8 ms·

For most of my life fusion has been teased but not delivered. fission has been pimped for decades yet cannot get private funding, or build reactors in a decade,

by kjar 8y ago

For most of my life fusion has been teased but not delivered. fission has been pimped for decades yet cannot get private funding, or build reactors in a decade, or provide solutions for the waste. Yet still the industries persist with their propaganda while renewables beat them in cost and time to operation. If I managed the funds I'd cut nuclear and redirect to wind and solar immediately.

kjar 8y ago
my point in short is we don't have time for this right now. we need to de-carbonize our energy system a decade ago. this tech. is not operational and will take a decade to be so - that's not time we have to avoid catastrophic climate destabilization.
- adrianmonk 8y ago
  If the objection is that nuclear can't be built quickly enough, then the renewable options need to be judged against that same standard. Suppose everyone in the world already agreed to go a hundred percent renewable in 10 years. Effectively replacing the entire world's energy infrastructure is going to take a huge amount of raw materials and production capacity. Is there going to be enough? It's possible the answer is yes, but I wouldn't take it for granted. There will need to be a lot of battery storage, which means there needs to be a lot of lithium. Are there enough lithium mines? Have geologists identified enough deposits to cover that massive quantity? And are there enough factories that can build batteries? For wind, there will need to be neodymium permanent magnets. For solar, you need fabs to build it all. Maybe all those challenges can be solved, but maybe it's also possible to streamline the process of building nuclear fission power plants.
  - sanxiyn 8y ago
    > There will need to be a lot of battery storage, which means there needs to be a lot of lithium. No, if we actually want this, pumped-storage hydroelectricity is a proven solution that works. There is actually no uncertainty regarding energy storage: we can do it.
    - xyzzyz 8y ago
      There is only limited number of sites where building pumped hydro is possible, and lots of them are already taken.
  - Tade0 8y ago
    Are there enough lithium mines? No need to - there are 230 billion tonnes of the stuff in seawater. Just one percent of that is enough to create 25,000TWh worth of li-ion batteries - that's roughly the amount of electricity produced by the world annually. Also other chemistries like zinc-air are gaining traction and serve as a good, cheaper alternative.
    - DennisP 8y ago
      Can you point to a commercial operation recovering lithium from seawater? Demand for lithium is high and expected to go much higher, so a seawater extraction plant should at least be in development if it's feasible to do that. If it's purely a future technology, just like zinc-air batteries, then we should be allowed to look at future nuclear technologies as well, some of which are very much in development.
      - Tade0 8y ago
        Can you point to a commercial operation recovering lithium from seawater No, because it's exactly like with tar sands: it will happen when it's commercially viable. At this point it's much cheaper to "mine" the brines in Chile. If it's purely a future technology, just like zinc-air batteries Thing is - it isn't. Here's a company making grid-scale Zinc-Air batteries: https://eosenergystorage.com https://eosenergystorage.com They figured it out in 2015 and they're already sold-out for 2019 and secured funding for a production facility. And this is just one of many companies doing the same.
        DennisP 8y ago
        Thanks, didn't know zinc-air was available for grid batteries. Btw uranium extraction from seawater has been demonstrated, and isn't used just because it's 5X more expensive than mining. That's not a showstopper because fuel is a small portion of nuclear energy cost.
        pfdietz 8y ago
        I'd be happier with reference to EOS if I had been hearing more about them. They seem to have fallen off the map the last couple of years, which does not fill me with confidence.
josefx 8y ago
> If I managed the funds I'd cut nuclear and redirect to wind and solar immediately. To make those a reasonable base you need to add enough storage to keep everything working even when your current weather does not meet the energy demand. I think setting up that storage is currently going to be the biggest cost factor.
- assblaster 8y ago
  When you factor in storage costs, how do solar and wind compare to alternatives?
  - Retric 8y ago
    Still generally cheaper. People regularly go off grid solar for less than the cost of grid electricity over the lifetime of their system. They save on the grid distribution system and overhead, but lose out on vast economy of scale. Peaking power plants also tend to be more cost effective than large scale grid storage. Having excess capacity also vastly reduces the need to storage. Existing investments complicate the issue, but falling prices for both solar and battery systems regularly change the equation and this shift is only going in one direction.
  - ufmace 8y ago
    We don't know, because we've never built grid-scale energy storage.
  - epistasis 8y ago
    Currently, solar that has 3-4 hours of output at 50% of peak primary solar outbut, is about $35-$40/MWh in Colorado, Nevada, and I think even Indiana had bids in that ballpark. This is between 1/5 to 1/2 the cost of nuclear, depending on who you believe for nuclear's costs. Storing a MWh probably costs around $80-$150 currently. Why so little storage? It's not really needed at the scale of projects that are being planned, and storage gets cheaper every year. So let's say we could start building a nuclear plant and get it done in 10 years (which is highly speculative, but let's give nuclear the benefit of the doubt). What are the costs going to be 10 years from now? Or more importantly, what are costs going to be 30 years from now? Because the storage lasts 10-15 years, so you get to replace it with cheaper tech at that point, whereas with nuclear you've locked in your costs for the next 60 years. This is why no sane entity wants to build nuclear, unless they are ideologically motivated. There are some nuclear startups that may make nuclear cheaper, and less risky to build, but they are still startups without functioning prototypes or manufacturing facilities. By the time they start production, the utility will be ready to replace any batteries that get deployed on the grid today, so one may as well start deploying wind/solar + storage. And add more time of use rate plans so that energy is used efficiently.
shawnz 8y ago
> If I managed the funds I'd cut nuclear and redirect to wind and solar immediately. Why? Research has shown that nuclear fission could be safer per kWh than wind and solar. Just because it's not as good as fusion doesn't make it worthless.
- stareatgoats 8y ago
  > nuclear fission could be safer per kWh than wind and solar. Sounds completely improbable. Care to provide some reference to back that statement up?
  - shawnz 8y ago
    Some examples of research that has reached this conclusion: https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/publications/magazines/bulletin/bull21-1/21104091117.pdf https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/publications/magazi... https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-ener... It might sound improbable if you are comparing from a purely technological point of view. But the reality is that the energy output of nuclear is so much higher than other technologies, it easily makes up for any increase in risk by requiring much fewer plants. That's what makes nuclear so attractive in the first place.
    - stareatgoats 8y ago
      You fail to mention that Herbert Inhaber's article was published in the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Bulletin in 1979 [1] (before Three Man Island), drawing from his study published the same year which was heavily criticized even at the time [2] and does not take the problem of nuclear waste into account at all, and otherwise dis-ingeniously cherry-picked number of deaths associated with each energy source up to that point. The second article you quote is just a blog, and the conclusions are just as dubious, for example trying to weigh falls during roof construction into the risks of solar etc. edit: removed confusing statement about fission/fusion [1] https://www.iaea.org/publications/magazines/bulletin/21-1 https://www.iaea.org/publications/magazines/bulletin/21-1 [2] "Perhaps the most damaging criticism was that the study was inconsistent in applying the methodology to the various energy technologies. For example, while Inhaber considered materials acquisition, component fabrication, and plant construction in his analysis of unconventional energy sources and for hydro power, critics have claimed that he did not follow the same approach for coal, nuclear power, oil, and gas. Furthermore, critics claimed that the labor figures for coal, oil, gas, and nuclear power included only on-site construction, while those for the renewable energy sources included on-site construction, materials acquisition, component manufacture." https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267817006 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267817006, page 31.
intralizee 8y ago
The majority of people in power will operate by the ends justify the means. I've always wondered if this is true, why humanity will not readjust population numbers and where the renewables actually can sustain the population. Seems better for increasing the length in time for humanity to exist on the planet and come up with a solution to energy where the population can progress to infinite. Compared to the alternative outcome of everyone dies by ruining the planet. Maybe it's already too late for humanity and thus people don't care.
- azeotropic 8y ago
  Brilliant solution! Since you thought of it, perhaps you'd like to be 'readjusted' first?
  - intralizee 8y ago
    Sure, legalize suicide and make it possible to receive in a humane medical setting.
    - oblio 8y ago
      Why do you need it to be legalized? After all, it's a one way trip, you don't care about being convicted post mortem, do you? :)
      - intralizee 8y ago
        Statistically failure rate is high and where the very real outcome of brain damage is possible. Wouldn’t want to be stuck in a state causing more resources spent and unable to attempt the act again. I am seeking it medically for the record and I assume most people are just irrational against letting people die which is why this world is in jeopardy anyway.
        User23 8y ago
        Interestingly and sadly a rather bright young man set his mind to exactly this problem and engineered a solution. https://imgur.com/a/Z5mEB#0bVIYlf https://imgur.com/a/Z5mEB#0bVIYlf
DennisP 8y ago
Unless you have a very cheap and very scalable storage solution, that would be a mistake. France took their grid from zero nuclear to 80% nuclear in two decades. We don't have a comparable example for wind/solar.
- Retric 8y ago
  That’s a function of how recently solar and wind became cheap. China has a 31x increase in wind power over the last 10 years. The next 10 will be very interesting assuming prices continue to fall. When having a 30% oversupply of wind / solar still costs less than any alternative and they are only gettting cheaper eventually noting else comes close.
  - DennisP 8y ago
    It's also a function of not yet having really cheap, scalable storage that's not limited by geography. In any case, it's clear that nuclear can do the job if we're smart about it, because France did it.
    - mhandley 8y ago
      Right now, France is running almost carbon-free: 83% nuclear, 14% wind and 10% hydro: http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/france/ http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/france/ But that works in part because they're also exporting 15% of their generation to the UK, Switzerland, Italy and Spain. The export is reducing the need for gas plants in these neighbours, which have higher marginal costs. If France was an isolated grid, or if the neighbours had a similar generation mix, it would be harder to do this without a lot of storage, or throttling the nuclear plants.
      - Retric 8y ago
        Exactly, Hawaii is an example of an independent grid, France does not operate an independent grid any more than Ohio does.
martythemaniak 8y ago
I don't think you're fully aware of the facts (not "propaganda") of nuclear. Old fission reactors are the silent workhorses of our civilization and without them we'd be a much much deeper trouble than we already are. Had previous administrations invested more in fission, climate change would be a much smaller and more manageable problem today. Nuclear has other advantages over solar as well, such as not requiring the vast amounts of land solar does, sometime which will probably cause more and more problems as the industry grows.
- candiodari 8y ago
  Yeah this is something people keep forgetting. The reason fossil fuels have such an impact is because the industry is happening at such a scale. Solar and wind are working at miniscule size ... and ... "no" impact (well, wind clearly has impact already, but ... let's forget that). Well actually, solar does have an impact. In Spain there's a couple large wind farms I visited and ... not that it should surprise anyone but there's nothing growing near or below them. Below the panels there's dried out, sad grass. Now I guess this is what you'd expect, but still. It kinda sucks. What happens when we have regions in every country the size of a decent state/province essentially covered in solar panels ? Habitat destruction, of course (even in deserts). But for now, when we're talking a decent number of football fields, we can all happily pretend no impact. Truth is, for the amount of power it produces, nuclear fission is not just amazingly, but almost absurdly low impact (meaning you'd get laughed out of the room if you predicted it in 1950). Far LOWER, not higher than solar, in impact, in danger (in lives lost / KwH, even if you include nuclear bombs), in place occupied, in nature poisoned/displaced ("environmental impact"), ... Fusion can do better. That makes it worth pursuing.
  - vegetablepotpie 8y ago
    I think Fission would be great if we had somewhere to put the waste, if it didn't cost $10 billion dollars to set up a plant and people weren't phobic of it. Overall Nuclear makes more sense than coal and arguably more sense than wind and solar. But then there's the risk of the meltdown. No politician, no utility CEO, no corporation commission is going to take the risk of a meltdown when the political cost of pumping just a little more CO2 into the air is very small.
kingkongjaffa 8y ago
Wow this is an insane view point, I actually thought you were going to suggest the opposite... Frankly the potential capability of nuclear far outweighs anything else. If the gen public were more on board with it, nuclear could be rolled out and be the main source of power in the world in 30-40 years, removing the need for fossil fuels for power generation. Even building them in remote locations and taking the transmission losses would be better than diving head first into wind and solar, do you have any idea how destructive the mining is to get the elements required for some of the solar and wind solutions?
- eloff 8y ago
  The economics aren't there. Solar and wind are well below the costs of nuclear and still dropping fast. Costs of energy storage are dropping fast as well. I think the window has closed on nuclear for the time being. Thinking as an investor it's too risky and too expensive to produce the same fungible commodity as a solar cell + battery. We're fast getting to the point where wind and solar is going to wipe out fossil fuel generation - for new construction - in some places it already has. Never mind nuclear, nuclear just isn't in the game anymore.
- zipwitch 8y ago
  My big problem with nuclear (fission) is that while on paper it looks like a great solution, in practice our civilizational apparatus does not appear to be up to the task of long-term responsible implementation. Fission power looks like a long game of hot potato, where everyone hopes they won't be the ones on the hook when the eventual equipment failure, natural disaster, or time to decommission eventually arrives. (And, as an observer outside the industry, building a plant while taking all those into account in advance seems to be something we are either unable or unwilling to do.)
  - fromMars 8y ago
    I posted further up thread, and I am not an expert, that thorium based nuclear power may be safer with less dangerous waste and potential for weaponization.

by kjar 8y ago

kjar 8y ago

my point in short is we don't have time for this right now. we need to de-carbonize our energy system a decade ago. this tech. is not operational and will take a decade to be so - that's not time we have to avoid catastrophic climate destabilization.

adrianmonk 8y ago
If the objection is that nuclear can't be built quickly enough, then the renewable options need to be judged against that same standard. Suppose everyone in the world already agreed to go a hundred percent renewable in 10 years. Effectively replacing the entire world's energy infrastructure is going to take a huge amount of raw materials and production capacity. Is there going to be enough? It's possible the answer is yes, but I wouldn't take it for granted. There will need to be a lot of battery storage, which means there needs to be a lot of lithium. Are there enough lithium mines? Have geologists identified enough deposits to cover that massive quantity? And are there enough factories that can build batteries? For wind, there will need to be neodymium permanent magnets. For solar, you need fabs to build it all. Maybe all those challenges can be solved, but maybe it's also possible to streamline the process of building nuclear fission power plants.
- sanxiyn 8y ago
  > There will need to be a lot of battery storage, which means there needs to be a lot of lithium. No, if we actually want this, pumped-storage hydroelectricity is a proven solution that works. There is actually no uncertainty regarding energy storage: we can do it.
  - xyzzyz 8y ago
    There is only limited number of sites where building pumped hydro is possible, and lots of them are already taken.
- Tade0 8y ago
  Are there enough lithium mines? No need to - there are 230 billion tonnes of the stuff in seawater. Just one percent of that is enough to create 25,000TWh worth of li-ion batteries - that's roughly the amount of electricity produced by the world annually. Also other chemistries like zinc-air are gaining traction and serve as a good, cheaper alternative.
  - DennisP 8y ago
    Can you point to a commercial operation recovering lithium from seawater? Demand for lithium is high and expected to go much higher, so a seawater extraction plant should at least be in development if it's feasible to do that. If it's purely a future technology, just like zinc-air batteries, then we should be allowed to look at future nuclear technologies as well, some of which are very much in development.
    - Tade0 8y ago
      Can you point to a commercial operation recovering lithium from seawater No, because it's exactly like with tar sands: it will happen when it's commercially viable. At this point it's much cheaper to "mine" the brines in Chile. If it's purely a future technology, just like zinc-air batteries Thing is - it isn't. Here's a company making grid-scale Zinc-Air batteries: https://eosenergystorage.com https://eosenergystorage.com They figured it out in 2015 and they're already sold-out for 2019 and secured funding for a production facility. And this is just one of many companies doing the same.
      - DennisP 8y ago
        Thanks, didn't know zinc-air was available for grid batteries. Btw uranium extraction from seawater has been demonstrated, and isn't used just because it's 5X more expensive than mining. That's not a showstopper because fuel is a small portion of nuclear energy cost.
      - pfdietz 8y ago
        I'd be happier with reference to EOS if I had been hearing more about them. They seem to have fallen off the map the last couple of years, which does not fill me with confidence.

josefx 8y ago

> If I managed the funds I'd cut nuclear and redirect to wind and solar immediately. To make those a reasonable base you need to add enough storage to keep everything working even when your current weather does not meet the energy demand. I think setting up that storage is currently going to be the biggest cost factor.

assblaster 8y ago
When you factor in storage costs, how do solar and wind compare to alternatives?
- Retric 8y ago
  Still generally cheaper. People regularly go off grid solar for less than the cost of grid electricity over the lifetime of their system. They save on the grid distribution system and overhead, but lose out on vast economy of scale. Peaking power plants also tend to be more cost effective than large scale grid storage. Having excess capacity also vastly reduces the need to storage. Existing investments complicate the issue, but falling prices for both solar and battery systems regularly change the equation and this shift is only going in one direction.
- ufmace 8y ago
  We don't know, because we've never built grid-scale energy storage.
- epistasis 8y ago
  Currently, solar that has 3-4 hours of output at 50% of peak primary solar outbut, is about $35-$40/MWh in Colorado, Nevada, and I think even Indiana had bids in that ballpark. This is between 1/5 to 1/2 the cost of nuclear, depending on who you believe for nuclear's costs. Storing a MWh probably costs around $80-$150 currently. Why so little storage? It's not really needed at the scale of projects that are being planned, and storage gets cheaper every year. So let's say we could start building a nuclear plant and get it done in 10 years (which is highly speculative, but let's give nuclear the benefit of the doubt). What are the costs going to be 10 years from now? Or more importantly, what are costs going to be 30 years from now? Because the storage lasts 10-15 years, so you get to replace it with cheaper tech at that point, whereas with nuclear you've locked in your costs for the next 60 years. This is why no sane entity wants to build nuclear, unless they are ideologically motivated. There are some nuclear startups that may make nuclear cheaper, and less risky to build, but they are still startups without functioning prototypes or manufacturing facilities. By the time they start production, the utility will be ready to replace any batteries that get deployed on the grid today, so one may as well start deploying wind/solar + storage. And add more time of use rate plans so that energy is used efficiently.

shawnz 8y ago

> If I managed the funds I'd cut nuclear and redirect to wind and solar immediately. Why? Research has shown that nuclear fission could be safer per kWh than wind and solar. Just because it's not as good as fusion doesn't make it worthless.

stareatgoats 8y ago
> nuclear fission could be safer per kWh than wind and solar. Sounds completely improbable. Care to provide some reference to back that statement up?
- shawnz 8y ago
  Some examples of research that has reached this conclusion: https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/publications/magazines/bulletin/bull21-1/21104091117.pdf https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/publications/magazi... https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-ener... It might sound improbable if you are comparing from a purely technological point of view. But the reality is that the energy output of nuclear is so much higher than other technologies, it easily makes up for any increase in risk by requiring much fewer plants. That's what makes nuclear so attractive in the first place.
  - stareatgoats 8y ago
    You fail to mention that Herbert Inhaber's article was published in the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Bulletin in 1979 [1] (before Three Man Island), drawing from his study published the same year which was heavily criticized even at the time [2] and does not take the problem of nuclear waste into account at all, and otherwise dis-ingeniously cherry-picked number of deaths associated with each energy source up to that point. The second article you quote is just a blog, and the conclusions are just as dubious, for example trying to weigh falls during roof construction into the risks of solar etc. edit: removed confusing statement about fission/fusion [1] https://www.iaea.org/publications/magazines/bulletin/21-1 https://www.iaea.org/publications/magazines/bulletin/21-1 [2] "Perhaps the most damaging criticism was that the study was inconsistent in applying the methodology to the various energy technologies. For example, while Inhaber considered materials acquisition, component fabrication, and plant construction in his analysis of unconventional energy sources and for hydro power, critics have claimed that he did not follow the same approach for coal, nuclear power, oil, and gas. Furthermore, critics claimed that the labor figures for coal, oil, gas, and nuclear power included only on-site construction, while those for the renewable energy sources included on-site construction, materials acquisition, component manufacture." https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267817006 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267817006, page 31.

intralizee 8y ago

The majority of people in power will operate by the ends justify the means. I've always wondered if this is true, why humanity will not readjust population numbers and where the renewables actually can sustain the population. Seems better for increasing the length in time for humanity to exist on the planet and come up with a solution to energy where the population can progress to infinite. Compared to the alternative outcome of everyone dies by ruining the planet. Maybe it's already too late for humanity and thus people don't care.

azeotropic 8y ago
Brilliant solution! Since you thought of it, perhaps you'd like to be 'readjusted' first?
- intralizee 8y ago
  Sure, legalize suicide and make it possible to receive in a humane medical setting.
  - oblio 8y ago
    Why do you need it to be legalized? After all, it's a one way trip, you don't care about being convicted post mortem, do you? :)
    - intralizee 8y ago
      Statistically failure rate is high and where the very real outcome of brain damage is possible. Wouldn’t want to be stuck in a state causing more resources spent and unable to attempt the act again. I am seeking it medically for the record and I assume most people are just irrational against letting people die which is why this world is in jeopardy anyway.
      - User23 8y ago
        Interestingly and sadly a rather bright young man set his mind to exactly this problem and engineered a solution. https://imgur.com/a/Z5mEB#0bVIYlf https://imgur.com/a/Z5mEB#0bVIYlf

DennisP 8y ago

Unless you have a very cheap and very scalable storage solution, that would be a mistake. France took their grid from zero nuclear to 80% nuclear in two decades. We don't have a comparable example for wind/solar.

Retric 8y ago
That’s a function of how recently solar and wind became cheap. China has a 31x increase in wind power over the last 10 years. The next 10 will be very interesting assuming prices continue to fall. When having a 30% oversupply of wind / solar still costs less than any alternative and they are only gettting cheaper eventually noting else comes close.
- DennisP 8y ago
  It's also a function of not yet having really cheap, scalable storage that's not limited by geography. In any case, it's clear that nuclear can do the job if we're smart about it, because France did it.
  - mhandley 8y ago
    Right now, France is running almost carbon-free: 83% nuclear, 14% wind and 10% hydro: http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/france/ http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/france/ But that works in part because they're also exporting 15% of their generation to the UK, Switzerland, Italy and Spain. The export is reducing the need for gas plants in these neighbours, which have higher marginal costs. If France was an isolated grid, or if the neighbours had a similar generation mix, it would be harder to do this without a lot of storage, or throttling the nuclear plants.
    - Retric 8y ago
      Exactly, Hawaii is an example of an independent grid, France does not operate an independent grid any more than Ohio does.

martythemaniak 8y ago

I don't think you're fully aware of the facts (not "propaganda") of nuclear. Old fission reactors are the silent workhorses of our civilization and without them we'd be a much much deeper trouble than we already are. Had previous administrations invested more in fission, climate change would be a much smaller and more manageable problem today. Nuclear has other advantages over solar as well, such as not requiring the vast amounts of land solar does, sometime which will probably cause more and more problems as the industry grows.

candiodari 8y ago
Yeah this is something people keep forgetting. The reason fossil fuels have such an impact is because the industry is happening at such a scale. Solar and wind are working at miniscule size ... and ... "no" impact (well, wind clearly has impact already, but ... let's forget that). Well actually, solar does have an impact. In Spain there's a couple large wind farms I visited and ... not that it should surprise anyone but there's nothing growing near or below them. Below the panels there's dried out, sad grass. Now I guess this is what you'd expect, but still. It kinda sucks. What happens when we have regions in every country the size of a decent state/province essentially covered in solar panels ? Habitat destruction, of course (even in deserts). But for now, when we're talking a decent number of football fields, we can all happily pretend no impact. Truth is, for the amount of power it produces, nuclear fission is not just amazingly, but almost absurdly low impact (meaning you'd get laughed out of the room if you predicted it in 1950). Far LOWER, not higher than solar, in impact, in danger (in lives lost / KwH, even if you include nuclear bombs), in place occupied, in nature poisoned/displaced ("environmental impact"), ... Fusion can do better. That makes it worth pursuing.
- vegetablepotpie 8y ago
  I think Fission would be great if we had somewhere to put the waste, if it didn't cost $10 billion dollars to set up a plant and people weren't phobic of it. Overall Nuclear makes more sense than coal and arguably more sense than wind and solar. But then there's the risk of the meltdown. No politician, no utility CEO, no corporation commission is going to take the risk of a meltdown when the political cost of pumping just a little more CO2 into the air is very small.

kingkongjaffa 8y ago

Wow this is an insane view point, I actually thought you were going to suggest the opposite... Frankly the potential capability of nuclear far outweighs anything else. If the gen public were more on board with it, nuclear could be rolled out and be the main source of power in the world in 30-40 years, removing the need for fossil fuels for power generation. Even building them in remote locations and taking the transmission losses would be better than diving head first into wind and solar, do you have any idea how destructive the mining is to get the elements required for some of the solar and wind solutions?

eloff 8y ago
The economics aren't there. Solar and wind are well below the costs of nuclear and still dropping fast. Costs of energy storage are dropping fast as well. I think the window has closed on nuclear for the time being. Thinking as an investor it's too risky and too expensive to produce the same fungible commodity as a solar cell + battery. We're fast getting to the point where wind and solar is going to wipe out fossil fuel generation - for new construction - in some places it already has. Never mind nuclear, nuclear just isn't in the game anymore.
zipwitch 8y ago
My big problem with nuclear (fission) is that while on paper it looks like a great solution, in practice our civilizational apparatus does not appear to be up to the task of long-term responsible implementation. Fission power looks like a long game of hot potato, where everyone hopes they won't be the ones on the hook when the eventual equipment failure, natural disaster, or time to decommission eventually arrives. (And, as an observer outside the industry, building a plant while taking all those into account in advance seems to be something we are either unable or unwilling to do.)
- fromMars 8y ago
  I posted further up thread, and I am not an expert, that thorium based nuclear power may be safer with less dangerous waste and potential for weaponization.