The argument for transitioning to renewables seems stronger than ever – and yet, attacks mount on the carbon price scheme that underpins the EU’s success at cutting pollution
For one, most remotelly modern coal plants can be repurposed for single core nuclear reactors. So it effectivelly removes the biggest hurdle of nuclear. The upfront cost.
Another reason is that spend nuclear fuel is close to 96% recyclable.
Thirdly the energy production is steady.
Fourth and most important thing. We need to get rid of the fossil fuels right now. Its too important thing to dilly dally with. It does not matter if its solar, wind, hydro, thermal or nuclear energy.
Unfortunately, if I remember right, most coal power plants are more radioactive than the minimum we allow for nuclear plants. While we could convert them, right now I don’t believe that is happening.
Okay, I have never heard of using coal plants for nuclear and found nothing online. Do you have some sources for me?
And yes, I get the rest, but I would prefer to not use nuclear, but given the current development, I’d prefer going full nuclear over whatever the fuck a lot of countries are doing right now.
Its mostly because the process inherently is just boiling water with resource x and making steam engine go brrr. Coal plants have the infrastructure for the energy generating and logistics allready there and the parts are allready wistanding the heat. Additional bonus is that while coal plant needs weekly refills nuclear plant could produce the same energy with only few refills a year.
Here is pretty comprehensive recearch made in 2022 by DOE It takes account many benefits and hurdles if the process and its not trying to sugar coat it. (Sadly current USA political situation is not intrested pursuing this any further)
For one, most remotelly modern coal plants can be repurposed for single core nuclear reactors. So it effectivelly removes the biggest hurdle of nuclear. The upfront cost.
Another reason is that spend nuclear fuel is close to 96% recyclable.
Thirdly the energy production is steady.
Fourth and most important thing. We need to get rid of the fossil fuels right now. Its too important thing to dilly dally with. It does not matter if its solar, wind, hydro, thermal or nuclear energy.
Unfortunately, if I remember right, most coal power plants are more radioactive than the minimum we allow for nuclear plants. While we could convert them, right now I don’t believe that is happening.
Okay, I have never heard of using coal plants for nuclear and found nothing online. Do you have some sources for me?
And yes, I get the rest, but I would prefer to not use nuclear, but given the current development, I’d prefer going full nuclear over whatever the fuck a lot of countries are doing right now.
Its mostly because the process inherently is just boiling water with resource x and making steam engine go brrr. Coal plants have the infrastructure for the energy generating and logistics allready there and the parts are allready wistanding the heat. Additional bonus is that while coal plant needs weekly refills nuclear plant could produce the same energy with only few refills a year.
Here is pretty comprehensive recearch made in 2022 by DOE It takes account many benefits and hurdles if the process and its not trying to sugar coat it. (Sadly current USA political situation is not intrested pursuing this any further)
Here is good paper that studies the field wider but also aknowledges the potential in C2N conversion