4 ms·

I wouldn't be surprised if this was directly funded by TEPCO or some other "thinktank" that fears new contracts might be cancelled. If there's one thing the Ja

I wouldn't be surprised if this was directly funded by TEPCO or some other "thinktank" that fears new contracts might be cancelled. If there's one thing the Japanese would do different in hindsight, it would not be ignoring a massive explosion of a reactor containment building. It would be never building that power plant. The disaster, even ignoring the deaths and long-term effects on the population, will cost over $100 Billion to the Japanese. That's some pretty fucking expensive electricity they got. And the source is still FT, I guess before they got bought. https://www.ft.com/content/97c88560-e05b-11e5-8d9b-e88a2a889797 https://www.ft.com/content/97c88560-e05b-11e5-8d9b-e88a2a889...

nl 9y ago
Yeah. It’s kinda sad how the nuclear industry has captured the Silicon Valley environment movement too. At the height of the peak oil panic it kind of made sense, in a “contrarian thinking” way. Oil was getting more expensive, renewables weren’t price competitive and what other option was there? But that was 10 years ago, and things change. Fracking got us past that first peak oil problem, and cheap solar/wind/batteries has killed any chance the nuclear power industry had of ever growing again. But still they keep trying... My counter argument these days is easy. Solar+batteries is down to ~6c/kWh with zero subsidies, and can be built in ~6 months. Beat that, nuclear power. Now if they get fusion working, I’ll be very excited.
- John_KZ 9y ago
  Exactly. I would also fully support fusion or fusion/fission hybrids, which promice to burn up all waste and operate in a deeply subcritical state, meaning no meltdowns or explosions, ever. It's disappointing how little research funding these technologies get. However, until the time comes, literally all other energy sources are cheaper, cleaner and safer in the long run over fission.
  - nl 9y ago
    There is a fair bit of fusion research, but it does seem a bit like it has always been the future of energy production and always will be.. We do have access to one pretty good fusion reactor though of course... I’m not familiar with the hybrid systems - do you have a link on those?
- saagarjha 9y ago
  > Solar+batteries is down to ~6c/kWh with zero subsidies Is this 6¢/kWh figure for any region, or the middle of the Arizonan desert?
  - nl 9y ago
    Desert, in Australia. But most of that cost is the battery. Pure solar (which is location dependent) is under 5c/kWh, in Germany[1]. I'd imagine somewhere like Arizona it would be under half that. [1] https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/auctions-bring-german-solar-power-price-new-record-low https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/auctions-bring-german-s...
- gizmo686 9y ago
  >At the height of the peak oil panic it kind of made sense, in a “contrarian thinking” way. I think you are underestimating how good of an option nuclear was. Going full nuclear [0] would have mitigated the single greatest environmental crisis in human history. Now we will be stuck with the CO2 dumped into the atmosphere while we were waiting for renewables to become practical. But, its too late to fix that now. For purely economic reasons, nuclear doesn't make sense anymore; let alone the environmental and NIMBY reasons. [0] To the extent practical. A 100% nuclear grid was likely never practical because nuclear isn't good for peaker plants.
  - nl 9y ago
    It would have have avoided most of the worst damages of climate change if we'd migrated to it in the 50s and 60s. Of course, even nuclear advocates say those old reactors are unsafe.
    - opo 9y ago
      >...even nuclear advocates say those old reactors are unsafe. No, this is not what people are saying. Those plants from the 50s and 60s have proven to be far safer ways of generating electricity than any alternative. Even today those plants are still safer than rooftop solar or wind and orders of magnitude safer than coal etc. What people have been saying is that new designs are safer than previous designs - passive emergency cooling systems, etc. Given the political environment in the US, there will likely be little role for nuclear power for at least the next few decades. Instead it will likely be China which builds/deploys nuclear power.

nl 9y ago

Yeah. It’s kinda sad how the nuclear industry has captured the Silicon Valley environment movement too. At the height of the peak oil panic it kind of made sense, in a “contrarian thinking” way. Oil was getting more expensive, renewables weren’t price competitive and what other option was there? But that was 10 years ago, and things change. Fracking got us past that first peak oil problem, and cheap solar/wind/batteries has killed any chance the nuclear power industry had of ever growing again. But still they keep trying... My counter argument these days is easy. Solar+batteries is down to ~6c/kWh with zero subsidies, and can be built in ~6 months. Beat that, nuclear power. Now if they get fusion working, I’ll be very excited.

John_KZ 9y ago
Exactly. I would also fully support fusion or fusion/fission hybrids, which promice to burn up all waste and operate in a deeply subcritical state, meaning no meltdowns or explosions, ever. It's disappointing how little research funding these technologies get. However, until the time comes, literally all other energy sources are cheaper, cleaner and safer in the long run over fission.
- nl 9y ago
  There is a fair bit of fusion research, but it does seem a bit like it has always been the future of energy production and always will be.. We do have access to one pretty good fusion reactor though of course... I’m not familiar with the hybrid systems - do you have a link on those?
saagarjha 9y ago
> Solar+batteries is down to ~6c/kWh with zero subsidies Is this 6¢/kWh figure for any region, or the middle of the Arizonan desert?
- nl 9y ago
  Desert, in Australia. But most of that cost is the battery. Pure solar (which is location dependent) is under 5c/kWh, in Germany[1]. I'd imagine somewhere like Arizona it would be under half that. [1] https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/auctions-bring-german-solar-power-price-new-record-low https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/auctions-bring-german-s...
gizmo686 9y ago
>At the height of the peak oil panic it kind of made sense, in a “contrarian thinking” way. I think you are underestimating how good of an option nuclear was. Going full nuclear [0] would have mitigated the single greatest environmental crisis in human history. Now we will be stuck with the CO2 dumped into the atmosphere while we were waiting for renewables to become practical. But, its too late to fix that now. For purely economic reasons, nuclear doesn't make sense anymore; let alone the environmental and NIMBY reasons. [0] To the extent practical. A 100% nuclear grid was likely never practical because nuclear isn't good for peaker plants.
- nl 9y ago
  It would have have avoided most of the worst damages of climate change if we'd migrated to it in the 50s and 60s. Of course, even nuclear advocates say those old reactors are unsafe.
  - opo 9y ago
    >...even nuclear advocates say those old reactors are unsafe. No, this is not what people are saying. Those plants from the 50s and 60s have proven to be far safer ways of generating electricity than any alternative. Even today those plants are still safer than rooftop solar or wind and orders of magnitude safer than coal etc. What people have been saying is that new designs are safer than previous designs - passive emergency cooling systems, etc. Given the political environment in the US, there will likely be little role for nuclear power for at least the next few decades. Instead it will likely be China which builds/deploys nuclear power.