6 ms·

Not needing storage is a real advantage. I see nothing "dishonest" about pointing that out.

ldp01 9y ago
It's not really an apples-to-apples comparison anyway. In general, nuclear lends itself to providing reliable baseload power, whereas storage is most economic when used for peaking or responding to contingencies on the grid.
bobthepanda 9y ago
It's an advantage if you assume the current grid is a great setup and shouldn't be changed. With the increasing frequency of severe weather events taking down the grid in areas, the decentralized storage that a more renewables-focused grid would probably require would probably be a good thing to have.
- Turing_Machine 9y ago
  No, not needing storage is an advantage under any conceivable scenario. Storage of any kind is bulky, expensive, and dangerous.
  - toomuchtodo 9y ago
    As long as you solve the waste issue. If you can't solve nuclear waste, cheap batteries, solar, and wind will beat you every time. And you better be able to deliver for under 8 cents/kwh, which is where battery backed renewables are currently at (and that will continue to fall).
    - paulddraper 9y ago
      Yes. The waste issue has already been more or less solved. Whether the cost can be made sufficiently cheap is another question. Inflation adjusted estimates have (somehow) been climbing since 60s when we actually built nuclear plants.
      - toomuchtodo 9y ago
        Can you provide a citation for waste being solved? My understanding is that there is no long term storage facility, all waste is being stored in "temporary" facilities on site, and that any reactor capable of reprocessing nuclear waste ("burning it up") has never been operated at commercial scale. https://www.gao.gov/key_issues/disposal_of_highlevel_nuclear_waste/issue_summary https://www.gao.gov/key_issues/disposal_of_highlevel_nuclear... https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/11/nuclear-waste-wipp-new-mexico/506117/ https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/11/nucle... https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-nuclear-environment-idUSKBN18M2OP https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-nuclear-environment-i...
        paulddraper 9y ago
        France had been recycling waste for decades. The US is building the Yucca facility, but politics have held it up. Generally, the nuclear waste problem is political not technical. And once nuclear waste becomes more than an academic question, the solution will magically appear. http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/fuel-recycling/processing-of-used-nuclear-fuel.aspx http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fue...
        deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
        toomuchtodo 9y ago
        Unfortunately, without a legitimate method of disposing of nuclear waste today (despite France reprocessing some nuclear waste, they still bury large amounts underground) at the scale we've generated it, I'll continue to oppose nuclear power and advocate for renewables and battery storage. Nuclear advocates hand wave away the waste concerns as "solvable", yet they're never solved. You can't craft policy in such a way, as it's just yet another example of kicking the can to future generations. If you can prove that recycling facilities are in place and ready to accept waste on day 1 of a new facility coming online, that would be cause to advocate for nuclear.
  - OrganicMSG 9y ago
    Distributed battery storage is getting cheaper than upgrading the interconnects right now though. Never mind the generation, it is getting cheaper than the wire.
  - bobthepanda 9y ago
    Is it any more dangerous or complicated than diesel fuel, generators, and keeping pumps and a fuel supply around?
OrganicMSG 9y ago
If they had pointed that out, it would have been included, and thereby pointed out. My point is that it was omitted. And that it seems dishonest to omit it when making a comparison with renewable against reactor designs yet to be tested while battery prices fall through the floor.
- Turing_Machine 9y ago
  "Always on" means "doesn't need storage" pretty much by definition.

It's not really an apples-to-apples comparison anyway. In general, nuclear lends itself to providing reliable baseload power, whereas storage is most economic when used for peaking or responding to contingencies on the grid.

bobthepanda 9y ago

It's an advantage if you assume the current grid is a great setup and shouldn't be changed. With the increasing frequency of severe weather events taking down the grid in areas, the decentralized storage that a more renewables-focused grid would probably require would probably be a good thing to have.

Turing_Machine 9y ago
No, not needing storage is an advantage under any conceivable scenario. Storage of any kind is bulky, expensive, and dangerous.
- toomuchtodo 9y ago
  As long as you solve the waste issue. If you can't solve nuclear waste, cheap batteries, solar, and wind will beat you every time. And you better be able to deliver for under 8 cents/kwh, which is where battery backed renewables are currently at (and that will continue to fall).
  - paulddraper 9y ago
    Yes. The waste issue has already been more or less solved. Whether the cost can be made sufficiently cheap is another question. Inflation adjusted estimates have (somehow) been climbing since 60s when we actually built nuclear plants.
    - toomuchtodo 9y ago
      Can you provide a citation for waste being solved? My understanding is that there is no long term storage facility, all waste is being stored in "temporary" facilities on site, and that any reactor capable of reprocessing nuclear waste ("burning it up") has never been operated at commercial scale. https://www.gao.gov/key_issues/disposal_of_highlevel_nuclear_waste/issue_summary https://www.gao.gov/key_issues/disposal_of_highlevel_nuclear... https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/11/nuclear-waste-wipp-new-mexico/506117/ https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/11/nucle... https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-nuclear-environment-idUSKBN18M2OP https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-nuclear-environment-i...
      - paulddraper 9y ago
        France had been recycling waste for decades. The US is building the Yucca facility, but politics have held it up. Generally, the nuclear waste problem is political not technical. And once nuclear waste becomes more than an academic question, the solution will magically appear. http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/fuel-recycling/processing-of-used-nuclear-fuel.aspx http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fue...
        deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
        toomuchtodo 9y ago
        Unfortunately, without a legitimate method of disposing of nuclear waste today (despite France reprocessing some nuclear waste, they still bury large amounts underground) at the scale we've generated it, I'll continue to oppose nuclear power and advocate for renewables and battery storage. Nuclear advocates hand wave away the waste concerns as "solvable", yet they're never solved. You can't craft policy in such a way, as it's just yet another example of kicking the can to future generations. If you can prove that recycling facilities are in place and ready to accept waste on day 1 of a new facility coming online, that would be cause to advocate for nuclear.
- OrganicMSG 9y ago
  Distributed battery storage is getting cheaper than upgrading the interconnects right now though. Never mind the generation, it is getting cheaper than the wire.
- bobthepanda 9y ago
  Is it any more dangerous or complicated than diesel fuel, generators, and keeping pumps and a fuel supply around?

OrganicMSG 9y ago

If they had pointed that out, it would have been included, and thereby pointed out. My point is that it was omitted. And that it seems dishonest to omit it when making a comparison with renewable against reactor designs yet to be tested while battery prices fall through the floor.

Turing_Machine 9y ago
"Always on" means "doesn't need storage" pretty much by definition.