41 ms·

This diagramm shows that renewables are replacing nuclear power in Germany, not coal. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stromerzeugung#/media/File:Energiemix_Deuts

by ju-st 11y ago

This diagramm shows that renewables are replacing nuclear power in Germany, not coal. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stromerzeugung#/media/File:Energiemix_Deutschland.svg https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stromerzeugung#/media/File:Ene...

simoncion 11y ago
The Germany situation is mentioned in Scott Alexander's Livejournal post, linked above. Keep in mind that that post was written a little while after the tsunami came in and wrecked stuff, so it's pretty old. Nuclear plants are really good base-load plants. I guess that you can design a national power grid that's supplied largely by renewables, but I suspect that it's very hard and not cheap.
- afterburner 11y ago
  > it's very hard and not cheap That also describes nuclear power.
  - simoncion 11y ago
    1) Infrastructure projects always appear expensive to the layman. The correct way to price power generation projects is to look at the expected actual cost per MW over the lifetime of the generation facility, and to factor in -as best you can- actual externalities related to the operation of the facility. 2) As I understand it, the hard part of nuclear power isn't the engineering and construction; that's a solved problem. The hard part is fighting pervasive, irrational anti-nuclear-power sentiment.
    - ju-st 11y ago
      I think the engineering and construction is not a solved problem (+nuclear waste). All new plants have construction delays and cost overruns. Of course, one could argue that overly strict regulations (which may only exist because of public concerns) are the reason for these problems. But the reason for the safety of the existing reactors are these strict regulations, so I think loosening these rules is not a good idea.
      - simoncion 11y ago
        The US already has many-decades-old well-understood, field-tested fission reactor designs. The construction of those is a solved problem. As I understand it, France and several other countries have substantially newer, field-tested fission reactor designs. I've heard that there exist still-newer fission reactor designs that have not been constructed at large power-plant scale. So, the engineering and construction of the power plant is a solved problem. The political problem of what to do with the fission products is -sadly- not a solved problem in the US. > All new plants have construction delays and cost overruns. Cost overruns are -sadly- a symptom of our not-infrequently-nuts-as-shit federal bidding process. Construction delays are a symptom of our failure to enact a system similar to some other countries where -after a lengthy plan-scrutinization and public comment period- approved public works projects become law and are immune to construction delays due to public outrage, outcry, legal challenge, or general meddling. None of that is unique to fission power plan construction. :)
        afterburner 11y ago
        > delays due to public outrage, outcry, legal challenge, or general meddling I think you're confused. He means delays due to engineering/construction issues, not political issues. If you are claiming these do not exist, then you are out to lunch and not talking seriously. Furthermore, politics is a factor in nuclear safety. Consider that the Fukushima plant life was extended beyond its advisable lifespan. This was almost certainly because the idea looked like the cheaper one at the time, since shutting down a nuclear plant is a lengthy and expensive process. Keeping it running is politically a very tempting option, and such human factors will dominate safety considerations long after anything has been "solved".
        simoncion 11y ago
        > If you are claiming these do not exist... I'm not. ju-st is implying either that we don't know how to build power plant sized fission reactors, that we've never built and operated one successfully and safely for decades, or both. All projects in the US have delays and cost overruns. I addressed this in my reply to his comment. That doesn't mean that the design and construction of the thing being constructed isn't a solved problem. > Consider that the Fukushima plant life was extended beyond its ["advisable"] lifespan. And yet: > When you hit a nuclear plant with the fifth largest earthquake ever recorded, then immediately follow that with a twenty foot high tsunami, and then it explodes, it still kills fewer people than an average coal plant does every single year when everything goes perfectly. [0] Nuclear power is less dangerous than even solar power, hydroelectric power, or wind power! > Rooftop solar power has a per terawatt death rate ten times worse than nuclear power because of - I kid you not - people falling off roofs when installing the panel. Hydroelectric power has a worse fatality rate because of dams bursting and flooding people. Even wind power has a worse fatality per terawatt rate - seventy three people have died in windmill related accidents. [0] [0] http://squid314.livejournal.com/292620.html http://squid314.livejournal.com/292620.html

by ju-st 11y ago

simoncion 11y ago

The Germany situation is mentioned in Scott Alexander's Livejournal post, linked above. Keep in mind that that post was written a little while after the tsunami came in and wrecked stuff, so it's pretty old. Nuclear plants are really good base-load plants. I guess that you can design a national power grid that's supplied largely by renewables, but I suspect that it's very hard and not cheap.

afterburner 11y ago
> it's very hard and not cheap That also describes nuclear power.
- simoncion 11y ago
  1) Infrastructure projects always appear expensive to the layman. The correct way to price power generation projects is to look at the expected actual cost per MW over the lifetime of the generation facility, and to factor in -as best you can- actual externalities related to the operation of the facility. 2) As I understand it, the hard part of nuclear power isn't the engineering and construction; that's a solved problem. The hard part is fighting pervasive, irrational anti-nuclear-power sentiment.
  - ju-st 11y ago
    I think the engineering and construction is not a solved problem (+nuclear waste). All new plants have construction delays and cost overruns. Of course, one could argue that overly strict regulations (which may only exist because of public concerns) are the reason for these problems. But the reason for the safety of the existing reactors are these strict regulations, so I think loosening these rules is not a good idea.
    - simoncion 11y ago
      The US already has many-decades-old well-understood, field-tested fission reactor designs. The construction of those is a solved problem. As I understand it, France and several other countries have substantially newer, field-tested fission reactor designs. I've heard that there exist still-newer fission reactor designs that have not been constructed at large power-plant scale. So, the engineering and construction of the power plant is a solved problem. The political problem of what to do with the fission products is -sadly- not a solved problem in the US. > All new plants have construction delays and cost overruns. Cost overruns are -sadly- a symptom of our not-infrequently-nuts-as-shit federal bidding process. Construction delays are a symptom of our failure to enact a system similar to some other countries where -after a lengthy plan-scrutinization and public comment period- approved public works projects become law and are immune to construction delays due to public outrage, outcry, legal challenge, or general meddling. None of that is unique to fission power plan construction. :)
      - afterburner 11y ago
        > delays due to public outrage, outcry, legal challenge, or general meddling I think you're confused. He means delays due to engineering/construction issues, not political issues. If you are claiming these do not exist, then you are out to lunch and not talking seriously. Furthermore, politics is a factor in nuclear safety. Consider that the Fukushima plant life was extended beyond its advisable lifespan. This was almost certainly because the idea looked like the cheaper one at the time, since shutting down a nuclear plant is a lengthy and expensive process. Keeping it running is politically a very tempting option, and such human factors will dominate safety considerations long after anything has been "solved".
        simoncion 11y ago
        > If you are claiming these do not exist... I'm not. ju-st is implying either that we don't know how to build power plant sized fission reactors, that we've never built and operated one successfully and safely for decades, or both. All projects in the US have delays and cost overruns. I addressed this in my reply to his comment. That doesn't mean that the design and construction of the thing being constructed isn't a solved problem. > Consider that the Fukushima plant life was extended beyond its ["advisable"] lifespan. And yet: > When you hit a nuclear plant with the fifth largest earthquake ever recorded, then immediately follow that with a twenty foot high tsunami, and then it explodes, it still kills fewer people than an average coal plant does every single year when everything goes perfectly. [0] Nuclear power is less dangerous than even solar power, hydroelectric power, or wind power! > Rooftop solar power has a per terawatt death rate ten times worse than nuclear power because of - I kid you not - people falling off roofs when installing the panel. Hydroelectric power has a worse fatality rate because of dams bursting and flooding people. Even wind power has a worse fatality per terawatt rate - seventy three people have died in windmill related accidents. [0] [0] http://squid314.livejournal.com/292620.html http://squid314.livejournal.com/292620.html