12 ms·

> I’ll admire it when the fuel is loaded and the generators spin up Meanwhile, the United States continues to shut down Nuclear Reactors and prevent modern con

by Alupis 8y ago

> I’ll admire it when the fuel is loaded and the generators spin up Meanwhile, the United States continues to shut down Nuclear Reactors and prevent modern constructions out of irrational fearmongering. At least India recognizes the benefits of Nuclear Power...

toomuchtodo 8y ago
I’ll bet you lunch the US replaces every GW of nuclear generation with solar, wind, and utility scale energy storage in 10 years (sooner than any nuclear generator would come online). Disclaimer: I am an armchair energy policy enthusiast, and aggregate generator permitting, construction, turn up, operation, and decommissioning data for visualization and production siting. Edit: Lunch bet email in my profile.
- sremani 8y ago
  I will take that bet.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- Alupis 8y ago
  Sure, maybe that happens. Only an irrational culture would squander an obviously great energy source. But you cannot dispute the massive resources, and square footage it requires to accomplish that future of massive wind farms, every building with solar panels installed, and huge battery warehouses littered throughout the nation... especially when compared to a handful of modern Nuclear Reactor Plants. More people die installing Solar Roof Panels than from all the Nuclear energy production combined [1][2][3] [1] https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-per-twh-for-all-energy-sources.html https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-per-twh-for-all... [2] https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/publications/magazines/bulletin/bull21-1/21104091117.pdf https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/publications/magazi... [3] https://asiancorrespondent.com/2011/05/green-deaths-the-forgotten-dangers-of-solar-panels/ https://asiancorrespondent.com/2011/05/green-deaths-the-forg...
  - toomuchtodo 8y ago
    I don’t dispute the land constraints, it’s the economics you can’t argue with. Solar and wind at utility scale are below 2 cents/kWh and falling. Nuclear cannot compete with that in any configuration. You can make roof installs safer (process, hardware), utility installs on the ground are already safe. No one has any place to store nuclear waste, no one will insure it, and no one wants to tie capital up for decades in nuclear generators. Nuclear, like coal, is a wonderful fuel if you can foist all of the externalities on someone else.
    - Alupis 8y ago
      The Solar and Wind kWh production doesn't take into account having to store it, which costs additional money. Nuclear didn't become expensive all on it's own... it became expensive after 60+ years of not building new Nuclear plants in the United States and keeping only a few outdated first-generation plants... Modern Nuclear plants are very safe, and very cost effective... and can ramp up or down energy production on demand. Plus, they can be built wherever people want... not just where sunlight or wind patterns are suitable. Solar Roof Panel installation is dangerous because people fall off the roof...yet, that alone has led to more deaths than Nuclear energy production. The U.S. Navy has gone 60 years without a nuclear accident (the entire history since inception of the "Nuclear Navy")... and that's in vehicles (both surface and submarine vessels) designed to be shot, blown up, and sunk in combat. Nuclear is safe, and cost effective. Particularly when considering modern approaches to reactors and spent fuel recycling and storage practices. We, as a nation, are just irrationally afraid of something most people simply don't understand.
      - DuskStar 8y ago
        > The U.S. Navy has gone 60 years without a nuclear accident (the entire history since inception of the "Nuclear Navy")... and that's in vehicles (both surface and submarine vessels) designed to be shot, blown up, and sunk in combat. I think this is especially impressive considering the losses of the USS Thresher [0] and USS Scorpion [1]. Despite their loss, there was still no significant containment breach. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Thresher_(SSN-593) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Thresher_(SSN-593) 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Scorpion_(SSN-589) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Scorpion_(SSN-589)
- gdy 8y ago
  I'd take that bet too
- PhasmaFelis 8y ago
  We can hope. It would be better if we kept the nuclear online and used those GWs to replace coal plants instead, though.
  - toomuchtodo 8y ago
    Agree.
- Eridrus 8y ago
  This is definitely not my area of expertise, but I found John Platt's work on modeling the marginal cost of energy a pretty compelling counter-argument https://ai.google/research/pubs/pub46289 https://ai.google/research/pubs/pub46289 The gist is that after ~30-40% penetration, the cost of renewables, even with storage, is no longer cheaper than natural gas. And while storage bends the curve, getting from 80% renewables to 100% without something dispatchable is very expensive. I don't think this is necessarily important for nuclear, since we could have Gas+CCS, but I have lower hopes for pure renewables+storage.
  - pfdietz 8y ago
    It's conceivable that renewables + fossil w. CCS will be the cheaper solution, at least until the fossil fuels run out. One could, for example, reform NG to hydrogen and CO2, then sequester the CO2 and store the H2 for use in peaking turbines. This would fit nicely with renewables. It would leave little room for nuclear.
Brakenshire 8y ago
There is plenty of fearmongering, but the thing preventing new nuclear construction is more economics than anything else.
- sampo 8y ago
  Nuclear didn't just become expensive. The fearmongering made it expensive.
  - mc32 8y ago
    Sadly 3MI and Chernobyl turned environmentalists against it. In fairness, one can’t blame them, but as a technology matured and is better understood and built, they should actively support something they previously were against arguably for valid safety concerns.
    - PhasmaFelis 8y ago
      Fukushima was the nail in the coffin. A lot of people don't remember Three Mile Island, and Chernobyl had been spun (not unreasonably) as Soviet incompetence. People in general were cautiously tolerant of nuclear until Fukushima. It's a damn shame.
      - mc32 8y ago
        Yes but the tech was dead before Fukushima the first. Da ichi was a 40-50 year old tech, and for the tech it did okay given the circumstances. So even before Fukushima, there’d be delay after delay for more studies and impact and safety concerns for new projects and old ones getting shut down mostly due to thd ghosts of 3MI and Chernobyl. Of course it doesn’t help to engender confidence in the tech as this legacy is the baggage any new tech faces in any consideration.
        aurailious 8y ago
        Whats kind of funny is that Chernobyl is the newest reactor of the 3 that have failed. Both Three Mile Island and Fukushima are older reactors.
dv_dt 8y ago
It's a trope that Nuclear is failing because of fearmongering. Nuclear is uneconomical, especially with renewable energy dropping in cost consistently. Is France, the long time operator of one of the largest fleets, afraid of nuclear - I think it is very experienced at managing nuclear, both old gen and the very newest gen reactors. And yet this article: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-12-10/french-power-costs-will-rise-if-renewables-are-sidestepped https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-12-10/french-po... France will save 39 billion euros ($44.5 billion) if it refrains from building 15 new nuclear plants by 2060, and bets instead on renewable energy sources to replace its all its aging atomic facilities, a government agency said. France should spend 1.28 trillion euros over the next four decades, mostly on clean power production and storage capacities, networks, and imports, according to a report from the country’s environment ministry. If it does this, France would progressively shut down its 58 atomic plants and renewable energy would comprise 95 percent of its electricity output by 2060, up from 17 percent last year
- aloer 8y ago
  39 billion of 1.28 trillion is 3%. Does that mean they only save 3% when betting on falling prices for renewables? For four decades? Doesn't sound much like a financial advantage compared to the (presumably) more predictable and stable prices for nuclear
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - philipkglass 8y ago
    Doesn't sound much like a financial advantage compared to the (presumably) more predictable and stable prices for nuclear. Reactors that are already built and in good operating order provide very predictable electricity at low-moderate costs. Building new reactors is much less predictable. France's latest reactor design, the EPR, is many years behind schedule and many billions over budget at both French and Finnish projects to build the new reactor. It was even years late when built in China, where presumably no lawsuits/activists/excessive safety regulations were ever allowed to get in the way.

by Alupis 8y ago

toomuchtodo 8y ago

I’ll bet you lunch the US replaces every GW of nuclear generation with solar, wind, and utility scale energy storage in 10 years (sooner than any nuclear generator would come online). Disclaimer: I am an armchair energy policy enthusiast, and aggregate generator permitting, construction, turn up, operation, and decommissioning data for visualization and production siting. Edit: Lunch bet email in my profile.

sremani 8y ago
I will take that bet.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
Alupis 8y ago
Sure, maybe that happens. Only an irrational culture would squander an obviously great energy source. But you cannot dispute the massive resources, and square footage it requires to accomplish that future of massive wind farms, every building with solar panels installed, and huge battery warehouses littered throughout the nation... especially when compared to a handful of modern Nuclear Reactor Plants. More people die installing Solar Roof Panels than from all the Nuclear energy production combined [1][2][3] [1] https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-per-twh-for-all-energy-sources.html https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-per-twh-for-all... [2] https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/publications/magazines/bulletin/bull21-1/21104091117.pdf https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/publications/magazi... [3] https://asiancorrespondent.com/2011/05/green-deaths-the-forgotten-dangers-of-solar-panels/ https://asiancorrespondent.com/2011/05/green-deaths-the-forg...
- toomuchtodo 8y ago
  I don’t dispute the land constraints, it’s the economics you can’t argue with. Solar and wind at utility scale are below 2 cents/kWh and falling. Nuclear cannot compete with that in any configuration. You can make roof installs safer (process, hardware), utility installs on the ground are already safe. No one has any place to store nuclear waste, no one will insure it, and no one wants to tie capital up for decades in nuclear generators. Nuclear, like coal, is a wonderful fuel if you can foist all of the externalities on someone else.
  - Alupis 8y ago
    The Solar and Wind kWh production doesn't take into account having to store it, which costs additional money. Nuclear didn't become expensive all on it's own... it became expensive after 60+ years of not building new Nuclear plants in the United States and keeping only a few outdated first-generation plants... Modern Nuclear plants are very safe, and very cost effective... and can ramp up or down energy production on demand. Plus, they can be built wherever people want... not just where sunlight or wind patterns are suitable. Solar Roof Panel installation is dangerous because people fall off the roof...yet, that alone has led to more deaths than Nuclear energy production. The U.S. Navy has gone 60 years without a nuclear accident (the entire history since inception of the "Nuclear Navy")... and that's in vehicles (both surface and submarine vessels) designed to be shot, blown up, and sunk in combat. Nuclear is safe, and cost effective. Particularly when considering modern approaches to reactors and spent fuel recycling and storage practices. We, as a nation, are just irrationally afraid of something most people simply don't understand.
    - DuskStar 8y ago
      > The U.S. Navy has gone 60 years without a nuclear accident (the entire history since inception of the "Nuclear Navy")... and that's in vehicles (both surface and submarine vessels) designed to be shot, blown up, and sunk in combat. I think this is especially impressive considering the losses of the USS Thresher [0] and USS Scorpion [1]. Despite their loss, there was still no significant containment breach. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Thresher_(SSN-593) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Thresher_(SSN-593) 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Scorpion_(SSN-589) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Scorpion_(SSN-589)
gdy 8y ago
I'd take that bet too
PhasmaFelis 8y ago
We can hope. It would be better if we kept the nuclear online and used those GWs to replace coal plants instead, though.
- toomuchtodo 8y ago
  Agree.
Eridrus 8y ago
This is definitely not my area of expertise, but I found John Platt's work on modeling the marginal cost of energy a pretty compelling counter-argument https://ai.google/research/pubs/pub46289 https://ai.google/research/pubs/pub46289 The gist is that after ~30-40% penetration, the cost of renewables, even with storage, is no longer cheaper than natural gas. And while storage bends the curve, getting from 80% renewables to 100% without something dispatchable is very expensive. I don't think this is necessarily important for nuclear, since we could have Gas+CCS, but I have lower hopes for pure renewables+storage.
- pfdietz 8y ago
  It's conceivable that renewables + fossil w. CCS will be the cheaper solution, at least until the fossil fuels run out. One could, for example, reform NG to hydrogen and CO2, then sequester the CO2 and store the H2 for use in peaking turbines. This would fit nicely with renewables. It would leave little room for nuclear.

Brakenshire 8y ago

There is plenty of fearmongering, but the thing preventing new nuclear construction is more economics than anything else.

sampo 8y ago
Nuclear didn't just become expensive. The fearmongering made it expensive.
- mc32 8y ago
  Sadly 3MI and Chernobyl turned environmentalists against it. In fairness, one can’t blame them, but as a technology matured and is better understood and built, they should actively support something they previously were against arguably for valid safety concerns.
  - PhasmaFelis 8y ago
    Fukushima was the nail in the coffin. A lot of people don't remember Three Mile Island, and Chernobyl had been spun (not unreasonably) as Soviet incompetence. People in general were cautiously tolerant of nuclear until Fukushima. It's a damn shame.
    - mc32 8y ago
      Yes but the tech was dead before Fukushima the first. Da ichi was a 40-50 year old tech, and for the tech it did okay given the circumstances. So even before Fukushima, there’d be delay after delay for more studies and impact and safety concerns for new projects and old ones getting shut down mostly due to thd ghosts of 3MI and Chernobyl. Of course it doesn’t help to engender confidence in the tech as this legacy is the baggage any new tech faces in any consideration.
      - aurailious 8y ago
        Whats kind of funny is that Chernobyl is the newest reactor of the 3 that have failed. Both Three Mile Island and Fukushima are older reactors.

dv_dt 8y ago

It's a trope that Nuclear is failing because of fearmongering. Nuclear is uneconomical, especially with renewable energy dropping in cost consistently. Is France, the long time operator of one of the largest fleets, afraid of nuclear - I think it is very experienced at managing nuclear, both old gen and the very newest gen reactors. And yet this article: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-12-10/french-power-costs-will-rise-if-renewables-are-sidestepped https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-12-10/french-po... France will save 39 billion euros ($44.5 billion) if it refrains from building 15 new nuclear plants by 2060, and bets instead on renewable energy sources to replace its all its aging atomic facilities, a government agency said. France should spend 1.28 trillion euros over the next four decades, mostly on clean power production and storage capacities, networks, and imports, according to a report from the country’s environment ministry. If it does this, France would progressively shut down its 58 atomic plants and renewable energy would comprise 95 percent of its electricity output by 2060, up from 17 percent last year

aloer 8y ago
39 billion of 1.28 trillion is 3%. Does that mean they only save 3% when betting on falling prices for renewables? For four decades? Doesn't sound much like a financial advantage compared to the (presumably) more predictable and stable prices for nuclear
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- philipkglass 8y ago
  Doesn't sound much like a financial advantage compared to the (presumably) more predictable and stable prices for nuclear. Reactors that are already built and in good operating order provide very predictable electricity at low-moderate costs. Building new reactors is much less predictable. France's latest reactor design, the EPR, is many years behind schedule and many billions over budget at both French and Finnish projects to build the new reactor. It was even years late when built in China, where presumably no lawsuits/activists/excessive safety regulations were ever allowed to get in the way.