5 ms·

> it seems the real reason, as in all things, is economics The economics might be different if we paid for the real cost of carbon-based energy, instead of imp

> it seems the real reason, as in all things, is economics The economics might be different if we paid for the real cost of carbon-based energy, instead of imposing that cost on the world as an externality.

luca_ing 10y ago
While I don't disagree with your assessment of carbon-based energy, the same thing (externalising the cost of their downsides) happens with nuclear energy. So if anything, they're equally terrible in that regard.
- hackuser 10y ago
  > the same thing (externalising the cost of their downsides) happens with nuclear energy. / So if anything, they're equally terrible in that regard. That isn't true. There are externalities for both, but the externalities for carbon are far greater. The above statement is like saying: No houses are free to buy; therefore all houses are equally costly.
  - luca_ing 10y ago
    > That isn't true. That's rather sweeping, don't you think? If anything, my statement might be an oversimplification. But untrue? I wouldn't be surprised if they were of a similar order of magnitude. Like houses (Michael Jackson's mansion and similar outliers excluded). > the externalities for carbon are far greater Do you have numbers to back that up? (I don't). But keep in mind that it's not yet clear how expensive it will be to de-construct reactors and store nuclear waste for millenia. Just that it's going to be very, very expensive. And probably footed by the taxpayer.
kpil 10y ago
The total cost for storing and securing shit for 100.000 years is also 'externalized.' Both costs are more or less impossible to establish upfront.
- hackuser 10y ago
  I'm not sure what you mean. We do establish the costs for carbon. In some countries you (or major users) must buy a permit to emit carbon. Some establish the maximum carbon the environment can handle, then auction permits, establishing a market price. The U.S. effectively estimates zero cost (without looking into the details); that certainly is a bad estimate.
  - vidarh 10y ago
    That's not the only cost of fossil fuel power plants. Coal plants kill huge numbers of people. The coal industry pumps huge quantities of uranium dust into the atmosphere alongside fly ash. The biggest externality of coal in particular is not carbon emissions but the massive health costs and human suffering. If fossil fuels were subjected to the same safety requirements as nuclear in terms of preventing public health effects, the cost would increase substantially.
    - hackuser 10y ago
      > The biggest externality of coal in particular is not carbon emissions but the massive health costs and human suffering The carbon emissions cause climate change, which causes human suffering at a scale, as I understand it, far beyond that of the pollution you describe (which is also substantial).
      - vidarh 10y ago
        While that is true, coal is just one of the sources that play into that, and the point that you yourself made was that it can be offset. While the dust and radioactivity released by coal plants kills hundreds of thousands of people now, and we can't meaningfully offset it by trading quotas - it's not like having more kids makes up for killing other people.
        pas 10y ago
        Well, it gives us cheap electricity, which helps us run our hospitals, for example. Thus helping kids live through the early years (where mortality is more likely). But as we all know, replacing coal powered plants with safer things (nuclear, solar, wind, tidal) would cost nothing compared to healthcare costs.
ohyes 10y ago
The economics are based on two things: 1.) Incredible cost to privately insure a nuclear power plant. 2.) There hasn't been an economy of scale when producing nuclear power plants.
- badloginagain 10y ago
  I'd also add 3) Nuclear power technology is running on technology half a century old. This gives you a couple interesting points to consider: - Once built, you have reliable baseload power for generations. - Modernized power plants could be safer, more efficient, and smaller by orders of magnitude. Demonization of nuclear power prevents improvements to nuclear power. The industry is stuck in the 60's. The real shame is that it's the only technology we have that is really future-friendly: Planetary colonization can't rely on wind, nor solar, and certainly not fossil fuels for power. Nuclear will really be the only option for reliable baseload power to extra-terrestrial colonies.
  - ohyes 10y ago
    Absolutely, and even the new designs are multiple decades old. (But even those are a huge improvement over what we have from the 60s/70s). Many of existing plants were at the time they were built considered to be important for national security (read: nuclear arsenal), which is much of why they're using the fuel they use and have the designs they have. Civilian nuclear never really materialized in it's own right, which is certainly a shame.
- fnj 10y ago
  A nuclear power plant disaster is pretty much going to bankrupt somebody, no matter who insures it. Even if the insurance is nationally subsidized, something like Fukushima is going to be a crushing burden on the whole country.
hwillis 10y ago
At this point it seems like that would just mean nuclear losing to solar instead of natural gas. In both cases it's an extremely large investment and slow return, but solar PV juuuust seems to edge out nuclear. The numbers look like nuclear has a slight advantage, but that's skewed by underestimates of nuclear costs (or estimates that it'll come down in the future), as well as the rapid cost declines in solar power. Solar has a very wide price variation but the newest, cheapest stuff is better than nuclear. I find myself in conflict with people a lot regarding nuclear online. I used to be one of those LFTR reactor guys but the facts are that nuclear reactors are always some newer, untested design that will require new untested innovations. On the other hand solar has an easily predicted, easily met roadmap to cheap power with existing tech. We know for a fact that solar can power the entire world's needs cheaply for many decades to come, but we are just guessing that the same can be done with nuclear. Why make that bet when we have a sure thing?
spangry 10y ago
The Brookings Institute (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brookings_Institution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brookings_Institution) agrees with you: http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2014/05/19-low-carbon-future-wind-solar-power-frank/net-benefits-final.pdf http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2014/... Their study looks at different forms of electricity generation from the perspective of 'costs avoided' (e.g. avoided carbon emissions), net cost of generation (e.g. nameplate vs. actual generation), and total system costs (e.g. grid balancing / stabilising costs). On 'costs avoided', their base-case assumption is a $50 per tonne price on co2 emissions. The study concludes: "Assuming that reductions in carbon dioxide emissions are valued at $50 per metric ton and the price of natural gas is not much greater than $16 per million Btu, the net benefits of new nuclear, hydro, and natural gas combined cycle plants far outweigh the net benefits of new wind or solar plants. Wind and solar power are very costly from a social perspective because of their very high capacity cost, their very low capacity factors, and their lack of reliability. For example, adjusting U.S. solar and wind capacity factors to take account of lack of reliability, we estimate that it would take 7.30 MW of solar capacity, costing roughly four times as much per MW to produce the same electrical output with the same degree of reliability as a baseload gas combined cycle plant. It requires an investment of approximately $29 million in utility-scale solar capacity to produce the same output with the same reliability as a $1 million investment in gas combined cycle. Reductions in the price of solar photovoltaic panels have reduced costs for utility-scale solar plants, but photovoltaic panels account for only a fraction of the cost of a solar plant. Thus such price reductions are unlikely to make solar power competitive with other electricity technologies without government subsidies. Wind plants are far more economical in reducing emissions than solar plants, but much less economical than hydro, nuclear and gas combined cycle plants. Wind plants can operate at a capacity factor of 30 percent or more and cost about twice as much per MW to build as a gas combined cycle plant. Taking account of the lack of wind reliability, it takes an investment of approximately $10 million in wind plants to produce the same amount of electricity with the same reliability as a $1 million investment in gas combined cycle plants." And here are my calculations on German solar and wind capacity factors (they're awful): https://gist.github.com/anonymous/f1a6d064890d67fbfc98d66dbdf610ac https://gist.github.com/anonymous/f1a6d064890d67fbfc98d66dbd... Not that anyone here will care about any of this. This issue has pretty much become a matter of blind religious fear & faith.

luca_ing 10y ago

While I don't disagree with your assessment of carbon-based energy, the same thing (externalising the cost of their downsides) happens with nuclear energy. So if anything, they're equally terrible in that regard.

hackuser 10y ago
> the same thing (externalising the cost of their downsides) happens with nuclear energy. / So if anything, they're equally terrible in that regard. That isn't true. There are externalities for both, but the externalities for carbon are far greater. The above statement is like saying: No houses are free to buy; therefore all houses are equally costly.
- luca_ing 10y ago
  > That isn't true. That's rather sweeping, don't you think? If anything, my statement might be an oversimplification. But untrue? I wouldn't be surprised if they were of a similar order of magnitude. Like houses (Michael Jackson's mansion and similar outliers excluded). > the externalities for carbon are far greater Do you have numbers to back that up? (I don't). But keep in mind that it's not yet clear how expensive it will be to de-construct reactors and store nuclear waste for millenia. Just that it's going to be very, very expensive. And probably footed by the taxpayer.

kpil 10y ago

The total cost for storing and securing shit for 100.000 years is also 'externalized.' Both costs are more or less impossible to establish upfront.

hackuser 10y ago
I'm not sure what you mean. We do establish the costs for carbon. In some countries you (or major users) must buy a permit to emit carbon. Some establish the maximum carbon the environment can handle, then auction permits, establishing a market price. The U.S. effectively estimates zero cost (without looking into the details); that certainly is a bad estimate.
- vidarh 10y ago
  That's not the only cost of fossil fuel power plants. Coal plants kill huge numbers of people. The coal industry pumps huge quantities of uranium dust into the atmosphere alongside fly ash. The biggest externality of coal in particular is not carbon emissions but the massive health costs and human suffering. If fossil fuels were subjected to the same safety requirements as nuclear in terms of preventing public health effects, the cost would increase substantially.
  - hackuser 10y ago
    > The biggest externality of coal in particular is not carbon emissions but the massive health costs and human suffering The carbon emissions cause climate change, which causes human suffering at a scale, as I understand it, far beyond that of the pollution you describe (which is also substantial).
    - vidarh 10y ago
      While that is true, coal is just one of the sources that play into that, and the point that you yourself made was that it can be offset. While the dust and radioactivity released by coal plants kills hundreds of thousands of people now, and we can't meaningfully offset it by trading quotas - it's not like having more kids makes up for killing other people.
      - pas 10y ago
        Well, it gives us cheap electricity, which helps us run our hospitals, for example. Thus helping kids live through the early years (where mortality is more likely). But as we all know, replacing coal powered plants with safer things (nuclear, solar, wind, tidal) would cost nothing compared to healthcare costs.

ohyes 10y ago

The economics are based on two things: 1.) Incredible cost to privately insure a nuclear power plant. 2.) There hasn't been an economy of scale when producing nuclear power plants.

badloginagain 10y ago
I'd also add 3) Nuclear power technology is running on technology half a century old. This gives you a couple interesting points to consider: - Once built, you have reliable baseload power for generations. - Modernized power plants could be safer, more efficient, and smaller by orders of magnitude. Demonization of nuclear power prevents improvements to nuclear power. The industry is stuck in the 60's. The real shame is that it's the only technology we have that is really future-friendly: Planetary colonization can't rely on wind, nor solar, and certainly not fossil fuels for power. Nuclear will really be the only option for reliable baseload power to extra-terrestrial colonies.
- ohyes 10y ago
  Absolutely, and even the new designs are multiple decades old. (But even those are a huge improvement over what we have from the 60s/70s). Many of existing plants were at the time they were built considered to be important for national security (read: nuclear arsenal), which is much of why they're using the fuel they use and have the designs they have. Civilian nuclear never really materialized in it's own right, which is certainly a shame.
fnj 10y ago
A nuclear power plant disaster is pretty much going to bankrupt somebody, no matter who insures it. Even if the insurance is nationally subsidized, something like Fukushima is going to be a crushing burden on the whole country.

hwillis 10y ago

At this point it seems like that would just mean nuclear losing to solar instead of natural gas. In both cases it's an extremely large investment and slow return, but solar PV juuuust seems to edge out nuclear. The numbers look like nuclear has a slight advantage, but that's skewed by underestimates of nuclear costs (or estimates that it'll come down in the future), as well as the rapid cost declines in solar power. Solar has a very wide price variation but the newest, cheapest stuff is better than nuclear. I find myself in conflict with people a lot regarding nuclear online. I used to be one of those LFTR reactor guys but the facts are that nuclear reactors are always some newer, untested design that will require new untested innovations. On the other hand solar has an easily predicted, easily met roadmap to cheap power with existing tech. We know for a fact that solar can power the entire world's needs cheaply for many decades to come, but we are just guessing that the same can be done with nuclear. Why make that bet when we have a sure thing?

spangry 10y ago

The Brookings Institute (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brookings_Institution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brookings_Institution) agrees with you: http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2014/05/19-low-carbon-future-wind-solar-power-frank/net-benefits-final.pdf http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2014/... Their study looks at different forms of electricity generation from the perspective of 'costs avoided' (e.g. avoided carbon emissions), net cost of generation (e.g. nameplate vs. actual generation), and total system costs (e.g. grid balancing / stabilising costs). On 'costs avoided', their base-case assumption is a $50 per tonne price on co2 emissions. The study concludes: "Assuming that reductions in carbon dioxide emissions are valued at $50 per metric ton and the price of natural gas is not much greater than $16 per million Btu, the net benefits of new nuclear, hydro, and natural gas combined cycle plants far outweigh the net benefits of new wind or solar plants. Wind and solar power are very costly from a social perspective because of their very high capacity cost, their very low capacity factors, and their lack of reliability. For example, adjusting U.S. solar and wind capacity factors to take account of lack of reliability, we estimate that it would take 7.30 MW of solar capacity, costing roughly four times as much per MW to produce the same electrical output with the same degree of reliability as a baseload gas combined cycle plant. It requires an investment of approximately $29 million in utility-scale solar capacity to produce the same output with the same reliability as a $1 million investment in gas combined cycle. Reductions in the price of solar photovoltaic panels have reduced costs for utility-scale solar plants, but photovoltaic panels account for only a fraction of the cost of a solar plant. Thus such price reductions are unlikely to make solar power competitive with other electricity technologies without government subsidies. Wind plants are far more economical in reducing emissions than solar plants, but much less economical than hydro, nuclear and gas combined cycle plants. Wind plants can operate at a capacity factor of 30 percent or more and cost about twice as much per MW to build as a gas combined cycle plant. Taking account of the lack of wind reliability, it takes an investment of approximately $10 million in wind plants to produce the same amount of electricity with the same reliability as a $1 million investment in gas combined cycle plants." And here are my calculations on German solar and wind capacity factors (they're awful): https://gist.github.com/anonymous/f1a6d064890d67fbfc98d66dbdf610ac https://gist.github.com/anonymous/f1a6d064890d67fbfc98d66dbd... Not that anyone here will care about any of this. This issue has pretty much become a matter of blind religious fear & faith.