4 ms·

The most persuasive argument against nuclear power today is the economic one, and I find it odd that this article doesn't even mention it. While the global ene

The most persuasive argument against nuclear power today is the economic one, and I find it odd that this article doesn't even mention it. While the global energy industry is moving towards distributed, flexible generation, nuclear power represents centralized generation that requires the accurate projection of energy use 40 years in the future. Furthermore, the total levelized cost of nuclear is already higher than that of utility-scale wind and solar. Recent nuclear plant construction has been plagued by 100%+ cost overruns, and those costs always seem to be rate-based meaning the consumers, rather than the utility companies, pay for the overruns. You can argue both sides of the safety issue, but its pretty hard to make an economic case for building new nuclear power plants.

mimixco 8y ago
Indeed. He does allude to the cost problem but buries it. Another post on HN a few days ago claimed that no new nuke plants will ever be built (after Sumpter) in the US because the economics make no sense. Let's hope he's right. Of course, the elephant in the room is that costs are out of control because of the safety issue. When nuke plants are broken, as they all are, Very Bad Stuff happens. It's the attempts to mitigate this that send costs through the roof.
- mimixco 8y ago
  See what I mean? Someone down voted this post which is entirely factual. Every plant has leaks and safety violations. They're all publicly documented. The uneconomic nature of the industry stems from the attempts to make something safe which is inherently unsafe. Why would someone downvote those facts unless they were trolling?
pesmhey 8y ago
I’ve always thought the best argument against nuclear is a political one. It takes a well-coordinated state to maintain and regulate nuclear power. You need regulators completely divorced from the profit side. I mean, we assume that we’ll be stable in 40 years time, but will we be? I don’t know too much about this particular aspect, but I imagine that even the risk management part of paying for insurance gets tricky once you’re projecting out 10+ years. All this being said, it’s the best argument in my view, but still not prohibitive. I still find myself believing in nuclear power, especially more research into advanced tech.

mimixco 8y ago

Indeed. He does allude to the cost problem but buries it. Another post on HN a few days ago claimed that no new nuke plants will ever be built (after Sumpter) in the US because the economics make no sense. Let's hope he's right. Of course, the elephant in the room is that costs are out of control because of the safety issue. When nuke plants are broken, as they all are, Very Bad Stuff happens. It's the attempts to mitigate this that send costs through the roof.

mimixco 8y ago
See what I mean? Someone down voted this post which is entirely factual. Every plant has leaks and safety violations. They're all publicly documented. The uneconomic nature of the industry stems from the attempts to make something safe which is inherently unsafe. Why would someone downvote those facts unless they were trolling?

pesmhey 8y ago

I’ve always thought the best argument against nuclear is a political one. It takes a well-coordinated state to maintain and regulate nuclear power. You need regulators completely divorced from the profit side. I mean, we assume that we’ll be stable in 40 years time, but will we be? I don’t know too much about this particular aspect, but I imagine that even the risk management part of paying for insurance gets tricky once you’re projecting out 10+ years. All this being said, it’s the best argument in my view, but still not prohibitive. I still find myself believing in nuclear power, especially more research into advanced tech.