3 ms·

> * Advanced nuclear [...] can improve cost It seems more likely that the opposite is true: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant#Cost h

> * Advanced nuclear [...] can improve cost It seems more likely that the opposite is true: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant#Cost https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant#... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_station#Economics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_... > * Nuclear scales well (demonstrated in France) You mean except in Summer when the rivers are too hot to use their water as a coolant or in Winter when it's getting to cold and France needs to import electricity: http://www.renewablesinternational.net/german-power-exports-to-france-increasing/150/537/33036/ http://www.renewablesinternational.net/german-power-exports-... > Also recall that wind and solar are collecting a very non-dense (but free) energy so they need lots of material and land footprint. Still lifecycle CO2 emissions are very similar. Building nuclear power stations and mining is also extremely resource-intensive.

acidburnNSA 10y ago
I mean advanced nuclear as in GenIV guys like Molten Salt Reactors, HTGR (which can do process heat and expand the market), fast breeders, etc. None of these have been shown to be cheaper in practice yet but they have attributes that logically would reduce cost once developed. The problem here is that advanced nuclear development is very slow and costly. So far really on the US Navy has done this successfully and at scale (giving us today's LWRs).
- legulere 10y ago
  The last time I talked with some people in the nuclear industry (that was before fukushima) I was kind of excited for GenIV reactors. They destroyed that enthusiasm by telling me that they're still decades off. The thing is that we need to build low-CO₂ plants now and at least in the west solar and especially wind seem to be the way to go currently.
  - AstralStorm 10y ago
    I'd take your advice 50 years ago. It is way too late for such milquetoast measures now. Even best coal plants given perfect fuel produce a lot of CO2 per MWh. This not counting mining and energy required to purify coal. Oil is even harder to clean up and there is just not enough natural gas.

acidburnNSA 10y ago

I mean advanced nuclear as in GenIV guys like Molten Salt Reactors, HTGR (which can do process heat and expand the market), fast breeders, etc. None of these have been shown to be cheaper in practice yet but they have attributes that logically would reduce cost once developed. The problem here is that advanced nuclear development is very slow and costly. So far really on the US Navy has done this successfully and at scale (giving us today's LWRs).

legulere 10y ago
The last time I talked with some people in the nuclear industry (that was before fukushima) I was kind of excited for GenIV reactors. They destroyed that enthusiasm by telling me that they're still decades off. The thing is that we need to build low-CO₂ plants now and at least in the west solar and especially wind seem to be the way to go currently.
- AstralStorm 10y ago
  I'd take your advice 50 years ago. It is way too late for such milquetoast measures now. Even best coal plants given perfect fuel produce a lot of CO2 per MWh. This not counting mining and energy required to purify coal. Oil is even harder to clean up and there is just not enough natural gas.