3 ms·

I don't think so. Fission is being killed by its lack of competitiveness and how long reactors take to build in a world where renewables are getting better so q

by lz400 9y ago

I don't think so. Fission is being killed by its lack of competitiveness and how long reactors take to build in a world where renewables are getting better so quickly people think twice about locking themselves up in a multi billion nuclear power plant project that takes 10 years to build.

atemerev 9y ago
Fission was killed by cheap oil and fracking revolution. Thankfully, these things don't last forever.
- lz400 9y ago
  Very cheap oil is very recent and it's an artificial situation created by pumping by OPEC countries. Fracking was only worth it because of how expensive oil was before, now it's not worth it anymore while oil stays this cheap. I think current fission nuclear tech is competitive with fossil fuels in the "fracking era". It's not competitive with current oil but that wouldn't kill it, just at most put it on hold until inevitably oil goes up again. Not to mention environmental issues, which massively favor nuclear over fossil fuels. IMHO it is competitive renewables that is a death sentence for current reactor tech. Nuclear needs to go back to the drawing board and come up with more efficient and realistic designs.
  - atemerev 9y ago
    There are no competitive renewables. Photovoltaics can't survive at scale without massive government subsidies or screwing the environment like in China (choose one), wind power doesn't scale, and don't even get me started about biodiesel.
    - lz400 9y ago
      PV are pretty much competitive now without subsidies in current studies and getting better all the time. The "renewables are not competitive" is a thing of the past.
      - atemerev 9y ago
        Like I said -- only if you disregard the environmental impact and account for reusing the scraps from microelectronics industry (which is a good thing, sure -- but can't be expanded much). Crystalline silicon production is messy.
        lz400 9y ago
        Environmental impact of PV is negligible compared with the alternatives, especially fossil fuels.
        atemerev 9y ago
        Well, fossil fuels are not an option anyway, but going full nuclear with closed cycle is much cheaper and environmentally safe. The only problem are proliferation concerns...
        lz400 9y ago
        I disagree. I don't even think nuclear waste is that big of a problem. I think at this point is a efficiency and engineering issue. From 2010 to 2017 the $/Mhw projections in Solar have gone down by 81% while in Nuclear it was only 19%. Wind 63%. PV is lower than nuclear now. Estimates for 2022 are even more difference. Nuclear is just not worth it at this point. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source
        maxerickson 9y ago
        Isn't PV a primary market for silicon? Sure looks like it: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Polysilicon_prices_history_since_2004.svg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Polysilicon_prices_h... (the price drop is mostly a result of pretty big increases in production)
      - petre 9y ago
        PV and wind power cannot provide base load power.

by lz400 9y ago

atemerev 9y ago

Fission was killed by cheap oil and fracking revolution. Thankfully, these things don't last forever.

lz400 9y ago
Very cheap oil is very recent and it's an artificial situation created by pumping by OPEC countries. Fracking was only worth it because of how expensive oil was before, now it's not worth it anymore while oil stays this cheap. I think current fission nuclear tech is competitive with fossil fuels in the "fracking era". It's not competitive with current oil but that wouldn't kill it, just at most put it on hold until inevitably oil goes up again. Not to mention environmental issues, which massively favor nuclear over fossil fuels. IMHO it is competitive renewables that is a death sentence for current reactor tech. Nuclear needs to go back to the drawing board and come up with more efficient and realistic designs.
- atemerev 9y ago
  There are no competitive renewables. Photovoltaics can't survive at scale without massive government subsidies or screwing the environment like in China (choose one), wind power doesn't scale, and don't even get me started about biodiesel.
  - lz400 9y ago
    PV are pretty much competitive now without subsidies in current studies and getting better all the time. The "renewables are not competitive" is a thing of the past.
    - atemerev 9y ago
      Like I said -- only if you disregard the environmental impact and account for reusing the scraps from microelectronics industry (which is a good thing, sure -- but can't be expanded much). Crystalline silicon production is messy.
      - lz400 9y ago
        Environmental impact of PV is negligible compared with the alternatives, especially fossil fuels.
        atemerev 9y ago
        Well, fossil fuels are not an option anyway, but going full nuclear with closed cycle is much cheaper and environmentally safe. The only problem are proliferation concerns...
        lz400 9y ago
        I disagree. I don't even think nuclear waste is that big of a problem. I think at this point is a efficiency and engineering issue. From 2010 to 2017 the $/Mhw projections in Solar have gone down by 81% while in Nuclear it was only 19%. Wind 63%. PV is lower than nuclear now. Estimates for 2022 are even more difference. Nuclear is just not worth it at this point. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source
      - maxerickson 9y ago
        Isn't PV a primary market for silicon? Sure looks like it: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Polysilicon_prices_history_since_2004.svg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Polysilicon_prices_h... (the price drop is mostly a result of pretty big increases in production)
    - petre 9y ago
      PV and wind power cannot provide base load power.