More radioactive waste, but fewer CO2 emissions: is nuclear power a good option?
From the article How a Swiss start-up wants to reinvent nuclear energy
The idea of generating energy from nuclear waste would be captivating, but unfortunately it is not feasible at all; we do not need less nuclear waste, but none at all. Obviously, the inventors of this technology are not yet aware of this. So please, do not burden the ordinary people and research institutes with false hopes anymore. This only generates financial expenditure, but no sustainable rethinking.
Thank you for your insight.
Christoph Rohland, Hinwil
http://www.climate-solution.org
Die Idee, Energie aus atomaren Abfällen zu erzeugen wäre bestechend, ist leider überhaupt nicht umsetzbar; Wir brauchen nicht weniger Atomabfälle, sondern gar keine. Das ist offensichtlich den Erfindern dieser Technologie noch nicht bewusst. Also bitte, nicht mehr die einfachen Leute und Forschungsinstitute mit falschen Hoffnungen belasten. Das erzeugt nur finanziellen Aufwand, aber kein nachhaltiges Umdenken.
Danke für Ihre Einsicht.
Christoph Rohland, Hinwil
www.climate-solution.org
To try something, despite the danger of failing or being wrong, is the goal of all science. Only ideologues always believe to know everything in advance, although they have not even tried. Admire people who have always proven that it still works, and only the limitations of our own thinking prevents this.
Etwas zu versuchen, trotz der Gefahr zu scheitern, oder sich zu irren, ist das Ziel jeglicher Wissenschaft. Nur Ideologen glauben immer im Voraus alles zu wissen, obwohl sie es noch nicht einmal versucht haben. Bewundere Menschen, die stehts bewiesen haben, dass es trotzdem geht, und nur die Begrenztheit unseres eigenen Denkens dies verhindert.
Agreed, but committing the nuclear error several times and in many nations and ignoring the fact that we can deplete fossil resources with it and cannot solve the final disposal, I consider that an irreparable error that truly only ideologists can make. That would be true limitation in one's own thinking.
Einverstanden, doch den Atom-Irrweg mehrmals und in vielen Nationen begehen und sich über die Tatsache hinwegsetzen, dass wir damit fossile Ressourcen abbauen und die Endlagerung nicht lösen können, das halte ich für einen irreparablen Irrtum, den wahrlich nur Ideologen machen können. Das wäre echte Begrenztheit im eigenen Denken.
This will not be possible without nuclear power. The lack of strategy at the federal level by our two federal councillors, with the all-electric, at great expense has not been up to the task. Their high salaries are not everything.
Cela ne sera pas possible sans le nucléaire. Le manque de stratégie au niveau fédéral par nos deux conseillères fédérales, avec le tout électrique , à grand frais n'a pas été à la hauteur. Leurs hauts salaires ne font pas tout.
Of course we have to continue with nuclear power. The current nuclear power which has nothing to do with the old one, the one of Chernobyl for example. The atom has finally the wind in its sails, in several countries. A clean energy that has only advantages. No comparison with other sources which, on the whole, are either polluting or only provide little or only partially the desired energy. The major disadvantage of nuclear energy is the irrational fear of the atom, which makes people think of the atomic bomb, when there is nothing comparable...
Bien sûr qu'il nous faut continuer avec le nucléaire. Le nucléaire actuel qui n'a plus rien à voir avec l'ancien, celui de Tchernobyl p.ex. L'atome a enfin le vent en poupe, dans plusieurs pays. Une énergie propre qui n'a que des avantages. Pas de comparaison avec les autres sources qui, dans l'ensemble sont soit polluantes, soit ne fournissent que peu, que partiellement l'énergie souhaitée. L'inconvénient majeur du nucléaire: la peur irraisonnée de l'atome qui fait penser à la bombe atomique alors que cela n'a rien de comparable...
Hello Sir, I think that talking about "clean" energy for nuclear power is a bit out of place. In addition to the huge amounts of nuclear waste from existing plants that will be left for future generations, there may also be waste from the new, smaller, modular plants that some countries are planning to build. According to a recently published [url=https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2111833119]study [/url]by Stanford University and the University of British Colombia, Small Modular Reactors could even produce more radioactive waste than conventional power plants. Not a good thing.
Bonjour Monsieur je trouve que parler d'énergie "propre" pour le nucléaire est un peu déplacé. En plus des immenses quantités de déchets nucléaires des centrales existantes qu'on va laisser aux générations futures, il y aura aussi peut-être les déchets des nouvelles centrales, plus petites et modulaires, que certains pays prévoient de construire. D'après une [url=https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2111833119]étude [/url]de la Stanford University et de la University of British Colombia publié tout récemment, le mini-réacteurs nucléaires (Small Modular Reactors) pourraient même produire plus de déchets radioactifs que les centrales conventionnelles. Pas très réjouissant.
I don't understand why they don't do it...in China they already started with Thorium/Fission.......as you explained.......
Properties of a Thorium Fission (see notes Prof. Carlo Rubbia).
- Fuel : Thorium with particle accelerator.
- Weakly radioactive metal abundant in the earth's crust.
- Incapable of a chain reaction, reactor shuts down if not fueled
- Waste decay 300 years vs 300k
- Waste ratio : 25 kg vs 1 ton.
- Prevents nuclear proliferation (no bomb)
- Transmutative properties : reuse of low radioactive waste used in power supply
- Short-lived waste transformed into stable elements (problem of accumulation/stock highly radioactive elements)
Non capisco perché non lo facciano...in Cina già sono partiti con Torio/Fissione.......come da Lei spiegato.......
Proprietà di una Fissione al Torio (vedi appunti prof. Carlo Rubbia).
- Combustibile : Torio con acceleratore di particelle
- Metallo debolmente radioattivo abbondante sulla crosta terrestre
- Incapace di una reazione a catena, il reattore si spegne se non alimentato
- Decadimento scorie 300 anni vs 300k
- Scorie rapporto : 25 kg vs 1 ton.
- Impedisce la proliferazione nucleare (no bomb)
- Proprietà transmutative : reimpiego delle scorie a bassa radiott. usate in alimentazione
- Rifiuti a vita corta trasformati in elementi stabili (problema di accumulo/stock elementi altamente radioattivi)
...nuclear energy is an indispensable source without a shadow of a doubt! The so-called renewable energies are only a palliative. The President of Nomisma Energia and university professor explains: "to have the same energy that is in a bottle of gasoline, we would have to have a photovoltaic panel of 10 square meters, illuminated continuously for ten hours. How much territory would we have to cover to do without gasoline? This also has an environmental impact". Not to mention the 'horror that are the wind turbines!
A recent study by Ispra explains how much land is consumed: "It is estimated that in 2030 there will be between 200 and 400 square kilometers of agricultural land lost to install photovoltaic panels, to which 365 would be added for wind farms.
...l'energia nucleare è una fonte irrinunciabile senza ombra di dubbio! Le cosidette energie rinnovabili sono solo un palliativo. Il Presidente di Nomisma Energia e docente universitario, spiega: "per avere la stessa energia che c'è in una bottiglia di benzina, dovremmo avere un pannello fotovoltaico di 10 metri quadrati, illuminato ininterrottamente per dieci ore. Quanto territorio dovremmo coprire per fare a meno della benzina? Anche questo ha un impatto ambientale". Per non parlare poi dell' obbrobrio che sono le pale eoliche!
Quanto sia il territorio consumatolo spiega un recente studio dell' Ispra: " Si stima che nel 2030 saranno tra 200 e400 kilometri quadrati di aree agricole persi per installare pannelli fotovoltaici, a cui se ne aggiungerebbero 365 destinati ad impianti eolici.
Nuclear research must go on as rightly does this Swiss start-up collaborating with Prof. Rubbia (Nobel Prize!) aimed to the development of thorium (!) plants much safer and with little waste. If uranium power plants were developed, it is only because in parallel to electricity, enriched uranium and also the waste can be used for military purposes: that's all! For this reason they did not find public or private financers to develop them. Rubbia has been saying for years that we must convert to thorium, but niet: citus mutus! Now in front of the climate and energy crisis, it seems that there is a wider consensus for thorium. In any case, giving up tout court nuclear power is not only short-sighted, but also a total nonsense. There is no energy source as powerful and CO2-free as nuclear power. If Switzerland, instead of nuclear power, had produced the indispensable basic energy (about 40%) with fossil fuels, we would today have billions of tons of CO2 more shot into the atmosphere. If we then add all the other states, we would probably have already passed the point of no return climate.
Renewables will never be enough (!) to produce the basic safe and steady energy.
Take your pick...but without biased ideology!
La ricerca sul nucleare deve andare avanti come giustamente fa questa start-up svizzera collaborando col. prof. Rubbia (premio Nobel !) tesa allo sviluppo di centrali al torio (!) molto più sicure e con poche scorie. Se furono sviluppate le centrali all'uranio, è solo perché parallelamente all'energia elettrica, l'uranio arricchito e pure le scorie possono servire a scopi militari: tutto qui! Per questo che non trovarono finanziatori né pubblici né privati per svilupparle. Rubbia da anni si sgola che bisogna convertirsi al torio, ma niet: citus mutus! Ora dinnanzi alla crisi climatica e anche energetica , sembra che ci sia un consenso più vasto per il torio. In ogni caso rinunciare tout court al nucleare, è non solo miope, ma pure un non senso totale. Non c'è fonte energetica più potente e priva di CO2 come il nucleare. Se la Svizzera invece del nucleare avesse prodotto l'energia di base indispensabile (ca. il 40%) con energie fossili, avremmo oggi miliardi di tonnellate di Co2 in più sparate nell'atmosfera. Se poi aggiungiamo tutti gli altri stati, probabilmente avremmo già superato il punto di non ritorno climatico.
Le rinnovabili non basteranno mai (!) per produrre l'energia di base sicura e costante.
Fate un po' voi...ma senza ideologia prevenuta!
We waste so much time and money on radioactive waste and nobody really wants it. So why not shoot it into space with disposable rockets. There is so much natural "dangerous" radioactivity there too. So a little more doesn't matter either. The operation of a reactor with newest technologies I see less problematic. In the right place one could live with the risks. We need energy and as long as we Swiss are not well disposed to all other technologies and always block everything for decades, we will soon not get along without foreign electricity. See the theater of solar plants. The objections! The green landscape conservationists are against wind turbines etc. it is ridiculous from abroad what is going on in Switzerland. A pathetic joke!
Wir verschwenden so viel Zeit und Geld für den Radioaktiven Abfall und niemand will ihn wirklich. Also warum nicht gleich mit Einwegraketen ins Weltall schiessen. Dort gibt es auch so viel natürliche „gefährliche“ Radioaktivität. Also spielt ein wenig mehr auch keine Rolle. Das betreiben eines Reaktors mit neuesten Technologien sehe ich weniger problemlos. Am richtigen Ort könnte man mit den Risiken wohl leben. Wir brauchen Energie und solange wir Schweizer allen anderen Technologien nicht gut gegenüber stehen und alles immer auf Jahrzehnte blockieren, werden wir bald nicht ohne Auslandstrom auskommen. Siehe das Theater von Solaranlagen. Die Einsprachen! Die grünen Landschaftschützer sind gegen Windräder etc. es ist vom Ausland aus gesehen lächerlich was in der Schweiz abläuft. Ein armseliger Witz!
The idea of firing nuclear waste into space is completely far-fetched and unfeasible as well because of its unsustainable weight and cost. Besides, waste in space remains dangerous for any space enterprise for scientific purposes. Finland, on the other hand, is already storing nuclear waste approx. 500 meters underground having found a safe place, very dry and without the usual objections of people who know nothing about nuclear power at all. Swiss NAGRA has already found many suitable sites here as well but it is always the people who reject every possible solution. It is therefore more of a political problem than a technical one.
L'idea di sparare i rifiuti nucleare nello spazio è del tutto campata in aria e irrealizzabile pure per il loro peso e costi insostenibili. E poi i rifiuti nello spazio restano pericolosi per ogni impresa spaziale a scopi scientifici. La Finlandia invece sta già stoccando i rifiuti nucleari a ca. 500 metri sottoterra avendo trovato un posto sicuro, molto asciutto e senza le solite obbiezioni della gente che di nucleare non ne sa proprio nulla. La NAGRA svizzera ha già trovato molti siti adatti pure qui ma è sempre il popolo a respingere ogni soluzione possibile. È quindi più un problema politico che non tecnico.
However, one important question would remain unanswered despite the phase-out of nuclear power. Where to put the waste in the interim storage facility? NAGRA should be allowed to finish its investigations and not start a "war of opinions". Of course, I see the dilemma. The opponents of nuclear power fear that if NAGRA succeeds in finding a solution, the doors to nuclear power could open again. The argument postulated earlier that the waste should be left at PSI, where there would always be people to take care of safety, sounds like a bad joke.
Es würde aber trotz Ausstieg aus der Kernkraft eine wichtige Frage offen bleiben. Wohin mit den Abfällen im Zwischenlager? Da sollte man die NAGRA ihre Untersuchungungen beenden lassen und nicht einen "Meinungskrieg" entfachen. Ich sehe natürlich das Dilemma. Die Atomktaftgegner befürchten, dass sich bei einem Lösungserfolg der NAGRA die Türen für die Kernkraft wieder öffnen könnten. Dfrüher mal postulierte Argument, man solle die Abfälle doch gleich beim PSI belassen, dort hätte es immer Leute die für die Sicherheit sorgen würde tönt wie ein schlechter Scherz.
Nuclear waste could already now be stored in a 100% safe underground location, but the real problem is rather political: no one wants them in their vicinity!
I rifiuti nucleari potrebbero già ora esser riposti in un luogo sotterraneo sicuro al 100%, ma il vero problema è piuttosto politico: nessuno le vuole nelle proprie vicinanze!
A nuclear power plant cannot be insured. That's all I need to say.
Ein Atom-Kraftwerk kann nicht versichert werden. Mehr brauche ich nicht zu sagen.
A water dam either :)
Un barrage hydraulique non plus :)
What is this circular argument all about?
Was soll denn dieser Zirkelschluss?
This can't be a serious question...
Radioactivity is much too unpredictable. A major incident in Switzerland would make large parts of the country uninhabitable for thousands of years. Exporting the radioactive waste abroad should also not be worth a serious thought for moral reasons. And we cannot reliably predict the geological behavior of an area over the next 10,000 years either. So: Hands off nuclear power!
Das kann wohl keine ernstgemeinte Frage sein...
Radioaktivität ist viel zu unberechenbar. Ein grösserer Zwischenfall in der Schweiz würde grosse Teile des Landes für Tausende von Jahren unbewohnbar machen. Den radioaktiven Abfall ins Ausland exportieren sollte aus moralischen Gründen ebenfalls keinen ernsthaften Gedanken wert sein. Und das geologische Verhalten eines Gebietes über die nächsten 10'000 Jahre zuverlässig prognostizieren können wir ebenfalls nicht. Also: Hände weg von der Atomkraft!
Switzerland has had a major incident before. One remembers the nuclear reactor Lucens.
At that time one was simply so wise and built the reactor underground.
See on Wikipedia under: Lucens reactor - The accident of January 21, 1969.
Die Schweiz hatte schon mal einen grösseren Zwischenfall. Man erinnere sich an den Atomreaktor Lucens.
Damals war man einfach so weise und baute den Reaktor unterirdisch.
Siehe auf Wikipedia unter: Reaktor Lucens - Der Unfall vom 21. Januar 1969
That's just 50 years...but we're talking about geological containment over hundreds of thousands of years - the alpha emitters especially from the spent fuel won't leave us alone for a long time....
Das sind gerade mal 50 Jahre...wir reden hier aber vom geologischen Einschluss über hunderttausende von Jahren - die Alphastrahler insbesondere aus den abgebrannten Brennelementen werden uns noch lange nicht in Ruhe lassen...
Hi Jack53 thanks for your contribution. In my opinion, renewables could also provide enough energy for everyone (as long as their development is accompanied by a drastic reduction in consumption and better energy efficiency). However, the biggest problem is, as you say, their constancy. The challenge will therefore be to store the excess electricity produced by the sun or wind during periods of low consumption. That of "batteries" is undoubtedly a topic we will address in the near future.
Salve Jack53 grazie per il suo contributo. A mio parere, le rinnovabili potrebbero anche fornire sufficiente energia per tutti (a patto che il loro sviluppo si accompagni da una drastica riduzione dei consumi e da una migliore efficienza energetica). Il problema maggiore è però, come dice Lei, la loro costanza. La sfida sarà quindi di immagazzinare l'elettricità prodotta in eccesso dal sole o dal vento durante i periodi di basso consumo. Quello delle "batterie" è senza dubbio un tema di cui ci occuperemo prossimamente.
Correction: in Germany they have nuclear power, but only to the extent of 12.6% of energy needs.
Correzione: in Germania hanno l'energia nucleare, ma solo in misura del 12.6% di fabbisogno energetico.
Ideally, if we could do without fossil fuels, it would be good for the environment.
But in order to do that there must be viable alternatives that provide consistent, reliable and sufficient energy at competitive prices.
Unfortunately, renewables such as wind and solar energy, do not guarantee those requirements.
Nuclear power provides a lot of energy reliably, at low prices and with low CO2 emissions.
Fortunately in Switzerland, due to its geographical position, hydropower is very important, with about 60% of the supplied needs, and that alone guarantees energy with low co2 emissions.
Replacing nuclear power, which provides about 30% of our energy needs, could not be done without increases in electricity costs, provided that wind and solar power are able to provide sufficient energy.
In Germany, renewables are about 43%, they don't have nuclear, so they use fossil fuels, pollute much more, and still pay more than many comparable countries.
So I would say that before eliminating nuclear power, we need to have real alternatives.
Nuclear also, although it has its safety risks, and amazing as it is, it makes fewer deaths overall and is therefore less dangerous than any alternative.
Idealmente se potremmo fare a meno delle energie fossili sarebbe un bene per l'ambiente.
Ma per fare ciò devono esserci delle alternative valide, che forniscano energia in maniera costante, affidabile e sufficiente, a prezzi competitivi.
Purtroppo le rinnovabili come l'energia eolica e quella solare, non garantiscono quei requisiti.
Il nucleare garantisce tanta energia in maniera affidabile, a prezzi bassi e a basse emissioni di co2.
Fortunatamente in Svizzera, per via della sua posizione geografica, l'energia idroelettrica è molto importante, con il 60% circa del fabbisogno fornito, e già solo quello garantisce energia a basse emissioni di co2.
Per sostituire l'energia nucleare, che fornisce circa il 30% del nostro fabbisogno energetico, non si potrebbe fare senza aumenti dei costi dell'elettricità, sempre che l'eolico e il solare siano in grado di provvedere energia sufficiente.
In Germania le rinnovabili rappresentano il 43% circa, non hanno il nucleare, per cui usano energie fossili, inquinano molto di più, e pagano comunque di più rispetto a tanti paesi comparabili.
Per cui direi che prima di eliminare il nucleare, bisogna avere delle vere alternative.
Il nucleare inoltre, anche se ha i suoi rischi di sicurezza, e per quanto sia sorprendente, fa complessivamente meno morti ed è quindi meno pericolosa di qualsiasi alternativa.
Hello
I think that everything is almost said.
Nobody wants nuclear energy for the potential danger it represents and the disposal of waste but at the same time nobody wants to drastically reduce their electricity needs! This is the dilemma.
Unless we use thermal power plants (oil, gas, coal,...) and disagree with the objectives of reducing greenhouse gases, I think that we will not be able (unfortunately) to do without nuclear power (produced in Switzerland or abroad) as long as renewable energies cannot compensate the needs.
Bonjour
Je pense que tout est quasiment dit.
Personne ne veut de l'énergie nucléaire pour le potentiel de danger qu'elle représente et l'élimination des déchets mais en même temps personne ne veut réduire drastiquement ses besoins en électricité ! Voilà le dilemme.
Sauf à utiliser des centrales thermiques (fioul, gaz, charbon,...) et être en désaccord avec les objectifs de réduction de gaz à effet de serre, je pense que l'on ne pourra (malheureusement) pas faire l'impasse sur l'électricité d'origine nucléaire (produite en Suisse ou d'origine étrangère) tant que les énergies renouvelables ne pourront compenser les besoins.
Hello SCHNEAI1 thank you for your comment. The new generation nuclear power is indeed for some the solution to succeed in the energy transition and to respect the climate objectives. The theoretical potential of these new technologies is promising. But will the promises be maintained during the realization and practical operation?
Bonjour SCHNEAI1 merci de votre commentaire. Le nucléaire de nouvelle génération est en effet pour certains la solution pour réussir la transition énergétique et respecter les objectifs climatiques. Le potentiel théorique de ces nouvelles technologies est promettant. Mais les promesses seront maintenues lors de la réalisation et de l'exploitation pratique ?
Join the conversation!