5 ms·

There's so much misinformation about renewable energy. I was quite surprised by this. So how does it compare to nuclear energy?

samcheng 9y ago
Once you factor in the costs to decommission a nuclear facility, nuclear becomes one of the most expensive options.
- virmundi 9y ago
  When you say that, does it take into account nuclear where we reuse fuel?
  - pjc50 9y ago
    Fuel sourcing and disposal is a small part of the cost. Edit: a projected cost breakdown for Hinkley Point C! https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Hinkley-Point-C.pdf https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Hinkley-Po... (figure 2) So fuel is not inconsiderable; 6.2bn "fuel costs", 1.8 "fuel management", 2.6 "fuel disposal". From a total of £54.8 bn. Add 10-50% to actual construction and decommissioning costs for overruns.
- worldsayshi 9y ago
  And yet still there are so many people that believe that nuclear is the only pragmatic path to a green energy future.
- RivieraKid 9y ago
  True, but nuclear energy has two important benefits. It has a stable output (so you don't have to invest in energy storage) and it takes up much less space (so it doesn't visually disrupt the landscape as much).
  - olau 9y ago
    Demand is not stable so you still need energy storage or something else to fill the peaks. The only alternative is not running the plant at full capacity, which will make it even more expensive. Less space: that's true. But you still need a fair bit of space to the nearest city. :)
    - RivieraKid 9y ago
      Yeah, but with nuclear you only have to deal with demand variability, not supply variability.
    - Caveman_Coder 9y ago
      That is not "the only alternative" in practice. If you're in a market (which most companies owning nuclear generation are) you'd sell your excess energy, you wouldn't lower the output of your nuclear generation resources.
  - pjc50 9y ago
    Unless the 1/1000 failure event happens and all the land for miles around is rendered uninhabitable and unfarmable.
    - eru 9y ago
      We could have many, many more Chernobyl and Fukushima style disasters, and nuclear would still be safer than real-world coal. (But that's an easy target to beat.)
    - RivieraKid 9y ago
      In modern nuclear reactors, safety is not an issue.
      - chefkoch 9y ago
        "In modern nuclear reactors, safety is not an issue." Russian nuclear engineer, 1985
- olau 9y ago
  While decommissioning is indeed expensive and as far as I'm aware still mostly based on estimates since there's little experience with the full process, I don't think this statement is correct. What's really, really expensive is building the plant in such a manner that it is both secure and maintainable. The problem with securing it is that a critical event is so damn expensive (cf. Fukushima) that you need to secure it against all imaginable problems - and as you can imagine, that list is growing over time. And still, you can't buy insurance for a plant. So the government carries the bulk of the risk.
  - DiThi 9y ago
    > you need to secure it against all imaginable problems It's not that hard if you avoid greedy power plant owners. TEPCO was repeatedly warned many years ago that they had to build a barrier against tsunamis, and all other plants of the area followed the advice.
olau 9y ago
Traditional nuclear plants are simply too expensive to build. They are not competitive, and haven't been for decades if I'm not mistaken. It's not impossible that a new design could be cheaper, but figuring in both development, test, and time for industrialization, we're probably at least 20 years from that. Meanwhile, both PV and wind are falling in price from industrialization.
- edison85 9y ago
  They are very very cheap, the regulations make up the bulk of their costs. Most regulations are important but the costly ones are not and it takes 10+ years to get approvals due to beuracratic hold ups. Even smoothening those out and keeping exact same safety standards would cut prices and time significantly That said I am very pro Wind. The American Midwest is a goldmine for that and I'm very excited to see it increase over the next five but I hope they keep the tax credit, wind growth will significantly fall without it
  - hwillis 9y ago
    Not true. Nuclear is fantastically expensive in every country regardless of regulations or NIMBYism. Regulatory expense is a minority problem that exacerbates the core issues. The big problems are mostly competency. A nuclear plant requires huge parts from tons of companies all over the planet. People are always messing it up. The biggest issue is that this huge coordination problem makes everything take way longer, which means almost everyone involved with the plant is sitting around getting paid to do nothing. That's incredibly expensive when the project stretches over a decade.
    - opo 9y ago
      >... Nuclear is fantastically expensive in every country regardless of regulations or NIMBYism. Not true. One example is France - they generate over 70% of their power through nuclear: >...France enjoys one of the lowest electricity prices in Europe; at 14.72 euro cents per kWh, the average cost of electricity in France is 26.5% cheaper than the EU average (20.02 euro cents per kWh). https://en.selectra.info/energy-france/guides/electricity-cost https://en.selectra.info/energy-france/guides/electricity-co...
philipkglass 9y ago
Wind vs nuclear, USA edition: Wind advantages: * Faster to build * Electricity production can begin before entire project is finished * Lower cost per MWh generated * Much less expensive worst-case-scenario failure mode * No cooling water required Disadvantages: * No guaranteed output without storage add-ons * Much lower areal density of annual generation (e.g. "how much energy can you generate yearly on a 10 km^2 parcel of land?") Other differences: * A nuclear reactor may operate 40-60 years before replacement; a wind turbine is more like 20-25 years * Over its full life cycle, a wind farm demands less human labor per MWh generated I put nuclear's long life under "other" rather than "advantages" because the other side of "long life" is "long term commitment." I also put the lower labor demands of wind under "other" because many people (not me, but many) consider "providing good jobs" as more of a benefit than a burden when they evaluate power sources. On balance, I think that wind has the advantage now and for at least the next decade or so. Nuclear could become more attractive again once there's a high penetration of intermittent renewables on the grid that make guaranteed-output sources relatively more valuable. The high areal density of nuclear power vs. wind is much more of a theoretical than a real advantage in a country like the USA, which has low population density by global standards and a lot of windy area. The more interesting contest will be between wind and PV; the latter has historically cost more nameplate watt, but its costs have been falling faster. PV also has lower day-to-day variability even though its annual capacity factor is typically lower.
TomK32 9y ago
Aside from stuff others mentioned, there's a social/political component differing them. Nuclear energy has always been pushed by politicians. Harvesting the mighty atom is a prestige project and not something a business that wants simple tech that's quick to market. Wind energy in comparison is ancient, well-understood and something every person can harvest. Same with solar, generate your own, very anarchic.

samcheng 9y ago

Once you factor in the costs to decommission a nuclear facility, nuclear becomes one of the most expensive options.

virmundi 9y ago
When you say that, does it take into account nuclear where we reuse fuel?
- pjc50 9y ago
  Fuel sourcing and disposal is a small part of the cost. Edit: a projected cost breakdown for Hinkley Point C! https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Hinkley-Point-C.pdf https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Hinkley-Po... (figure 2) So fuel is not inconsiderable; 6.2bn "fuel costs", 1.8 "fuel management", 2.6 "fuel disposal". From a total of £54.8 bn. Add 10-50% to actual construction and decommissioning costs for overruns.
worldsayshi 9y ago
And yet still there are so many people that believe that nuclear is the only pragmatic path to a green energy future.
RivieraKid 9y ago
True, but nuclear energy has two important benefits. It has a stable output (so you don't have to invest in energy storage) and it takes up much less space (so it doesn't visually disrupt the landscape as much).
- olau 9y ago
  Demand is not stable so you still need energy storage or something else to fill the peaks. The only alternative is not running the plant at full capacity, which will make it even more expensive. Less space: that's true. But you still need a fair bit of space to the nearest city. :)
  - RivieraKid 9y ago
    Yeah, but with nuclear you only have to deal with demand variability, not supply variability.
  - Caveman_Coder 9y ago
    That is not "the only alternative" in practice. If you're in a market (which most companies owning nuclear generation are) you'd sell your excess energy, you wouldn't lower the output of your nuclear generation resources.
- pjc50 9y ago
  Unless the 1/1000 failure event happens and all the land for miles around is rendered uninhabitable and unfarmable.
  - eru 9y ago
    We could have many, many more Chernobyl and Fukushima style disasters, and nuclear would still be safer than real-world coal. (But that's an easy target to beat.)
  - RivieraKid 9y ago
    In modern nuclear reactors, safety is not an issue.
    - chefkoch 9y ago
      "In modern nuclear reactors, safety is not an issue." Russian nuclear engineer, 1985
olau 9y ago
While decommissioning is indeed expensive and as far as I'm aware still mostly based on estimates since there's little experience with the full process, I don't think this statement is correct. What's really, really expensive is building the plant in such a manner that it is both secure and maintainable. The problem with securing it is that a critical event is so damn expensive (cf. Fukushima) that you need to secure it against all imaginable problems - and as you can imagine, that list is growing over time. And still, you can't buy insurance for a plant. So the government carries the bulk of the risk.
- DiThi 9y ago
  > you need to secure it against all imaginable problems It's not that hard if you avoid greedy power plant owners. TEPCO was repeatedly warned many years ago that they had to build a barrier against tsunamis, and all other plants of the area followed the advice.

olau 9y ago

Traditional nuclear plants are simply too expensive to build. They are not competitive, and haven't been for decades if I'm not mistaken. It's not impossible that a new design could be cheaper, but figuring in both development, test, and time for industrialization, we're probably at least 20 years from that. Meanwhile, both PV and wind are falling in price from industrialization.

edison85 9y ago
They are very very cheap, the regulations make up the bulk of their costs. Most regulations are important but the costly ones are not and it takes 10+ years to get approvals due to beuracratic hold ups. Even smoothening those out and keeping exact same safety standards would cut prices and time significantly That said I am very pro Wind. The American Midwest is a goldmine for that and I'm very excited to see it increase over the next five but I hope they keep the tax credit, wind growth will significantly fall without it
- hwillis 9y ago
  Not true. Nuclear is fantastically expensive in every country regardless of regulations or NIMBYism. Regulatory expense is a minority problem that exacerbates the core issues. The big problems are mostly competency. A nuclear plant requires huge parts from tons of companies all over the planet. People are always messing it up. The biggest issue is that this huge coordination problem makes everything take way longer, which means almost everyone involved with the plant is sitting around getting paid to do nothing. That's incredibly expensive when the project stretches over a decade.
  - opo 9y ago
    >... Nuclear is fantastically expensive in every country regardless of regulations or NIMBYism. Not true. One example is France - they generate over 70% of their power through nuclear: >...France enjoys one of the lowest electricity prices in Europe; at 14.72 euro cents per kWh, the average cost of electricity in France is 26.5% cheaper than the EU average (20.02 euro cents per kWh). https://en.selectra.info/energy-france/guides/electricity-cost https://en.selectra.info/energy-france/guides/electricity-co...

philipkglass 9y ago

Wind vs nuclear, USA edition: Wind advantages: * Faster to build * Electricity production can begin before entire project is finished * Lower cost per MWh generated * Much less expensive worst-case-scenario failure mode * No cooling water required Disadvantages: * No guaranteed output without storage add-ons * Much lower areal density of annual generation (e.g. "how much energy can you generate yearly on a 10 km^2 parcel of land?") Other differences: * A nuclear reactor may operate 40-60 years before replacement; a wind turbine is more like 20-25 years * Over its full life cycle, a wind farm demands less human labor per MWh generated I put nuclear's long life under "other" rather than "advantages" because the other side of "long life" is "long term commitment." I also put the lower labor demands of wind under "other" because many people (not me, but many) consider "providing good jobs" as more of a benefit than a burden when they evaluate power sources. On balance, I think that wind has the advantage now and for at least the next decade or so. Nuclear could become more attractive again once there's a high penetration of intermittent renewables on the grid that make guaranteed-output sources relatively more valuable. The high areal density of nuclear power vs. wind is much more of a theoretical than a real advantage in a country like the USA, which has low population density by global standards and a lot of windy area. The more interesting contest will be between wind and PV; the latter has historically cost more nameplate watt, but its costs have been falling faster. PV also has lower day-to-day variability even though its annual capacity factor is typically lower.

TomK32 9y ago

Aside from stuff others mentioned, there's a social/political component differing them. Nuclear energy has always been pushed by politicians. Harvesting the mighty atom is a prestige project and not something a business that wants simple tech that's quick to market. Wind energy in comparison is ancient, well-understood and something every person can harvest. Same with solar, generate your own, very anarchic.