4 ms·
I don't see an economic argument for nuclear. It's already one of, and by some measurements, the most expensive methods of energy production and that's only goi
by TangoTrotFox 8y ago
I don't see an economic argument for nuclear. It's already one of, and by some measurements, the most expensive methods of energy production and that's only going to become exasperated over time. Right now nuclear accounts for 10-15% of the world's energy production, yet even at that level we only have known uranium reserves to run these for about 200 years. [1] Bump that up to where nuclear is a major player in energy production and we're suddenly running out imminently. This means we're going to need to turn to things like saltwater extraction and breeder reactors. But these technologies are going to send costs skyrocketing. And as well as scarcity becomes an issue, we can also expect to see the cost of uranium itself start to skyrocket.
And this is before getting into the other issues of nuclear at scale. Decommissioning is a lengthy, expensive, and complex process. Nuclear accidents are rare, but nowhere near as rare as they ought be. There are currently about 450 plants operating worldwide. That's a disconcertingly low number given the number of accidents. And breeder reactors would be absolutely required for longterm uranium perspectives, yet that technology not only greatly increases costs but also complexity and volatility. And another issue that becomes even more critical at scale is disposal.
In my opinion solar is the most logical option for the future. The one and only downside there is the lack of production during the night, yet this can be resolved in a countless number of basic technical ways ranging from batteries to even just mundane things such as shifting objects (or liquids or whatever) to create potential energy that can be harvested during off times. If we take a utopic view of the future, it's even possible to envision worldwide high energy direct current lines transiting power worldwide. All of these things involve losses of energy of course, but as far as our needs are concerned solar can provide a practically infinite amount of energy and so optimal efficiency is not so relevant.
I also think that the decentralization of energy is also desirable. Even something as benign as rooftop solar will end up providing an immense amount of energy. Centralization of energy, let alone when it relies on a scarce resource is something I think we've learned a lot about for the past century. A bit of hindsight would be valuable here.
[1] - https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-long-will-global-uranium-deposits-last/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-long-will-glo...
- gascan 8y agoPeople are interested in nuclear because it's zero carbon, because it's mature, and because it's suited to base load. It's the only zero carbon source that plugs right into the hole left by fossil fuels. IMO it's really that simple, and you can be pro-nuclear and also pro-renewables. Personally, I don't really value solely economic arguments about power generation anymore. The cheapest power would be the best power if all the externalities were priced in. But they just never will be.
- gnode 8y agoI think a mixture of solar, nuclear, and other renewables is probably the best option. Electricity doesn't transport well over long distances, and what's best for one place isn't necessarily good for another. The economics of solar and energy storage vary around the world, depending on factors like clouds, and geography which can support pumped hydro (both lower and upper reservoirs). Solar might make more sense for California, and nuclear for St. Petersberg. I'm sure some combination of decentralised and distributed energy generation will prevail into the future.
- fulafel 8y agoUranium is very cheap now and that's why seawater extraction is not competitive, nor do we have good projections about the size of undiscovered deposits. According to WP "The cost of raw uranium contributes about $0.0015/kWh to the cost of nuclear electricity". This is not a big of the operating expenses, never mind the fact that the cost of nuclear power is dominated by capital expenses. (Of course we're also projected to run out of many things at current consumption growth rates much sooner than 200 years. Such as oil and lithium and rainforests)