinion:  We've lost the institutional knowledge required to build new reactors.  The Westinghouse AP 1000 was supposed to be a standardized design that regulators and builders would be familiar with, hence reducing cost and construction time.  But the two AP 1000 plants now under construction at Vogtle have been nothing short of a disaster, and  two AP 1000 plants at Sumner were an actual disaster and had to be canceled part way through construction.   The contractor for both projects, Westinghouse, was driven into bankruptcy.   

I doubt any utility in this country will seriously look at new nuclear for many years, and likely will be a new technology developed in other countries.  For example, the traveling wave reactor, which was developed in the United States but will almost certainly be first built in China (assuming the trade war issue gets sorted out). 

[Roots&Wings]

Here's a global map of carbon capture and storage projects, in case anyone's interested in checking out projects that might be near you: https://www.sccs.org.uk/expertise/global-ccs-map

[Plina]

Finland is building a nuclear plant. They started the permit process in 2000 and the building in 2005. They are not done yet and it is today predicted to start producing 2021. The cost has gone from 3,2 to the latest estimate of 5,5 billion euro.

In Sweden, nobody, except a couple political parties are interested in building nuclear plants because it not financial sound. The electricity price would need to be double of the current price, in another words taxpayer financed. Renewable energy is cheaper today.

[Telecaster]

^ The Finnish reactor design is European Pressured Rector (EPR), which was supposed to be the same philosophy as the AP 1000:  Standardized design leading to cost savings.  But didn't work in Finland and there are two EPR reactors under construction in France that have similar cost problems. 

[pecunia]

In the 1960s, it only took 3-4 years to build nuclear plants.

No, they did not take 3-4 years to build.  They have never been built that fast (6 to ten years was more than norm back then, if we are talking about from ground-breaking to the reactor going online), and modern reactors are far more complex than what was built in the 1960s, and far more efficient.  Problem is we don’t even have any reactors in development besides two that have been shut down completely.

Building a new plant is like constructing a small city, and can take up a square mile (or more). What some derail as “unnecessary roadblocks” most would consider prudent review and safety procedures. 
FWIW I’ve been involved in the decommissioning of two different plants.  I’d be happy to have more nuclear in our portfolio to provide energy, but anytime I hear someone suggest we can just cut some red tape and get a few new plant online in a couple of years I can’t help but conclude that they don’t understand the complexity or challenges in building such a plant.  We haven’t had a single new plant come online in three decades.

I guess my math is off 1971-1967 = 6

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monticello_Nuclear_Generating_Plant  June 67- Commission June 71

I'm not saying a couple of years, but I am saying there is a lot of bureaucracy that could be cut out.  It has prevented a new plant from going online for 3 decades.  I guess you can't call Watts Bar unit 2 new.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watts_Bar_Nuclear_Plant

As far as the complexity all they seem to be doing is tacking stuff on to the old designs with greater redundancy and efforts for passive shutdown.  From my distant viewpoint, it doesn't seem that overly complex.  The new ones being built are still about the poles in the holes

I guess there will be no more in my lifetime.  At least not in the US.  Oh well, as long as the beer is cold.

[Kyle Schuant]

Building a new plant is like constructing a small city, and can take up a square mile (or more). What some derail as “unnecessary roadblocks” most would consider prudent review and safety procedures. 

There's that, but there's also the human resources. If you want to go from ~100 reactors to 1,000, then in whatever that timeframe is, you need 10 times as many nuclear engineers and the many and various technicians. Let's say we have some former ones who quit the industry and some retired ones we could bring back, and generously assume we double their number - that still means each has to train 5 others.

Whatever the job of the people reading this, just imagine trying to train 5 people to do it as well as you. Plus you want some spares as people decide they'd prefer a different industry or they just aren't suitable - so it's now you training 10 people. Oh and by the way while you're training these 10 people you still have to do your actual job, and if you make a mistake maybe something catastrophic happens and people die. How long would that take you, and what would your standards be knowing that these people were going on to run a nuclear power plant in your back yard?

It just takes time to do things. One of the reasons people have built out so much solar PV and wind turbines is that once built, they're relatively low-maintenance. A coal, gas or nuclear plant involves pressurised water at high temperatures - you have to keep an eye on it lest it explode, and things do wear out. PV and wind turbines are less prone to fail and if they do suddenly wear out and break they're less likely to injure anyone. This is why people have built lots of them. Obviously they have their disadvantages, but they just don't need as many qualified people to build and maintain them.

[pecunia]

You know the fallacy of a lot of people in the nuke business is that they don't think outside the box.

"If you want to go from ~100 reactors to 1,000, then in whatever that timeframe is, you need 10 times as many nuclear engineers and the many and various technicians."

I used to work at some of these old nuke plants.  I used to joke with one of the guys I worked with, "Nothing but the best of 1960s technology."  With the automation that has hit every industry today, less people are involved.  It's good from the perspective of the swivel chair commandos that run American industry.  It has been bad from people trying to make a living.  Back to new nukes.  You may need more people if you build new facilities, but if the trend of the times is followed, you should need less people than before for new capacity.  The law may dictate that you need beau coup SROs running around, but new technology will allow you to get the job done with less people.

"Whatever the job of the people reading this, just imagine trying to train 5 people to do it as well as you. Plus you want some spares as people decide they'd prefer a different industry or they just aren't suitable - so it's now you training 10 people. Oh and by the way while you're training these 10 people you still have to do your actual job, and if you make a mistake maybe something catastrophic happens and people die."   Well - with some of the new plants.  You don't have some of the bad stuff.  Your fuel, for example, in one of these liquid Thorium reactors needn't be at the high pressures.  You only get the heat which is what you want.  Less risk.  Not that the ones out there now are very risky.  the nuke industry has a an extremely good safety record.

"It just takes time to do things.' - Yep, and things don't get done if you aren't even willing to try.

Here's a brief article on the small modular reactors they are moving to.

https://www.tri-cityherald.com/news/local/article239781838.html

These are small passive reactors that will produce about 60 MW each.   They are modular so to get 600 MW, you need 10.  If one gives you a bad day, shut her down and use the other 9.  They are designed so that if you walk away and ignore the thing, guess what?  It just shuts down on its own.  And,.......they've got the NRC to accept the premise of the design,......good stuff.  I guess they are building one in Idaho to get the operating experience.

Makes a nice interim step before moving to molten salt reactors.

Still to slow and too small a step to halt the global warming thing,........oh well.

[nereo]

Still to slow and too small a step to halt the global warming thing,........oh well.

This is the crux of the problem with the argument that nuclear can somehow provide us with more carbon-free energy.  Older plants are increasingly going into decommissioning, no new plants have been built, or are being built.  Half of what remains will go off-line in the next decade.

Had we continued building plants through the 1990s we might have nuclear power as part of the solution. It might be a source of power for the second-half of the 21st century, but not now, and not in the next couple of decades.

...Ironically, the actual *construction* of nuclear plants is very carbon intensive. A half-ton of CO2 per ton of concrete.  Two tons of CO2 per ton of steel. It can take a decade or more after going online for a plant to become carbon neutral.

[pecunia]

"...Ironically, the actual *construction* of nuclear plants is very carbon intensive. A half-ton of CO2 per ton of concrete.  Two tons of CO2 per ton of steel. It can take a decade or more after going online for a plant to become carbon neutral. "

Probably won't need as much with the newer plants that won't need the massive containment structures.  They won't be like Chernobyl with no containment, but the process will passively shut down.

Perhaps some other form of construction techniques could be applied.  Rammed Earth can be amazing.  Just a thought.

Global warming made for one of the warmest January's that I can remember.

[GuitarStv]

You know the fallacy of a lot of people in the nuke business is that they don't think outside the box.

"If you want to go from ~100 reactors to 1,000, then in whatever that timeframe is, you need 10 times as many nuclear engineers and the many and various technicians."

I used to work at some of these old nuke plants.  I used to joke with one of the guys I worked with, "Nothing but the best of 1960s technology."  With the automation that has hit every industry today, less people are involved.  It's good from the perspective of the swivel chair commandos that run American industry.  It has been bad from people trying to make a living.  Back to new nukes.  You may need more people if you build new facilities, but if the trend of the times is followed, you should need less people than before for new capacity.  The law may dictate that you need beau coup SROs running around, but new technology will allow you to get the job done with less people.

"Whatever the job of the people reading this, just imagine trying to train 5 people to do it as well as you. Plus you want some spares as people decide they'd prefer a different industry or they just aren't suitable - so it's now you training 10 people. Oh and by the way while you're training these 10 people you still have to do your actual job, and if you make a mistake maybe something catastrophic happens and people die."   Well - with some of the new plants.  You don't have some of the bad stuff.  Your fuel, for example, in one of these liquid Thorium reactors needn't be at the high pressures.  You only get the heat which is what you want.  Less risk.  Not that the ones out there now are very risky.  the nuke industry has a an extremely good safety record.

"It just takes time to do things.' - Yep, and things don't get done if you aren't even willing to try.

Here's a brief article on the small modular reactors they are moving to.

https://www.tri-cityherald.com/news/local/article239781838.html

These are small passive reactors that will produce about 60 MW each.   They are modular so to get 600 MW, you need 10.  If one gives you a bad day, shut her down and use the other 9.  They are designed so that if you walk away and ignore the thing, guess what?  It just shuts down on its own.  And,.......they've got the NRC to accept the premise of the design,......good stuff.  I guess they are building one in Idaho to get the operating experience.

Makes a nice interim step before moving to molten salt reactors.

Still to slow and too small a step to halt the global warming thing,........oh well.

I've worked in the nuclear industry and have many friends in it.  The reason that 1960s technology is often used (most of Canada's reactors are running Fortran as their primary coding language) is that reactors are safety critical.  It's a huge risk to make changes to things.  The reason that the nuclear industry has a pretty good safety record is because of a pathological tendency to err on the side of lower risk.

[nereo]

"...Ironically, the actual *construction* of nuclear plants is very carbon intensive. A half-ton of CO2 per ton of concrete.  Two tons of CO2 per ton of steel. It can take a decade or more after going online for a plant to become carbon neutral. "

Probably won't need as much with the newer plants that won't need the massive containment structures.  They won't be like Chernobyl with no containment, but the process will passively shut down.

Perhaps some other form of construction techniques could be applied.  Rammed Earth can be amazing.  Just a thought.

Global warming made for one of the warmest January's that I can remember.

Hopefully you recognize the inherent contradiction of advocating for new reactor designs and construction techniques never before used for such purposes and desiring a time-schedule substantially faster than what has ever been used before. To me this seems the most reckless and expensive course of all.

It wasn’t just your perception - this January was among the warmest in over 200 years of recording here in New England, and throughout much of the world.

Also - please use the quote function. It attributes what was said to the correct poster and allows others to go back and read the actual post for greater understanding. By just placing other’s posts within quotation marks within your own posts it is impossible to know who said what or in what post.  Thank you!

[ketchup]

I've worked in the nuclear industry and have many friends in it.  The reason that 1960s technology is often used (most of Canada's reactors are running Fortran as their primary coding language) is that reactors are safety critical.  It's a huge risk to make changes to things.  The reason that the nuclear industry has a pretty good safety record is because of a pathological tendency to err on the side of lower risk.

Not just that, but it's ungodly expensive to change things like that, so old tech presists.  A friend of mine works at a big old insurance company, and the first thing his department does with new hires is throw Fortran books at them.

There's a balance though.  I don't remember if the nuclear launch codes are still stored on 8" floppies, but I feel like I read about that fairly recently.  Eventually nobody's making the damn things anymore.

And we still use Lotus Notes where I work. :(

[nereo]

There's a balance though.  I don't remember if the nuclear launch codes are still stored on 8" floppies, but I feel like I read about that fairly recently.  Eventually nobody's making the damn things anymore.

I remember reading about that on a military blog.  At this point it's actually a feature, not a bug.  Nothing we've come up with since is more secure from external attack (i.e. hackers, malware) than using a system that predates connectivity with architecture that won't accept external commands.  Ultimately what the military wants is a system that requires a physical 'key' that cannot be circumvented and is neigh impossible to copy without the original.  And that's what the 1980's-style 8" floppy discs give them.  It's the original "two-factor authentication", requiring a secure pass-code in conjunction with a physical device, neither of which is easily replicated or obtained.

So - snickering aside from all the current operaters who were born a decade after such technology became obsolete - "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".

[Telecaster]

Still, SMRs are pretty exciting to think about.  There are lots of "ifs" still but if they turn out something like they are promised it could be a reasonable cost, carbon free, baseload electricity source.  And some SMR designers say they can be use for load following as well.   

[nereo]

Still, SMRs are pretty exciting to think about.  There are lots of "ifs" still but if they turn out something like they are promised it could be a reasonable cost, carbon free, baseload electricity source.  And some SMR designers say they can be use for load following as well.

Oh, I agree.  The nuclear industry is fascinating case-study of an industry that went from very high to very low public opinion.  It would have been nice had a combination of regulation, public backlash, ill-conceived projects and market forces not halted new development.  But that’s where we are.  As I said multiple times they have the potential of doing all you mentioned in a couple of decades - but in the meantime we need to drastically reduce CO2 output and cut consumption, and waiting on the hope that future SMRs (which haven’t ever been built to scale) might get us there in a few decades is sticking our heads in the sand... punting the football... passing it off to the next generation [insert metaphors for a failure to take action here].

[pecunia]

Still, SMRs are pretty exciting to think about.  There are lots of "ifs" still but if they turn out something like they are promised it could be a reasonable cost, carbon free, baseload electricity source.  And some SMR designers say they can be use for load following as well.

Oh, I agree.  The nuclear industry is fascinating case-study of an industry that went from very high to very low public opinion.  It would have been nice had a combination of regulation, public backlash, ill-conceived projects and market forces not halted new development.  But that’s where we are.  As I said multiple times they have the potential of doing all you mentioned in a couple of decades - but in the meantime we need to drastically reduce CO2 output and cut consumption, and waiting on the hope that future SMRs (which haven’t ever been built to scale) might get us there in a few decades is sticking our heads in the sand... punting the football... passing it off to the next generation [insert metaphors for a failure to take action here].

Necessity is the mother of invention.  Frank Zappa knew.  A couple decades is a whole generation.  I think it could be done faster if there was some economic "push" behind it.  Bad example given their current situation, but how long does it take Boeing to develop one f those very complex aircraft?  Even consider cell phones.  Five years ago, I was using a flip phone.  Look at the rapid changes that have occurred there.  How long was the Manhattan project?  How many years did it take Wilbur and Orville to get off the ground?

Tesla was founded in 2003.  It should take less than a few decades for new nukes if there is commitment.

If the nuke industry could stray away from the submarine boys, they'd have a much better chance of innovating and things could happen.

[ministashy]

I was just watching this NOVA episode, and it covers the scientific ground on climate change really well--both the science proving it, but also the solutions possible out there. (It's also available via Netflix.)  https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/video/decoding-the-weather-machine