8 ms·

It is interesting how you say that nuclear might be cheaper and at the same time accept an incident like fukushima every 30 years like you pay 1000 peanuts and

by patall 10y ago

It is interesting how you say that nuclear might be cheaper and at the same time accept an incident like fukushima every 30 years like you pay 1000 peanuts and that it alright again. Maybe you will allow a nuclear plant in your backyard but most people already have a problem with wind power. This has nothing to do with fear about the technology itself but about the decrease in property value in vicinity of the plant. So, may be your intention is good but not realistic as the Hinkley Point C plant for 30+ billion pound in england shows. So if I have two solutions that are equally expensive but one leaves me with radioactive waste, why would you chose that one? And while I agree that we need some back up plan to stabilize the net load, that also wont be nuclear power as those plants are not fast in start up managment either.

witty_username 10y ago
Any such decrease in property value is precisely because of the irrational fear of nuclear power. > So, may be your intention is good but not realistic as the Hinkley Point C plant for 30+ billion pound in england shows. Government should not fund or provide any guarantees to such projects; we should tax carbon and let people decide what to do (in which case, we wouldn't even need to argue which is cheaper and we can just let power companies figure it out). > So if I have two solutions that are equally expensive but one leaves me with radioactive waste, why would you chose that one? Isn't solar more expensive when you factor in the cost of batteries (which would be required if solar scales up; i.e. a diseconomy of scale)? Please correct me if I'm wrong.
- natch 10y ago
  The costs of solar are decreasing over time. And solar is more decentralized, so you're not stuck with huge government boondoggles, corruption, and corporate overlords.
  - witty_username 10y ago
    Source for corruption in private electricity firms? I don't think it's particularly high. Who are corporate overlords?
    - natch 10y ago
      Ever heard of Enron? Also just google for "nuclear corruption" and you'll get a lot of reading material. For example this article http://nautilus.org/napsnet/napsnet-policy-forum/nuclear-corruption-2012-to-date/ http://nautilus.org/napsnet/napsnet-policy-forum/nuclear-cor... which has links out to sources including the US DOJ about corruption cases in Korea, Taiwan, Japan, the US, and more. It's a huge problem. And the key players would like to keep it all hidden, so your being in the dark about it is no surprise. Corporate overlords (can't tell if you are trolling, but I'll answer) is just a shorthand for corporate decision makers who prioritize corporate profits over other considerations like consumer benefit, care of the environment, freedom of consumer choice, fair dealing, etc.
    - natch 10y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron
- Retric 10y ago
  It's completely rational to reduce property values when there is a risk you will be forced to move and lose all your possessions. If the risk is say 0.3% over the next hundred years paying every homeowner ~20,000$ within 40 miles when the plant is built to offset that risk is completely rational, but would make nuclear Even less viable.
  - mason240 10y ago
    >there is a risk you will be forced to move and lose all your possessions. Can you give me a street address for somewhere that this isn't a possibility? My house is heated by natural gas - it could literally explode while I'm at work today.
    - Retric 10y ago
      Risk X exists has nothing to do with risk Y. Nuclear powerplants increase risks so the local population should be compensated.
      - JoeAltmaier 10y ago
        Hard to assess that risk. No modern plant has had catastrophic failure like that. Essentially there's no data to extrapolate from.
        Retric 10y ago
        Fukushima exclusion zone disagrees with you. Sure, if we limited reactors to 'safe' locations that reduces risks, but we still put them in stupid areas such as near fault lines.
        JoeAltmaier 10y ago
        "No modern plant"
        10y ago
mseebach 10y ago
Cheaper compared to every other suggested solution to climate change. If climate change wasn't a thing, sure, I'd probably be on board with writing off nuclear and waiting for some combination of solar and wind and storage to take over. Also, regardless of who pays, a Fukushima-event every few decades is several orders of magnitude cheaper than flood-securing New York City alone (and there are a lot more places in the world that will need flood securing).
- natch 10y ago
  I doubt the flood-securing work is avoidable. But maybe it could be less bad. Rather than nuclear, which lends itself to big government, corruption, corporate projects, bond issues, and taxes, I'd prefer to see money instead poured into acceleration of the spread of solar, which is less centralized and easier to spread to all kinds of places. Sure, not everywhere, but the potential is pretty untapped.
mason240 10y ago
I would prefer to live near a nuclear plant than within sight of a wind farm.
- natch 10y ago
  As long as we're exploring hypothetical choices, would you prefer to live near a nuclear plant over living in a house with energy provided by solar tiles on the roof?
  - coredog64 10y ago
    Yes, because I like to have power at night ;)
    - lloeki 10y ago
      Smooth out power delivery with energy storage such as batteries?
    - natch 10y ago
      Since you seem not to have thought of it, you can also get power from the grid at night. Or from batteries. The grid gets its power from diverse sources. So your logic doesn't quite hold up.
      - phil21 10y ago
        Your logic doesn't hold up. You cannot ignore externalities when... arguing against them to begin with. I'd much rather live with a nuclear power station in my backyard, than install solar knowing I'm robbing those who can't afford it for my usage of the free grid battery. Rooftop solar as implemented today is not sustainable, and is a regressive tax. So the only honest way to do this is with your own energy storage - e.g. batteries. I do agree the allure of being completely off-grid sounds great, until you price it out. So I choose nuclear reactor in my backyard until energy storage tech catches up.
        10y ago
zo1 10y ago
>"Maybe you will allow a nuclear plant in your backyard but most people already have a problem with wind power." I don't understand. Why can't we put these things in the absolute middle of nowhere? Workers live on-site and you don't turn the camp into some sort of "work town". Problem solved, unless I'm missing something?
- nine_k 10y ago
  Transmission of electricity is not free, you have to build and maintain a high-power transmission line, and also waste some of the power for transmission inefficiency. Getting people live in a work camp, transport them to and fro, and otherwise compensate them for their strange living conditions takes money, too. This may be a significant fraction of operation cost, even if the power at the generator's output connectors is produced cheaply. More expensive -> less competitive.
coredog64 10y ago
> Maybe you will allow a nuclear plant in your backyard but most people already have a problem with wind power. In fact, I do have a nuclear power plant in my backyard (relatively speaking). Per Wikipedia, it's the largest power plant in the US by net generation. I'd be happy to see them add 3 more reactors to the site and double operating capacity to ~8GW.
Recurecur 10y ago
"It is interesting how you say that nuclear might be cheaper and at the same time accept an incident like fukushima every 30 years like you pay 1000 peanuts and that it alright again. Maybe you will allow a nuclear plant in your backyard but most people already have a problem with wind power. This has nothing to do with fear about the technology itself but about the decrease in property value in vicinity of the plant. So, may be your intention is good but not realistic as the Hinkley Point C plant for 30+ billion pound in england shows." Nuclear done right will be a great solution going forward. We need a SpaceX of nuclear to out-compete the dinosaur companies like GE. Thorcon Power (thorconpower.com) is one good candidate. With molten salt technology, there is zero chance of a meltdown or explosive distribution of material. Thorcon's plan is to site the reactors 30 m underground. "So if I have two solutions that are equally expensive but one leaves me with radioactive waste, why would you chose that one? And while I agree that we need some back up plan to stabilize the net load, that also wont be nuclear power as those plants are not fast in start up managment either." Thorcon's estimate is that power cost $.02-$.05 per KWH. The ramp up or down for a nuclear plant is a non-issue because fuel costs are negligible.

by patall 10y ago

witty_username 10y ago

Any such decrease in property value is precisely because of the irrational fear of nuclear power. > So, may be your intention is good but not realistic as the Hinkley Point C plant for 30+ billion pound in england shows. Government should not fund or provide any guarantees to such projects; we should tax carbon and let people decide what to do (in which case, we wouldn't even need to argue which is cheaper and we can just let power companies figure it out). > So if I have two solutions that are equally expensive but one leaves me with radioactive waste, why would you chose that one? Isn't solar more expensive when you factor in the cost of batteries (which would be required if solar scales up; i.e. a diseconomy of scale)? Please correct me if I'm wrong.

natch 10y ago
The costs of solar are decreasing over time. And solar is more decentralized, so you're not stuck with huge government boondoggles, corruption, and corporate overlords.
- witty_username 10y ago
  Source for corruption in private electricity firms? I don't think it's particularly high. Who are corporate overlords?
  - natch 10y ago
    Ever heard of Enron? Also just google for "nuclear corruption" and you'll get a lot of reading material. For example this article http://nautilus.org/napsnet/napsnet-policy-forum/nuclear-corruption-2012-to-date/ http://nautilus.org/napsnet/napsnet-policy-forum/nuclear-cor... which has links out to sources including the US DOJ about corruption cases in Korea, Taiwan, Japan, the US, and more. It's a huge problem. And the key players would like to keep it all hidden, so your being in the dark about it is no surprise. Corporate overlords (can't tell if you are trolling, but I'll answer) is just a shorthand for corporate decision makers who prioritize corporate profits over other considerations like consumer benefit, care of the environment, freedom of consumer choice, fair dealing, etc.
  - natch 10y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron
Retric 10y ago
It's completely rational to reduce property values when there is a risk you will be forced to move and lose all your possessions. If the risk is say 0.3% over the next hundred years paying every homeowner ~20,000$ within 40 miles when the plant is built to offset that risk is completely rational, but would make nuclear Even less viable.
- mason240 10y ago
  >there is a risk you will be forced to move and lose all your possessions. Can you give me a street address for somewhere that this isn't a possibility? My house is heated by natural gas - it could literally explode while I'm at work today.
  - Retric 10y ago
    Risk X exists has nothing to do with risk Y. Nuclear powerplants increase risks so the local population should be compensated.
    - JoeAltmaier 10y ago
      Hard to assess that risk. No modern plant has had catastrophic failure like that. Essentially there's no data to extrapolate from.
      - Retric 10y ago
        Fukushima exclusion zone disagrees with you. Sure, if we limited reactors to 'safe' locations that reduces risks, but we still put them in stupid areas such as near fault lines.
        JoeAltmaier 10y ago
        "No modern plant"
        10y ago

mseebach 10y ago

Cheaper compared to every other suggested solution to climate change. If climate change wasn't a thing, sure, I'd probably be on board with writing off nuclear and waiting for some combination of solar and wind and storage to take over. Also, regardless of who pays, a Fukushima-event every few decades is several orders of magnitude cheaper than flood-securing New York City alone (and there are a lot more places in the world that will need flood securing).

natch 10y ago
I doubt the flood-securing work is avoidable. But maybe it could be less bad. Rather than nuclear, which lends itself to big government, corruption, corporate projects, bond issues, and taxes, I'd prefer to see money instead poured into acceleration of the spread of solar, which is less centralized and easier to spread to all kinds of places. Sure, not everywhere, but the potential is pretty untapped.

mason240 10y ago

I would prefer to live near a nuclear plant than within sight of a wind farm.

natch 10y ago
As long as we're exploring hypothetical choices, would you prefer to live near a nuclear plant over living in a house with energy provided by solar tiles on the roof?
- coredog64 10y ago
  Yes, because I like to have power at night ;)
  - lloeki 10y ago
    Smooth out power delivery with energy storage such as batteries?
  - natch 10y ago
    Since you seem not to have thought of it, you can also get power from the grid at night. Or from batteries. The grid gets its power from diverse sources. So your logic doesn't quite hold up.
    - phil21 10y ago
      Your logic doesn't hold up. You cannot ignore externalities when... arguing against them to begin with. I'd much rather live with a nuclear power station in my backyard, than install solar knowing I'm robbing those who can't afford it for my usage of the free grid battery. Rooftop solar as implemented today is not sustainable, and is a regressive tax. So the only honest way to do this is with your own energy storage - e.g. batteries. I do agree the allure of being completely off-grid sounds great, until you price it out. So I choose nuclear reactor in my backyard until energy storage tech catches up.
      - 10y ago

zo1 10y ago

>"Maybe you will allow a nuclear plant in your backyard but most people already have a problem with wind power." I don't understand. Why can't we put these things in the absolute middle of nowhere? Workers live on-site and you don't turn the camp into some sort of "work town". Problem solved, unless I'm missing something?

nine_k 10y ago
Transmission of electricity is not free, you have to build and maintain a high-power transmission line, and also waste some of the power for transmission inefficiency. Getting people live in a work camp, transport them to and fro, and otherwise compensate them for their strange living conditions takes money, too. This may be a significant fraction of operation cost, even if the power at the generator's output connectors is produced cheaply. More expensive -> less competitive.

coredog64 10y ago

> Maybe you will allow a nuclear plant in your backyard but most people already have a problem with wind power. In fact, I do have a nuclear power plant in my backyard (relatively speaking). Per Wikipedia, it's the largest power plant in the US by net generation. I'd be happy to see them add 3 more reactors to the site and double operating capacity to ~8GW.

Recurecur 10y ago

"It is interesting how you say that nuclear might be cheaper and at the same time accept an incident like fukushima every 30 years like you pay 1000 peanuts and that it alright again. Maybe you will allow a nuclear plant in your backyard but most people already have a problem with wind power. This has nothing to do with fear about the technology itself but about the decrease in property value in vicinity of the plant. So, may be your intention is good but not realistic as the Hinkley Point C plant for 30+ billion pound in england shows." Nuclear done right will be a great solution going forward. We need a SpaceX of nuclear to out-compete the dinosaur companies like GE. Thorcon Power (thorconpower.com) is one good candidate. With molten salt technology, there is zero chance of a meltdown or explosive distribution of material. Thorcon's plan is to site the reactors 30 m underground. "So if I have two solutions that are equally expensive but one leaves me with radioactive waste, why would you chose that one? And while I agree that we need some back up plan to stabilize the net load, that also wont be nuclear power as those plants are not fast in start up managment either." Thorcon's estimate is that power cost $.02-$.05 per KWH. The ramp up or down for a nuclear plant is a non-issue because fuel costs are negligible.